SECTION 32 EVALUATION REPORTS PLAN MODIFICATION 15 … · threshold effects levels (for example, those in'Blueprint for monitoring urban receiving environments, ... Table F2.19.1

Note: The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as a decision

of Council. Should commissioners require further information relating to any reports, please contact the hearings advisor.

SECTION 32 EVALUATION REPORTS

PLAN MODIFICATION 15 AND

PLAN MODIFICATION 17

Tanisha Hazelwood HEARINGS ADVISOR

Telephone: 09 890 4940 or 021 560 871 Email: [email protected] Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz





TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.

Plan Change 15: Improving consistency of coastal provisions

Attachment A Proposed Plan Change 15 5 – 58

Attachment B Proposed Plan Change 15 – Section 32 Evaluation Report 59 – 148

Attachment C Proposed Plan Change 15 – Section 32 Attachment 1 149 – 200

Plan Change 17: Improving consistency of provisions for the GIS Viewer

Attachment D Proposed Plan Change 17 201 – 258

Attachment E Proposed Plan Change 17 – Section 32 Evaluation Report 259 – 360

Attachment F Proposed Plan Change 17 – Section 32 Attachment 1 361 – 366



The proposed plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan seeks to address identified technical issues within Chapter F Coastal, Chapter J Definitions,

Appendix 7 and the viewer.

PLAN CHANGE 15:

Improving consistency of coastal provisions

ATTACHMENT A

PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 15

5

6

Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in part


Improving consistency of provisions in Chapter F Coastal, Chapter J Definitions, Appendix 7 and the viewer of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part)

Public notification: 29 November 2018

Close of submissions: 31 January 2019

This is a council initiated plan change.

In accordance with section 86B(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991 all of the proposed plan change rules have immediate legal effect.

Explanatory note – not part of proposed plan change

The proposed changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan seek to improve the consistency of provisions in Chapter F Coastal, Chapter J Definitions, Appendix 7 and the viewer of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part).

Plan change provisions

Amendments proposed by this plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan are shown with underline for new text and strikethrough where existing text is proposed to be deleted. The use of …. indicates that there is more text, but it is not being changed. These are used when the whole provision is too long to be included.

7

Plan Change 15

Proposed amendments to Chapter F Coastal

Notes:

1. New text is shown as underline and deleted text as strikethrough. 2. Some existing text is shown to place the changes in context.

F2. Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone

F2.1 Zone description The Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone comprises …

… [to last paragraph]

Any sites or places of significance to Mana Whenua sensitive material that are is identified prior to, or discovered during use and development activities in the coastal marine area, must comply with the accidental discovery rules in F2.21.1.4. E11 Land disturbance – Regional or E12 Land disturbance - District. Sensitive material includes human remains and kōiwi, archaeological sites, Māori cultural artefacts, protected New Zealand objects (including fossils or sub-fossils), shipwrecks or other items that may contain oil, lava caves, and unknown material on or under the foreshore or seabed such as munitions, submarine cables and pipelines.

The Plan has identified significant marine communities …

F2.10. Taking, use and damming or diverting of coastal waters

F2.10.3. Policies [rcp] (3) Avoid damming or impoundment of coastal water unless:

(a) it is necessary to enable the construction, operation or maintenance of significant infrastructure; or

(b) it is for habitat protection; and

(c) a location on land or other method is not available;

F2.11. Discharges

F2.11.1 Background Good water is fundamental to most activities undertaken in the coastal marine area and underpins the ecological health and life-supporting capacity of the marine environment.

Plan Change 15 – Coastal 2

8

… [To 8th paragraph]

The Council will work collaboratively with stakeholders to identify additional coastal water quality indicators and guideline values to complement the existing sediment quality threshold effects levels (for example, those in 'Blueprint for monitoring urban receiving environments, ARC Technical Publication 168 revised edition August 2004’ and the ‘Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, Australian and New Zealand Governments and Australian state and territory governments, Canberra ACT, Australia’ (ANZG 2018) as they relate to sediment quality in the coastal marine area). This will help improve the evaluation of different discharge options through the resource consent process. This will be an interim measure as implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 and marine spatial planning is likely to result in additional measures to safeguard the values of coastal receiving environments.

F2.13. Discharges from bio-fouling and vessel maintenance

F2.13.1. Background ...

Vessels arriving from overseas may be carrying organisms that are exotic to New Zealand, whereas vessels from other parts of New Zealand, or even those travelling between different places in Auckland, may further spread exotic species which are already established. These organisms may be discharged into the coastal marine area either by active in-water cleaning of hulls, or by passive discharge due to reproductive processes of the organisms, or by water sheering during vessel movement.

The best way to minimise the risks associated with harmful aquatic organisms is to restrict their introduction into New Zealand, limit their spread (if they are already present) by controlling the movement of fouled vessels, equipment and gear and restrict discharges from in-water cleaning that may include harmful aquatic organisms. The origin of a vessel adds to the risk of the spread of invasive organisms.

…

The provisions in this Section allow for the removal of microfouling from vessels, but place progressively stricter controls on vessels with higher levels of hull bio-fouling (in accordance with the Australian and New Zealand Anti-fouling and In-water Cleaning Guidelines June 2013), which is preventable if vessel maintenance is kept up to date. The provisions in this section relating to biofouling are also stricter for high value areas.

…

F2.13.2. Objectives [rcp] (1) The risk of introducing or spreading harmful aquatic organisms from vessel

biofouling is minimised.


9

(2) The risk of introducing contaminants, including harmful aquatic organisms, from

the in-water cleaning of vessels near the shores of Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Islands which have conservation status is minimised.

F2.13.3. Policies [rcp] (1) Raise awareness among the boating community, particularly for vessels arriving

from outside New Zealand or Auckland, of the importance of maintaining clean hulls to reduce risk of introducing or spreading harmful aquatic organisms from biofouling on vessel hulls and niche areas, and particularly during boat maintenance activities and from the passive discharge of organisms from macrofouling.

(2) Manage the in-water hull and niche area cleaning and boat maintenance activities of vessels, particularly those that have a high degree of biofouling, to minimise the risk of harmful aquatic organisms being discharged into coastal water.

(3) Avoid in-water hull cleaning or boat maintenance activities being undertaken on the foreshore and marine area surrounding the Hauraki Gulf conservation islands, to reduce the risk from contaminants, including harmful aquatic organisms, adversely affecting the natural values of these islands.

F2.14. Use, development and occupation in the coastal marine area

F2.14.2 Objectives (9) Limited expansion of existing marinas existing at the date of notification into the

Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone is provided for, provided there is adequate infrastructure to support the expansion and adverse effects on the coastal environment are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

F2.14.3. Policies [rcp] (3) Avoid use and occupation of the common marine and coastal area by activities

that do not have a functional need to be undertaken in the coastal marine area below mean high water springs, unless the proposed use:

(a) can demonstrated it needs to be located in the common marine and coastal area and cannot practicably be located on land outside of the common marine and coastal area;

(b) is consistent with the objectives and policies for the relevant zone or precinct;

(c) will enhance amenity values and not conflict with marine activities; or and

(d) any necessary land-based infrastructure can be provided.


10

F2.16. Structures

F2.16.3 Policies [rcp] (24) Avoid structures that will limit the ability to moor vessels in the Coastal –

Mooring Zone, other than those structures necessary for infrastructure that have a functional or operational need to be located in the coastal marine area and that cannot practicably be located in a different location outside the Coastal – Mooring Zone.

F2.19. Activity tables (1) Tables F2.19.1 to F2.19.10 specify the activity status of activities in the Coastal –

General Coastal Marine Zone (GCM Zone) and the coastal marine area parts of the following overlays pursuant to sections 12(1), 12(2) and 12(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991, including any associated discharges of contaminants or water into water pursuant to section 15 of the Resource Management Act 1991, and taking, using and damming or diverting coastal water pursuant to section 14, and discharges to coastal waters pursuant to section 15 of the Resource Management Act:

(a) D9 Significant Ecological Areas Overlay – Marine 1 and 2 (SEA-M1, SEA-M2);

(b) D17 Historic Heritage Overlay (HH);

(c) D11 Outstanding Natural Character and High Natural Character overlays (ONC) (HNC);

(d) D10 Outstanding Natural Features Overlay; and Outstanding Natural Landscapes Overlay (ONF) (ONL).

The abbreviations in brackets after the overlay names that are listed above, are used as references to these overlays in Tables F2.19.1 to F2.19.10.

(1A) If an activity is covered by more than one rule, then the rule that applies is the rule that is more specific for the relevant activity, area or resource. This does not apply where a proposal includes a number of activities which trigger separate specific rules. In that case, all rules are considered when assessing the proposal.

(2) The activities, standards and assessment in F2 Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone apply in the coastal marine area of all the coastal zones and coastal precincts unless otherwise specified under the relevant zone or precinct.

Table F2.19.1 Activity table - Drainage, reclamation and declamation Note 1


11

Table F2.19.1 specifies the activity status for works that reclaim or drain any foreshore or seabed, and for declamation activities in the coastal marine area. The RMA activities that this table covers are:

• Reclamation and drainage of any foreshore or seabed (RMA s12(1)(a)) • Activities that contravene a rule in the regional coastal plan (RMA s12(3)) • Disturbance of the foreshore and seabed, incidental to the activity (RMA s12(1)(c),

(e), (g)) • Deposition of material in, on or under the foreshore or seabed, incidental to the

activity (RMA s12(1)(d)) • Diversion of coastal water, incidental to the activity (RMA s14) • Discharge of contaminants or water into water, incidental to the activity (RMA s15).

Table F2.19.2 Activity table - Depositing and disposal of material

Note 1

Table F2.19.2 specifies the activity status of depositing and disposal of material in the coastal marine area. The table also repeats the requirements of Regulation 4(2) of the Resource Management (Marine Pollution) Regulations 1998, which specifies that certain dumping activities must be treated as a discretionary activity in a regional coastal plan. The RMA activities that this table covers are:

• Deposition of material in, on or under the foreshore or seabed (RMA s12(1)(d)) • Disturbance of the foreshore and seabed, incidental to the activity (RMA s12(1)(c),

(e), (g)) • Activities that contravene a rule in the regional coastal plan (RMA s12(3)) • Diversion of coastal water, incidental to the activity (RMA s14) • Discharge of contaminants or water into water, incidental to the activity (RMA s15).

Activity

Activity status GCM Zone

SEA-M1, ONC

ONL SEA-M2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A

ONF Type V1, V2, B, C, D, E, F

HH

(A7) Coastal marine area depositing of material where the deposited sediment is extracted from within the same coastal cell: • maximum of 1500m3 per 12

month period

P D D RD D P D NC D

(A8) Coastal marine area depositing of material where the deposited sediment is extracted from within the same coastal cell:

RD NC D D D NC D


12

Activity


SEA-M1, ONC

ONL SEA-M2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A


HH

• between 1500m3 and 10,000m3 per 12 month period

(A9) Coastal marine area depositing of material from outside the coastal cell: • maximum of 10,000m3 per 12

month period

RD NC D D NC NC D

(A9A) Coastal marine area depositing of material where the deposited sediment is extracted from within the same coastal cell: • greater than 10,000m3 of

sediment per 12 month period, where it is required for the safe and efficient operation or construction of infrastructure

D NC NC D NC NC NC

(A10) Coastal marine area depositing of material not otherwise provided for

D NC NC NC NC NC NC

Table F2.19.3 Activity table - Dredging Note 1

Table F2.19.3 specifies the activity status of dredging activities in the coastal marine area. The RMA activities that this table covers are:

• Disturbance of the foreshore and seabed (RMA s12(1)(c), (e), (g)) • Activities that contravene a rule in the regional coastal plan (RMA s12(3)) • Diversion of coastal water, incidental to the activity (RMA s14) • Discharge of contaminants or water into water, incidental to the activity (RMA s15).

Activity


SEA-M1, ONC

ONL SEA-M2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A


HH

(A17) Dredging to maintain or clear an existing lawful drainage systems involving maximum of 500m3 of material [Deleted]

P D RD P D D D


13

Activity


SEA-M1, ONC

ONL SEA-M2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A


HH

(A18) River mouth dredging; • maximum of 1500m3; or • maximum of 100m length [Deleted]

P D RD RD D D D

(A19) River mouth dredging; Dredging dredging to maintain or gain access to an existing lawful structure; dredging to clear the exit of any lawful stormwater outfall or pipe; or to maintain or clear an existing lawful drainage systems: • maximum of 1500m3; • maximum of 100m length

P D RD P D D D

(A20) River mouth dredging; dredging to maintain or gain access to an existing lawful structure; dredging to clear the exit of any lawful stormwater outfall or pipe; or to maintain or clear an existing lawful drainage systems: • maximum of 5000 m3; • maximum of 500m length

RD NC RD RD NC NC NC

(A21) River mouth dredging; dredging to maintain or gain access to an existing lawful structure; dredging to clear the exit of any lawful stormwater outfall or pipe; or to maintain or clear an existing lawful drainage systems not otherwise provided for

D NC D D NC NC NC

Table F2.19.4 Activity table – Coastal marine area disturbance

Note 1

Table F2.19.4 specifies the activity status of activities that disturb any foreshore or seabed (including by excavating, drilling, or tunnelling, but excluding dredging). The RMA activities that this table covers are:


14

• Disturbance of the foreshore and seabed (RMA s12(1)(c), (e), (g)) • Removal of sand, shingle, shell or other natural material from the common marine

and coastal area (RMA s12(2)(b)) • Deposition of material in, on or under the foreshore or seabed, incidental to the

activity (RMA s12(1)(d)) • Activities that contravene a rule in the regional coastal plan (RMA s12(3)) • Diversion of coastal water, incidental to the activity (RMA s14) • Discharge of contaminants or water into water, incidental to the activity (RMA s15).

Note 2

Any disturbance of the foreshore or seabed incidental to the construction, placement, alteration, removal or demolition of structures is addressed by Table F2.19.10.

Note 1 3

Activities regulated by the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Electricity Transmission Activities) Regulations 2009 are not affected by the provisions below.

Activity


SEA-M1, ONC

ONL SEA-M2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A


HH

… (A32) Coastal marine area disturbance

that is: • not otherwise provided for and

meets the standards; or • associated with removal of litter

or marine debris; or • associated with removal of

sediment, vegetation and encrusting organisms from any existing lawful coastal marine area structures; or

• associated with the burial of dead marine mammals; or

• associated with control or eradication of any exotic or introduced plant or animal species; or

• associated with operation,

P P P P P P P


15

Activity


SEA-M1, ONC

ONL SEA-M2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A


HH

maintenance, repair or reconstruction of existing lawful Coastal marine area structures or buildings; or

• associated with minor infrastructure upgrading.

(A33) Coastal marine area disturbance that is associated with movement of up to 1500m3 of sediment per calendar year 12 month period within the same coastal cell

P D D D D NC D

(A34) Coastal marine area disturbance that is associated with movement of between 1500m3 and 10,000m3 of sediment per calendar year 12 month period within the same coastal cell

RD NC D D D NC NC

(A35) Coastal marine area disturbance associated with movement greater than 10,000m3 of sediment per calendar year 12 month period within the same coastal cell, where it is required for the safe and efficient operation or construction of significant infrastructure

D NC NC D NC NC NC

(A36) Coastal marine area disturbance associated with movement greater than 10,000m3 of sediment per calendar year 12 month period within the same coastal cell

D NC NC NC NC NC NC

(A37) Coastal marine area disturbance that is not otherwise provided for

D NC NC NC NC NC NC


16

Table F2.19.5 Activity table - Planting in the coastal marine area Note 1

Table F2.19.5 specifies the activity status of planting in the coastal marine area. The RMA activities that this table covers are:

• Planting exotic or introduced plants in the coastal marine area (RMA s12(1)(f)) • Planting native plants (activities that contravene a rule in the regional coastal plan)

(RMA s12(3)) • Disturbance of the foreshore or seabed, incidental to the activity (RMA s12(1)(c), (e),

(g)).

Activity


SEA-M1, ONC

ONL SEA-M2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A


HH

…

Table F2.19.6 Activity table - Taking, use and damming or diverting coastal water Note 1

Table F2.19.6 specifies the activity status of taking, use and damming or diverting coastal water. The RMA activities that this table covers are:

• Taking, using, damming or diverting coastal water (RMA s14)

Activity


SEA-M1, ONC

ONL SEA-M2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A


HH

…

Table F2.19.7 Activity table - Discharges to the coastal marine area Note 1

Table F2.19.7 specifies the activity status of discharges to the coastal marine area, other than where it is incidental to an activity provided for in another table. The RMA activities that this table covers are:

• Discharge of contaminants or water into water (RMA s15) • Activities that contravene a rule in the regional coastal plan (RMA s12(3))


17

Note 2

Additional biosecurity obligations may apply with respect to biofouling. International vessels arriving in New Zealand waters will have additional obligations under the Craft Risk Management Standard: Biofouling on Vessels Arriving to New Zealand (May 2014).

Activity


SEAM1, ONC

ONL SEAM2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A


HH

… (A62) Discharges into the coastal marine

area, which are not covered by subject to another rule in the Unitary Plan, and not covered by subject to the Resource Management (Marine Pollution) Regulations 1998, that comply with the permitted activity standards

P P P P P P P

… (A64) Discharges from firefighting and

other emergency response activities undertaken by the New Zealand Fire Service Fire and Emergency New Zealand (including discharges of hazardous substances)

P P P P P P P

… (A70) Discharges into coastal water not

otherwise authorised by a rule in the Plan, or covered by subject to the Resource Management (Marine Pollution) Regulations 1998, that do not comply with the permitted activity standards

D NC D D D NC D

(A71) Discharge of hull bio-fouling organisms resulting from in-water cleaning of a vessel with micro-fouling (LOF 0-1) and goose barnacles (standards to be complied with: Standard F2.21.8.7 (1), (2), (5) and

P Pr P P(HNC) Pr (SEA –M2)

P P P


18

Activity


SEAM1, ONC

ONL SEAM2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A


HH

(7)) (A72) Discharge of hull bio-fouling

organisms resulting from: • the in-water small scale manual

removal (up to 5 per cent of the hull surface area, including niche areas) of macro-fouling not provided for in Rule (A71) or (A73) bio-fouling organisms; or

• cleaning of a vessel with macro-fouling where the fouling is: o of international origin; or o of domestic origin but more

than low biosecurity risk or has not had a risk assessment (or extensive to very heavy macro-fouling)

(standards to be complied with: Standard F2.21.8.7 (2), (3), (4), (5) and (7))

P Pr P P(HNC) Pr (SEA – M2)

D P P

(A73) Discharge of hull bio-fouling organisms resulting from in-water cleaning of a vessel with macro-fouling where the fouling is: • from within Auckland; or • of domestic origin following a risk assessment that determined a relative biosecurity risk of negligible or low (standards to be complied with: Standard F2.21.8.7 (2), (5) and (7))


D P P

(A74) Discharge of hull bio-fouling organisms resulting from in-water cleaning of a vessel with macro-fouling of domestic origin following a risk assessment that determined a relative biosecurity risk of


D P P


19

Activity


SEAM1, ONC

ONL SEAM2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A


HH

negligible or low (standards to be complied with: Standard F2.21.8.7 (2), (5) and (7)) [Deleted]

(A75) Discharge of hull bio-fouling organisms resulting from in-water cleaning of a vessel with macrofouling where the fouling is: • of international origin; or • of domestic origin but more than low biosecurity risk or has not had a risk assessment (or extensive to very heavy macrofouling) (standards to be complied with: Standard F2.21.8.7 (2), (3), (4), (5) and (7)) [Deleted]

P Pr P P (HNC) Pr (SEA – M2)

D P P

(A76) Discharges associated with in water treatment methods that render bio-fouling organisms non-viable (standards to be complied with: Standard F2.21.8.7 (2), (6) and (7))


D P P

(A77) Discharge of any contaminant resulting from in-water cleaning, the application of anti-fouling, or painting of vessels, including discharge of hull bio-fouling organisms, within 500m of mean high water springs of the following Hauraki Gulf conservation islands: • Beehive Island; • Browns Island; • Little Barrier Island; • Mokohinau Islands; • Motuihe Island; • Motuora Island; • Motutapu Island;

Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr


20

Activity


SEAM1, ONC

ONL SEAM2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A


HH

• Rangitoto Island; • Saddle (Te Haupa) Island; • The Noises Islands; and • Tiritiri Matangi Island.

(A78) Discharge of hull bio-fouling organisms resulting from in-water cleaning of a vessel not otherwise provided for

RD Pr RD RD (HNC) Pr (SEA – M2)

RD RD RD

(A79) Passive discharge of hull bio-fouling organisms from a commercial or military vessel

P P P P P P P

(A80) Passive discharge from a non-commercial and non-military vessel with: • light to very heavy macro-fouling of international origin (level of fouling scale 2 to 5);, or

• very heavy macro-fouling of domestic origin (level of fouling scale 4 to 5); or

• unusual or suspected harmful aquatic organisms (or species designated as pests in the relevant pest management plan prepared under the Biosecurity Act).

D D D D D D D

(A81) Passive discharge from a non-commercial and non-military vessel with unusual organisms or suspected harmful aquatic organisms (or species designated as pests in the relevant pest management plan prepared under the Biosecurity Act) [Deleted]

D D D D D D D

(A82) Passive discharge of hull bio-fouling organisms resulting from its presence, not otherwise provided for

P P P P P P P


21

Table F2.19.8 Activity table – Use and activities

Note 1

Table F2.19.8 specifies the activity status of uses and activities in the coastal marine area. The RMA activities that this table covers are:

• Activities that contravene a rule in the regional coastal plan (RMA s12(3)) • Disturbance of the foreshore and seabed, incidental to the activity (RMA s12(1)(c),

(e), (g)) • Occupation of the common marine and coastal area by the activity (RMA s12(2)(a)) • Discharge of contaminants or water into water, incidental to the activity (RMA s15).

Note 2

In this table, unless specified otherwise, the activity status for occupation of the common marine and coastal area (RMA section 12(2)) has the same activity status as the use or activity (RMA section 12(3)) that the occupation relates to.

Note 1 3

This table does not apply to any use, activities and or occupation related to structures that is more specifically covered by Activity table F2.19.10.

Note 2 4

The activity status for 'underwater blasting, impact and vibratory piling, marine seismic surveys' relates to the generation of underwater noise from these activities. These activities are generally part of other activities (for example, dredging, demolition, construction, mineral exploration). For the avoidance of doubt, the activity status of the other activity continues to apply, unless the activity is permitted or controlled, in which case the overall activity status becomes restricted discretionary.

Note 5

Rule F2.19.8(A87) does not apply if an activity is in accordance with an agreement with the party who holds the existing occupation consent.

Note 6

Occupation consents do not provide for exclusive occupation unless that is specifically sought in an application and provided for in a resource consent. Exclusive occupation is associated with a use and/or a structure. The activity status of occupation for the use or structure applies to exclusive occupation, unless the activity is permitted, in which case exclusive occupation is a discretionary activity under rule (A114A).


22

Activity


SEA-M1, ONC

ONL SEA-M2, HNC

ONF - Type A1 and A

ONF - Type V1, V2, B, C, D, E, F

HH

(A83) Public access, passive recreation, navigation and general use Use of the coastal marine area not otherwise provided for in the Plan and that does not involve occupation of the common marine and coastal area

P P P P P P P

(A84) Use of the coastal marine area and/or occupation Occupation of the common marine and coastal area and associated use by activities which have a functional need to be below mean high water springs and that are not otherwise provided for in this table or in table F2.19.10

D D D D D D D

(A85) Use of the coastal marine area and/or occupation of the common marine and coastal area by new or existing unlawful activities that do not have a functional need to be undertaken below mean high water springs in the coastal marine area, including activities in, or on, an existing building or structure, and that are not otherwise provided for

NC NC NC NC NC NC NC

… (A114) Underwater blasting, impact and

vibratory piling, marine seismic surveys

RD RD RD RD RD RD RD

(A114A)

Exclusive occupation of the common marine and coastal area by a structure or activity that would otherwise be a permitted activity

D D D D D D D

Table F2.19.9 Activity table - Aquaculture activities Note 1

Table F2.19.9 specifies the activity status of aquaculture activities in the coastal marine area. The RMA activities that this table covers are:


23

• Construction, placement , alteration, removal or demolition of structures used for

aquaculture activities (RMA s12(1)(b)) • Disturbance of the foreshore and seabed, incidental to the aquaculture activities

(RMA s12(1)(c), (e), (g)) • Deposition of material in, on or under the foreshore or seabed, incidental to the

aquaculture activities (RMA s12(1)(d)) • Occupation of the common marine and coastal area by the aquaculture activities

(RMA s12(2)(a)) • Activities that contravene a rule in the regional coastal plan (RMA s12(3)) • Discharge of contaminants or water into water, incidental to the aquaculture

activities (RMA s15).

Activity


SEAM1, ONC

ONL SEAM2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A


HH

(A115) New aquaculture Aquaculture activities (new)

D NC NC NC NC NC NC

(A116) Re-consenting lawfully established aquaculture Aquaculture activities (reconsenting an established aquaculture activity)


(A117) Aquaculture activities mMinor extension of a lawfully established aquaculture activity activities limited to a maximum of 25 percent of the size of the originally consented current farm

RD D D D D D D

(A118) Aquaculture activities mMinor realignment of an lawfully established aquaculture activities limited to moving 1/3 of the farm area, while 2/3 of the farm area stays within the same space as originally consented

RD D D D D D D

(A119) Experimental aquaculture activities that are a maximum of 1ha and 10 years in duration

RD NC NC NC NC NC NC

(A120) Aquaculture activities not otherwise provided for

D NC NC NC NC NC NC


24

Table F2.19.10 Activity table – Structures

Note 1

Unless otherwise specified, activities listed in Table F2.19.10 include construction (pursuant to section 12(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991) and occupation (pursuant to section 12(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991). Use of a structure (pursuant to 12(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991) has the activity status listed in this table unless it is addressed more specifically in Table F2.19.8.

Table F2.19.1 specifies the activity status for structures in the coastal marine area. The RMA activities that this table covers are:

• Construction, placement , alteration, removal or demolition of structures (RMA s12(1)(b))

• Occupation of the common marine and coastal area by the structure (RMA s12(2)(a))

• Disturbance of the foreshore and seabed, incidental to the activity (RMA s12(1)(c), (e), (g))

• Deposition of material in, on or under the foreshore or seabed, incidental to the activity (RMA s12(1)(d))

• Use of structures (activities that contravene a rule in the regional coastal plan) (RMA s12(3)), unless the use is addressed more specifically in Table F2.19.8

• Diversion of coastal water, incidental to the activity (RMA s14) • Discharge of contaminants or water into water, incidental to the activity (RMA s15).

Note 2

In this table, unless specified otherwise, the activity status for occupation of the common marine and coastal area (section 12(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991) has the same activity status as for the construction of a structure (section 12(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991) that the occupation relates to.

Note 3

The activity status for a new consent for an existing structure (re-consenting its use of the coastal marine area pursuant to section 12(3) and its occupation of space in the common marine and coastal area pursuant to section 12(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991) has the same activity status as construction of that structure listed in this table.

Note 2 4

Provisions relating to moorings in the Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone are contained in the F4 Coastal – Mooring Zone and moorings outside the Coastal – Mooring Zone.

Note 3 5


25


Activity


SEAM1, ONC

ONL SEAM2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A


HH

(A121) Construction of coastal Coastal marine area structures and buildings unless provided for elsewhere in this table (see table F2.19.8 for the use of the structure)

D NC NC NC NC NC NC

(A122) Maintenance, repair or reconstruction of existing lawful coastal marine area structures or buildings

P P P P P P Refer HH activity tables

(A123) Extension or alteration of existing lawful coastal marine area structures or buildings other than those that are a component of infrastructure (including the use of the extended or altered structure or building)

RD NC NC D NC NC Refer HH activity tables

(A124) Extension or alteration of existing lawful coastal marine area structures or buildings that are a component of infrastructure (other than as provided for as minor infrastructure upgrading of network utilities)

RD D D D D D Refer HH activity tables

… (A127) Occupation associated with

coastal marine area structures located below the surface of the foreshore and seabed in areas (other than cables located within the cable protection areas (as identified on the planning maps))

RD RD RD RD RD RD D

… (A131) Minor infrastructure upgrades

upgrading of network utilities P P P P P P P

..


26

(A135) Cables including their extension

and alteration located within the cable protection areas (as identified on the planning maps) including their extension and alteration, and including the occupation by cables located below the surface of the foreshore and seabed

P P P P P P P

… (A139) Marine and port facilities and

buildings not on an existing wharf or existing coastal marine area structure

D NC NC D NC NC D

(A140) Marine and port accessory structures and services not on an existing wharf or existing coastal marine area structure

D NC D D NC NC D

… (A145) Boat ramps D NC D D NC NC D

…

F2.21. Standards

F2.21.1. All permitted activities, controlled activities and restricted discretionary activities All activities listed as …

F2.21.1.4. Accidental discovery rule (1) Despite any other rule in this Plan permitting activities in the coastal marine area,

including any disturbance of the foreshore or seabed, in the event of discovery of sensitive material which is not expressly provided for by any resource consent or other statutory authority, the standards and procedures set out in this rule must apply.

(2) For the purpose of this rule, ‘sensitive material’ means:

(a) human remains and kōiwi;

(b) an archaeological site;

(c) a Māori cultural artefact/taonga tuturu;

(d) a protected New Zealand object as defined in the Protected Objects Act 1975 (including any fossil or sub-fossil);

(e) shipwrecks or other items that may contain oil;


27

(f) a lava cave greater than 1m in diameter on any axis; or

(g) munitions on or under the foreshore or seabed,

(h) cables or pipelines on or under the foreshore or seabed.

(3) On discovery of any sensitive material, the party undertaking the relevant permitted activity or the consent holder must take the following steps:

Cease works and secure the area

(a) immediately cease all works within 20m of any part of the discovery, including shutting down all foreshore and seabed disturbing machinery and stopping all earth moving activities, and in the case of shipwrecks or other items that may contain oil, apply controls to minimise discharge of contaminants into the environment;

(b) secure the area of the discovery, including a sufficient buffer area to ensure that all sensitive material remains undisturbed;

Inform relevant authorities and parties

(c) inform the following parties immediately of the discovery:

the New Zealand Police if the discovery is of human remains or kōiwi; (i)

the Council in all cases; (ii)

Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga if the discovery is an (iii)archaeological site, Māori cultural artefact, human remains or kōiwi;

Mana Whenua if the discovery is an archaeological site of Māori origin, (iv)Māori cultural artefact, or kōiwi;

the New Zealand Defence Force and the New Zealand Police if the (v)discovery is munitions; and

Maritime New Zealand and the owner of the submarine cable or pipeline (vi)(if the owner can be determined) if the discovery is a submarine cable or pipeline.

Wait for and enable inspection of the site

(d) wait for and enable the site to be inspected by the relevant authority or agency:

if the discovery is human remains or kōiwi the New Zealand Police are (i)required to investigate the human remains to determine whether they are those of a missing person or are a crime scene. The remainder of


28

this process will not apply until the New Zealand Police confirm that they have no further interest in the discovery; or

if the discovery is of sensitive material, (other than items that may (ii)contain oil, munitions, cables or pipelines), a site inspection for the purpose of initial assessment and response will be arranged by the Council in consultation with Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga and appropriate Mana Whenua representatives; or

if the discovery is a shipwreck or other item that may contain oil, a (iii)suitably qualified and experienced person is required to complete an initial assessment and provide information to the Council on the assessment and response; or

if the discovery is munitions, the New Zealand Defence Force and the (iv)New Zealand Police will complete an initial assessment and provide information to the Council on the assessment and response; or

if the discovery is a submarine cable or pipeline, take best endeavours (v)to inform the owner of the submarine cable or pipeline to confirm the status and purpose of the cable or pipeline, and to determine whether it is still operational or is redundant. If the cable or pipeline is still operational, obtain approval from the owner for the work to proceed. Inform Maritime New Zealand so that they can assess whether there has been an offence under the Submarine Cables and Pipelines Protection Act 1996. This standard does not apply to the discovery of a submarine cable or pipeline owned or operated by the organisation undertaking the works.

(e) following site inspection and consultation with all relevant parties (including the party undertaking the relevant permitted activity or the consent holder as relevant), the Council will determine the area within which work must cease, and any changes to controls on discharges of contaminants, until the requirements of step F2.21.1.4(3)(f) are met;

Recommencement of work

(f) work within the area determined by the Council at step F2.21.1.4(3)(e) must not recommence until all of the following requirements, so far as relevant to the discovery, have been met:

Heritage New Zealand has confirmed that an archaeological authority (i)has been approved for the work or that none is required;

any required notification under the Protected Objects Act 1975 has (ii)been made to the Ministry for Culture and Heritage;


29

any changes to controls on discharges of contaminants have been (iii)implemented;

any material of scientific or educational importance has been recorded (iv)and if appropriate recovered and preserved;

if the discovery is a lava cave as outlined in F2.21.1.4(2)(f) above and if (v)the site is assessed to be regionally significant, reasonable measures have been taken to minimise adverse effects of the works on the scientific values of the site;

where the site is of Māori origin and an authority from Heritage New (vi)Zealand Pouhere Taonga is not required the Council will confirm, in consultation with Mana Whenua, that:

• any kōiwi have either been retained where discovered or removed in accordance with the appropriate tikanga; and

• any agreed revisions to the planned works to be/have been made in order to address adverse effects on Māori cultural values.

resource consent has been granted for any alteration or amendment to (vii)the activity that may be necessary to avoid the sensitive materials and that is not otherwise permitted under the Plan or allowed by any existing resource consent;

that there are no requirements in the case of archaeological sites that (viii)are not of Māori origin and are not covered by the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014; and

if the discovery is munitions, the New Zealand Police and New Zealand (ix)Defence Force have confirmed that the site is safe for operations to resume; and

if the discovery is cables or pipelines, the asset owner (if identified) has (x)confirmed that operations can resume, and Maritime New Zealand has been informed so that they can determine whether there has been an offence under the Submarine Cables and Pipelines Protection Act 1996.

F2.21.2. Standards - Drainage, reclamation and declamation Activities listed as a permitted activity and restricted discretionary activity in Table F2.19.1 must comply with the standards in F2.21.1 and the standards in F2.21.2.


30

F2.21.2.1. Maintenance or repair of a lawful reclamation or drainage system

(1) The work must not change the area occupied by the reclamation or drainage

system. (2) Any visible disturbance to the substrate of the coastal marine area must be

remedied or restored within 48 hours of the completion of the works in areas identified as D11 Outstanding Natural Character Overlay, D10 Outstanding Natural Features Overlay and D9 Significant Ecological Area Overlay – Marine 1 and within seven days in other areas of the coastal marine area.

(3) There must be an emergency spill plan in place to address the unforeseen release of contaminants from equipment being used for the activity.

(4) All equipment and materials must be removed from the foreshore and seabed on the completion of works or activities.

(5) Written advice must be given to the Council at least 10 working days prior to the work starting.

(6) The work must not alter the form or external appearance of the reclamation or drainage system in more than a minor way.

F2.21.2.2. Minor reclamation for the purpose of maintaining, repairing or upgrading a reclamation

(1) The outside face of the new seawall must not extend more than 1.5m beyond the

seaward limit of the existing seawall or bund. … F2.21.4. Standards – Dredging Activities listed as permitted or restricted discretionary in Table F2.19.3 must comply with the standards in F2.21.1 and the standards in F2.21.4. Note 1 Channel clearance activities outside the coastal marine area are covered in E3 Lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands. F2.21.4.1. Dredging: River mouth dredging; dredging to maintain or gain access to an existing lawful structure; and dredging to clear the exit of any lawful stormwater outfall or pipe

(1) Dredging must not take place within 100m of a previously dredged site unless a minimum of two months has elapsed since the completion of dredging at that site.

(2) Impounded water must be released in a way that minimises any potential contamination of receiving waters.

(3) Best practicable dredging methods must be used in order to minimise sediment mobilisation and dispersal.

(4) No dredged material may be deposited in the coastal marine area or on land where it could re-enter a water body unless depositing of that material is listed in this plan as a permitted activity or has a resource consent.

(5) Upon completion of dredging, all equipment and litter must be removed.


31

(6) Written advice must be given to the Council at least 10 working days prior to the

work starting.

F2.21.4.2. Dredging to maintain or clear an existing lawful drainage system

(1) The activity may only take place adjacent to land that is continuous with land that has a rural zone.

(2) The volume of material cleared must not exceed 500m3. [Deleted] (3) There must be no diversion of any part of the channel to a different course. (4) The must be no deepening or widening of the channel beyond the limits of its

original profile. (5) Any visible disturbance to the surrounding coastal marine area must be

remedied or restored within seven days. (6) Best practicable dredging methods must be used in order to minimise sediment

mobilisation and dispersal (7) In identified wading bird areas (Appendix 5 Wading bird areas), dredging and

drainage clearance must be timed to avoid bird nesting seasons and avoid adverse effects on birds using roosting areas and must not damage or disturb areas of salt marsh or nesting or roosting birds, or other indigenous biota.

(8) No dredged material may be deposited in the coastal marine area or on land where it could re-enter a water body unless the deposition of that material is listed in this plan as a permitted activity or has a resource consent.

(9) Upon completion of dredging, all equipment and litter must be removed. (10) Written advice must be given to the Council at least 10 working days prior to

the work starting. (11) In significant wading bird areas as identified in Appendix 5 Wading bird areas

dredging must be timed to avoid bird nesting seasons and avoid adverse effects on birds using roosting areas and must not damage or disturb areas of salt marsh or nesting or roosting birds, or other indigenous biota. [Deleted]

…

F2.21.8. Standards – Discharges

…

F2.21.8.1 All permitted activities (other than discharges from firefighting and other emergency response activities undertaken by the New Zealand Fire Service Fire and Emergency New Zealand)

…

F2.21.8.7. Discharges of hull bio-fouling organisms from in-water cleaning of vessels Rule Activity Standards (A71) Removal of micro-fouling (LOF 0-1) and goose barnacles

(1), (2), (5) and (7)


32

(A72) Small scale manual removal of macro-fouling (up to 5 per cent of the

hull surface area, including niche areas) not provided for in Rule A71 or A73

(2), (3), (5) and (7)

(A72) Removal of macro-fouling where the fouling is: • of international origin; or • of domestic origin but more than low biosecurity risk or has not

had a risk assessment (or extensive to very heavy macro-fouling)

(2), (3), (5) and (7)

(A73) Removal (including small scale manual removal) of macro-fouling where the fouling is: • from within Auckland; or • of domestic origin following a risk assessment that determined a

relative biosecurity risk of negligible or low

(2), (5) and (7)

(A76) Treatment methods that render bio-fouling organisms non-viable

(2), (6) and (7)

(1) Gentle non-abrasive cleaning techniques must be used.

(2) The cleaning method will not compromise the existing anti-fouling coating system.

(3) In water c Cleaning technologies should capture debris to a minimum of greater than 50 micrometers micrometres in diameter. All captured debris shall be collected and disposed of appropriately.

(4) Any debris is collected and appropriately disposed of. [Deleted] (5) If unusual or suspected harmful aquatic organisms (or species designated as

pests in the relevant pest management plan prepared under the Biosecurity Act) are found, the vessel owner or operator must take the following steps:

(a) all cleaning must cease;

(b) the Council must be immediately notified; and

(c) cleaning may not recommence until notified by Council to do so.

Note 1 Council may contact the Ministry for Primary Industries for advice on the nature of the species and the appropriate measures to be taken.


33

(6) The discharge or escape of hull bio-fouling organisms or debris onto the

foreshore, seabed or into the water must be collected as far as practicable and removed from the coastal marine area.

(7) The anti-fouling coating on the hull and niche areas to be cleaned shall not have exceeded its planned service life as specified by the manufacturer.

Notes: The standards apply to the above activities according to the level of risk associated with the origin and extent of the biofouling.

(1) Cleaning of low-level fouling, fouling of regional origin (from within Auckland) and fouling of domestic (NZ) origin that has been assessed and confirmed as low-risk are considered low-risk activities and are encouraged through less stringent standards. Capture of debris is not required.

(2) Small-scale removal of any fouling is enabled but, unless the fouling is from within the Auckland region, capture is required due to the fact that the fouling has not been assessed as negligible or low biological risk and the relative ease of capturing small amounts of fouling (Standard 3).

(3) Fouling of international origin or domestic (NZ) origin that has not been assessed and confirmed as low-risk species are considered highest risk and are therefore subject to the most stringent standards, including capture of all bio-fouling debris (Standard 3).

(4) Methods that render the organisms non-viable are subject to a less stringent standard for capture (Standard 6) as the organisms cannot spread after removal; however, chemical treatments may be subject to other controls within this plan (e.g. discharges).

…

F2.21.9. Standards – Use and activities and associated occupation

Activities listed as permitted or restricted discretionary in Table F2.19.8 must comply with the standards in F2.21.1 and the standards in F2.21.9.

F2.21.9.1. Public access, passive recreation, navigation and general use Use of the coastal marine area not otherwise provided for in the Plan and that does not involve occupation of the common marine and coastal area

(1) Any visible disturbance to the substrate of the coastal marine area must be remedied or restored within 48 hours of the completion of the works in areas identified in D11 Outstanding Natural Character Overlay, D10 Outstanding Natural Features Overlay and D9 Significant Ecological Area Overlay – Marine 1 and within seven days in other areas of the coastal marine area.


34

(2) The activity or use must not require exclusive occupation of the common marine

and coastal area. (3) The activity or use must not require exclusion of public use and access to an

area.

…

F2.21.10. Standards – Structures


F2.21.10.1. Maintenance, repair and reconstruction of existing lawful coastal marine area structures or buildings

Purpose: ensure works are undertaken to an acceptable standard. (1) The work must maintain the structure or building in a good and safe working

condition. (2) The work must not use materials which alter the form or external appearance of

the structure in more than a minor way. (3) The work must not change increase the existing footprint area occupied by the

structure except that with respect to network utilities in the Coastal - General Coastal Marine Zone (outside of the overlays other than the National Grid Corridor Overlay), the area of occupation is within 2m of the existing alignment or location.

…

F2.21.10.7. Minor infrastructure upgrades upgrading of network utilities Purpose: ensure infrastructure upgrading work meets required standards.

(1) Upgrading works must meet the relevant standards in E26 Infrastructure in E26.2.5.3(1).

(2) In the: D9 Significant Ecological Areas Overlay – Marine 1 and 2; D17 Historic Heritage Overlay; D21 Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Overlay; D11 Outstanding Natural Character and High Natural Character overlays; and D10 Outstanding Natural Features Overlay; and Outstanding Natural Landscapes Overlay; the work must not change the area occupied by the structure minor infrastructure upgrading must not increase the size or alter the existing location of the existing footprint and must otherwise be in accordance with the permitted activity standards for minor infrastructure upgrading in E26.2.5.3(1).

(3) Any upgrading of infrastructure that does not comply with the standards for minor infrastructure upgrading specified above, shall be subject to the relevant activity


35

status for that activity specified in Activity Table F2.19.10, not the activity tables in E26 Infrastructure.

F2.21.10.8. Occupation of the common marine and coastal area by infrastructure structures

(1) Occupation of the common marine and coastal area by infrastructure structures,

that form part of a network operated or managed by a network utility operator, and are existing at 23 October 2001, and any subsequent upgrade to such a structure, must meet all of the following:

(a) the structure must be located so that it does not cause more than minor erosion, depositing, or disturbance;

(b) the structure must be not redundant, in that it is being used and is physically capable of being used for its required purpose;

(c) the structure and/or its location must be shown on a plan with the NZMS grid references (seven digit easting and northing), and by a photograph, both of which are provided to the Council; and

(d) any upgrade must comply with the standards for minor infrastructure upgrading of network utilities in E26 Infrastructure at E26.2.5.3(1) the network utilities and energy rules.

…

F2.23. Assessment – restricted discretionary activities

F2.23.1. Matters of discretion The Council will restrict its discretion to all of the following matters when assessing a restricted discretionary resource consent application:

(1) all restricted discretionary activities:

(a) the effects of construction or works methods, and the timing and hours of operation;

(b) the effects of the location, extent, design and materials;

(c) effects on coastal processes, ecological values, water quality and natural character and landscape values;

(d) effects on public access, navigation and safety;

(e) effects on existing uses and activities (including significant infrastructure);…


36

…

(3) specific matters for identified activities: …

(d) re-consenting lawfully established aquaculture activities:

effects on … (i)

F2.23.2. Assessment criteria …

(17) structures and buildings in the coastal marine area: …

(g) the extent to which the reconstruction, alteration or extension of existing structures:

do not have significant adverse effects on other uses and values; (i)

result in greater, more efficient, or multiple use of the structure for (ii)marine activities; and

reduce the need for a new structure elsewhere; (iii)

provide for activities that cannot practicably be located on land outside (iv)of the common marine and coastal area;

will enhance amenity values and not conflict with marine activities; and (v)

any necessary land-based infrastructure can be provided. (vi)

…

(19) re-consenting lawfully established aquaculture activities

…

F3. Coastal – Marina Zone …

Table F3.4.3 Activity table Note 1. Rule F3.4.3(A34) does not apply if an activity is in accordance with an agreement with the party who holds the existing occupation consent.

Activity status Activity Coastal

marine area [rcp]

Land [dp]

…


37

(A31) New and existing pile moorings including

occupation and use by the vessel to be moored

P NA

(A32) Maimai NC NC (A33) Exclusive occupation of the common marine

and coastal area by a structure or activity that would otherwise be permitted

RD NA

(A34) Occupation of the common marine and coastal area by an activity that would otherwise be permitted where the area to be occupied is already the subject of an existing occupation consent

RD NA

…


F3.8.1. Matters of discretion The Council will reserve its discretion to all of the following matters when assessing a restricted discretionary resource consent application:

(1) for all restricted discretionary activities: …

(5) for structures or buildings in the coastal marine area and buildings on land:

(a) effects on views to and from the surrounding area, and the visual amenity effects from the presence of the structure.

(6) for occupation of the common marine and coastal area:

(a) the effects of the location, extent, timing and duration of the occupation, including exclusive occupation.

F3.8.2. Assessment criteria The Council will consider the relevant assessment criteria below for restricted discretionary activities:

…


(a) refer to assessment criteria set out for occupation in the Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone.


38

F5. Coastal – Minor Port Zone

…



marine area [rcp]

Land [dp]

… (A40) Maimai NC NC (A41) Structures or buildings not otherwise

provided for D D

(A42) Exclusive occupation of the common marine and coastal area by a structure or activity that would otherwise be permitted

RD NA


RD NA

…


F5.8.1. Matters of discretion The Council will restrict its discretion to all of the following matters and the relevant matters in the Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone when assessing a restricted discretionary resource consent application.

…

(9) for the occupation of the common marine and coastal area:

(a) effects on the safe and efficient use, operation and development of the Port of Onehunga.

F5.8.2. Assessment criteria The Council will consider the relevant assessment criteria for restricted discretionary activities from the list below and the relevant assessment criteria in the Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone:

…

(9) for occupation of the coastal common marine and coastal area:


39


Chapter F6. Coastal – Ferry Terminal Zone

…



marine area [rcp]

Land [dp]

… (A21) New pile moorings established after 30

September 2013 including occupation and use by the vessel to be moored

NC NC

(A22) Maimai D D (A23) Exclusive occupation of the common marine


RD NA


RD NA

…


F6.8.1. Matters of discretion The Council will restrict its discretion to all the following matters and the matters in the Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone when assessing a restricted discretionary resource consent application.

…

F6.8.2. Assessment criteria The Council will consider the relevant assessment criteria the Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone in addition to the matters below.

…


40

F7. Coastal – Defence Zone …


Activity Activity status

… (A20) New pile moorings established after 30 September 2013

including occupation and use by vessel to be moored RD

(A21) Pile moorings existing at 30 September 2013 including occupation and use by the vessel to be moored

P


RD


RD

…


F7.8.1. Matters of discretion The Council will restrict its discretion to all of the following matters when assessing a restricted discretionary resource consent application.




F7.8.2. Assessment criteria The Council will consider the following assessment criteria in when assessing a restricted discretionary resource consent application.

(1) All restricted discretionary activities.

…



41

(a) refer to assessment criteria set out for occupation in the Coastal – General

Coastal Marine Zone.


42

Chapter J. Definitions

… Experimental aquaculture activities

Aquaculture activities that are limited to a maximum of 1ha, 10 years in duration and test new species, including polyculture, and or new technology or techniques.

…

Lawfully established aquaculture activities

Aquaculture activities consented and operational at 30 September 2013.

…

New aquaculture

Aquaculture activities not consented and operational at 30 September 2013.

…


43

Consequential changes to other parts of the plan

E26 Infrastructure [Annotate the standard for minor infrastructure upgrading as [dp/rcp] as follows:]

E26.2.5.3. Specific activities within zones in Table E26.2.3.1 The specific activities listed below are required to comply with the permitted activity standards in E26.2.5.1 and E26.2.5.2. Where a standard in E26.2.5.3 for a specified activity varies from a standard in E26.2.5.1 or E26.2.5.2, E26.2.5.3 shall apply. Minor infrastructure upgrading [rcp/dp]

(1) Minor infrastructure upgrading of network utilities must comply with the following controls (where relevant):

(a) minor re-alignment, configuration, relocation or replacement of electricity, gas distribution, or telecommunication line, pipe, pole, conductors, cross arms, switches, transformers, cabinets or ancillary structures:

that is within 2m of the existing alignment or location; (i)

that is within 5m of the existing alignment or location when associated (ii)with road widening reasons or road safety or electricity clearance reasons. …


44

Chapter M Appendices

Appendix 7 Coastal marine area boundaries

All provisions in this appendix are regional coastal plan [rcp].

The coastal marine area boundary at rivers is shown on the maps by the information layer “coastal marine area/river boundary point”.

Under the RMA, the coastal marine area boundary across rivers is referenced to the mouth of the river – the lesser of one kilometre upstream of the mouth of the river or the point upstream calculated by multiplying the width of the river by five. Only the coastal marine area boundary at rivers (not the river mouth) is shown on the maps. The mouth of the river can be determined by back-calculating from the coastal marine area boundary across a river.

For each river identified in the table below, the “coastal marine area boundary” is a straight line drawn from bank to bank through, or as close as possible to, the reference point relating to that river at right angles to the river flow at that point. Where the landward boundary of the coastal marine area is noted below as aligning with a physical structure in the river (for example, a bridge) the landward boundary is the seaward side of the structure, and the structure is not in the coastal marine area.

For rivers not identified in the table below, the “mouth” shall be at that point depicted by a straight line representing a continuation of the line of mean high water springs on each side of the river.

[Delete the six existing tables (Table 1 Kaipara Harbour to Table 6 Great Barrier Island)]

Table 1: Kaipara Harbour

ID River River Mouth NZMS260 map grid reference

Coastal Marine Area Boundary NZMS260 map grid reference

1 Maeneene Creek

Q09 451 500 Seaward side of main trunk railway bridge Q09 452 501

2 Te Hana Creek Q09 460 489 Q09 460 488 3 Whakapirau

Creek, main stem

Q09 442 466 Seaward side Te Hana – Port Albert Rd bridge Q09 448 465

4 Whakapirau Creek, Western

Q09 437 462 Seaward side of Wellsford Valley Road


45

Arm bridge

Q09 435 461 [… All the tables …]

Table 6: Great Barrier Island



248 Oruawharo Stream

T09 357 447 T09 357 445

249 Kaitoke River T09 318 492 Seaward side Kaitoke Awana Roadbridge

T09 318 493

250 Awana Stream T08 336 525 T08 336 525

251 Motairehe Stream

S08 244 620 S08 244 620

252 Whangaparapara Stream

S09 260 487 S09 260 487

Note 1

For each river identified in the above schedules the “mouth” is a straight line drawn from bank to bank through or as close as possible to the grid reference relating to that river at right angles to the river flow at that grid reference.

Note 2

For rivers not identified in the above schedules the “mouth” shall be at that point depicted by a straight line representing a continuation of the mean high water springs on each side of the river.

[Insert the following table:]


46

Coastal Marine Area/River Boundary

Id River Location NZTM Point X NZTM Point Y

KAIPARA HARBOUR

1 Maeneene Creek Seaward side of main trunk railway bridge 1734611.05 5988322.42

2 Te Hana Creek Seaward side of State Highway 1 1735563.76 5986967.50

3 Whakapirau Creek Main Stem Seaward side of Te Hana - Port Albert Road Bridge 1734258.15 5984761.21

4 Whakapirau Creek Western Arm Seaward side of Wellsford Valley Road Bridge 1732676.92 5984238.34

5 Kaiwakawaka River Northern boundary of Lot 2 DP 82152 1729452.15 5983370.07 6 Waireia River

1728576.47 5982088.41

7 Wharehanu Creek Seaward side of Beaver Road Bridge 1727598.10 5982274.05 8 Takapau Creek

1725093.74 5979772.24

9 Takahe Creek Seaward side of reclamation 1724197.01 5979240.97 10 Atiu Creek

1722908.90 5979311.84

11 Mullet Creek East Arm

1720809.89 5978468.54 12 Mullet Creek West Arm

1719523.23 5978464.73

13 Oturapa Creek

1718428.27 5978467.31 14 Otekawa Creek Seaward side of Journeys End Bridge 1714860.54 5979304.39 15 Gum Store Creek West Arm

1716983.48 5976090.91

16 Gum Store Creek East Arm

1717296.07 5975630.02 17 Te Raupa Creek Seaward side of Kakaraea Road 1722795.70 5971350.56 18 Hiki Creek Seaward side of Burma Road Bridge 1722864.60 5972970.64 19 Kahutaewao Creek

1724247.31 5973567.17

20 Whanaki Creek Northern Arm Seaward side of Wharahine Road 1728154.23 5976765.13 21 Whanaki Creek Southern Arm Seaward side of Wharahine Road 1728345.03 5976188.21 22 Te Pahi Stream

1729907.92 5973166.52

23 Hoteo River South boundary Pt Lot 1 DP 64445 1729691.45 5967580.01 24 Omaumau River

1728214.97 5965287.28

25 Mataia Creek

1729258.00 5960581.00 26 Araparera Creek

1729701.02 5959197.07

27 Makarau River Seaward side of Kaipara Coast Highway Bridge 1731149.94 5954273.15

28 Waitangi Stream Seaward side of Kaipara Coast Highway Bridge 1731731.85 5953390.46

29 Wheraroa Creek Seaward side of Jordan Road Bridge 1731017.46 5951742.78 30 Matawhero Stream Eastern boundary of Lot 5 DP 317983 1729647.31 5949003.28

31 Kaipara River Seaward side of confluence of Kaipara River and Kaukapakapa River 1728994.71 5943513.36

32 Upokonui Creek Seaward side of South Head Road 1726184.89 5942959.82 33 Te Hihi Creek Seaward side of South Head Road 1724288.78 5944132.45 34 Takapau Horahia Creek Seaward side of South Head Road 1724120.81 5944270.64


47


Id River Location NZTM Point X NZTM Point Y 35 Kaituna Creek Seaward side of Old South Head Road 1721839.24 5945096.72 36 Hihi Stream Seaward side of South Head Road 1721205.52 5945881.59 37 Okaro Creek Seaward side of South Head Road 1720926.35 5945878.02 38 Slater Road Creek Seaward side of South Head Road 1720125.50 5946769.05 39 Tikitu Creek

1719726.52 5947968.26

40 Kaikiore Creek

1718984.62 5949569.67 41 Mairetahi Creek

1718779.73 5952286.76

42 Taumata Creek East Arm Seaward side of South Head Road 1715920.16 5955535.08 43 Taumata Creek West Arm Seaward side of South Head Road 1715853.28 5956249.10 44 Haratahi Creek

1713845.30 5960037.26

MANUKAU HARBOUR 45 Huia Stream Seaward side of Huia Road Bridge 1739404.66 5904157.74 46 Kakamatua Stream

1741735.58 5903871.90

47 Big Muddy Creek

1743851.23 5908001.02 48 Waiohua Creek

1745813.95 5908813.62

49 Little Muddy Creek

1746585.84 5909416.92 50 Paturoa Stream

1747756.14 5909274.90

51 Ann's Creek

1762928.06 5911492.97 52 Harania Creek South West Arm

1761234.80 5908871.58

53 Tararata creek Seaward side of Walmsley Road offramp 1759792.75 5909025.55

54 Tautauroa Creek

1759466.96 5905034.60 55 Pukaki Creek

1760330.15 5905676.58

56 Waokauri Creek Northern Arm

1761959.40 5905885.48 57 Waokauri Creek Eastern Arm

1763174.93 5904810.61

58 Puhinui Creek

1763801.19 5901487.91 59 Puhinui Creek Eastern Arm

1765167.31 5901676.89

60 Waimahia Creek Seaward side of Mahia Road 1766624.14 5899335.08 61 Papakura Stream

1769044.99 5898395.45

62 Hingaia Stream and Slippery Creek Seaward side of State Highway 1 1772745.28 5892790.16

63 Ngakoroa Stream Seaward side of Bremner Road Bridge 1772730.32 5891848.10

64 Oira Stream Adjacent to southern boundary of Lot 4 DP 107835 1770407.55 5890848.03

65 Whangapouri Creek

1768358.23 5890712.20 66 Whangamaire Stream

1766777.23 5894621.23

67 Whangamaire Stream


1765908.10 5892077.32

69 Whangamaire Stream Seaward side of Muir Road Bridge 1766191.27 5890611.46 70 Whangamaire Stream

1765348.26 5892464.26


48


Id River Location NZTM Point X NZTM Point Y 71 Whangamaire Stream

1765508.51 5893697.77


1765942.80 5894587.64 73 Pahurehure Inlet

1766339.34 5895453.52

74 Pahurehure Inlet


1764998.86 5896417.47

76 Clarks Creek Eastern Bank

1759263.32 5890658.92 77 Tuhitahi Creek Seaward side of Kingseat Road Bridge 1759246.78 5888389.49

78 Karaka Creek Seaward side of McKenzie Road Bridge 1758291.40 5888569.36

79 Clarks Creek Western bank

1758119.52 5890666.10 80 Clarks Creek Western bank

1758064.41 5891952.75


1757922.65 5892068.82 82 Clarks Beach Inlet Stream

1755663.45 5890484.74

83 Taihiki River Northern Bank

1752660.97 5887331.61 84 Taihiki River Northern Bank

1753400.92 5887326.02



1754927.68 5887097.79



1756010.04 5886141.10


1756020.94 5885928.55

90 Mauku Stream Seaward side of Glenbrook Road Bridge 1759323.02 5884278.38

91 Taihiki River Southern Bank

1757632.41 5884493.56 92 Taihiki River Southern Bank

1757011.85 5884626.05



1755302.32 5883176.55



1755070.53 5882884.92


1755101.12 5883378.03 98 Waiuku River Eastern Bank

1753185.33 5882785.07

99 Stream east side of Racecourse Road

1754613.96 5877085.70

100 Waiuku Stream Northern side of King Street 1753487.23 5876225.17 101 Rangiwhea Creek

1752429.49 5876775.22

102 Awaruaiti Creek

1751404.00 5877509.80 103 Awaruaiti Creek

1751275.50 5877924.87

104 Awaruaiti Creek

1751310.87 5878050.87 105 McGowan Road Creek

1751299.99 5878687.90

106 Mokorau Creek

1751064.57 5879315.90 107 Parakau Creek

1750355.30 5879923.84


49


Id River Location NZTM Point X NZTM Point Y 108 Totara Creek

1750874.54 5880958.47

109 Waipipi Creek

1749666.54 5881168.88 110 Waipipi Creek

1749746.17 5881471.05

111 Te Hakono Creek

1749710.33 5882762.49 112 Te Hakono Creek

1749417.93 5882916.23

113 Pukewhau Creek

1749430.19 5884383.83 114 Kohonui Creek

1749413.25 5885237.77

115 Ohiku Creek

1748056.71 5885756.21 116 Ohiku Creek

1748812.35 5886735.14

117 Rangiriri Creek

1746952.71 5887872.05 118 Rangiriri Creek

1747134.53 5888572.46

119 Rangiriri Creek

1746895.01 5888910.37 120 Matakawau Creek

1746830.84 5890111.22

121 Matakawau Creek

1745837.75 5890404.12 122 Kauritutahi Stream

1745325.71 5894245.04

123 Stream north of Kauritutahi Stream

1745838.24 5895250.28

WAITEMATA HARBOUR AND HAURAKI GULF

124 Unnamed Stream Seaward side of Couldry's Bridge 1793708.86 5909341.82

125 Rautawa Stream Seaward side of Kawakawa Bay Coast Road 1793334.05 5908767.72

126 Kawakawa Bay Stream Seaward side of Clevedon-Kawakawa Bay Road Bridge 1792210.13 5908379.82

127 Rotopiro Stream

1788530.89 5908652.88 128 Urangahauhau Stream Seaward side of Vennon's Bridge 1785180.13 5907744.52 129 Wairoa River

1784148.22 5907650.38

130 Te Puru Creek Eastern Arm Seaward side of Whitford Maraetai Road Bridge 1780223.19 5916128.99

131 Te Puru Creek Seaward side of Whitford Maraetai Road Bridge 1780020.11 5916103.56

132 Grangers Stream Seaward side of Whitford Maraetai Road Bridge 1775670.32 5909903.09

133 Turanga Creek

1775432.63 5908914.07 134 Maungamaungaroa Creek Seaward side of Whitford Road Bridge 1772372.29 5911760.84

135 Pakuranga Creek Pakuranga Road Arm

1768679.55 5913188.09

136 Pakuranga Creek Cascades Road Arm

Seaward side of Cascades Road Bridge 1769685.39 5912948.81

137 Pakuranga Creek Golf Course

1769524.34 5912474.00

138 Pakuranga Creek Power Sub Station Arm Seaward side of footbridge 1769647.13 5911813.36


50



139 Pakuranga Creek Cryers Road Arm

1768478.43 5911285.75

140 Otara Creek Kerwyn Road Arm

1767536.01 5909726.82

141 Otara Creek Opposite Andromeda Crescent 1767805.18 5909091.55

142 Otara Creek East Tamaki Road Arm Seaward side of footbridge 1767500.28 5908752.62

143 Tamaki River Bairds Road Arm

1765310.43 5908234.75

144 Tamaki River Middlemore Hospital

1764242.00 5907445.58

145 Tamaki River

1764316.90 5908319.61

146 Otahuhu Creek Adjacent to Meadow Street 1764253.26 5910620.67

147 Unnamed Stream Adjacent to Bowden Road 1764909.44 5912833.78

148 Unnamed Stream Upstream of Donnor Place 1764796.17 5913211.25

149 Omaru Creek

1766745.66 5917014.35 150 Purewa Creek

1763321.90 5918507.35

151 Orakei Basin Stream

1762429.65 5917766.11 152 Orakei Basin Stream

1762021.04 5917542.70

153 Orakei Road Stream Seaward side of Shore Road Bridge 1760873.25 5918485.19 154 Portland Road Stream Seaward side of Shore Road Bridge 1760099.71 5918677.40 155 Newmarket Stream Seaward side of Brighton Road 1759391.60 5918748.10 156 Coxs Creek

1753794.06 5920315.36

157 Motions Creek Seaward side of Meola Road 1753072.07 5919538.28 158 Meola Creek Seaward side of Meola Road 1752571.07 5919221.08 159 Oakley Creek Seaward side of Great North Road 1751960.23 5917779.09 160 Whau River Seaward side of railway bridge 1750782.43 5914036.26 161 Rewarewa Creek

1749733.55 5914545.32

162 Taroa Stream

1749513.35 5914264.25 163 Wairau Creek

1747730.34 5915244.27

164 Glendene Stream

1747397.75 5916685.40 165 Henderson Creek

1745715.71 5918184.05

166 Paremuka Stream Northern end of Woodside Road 1744125.44 5919875.05 167 Huruhuru/Swanson Stream Seaward side of footbridge 1744066.93 5919963.41 168 Rarawaru Creek

1744940.17 5921649.07

169 Taikata Creek (Kopupapa Stream)

1745996.97 5922628.41

170 Lawson's Creek

1745413.84 5923384.24 171 Waipareira Stream

1746492.88 5924758.98

172 Romeo Stream

1746536.94 5924785.45


51


Id River Location NZTM Point X NZTM Point Y 173 Waiorahia Stream

1746077.94 5926388.04

174 Rarawaru Creek

1744433.56 5928078.66 175 Totara Creek Seaward side of Brigham Creek Road 1742953.36 5926686.17 176 Brigham Creek Seaward side of State Highway 16 1741976.51 5926903.72

177 Rangitopuni Creek Seaward side of Coatesville-Riverhead Highway Bridge 1742529.56 5931228.08

178 Paremoremo Creek

1746231.10 5931387.36

179 Lucas Creek Waterfall upstream of Dairy Flat Highway 1751178.70 5934498.21

180 Oteha Stream Seaward side of Albany Highway 1751331.20 5933565.42 181 Te Wharau Creek Northern Arm

1750317.22 5930110.94

182 Te Wharau Creek Southern Arm

1750053.95 5929671.74 183 Kingfisher Grove Creek

1748747.04 5929180.44

184 Hellyers Creek

1751961.05 5929121.54 185 Kaipatiki Creek

1752426.05 5927689.73

186 Kaipatiki Creek Eskdale Road Arm

1752192.03 5927105.37

187 Kaipatiki Creek Beach Haven Road Arm Seaward side of Beach Haven Road 1751425.10 5927246.92

188 Soldiers Bay Stream

1751635.62 5924518.54 189 Little Shoal Bay Stream Seaward side of Maritime Terrace 1755168.46 5924118.40 190 Onepoto Stream Seaward side of Lake Road 1755587.67 5925143.42 191 Hillcrest Creek Seaward side of Esmonde Road 1757398.78 5926107.67 192 Wairoko Creek Seaward side of footbridge 1758871.75 5925540.75

HAURAKI GULF COASTLINE

193 Wairau Creek Immediately downstream of Wairau Creek outfall 1757347.06 5928967.62

194 Deep Creek Seaward side of Beach Road Bridge 1756461.70 5936802.06 195 Awaruku Creek Seaward side of road bridge 1756439.48 5938133.50 196 Long Bay North Stream Seaward side of bridge 1756019.47 5939152.44 197 Okura Beach Road Stream

1754152.56 5939418.47

198 Okura River

1752664.65 5938895.22 199 Okura River

1752372.20 5939057.36

200 Okura River

1751938.10 5939074.75 201 Okura River North Branch

1752248.97 5940540.10

202 Doctors Creek Opposite northern boundary Lot 4 DP 26549 1753132.87 5944124.61

203 Duck Creek Seaward side of Duck Creek Road Bridge 1751670.58 5944469.17

204 Newman Road Stream

1750743.03 5945442.54


52


Id River Location NZTM Point X NZTM Point Y 205 Weiti River Seaward side of Tavern Road 1749990.77 5946011.27 206 Orewa River Seaward side of Northern Motorway 1748716.27 5948381.21 207 Orewa River North Branch

1749523.57 5949120.73

208 Nukumea Stream Seaward side of Hibiscus Coast Highway 1751262.71 5950976.06

209 Otanerua Stream South Arm

1751554.87 5952137.41 210 Otanerua Stream North Arm

1751783.89 5952689.76

211 Waiwera River Opposite western boundary Lot 8 DP 61445 1750613.33 5955025.79

212 Okahu Creek

1749649.16 5955910.19 213 Puhoi River

1750189.96 5957249.05

214 Te Muri-O-Tarariki Stream

1753070.90 5957984.00

215 Pukapuka River Seaward side of Pukapuka Road Bridge 1750500.65 5960894.92

216 Dyers Creek Southern Arm

1751603.97 5962788.22 217 Dyers Creek Northern Arm

1751337.91 5963192.71

218 Cowan Bay Stream West Arm

1751718.05 5965261.22 219 Cowan Bay Stream East Arm

1752311.67 5965455.33

220 Hepburn Creek Seaward side of Hepburn Creek Road Bridge 1751173.02 5966595.89

221 Johnson Creek Seaward side of Hepburn Creek Road Bridge 1750735.88 5968357.73

222 Mahurangi River

1750429.46 5969976.78 223 Duck Creek

1751787.72 5968968.77

224 Dawson's Creek (Te Whau Creek)

Seaward side of causeway to Wastewater Treatment Plant 1754178.38 5968232.18

225 Goodalls Stream

1754984.20 5966693.07 226 Te Kapa River Northern Arm

1755823.29 5964470.31

227 Te Kapa River Eastern Arm

1757020.63 5963100.17 228 Glen Eden River

1753412.94 5973449.69

229 Matakana River Northern boundary Pt Lot 1 DP 169734 1754258.87 5975297.08 230 Baddley's Beach Stream

1757332.53 5972551.43

231 Campbells Beach Western Stream

1758406.49 5972363.69

232 Campbells Beach Eastern Stream

1758685.81 5972300.98

233 Omaha River Northern end esplanade reserve adjacent to Lot 2 DP 83584 1755954.48 5977169.26

234 Tamahunga Stream Southern boundary of Lot 1 DP 8755 1756114.73 5977557.03 235 Birdsall Road Stream

1757606.20 5980133.90

236 Young Creek Seaward side of Ashton (Sadler) Road Bridge 1757839.02 5980261.92


53



237 Coxhead Creek Seaward side of Coxhead Creek Road Bridge 1759692.99 5980745.50

238 Kohuroa Stream Seaward side of footbridge 1761405.56 5981202.57 239 Omaha Cove Western Arm Seaward side of footbridge 1762059.11 5982560.65 240 Omaha Cove Northern Arm Seaward side of footbridge 1762053.06 5982804.39

WAIHEKE ISLAND 241 Okahuiti Creek

1782500.91 5926136.76

242 Taiwaipareira Creek Seaward side of Ostend Road 1783205.55 5925739.63 243 Rangihoua Creek

1784527.45 5925021.03

244 Rangihoua Creek

1784462.15 5924915.44 245 Awaawaroa Bay Stream

1787571.55 5923582.34

246 Awaawaroa Bay Stream

1788088.42 5923453.42 247 Te Matuku Stream Seaward side of Orapiu Road Bridge 1790772.07 5922462.56

GREAT BARRIER ISLAND 248 Oruawharo Stream

1824993.48 5983118.35

249 Kaitoke River Seaward side of Gray Road 1821663.88 5987612.64 250 Awana Stream

1822991.40 5990966.10


1813938.52 6000465.15 252 Whangaparapara Stream

1815388.41 5987185.44


54

AUP GIS Viewer Add a new map layer to show the updated coastal marine area boundary points at rivers. The points will be shown as dots where the indicative coastline crosses the relevant rivers. The layer will be named “Coastal marine area/river boundary point”. The layer will be added to the legend in the “Information” section. The following two maps show an overview of location of all the points and an example of how the points will appear in the viewer.


55


56


57

58

ATTACHMENT B

PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 15 - SECTION 32 EVALUATION REPORT

59

60

Proposed Plan Change 15 Improving consistency of provisions in Chapter F

Coastal, Chapter J Definitions, Appendix 7 and the viewer of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in

part)

SECTION 32 EVALUATION REPORT

29 November 2018

61

Contents

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 6

1.1 Scope and purpose of the report .............................................................................. 6

1.2 Background to the proposed plan change ................................................................ 8

1.3 The resource management issue to be addressed .................................................. 9

1.4 Objectives of the proposed plan change ................................................................ 10

1.5 Identification of options ........................................................................................... 10

1.6 Evaluation of options .............................................................................................. 11

1.7 Risk of acting or not acting ..................................................................................... 14

2. Reasons for the proposed plan change ......................................................................... 14

2.1 Reasons for the preferred option ............................................................................ 14

2.2 Scope of plan change ............................................................................................. 15

3. Statutory evaluation under Part II and relevant sections of the RMA ............................ 15

3.1 Part 2 of the RMA and relevant sections of the RMA ............................................. 15

3.2 Other relevant sections of the RMA ........................................................................ 16

3.3 Provisions with immediate legal effect .................................................................... 16

4. National and regional planning context .......................................................................... 16

4.1 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement ................................................................. 17

4.2 National policy statements ...................................................................................... 17

4.3 National environmental standards .......................................................................... 17

4.4 Other Acts and Regulations .................................................................................... 18

4.5 The Auckland Plan ................................................................................................. 19

4.6 Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) .............................................................. 20

4.7 Iwi management plans ............................................................................................ 20

5. Development of proposed plan change ......................................................................... 21

5.1 Develop the scope of PC 15 ................................................................................... 21

5.2 Review of issues ..................................................................................................... 21

5.3 Development of proposed amendments ................................................................. 23

5.4 Consultation undertaken ......................................................................................... 24

6. Evaluation of plan change provisions ............................................................................ 26

6.1 Theme 1: Accidental discovery rule ........................................................................ 28

6.1.1 Status quo and problem statement ................................................................. 28

6.1.2 Outline of the proposal options ........................................................................ 29

6.1.3 Evaluation of the proposal against its objectives ............................................. 31

Plan Change 15 Coastal Section 32 Evaluation Report 2

62

6.1.4 Summary ......................................................................................................... 33

6.2 Theme 2: Marina date inconsistency ...................................................................... 34




6.2.4 Summary ......................................................................................................... 36

6.3 Theme 3: Sediment quality indicators .................................................................... 37




6.3.4 Summary ......................................................................................................... 40

6.4 Theme 4: Reclamation, structures and minor infrastructure upgrades ................... 41




6.4.4 Summary ......................................................................................................... 45

6.5 Theme 5: Functional need and existing structures ................................................. 46




6.5.4 Summary ......................................................................................................... 48

6.6 Theme 6: Exclusive occupation .............................................................................. 49




6.6.4 Summary ......................................................................................................... 54

6.7 Theme 7: Occupation in areas with existing occupation consents ......................... 55




6.7.4 Summary ......................................................................................................... 58

6.8 Theme 8: Activity tables overlaps and inconsistencies .......................................... 58




63


6.8.4 Summary ......................................................................................................... 62

6.9 Theme 9: Discharges from hull bio-fouling and vessel maintenance ..................... 62




6.9.4 Summary ......................................................................................................... 70

6.10 Theme 10: Coastal marine area boundary points at rivers ..................................... 71




6.10.4 Summary ......................................................................................................... 74

6.11 Theme 11: Fire and Emergency ............................................................................. 74



6.11.3 Evaluating the proposal against its objectives ................................................. 75

6.11.4 Summary ......................................................................................................... 75

6.12 Theme 12: Infrastructure affecting use of the Mooring Zone .................................. 76




6.12.4 Summary ......................................................................................................... 77

6.13 Theme 13: Aquaculture rules and definitions ......................................................... 78




6.13.4 Summary ......................................................................................................... 79

6.14 Theme 14: Discharges to water default rules ......................................................... 79




6.14.4 Summary ......................................................................................................... 80

6.15 Theme 15: Dredging, disturbance and depositing inconsistencies ........................ 81



64



6.15.4 Summary ......................................................................................................... 83

6.16 Theme 16: Boat ramps ........................................................................................... 83




6.16.4 Summary ......................................................................................................... 85

6.17 Theme 17: Significant infrastructure ....................................................................... 86




6.17.4 Summary ......................................................................................................... 87

7. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 87

Attachment 1: PC 15 with cross-references to themes in the s 32 report ............................. 88


65

1. Introduction

1.1 Scope and purpose of the report

This report is prepared by Auckland Council (Council) to fulfil the statutory requirements of section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) for proposed Plan Change 15 (PC 15) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) (AUP).

PC 15 is one of a series of four plan changes to address technical issues across the AUP. These plan changes follow on from Plan Change 4 – Corrections to technical errors and anomalies in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) version (PC 4). The series of proposed follow-up plan changes have a slightly broader scope than PC 4 to enable a number of the technical issues that did not meet the criteria for inclusion within PC 4 to be addressed. Other plan changes in the series include:

• Plan Change 14: Auckland-wide and Overlays

• Plan Change 16: Zones

• Plan Change 17: AUP Viewer

PC 15 introduces amendments within Chapter F Coastal, Chapter J Definitions, Appendix 7 and the Viewer of the AUP.

The proposed amendments address identified technical issues only and retain the current policy direction of the plan. In particular, the amendments proposed in PC 15 are to:

• amend provisions that are ambiguous or unclear; • amend the provisions to achieve vertical and horizontal alignment across the AUP

where there are current gaps or a misalignment of provisions; and • improve integration of different chapters within the AUP.

The plan change document for PC 15 is set out in Attachment 1 and shows the proposed amendments to the AUP, including any consequential amendments. The matters addressed in PC 15 are set out in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 Summary of amendments and their purpose.

Theme Topic Purpose of change

1. Accidental discovery rule

Clarifying that the accidental discovery rule applies in the coastal marine area.

2. Marina date inconsistency

Addressing the inconsistency in dates in the marina extension objective and rules (i.e. date the plan was notified or made operative).

3. Sediment quality indicators

Clarifying which sediment quality indicators are referred to in the coastal discharges background section.


66


4. Reclamation, structures and minor infrastructure upgrades

Clarifying how the provisions for reclamation, structures and minor infrastructure upgrades apply to facilities such as seawalls. This includes a consequential change to Chapter E26 Infrastructure.

5. Functional need and existing structures

Clarifying whether the non-complying activity rule for activities that do not have a functional need to be in the coastal marine area applies to re-consenting activities in or on existing structures and extensions to such structures.

6. Exclusive occupation Clarifying whether consent is needed for exclusive occupation in areas where there are permitted activities for some structures.

7. Existing occupation consents

Clarifying whether consent is needed for new activities in areas that have an existing occupation consent.

8. Activity tables overlaps and inconsistencies

Addressing several overlaps and inconsistencies in the activity tables that mean it is not clear whether a proposal is to be addressed under multiple rules or not (in particular the rules for structures, disturbance, and use of the coastal marine area).

9. Discharges from hull bio-fouling and vessel maintenance

Simplifying and clarifying the provisions for discharges of hull bio-fouling from vessel cleaning and passive discharge to make the rules more effective; and clarifying that any hull cleaning that results in discharges of bio-fouling to the coastal marine area is captured by the rules for discharges from vessel cleaning.

10. Coastal marine area boundary points at rivers

Correcting the grid references in Appendix 7 (coastal marine area boundaries) to remove the inconsistency between the appendix and the GIS viewer maps; and adding a new ‘information’ map layer to show the Appendix 7 points as dots where the indicative coastline crosses the listed rivers.

11. Fire and Emergency Amending the provisions to replace ‘The New Zealand Fire Service’ with ‘Fire and Emergency New Zealand’.

12. Infrastructure affecting use of the Mooring Zone

Clarifying that policy F2.16.3(24) relates to infrastructure that affects access to a Mooring Zone as well as use of moorings within a Mooring Zone.

13. Aquaculture rules and definitions

Amending the aquaculture rules and definitions so that they use consistent wording.

14. Discharges to water default rules

Clarifying that the two rules for discharges to water ‘not otherwise provided for’ relate to whether the standards are met or not.

15. Dredging, disturbance and depositing inconsistencies

Addressing the inconsistencies in the related rules and standards for dredging, disturbance and depositing material.

16. Boat ramps Specifying ‘boat ramps’ in a separate activity table line due to the confusion regarding whether they are within the rule for ‘marine and port accessory structure and services’.


67


17. Significant infrastructure

Amending the references to ‘significant infrastructure’ to ‘infrastructure’ to be consistent with the rest of the AUP.

Section 32 of the RMA requires that before adopting any objective, policy, rule or other method, the council shall have regard to the extent to which each objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA, and whether the policies and rules or other methods are the most appropriate way of achieving the objectives. A report must be prepared summarising the evaluation and giving reasons for the evaluation. In accordance with section 32(6) of the RMA and for the purposes of this report:

• the ‘proposal’ means PC 15, • the ‘objectives’ means the purpose of the proposal (PC 15) and the objectives of the

AUP, and • the ‘provisions’ means the policies, rules or other methods that implement, or give

effect to, the objectives of the proposal and of the Plan.

The AUP contains existing objectives and policies which set the direction for how coastal areas will be managed. PC 15 is not altering or re-litigating the intent and direction of any of these provisions. This evaluation report relates to technical issues within the existing policy framework of the AUP. The policy approach remains unchanged, and this report will not re-evaluate it.

This evaluation will continue to be refined in relation to any new information that may arise following notification, including during hearings on PC 15, as required by RMA section 32AA.

1.2 Background to the proposed plan change

The structure of the AUP is complex. It is a combined plan pursuant to section 80 of the RMA, bringing the regional policy statement, the regional plan (including the regional coastal plan) and the district plan into a single document. This plan applies to almost the entire Auckland region, excluding only the district plan provisions in respect of the land area of the Hauraki Gulf Islands. The scale of such a combined planning exercise has never before been undertaken in New Zealand.

The separation of controls among overlays, zones, Auckland-wide and precinct provisions means that a single site or activity may be subject to four or more layers of plan provisions. Identifying accurately all of the provisions that may be relevant to a site or a proposal is integral to understanding the planning controls that might apply.

As a result of the nature of the layered provisions of the AUP, plan users and council planning staff have been identifying a number of technical issues. These issues affect the usability of the AUP and the overall integration between different parts of the plan. Since the AUP has become operative in part (15 November 2016), the council has been registering potential errors and issues that have been identified by both staff and members of the public. Issues have been sent through via email enquiry and then they have been registered,


68

categorised and grouped, in a spreadsheet, by their respective AUP chapter, section, precinct, GIS mapping layer, provision/standard and/or property.

Over 2,000 potential errors or issues have been recorded to date and the number continues to grow as AUP users continue to identify and send potential issues to the council’s enquiry line.

The issues identified so far are found in all components of the AUP (text and maps), and cover a range of matters.

There are four ways in which issues in the AUP can be corrected under the RMA:

• clause 16(2) of Schedule 1 to the RMA – for alterations of a minor effect, or the correction of minor errors where the plan is not yet operative/still subject to appeal;

• clause 20A of Schedule 1 to the RMA – for the correction of minor errors where the plan is operative;

• decisions made on matters subject to appeal; and • plan change/s to the AUP.

Many of the issues that were registered when the AUP first became operative in part were clear errors or anomalies which, although minor in nature, could not be amended using clause 16 or clause 20A. In order to resolve these issues quickly, to enable the AUP to function how it was intended, PC 4 was notified on 28 September 2017. The decisions on PC 4 were notified on 14 June 2018.

Where an error or anomaly required further research and investigation, there were various possible scenarios or corrections, or where the impact of the correction was unclear, these issues were excluded from PC 4.

At the conclusion of the preparation of PC 4 the council was left with a list of issues which required further investigation for potential inclusion in a plan change that had broader scope than PC 4. Additionally, a range of issues across the AUP continued to be added to the register. Consequently, the council decided to prepare a series of follow up plan changes to PC 4 to continue to address technical issues within the AUP.

The series of proposed follow up plan changes, which PC 15 is part of, are proposed to have a slightly broader scope than PC 4. This is to enable a number of the technical issues that did not meet the criteria for inclusion within PC 4 to be addressed.

1.3 The resource management issue to be addressed

The resource management issue to be addressed through PC 15 is the uncertainty and inefficiency caused by the identified technical issues and the identified gaps in the horizontal and vertical alignment of provisions. The plan change will improve the workability of the plan and ensure that the AUP functions in an integrated way.


69

The identified technical issues are creating confusion for plan users1 and increasing the likelihood of debate and litigation when administering the AUP. The identified technical issues are also impacting on the integrity of the AUP by compromising the ability to fully implement the plan as intended.

1.4 Objectives of the proposed plan change

An evaluation under section 32 of the RMA must examine the extent to which the objectives of PC 15 are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA. The objective of PC 15, or the purpose of the plan change, is to address the identified technical issues outlined in ‘section 6: Evaluation of plan change provisions’, to ensure:

• the wording of provisions is clear and unambiguous; • the provisions of the AUP cascade vertically and horizontally; • the plan functions in the way it was intended; and • there is a high level of integration across the different chapters of the AUP.

The plan change should assist the council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA, being to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

The evaluation of the identified amendments to the AUP concludes that these are technical issues which have the potential to create confusion for plan users. The uncertainty or ambiguity created by the current provisions identified in section 6 impacts on the functionality and workability of the AUP and increases the risk of debate and litigation when administering the AUP. Amending the AUP to resolve these identified issues is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA, as outlined in the evaluation of options below.

1.5 Identification of options

Section 32 of the RMA requires an examination of whether the provisions in PC 15 are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the proposed plan change by identifying other reasonably practicable options for achieving the objective. In the preparation of PC 15, the following options have been identified:

Option 1 – Adopt a ‘do nothing’ approach (retain the status quo) with no change to the plan provisions.

Option 2 – Utilise non-regulatory methods to achieve the objective.

Option 3 – Undertake regulatory methods – a plan change to amend the identified technical issues in respect of the provisions identified in Section 6 (Evaluation of plan change provisions) of this report.

Option 4 – Undertake other regulatory methods – address technical issues at a later date, as part of a full AUP review.

1 Council’s resource consents department and external planning practitioners involved in consenting processes as well as the property owners themselves.


70

1.6 Evaluation of options

Option 1 – Adopt a ‘do nothing’ approach (retain the status quo)

The ‘do nothing’ option means the technical issues which have the potential to compromise the integrity of the AUP will not be addressed. By not amending the AUP, ambiguous provisions will continue to cause confusion for plan users increasing the risk of debate and litigation while implementing the plan. The AUP will continue to have gaps in the horizontal and vertical alignment of provisions that affect the ability of the AUP to promote the purpose of the RMA in an integrated way.

Option 2 – Non-regulatory methods

Non-regulatory methods to address the identified technical issues include practice notes, guidance or interpretation notes. This option is an alternative to addressing technical issues through a plan change.

Option 3 – Regulatory methods – A plan change to amend the identified technical issues.

This option will address the identified technical issues within the AUP, through a statutory process. The statutory plan change process allows the technical issues to be addressed in a clear and legally robust process.

Option 4 – Other regulatory methods – Address technical issues at a later date, as part of a full AUP review

Other regulatory methods to address the identified technical issues include waiting to amend the AUP to address the identified technical issues as part of the full plan review. This would involve incorporating the amendments proposed to address the technical issues into the review of the AUP which is approximately five to ten years away.

Table 1.2 - Summary of the analysis of the plan change under section 32(2) of the RMA.

Options Efficiency and effectiveness

Costs Benefits

Option 1: Adopt a ‘do-nothing’ approach (retain the status quo)

The do-nothing option is not an effective or efficient option to achieve the objectives of PC 15 (to address technical issues to remove ambiguity and ensure the provisions align both vertically and horizontally across the AUP). The identified issues are a result of the current wording of

If users of the AUP interpret the AUP differentially because of the identified technical issues, there can be both an economic and environmental cost.

The need to clarify the identified technical issues will slow down the consenting

As a plan change is not pursued under this option, there is no financial burden on the council to undertake a public plan change.

This option allows the council more time to collate further technical issues and research appropriate solutions.

There is a risk that in


71


Costs Benefits

provisions and have arisen as the plan has been used. This option will do nothing to address the identified issues which are compromising the ability to implement the plan as intended. This option will also lead to inefficient implementation of the AUP as the plan users will have to clarify technical issues on a case by case basis.

process. There is also the potential for litigation and debate over the meaning of provisions. This in turn limits the productivity of the AUP.

The identified technical issues compromise the ability to implement the plan as intended. This could result in outcomes that are not aligned with the objectives and policies of the AUP and in turn the purpose of the RMA.

trying to address an issue a further issue can be created. With no action, this can be prevented.

Option 2: Non- regulatory methods

Non-regulatory methods include practice notes, guidance or interpretation notes which do not have any statutory weight. This legal status may limit the effectiveness of this option in achieving the objectives of PC 15 as the guidance contained within non-statutory guidance can be challenged or ignored. Furthermore guidance notes themselves are open to interpretation and therefore there is a risk that these non-statutory documents have the potential to impact on the integrity and public opinion of the AUP.

Due to the non-statutory nature of practice notes, guidance or interpretation notes there is the potential for there is both an economic and environmental cost.

Non-statutory guidance may be challenged and ignored by plan users, which could slow down the consenting process and increase the potential for litigation and debate over the meaning of provisions. This in turn limits the productivity of the AUP.

The identified technical issues compromise the ability to implement the plan as intended. If non-statutory guidance is ignored or

This option requires limited staff time and resourcing, compared to a plan change. It also allows technical issues to be addressed in a timely manner as practice notes, guidance or interpretation notes do not need to go through a statutory process.


72


Costs Benefits

challenged this could result in outcomes that are not aligned with the objectives and policies of the AUP, and in turn the purpose of the RMA.

Option 3: Regulatory Methods - A plan change to amend the identified technical issues in respect of the provisions identified in Section 6

A plan change can effectively address the technical issues identified in the AUP to remove ambiguity within the provisions and ensure there is both vertical and horizontal alignment across the plan. Through undertaking four plan changes based on the structure of the plan, a more efficient process can be followed, in comparison to processing a series of numerous smaller discrete plan changes addressing individual issues. It also ensures that similar issues can be grouped together while stopping the plan change from getting so large that it is difficult to manage and hard for plan users to interpret.

By addressing the identified technical issues within the AUP, consenting should become more efficient.

The plan can be implemented as intended which ensures that the outcomes reflect the objectives and policies of the AUP and also the purpose of the RMA.

At present, PC 15 can be resourced through existing staff budgets. Depending on the submissions received and the issues that arise there may be the potential for higher costs in the future.

Option 4: Other regulatory methods – Address technical issues at a later date, as part of a full AUP review

This option involves a comprehensive review of the AUP which allows the identified technical issues to be comprehensively reviewed at the same time. Although it is efficient to review the issues as part of a

As the technical issues will remain in the AUP until it is reviewed the environmental and economic costs that are associated with these issues will remain.

The need to clarify the

This option is cost efficient in that the technical issues can be addressed as part of a wider review of the AUP. As the timeframe for the review, however, is more than five years away, the costs of the technical


73


Costs Benefits

wider review of the plan, this is not an effective approach as the issues will remain unresolved for the next five to ten years.

identified technical issues will slow down the consenting process. There is also the potential for litigation and debate over the meaning of provisions. This in turn limits the productivity of the AUP.

The identified technical issues compromise the ability to implement the plan as intended. This could result in outcomes that are not aligned with the objectives and policies of the AUP and in turn the purpose of the RMA.

issues will significantly outweigh the benefits. These costs include costs caused by difficulty in plan interpretation.

1.7 Risk of acting or not acting

Section 32(2)(c) of the RMA requires this evaluation to assess the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the provisions. There is considered to be sufficient information about the technical issues being addressed through PC 15 to proceed with the plan change.

This evaluation will continue to be refined in relation to any new information that may arise following notification, including during hearings on PC 15, as required by RMA section 32AA.

2. Reasons for the proposed plan change

2.1 Reasons for the preferred option

The evaluation of options above concludes that a plan change is most appropriate option to address the identified technical issues.

Option 1, which is to maintain the status quo, is not recommended. The technical issues can result in differing interpretations of the AUP, delay consenting and have an overall impact on the functionality and integrity of the AUP.


74

Option 2 which is to rely on a non-statutory approach, such as guidance material, is not recommended as this type of guidance does not have statutory standing and therefore can be challenged. This can reduce any gains in efficiencies in plan administration and also pose a reputational risk to the integrity of the AUP.

Both regulatory options (options 3 and 4) allow technical issues to be addressed in a legally robust manner and increase efficiencies in the administration of the AUP. While Option 4 is more holistic and cost efficient in the longer term, in the immediate term the issues will remain unresolved. Timeliness is an important dimension in addressing the issue as the potential costs and risks posed by these technical issues are significant and have a real impact on the way the coast is used in the present. Through proceeding with Option 3, the issues can be resolved so that the plan can be efficiently administered.

2.2 Scope of plan change

The scope of PC 15 is limited to addressing the technical issues (outlined in section 1.1 of this report) that are compromising the ability of plan users to efficiently interpret the AUP, and to ensure the subject provisions give effect to the objectives and policies of the AUP.

As such, the scope of PC 15 generally includes:

• Amendments to provisions that are ambiguous or unclear; • Amendments to provisions to achieve vertical and horizontal alignment across the

AUP where there are current gaps or a misalignment of provisions; and • Amendments to improve integration of different chapters within the AUP.

PC 15 does not seek to alter the current policy direction of the plan. It will not alter the intent of the objectives and policies nor will it seek to add new objectives and policies. PC 15 does make minor changes to two objectives (F2.13.2(2) and F2.14.2(9)) and to five policies (F2.10.3(3), F2.13.3(2) and (3), F2.14.3(3) and F2.16.3(24)) that do not alter the policy direction of the objectives and policies.

3. Statutory evaluation under Part II and relevant sections of the RMA

3.1 Part 2 of the RMA and relevant sections of the RMA

The purpose of the RMA is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, as defined in section 5(2) of the RMA. The coastal provisions are required to achieve the purpose of the RMA.

In addition to the overall purpose of the RMA set out above, sections 6, 7 and 8 of the RMA identify, respectively, matters of national importance that shall be recognised and provided for, matters to which particular regard shall be had, and the requirement to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.


75

A number of the matters in Part 2 of the RMA are of particular significance to the coastal environment. This plan change does not affect the degree to which the AUP addresses these matters as it does not change the policy direction of the plan.

3.2 Other relevant sections of the RMA

There are relevant sections of the RMA that must be considered in context of the proposed plan change:

• Section 30 – Functions of regional councils under this Act • Section 63 – Purpose of regional plans • Section 66 – Matters to be considered by regional councils (plans) • Section 67 – Contents of regional plans • Section 68 – Regional rules • Section 79 – Review of policy statements and plans • Section 80 – Combined regional and district documents

3.3 Provisions with immediate legal effect

Sections 86B to 86G of the RMA specify when a rule in a proposed plan has legal effect.

When deciding the date a plan change takes effect, the RMA provides in section 86B(1) that ‘a rule in a proposed plan has legal effect only once a decision on submissions relating to the rule is made and publicly notified’. Exceptions are provided for in section 86B(3), ‘a rule in a proposed plan has immediate legal effect if the rule –

(a) protects or relates to water, air, or soil (for soil conservation); or (b) protects areas of significant indigenous vegetation; or (c) protects areas of significant habitats of indigenous fauna; or (d) protects historic heritage; or (e) provides for or relates to aquaculture activities.’

Certain types of rules in the AUP have immediate legal effect from the date of notification of PC 15, provided that they fit within section 86B(3) of the RMA. Immediate legal effect means that a rule must be complied with from the day the proposed rule (or change) is notified.

All of the rules that are in PC 15 will have immediate legal effect on and from the date on which the PC 15 is publicly notified because they are all regional coastal plan provisions and so all ‘relate to water’ in terms of section 86B(3)(a).

4. National and regional planning context

In addition to the statutory evaluation detailed in section 3 of this report, there are a number of other statutes, regulations, national directives, policies and plans that are of relevance to PC 15.


76

4.1 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

Section 67(3) of the RMA requires that a regional plan must give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS). PC 15 is limited to addressing identified technical issues as set out in section 1.1 of this report to ensure the subject provisions give effect to the objectives and policies of the AUP. PC 15 does not seek to alter the current policy direction of the plan, and therefore no amendment in PC 15 will alter how the AUP gives effect to the NZCPS.

4.2 National policy statements

National policy statements are instruments issued under section 52(2) of the RMA and state objectives and policies for matters of national significance. There are four national policy statements in place:

• National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity • National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management • National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation • National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission

At present, the Ministry for the Environment is in the process of developing a proposed National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity.

Sections 62(3), 67(3) and 75(3) of the RMA require that a regional policy statement, regional plan and district plan must give effect to any national policy statements.

PC 15 has a narrow purpose and seeks to amend technical issues within Chapter F Coastal, Chapter J Definitions, Appendix 7 and the AUP viewer through amending the provisions identified within Attachment 1. PC 15 is proposing amendments that are technical in nature and will not change the overall policy direction of the plan. Consequently, PC 15 gives effect to the purpose and principles of the national policy statements listed above.

4.3 National environmental standards

There are currently six national environmental standards in force as regulations:

• National Environmental Standards for Air Quality • National Environmental Standard for Sources of Drinking Water • National Environmental Standards for Telecommunication Facilities • National Environmental Standards for Electricity Transmission Activities • National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil

to Protect Human Health • National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry

At present, the Ministry for Primary Industries and Ministry for the Environment are in the process of developing a Proposed National Environmental Standard for Marine Aquaculture. A Proposed National Environmental Standard on Ecological Flows and Water Levels was developed by the Ministry for the Environment in 2008. This proposed NES is currently on hold, pending decisions on the Government’s freshwater reform programme.


77

Section 44A of the RMA requires a local authority to recognise national environmental standards.

PC 15 has a narrow purpose and seeks to amend technical issues within Chapter F Coastal, Chapter J Definitions, Appendix 7 and the AUP viewer through amending the provisions identified within Attachment 1. PC 15 is proposing amendments that are technical in nature and will not change the overall policy direction of the plan. Consequently, PC 15 is consistent with the purpose and principles of the national environmental standards listed above.

4.4 Other Acts and Regulations

Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000

The purpose of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (HGMPA) is to integrate the management of the national, historic and physical resources of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, and to recognise the relationship of the tangata whenua with the Hauraki Gulf and its islands. It also established the Hauraki Gulf Forum and the Park itself, and set out objectives for the management of the Gulf, its islands and catchments. The HGMPA establishes that the objectives of the HGMPA must be given effect to in a regional or district plan.

PC 15 is limited to addressing identified technical issues as set out in section 1.1 of this report to ensure the subject provisions give effect to the objectives and policies of the AUP. PC 15 does not seek to alter the current policy direction of the plan, and therefore no amendment in PC 15 will alter how the AUP gives effect to the HGMPA.

Local Government Act 2002

Council’s functions and powers are derived from the purpose of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). The LGA mandates the purpose, funding, and governance duties of the council. There are also additional responsibilities for Auckland Council under the provisions of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, including the preparation of a spatial plan.

Section 12 of the LGA states that a local authority has full capacity to carry on or undertake any activity or business, do any, or enter into any transaction with full rights, powers and privileges subject to any other enactment and the general law.

PC 15 is prepared under the RMA and overall is consistent with the LGA.

Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010

The purpose of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA) is to resolve further matters relating to the reorganisation of local government in Auckland begun under the Local Government (Tāmaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Act 2009 and continued under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009.

In s3(2)(d) of the LGATPA it states this Act “provides a process for the development of the first combined planning document for Auckland Council under the RMA”.


78

Part 4 (sections 115-171) of the LGATPA outlines the process for development of the combined plan for Auckland Council. The development of the first combined plan followed the legislation set out in LGATPA, and the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) was set-up under the LGATPA.

Although the AUP is now operative in part, and PC 15 is prepared under the RMA, the purpose of the plan change is to address technical issues that have arisen from the development of the first combined plan process. Consequently reference is made to the material developed in this process to support the proposed amendments included in PC 15.

Resource Management (Marine Pollution) Regulations 1998

The Resource Management (Marine Pollution) Regulations 1998 control dumping and discharges from ships and off-shore installations in the coastal marine area. The Regulations deal with the dumping and incineration of waste, and discharges from vessels including oil, garbage and sewage. Certain forms of dumping and discharges are specified as permitted, discretionary or prohibited activities. The Regulations specify where a regional coastal plan may include a rule relating to the matters covered in the Regulations.

PC 15 is proposing to amend technical issues as set out in section 1.1 of this report. It does not change the overall policy direction of the plan. The plan change does not include any changes to the matters covered by the Regulations.

4.5 The Auckland Plan

The Auckland Plan (2012) is a 30 year strategy for Auckland’s future growth and development required under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. The Auckland Plan is a strategy prepared under other legislation to which regard should be had pursuant to section 74(2)(b)(i) of the RMA. The Auckland Plan specifically identifies the AUP as a means of implementing the Auckland Plan.

The overall vision stated in the Auckland Plan (2012) is for Auckland to become the world’s most liveable city. The Auckland Plan (2012) identifies the need to achieve a balance between increasing the development potential of land in Auckland, and ensuring the protection of historic and natural heritage, integration with infrastructure, resilience to natural hazards and enabling housing choice. The RPS broadly gives effect to the strategic direction set out in the Auckland Plan.

The Auckland Plan has recently been reviewed to respond to planning framework changes since 2012, including the Unitary Plan decisions. The Auckland Plan 2050 (2018) is now available. The new plan sets out three key challenges Auckland will face over the next 30 years – our high population growth and its various impacts, sharing prosperity across all Aucklanders, and reducing environmental degradation. The plan is framed around six outcomes and a development strategy. The development strategy sets out how Auckland will grow and change over the next 30 years, including sequencing of growth and development.

The strategic directions in the Auckland Plan (2012) influenced the regional policy statement which the coastal provisions contained within Chapter F give effect to. The amendments to


79

address the matters set out in section 1.1 of this report are technical in nature and do not change the way in which the AUP implements the strategic direction of the Auckland Plan (2012) or the Auckland Plan 2050 (2018).

4.6 Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part)

When preparing or changing a regional plan or district plan, council must give effect to any RPS and have regard to any proposed RPS. The RPS in Chapter B of the AUP identifies a number of issues of regional significance. Several of these are relevant to PC 15, including those in:

B2: Tāhuhu whakaruruhau ā-taone - Urban growth and form

B8: Toitū te taiwhenua - Coastal environment

PC 15 is limited to addressing identified technical issues as set out in section 1.1 of this report to ensure the subject provisions give effect to the objectives and policies of the AUP. PC 15 does not seek to alter the current policy direction of the plan, and therefore the provisions will still give effect to the RPS.

4.7 Iwi management plans

Iwi management plan (IMP) is a term commonly applied to a resource management plan prepared by an iwi, iwi authority, rūnanga or hapū. IMPs are generally prepared as an expression of rangatiratanga to help iwi and hapū exercise their kaitiaki roles and responsibilities. IMPs are a written statement identifying important issues regarding the use of natural and physical resources in their area.

The RMA describes an iwi management plan as "…a relevant planning document recognised by an iwi authority and lodged with the council". IMPs must be taken into account when preparing or changing regional policy statements and regional and district plans (sections 61(2A)(a), 66(2A)(a), and 74(2A) of the RMA).

Council is aware that the following iwi authorities have an iwi management plan:

• Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

• Te Kawerau-a-Maki • Ngāti Rehua • Ngāti Paoa

• Waikato – Tainui

• Ngāti Te Ata • Ngātiwai

• Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

• Te Uri o Hau

PC 15 is limited to addressing identified technical issues as set out in section 1.1 of this report to ensure the subject provisions give effect to the objectives and policies of the AUP. PC 15 does not seek to alter the current policy direction of the plan, and therefore the


80

provisions will not change the degree to which the AUP addresses matters in an iwi management plan.

5. Development of proposed plan change

5.1 Develop the scope of PC 15

First, council developed a statement on the scope of PC 15. This is outlined in section 1.1 of this report. The statement on scope provided the criteria to determine which issues could be included in PC 15.

5.2 Review of issues

A project team was established to review the issues that were out of scope of PC 4 in addition to the issues that continued to be identified by both staff and members of the public. A scope statement for PC 15 was developed to guide this review.

The project team undertook a review of the potential issues registered at the time to determine one of the following courses of action:

a) Correct the error through clause 16(2) or clause 20A; b) No further action; or c) Address the issue through PC 15.

In recommending an appropriate course of action the project team considered the following four criteria:

1. Technical or policy matter

As outlined in section 1.1 of this report, PC 15 is limited to amending technical issues to improve the usability of the AUP, its clarity, and its overall integration. However, many of the registered issues related to dissatisfaction with various policy directions within the plan. Therefore the first task was to determine if the issues were technical or policy matters.

A technical issue is where a change is required so that the AUP will function in the way it was intended. The amendment of technical issues will not, by themselves, result in any substantive changes to the plan provisions. Technical issues may include:

- Format and language changes to clarify provisions or policies where the intent is not clear; and

- Amendments to achieve vertical or horizontal integration and alignment.

2. Vertical or horizontal integration and alignment

It is essential to the effectiveness of the AUP that it promotes the purpose of the RMA in an integrated way. This integration must also address the regional, coastal and district functions of the council. This means that to support integration and to align provisions where they are related, the plan should have vertical or horizontal integration and alignment.


81

Many of the issues identified relate to a gap within the vertical or horizontal alignment of provisions through the AUP. To remediate these issues amendments are required in one of three directions:

i. Down through provisions to give effect to a policy; ii. Up from methods to fill the absence of a policy direction; and iii. Across sections to achieve consistency of restrictions or assessments and the

removal of duplicate controls.

3. Complexity of the issue

Once the project team had established whether the issues were technical or policy matters, they considered the complexity of the issue. This was in order to determine whether it was appropriate to address particular issues through an omnibus plan change (i.e. one that covered multiple issues) or whether an issue may be of a scale to warrant its own plan change.

As an example, it was decided that complex issues which relied on certainty of other parts of the plan (such as precincts) have a level of complexity that sits outside the scope of this plan change.

4. Alternative options

For many issues, there are alternative options available to resolving the issue, other than a change to the plan. The project team considered the alternative options in determining the course of action for each registered issue.

The alternative options include non-statutory methods such as practice notes, guidance or interpretation notes. Non-statutory methods have been utilised where guidance has been needed promptly. In many instances this non-statutory guidance has satisfactorily clarified the provisions thereby resolving the issue. Where this is the case, the council has not pursued amendments to the plan.

In some instances the issues relate to provisions that are the subject of appeals before the courts. There has occasionally been scope to fix the issue through that process.

Another alternative option is to take no further action in relation to an issue. This has been the recommended course of action where the council does not agree that there is enough evidence to show that this is an issue and will monitor the provisions to determine if a change is warranted in future.

In some limited circumstances, an amendment via PC 15 is not required as the issue may have been resolved via another process such as a separate plan change. Therefore no change is required to the AUP.

Results of the review of registered issues

As a result of this review the following courses of action were recommended:

• 160 errors were amended using clause 20A or clause 16;


82

• 143 errors via another process (such as the appeals process or internal interpretation/guidance/practice notes);

• 136 potential matters were not progressed and had no further action; and • 301 potential issues required further investigation for potential inclusion in a plan

change that had broader scope than PC 4.

The recommendations of the project team were audited by a review panel comprising of senior managers, representatives from the council’s legal and resource consents departments, and Auckland Transport. The review panel sought to ensure the issues proposed to be included within PC 15 were within scope of the plan change and most appropriately addressed by the plan change.

5.3 Development of proposed amendments

Issue definition

The issues proposed for inclusion within PC 15 have been recorded verbatim from the original source email. As a first step the project team grouped similar issues and clarified the issues so that it was clear what the plan change is trying to achieve.

Research and collection of evidence

Once the issues had been clearly defined, the project team undertook background research to determine how the issue had come about and to build up an evidence basis to support or reject proposed amendments to the plan.

Depending on the issue, this process included reviewing recent consent decisions, seeking input from experts, undertaking site visits, consulting with internal and external stakeholders. The consultation is outlined in section 5.4 of this report.

Development of first draft of proposed amendments and draft section 32 evaluation

The project team drafted amendments to the AUP to address the various issues and documented the section 32 evaluation process.

Identify affected sections of the plan

The project team then identified an initial index of the sections of the AUP affected by proposed amendments to address the identified issues. The purpose of the index was to ensure that consequential amendments could be identified and to identify any crossover between different workstreams. It was also used in consulting with stakeholders to determine areas of interest.

Stakeholder review of draft amendments and section 32 evaluation

The proposed amendments and draft section 32 evaluation report was circulated to internal stakeholders for comment and feedback. The internal stakeholders included plan users across the council and council controlled organisations including the resource consents department, Auckland Transport, Watercare, Healthy Waters, Parks Services and Legal Services.


83

Upon receiving this feedback, the proposed amendments and section 32 evaluation report were further refined.

5.4 Consultation undertaken

In accordance with clause 3 of Schedule 1 of the RMA, during the preparation of a proposed policy statement or plan, a council is required to consult with:

a) the Minister for the Environment; and b) those other Ministers of the Crown who may be affected by the policy statement or

plan; and c) local authorities who may be so affected; and d) the tangata whenua of the area who may be so affected, through iwi authorities; and e) any customary marine title group in the area.

A local authority may consult anyone else during the preparation of a proposed policy statement or plan.

A regional council which is preparing a regional coastal plan shall also consult:

a) the Minister of Conservation generally as to the content of the plan, and with particular respect to those activities to be described as restricted coastal activities in the proposed plan; and

b) the Minister of Transport in relation to matters to do with navigation and the Minister’s functions under Parts 18 to 27 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994; and

c) the Minister of Fisheries in relation to fisheries management, and the management of aquaculture activities.

Summary of general consultation undertaken

As PC 15 is focused on technical matters and does not include any shift in policy direction, no consultation was undertaken with the wider community prior to notification of the plan change.

Staff advised members of the public and internal staff within the council who had sent in potential issues to the email address ([email protected]) to advise them on the course of action in response to the issue raised. A number of these customers were advised that their potential issue would be addressed as part of a plan change process.

A draft version of PC 15 and its draft section 32 report was sent on 15 August 2018 to the relevant Ministers of the Crown listed in clause 3 of schedule 1 of the RMA. The plan was sent to the Minister for the Environment, Minister of Conservation, Minister for Biosecurity, Minister of Fisheries, Ministry for the Environment, the Department of Conservation and the Ministry for Primary Industries. A letter of support was received from the Minister for Biosecurity. Teleconference meetings were held with staff from Department of Conservation and the Ministry for Primary Industries to discuss several matters.


84

A draft copy of PC 15 and its section 32 evaluation report were also sent to a targeted group of stakeholders who had been involved in the coastal topic for the AUP Independent Hearings Panel process. These stakeholders included the New Zealand Defence Force, Ports of Auckland Ltd, marina operators and several infrastructure providers (New Zealand Transport Agency, Transpower, Kiwirail, Spark, Chorus and Vector). Feedback was received from several of these parties and the draft plan change was amended in response.

Consultation with iwi authorities

Clause 3(1)(d) of Schedule 1 to the RMA states that local authorities shall consult with tangata whenua of the area who may be so affected, through iwi authorities, during the preparation of a proposed policy statement or plan.

Due to the nature and scale of PC 15, council staff have identified, through the mana whenua-defined rohe maps, the following iwi authorities who the council must consult with on the content of the plan change:

• Ngāti Wai • Ngāti Manuhiri • Ngāti Rehua • Te Runanga o Ngāti Whātua • Te Uri o Hau • Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara • Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei • Te Kawerau a Maki • Ngāti Tamaoho • Te Akitai Waiohua • Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua • Te Ahiwaru • Ngai Tai ki Tāmaki • Ngāti Paoa • Ngāti Whanaunga • Ngāti Maru • Ngāti Tamaterā • Te Patukirikiri • Waikato-Tainui

Clause 4A of Schedule 1 to the RMA states that local authorities must:

• Provide a copy of a draft proposed policy statement or plan to iwi authorities to consider

• Have regard to feedback provided by iwi authorities on the draft proposed policy statement or plan

• Provide iwi authorities with sufficient time to consider the draft policy statement or plan.

In addition to the above, recent legislation changes to the RMA introduced section 32(4A):


85

(4A) If the proposal is a proposed policy statement, plan, or change prepared in accordance with any of the processes provided for in Schedule 1, the evaluation report must—

(a) summarise all advice concerning the proposal received from iwi authorities under the relevant provisions of Schedule 1; and

(b) summarise the response to the advice, including any provisions of the proposal that are intended to give effect to the advice.

A copy of the draft plan change and a draft of this section 32 evaluation report were provided to the iwi authorities in the Auckland region on 14 August 2018 (along with the draft plan changes relating to the AUP Zones and the AUP GIS viewer). The only response received was from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei who were supportive of the proposed plan changes. A hui was held with the planning representative from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei to discuss the key points in the plan change.

6. Evaluation of plan change provisions

In accordance with section 32(1)(b) of the RMA, an evaluation report is required to examine whether the provisions in PC 15 are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of PC 15 and therein, the purpose of the RMA.

PC 15 introduces changes within Chapter F Coastal, Chapter J Definitions, Appendix 7 and the AUP viewer to the provisions identified in Attachment 1. PC 15 relies on the existing objectives and policies of the AUP. The proposed amendments can be categorised as shown in Table 6.1

Table 6.1 Summary of amendments and their purpose.


1. Accidental discovery rule

Clarifying that the accidental discovery rule applies in the coastal marine area.

2. Marina date inconsistency

Addressing the inconsistency in dates in the marina extension objective and rules (i.e. date the plan was notified or made operative).

3. Sediment quality indicators

Clarifying which sediment quality indicators are referred to in the coastal discharges background section.

4. Reclamation, structures and minor infrastructure upgrades

Clarifying how the provisions for reclamation, structures and minor infrastructure upgrades apply to facilities such as seawalls. This includes a consequential change to Chapter E26 Infrastructure.

5. Functional need and existing structures

Clarifying whether the non-complying activity rule for activities that do not have a functional need to be in the coastal marine area applies to re-consenting activities in or on existing structures and extensions to such structures.


86


6. Exclusive occupation Clarifying whether consent is needed for exclusive occupation in areas where there are permitted activities for some structures.

7. Existing occupation consents

Clarifying whether consent is needed for new activities in areas that have an existing occupation consent.

8. Activity tables overlaps and inconsistencies

Addressing several overlaps and inconsistencies in the activity tables that mean it is not clear whether a proposal is to be addressed under multiple rules or not (in particular the rules for structures, disturbance, and use of the coastal marine area).

9. Discharges from hull bio-fouling and vessel maintenance

Simplifying and clarifying the provisions for discharges of hull bio-fouling from vessel cleaning and passive discharge to make the rules more effective; and clarifying that any hull cleaning that results in discharges of bio-fouling to the coastal marine area is captured by the rules for discharges from vessel cleaning.

10. Coastal marine area boundary points at rivers

Correcting the grid references in Appendix 7 (coastal marine area boundaries) to remove the inconsistency between the appendix and the GIS viewer maps; and adding a new ‘information’ map layer to show the Appendix 7 points as dots where the indicative coastline crosses the listed rivers.

11. Fire and Emergency Amending the provisions to replace ‘The New Zealand Fire Service’ with ‘Fire and Emergency New Zealand’.

12. Infrastructure affecting use of the Mooring Zone

Clarifying that policy F2.16.3(24) relates to infrastructure that affects access to a Mooring Zone as well as use of moorings within a Mooring Zone.

13. Aquaculture rules and definitions

Amending the aquaculture rules and definitions so that they use consistent wording.

14. Discharges to water default rules

Clarifying that the two rules for discharges to water ‘not otherwise provided for’ relate to whether the standards are met or not.

15. Dredging, disturbance and depositing inconsistencies

Addressing the inconsistencies in the related rules and standards for dredging, disturbance and depositing material.

16. Boat ramps Specifying ‘boat ramps’ in a separate activity table line due to the confusion regarding whether they are within the rule for ‘marine and port accessory structure and services’.

17. Significant infrastructure

Amending the references to ‘significant infrastructure’ to ‘infrastructure’ to be consistent with the rest of the AUP.

The evaluation that follows relates to these themes.


87

6.1 Theme 1: Accidental discovery rule

Chapter of the AUP Chapter F Coastal

Sub-section of the AUP F2 Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone

Specific provision/s F2.1 Zone description

New standard F2.21.1.4

6.1.1 Status quo and problem statement

The AUP accidental discovery rules (in E11 Land disturbance – Regional, E12 Land disturbance – District, and E26 Infrastructure) ensure that if sensitive material is found during land disturbance, work will stop until the appropriate actions are taken to protect the site. However, these rules will not be triggered by any activity in the coastal marine area, including works that disturb the foreshore and seabed, because they are not part of the regional coastal plan component of the AUP.

This is an issue because archaeological and other heritage sites can extend into the coastal marine area, for example, shipwrecks, remains of foreshore structures, stone working sites in the intertidal zone, or midden or burial sites that are eroding. The accidental discovery rules also apply to protected New Zealand objects (including fossils and sub-fossils) and lava caves, and these also can extend beyond the line of mean high water springs into the coastal marine area.

The anomaly (of the accidental discovery rules applying on land and not in the coastal marine area) is an unintended consequence of the accidental discovery rule being moved during the IHP hearings process from the General Provisions section of the AUP to the land disturbance and infrastructure chapters. The Panel’s recommendation report summarised the recommended change to the proposed plan as follows:

“Confirming that all accidental discovery rules are consolidated into one standard included in E11 Land disturbance – Regional and E12 Land disturbance – District and are replicated in the consolidated infrastructure chapter E26 Infrastructure.” 2

“Structural changes to the Plan and decisions made in other topics have resulted in changes in policy direction or changes such as relocation of some provisions, for example, accidental discovery protocols and infrastructure rules.”3

“For example, accidental discovery protocols arose in Topic 031 Historic heritage and Topic 038 Contaminated land. There was general agreement that these provisions should be Auckland-wide rules and relocated to E11 Land disturbance - Regional

2 Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel 2016. Report to Auckland Council Hearing topics 036 and 037 Māori Land and Treaty, and Mana Whenua sites July 2016; page 4. 3 Ibid, page 5.


88

and E12 Land disturbance - District (see also rule 26.7.5.1 Network utilities). The Panel also simplified the consolidated land disturbance rules for accidental discovery (See the Panel’s Report to Auckland Council – Hearing topic 041 Earthworks and minerals July 2016.) These rules provide for Mana Whenua to be informed if the discovery is an archaeological site, Māori cultural artefact or kōiwi. Activity table D21.4.1 Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Overlay cross-references to these land disturbance rules.”4

There is currently a note in the description section for the General Coastal Marine Zone indicating that the accidental discovery protocols do apply in the coastal marine area. F2.1 Zone description states:

“Any site or place of significance to Mana Whenua that are identified prior to, or discovered during use and development in coastal marine area, must comply with accidental discovery rules in E11 land Disturbance – Regional and E12 land disturbance – District.”

In the notified version of the Unitary Plan, the equivalent description section referred to ‘clause 2.5 of the General Provisions’ which was the accidental discovery protocol. There does not appear to be any recognition in the IHP recommendations reports that moving the accidental discovery protocol would mean it no longer applied in the coastal marine area. The IHP amendment to the note at the beginning of F2.1 (to refer to E11 and E12 instead of clause 2.5 of the General Provisions) indicates that the Panel intended the accidental discovery rule to apply in the coastal marine area. There is, however, no rule within the AUP regional coastal plan rules that applies the note in the F2.1 description. It is unclear whether the note would be applied without a rule to implement it. The council accepted the IHP recommendations and did not make any amendments that affected this matter.

The omission of the accidental discovery rule from the coastal plan rules is an error, and requires amending to provide consistency and clarity within the AUP. Amendments to address this gap are within the scope of this plan change as the Plan already indicates that the rules apply in the coastal marine area. There is no policy shift in ensuring that the rules are consistent with the zone description and with the IHP intention that the accidental discovery rules apply to ‘any kind of land disturbance’, presumably including disturbance in the coastal marine area. The proposed amendments will improve the usability of the AUP as the F2.1 zone description will be consistent with rules of F2 Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone.

6.1.2 Outline of the proposal options

Option 1 – Make no change to the existing provisions.

Option 2 – Replicate the accidental discovery rule (from E11, E12 and E26) in Chapter F2 General Coastal Marine Zone with minor amendments to correspond to coastal marine area activities rather than land disturbance. This option includes making the following amendments to the AUP:

4 Ibid, page 6.


89

• Amend ‘F2.1 Zone description’ to change the reference to ‘sites or places of significance to Mana Whenua’ to a fuller list of the matters covered by the accidental discovery rules.

• Insert a new standard into F2.21.1 (‘All permitted activities, controlled activities and restricted discretionary activities’) that duplicates the accidental discovery rules in E11, E12 and E26 but with modifications so that the rule relates to relevant activities in the coastal marine area. The modifications include using ‘disturbance of the foreshore and seabed’ rather than ‘earthworks’, and including additional points relating to the discovery of unknown material on the seabed such as munitions, cables and pipelines. The requirements in point (3) that refer to ‘the owner of the site or the consent holder’ is amended to replace ‘owner’ with ‘the party undertaking the relevant permitted activity’ as it is quite unusual for the coastal marine area to be privately owned. The point (3)(f)(iii) need to comply with the contaminated land requirements (in E30 Contaminated Land and the National Environmental Standards for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health 2011) are not included as they are not designed to apply to foreshore and seabed disturbance.

• The new text uses ‘activities in the coastal marine area’, to replace ‘land disturbance’, because the AUP definition of ‘coastal marine area disturbance’ excludes dredging, mineral extraction, depositing of material and disposal of material. These activities could lead to the accidental discovery of sensitive material, so a more general term than ‘coastal marine area disturbance is needed.

Option 3 – Amend F2 with a new standard that cross-references to the accidental discovery rules in E11 Land disturbance - Regional. This option includes making the following amendments to the AUP:

• Amend ‘F2.1 Zone description’ as per Option 2 • Insert a new standard into F2.21.1 as follows: “refer to E11 Land disturbance

– Regional – Standard E11.6.1 Accidental discovery rule”. A similar cross-reference is used in ‘D21.6.1. Accidental discovery rules’ in D21 Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Overlay. The General Coastal Marine Zone activity tables and standards already include several cross references to other chapters such as the noise, lighting and hazardous substances provisions.

• Annotate the heading of ‘E11.6.1 Accidental discovery rules’ with “[rcp/rp]” to show that it is part of the regional coastal plan.

• Amend E11 so that references to ‘earthworks’ also include disturbance of the foreshore and seabed and other works in the coastal marine area.


90

6.1.3 Evaluation of the proposal against its objectives

Table 6.2 Summary of analysis under section 32(2) of the RMA for Theme 1: Accidental discovery rule.


Costs Benefits

Option 1: Make no change to the existing provisions.

The current provisions are not an effective or efficient method for identifying sensitive material in the coastal marine area and have the potential for negative cultural and heritage effects that are managed more effectively by AUP provisions applying to land.

Ineffective option as it does not remove the identified gap in the rules.

There are no additional costs for people undertaking disturbance activities under the current provisions, either through consents or under permitted activities. (However the person undertaking the activity has a duty to comply with relevant legislation (HNZPTA, Burial and Cremation Act, Crimes Act etc) so any differences in costs may be not be significant).

There is no protection for historic heritage and Maori cultural artefacts, koiwi/human remains and significant natural heritage sites that are accidentally found during construction or other activities in the coastal marine area.

No opportunity for material of scientific or educational importance to be recorded and if appropriate recovered and preserved, or for avoidance of effects to be negotiated.

There is no burden on the person undertaking disturbance activities to report or to stop operations if sensitive material is accidentally found.

Potential for lower compliance costs to people undertaking activities in the coastal marine area.

Option 2: Replicate the accidental discovery rule (from E11, E12 and E26) in Chapter F2 General Coastal

Most effective option as it makes it very clear that the accidental discovery protocol applies in the coastal

Some additional cost for people performing work (consent holders and people working under a permitted

Recognises that sensitive material may be accidentally discovered in the coastal marine area


91


Costs Benefits

Marine Zone with minor amendments to correspond to coastal marine area activities rather than land disturbance.

(preferred option)

marine area, and modifies the wording so that it is more applicable to activities that could disturb sensitive material in the coastal marine area.

Addresses the current inconsistency between the F2.1 description and the rules, and between accidental discovery on land and in the coastal marine area.

activity) if sensitive material is discovered.

and so contributes to protecting Historic heritage, Maori cultural artefacts, koiwi/human remains and significant natural heritage sites.

Provides a clear and efficient process to be followed in the event of a discovery of sensitive material.

Recognises the current AUP rules only applies accidental discovery protocols to ‘land disturbance’, and not in the coastal marine area.

Provides an opportunity for affected people to determine the relevant statutory requirements and avoid inadvertent breaches of HNZPTA or other legislation.

Provides guidance on the appropriate actions and relevant legislation if coastal activities lead to the discovery of seabed munitions, cables or pipelines.

Option 3: Amend F2 with a new standard that provides a cross reference to the accidental discovery rule in E11 Land disturbance - Regional.

This option is effective as it ensures that the accidental discovery rules apply in the coastal marine area.

Addresses the inconsistency issues in the Plan.

This option is less

Similar to option 2.

The rule in E11 needs to be expanded so that it is applicable to disturbance of the foreshore and seabed. This could make E11 more complicated and harder to understand.

Similar to option 2 but less benefit as the rule is not tailored to activities in the coastal marine area.


92


Costs Benefits

effective than option 2 as it is not specific to activities in the coastal marine area.

This is the same approach to that currently used in D21 Sites and Places of significance to Mana Whenua Overlay. In that case, there is a more limited range of permitted activities, and greater awareness that sensitive material may be present.

6.1.4 Summary

Section 32(1)(b)(iii) of the RMA requires a summary of the reasons for deciding whether the provisions are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives. That summary is set out below.

Amending chapter F2 to include a new standard that replicates the accidental discovery rules in E11, E12 and E26 (with minor amendments to correspond to coastal marine area activities rather than land disturbance) is the most appropriate method to achieve the objective of the plan change because the amendment:

1. Is effective as it makes it very clear that the accidental discovery rule applies in the coastal marine area, and modifies the wording so that it is more applicable to activities that could disturb sensitive material in the coastal marine area.

2. Addresses the current inconsistency between the F2.1 description and the rules, and between accidental discovery on land and in the coastal marine area.

3. Recognises that sensitive material may be accidentally discovered in the coastal marine area and therefore protects historic heritage, Maori cultural artefacts, koiwi/human remains and significant natural heritage sites.

4. Provides for appropriate management in the case of any discovery of items that may contain oil, munitions, cables and pipelines.


93

6.2 Theme 2: Marina date inconsistency



Specific provisions Objective F2.14.2(9)

Policy F2.14.3(9)

Rules F2.19.8 (A112) and (A113)


Objective F2.14.2(9) in the General Coastal Marine Zone provides for limited marina expansion after the AUP’s ‘date of notification’, however, the corresponding rules (F2.19.8 (A112) and (A113)) state that they apply from the ‘date the plan becomes operative’. The corresponding policy (policy (9)) refers to ‘existing marinas’, but has no date. The difference in dates could cause confusion as the AUP was notified in 2013 and the coastal plan provisions became operative in 2018. It is arguable whether this inconsistency actually affects the development potential of any existing marina, as there were no applications for marina expansions between the AUP’s notification and operative dates. The inconsistency could cause confusion for Sandspit Marina, as that marina was consented but did not ‘exist’ in 2013, whereas it was constructed by 2018.

The marina expansion rules were added through the hearings process and there was agreement between the council and submitters that they apply from the operative date. The issue of inconsistent date references was identified when council staff were making clause 16 and clause 20A amendments to insert the relevant dates into the Plan for provisions that previously stated ‘the date the plan was notified/operative’.

The purpose of the change is to have one date in the provisions, instead of multiple different dates; this will remove ambiguity and improve the usability of the AUP.



Option 2 – Amend the objective to a more general reference to ‘existing marinas’.

• Amend F2.14.2 Objective (9) to use ‘existing marinas’ instead of either ‘marinas existing at the date of notification’ or ‘marinas existing at the date the plan became operative’.

• This approach is consistent with the wording of F2.14.3 Policy (9).

Option 3 – Amend the objective so that it refers to the AUP operative date instead of the notification date.


94

• Amend F2.14.2 Objective (9) from ‘marinas existing at the date of notification’ to ‘marinas existing at the date the plan became operative (31 May 2018)’.

• This approach makes the objective consistent with the rules in F2.19.8(A112) and (A113).


In contrast to most of the other issues identified in this report, this issue relates to an AUP objective rather than a policy or rule. Section 32(1)(a) requires that an evaluation report must examine the extent to which the objectives of the proposal being evaluated are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA. Section 32(6) establishes that ‘objectives’ means objectives contained in a proposal (i.e. the plan change) and the purpose of a proposal.

The proposed amendment to objective F2.14.2(9) does not change the policy direction of the existing plan and so does not change the extent to which it achieves the purpose of the Act. Objective (9) is proposed to be amended as follows:

(9) Limited expansion of existing marinas existing at the date of notification into the Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone is provided for, provided there is adequate infrastructure to support the expansion and adverse effects on the coastal environment are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Providing for limited expansion of existing marinas responds to the RMA section 5 purpose to enable ‘people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being’ through providing facilities for boat storage and for the associated boating recreation. The objective’s qualification, with the expansion being dependent on adequate infrastructure and the management of adverse effects, corresponds with the section 5 requirements to ‘safeguard the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems’ and to ‘avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effects of activities on the environment’.

For consistency with the rest of this report, this proposal is also assessed in terms of RMA section 32(2) as follows.

Table 6.3 – Summary of analysis under section 32(2) of the RMA for Theme 2: Marina date inconsistency


Costs Benefits

Option 1: Make no change to the existing provisions.

This option is not effective at addressing consistency issues in the provisions created by the differences in dates in related provisions.

It does not address the

Additional cost as a result of time needed to clarify what dates the plan user needs to take into account.

No need for a plan change.


95


Costs Benefits

inconsistency in dates and retains wording that is confusing.

Option 2: Amend the objective to a more general reference to ‘existing marinas’ (preferred option)

Effectively addresses the objective of the plan change as the amendment removes ambiguity of the objective when considered alongside the rules.

Referring to ‘existing marinas’ is efficient in setting out the intent of the objective. The detail of what is meant by ‘existing’ can be established by referring to the rules

Makes the objective consistent with the policy.

Less time for consent applicants considering whether the difference in dates indicates the rules do not relate to the objective.

Option 3: Amend the objective so that it refers to the AUP operative date instead of the notification date

This option is effective in that it recognises the identified inconsistency and makes the objective consistent with the rules.

This option is slightly less efficient than option 2 as it uses unnecessary wording in the objective. What is meant by ‘existing’ can be established by considering the rules.

Leaves an inconsistency between the objective and policy.

Ensures that the objective and rule refer to the same date.

6.2.4 Summary

Section 32(1)(b)(iii) requires a summary of the reasons for deciding whether the provisions are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives. That summary is set out below.

Implementing the proposed amendment to use a more general reference to ‘existing marinas’ in the marina expansion objective is the most appropriate method to achieve the objective of the plan change because the amendment:


96

1. Makes the objective consistent with the policy and rules. 2. Reduces the time consent applicants and council consent processing staff may

take to consider whether the difference in dates indicates the rules do not relate to the objective.

6.3 Theme 3: Sediment quality indicators



Specific provision/s F2.11.1 Discharges – Background


The IHP recommendations (and the subsequent council decisions) removed the ‘Sediment Quality Indicators Thresholds Effects Level’ table from the General Coastal Marine Zone policies in the notified plan but retained a reference to ‘existing sediment quality threshold effects levels’ in a background paragraph. The IHP recommendations reports did not explain why the change was made. There is now nothing in the AUP to explain what thresholds might be used in assessing objectives and policies that refer to “excellent or good” and “degraded” coastal water and sediment quality.

The table was included in the notified plan (and the council’s Topic 033/034 closing statement track changes) as D5.1.10 Discharges Table 1 and in the legacy Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal (ARP:C) as Table 20.1. The table included Thresholds Effects Levels (TEL) for zinc, copper, lead and High Molecular Weight Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, and referenced the table as being from the 'Blueprint for monitoring urban receiving environments', ARC TP 168 revised edition, August 2004 (TP 168). TEL is an estimate of the concentration of a chemical below which adverse effects should rarely occur. The Technical Publication applies the TEL as environmental response criteria (ERC) for the coastal marine area to provide thresholds for assessing environmental quality in relation to stormwater and wastewater discharges.

The paragraph in ‘F2.11.1 Discharges – Background’ states (emphasis added):

The Council will work collaboratively with stakeholders to identify additional coastal water quality indicators and guideline values to complement the existing sediment quality threshold effects levels. This will help improve the evaluation of different discharge options through the resource consent process. This will be an interim measure as implementation of the National Policy Statement Freshwater Management 2014 and marine spatial planning is likely to result in additional measures to safeguard the values of coastal receiving environments.

It is unclear what is meant by ‘the existing sediment quality threshold effects levels’ and what any new measures will be ‘additional’ to. When the table was included in the policies, it was


97

clearer that the background section referred to the environmental response criteria in TP 1685.

This matter was noted in an Environment Court judgment in June 2018 on an appeal seeking greater ability to develop land at Okura6. A key issue that judgment considered was whether heavy metals would be discharged at concentrations sufficient to cause significant effects on marine benthic ecology. The case included consideration of modelling of whether the proposed development would lead to zinc and copper concentrations in the Okura Estuary that exceed the relevant sediment quality guideline threshold.

The key guidelines currently used for TEL for Auckland are TP 168 and the ‘Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for fresh and marine water quality’ (ANZECC 2000). The ERC in TP 168 are conservative thresholds that provide an early warning of environmental degradation. They were intentionally set at relatively low levels to allow management responses to be properly assessed and implemented before serious degradation occurred. The ERC are prompts for further investigation. The differences between the TP 168 ‘red ERC’ thresholds and ANZECC 2000 guidelines ‘low values’ are set out in an appendix to TP 168.

As the AUP “background” section notes, additional measures to safeguard the values of coastal receiving environments are likely to be developed in future. As preliminary steps in this work, the council has published two reports on the guidelines available and on the technical aspects of integrating water quality science in freshwater and coastal environments7. The council is working on a new technical report on how to monitor the indicators in TP 168. The new report will have updated methods for collecting and analysing samples for sediment contaminants.

A new version of the ANZECC (2000) guidelines has recently been published as ‘Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, Australian and New Zealand Governments and Australian state and territory governments, Canberra ACT, Australia’ (ANZG 2018). The new guidelines are web-based and are available at www.waterquality.gov.au/anz-guidelines. The council has not yet determined whether it will prepare an update to TP 168 to incorporate the amended values in ANZG 2018.

Additional work on coastal water and sediment quality indicators may also be done as part of the council’s work programme to implement the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM). Coastal water quality parameters will need to be utilised to set freshwater limits to achieve agreed coastal outcomes where the coast is a more sensitive receiving environment than the relevant freshwater domain. At present, it is not clear how coastal and freshwater attributes will be linked. The coastal ERC sediment guidelines are

5 TP 168 can be found at: http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/documents/technicalpublications/TP168%20Blueprint%20for%20monitoring%20urban%20receiving%20environment%20-%20revised%20edition%20Aug%202004.pdf. 6 Okura Holdings Ltd v Auckland Council [2018] NZEnvC078. See paragraphs [118], [119], [241] to [244]. 7 Technical Report 2017/035, Preliminary Assessment of Limits and Guidelines Available for Classifying Auckland Coastal Waters, April 2017. Technical report 2016/039, Technical aspects of integrating water quality science in freshwater and coastal environments, September 2016.


98

http://www.waterquality.gov.au/anz-guidelines

http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/documents/technicalpublications/TP168%20Blueprint%20for%20monitoring%20urban%20receiving%20environment%20-%20revised%20edition%20Aug%202004.pdf

http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/documents/technicalpublications/TP168%20Blueprint%20for%20monitoring%20urban%20receiving%20environment%20-%20revised%20edition%20Aug%202004.pdf

for contaminant levels ‘accumulated in sediment’ whereas any potential NPS-FM copper and zinc attributes will be ‘in-stream’ concentrations. Contaminant load modelling will allow the council to set catchment loads that deliver improved in stream concentrations (numeric objectives) where required. Additional work is needed to consider how an in-stream load correlates to a level accumulated in coastal sediment.


Option 1 – No change to the existing provisions.

• No changes made to the existing AUP provisions, however, indicators and guideline values could be included in the AUP as part of future plan changes to implement the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management. Those plan change processes are expected to commence in 2019.

Option 2 – Amend policy F2.11.3(2) to include the TEL table.

• Insert the table from the legacy regional coastal plan (ARP:C table 20.1; notified plan and council’s Topic 033/034 closing statement track changes - 5.1.10 Discharges Table 1).

• Use a similar policy approach to the legacy and notified plans and list the table as a matter to ‘have regard to’ in consent processes.

Option 3 – Amend the background paragraph in F2.11.1 so that it is clearer what it means.

• Refer to TP 168 and ANZG 2018 as being ‘the existing sediment quality threshold effects levels’.


Table 6.4 - Summary of analysis under section 32(2) of the RMA for Theme 3: Sediment quality indicators.


Costs Benefits

Option 1: No change Not effective as it is not clear what is meant in the background paragraph.

Some cost to consent applicants as they try to determine what existing TEL to use.

No need for a plan change.

A more comprehensive consideration of appropriate sediment quality TEL may be possible in the future plan changes to implement the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management. A more comprehensive approach to assessing


99

sediment quality could be taken through this process.

Option 2: Amend policy F2.11.3(2) to include the TEL table

Not much more efficient than option 3 as the plan user needs to consider the full technical report to understand what is meant by the table.

Inefficient as the table does not use the same wording as in the objectives and policies.

Effective in ensuring that appropriate TEL are is considered in consent processes.

Costs for consent applicants in having to demonstrate that they have considered the TEL in the table.

Policy may need to be amended again in the plan changes for the NPSFM.

Clear for plan users regarding what is expected to be considered in a consent application.

Option 3: Amend the background paragraph in F2.11.1 to refer to TP 168 and ANZG 2018.

(preferred option)

Effective as it removes the uncertainty regarding the meaning of the background paragraph.

Efficient in addressing the confusion regarding the relevant threshold values to consider.

Some consent costs for applicants in demonstrating that they have considered the relevant documents.

Clarity for plan users.

Greater certainty that the relevant indicators will be considered.

Allows for further refinement of the measures in the NPSFM plan changes.

Greater flexibility in applying the policy if additional measures are developed and are more relevant.

6.3.4 Summary


Amending the background paragraph to refer to TP 168 and ANZG 2018 as being ‘the existing sediment quality threshold effects levels’ is the most appropriate method to achieve the objective of the plan change because the amendment:

1. Is effective as it removes the uncertainty regarding the meaning of the background paragraph;


100

2. Is efficient in addressing the confusion regarding the relevant threshold values to consider.

3. While it would increase some consent costs for applicants in demonstrating that they have considered the relevant documents, it would be beneficial overall insofar as it would: a. Provide clarity for plan users. b. Provide greater certainty that the relevant documents will be considered. c. Allow for further refinement of the measures in the NPSFM plan changes; d. Provide greater flexibility in applying the policy if additional measures are

developed and are more relevant.

6.4 Theme 4: Reclamation, structures and minor infrastructure upgrades



Specific provision/s F2.19.1 Activity table – Drainage, reclamation and declamation

F2.19.10 Activity table – Structures

F2.21 Standards


Existing provisions in the AUP relating to repairs and upgrades of seawalls alongside infrastructure, such as railways and roads are currently unclear and inconsistent regarding which rules and standards apply. The works appear to fall within the F2.19.1 and F2.19.10 activity table rules for:

• (A2) Maintenance or repair of a lawful reclamation. • (A3) Minor reclamation for the purpose of maintaining, repairing or upgrading a lawful

reclamation. • (A4) Reclamation for any of the following: carried out as part of rehabilitation or

remedial works; where it is required for the safe and efficient operation or construction of infrastructure; or where it is necessary to provide for safe public access to, within or adjacent to the coastal marine area.

• (A122) Maintenance, repair or reconstruction of existing lawful coastal marine area structures.

• (A124) Extension or alteration of existing lawful coastal marine area structures that are a component of infrastructure.

• (A131) Minor infrastructure upgrades. • (A142) Hard protection structures.


101

In addition, there are inconsistent standards where a seawall is either part of a reclamation and/or where it is a structure. These are not consistent with the standards used in other parts of the AUP for minor infrastructure upgrades.

‘Reclamation’ is defined in the AUP as “permanent filling of the coastal marine area … to create dry land”. The definition excludes ‘filling behind seawalls unless the purpose of the seawall and filling is primarily for the purpose of creating land’. Often reclamation is edged by a seawall or rock revetments. In that case, the definition means that the seawall is part of the reclamation and falls under the reclamation activity table (F2.19.1) rather than the structures activity table (F2.19.10). A reclamation is the area of land created above the line of mean high water springs so the footings of a reclamation which extend seaward of that line, into the coastal marine area, are ‘structures’ rather than part of the ‘reclamation’. Seawalls are listed in the definition of ‘hard protection structures’.

Maintenance and repair of reclamation and an existing structure are both permitted activities (F2.19.1(A2) and F2.19.10(A122)). The standards for reclamation require that there is no change in the area of occupation but there is no control on the form and appearance of the reclamation edge. A seawall could be stood up from a sloping form to a vertical form as a permitted activity (if the extent of the seaward toe did not change) although such a change in form is also listed as part of the definition of ‘minor reclamation’. The standard for structures requires that the work does not alter the form or external appearance of the structure and that there is no change in the area occupied by the structure (except that with respect to network utilities8 the area of occupation must be within 2 metres of the existing alignment or location). This could mean that the same spatial area should be occupied for most structures, but for network utilities it can increase by 2 metres. Alternatively, it could mean that network utilities must occupy the same size area but it could be moved by 2 metres. With respect to a seawall, it appears to allow for a seawall of the same form and appearance to be reconstructed 2 metres to seaward. This could be a significant area of work if it was along a seawall edging a road or railway.

Minor reclamation for the purpose of maintaining, repairing or upgrading a lawful reclamation is a restricted discretionary activity (in the General Coastal Marine zone, discretionary in overlays). This includes standing up a sloping seawall and extensions up to 1.5 metres from the seaward extent of an existing reclamation. Extensions and alterations of existing lawful structures that are a component of infrastructure (e.g. a seawall along a road or railway) are also restricted discretionary in the General Coastal Marine Zone and discretionary in overlays. For network utilities, this would apply to extensions beyond 2 metres from the existing structure (allowed in the permitted activity standard) whereas a ‘minor reclamation’ to extend a seawall along a reclamation is restricted discretionary up to 1.5 metres from the existing reclamation.

The purpose of the 2 metre allowance for infrastructure related structures was to provide for works such as replacement stormwater outfalls adjacent to an existing outfall (with the same occupation area), or upgrades to cables and pipelines, not large seawall extensions over

8 The definition of “network utilities” includes: transformation, transmission, or distribution of electricity; stormwater drainage or sewerage reticulation systems; railway lines, tramways and roads; airports; and more.


102

potentially hundreds of metres of coastline. These could be large structures that can be extended seaward by 2 metres along their length.

The 2 metre allowance for network utilities overlaps with ‘(A131) minor infrastructure upgrades’ which is also a permitted activity. There is no definition of ‘minor infrastructure upgrades’ in the AUP. The standard for ‘minor infrastructure upgrades’ in F2.21.10.7 refers to the standards in E26 Infrastructure. In E26 the activity table and standards use “Minor infrastructure upgrading of network utilities”. This is more limited than just “infrastructure”. Ideally, consistent terms should be used in order to efficiently process consent applications for structures that cross from land into the coastal marine area.

Minor infrastructure upgrades ‘must meet the standards in E26 Infrastructure’ (F2.21.10.7) – E26.2.5.3(1) includes (h) alteration, replacement or relocation of water, wastewater or stormwater structures (excluding pipes) – structure must be located within 2m of existing alignment or location. Under (i) above ground pipes must not exceed 300mm increase in diameter and underground pipes must not exceed a 50 percent increase in the diameter of the pipe. E26.2.5.3(1) does not include seawalls. Network utilities includes ‘road network activities’. E26.2.5.3(1) does not include roading related upgrades, but some of the activity tables for infrastructure works in overlays do set standards relating to roading works.

E26.2.5.3(1) includes “(k) Any upgrading of infrastructure that does not comply with the relevant standards for minor infrastructure upgrading specified above, shall be subject to the relevant activity status for that activity specified in Activity Table E26.2.3.1”. In the coastal marine area, upgrading that does not meet the standards should be subject to rules in F2 not E26.

There does not seem to be a comparable standard to consider for retaining walls along rivers and streams. E3.6.1.11 ‘Maintenance and repair works’ states that retaining walls along rivers and streams must not change the area occupied by the structure. E3.6.1.12 ‘Extensions and upgrades’ states that retaining walls along rivers and streams must not have a total length of any extended structure exceed 30m measured parallel to the direction of water flow.



Option 2 – Amend F2 Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone to have more consistent treatment of minor works on reclamations and structures; to distinguish the different rules that could apply to seawalls related to network utilities; and to make it clearer that the minor infrastructure upgrading standards in E26 Infrastructure apply in the coastal marine area. This option includes making the following amendments to the AUP:

• Amend rule (A124) so that it applies to works that are not covered by (A131) Minor infrastructure upgrades.

• Amend activity (A131) to replace ‘upgrades’ with ‘upgrading of network utilities’ to be consistent with the corresponding rules in E26.


103

• Include a new standard in F2.21.2.1 (reclamation) to be consistent with the permitted activity requirement for structures; that the work must not use materials which alter the form or external appearance of the reclamation in more than a minor way.

• Amend permitted activity standard F2.21.10.1(3) to remove the allowance for network utilities to move structures by 2 metres and to allow the area of occupation to be smaller than the existing footprint. Permitted activities will be limited to no more than the existing footprint unless the work falls within another rule such as (A131) ‘minor infrastructure upgrading of network utilities’ and the standards set in E26. The current wording ‘must not change the area occupied by the structure’ means the structure cannot be altered so that it has a smaller footprint.

• Amend standard F2.21.10.7 so that the heading corresponds to the amendment to the activity table; to clarify the reference to the standards in E26 by noting the particular standard; using the E26 standards wording for minor infrastructure upgrading for works in overlays (i.e. from E26.8.5.1(3), E26.10.5.1(1), E26.12.5.1(2), E26.13.5.1(1), E26.14.5.1(1); and to clarify that if network utility works in the coastal marine area do not meet the standard in E26, they fall under the relevant rule in F2 General Coastal Marine Zone and not E26 Infrastructure.

• Amend standard F2.21.10.8(1)(d) to correct the current reference to ‘the network utilities and energy rules’ to the relevant E26 Infrastructure standards.

• Consequential amendments to E26 to annotate the relevant standard for minor infrastructure upgrading (E26.2.5.3(1)) as [dp/rcp] to be clear that they are regional coastal plan provisions as well as district plan provisions.


Table 6.5 - Summary of analysis under section 32(2) of the RMA for Theme 4: reclamations, structures and minor infrastructure upgrades.


Costs Benefits

Option 1 – No change. Inefficient as it is inconsistent with the standards in E26 Infrastructure.

Not effective as it is unclear which rules and standards apply.

Utility owners could make unnecessarily complicated distinctions between reclamations and

Costs to network utilities in determining which rules and standards apply to maintaining and upgrading their assets.

Possibly environmental costs in allowing long lengths of seawall to be extended up to 2m from the existing footprint.

No plan change costs.


104


Costs Benefits

structures to allow more favourable standards depending on whether they wished to keep a seawall in the same form or extend it by 2m.

Option 2 – Amend F2 Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone provisions to have a more consistent treatment of the relevant activities.

(preferred option)

More effective as there is more consistency for works on reclamations and structures.

More effective as it is clearer which rules different works fall under.

More effective as there is greater consistency with the district plan standards in E26 for minor infrastructure upgrading.

Costs for network utilities as there is no longer an allowance for network utilities to extend structures by 2m (unless the work falls within the standards for ‘minor infrastructure upgrading’).

Consent processes can assess the environmental effects of extensions within 2m of existing structures.

Allows for repair works to reduce the size of area occupied by the existing structure as well as reconstruction within the same area.

6.4.4 Summary


Amending Chapter F to contain more consistent provisions for minor works on reclamations and structures, and to distinguish the different rules that could apply to seawalls related to network utilities, is the most appropriate method to achieve the objective of the plan change because the amendments:

1. Are more effective as there is more consistency for works on reclamations and structures;

2. Are more effective as it is clearer which rules different works fall under; 3. Are more effective as there is greater consistency with district plan standards in

E26; and 4. While there may be increased costs for network utilities as there is no longer an

allowance for network utilities to extend structures by 2 metres (unless the work falls within the standards for ‘minor infrastructure upgrading’), would be beneficial overall insofar as consent processes can assess the environmental effects of extensions within 2 metres of existing structures.


105

6.5 Theme 5: Functional need and existing structures

Chapter of the AUP F Coastal


Specific provision/s F2.14.3(3) Policies – activities with no functional need

F2.19.8(A85) – Use and activities table – activities with no functional need

F2.19.10(A123) – Structures table – extensions and alterations

F2.23.1 Matters of discretion


Objectives, policies and rules in the AUP discourage activities in the coastal marine area that do not have a functional need for a coastal location. This relates to NZCPS policy 6(2)(d) which requires persons exercising functions and powers under the RMA to “recognise that activities that do not have a functional need for location in the coastal marine area generally should not be located there”. Activity rule F2.19.8(A85) sets out a non-complying activity rule for ‘use and occupation by activities that do not have a functional need to be undertaken below mean high water springs, including activities in, or on, an existing building or structure, and that are not otherwise provided for’.

For an existing activity with no functional need to be in the coastal marine area (e.g. a restaurant or apartment which extends into the coastal marine area) it is not clear if re-consenting, alterations and extensions to the structure that activity is in is:

• A non-complying activity under rule F2.19.8(A85) the ‘no functional need’ rule; • A discretionary activity under rule F2.19.10(A121) for “coastal marine area structures

unless provided for elsewhere”; or • A restricted discretionary activity under rule F2.19.10(A123) for ‘extension or

alteration of existing lawful structures or buildings’.

Table F2.19.10 has a note stating that it includes the “use of a structure unless it is addressed more specifically in table F1.19.8”. There is debate regarding whether the ‘no functional need’ rule is an example of being ‘addressed more specifically’ in terms of the note above table F2.19.10.

This matter was raised in a query relating to a proposal for a small extension to an existing café in a building which extended over the coastal marine area. The extension to the structure was a restricted discretionary activity, but it was not clear if this status applied only to the building extension or also to the activity inside that extension (as it was not clear if the


106

activity was covered by the ‘structures’ activity table or whether it should be considered under the ‘activities’ table).

The purpose of the non-complying activity (rule (A85)) was to discourage new activities with no functional need, not to end all existing activities when their coastal permits expire, or to prevent modifications and extensions to existing structures.

This matter is within the scope of PC 15 as there is inconsistency between the policy and the rules, and a lack of clarity regarding which rule applies. The plan could be amended to retain the policy approach, but make the rules clearer.



Option 2 – Clarify that the non-complying activity rule for activities that do not have a functional need for a coastal location applies to new activities, and not to re-consenting, alterations and extensions to existing activities in existing buildings and structures.

• Limit rule F2.19.8(A85) (non-complying activity) to “new or existing unlawful” activities. Re-consenting existing activities that do not have a functional need for a coastal location would then fall within rule (A84) as ‘activities that are not otherwise provided for’ which is a discretionary activity. Including ‘existing unlawful’ is needed to avoid creating an easier consenting regime for someone who establishes an activity and then seeks consent for it. This has occurred where boatsheds have been turned into apartments before retrospective approval is sought.

• Amend policy F2.14.3(3) to use ‘and’ instead of ‘or’ between the final clauses, to clarify that all of the clauses apply. The current wording indicates that the first three clauses do not need to be applied if ‘any necessary land-based infrastructure can be provided’. This does not give effect to the objectives and NZCPS.

• Amend policy F2.14.3(3) and rules F2.19.8(A84) and (A85) from “below mean high water springs” to “in the coastal marine area” to clarify that the rule applies to all activities (i.e. including those in buildings above the water), not only those below the height of the line of mean high water springs.

• Amend rule (A123) (alterations and extensions) to explicitly include the use of the extended or altered structure

• Amend assessment criteria F2.23.2(17)(g) (reconstruction or extension of existing structures) to include alterations and to include that additional matters of relevance from policy F2.14.3(3).


107


Table 6.6 - Summary of analysis under section 32(2) of the RMA for Theme 5: Functional need and existing structures.


Costs Benefits


Not effective as it is not clear which rules apply to re-consenting, alterations and extensions to existing activities which do not have a functional need to be in the coastal marine area.

Costs for consent applicants in determining which rules apply, and possibly being treated as a non-complying activity if it is determined that the most restrictive rule should apply.


Option 2 – Clarify that the non-complying activity rule for activities that do not have a functional need for a coastal location applies to new activities, and not to re-consenting, alterations and extensions to existing activities in existing buildings and structures.

(preferred option)

More effective as it is clearer which rules apply.

More efficient as the more onerous policy approach for activities with no functional need is limited to new activities and not existing activities.

Lower consent costs for applicants as there is less chance they will be treated as a non-complying activity.

Greater certainty for the continued use of existing buildings which extend over the coastal marine area.

6.5.4 Summary


Amending the provisions to clarify that the non-complying activity rule for activities that do not have a functional need for a coastal location applies to new activities, and not to re-consenting, alterations and extensions to existing activities in existing buildings and structures, is the most appropriate method to achieve the objective of the plan change because the amendments:

1. Are more effective as it is clearer which rules apply; 2. Are more efficient as the more onerous policy approach for activities with no

functional need is limited to new activities and not existing activities;


108

3. Would lower consent costs for applicants as there is less chance they will be treated as a non-complying activity; and

4. Would provide greater certainty for the continued use of existing buildings which extend over the coastal marine area.

6.6 Theme 6: Exclusive occupation



F3 Coastal – Marina Zone

Specific provision/s F3.4.3(A30)


RMA section 12(2) specifies that no person may occupy9 any part of the common marine and coastal area unless it is expressly allowed by a national environmental standard, a rule in a regional coastal plan or a resource consent.

‘Exclusive occupation’ is where a coastal permit allows the consent holder to exclude all other people from using their structure. Generally, occupation is not exclusive and other people have a right to access privately owned structures and any space above or below the structure. This aspect of coastal permits is set out in the RMA in section 122(5):

RMA s122 Consents not real or personal property

(5) Except to the extent—

(a) that the coastal permit expressly provides otherwise; and

(b) that is reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose of the coastal permit,—

no coastal permit shall be regarded as—

(c) an authority for the holder to occupy a coastal marine area to the exclusion of all or any class of persons; or

9 The Act defines ‘occupy’ as: occupy means the activity of occupying any part of the coastal marine area— (a) where the occupation is reasonably necessary for another activity; and (b) where it is to the exclusion of all or any class of persons who are not expressly allowed to occupy that part of the coastal marine area by a rule in a regional coastal plan and in any relevant proposed regional coastal plan or by a resource consent; and (c) for a period of time and in a way that, but for a rule in the regional coastal plan and in any relevant proposed regional coastal plan or the holding of a resource consent under this Act, a lease or licence to occupy that part of the coastal marine area would be necessary to give effect to the exclusion of other persons, whether in a physical or legal sense


109

(d) conferring on the holder the same rights in relation to the use and occupation of the area against those persons as if he or she were a tenant or licensee of the land.

The application of this concept has been established by several court decisions which have established that the public can access the relevant structures10. Consent conditions can detail the extent of the exclusion of other persons (RMA s108(2)(h)).

In the AUP, it not clear whether the permitted activity rules that include RMA s12(2) occupation are intended to cover exclusive occupation. For example, the AUP Marina Zone includes a permitted activity rule for ‘marina berths’ which includes construction and occupation, but the AUP does not specify whether this includes exclusive occupation. Generally under the RMA, occupation is not exclusive, so it could be assumed that it is not exclusive occupation. It is not clear as the reference to s12(2) could mean all forms of occupation. If it does not include exclusive occupation, marina operators cannot restrict people from walking on marina berth accessways. It would be very unusual for a permitted activity to cover exclusive occupation. However, it is not clear in the Marina Zone which rule should be applied if a marina operator wishes to apply for exclusive occupation by marina berths. The policy approach in F3.3(8) makes it clear that exclusive occupation is an option to be considered in the Marina Zone.

Policy F3.3(8) Provide for public access to be restricted only where it is necessary for public health, safety, security or operational reasons.

The F2 General Coastal Marine Zone provisions also apply in the other coastal zones (unless the other zones have an inconsistent or overlapping provision). Objective F2.14.2(3) and policy F2.14.3(2) are clear that exclusive occupation should only be granted in limited circumstances.

Objective F2.14.2(3) Limit exclusive occupation to where it can be demonstrated it is necessary for the efficient functioning of the use and development or is needed for public safety, and any loss of public access and use as a result is minimised and mitigation is provided where practicable.

Policy F2.14.3(2) Provide for exclusive occupation rights in the common marine and coastal area only where it can be demonstrated this is necessary for the efficient functioning of the use and development or is needed for public safety, and will enable the most efficient use of space by activities in the common marine and coastal area and require that the loss of public access and recreational use is mitigated.

In the legacy Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal, construction of marina berths and ancillary structures was a permitted activity in Marina Management Areas under rules 23.5.2 to 23.5.4. Occupation by those structures was a restricted discretionary activity under rule 23.5.7 and the matters of discretion included ‘b. the extent to which persons will be excluded from using the structure’. Marinas have generally obtained exclusive occupation consent for

10 See Hume v Auckland RC [2002] 3 NZLR 363; (2002) 8 ELRNZ 211; [2002] NZRMA 422 (CA); Coleman v Rodney DC EnvC A122/05; Hauraki Maori Trust Board v Waikato RC HC Auckland CIV-2003-485-999, 4 March 2004.


110

their marina berths, while the water space between berths, and structures such as breakwaters, are open for public access.

Occupation is included in the F2 restricted discretionary activities matters of discretion (F2.23.1) and assessment criteria (F2.23.2(9)). Assessment under these provisions includes consideration of the degree to which people are excluded. However, the permitted activity status for marina berths in the Marina Zone means these structures do not get considered against these provisions.

In the General Coastal Marine Zone most structures require a resource consent and the degree to which exclusive occupation is provided for is considered as part of the consent process. The activity status applied is that which applies for occupation, as the extent of any exclusive occupation is considered as part of the permit to occupy. The issue is more significant in the other coastal zones where there is expected to be a higher level of development and so various structures are classified as permitted activities. The other coastal zones apply to marinas, Defence areas, minor ports and ferry terminals, and can have safety or security reasons that justify exclusive occupation in some areas.

The General Coastal Marine Zone applies to all of the coastal marine area but section F1.2 specifies that where there is an inconsistency or overlap between the General Coastal Marine Zone and the other coastal zones, the provisions of the other coastal zones take precedence. If a provision is added to the General Coastal Marine Zone for exclusive occupation, it would apply in the other zones. However, there could still be some confusion regarding whether the more general reference to ‘occupation’ in the other zones would have precedence over an ‘exclusive occupation’ provision in the General Coastal Marine Zone.

Addressing this matter is within the scope of this plan change as it is consistent with the policy approach in objective F2.14.2(3) and policy F2.14.3(2) and the existing matters of discretion and assessment criteria. It addresses a gap between the policy framework and the unclear scope of the permitted activity rules that refer to ‘occupation’ without specifying whether they include exclusive occupation.



Option 2 – Insert a new exclusive occupation rule in F2 Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone and in the other coastal zones. This option includes making the following amendments to the AUP:

• Insert a new discretionary activity rule in F2.19.8 (rule (A114A)) for ‘Exclusive occupation of the common marine and coastal area by a structure or activity that would otherwise be a permitted activity’; and

• Insert a new restricted discretionary activity rule for exclusive occupation in F3 Marina Zone, F5 Minor Port Zone, F6 Ferry Terminal Zone and F7 Defence Zone. The matters of discretion and assessment criteria would refer to the existing matters and criteria for occupation in F2 Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone.


111

• Add a new note above activity table F2.19.8 to clarify that occupation consents do not include exclusive occupation unless that is specifically sought in an application and provided for in a resource consent.

Option 3 – Insert a new discretionary activity rule in F2 Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone for exclusive occupation. This option includes making the following amendments to the AUP:

• Insert a new activity in F2.19.8 Activity table – Use and activities (rule (A114A)) as a discretionary activity for ‘exclusive occupation of the common marine and coastal area’; and

• Add a new note above F2.19.8 to clarify how the activity status applies if the activity that will have exclusive occupation has a different activity status.

Option 4 – Insert a new standard regarding exclusive occupation in F2 Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone. This option includes making the following amendments to the AUP:

• Insert a new standard in F2.21.9 to specify that permitted activities must not require exclusive occupation of the common marine and coastal area.


Table 6.7 - Summary of analysis under section 32(2) of the RMA for Theme 6: Exclusive occupation.


Costs Benefits

Option 1 – No change to the existing provisions

Not effective as it is unclear whether all the permitted activities that include s12(2) occupation include exclusive occupation or not.

Additional costs for consent applicants in determining whether they need to apply for exclusive occupation or not.

There is uncertainty regarding whether other people are allowed access to structures established under these provisions.

No plan change cost.

Option 2 - Insert a new exclusive occupation rule in F2 Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone and in the other coastal zones.

(preferred option)

More effective as it clarifies which rules apply for exclusive occupation in each zone.

Efficient as it utilises the existing policies, matters of discretion and assessment

May have additional consent costs for some activities and structures for them to have exclusive occupation.

Some administrative costs as several additional duplicate rules are required in

Social and environmental benefits from ensuring that exclusive occupation of the coastal marine area is not provided for unless it is through a consent process.

More consistent with


112


Costs Benefits

criteria for occupation.

More effective as it provides a discretionary activity in the General Coastal Marine Zone and a restricted discretionary activity status in the other coastal zones. This recognises the more type of development and activities expected in the other zones, where it is more appropriate that there be some structures with exclusive occupation.

different parts of chapter F.

May result in confusion regarding precincts with similar provisions as they are not part of this plan change.

the ARP:C Marina Chapter rule 23.5.7 than the existing AUP provisions.

Allows applications to be made for exclusive occupation for relevant structures while other structures or areas allow for public access.

Option 3 – Insert a new discretionary activity rule in F2 Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone for exclusive occupation.

Efficient as the rule applies to all coastal zones and precincts unless they specify otherwise.

Provides consistency with the policy framework that exclusive occupation will be the exception. Generally, occupation is not exclusive, and the public are legally able to access privately owned structures.

Less effective than option 2 as it does not recognise that in the other coastal zones there are generally security or safety reasons for allowing exclusive occupation by some structures.

Some additional consenting costs for applicants who require exclusive occupation.

May be un-anticipated costs for structures and activities that would be restricted discretionary and would now be assessed as a discretionary activity.

May not be sufficiently clear in the other coastal zones regarding which rules are relevant for exclusive occupation as the other zones refer to ‘occupation’ without specifying whether it includes exclusive occupation.

Social and environmental benefits from ensuring that exclusive occupation of the coastal marine area is not provided for unless it is through a consent process.

Option 4 – Insert a new standard

Efficient as the rule applies to all coastal

May not be sufficiently clear in the other

Social and environmental benefits


113


Costs Benefits

regarding exclusive occupation in F2 Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone.

zones and precincts unless they specify otherwise.

Provides consistency with the policy framework that exclusive occupation will be the exception.

Less effective than option 2 as an activity that does not comply with the standard would be a restricted discretionary activity and so would be less consistent with the policy approach.

coastal zones regarding which rules are relevant for exclusive occupation as the other zones refer to ‘occupation’ without specifying whether it includes exclusive occupation.

from ensuring that exclusive occupation of the coastal marine area is not provided for unless it is through a consent process.

6.6.4 Summary


Adding a new rule for exclusive occupation in F2 Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone and in the other coastal zones is the most appropriate method to achieve the objective of the plan change because the amendment:

1. Is more effective as it clarifies which rules apply to exclusive occupation. 2. Is more effective as it recognises that in the other coastal zones there are

generally security or safety reasons for allowing exclusive occupation by some structures.

3. While it may create additional consent costs for some activities and structures in order for them to have exclusive occupation, would be beneficial overall in terms of the social and environmental benefits of ensuring that, in general, occupation is not exclusive.


114

6.7 Theme 7: Occupation in areas with existing occupation consents





There is a rule in the General Coastal Marine Zone (F2.19.8(A87)) that requires a restricted discretionary activity consent for any activity in an area of an existing occupation consent. An occupation permit is not the same as land ownership or management rights. Other parties can be granted occupation permits for the same space, or they can build structures that are permitted activities in the same space. The F2.19.8(A87) restricted discretionary rule recognises that permitted activities can impact on existing consent holders and allows for those impacts to be considered through a consent process.

Overlapping occupation interests generally only occur in highly developed areas such as the City Centre waterfront and marinas. The Ports of Auckland hold an occupation consent which covers large parts of the City Centre waterfront precincts. Their operations have now been consolidated to the Central Wharves and Port of Auckland areas (precinct chapters I202 and I208). In the other waterfront precincts (I213 Westhaven, I214 Wynyard, I211 Viaduct Harbour) they have management agreements where other parties manage the occupation rights. In some areas, other parties have occupation permits that overlap the area of the Ports of Auckland permit. Similar situations occur in marinas where the marina operator has consent for occupation and other parties may use the permitted activity rules in the same area. This can be either through a separate occupation consent, or through agreement with the existing consent holder.

Technically, rule F2.19.8(A87) applies in all the other coastal zones and the coastal precincts as being a specific rule addressing a matter not addressed in the relevant zone and precinct chapters. Some people have argued that the F2 rule does not apply in such areas as their occupation is covered by their agreement with an existing consent holder. They have also argued that if the Marina Zone or a precinct activity table states that a permitted activity covers ‘section 12(2) occupation’ they do not need to look at chapter F2 and consider whether there are existing occupation consents in the same area.

These discussions have indicated that the AUP is currently unclear as to whether the F2.19.8(A87) restricted discretionary rule applies where there is a management agreement with a party who have an occupation consent. The rule states:

F2.19.8 General Coastal Marine Zone, Activity table - Use and activities

(A87) Occupation of the common marine and coastal area by an activity that would otherwise be permitted where the area to be occupied is already the subject of an


115

existing occupation consent – RD (in General Coastal Marine Zone and all overlay columns).

This rule is duplicated in the Central Wharves Precinct and Port Precinct as follows:

I202 Central Wharves Precinct

(A22) Occupation of the CMCA by an activity that would otherwise be permitted where the area to be occupied is already the subject of an existing occupation consent - RD

I208 Port Precinct rule:

(A38) Occupation of the CMCA by an activity that would otherwise be permitted where the area to be occupied is already the subject of an existing occupation consent - RD

There is no equivalent rule in the other coastal zones and precincts.

The legacy regional coastal plan had an equivalent restricted discretionary rule (Rule 10.5.6):

Rule 10.5.6 Occupation by an activity, which would otherwise be permitted or controlled, where the area to be occupied is either wholly or partially already the subject of an existing occupation consent or is within an area occupied by another party for an activity permitted by this plan.

A more specific requirement was included in chapter 25 which applied to all the Port Management Areas. A note at the beginning of the rules section in 25.5 stated:

25.5 The written consent of Ports of Auckland Limited (or of any party to whom it has delegated such approval) is required for the occupation of the coastal marine area by any of the following activities where they are located within the area of the occupation consent granted to Ports of Auckland Limited pursuant to Section 384A of the RMA (shown on Plan Map Series 2).



Option 2 – Clarify in F2 Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone that in areas of existing occupation consents, a new occupation consent is not required if the new activity has the approval of the existing consent holder. This option includes making the following amendment to the AUP:

• Add a note in F2 saying that the F2.19.8(A87) restricted discretionary rule does not apply if an activity is in accordance with an agreement with an existing consent holder.

Option 3 – Clarify in all the relevant coastal zones that a consent is needed for a permitted activity in an area where there is an existing consent, unless the new activity has the


116

approval of the existing consent holder. This option includes making the following amendment to the AUP:

• Add a rule in the relevant other coastal zone chapters (F3 Marina Zone, F5 Minor Port Zone, F6 Ferry Terminal Zone, F7 Defence Zone) to repeat rule F2.19.8(A87).

• Add a note in all relevant coastal zones saying that the restricted discretionary rule does not apply if an activity is in accordance with an agreement with an existing consent holder.


Table 6.8 - Summary of analysis under section 32(2) of the RMA for Theme 7: Occupation in areas with existing occupation consents.


Costs Benefits

Option 1 - No change to the existing provisions.

Not effective as people can construct structures in some areas as permitted activities and impact on the activities of existing occupation consent holders.

Not effective as the Plan is not clear that the restricted discretionary rule in areas of existing consents does not apply if the proposal has the agreement of the existing consent holder.

Costs for existing consent holders as new activities could impact on the existing activity.


Option 2 – Clarify in F2 Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone that in areas of existing occupation consents, a new occupation consent is not required if the new activity has the approval of the existing consent holder.

More effective than the current Plan as it reduces confusion regarding whether consent is needed.

Efficient as it applies the same rule across all coastal zones.

May not be fully effective as it is not clear in the other coastal zones whether

Council can have less awareness of who is occupying common marine and coastal area if it is managed by other parties.

Greater clarity that existing consent holders can allow other parties to make use of their area of occupation for permitted activities without requiring a resource consent.

Effects on existing consent holders can be assessed through a consent process.


117

rule F2.19.8(A87) applies or whether the more general statements regarding occupation prevail.

Option 3 - Clarify in all the relevant coastal zones that a consent is needed for a permitted activity in an area where there is an existing consent, unless the new activity has the approval of the existing consent holder.

(preferred option)

More effective as it makes the relevant rule clear within each relevant zone.

Less efficient than option 2 as the same rule is duplicated in several different zones.

May increase consent costs for some structures that are otherwise permitted activities.

May result in confusion regarding precincts with similar provisions as they are not part of this plan change.

Effects on existing consent holders can be assessed through a consent process.

Allows existing consent holders to enable other parties to operate in the same area without requiring a resource consent.

6.7.4 Summary


Amending the plan to clarify in all the relevant coastal zones that a consent is needed for a permitted activity in an area where there is an existing consent, unless the new activity has the approval of the existing consent holder, is the most appropriate method to achieve the objective of the plan change because the amendment:

1. Is more effective as it reduces confusion; 2. While potentially increasing consent costs for some structures that are otherwise

permitted activities, will be beneficial overall insofar as effects on existing consent holders can be assessed through a consent process; and

3. Is efficient as it allows existing consent holders to enable other parties to operate in the same area without requiring a resource consent.

6.8 Theme 8: Activity tables overlaps and inconsistencies

Chapter of the AUP Chapter F – Coastal

Sub-section of the AUP F2 General Coastal Marine Zone

Specific provision/s F2.19.1 to F2.9.10

F2.19.4(A32)


118

F2.19.8(A83) to (A85)

F2.19.10(A121), (A127), (A135)

F2.21.9.1


Chapter F2 includes ten different activity tables which relate to different types of activities that take place in the coastal marine area. The activity tables have overlaps with some activities that could be in several activity rows. It is not always clear why the differences between similar rules are present and whether they are errors or intentional distinctions.

These overlaps and inconsistencies relate to several different topics as set out below:

1. Disturbance related to works on structures – overlap between activity tables F2.19.4 and F2.19.10

• It is not clear if the foreshore and seabed disturbance that is ancillary to constructing structures is covered by activity table ‘F2.19.4 Disturbance’ or ‘F2.19.10 Structures’. In chapter ‘E3 Lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands’, the rule for a structure includes associated disturbance as part of the structure activity. On land, earthworks are in separate provisions (E11 and E12) to the provisions for development of structures and buildings (chapter H zones). Several other regional coastal plans list the associated disturbance within the structures rules11. Some consent applications for structures refer to the disturbance permitted activity rule (A32) for ‘coastal marine area disturbance that is not otherwise provided for and meets the standards’ while other applications refer only to the relevant rule in the activity table for structures (F2.19.10). In some cases, assessing a proposal under one of the tables but not the other means a different activity status applies.

• Tunnels under the seabed (for example a cross harbour roading tunnel) would require extensive disturbance and construction of the tunnel lining. RMA section 12(1)(c) refers to ‘tunnelling’ as a form of disturbance. Arguably tunnels come under the ‘structures’ activity table in rule F2.19.10 (A126) “Coastal marine area structures located below the surface of the foreshore and seabed, constructed by methods other than trenching, (but not the occupation by those structures)”. This rule provides

11 (1) Proposed Bay of Plenty Regional Coastal Environment Plan appeals version 2017, Rule SO 3 ‘For the avoidance of doubt, this rule covers: (i) The erection of placement, alteration, extension or removal of structures. … (iv) Disturbance of the foreshore and seabed associated with the activity’. (2) Proposed Regional Plan for Northland, 2018 (section 42A recommendations version), Rule C.1.1.21 ‘The RMA activities this rule covers: Erection or placement of a structure in, on, under or over any foreshore or seabed (s12(1)(b)) … Disturbance of any foreshore or seabed, incidental to erecting or placing a structure (s12(1)(c) …’. (3) Proposed Natural Resources Plan for the Wellington Region (2015) Rule R150 ‘the addition or alteration to a structure and the associated use of the addition in the coastal marine area, including any associated: … (b) Disturbance of the foreshore and seabed …’.


119

a permitted activity in the General Coastal Marine Zone for the construction and use of a tunnel. Rule (A127) covers the occupation (as a restricted discretionary activity) but has unclear wording with ‘in areas other than cables in the cable protection areas’. Tunnels completely below the seabed would generally have a low level of environmental effects on the waterspace above, but there could be effects of concern where the disturbance is close to the surface of the seabed.

3. Occupation and use of structures – overlap between tables F2.19.8 and F2.19.10

• It is not always clear whether occupation and use for structures is in table F2.19.8 or F2.19.10. In some cases, the use should be in table 10 as it is integral to the type of structure e.g. navigation aid, infrastructure, maimai. Other structures (e.g. wharves, buildings, boat sheds) could have different uses so they should also use the rules in table F2.19.8 regarding functional need/non-functional need and parking etc.

4. Distinction between ‘occupation’ and ‘use’ in table F2.19.8

• It is not clear why rule (A83) covers use without occupation and (A84) has “occupation of the common marine and coastal area and associated use which have a functional need” but (A85) combines them with “use and occupation by activities that do not have a functional need”. These activities have slightly different meanings; ‘occupation and associated use’ does not include uses without occupation. Rule (A85) could apply to either a use or an occupation. It is not clear what this means for privately owned coastal marine area (i.e. in the coastal marine area but not in the common marine and coastal area).

• It is not clear why rule (A84) does not include ‘use and occupation’ to correspond with (A85), and why (A85) specifically includes activities in or on existing structures but (A84) does not.

5. Re-consenting existing structures

• It is not clear if re-consenting existing structures is in table F2.19.8 (because it covers occupation and use under RMA section 12(2) and (3)) or table F2.19.10 (because it covers structures for RMA section 12(1), (2) and (3)).



Option 2 – Amend the provisions so they are clearer and more consistent with other existing provisions in the AUP. This option includes making the following amendments to the AUP:

1. Disturbance related to works on structures – overlap between tables F2.19.4 and F2.19.10

• Add notes above the activity tables to clarify that table F2.19.10 includes disturbance that is incidental to construction of a structure, and that other disturbance is within table F2.19.4.


120

• Add similar notes under all the F2 activity table headings to clarify what part of the RMA each table relates to. At present, there is a general note at the beginning of the rules and then notes for tables F2.19.8 and F2.19.10.

• Add a note before the activity tables to clarify that if an activity is covered by more than one rule, then the rule that applies is the rule that is more specific for the relevant activity.

• Delete ancillary disturbance from the disturbance table rule F2.19.4(A32). • Amend the wording of rules (A127) and (A135) so they are clearer regarding

structures in the cable protection areas.

3. Occupation and use of structures – overlap between tables F2.19.8 and F2.19.10

• Include a note that occupation has the same activity status as the use or construction unless otherwise specified. Use wording from Port Precinct.

• Exclude uses in the structures table from (A84) (occupation with functional need). • Clarify the existing notes so this issue is clearer.

4. Distinction between ‘occupation’ and ‘use’ in table F2.19.8

• Make (A83) ‘use of the coastal marine area not otherwise provided for and that do not involve occupation’ rather than ‘public access, passive recreation, navigation and general use’.

• Make both rules (A84) and (A85) cover use and/or occupation.

5. Re-consenting existing structures

• Specify in a note that re-consenting structures is in table F2.19.10 with the same activity status as construction.


Table 6.9 - Summary of analysis under section 32(2) of the RMA for Theme 8: Activity table overlaps and inconsistencies.


Costs Benefits

Option 1 - No change to existing provisions.

Not effective as the provisions are confusing.

Additional costs for consent applicants in determining which rules apply to their activities.


Option 2 – Amend the provisions outlined so they are clearer and more consistent with other existing provisions in the AUP

(preferred option)

More effective as the rules will be clearer and easier to understand.

Less cost for applicants to work out what applies to their activity.

Greater certainty regarding the regulatory regime.


121

6.8.4 Summary


Amending the provisions so they are clearer and more consistent is the most appropriate method to achieve the objective of the plan change because the amendments:

1. Are more effective as the rules will be clearer and easier to understand; 2. Reduce cost for applicants to work out what applies to their activity; and 3. Increase certainty regarding the regulatory regime.

6.9 Theme 9: Discharges from hull bio-fouling and vessel maintenance


Sub-section of the AUP F2.13 Discharges from bio-fouling and vessel maintenance

Specific provision/s F2.13.1 Background

F2.13.2 Objectives

F2.13.3 Policies

Activity table F2.19.7 Discharges to the coastal marine area:

o Rules A71-A82

F2.21 Standards

o F2.21.8.7 – Discharges of hull bio-fouling organisms from in-water cleaning of vessels

o F2.21.8.8 – Passive discharges of hull bio-fouling from commercial and military vessels


The sections of the AUP listed in the table above relate to discharges of hull bio-fouling material (‘bio-fouling’) and are intended to address the potential spread of harmful aquatic organisms (HAO) into the Auckland region. This is part of the council’s response to NZCPS policy 12. These provisions are complex and technical, and as currently drafted, may require either professional expertise or advice, and/or experience in dealing with HAO.


122

These provisions, which are designed to complement measures under the Biosecurity Act 1993, were extensively mediated through the AUP hearings, with the key mediated outcomes being the following permitted activity regimes:

• a regime for in-water hull cleaning that applies more or less stringent requirements based on the level of risk associated with the HAO (level of fouling, origin of fouling, nature of fouling i.e. taxa); and

• a best practice ‘warrant of fitness’ regime for passive discharges of bio-fouling from commercial and military vessels.

Feedback from users of the bio-fouling provisions has been that the in-water cleaning rules are difficult to apply because the applicable permitted activity standards can be difficult to ascertain and therefore the provisions could benefit from greater clarity (‘Issue One’). Given their application to a wide range of parties, including recreational boat users, concern has been expressed that the provisions are not appropriate for their target audience.

In particular, plan users have expressed the concern that there does not appear to be a clear distinction between those activities which are subject to the most stringent standards and those that are less onerously regulated.

Furthermore, a second issue has been raised by resource consents staff; in particular, that there is a regulatory ‘gap’ between in-water hull cleaning and other forms of cleaning that may take place outside of the water but in circumstances that may still lead to discharges of bio-fouling entering coastal waters (‘Issue Two’). This could include vessel cleaning on inter-tidal mud areas, on slipways, or on facilities that lift vessels above the water.

Given that Chapter F Table F2.19.7 specifically states that it is intended to capture not only discharges within the coastal marine area, but also discharges to coastal waters under section 15 RMA, the existing provisions are ineffective at achieving the objective of the AUP.

The operative rules currently have a ‘gap’ with respect to bio-fouling discharges to the coastal marine area which are not “in-water”. The removal of hull bio-fouling is explicitly excluded from the permitted activity rule for vessel cleaning (rule (A59)). All of the hull bio-fouling cleaning rules use the “in-water” terminology. Accordingly, while all other discharges of contaminants to the coastal marine area (resulting from vessel cleaning) are captured by (A59), discharges of bio-fouling to the coastal marine area (other than from in-water cleaning) are not subject to any regulation. This leads to the default discharges rules (A62) or (A70) applying, such that the general permitted standards of F2.21.8 apply (rather than the bio-fouling standards) and where they are not met, bio-fouling discharges to the coastal marine area are assessed as a discretionary activity (or non-complying in some overlays).

In that regard, this evaluation does not seek to reconsider the policy approach taken to discharges of bio-fouling, either passive or from in-water cleaning. There is no change proposed to the extent of obligation on vessel owners or operators. Rather, the purpose of the amendments is to better give effect to the existing plan objectives, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and the purpose of the RMA.


123

An additional note to Table F2.19.7 Activity table - Discharges to the coastal marine area - is proposed to identify that additional obligations may arise under other legislation.

Finally, a minor amendment is proposed to the ‘Background’ section to clarify the correct title of the Australian and New Zealand Anti-fouling and In-water Cleaning Guidelines 2013. This document is not a reference document to the provisions; rather the provisions are designed to implement the guidelines.


The options to address the issues identified above are:

Issue One – Clarity of the rules and standards relating to hull bio-fouling and vessel maintenance:

1. No change to the existing provisions. 2. Non-regulatory methods. 3. A plan change to amend the identified technical issues. 4. Other regulatory methods.

Issue Two – Provisions providing for discharges of bio-fouling to the coastal marine area other than from in-water cleaning:

1. No change to the existing provisions. 2. A plan change to amend the identified technical issues. 3. Other regulatory methods.

Section 32(1)(a) - examining the extent to which the objectives of the proposal being evaluated are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA

The objectives of PC 15 as a whole have been evaluated against section 32(1)(a) in section 1.4 of this report above.

With respect to the bio-fouling provisions, the provisions that are the subject of this plan change have already been assessed through the AUP hearings process as achieving the sustainable management purpose of the RMA (refer 2015 section 32AA assessment12). The objective of this plan change, and specifically the proposed amendments to the bio-fouling provisions in this case, is to retain the provisions to the extent that the provisions achieve the purpose of the RMA, but to enhance the workability of the provisions for users of the AUP by improving the legibility of the rules and standards and to clarify the intent of the bio-fouling provisions as a whole. In that regard, the proposed amendments to the bio-fouling objectives seek only to clarify that any hull cleaning that leads to discharges of bio-fouling material into coastal waters is regulated by the AUP.

12 Evidence of Matthew Spiro on behalf of Auckland Council, 23 February 2015, Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel, Topic 033 and 034, Attachment D Section 32AA Assessments. Available at https://hearings.aupihp.govt.nz/programmes/ListProgrammeEvents?id=1


124

https://hearings.aupihp.govt.nz/programmes/ListProgrammeEvents?id=1

Substantively, therefore, there is no proposed change to the extent to which the proposed amendments to the bio-fouling objectives achieve the sustainable management purpose of the RMA. However, these amendments achieve the overall objective of this plan change; namely, to ensure that the AUP, and particularly the bio-fouling provisions, is unambiguous and accessible for users.

Section 32(1)(b)(i) – Identifying other reasonably practicable options for achieving the objectives

Section 1.6 above provides an overview of the four options considered in relation to achieving the objectives of both the operative AUP provisions and PC 15 as a whole. The discussion in that section is adopted for the purpose of this identification of reasonably practicable options to address the issues raised in relation to bio-fouling. This section addresses those options with specific reference to bio-fouling.

Option 1 - Status quo - ‘do nothing’ approach

No change to the existing provisions.


Non-regulatory methods to address the identified technical issues include practice and guidance notes. These notes could be circulated to Auckland Council resource consents and other staff and internal stakeholders.

Fact sheets may also be prepared to provide to vessel owners and operators to explain the application of the rules and standards, to identify invasive species and to provide contact details of the relevant agencies (e.g. Auckland Council compliance staff and Biosecurity NZ).

Option 3 – A plan change to improve the legibility and clarity of the in-water cleaning provisions

A plan change would enable amendments to the bio-fouling provisions to enhance the clarity and comprehensibility of those provisions.

Option 4 – Other regulatory methods

Other regulatory methods to address the identified technical issues include waiting to amend the provisions as part of the full plan review and applying a regulatory approach based on activity status (i.e. requiring consent as a restricted or full discretionary activity etc.) rather than permitted activity standards.


The tables below set out the assessment under both section 32(1)(b)(ii) and section 32(2) for Issues One and Two respectively.

In relation to section 32(2)(b), there is insufficient information regarding the extent of the costs and benefits to realistically quantify those matters. However, as discussed in the


125

tables below, the potential economic costs are considered to be relatively low (with respect to compliance costs), whereas the environmental and economic benefits (in terms of New Zealand’s international reputation as both ‘clean and green’ as well as Auckland’s reputation as a ‘safe’ destination for incoming vessels) are potentially considerably higher. Put another way, the costs imposed on the additional vessels to ensure appropriate cleaning are considered to be outweighed by the environmental and economic benefits of increasing the effectiveness of measures to minimise the spread of HAO into Auckland’s coastal waters.

In relation to section 32(2)(c) there is considered to be certain and sufficient information about the subject matter of the provisions and this section is not addressed further in the tables below.

Table 6.10 - Summary of analysis under section 32(2) of the RMA for Issue One – clarity of the bio-fouling rules and standards.


Costs Benefits

Option 1 - No change to the existing provisions.

The existing provisions establish an efficient and effective regulatory regime (Refer 2015 32AA report13) thus achieving the objectives of the AUP and in particular Objective F2.13.2.1.

However, in terms of the objective of this plan change to enhance the AUP for users, the existing provisions could be more effective through increased clarity.

The existing provisions may be unclear to users which may in turn lead to either ineffective or overly onerous application of the plan provisions and therefore a failure to fully achieve the regulatory objectives of those provisions.

This may create negative economic consequences for vessel owners and operators or negative environmental consequences in terms of managing the spread of HAO.

Neutral

Option 2 - Non-regulatory methods

Guidance notes and/or practice notes and / or fact sheets would assist in increasing the effectiveness of the existing plan provisions through assisting those users to correctly interpret the regulatory

Increased regulatory compliance and enforcement of the existing provisions could lead to greater costs for vessel operators. However, these costs are anticipated and have previously been

Enabling plan users to more clearly understand the regulatory framework will assist in ensuring that the intent of the provisions is better achieved, thus promoting better environmental

13 Ibid


126


Costs Benefits

framework.

As noted in Table 1.2 above, these non-regulatory methods are non-statutory and also open to further interpretation (and challenge) and are thus less effective than amending the plan.

assessed as appropriate through the Schedule 1 process.

This method is also more timely and less costly than undertaking a statutory process.

outcomes.

Option 3 - Amend the rules and standards to clarify the application of the standards to the particular activities

(Preferred approach)

The proposed amendments to the existing rules and standards would increase the effectiveness of those provisions by making them more clearly understood, leading to improved implementation.

Increased regulatory compliance and enforcement of the existing rules and standards could lead to greater costs for vessel operators. However, these costs are anticipated and have previously been assessed as appropriate through the Schedule 1 process.

Economic and employment opportunities may arise both in the private and public sector from the increased hull cleaning to ensure regulatory compliance.

Enabling plan users to more clearly understand the regulatory framework will assist in ensuring that the intent of the provisions is better achieved, thus promoting better environmental outcomes.

An additional benefit of amending the provisions compared to issuing guidance and practice notes is that the information will be clearly available to all users.

Option 4: Other regulatory methods

An alternative to the proposed amendments would be to comprehensively review the permitted activity approach taken in the AUP i.e. to require resource consents for in-water

As set out it the s32AA assessment15, the costs of requiring resource consents for in-water cleaning outweigh the benefits of such an approach.

As set out it the s32AA assessment16, the costs of requiring resource consents for in-water cleaning outweigh the benefits of such an approach.

15 Ibid 16 Ibid


127


Costs Benefits

cleaning.

In terms of whether this would be more efficient and effective, this approach has previously been considered through PAUP process.

As set out in the section 32AA assessment for the AUP hearings14, requiring resource consents for resource consents is not considered efficient or effective compared to the permitted activity regime.

Table 6.11 - Summary of analysis under section 32(2) of the RMA for Issue Two – Discharges of bio-fouling to the coastal marine area other than from in-water cleaning.


Costs Benefits

Option 1 - Retain references to in-water cleaning.

The operative provisions are ineffective at achieving the objectives of the bio-fouling section; in particular Objective 1 which seeks to minimise the spread of HAO.

Restricting the application of the rules to cleaning only those hulls that are physically in the water does not address hull-cleaning either above the water (e.g. on a

Retaining the current rules for hull cleaning creates a risk that vessel owners or operators undertaking hull-cleaning may be subject to applying for a resource consent or being subject to enforcement action (via the default discretionary rule).

Conversely, retaining the existing rules may lead to additional environmental costs through failing to

Neutral

14 Ibid


128


Costs Benefits

crane), cleaning on a tidal grid at low tide, or cleaning on boat ramps or hard stands adjacent to the coastal marine area where the bio-fouling material is either deliberately or accidentally allowed to enter the water.

capture HAO where those organisms enter coastal waters other than through in-water cleaning.

Option 2 - Delete the words ‘in-water’ from the provisions that apply to hull cleaning and bio-fouling removal.

(Preferred approach)

Deleting the words ‘in-water’ would address the regulatory gap between the permitted activity regime and activities not provided for that nonetheless may discharge bio-fouling material into the coastal marine area.

This increases the effectiveness of the regime by providing greater certainty to plan users, potentially reducing the regulatory burden for activities that are not explicitly addressed in the Plan and increasing the effectiveness of the provisions in achieving the plan objective to minimise the spread of HAO.

Clarifying that any hull-cleaning that permits bio-fouling material to enter coastal water unless the relevant standards are met may lead to greater costs insofar as vessel owners and operators, particularly of small recreational boats that are able to be removed from the water more easily than commercial or military vessels would potentially need to incur costs, particularly with respect to capturing bio-fouling material.

However, regular cleaning will ensure compliance with the permitted activity regime without significantly increasing costs.

Clarifying that any hull cleaning that leads to discharges of bio-fouling material is subject to the regulatory regime is likely to lead to positive environmental benefits by further minimising the potential spread of HAO.

Option 3 - Include additional provisions for discharges of bio-fouling other than from in-water cleaning

Less effective than deleting the words ‘in-water’ from the provisions as it leads to additional complexity and possibly apparent

Additional provisions may lead to poorer environmental outcomes through making the bio-fouling provisions more difficult to interpret and

Adding additional provisions would close the regulatory gap between in-water cleaning and other cleaning that discharges bio-fouling


129


Costs Benefits

duplication (i.e. repetition of the sources of bio-fouling and categories of hull cleaning).

therefore less correctly implemented.

material into the coastal marine area.

Option 4 - Amend the definition of in-water cleaning to include any discharge that enables bio-fouling material to enter the coastal marine area.

Less effective than deleting the words ‘in-water’ from the provisions as it leads to possible further interpretation issues.

Adding a definition that includes cleaning out of the water as ‘in-water cleaning’ does not follow ordinary rules for plain language interpretation.

This definition would therefore be likely to be challenged and makes the plan more difficult for plan users both within and outside council.

Adding a definition for in-water cleaning to capture additional discharges would close the regulatory gap between in-water cleaning and other cleaning that discharges bio-fouling material into the coastal marine area.

6.9.4 Summary


In regards to Issue One (clarity of rules and standards that apply), making amendments to clarify the application of the rules and standards by way of a plan change (Option 2) is the most appropriate method to achieve the objective of the plan change because:

1. It will improve the effectiveness of the bio-fouling provisions in terms of achieving the outcomes sought by the Plan, and in particular, minimising the spread of HAO;

2. It will lead to economic and environmental benefits; 3. The costs of the changes (for boat owners and implementation costs for council)

are negligible compared to the operative provisions and those costs were anticipated at the time the notified provisions were considered; and

4. The scale of the changes is small but potentially significant due to the potential environmental benefits of a more effective regulatory regime.

In regards to Issue Two (discharge of bio-fouling to the coastal marine area other than from in-water cleaning) (Option 2), implementing the proposed amendments to clarify that all discharges of bio-fouling to the coastal marine area are subject to the bio-fouling provisions


130

by of a plan change is the most appropriate method to achieve the objective of the plan change because:

1. It will improve the effectiveness of the bio-fouling provisions in terms of achieving the outcomes sought by the Plan, and in particular, minimising the spread of HAO;

2. It will lead to economic and environmental benefits; 3. The costs of the changes (for boat owners and implementation costs for council)

are negligible compared to the costs associated with the operative provisions and those costs were anticipated at the time the notified provisions were considered; and

4. The scale of the changes is small but potentially significant due to the potential environmental benefits of a more effective regulatory regime.

Section 32(1)(c) Scale and significance of the proposal

Section 32(1)(c) states that an evaluation report under the RMA must contain a level of detail that corresponds to the scale and significance of the environmental, economic, social, and cultural effects that are anticipated from the implementation of the proposal.

In this case, while the geographical scale of the proposal is region-wide, the significance of the environmental, economic, social, and cultural effects is relatively narrow. The environmental effects of the proposal (compared to that of the operative plan) are limited to ensuring that the plan is more effective than at the present; however, this may lead to significant environmental benefits through closing the gaps in the existing regime.

6.10 Theme 10: Coastal marine area boundary points at rivers

Chapter of the AUP Chapter M Appendices

GIS map viewer

Sub-section of the AUP Appendix 7 Coastal marine area boundaries

Specific provision/s


The RMA defines the inland boundary of the coastal marine area at rivers as one kilometre upstream of the river mouth, or the point upstream which is five times the width of the river mouth, whichever is lesser. In many places, it can be difficult to determine the exact location of the river mouth and the corresponding location of the coastal marine area boundary. The RMA definition of “mouth” allows for the Minister of Conservation, regional councils and territorial authorities to agree on and set the location of river mouths for the purpose of defining the landward boundary of the coastal marine area. The relevant points are to be agreed before a regional coastal plan is notified.


131

In the AUP, the agreed coastal marine area boundaries at rivers are set out in Appendix 7. The AUP definition of ‘coastal marine area’ refers to Appendix 7 for the river mouth boundaries:

Coastal marine area

Has the same meaning as in the Resource Management Act 1991 except where the line of mean high water springs crosses a river specified in Appendix 7 Coastal Marine Area boundaries, the landward boundary must be the point defined in the appendix.

The appendix specifies topo map grid references for each agreed river mouth and the upstream boundary point. In several cases these are at an agreed pragmatic location, such as the side of a bridge, rather than precisely following the RMA formula.

Several of the grid reference points in Appendix 7 are inconsistent with the actual location of the structures noted in the appendix, or are inconsistent with the indicative coastline shown on the AUP GIS maps. In addition, the reference points are difficult to use as they are not shown on the AUP GIS viewer and need to be determined from a separate topo map.

The grid reference points are all the same as in the equivalent Schedule 7 in the legacy Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal. However, they should have been updated when the Unitary Plan was notified in 2013. When the Unitary Plan was being developed, all the river boundary points were reviewed and several were amended slightly, largely due to more accurate mapping ability with the GIS based maps in the AUP. The indicative coastline was aligned to the amended points but the appendix was not updated. The changes were developed through consultation with Department of Conservation staff in May 2013.

Appendix 7 is significant because it determines whether activities in a waterway are subject to the AUP regional coastal plan provisions or the regional plan provisions for works in a river. These points have legal effect in a consent process. They have a different legal status to the indicative coastline (which is noted in chapter F1 as ‘indicative’ of the line of mean high water springs and needs to be confirmed by site-specific survey).



Option 2 – Update Appendix 7 to use the correct topo map grid references.

Option 3 – Update Appendix 7 and include a new map layer to show the updated coastal marine area boundary points at rivers.


132


Table 6.12 - Summary of analysis under section 32(2) of the RMA for Theme 10: Coastal marine area boundary points at rivers.


Costs Benefits

Option 1: No change to the existing provisions

Not effective as it is unclear whether Appendix 7 should be applied to consent applications when the indicative coastline is in a different location.

Not efficient as the Plan has inconsistent information regarding the coastal marine area boundary at rivers.

Not efficient as a plan user needs to find a topographical map or the legacy coastal plan to use the grid references.

Uncertainty for consent applicants regarding whether their proposal is in a river or the coastal marine area.


Option 2: Update Appendix 7 to use the correct the grid references

More effective as it provides consistency between the maps and the text of the plan.

Not efficient as plan users need to find a topographical map or the legacy plan.

Inconvenient for plan users to find what the grid references mean. They need to find a topographical map or find the mapped points in the legacy plan.

More useable plan.

Option 3: Update Appendix 7 and have a new map layer to show the updated coastal marine area boundary points at rivers.

(preferred option)

More effective as it has consistency between the maps and the text of the plan.

More efficient as the coastal marine area boundary points are shown on the GIS maps.

The council needs to make a new GIS map layer.

Simple and clear for plan users to find the coastal marine area boundary points to determine if they are in a river or coastal marine area.

Continuing the approach taken in the legacy coastal plan to define coastal marine area points at rivers.


133


Costs Benefits

Updating the boundary points so that they apply at the intended locations on the more accurate mapping in the GIS.

6.10.4 Summary


Updating Appendix 7 and adding a new map layer to show the updated coastal marine area boundary points at rivers is the most appropriate method to achieve the objective of the plan change because the amendments:

1. Are more effective as there is consistency between the maps and the text of the plan;

2. Are more efficient as the coastal marine area boundary points at rivers are shown on the GIS maps;

3. While having some costs arising from the need for the Council’s GIS team to make a new map layer, would be beneficial overall insofar as: a. It will be simple and clear for plan users to find the coastal marine area

boundary points to determine if they are in a river or coastal marine area; and b. Continuing the approach taken in the legacy coastal plan to define coastal

marine area points at rivers will provide continuity rather than change for plan users.

6.11 Theme 11: Fire and Emergency



Specific provision/s F2.19.7(A64) and F2.21.8.1


The operative in part version of the Auckland Unitary Plan includes several references to the “New Zealand Fire Service”. The New Zealand Fire Service ceased to exist on 1 July 2017 and was replaced by “Fire and Emergency New Zealand” which was established as an amalgamation of the New Zealand Fire Service Commission, the New Zealand Fire Service, the National Rural Fire Authority, and 38 other Rural Fire Authorities.


134

The AUP now needs to be updated to delete all references to “the New Zealand Fire Service” and replace this with reference to “Fire and Emergency New Zealand”. Two of the references are in Chapter F2 Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone.



Option 2 – Amend the provisions to replace ‘The New Zealand Fire Service’ and with ‘Fire and Emergency New Zealand’. This option includes making the following amendments to the AUP:

• Amend F2.19.7(A64) and F2.21.8.1 to replace ‘The New Zealand Fire Service’ and with ‘Fire and Emergency New Zealand’.

6.11.3 Evaluating the proposal against its objectives

Table 6.13 Summary of analysis under section 32(2) of the Act for Theme 11: Fire and Emergency


Costs Benefits

Option 1: No change to the existing provisions

This option is inefficient because the provisions do not reference the correct organisation.

The incorrect reference to ‘the New Zealand Fire Service’ throughout the AUP(OP) is causing confusion and therefore should be amended.

The provisions continue to be applied/implemented as they currently are.

Option 2: Amend the provisions to replace ‘The New Zealand Fire Service’ and with ‘Fire and Emergency New Zealand’ (preferred option)

Greater efficiency and effectiveness achieved by replacing the references to an outdated organisation name with the correct name ‘Fire and Emergency New Zealand’.

There are no additional costs compared with the status quo other than the cost of changing the Plan.

Greater social and economic benefits for organisations and the public as this option provides greater certainty and clarity with the updated correct reference to ‘Fire and Emergency New Zealand’.

6.11.4 Summary

Implementing Option 2 to make the proposed amendments, replacing the incorrect references to ‘the New Zealand Fire Service’ with the correct references to ‘Fire and Emergency New Zealand’ is the most appropriate method to achieve the objectives of the plan change because the amendments:

1. Improve usability and legibility of the AUP; and 2. Ensures the correct organisation name is referred to consistently throughout the

AUP.


135

6.12 Theme 12: Infrastructure affecting use of the Mooring Zone



Specific provision/s Policy F2.16.3(24)


Policy F2.16.3(24) states:

(24) Avoid structures that will limit the ability to moor vessels in the Coastal – Mooring Zone, other than those structures necessary for infrastructure that have a functional or operational need to be located in the coastal marine area and that cannot practicably be located outside the Coastal – Mooring Zone.

This policy is included in the General Coastal Marine Zone chapter and so it applies to all structures that limit the ability to moor vessels in the Coastal – Mooring Zone. However, the last part of the policy that relates to infrastructure, refers to infrastructure that cannot be located “outside the Coastal Mooring Zone” when infrastructure could impede access “to” a Mooring Zone, for example, a bridge or cable across an inlet could block access to a Mooring Zone further up that inlet.

In the notified version of the AUP, this policy was in the Mooring Zone section of the plan. The IHP moved it to the General Coastal Marine Zone chapter. The council’s closing statement track changes included this as policy 10 in topic 5.3 (Mooring Zone and Moorings). The IHP report does not mention why they shifted the policy, although they do talk about the appropriateness of having a chapter that is for both the mooring zone and moorings outside the zone (chapter F4). In addressing that issue, the policy may have been moved so that chapter F4 is more focused on moorings (in the mooring zone and outside it) rather than other activities that could affect moorings.

Another reason for moving the policy to the General Coastal Marine Zone chapter appears to be so that it could be used to avoid structures that stopped access to Mooring Zones as well as structures that affect mooring use within a mooring zone. The end of the policy should have been changed so that it applied to more than the Mooring Zone when it was moved. It would be clearer to use ‘another location’ so that the consideration is whether the infrastructure can practicably be in a different location rather than outside the Mooring Zone.



Option 2 – Amend policy F2.16.3(24) so that it applies to infrastructure that could affect access to a Mooring Zone as well as infrastructure in a Mooring Zone. This option includes making the following amendment to the AUP:


136

• Amend policy F2.16.3(24) to refer to infrastructure that cannot practicably be located ‘in a different location’ instead of ‘outside the Coastal – Mooring Zone’.


Table 6.14 - Summary of analysis under section 32(2) of the RMA for Theme 12: Infrastructure affecting use of the Mooring Zone.


Costs Benefits


The current wording is not effective as it is not clear whether it applies to infrastructure that affects access to a Mooring Zone as well as infrastructure in a Mooring Zone.

Some costs in determining how the policy applies to relevant structures.


Option 2 – Amend policy F2.16.3(24) so that it applies to infrastructure that could affect access to a Mooring Zone as well as infrastructure in a Mooring Zone.

(preferred option)

More effective as the policy will be clearer and easier to understand, and more applicable to infrastructure that could limit the ability to moor vessels in the Mooring Zone.

No additional costs other than the costs of changing the plan.

Greater certainty regarding the meaning of the policy.

6.12.4 Summary


Amending the policy so that it more clearly applies to infrastructure that could affect access to a Mooring Zone, as well as infrastructure in a Mooring Zone, is the most appropriate method to achieve the objective of the plan change because the amendment:

1. Is more effective as the policy will be clearer and easier to understand; 2. Increases certainty regarding the meaning of the policy.


137

6.13 Theme 13: Aquaculture rules and definitions


Chapter J – Definitions


Specific provision/s F2.19.9(A116), (A117), (A118), (A119)

Definitions of ‘experimental aquaculture activities’ and ‘new aquaculture’.


There are several minor wording inconsistencies between the activity table and definitions for aquaculture activities. These are:

• The definition of ‘new aquaculture’ does not link to any of the rules as rule F2.19.9(A115) uses ‘aquaculture activities (new)’.

• ‘Lawfully established aquaculture activities’ has a definition and the term is used in rules F2.19.9 (A117) and (A118) but not in (A116) “Aquaculture activities (re-consenting an established aquaculture activity)”. Rule F2.19.9(A116) does not link to the definition although to ‘re-consent’ an established aquaculture activity, it must have a consent already and so it should be ‘lawfully established’. The definition makes it clear that the activities must be both consented and operational when the PAUP was notified. Rule (A116) leaves some uncertainty for marine farms that are operational but with a different form or extent than was consented. It would be clearer to reword the rule so that it uses the defined term.

• The size and time limits for rule F2.19.9(A119) ‘experimental aquaculture activities’ are partly in the activity table and partly in the definition. It would be clearer to move the duration from the definition to the rule, and to only state size in the rule not the definition.



Option 2 – Amend the aquaculture rules and definitions so they are consistent. This option includes making the following amendments to the AUP:

• Amend the rules so that they use the defined terms. • Shift the 10 ha limit on experimental aquaculture from the definition to the rule and

remove the size limit from the definition.


138


Table 6.15 - Summary of analysis under section 32(2) of the RMA for Theme 13: Aquaculture rules and definitions.


Costs Benefits


Not effective as the differences between the rules and definitions are confusing.

Additional costs for consent applicants in determining how the differences affect their activities.


Option 2 – Amend the aquaculture rules and definitions so they are consistent

(preferred option)

More effective as the rules more clearly use the definitions and so will be easier to understand and implement.



6.13.4 Summary


Amending the aquaculture rules and definitions so they are consistent is the most appropriate method to achieve the objective of the plan change because the amendments:

1. Are more effective as the provisions will be clearer and easier to understand; 2. Reduce cost for applicants to work out what applies to their activity; and 3. Increase certainty regarding the regulatory regime.

6.14 Theme 14: Discharges to water default rules



Specific provision/s F2.19.7(A62) and (A70)


It is not clear why there are two default rules for discharges to water that are not otherwise provided for ((A62) and (A70)). It could be clearer that one corresponds to when the standards are met and the other is when the standards are not met. The differing use of ‘coastal water’ and ‘coastal marine area’ indicates a distinction that should not be present.


139



Option 2 – Amend the discharges to water default rules so they are clearer. This option includes making the following amendments to the AUP:

• Amend F2.19.7(A62) and (A70) to use consistent wording • Clarify that the permitted activity relates to where the standards are met.


Table 6.16 - Summary of analysis under section 32(2) of the RMA for Theme 14: Discharges to water default rules.


Costs Benefits





Option 2 – Amend the discharges to water default rules so they are clearer

(preferred option)




6.14.4 Summary


Amending the discharges to water default rules so they are clearer is the most appropriate method to achieve the objective of the plan change because the amendments:

1. Are more effective as the rules will be clearer and easier to understand; and 2. Increase certainty regarding the regulatory regime.


140

6.15 Theme 15: Dredging, disturbance and depositing inconsistencies


Sub-section of the AUP F2 General Coastal Marine Zone


F2.19.3(A17) to (A21)

F2.19.4(A33) to (A36)

F2.21.4.2.


Foreshore works such as stream mouth clearance, beach nourishment and re-contouring can include elements of dredging, disturbance and depositing. There are several inconsistencies within and between the relevant tables that can create confusion and uncertainty. It would be clearer if the same wording and thresholds were used. The discrepancies between the tables include:

• Differences in the wording for corresponding disturbance and depositing rules, for example, referring to ‘calendar year’ or ‘12 month period’.

• Rules F2.19.3(A17) and (A19) both provide for dredging to maintain or clear an existing lawful drainage system. The activity status for both rules is the same across the overlays, however Rule (A17) limits the dredging volume to 500m3 while Rule (A19) enables dredging up to 1500m³. This appears to make rule (A17) redundant.

• Rule (A18) is specific to river mouth dredging, that by definition includes realigning a watercourse used for drainage. A watercourse used for drainage could also be an existing lawful drainage system, and where dredging is proposed to clear the exit it is unclear if rule (A18) or rule (A19) should be applied. The activity status for these rules is the same across all overlays except for the Significant Ecological Areas – Marine 2 (SEA-M2) overlay. Dredging up to 1500m3 to clear a watercourse for drainage in a SEA-M2 is a permitted activity under rule (A19), however dredging to realign a watercourse for drainage in a SEA-M2 is a restricted discretionary activity under rule (A18). If rule (A18) activity status of dredging in SEA-M2 was amended from restricted discretionary to permitted, this would be consistent with Rule (A19) and also policy F2.4.3 that recognises dredging can be appropriate to reduce erosion risk.

• Standard F2.21.4.2 is inconsistent with the permitted activity thresholds. Rule (A19) permits up to 1500m³ dredging to maintain existing lawful drainage systems, however condition 2 of F2.21.4.2 limits the dredged volume to 500m³.

• In standard F2.21.4.2, condition 7 is duplicated by condition 11. • Rule F2.19.2(A7) for depositing of material has the same thresholds for volume and

length as the dredging rules, however the rules do not have the same activity status. Dredging up to 1500m³ in a SEA-M2 overlay is a permitted activity under rule (A19)


141

however the deposition of sediment in the coastal marine area in SEA-M2 is a discretionary activity. The permitted activity standard F2.21.3.1 lists depositing material excavated from stream mouth clearance as one of the criteria. Deposition of dredged sediment above mean high water springs for beneficial reuse is a permitted activity under E36.4.1 (A14), with the standards E36.6.1.2 recognising beneficial reuse of material dredged from stream mouth clearance. If the activity status of rule F2.19.2(A7) for deposition in SEA-M2 was amended from discretionary to permitted, and the activity status for depositing in an Outstanding Natural Landscape amended from discretionary to restricted discretionary, rule (A7) would be consistent with policy F2.3.3(1), with the permitted activity status of the dredging rule (A19), and also with the permitted activity status for deposition on land (E36.4.1(A14)).

• In the disturbance activity table F2.19.4 rule (A35) appears to be redundant as it repeats (A36) but applies it to disturbance required for the safe and efficient operation or construction of significant infrastructure. The only difference is that rule (A35) has a discretionary activity in the SEA-M overlay instead of a non-complying activity. The volumes and criteria in the disturbance table are the same as in the depositing table F2.19.2 except that there is no equivalent to rule (A35) for depositing. Rule (A35) was added to provide a discretionary activity for disturbance associated with constructing a future tunnel across the Waitemata Harbour. The expected route passes through several SEA-M2 areas.



Option 2 – Amend the dredging, disturbance and depositing provisions so they are clearer and more consistent with related provisions. This option includes making the following amendments to the AUP:

• Amend the F2.19.4 disturbance rules to use ‘12 month period’ instead of ‘calendar year’ so that it is consistent with the depositing rules in F2.19.2.

• Modify F2.19.2(A7) so that the activity status is consistent with F2.19.3(A19) for ONL, SEA-M2 and HNC overlays

• Delete F2.19.3(A17) and (A18) and include ‘river mouth dredging’ in (A19) • Include maintaining and clearing drainage systems more explicitly in F2.9.3(A19),

(A20) and (A21) • Amend standard F2.21.4.2 to remove the volume threshold as that is set within the

activity table. • Amend standard F2.21.4.2 to remove condition (11) as it duplicates condition (7).


Table 6.17 - Summary of analysis under section 32(2) of the RMA for Theme 15: Dredging, disturbance and depositing inconsistencies.

Options Efficiency and Costs Benefits


142

effectiveness


Not effective as the provisions are inconsistent and create confusion.



Option 2 – Amend the dredging, disturbance and depositing provisions so they are clearer and more consistent with related provisions

(preferred option)




6.15.4 Summary


Amending the dredging, disturbance and depositing provisions so they are clearer and more consistent with related provisions is the most appropriate method to achieve the objective of the plan change because the amendments:

1. Are more effective as the rules will be clearer and easier to understand; and 2. Increase certainty regarding the regulatory regime.

6.16 Theme 16: Boat ramps





There has been debate regarding whether boat ramps in the General Coastal Marine Zone are ‘marine and port accessory structures’ even though they are specifically listed as an inclusion in the definition. Some plan users have argued that boat ramps cannot be included in that definition if the boat ramp is a small-scale boat ramp adjacent to private land as its use is not related to a ‘marine and port activity’. This approach interprets ‘marine and port activity’ to be navigation and berthing of commercial vessels, rather than small pleasure


143

vessels, and is based on the fact that the definition of ‘marine and port activity’ does not include ‘vessel launching’. When the coastal provisions were developed, it was assumed that boat ramps were covered by the rule relating to ‘marine and port accessory structures and services’. The relevant definitions are:

Marine and port activities

Activities associated with:

• the navigation, anchoring, mooring, berthing, manoeuvring, refuelling, storage, servicing, maintenance and repair of vessels;

• embarking and disembarking of passengers; • loading, unloading and storage of cargo and containers; • operation, maintenance, repair, cleaning, and refuelling of associated plant

and equipment; • educational activities associated with these activities; and • the use of buildings and structures associated with these activities, including

accessory offices, seafood processing and parking.

Marine and port accessory structures and services (emphasis added)

Structures and services accessory to marine and port activities and marine and port facilities.

Includes:

• fenders; • piles; • pontoons; • gangways; • handrails; • hardstands; • wash-down facilities; • ramps and other boat launching facilities; • canopies; • lighting poles and fittings; • refuse facilities; • dinghy racks; • dinghy locker and storage facilities; • power and telecommunication cables; • water and sewer reticulation; • floating oil booms and barriers; • fuelling and sewage pumpout facilities; and • navigational aids.




144

Option 2 – Add ‘boat ramps’ as a new activity in F2.19.10 with the same activity status as ‘marine and port accessory structures and services’.


Table 6.18 - Summary of analysis under section 32(2) of the RMA for Theme 16: Boat ramps.


Costs Benefits


Not efficient as considerable debate has been generated about the activity status of boat ramps that are not in marinas or port areas.

Additional costs for consent applicants in determining which rules apply to their proposed boat ramp.


Option 2 – Add ‘boat ramps’ as a new activity in F2.19.10 with the same activity status as ‘marine and port accessory structures and services’

(preferred option)

More effective and efficient as the rules will be clearer and easier to understand.

Less cost for applicants to work out what applies to their proposed boat ramp.


6.16.4 Summary


Amending the provisions to include ‘boat ramps’ as a new activity in F2.19.10 with the same activity status as ‘marine and port accessory structures and services’ is the most appropriate method to achieve the objective of the plan change because the amendments:

1. Are more effective and efficient as the rules will be clearer and easier to understand; and

2. Increase certainty regarding the regulatory regime for boat ramps.


145

6.17 Theme 17: Significant infrastructure



Specific provision/s F2.10.3(3)

F2.19.4(A35)

F2.23.1(3)(e)


The term “significant infrastructure” is used in three places in Chapter F2. This term was defined in the notified Unitary Plan but was deleted elsewhere in the AUP through the IHP process. Without the definition, it is now unclear what is meant in the F2 provisions.



Option 2 – Amend the references to ‘significant infrastructure’ to remove ‘significant’ to be consistent with the rest of the AUP. This option includes making the following amendments to the AUP:


Table 6.19 - Summary of analysis under section 32(2) of the RMA for Theme 17: Significant infrastructure.


Costs Benefits



Additional costs for consent applicants in determining whether the provisions apply to their activities.


Option 2 – Amend the references to ‘significant infrastructure’ to remove ‘significant’ to be consistent with the rest of the AUP

(preferred option)

More effective as the provisions will be clearer and easier to understand.




146

6.17.4 Summary


Amending the references to ‘significant infrastructure’ to remove ‘significant’ to be consistent with the rest of the AUP is the most appropriate method to achieve the objective of the plan change because the amendments:

1. Are more effective as the provisions will be clearer and easier to understand; and 2. Increase certainty regarding the regulatory regime.

7. Conclusion

PC 15 seeks to amend Chapter F Coastal, Chapter J Definitions, Appendix 7 and the GIS viewer of the Auckland Unitary Plan in respect of the provisions identified in section 6. The proposed amendments are to address identified technical issues only and will retain the current policy direction of the AUP. The main conclusions of the evaluation under Part 2 and section 32 of the RMA are summarised below:

1. PC 15 is consistent with the purpose of sustainable management in section 5 and with the principles in sections 6, 7 and 8 of the RMA.

2. PC 15 assists the council in carrying out its functions set out in section 30 of the RMA.

3. Pursuant to section 67(3)(c) of the RMA, PC 15 gives effect to the objectives and policies of the RPS.

4. The evaluation undertaken in accordance with section 32 concluded: i. the use of the existing objectives of the AUP (and minor amendments to two

existing objectives) would be the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA.

ii. the amendment of the AUP in respect of the provisions identified in section 6 is the most appropriate means of achieving the objectives identified in section 1.4 of this report.


147

Attachment 1: PC 15 with cross-references to themes in the s 32 report

Attachment 1 is included as a separate document. It is a copy of the plan change with comment boxes that give cross-references to the part of the section 32 evaluation report which contains the explanation for the proposed amendment.

148

ATTACHMENT C

PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 15 - SECTION 32 ATTACHMENT 1

149

150

Attachment 1: Plan Change 15 – Improving consistency of provisions in Chapter F

Coastal, Chapter J Definitions, Appendix 7 and the viewer of the Auckland Unitary Plan

(Operative in part)

Advice note:

This attachment sets out the content of the proposed plan change with cross references to the part of the Section 32 Evaluation Report which contains the explanation for the proposed amendment.

The proposed additions are shown in underline and the proposed deletions are shown in strikethrough. The use of ‘…’ indicates that there is more text, but it is not being changed.

In accordance with section 86B(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991 all of the proposed plan change rules have immediate legal effect.

1

151

Proposed amendments to Chapter F Coastal

F2. Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone

F2.1 Zone description The Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone comprises …

… [to last paragraph]

Any sites or places of significance to Mana Whenua sensitive material that are is identified prior to, or discovered during use and development activities in the coastal marine area, must comply with the accidental discovery rules in F2.21.1.4. E11 Land disturbance – Regional or E12 Land disturbance - District. Sensitive material includes human remains and kōiwi, archaeological sites, Māori cultural artefacts, protected New Zealand objects (including fossils or sub-fossils), shipwrecks or other items that may contain oil, lava caves, and unknown material on or under the foreshore or seabed such as munitions, submarine cables and pipelines.

The Plan has identified significant marine communities …

F2.10. Taking, use and damming or diverting of coastal waters

F2.10.3. Policies [rcp] (3) Avoid damming or impoundment of coastal water unless:

(a) it is necessary to enable the construction, operation or maintenance of significant infrastructure; or

(b) it is for habitat protection; and

(c) a location on land or other method is not available;

F2.11. Discharges

F2.11.1 Background Good water is fundamental to most activities undertaken in the coastal marine area and underpins the ecological health and life-supporting capacity of the marine environment.

… [To 8th paragraph]

The Council will work collaboratively with stakeholders to identify additional coastal water quality indicators and guideline values to complement the existing sediment quality threshold effects levels (for example, those in 'Blueprint for monitoring urban receiving environments, ARC Technical Publication 168 revised edition August 2004’ and the ‘Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, Australian and New Zealand Governments and Australian state and territory governments, Canberra ACT, Australia’ (ANZG 2018) as they relate to sediment quality in the coastal marine area). This will help improve the evaluation of different discharge options through the resource consent process. This will be an interim measure as implementation of the

Comment [s32 1]: Theme 1



2

152

National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 and marine spatial planning is likely to result in additional measures to safeguard the values of coastal receiving environments.

F2.13. Discharges from bio-fouling and vessel maintenance

F2.13.1. Background ...

Vessels arriving from overseas may be carrying organisms that are exotic to New Zealand, whereas vessels from other parts of New Zealand, or even those travelling between different places in Auckland, may further spread exotic species which are already established. These organisms may be discharged into the coastal marine area either by active in-water cleaning of hulls, or by passive discharge due to reproductive processes of the organisms, or by water sheering during vessel movement.

The best way to minimise the risks associated with harmful aquatic organisms is to restrict their introduction into New Zealand, limit their spread (if they are already present) by controlling the movement of fouled vessels, equipment and gear and restrict discharges from in-water cleaning that may include harmful aquatic organisms. The origin of a vessel adds to the risk of the spread of invasive organisms.

…

The provisions in this Section allow for the removal of microfouling from vessels, but place progressively stricter controls on vessels with higher levels of hull bio-fouling (in accordance with the Australian and New Zealand Anti-fouling and In-water Cleaning Guidelines June 2013), which is preventable if vessel maintenance is kept up to date. The provisions in this section relating to biofouling are also stricter for high value areas.

…

F2.13.2. Objectives [rcp] (1) The risk of introducing or spreading harmful aquatic organisms from vessel

biofouling is minimised. (2) The risk of introducing contaminants, including harmful aquatic organisms, from

the in-water cleaning of vessels near the shores of Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Islands which have conservation status is minimised.

F2.13.3. Policies [rcp] (1) Raise awareness among the boating community, particularly for vessels arriving

from outside New Zealand or Auckland, of the importance of maintaining clean hulls to reduce risk of introducing or spreading harmful aquatic organisms from biofouling on vessel hulls and niche areas, and particularly during boat maintenance activities and from the passive discharge of organisms from macrofouling.

(2) Manage the in-water hull and niche area cleaning and boat maintenance activities of vessels, particularly those that have a high degree of biofouling, to



3

153

minimise the risk of harmful aquatic organisms being discharged into coastal water.

(3) Avoid in-water hull cleaning or boat maintenance activities being undertaken on the foreshore and marine area surrounding the Hauraki Gulf conservation islands, to reduce the risk from contaminants, including harmful aquatic organisms, adversely affecting the natural values of these islands.

F2.14. Use, development and occupation in the coastal marine area

F2.14.2 Objectives (9) Limited expansion of existing marinas existing at the date of notification into the

Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone is provided for, provided there is adequate infrastructure to support the expansion and adverse effects on the coastal environment are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

F2.14.3. Policies [rcp] (3) Avoid use and occupation of the common marine and coastal area by activities

that do not have a functional need to be undertaken in the coastal marine area below mean high water springs, unless the proposed use:

(a) can demonstrated it needs to be located in the common marine and coastal area and cannot practicably be located on land outside of the common marine and coastal area;

(b) is consistent with the objectives and policies for the relevant zone or precinct;

(c) will enhance amenity values and not conflict with marine activities; or and

(d) any necessary land-based infrastructure can be provided.

F2.16. Structures

F2.16.3 Policies [rcp] (24) Avoid structures that will limit the ability to moor vessels in the Coastal –

Mooring Zone, other than those structures necessary for infrastructure that have a functional or operational need to be located in the coastal marine area and that cannot practicably be located in a different location outside the Coastal – Mooring Zone.

F2.19. Activity tables (1) Tables F2.19.1 to F2.19.10 specify the activity status of activities in the Coastal –

General Coastal Marine Zone (GCM Zone) and the coastal marine area parts of the following overlays pursuant to sections 12(1), 12(2) and 12(3) of the





4

154

Resource Management Act 1991, including any associated discharges of contaminants or water into water pursuant to section 15 of the Resource Management Act 1991, and taking, using and damming or diverting coastal water pursuant to section 14, and discharges to coastal waters pursuant to section 15 of the Resource Management Act:

(a) D9 Significant Ecological Areas Overlay – Marine 1 and 2 (SEA-M1, SEA-M2);

(b) D17 Historic Heritage Overlay (HH);

(c) D11 Outstanding Natural Character and High Natural Character overlays (ONC) (HNC);

(d) D10 Outstanding Natural Features Overlay; and Outstanding Natural Landscapes Overlay (ONF) (ONL).

The abbreviations in brackets after the overlay names that are listed above, are used as references to these overlays in Tables F2.19.1 to F2.19.10.

(1A) If an activity is covered by more than one rule, then the rule that applies is the rule that is more specific for the relevant activity, area or resource. This does not apply where a proposal includes a number of activities which trigger separate specific rules. In that case, all rules are considered when assessing the proposal.

(2) The activities, standards and assessment in F2 Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone apply in the coastal marine area of all the coastal zones and coastal precincts unless otherwise specified under the relevant zone or precinct.

Table F2.19.1 Activity table - Drainage, reclamation and declamation Note 1

Table F2.19.1 specifies the activity status for works that reclaim or drain any foreshore or seabed, and for declamation activities in the coastal marine area. The RMA activities that this table covers are:

• Reclamation and drainage of any foreshore or seabed (RMA s12(1)(a)) • Activities that contravene a rule in the regional coastal plan (RMA s12(3)) • Disturbance of the foreshore and seabed, incidental to the activity (RMA s12(1)(c),

(e), (g)) • Deposition of material in, on or under the foreshore or seabed, incidental to the

activity (RMA s12(1)(d)) • Diversion of coastal water, incidental to the activity (RMA s14) • Discharge of contaminants or water into water, incidental to the activity (RMA s15).

…

Table F2.19.2 Activity table - Depositing and disposal of material

Note 1



5

155

Table F2.19.2 specifies the activity status of depositing and disposal of material in the coastal marine area. The table also repeats the requirements of Regulation 4(2) of the Resource Management (Marine Pollution) Regulations 1998, which specifies that certain dumping activities must be treated as a discretionary activity in a regional coastal plan. The RMA activities that this table covers are:

• Deposition of material in, on or under the foreshore or seabed (RMA s12(1)(d)) • Disturbance of the foreshore and seabed, incidental to the activity (RMA s12(1)(c),

(e), (g)) • Activities that contravene a rule in the regional coastal plan (RMA s12(3)) • Diversion of coastal water, incidental to the activity (RMA s14) • Discharge of contaminants or water into water, incidental to the activity (RMA s15).

Activity


SEA-M1, ONC

ONL SEA-M2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A


HH

(A7) Coastal marine area depositing of material where the deposited sediment is extracted from within the same coastal cell: • maximum of 1500m3 per 12

month period

P D D RD D P D NC D

(A8) Coastal marine area depositing of material where the deposited sediment is extracted from within the same coastal cell: • between 1500m3 and

10,000m3 per 12 month period

RD NC D D D NC D

(A9) Coastal marine area depositing of material from outside the coastal cell: • maximum of 10,000m3 per 12

month period

RD NC D D NC NC D

(A9A) Coastal marine area depositing of material where the deposited sediment is extracted from within the same coastal cell: • greater than 10,000m3 of

sediment per 12 month period, where it is required for the safe and efficient operation or construction of infrastructure

D NC NC D NC NC NC

(A10) Coastal marine area depositing of material not otherwise provided for

D NC NC NC NC NC NC




6

156

Table F2.19.3 Activity table - Dredging Note 1

Table F2.19.3 specifies the activity status of dredging activities in the coastal marine area. The RMA activities that this table covers are:

• Disturbance of the foreshore and seabed (RMA s12(1)(c), (e), (g)) • Activities that contravene a rule in the regional coastal plan (RMA s12(3)) • Diversion of coastal water, incidental to the activity (RMA s14) • Discharge of contaminants or water into water, incidental to the activity (RMA s15).

Activity


SEA-M1, ONC

ONL SEA-M2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A


HH

(A17) Dredging to maintain or clear an existing lawful drainage systems involving maximum of 500m3 of material [Deleted]

P D RD P D D D

(A18) River mouth dredging; • maximum of 1500m3; or • maximum of 100m length [Deleted]

P D RD RD D D D

(A19) River mouth dredging; Dredging dredging to maintain or gain access to an existing lawful structure; dredging to clear the exit of any lawful stormwater outfall or pipe; or to maintain or clear an existing lawful drainage systems: • maximum of 1500m3; • maximum of 100m length

P D RD P D D D

(A20) River mouth dredging; dredging to maintain or gain access to an existing lawful structure; dredging to clear the exit of any lawful stormwater outfall or pipe; or to maintain or clear an existing lawful drainage systems: • maximum of 5000 m3; • maximum of 500m length

RD NC RD RD NC NC NC

(A21) River mouth dredging; dredging to maintain or gain access to an existing lawful structure; dredging

D NC D D NC NC NC






7

157

Activity


SEA-M1, ONC

ONL SEA-M2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A


HH

to clear the exit of any lawful stormwater outfall or pipe; or to maintain or clear an existing lawful drainage systems not otherwise provided for

Table F2.19.4 Activity table – Coastal marine area disturbance

Note 1

Table F2.19.4 specifies the activity status of activities that disturb any foreshore or seabed (including by excavating, drilling, or tunnelling, but excluding dredging). The RMA activities that this table covers are:

• Disturbance of the foreshore and seabed (RMA s12(1)(c), (e), (g)) • Removal of sand, shingle, shell or other natural material from the common marine

and coastal area (RMA s12(2)(b)) • Deposition of material in, on or under the foreshore or seabed, incidental to the

activity (RMA s12(1)(d)) • Activities that contravene a rule in the regional coastal plan (RMA s12(3)) • Diversion of coastal water, incidental to the activity (RMA s14) • Discharge of contaminants or water into water, incidental to the activity (RMA s15).

Note 2

Any disturbance of the foreshore or seabed incidental to the construction, placement, alteration, removal or demolition of structures is addressed by Table F2.19.10.

Note 1 3


Activity


SEA-M1, ONC

ONL SEA-M2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A


HH

… (A32) Coastal marine area disturbance

that is: P P P P P P P



8

158

Activity


SEA-M1, ONC

ONL SEA-M2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A


HH

• not otherwise provided for and meets the standards; or

• associated with removal of litter or marine debris; or

• associated with removal of sediment, vegetation and encrusting organisms from any existing lawful coastal marine area structures; or

• associated with the burial of dead marine mammals; or

• associated with control or eradication of any exotic or introduced plant or animal species; or

• associated with operation, maintenance, repair or reconstruction of existing lawful Coastal marine area structures or buildings; or

• associated with minor infrastructure upgrading.

(A33) Coastal marine area disturbance that is associated with movement of up to 1500m3 of sediment per calendar year 12 month period within the same coastal cell

P D D D D NC D

(A34) Coastal marine area disturbance that is associated with movement of between 1500m3 and 10,000m3 of sediment per calendar year 12 month period within the same coastal cell

RD NC D D D NC NC

(A35) Coastal marine area disturbance associated with movement greater than 10,000m3 of sediment per calendar year 12 month period within the same coastal cell, where it is required for the safe and efficient operation or construction of

D NC NC D NC NC NC




9

159

Activity


SEA-M1, ONC

ONL SEA-M2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A


HH

significant infrastructure (A36) Coastal marine area disturbance

associated with movement greater than 10,000m3 of sediment per calendar year 12 month period within the same coastal cell

D NC NC NC NC NC NC

(A37) Coastal marine area disturbance that is not otherwise provided for

D NC NC NC NC NC NC

Table F2.19.5 Activity table - Planting in the coastal marine area Note 1

Table F2.19.5 specifies the activity status of planting in the coastal marine area. The RMA activities that this table covers are:

• Planting exotic or introduced plants in the coastal marine area (RMA s12(1)(f)) • Planting native plants (activities that contravene a rule in the regional coastal plan)

(RMA s12(3)) • Disturbance of the foreshore or seabed, incidental to the activity (RMA s12(1)(c), (e),

(g)).

Activity


SEA-M1, ONC

ONL SEA-M2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A


HH

…

Table F2.19.6 Activity table - Taking, use and damming or diverting coastal water Note 1

Table F2.19.6 specifies the activity status of taking, use and damming or diverting coastal water. The RMA activities that this table covers are:

• Taking, using, damming or diverting coastal water (RMA s14)






10

160

GCM Zone

SEA-M1, ONC

ONL SEA-M2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A


HH

…

Table F2.19.7 Activity table - Discharges to the coastal marine area Note 1

Table F2.19.7 specifies the activity status of discharges to the coastal marine area, other than where it is incidental to an activity provided for in another table. The RMA activities that this table covers are:

• Discharge of contaminants or water into water (RMA s15) • Activities that contravene a rule in the regional coastal plan (RMA s12(3))

Note 2

Additional biosecurity obligations may apply with respect to biofouling. International vessels arriving in New Zealand waters will have additional obligations under the Craft Risk Management Standard: Biofouling on Vessels Arriving to New Zealand (May 2014).

Activity


SEAM1, ONC

ONL SEAM2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A


HH

… (A62) Discharges into the coastal marine

area, which are not covered by subject to another rule in the Unitary Plan, and not covered by subject to the Resource Management (Marine Pollution) Regulations 1998, that comply with the permitted activity standards

P P P P P P P

… (A64) Discharges from firefighting and

other emergency response activities undertaken by the New Zealand Fire Service Fire and Emergency New Zealand (including discharges of hazardous substances)

P P P P P P P





11

161

Activity


SEAM1, ONC

ONL SEAM2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A


HH

… (A70) Discharges into coastal water not

otherwise authorised by a rule in the Plan, or covered by subject to the Resource Management (Marine Pollution) Regulations 1998, that do not comply with the permitted activity standards

D NC D D D NC D

(A71) Discharge of hull bio-fouling organisms resulting from in-water cleaning of a vessel with micro-fouling (LOF 0-1) and goose barnacles (standards to be complied with: Standard F2.21.8.7 (1), (2), (5) and (7))

P Pr P P(HNC) Pr (SEA –M2)

P P P

(A72) Discharge of hull bio-fouling organisms resulting from: • the in-water small scale manual

removal (up to 5 per cent of the hull surface area, including niche areas) of macro-fouling not provided for in Rule (A71) or (A73) bio-fouling organisms; or

• cleaning of a vessel with macro-fouling where the fouling is: o of international origin; or o of domestic origin but more

than low biosecurity risk or has not had a risk assessment (or extensive to very heavy macro-fouling)

(standards to be complied with: Standard F2.21.8.7 (2), (3), (4), (5) and (7))


D P P

(A73) Discharge of hull bio-fouling organisms resulting from in-water cleaning of a vessel with macro-fouling where the fouling is:


D P P





12

162

Activity


SEAM1, ONC

ONL SEAM2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A


HH

• from within Auckland; or • of domestic origin following a risk assessment that determined a relative biosecurity risk of negligible or low (standards to be complied with: Standard F2.21.8.7 (2), (5) and (7))

(A74) Discharge of hull bio-fouling organisms resulting from in-water cleaning of a vessel with macro-fouling of domestic origin following a risk assessment that determined a relative biosecurity risk of negligible or low (standards to be complied with: Standard F2.21.8.7 (2), (5) and (7)) [Deleted]


D P P

(A75) Discharge of hull bio-fouling organisms resulting from in-water cleaning of a vessel with macrofouling where the fouling is: • of international origin; or • of domestic origin but more than low biosecurity risk or has not had a risk assessment (or extensive to very heavy macrofouling) (standards to be complied with: Standard F2.21.8.7 (2), (3), (4), (5) and (7)) [Deleted]

P Pr P P (HNC) Pr (SEA – M2)

D P P

(A76) Discharges associated with in water treatment methods that render bio-fouling organisms non-viable (standards to be complied with: Standard F2.21.8.7 (2), (6) and (7))


D P P

(A77) Discharge of any contaminant resulting from in-water cleaning, the application of anti-fouling, or painting of vessels, including discharge of hull bio-fouling

Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr Pr





13

163

Activity


SEAM1, ONC

ONL SEAM2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A


HH

organisms, within 500m of mean high water springs of the following Hauraki Gulf conservation islands: • Beehive Island; • Browns Island; • Little Barrier Island; • Mokohinau Islands; • Motuihe Island; • Motuora Island; • Motutapu Island; • Rangitoto Island; • Saddle (Te Haupa) Island; • The Noises Islands; and • Tiritiri Matangi Island.

(A78) Discharge of hull bio-fouling organisms resulting from in-water cleaning of a vessel not otherwise provided for

RD Pr RD RD (HNC) Pr (SEA – M2)

RD RD RD

(A79) Passive discharge of hull bio-fouling organisms from a commercial or military vessel

P P P P P P P

(A80) Passive discharge from a non-commercial and non-military vessel with: • light to very heavy macro-fouling of international origin (level of fouling scale 2 to 5);, or

• very heavy macro-fouling of domestic origin (level of fouling scale 4 to 5); or

• unusual or suspected harmful aquatic organisms (or species designated as pests in the relevant pest management plan prepared under the Biosecurity Act).

D D D D D D D

(A81) Passive discharge from a non-commercial and non-military vessel with unusual organisms or suspected harmful aquatic organisms (or species designated as pests in the relevant pest

D D D D D D D





14

164

Activity


SEAM1, ONC

ONL SEAM2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A


HH

management plan prepared under the Biosecurity Act) [Deleted]

(A82) Passive discharge of hull bio-fouling organisms resulting from its presence, not otherwise provided for

P P P P P P P

Table F2.19.8 Activity table – Use and activities Note 1

Table F2.19.8 specifies the activity status of uses and activities in the coastal marine area. The RMA activities that this table covers are:

• Activities that contravene a rule in the regional coastal plan (RMA s12(3)) • Disturbance of the foreshore and seabed, incidental to the activity (RMA s12(1)(c),

(e), (g)) • Occupation of the common marine and coastal area by the activity (RMA s12(2)(a)) • Discharge of contaminants or water into water, incidental to the activity (RMA s15).

Note 2

In this table, unless specified otherwise, the activity status for occupation of the common marine and coastal area (RMA section 12(2)) has the same activity status as the use or activity (RMA section 12(3)) that the occupation relates to.

Note 1 3

This table does not apply to any use, activities and or occupation related to structures that is more specifically covered by Activity table F2.19.10.

Note 2 4

The activity status for 'underwater blasting, impact and vibratory piling, marine seismic surveys' relates to the generation of underwater noise from these activities. These activities are generally part of other activities (for example, dredging, demolition, construction, mineral exploration). For the avoidance of doubt, the activity status of the other activity continues to apply, unless the activity is permitted or controlled, in which case the overall activity status becomes restricted discretionary.

Note 5

Rule F2.19.8(A87) does not apply if an activity is in accordance with an agreement with the party who holds the existing occupation consent.

Note 6




15

165

Occupation consents do not provide for exclusive occupation unless that is specifically sought in an application and provided for in a resource consent. Exclusive occupation is associated with a use and/or a structure. The activity status of occupation for the use or structure applies to exclusive occupation, unless the activity is permitted, in which case exclusive occupation is a discretionary activity under rule (A114A).

Activity


SEA-M1, ONC

ONL SEA-M2, HNC

ONF - Type A1 and A

ONF - Type V1, V2, B, C, D, E, F

HH

(A83) Public access, passive recreation, navigation and general use Use of the coastal marine area not otherwise provided for in the Plan and that does not involve occupation of the common marine and coastal area

P P P P P P P

(A84) Use of the coastal marine area and/or occupation Occupation of the common marine and coastal area and associated use by activities which have a functional need to be below mean high water springs and that are not otherwise provided for in this table or in table F2.19.10

D D D D D D D

(A85) Use of the coastal marine area and/or occupation of the common marine and coastal area by new or existing unlawful activities that do not have a functional need to be undertaken below mean high water springs in the coastal marine area, including activities in, or on, an existing building or structure, and that are not otherwise provided for

NC NC NC NC NC NC NC

… (A114) Underwater blasting, impact and

vibratory piling, marine seismic surveys


(A114A)

Exclusive occupation of the common marine and coastal area by a structure or activity that would otherwise be a permitted activity

D D D D D D D










16

166

Table F2.19.9 Activity table - Aquaculture activities Note 1

Table F2.19.9 specifies the activity status of aquaculture activities in the coastal marine area. The RMA activities that this table covers are:

• Construction, placement , alteration, removal or demolition of structures used for aquaculture activities (RMA s12(1)(b))

• Disturbance of the foreshore and seabed, incidental to the aquaculture activities (RMA s12(1)(c), (e), (g))

• Deposition of material in, on or under the foreshore or seabed, incidental to the aquaculture activities (RMA s12(1)(d))

• Occupation of the common marine and coastal area by the aquaculture activities (RMA s12(2)(a))

• Activities that contravene a rule in the regional coastal plan (RMA s12(3)) • Discharge of contaminants or water into water, incidental to the aquaculture

activities (RMA s15).

Activity


SEAM1, ONC

ONL SEAM2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A


HH

(A115) New aquaculture Aquaculture activities (new)

D NC NC NC NC NC NC

(A116) Re-consenting lawfully established aquaculture Aquaculture activities (reconsenting an established aquaculture activity)


(A117) Aquaculture activities mMinor extension of a lawfully established aquaculture activity activities limited to a maximum of 25 percent of the size of the originally consented current farm

RD D D D D D D

(A118) Aquaculture activities mMinor realignment of an lawfully established aquaculture activities limited to moving 1/3 of the farm area, while 2/3 of the farm area stays within the same space as originally consented

RD D D D D D D

(A119) Experimental aquaculture activities that are a maximum of 1ha and 10 years in duration

RD NC NC NC NC NC NC

(A120) Aquaculture activities not otherwise provided for

D NC NC NC NC NC NC






17

167

Table F2.19.10 Activity table – Structures Note 1

Unless otherwise specified, activities listed in Table F2.19.10 include construction (pursuant to section 12(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991) and occupation (pursuant to section 12(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991). Use of a structure (pursuant to 12(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991) has the activity status listed in this table unless it is addressed more specifically in Table F2.19.8.

Table F2.19.1 specifies the activity status for structures in the coastal marine area. The RMA activities that this table covers are:

• Construction, placement , alteration, removal or demolition of structures (RMA s12(1)(b))

• Occupation of the common marine and coastal area by the structure (RMA s12(2)(a))

• Disturbance of the foreshore and seabed, incidental to the activity (RMA s12(1)(c), (e), (g))

• Deposition of material in, on or under the foreshore or seabed, incidental to the activity (RMA s12(1)(d))

• Use of structures (activities that contravene a rule in the regional coastal plan) (RMA s12(3)), unless the use is addressed more specifically in Table F2.19.8

• Diversion of coastal water, incidental to the activity (RMA s14) • Discharge of contaminants or water into water, incidental to the activity (RMA s15).

Note 2

In this table, unless specified otherwise, the activity status for occupation of the common marine and coastal area (section 12(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991) has the same activity status as for the construction of a structure (section 12(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991) that the occupation relates to.

Note 3

The activity status for a new consent for an existing structure (re-consenting its use of the coastal marine area pursuant to section 12(3) and its occupation of space in the common marine and coastal area pursuant to section 12(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991) has the same activity status as construction of that structure listed in this table.

Note 2 4

Provisions relating to moorings in the Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone are contained in the F4 Coastal – Mooring Zone and moorings outside the Coastal – Mooring Zone.

Note 3 5




18

168


Activity


SEAM1, ONC

ONL SEAM2, HNC

ONF Type A1 and A


HH

(A121) Construction of coastal Coastal marine area structures and buildings unless provided for elsewhere in this table (see table F2.19.8 for the use of the structure)

D NC NC NC NC NC NC

(A122) Maintenance, repair or reconstruction of existing lawful coastal marine area structures or buildings

P P P P P P Refer HH activity tables

(A123) Extension or alteration of existing lawful coastal marine area structures or buildings other than those that are a component of infrastructure (including the use of the extended or altered structure or building)

RD NC NC D NC NC Refer HH activity tables

(A124) Extension or alteration of existing lawful coastal marine area structures or buildings that are a component of infrastructure (other than as provided for as minor infrastructure upgrading of network utilities)

RD D D D D D Refer HH activity tables

… (A127) Occupation associated with

coastal marine area structures located below the surface of the foreshore and seabed in areas (other than cables located within the cable protection areas (as identified on the planning maps))

RD RD RD RD RD RD D

… (A131) Minor infrastructure upgrades

upgrading of network utilities P P P P P P P

..






19

169

(A135) Cables including their extension and alteration located within the cable protection areas (as identified on the planning maps) including their extension and alteration, and including the occupation by cables located below the surface of the foreshore and seabed

P P P P P P P

… (A139) Marine and port facilities and

buildings not on an existing wharf or existing coastal marine area structure

D NC NC D NC NC D

(A140) Marine and port accessory structures and services not on an existing wharf or existing coastal marine area structure

D NC D D NC NC D

… (A145) Boat ramps D NC D D NC NC D

…

F2.21. Standards

F2.21.1. All permitted activities, controlled activities and restricted discretionary activities All activities listed as …

F2.21.1.4. Accidental discovery rule (1) Despite any other rule in this Plan permitting activities in the coastal marine area,

including any disturbance of the foreshore or seabed, in the event of discovery of sensitive material which is not expressly provided for by any resource consent or other statutory authority, the standards and procedures set out in this rule must apply.

(2) For the purpose of this rule, ‘sensitive material’ means:

(a) human remains and kōiwi;

(b) an archaeological site;

(c) a Māori cultural artefact/taonga tuturu;

(d) a protected New Zealand object as defined in the Protected Objects Act 1975 (including any fossil or sub-fossil);

(e) shipwrecks or other items that may contain oil;

(f) a lava cave greater than 1m in diameter on any axis; or




20

170

(g) munitions on or under the foreshore or seabed,

(h) cables or pipelines on or under the foreshore or seabed.

(3) On discovery of any sensitive material, the party undertaking the relevant permitted activity or the consent holder must take the following steps:

Cease works and secure the area

(a) immediately cease all works within 20m of any part of the discovery, including shutting down all foreshore and seabed disturbing machinery and stopping all earth moving activities, and in the case of shipwrecks or other items that may contain oil, apply controls to minimise discharge of contaminants into the environment;

(b) secure the area of the discovery, including a sufficient buffer area to ensure that all sensitive material remains undisturbed;

Inform relevant authorities and parties

(c) inform the following parties immediately of the discovery:

the New Zealand Police if the discovery is of human remains or kōiwi; (i)

the Council in all cases; (ii)

Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga if the discovery is an (iii)archaeological site, Māori cultural artefact, human remains or kōiwi;

Mana Whenua if the discovery is an archaeological site of Māori origin, (iv)Māori cultural artefact, or kōiwi;

the New Zealand Defence Force and the New Zealand Police if the (v)discovery is munitions; and

Maritime New Zealand and the owner of the submarine cable or pipeline (vi)(if the owner can be determined) if the discovery is a submarine cable or pipeline.

Wait for and enable inspection of the site

(d) wait for and enable the site to be inspected by the relevant authority or agency:

if the discovery is human remains or kōiwi the New Zealand Police are (i)required to investigate the human remains to determine whether they are those of a missing person or are a crime scene. The remainder of this process will not apply until the New Zealand Police confirm that they have no further interest in the discovery; or

if the discovery is of sensitive material, (other than items that may (ii)contain oil, munitions, cables or pipelines), a site inspection for the

21

171

purpose of initial assessment and response will be arranged by the Council in consultation with Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga and appropriate Mana Whenua representatives; or

if the discovery is a shipwreck or other item that may contain oil, a (iii)suitably qualified and experienced person is required to complete an initial assessment and provide information to the Council on the assessment and response; or

if the discovery is munitions, the New Zealand Defence Force and the (iv)New Zealand Police will complete an initial assessment and provide information to the Council on the assessment and response; or

if the discovery is a submarine cable or pipeline, take best endeavours (v)to inform the owner of the submarine cable or pipeline to confirm the status and purpose of the cable or pipeline, and to determine whether it is still operational or is redundant. If the cable or pipeline is still operational, obtain approval from the owner for the work to proceed. Inform Maritime New Zealand so that they can assess whether there has been an offence under the Submarine Cables and Pipelines Protection Act 1996. This standard does not apply to the discovery of a submarine cable or pipeline owned or operated by the organisation undertaking the works.

(e) following site inspection and consultation with all relevant parties (including the party undertaking the relevant permitted activity or the consent holder as relevant), the Council will determine the area within which work must cease, and any changes to controls on discharges of contaminants, until the requirements of step F2.21.1.4(3)(f) are met;

Recommencement of work

(f) work within the area determined by the Council at step F2.21.1.4(3)(e) must not recommence until all of the following requirements, so far as relevant to the discovery, have been met:

Heritage New Zealand has confirmed that an archaeological authority (i)has been approved for the work or that none is required;

any required notification under the Protected Objects Act 1975 has (ii)been made to the Ministry for Culture and Heritage;

any changes to controls on discharges of contaminants have been (iii)implemented;

any material of scientific or educational importance has been recorded (iv)and if appropriate recovered and preserved;

22

172

if the discovery is a lava cave as outlined in F2.21.1.4(2)(f) above and if (v)the site is assessed to be regionally significant, reasonable measures have been taken to minimise adverse effects of the works on the scientific values of the site;

where the site is of Māori origin and an authority from Heritage New (vi)Zealand Pouhere Taonga is not required the Council will confirm, in consultation with Mana Whenua, that:

• any kōiwi have either been retained where discovered or removed in accordance with the appropriate tikanga; and

• any agreed revisions to the planned works to be/have been made in order to address adverse effects on Māori cultural values.

resource consent has been granted for any alteration or amendment to (vii)the activity that may be necessary to avoid the sensitive materials and that is not otherwise permitted under the Plan or allowed by any existing resource consent;

that there are no requirements in the case of archaeological sites that (viii)are not of Māori origin and are not covered by the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014; and

if the discovery is munitions, the New Zealand Police and New Zealand (ix)Defence Force have confirmed that the site is safe for operations to resume; and

if the discovery is cables or pipelines, the asset owner (if identified) has (x)confirmed that operations can resume, and Maritime New Zealand has been informed so that they can determine whether there has been an offence under the Submarine Cables and Pipelines Protection Act 1996.

F2.21.2. Standards - Drainage, reclamation and declamation Activities listed as a permitted activity and restricted discretionary activity in Table F2.19.1 must comply with the standards in F2.21.1 and the standards in F2.21.2.

F2.21.2.1. Maintenance or repair of a lawful reclamation or drainage system

(1) The work must not change the area occupied by the reclamation or drainage system.

(2) Any visible disturbance to the substrate of the coastal marine area must be remedied or restored within 48 hours of the completion of the works in areas identified as D11 Outstanding Natural Character Overlay, D10 Outstanding Natural Features Overlay and D9 Significant Ecological Area Overlay – Marine 1 and within seven days in other areas of the coastal marine area.

(3) There must be an emergency spill plan in place to address the unforeseen release of contaminants from equipment being used for the activity.

23

173

(4) All equipment and materials must be removed from the foreshore and seabed on the completion of works or activities.

(5) Written advice must be given to the Council at least 10 working days prior to the work starting.

(6) The work must not alter the form or external appearance of the reclamation or drainage system in more than a minor way.

F2.21.2.2. Minor reclamation for the purpose of maintaining, repairing or upgrading a reclamation

(1) The outside face of the new seawall must not extend more than 1.5m beyond the

seaward limit of the existing seawall or bund. … F2.21.4. Standards – Dredging Activities listed as permitted or restricted discretionary in Table F2.19.3 must comply with the standards in F2.21.1 and the standards in F2.21.4. Note 1 Channel clearance activities outside the coastal marine area are covered in E3 Lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands. F2.21.4.1. Dredging: River mouth dredging; dredging to maintain or gain access to an existing lawful structure; and dredging to clear the exit of any lawful stormwater outfall or pipe

(1) Dredging must not take place within 100m of a previously dredged site unless a minimum of two months has elapsed since the completion of dredging at that site.

(2) Impounded water must be released in a way that minimises any potential contamination of receiving waters.

(3) Best practicable dredging methods must be used in order to minimise sediment mobilisation and dispersal.

(4) No dredged material may be deposited in the coastal marine area or on land where it could reenter a water body unless depositing of that material is listed in this plan as a permitted activity or has a resource consent.

(5) Upon completion of dredging, all equipment and litter must be removed. (6) Written advice must be given to the Council at least 10 working days prior to the

work starting.

F2.21.4.2. Dredging to maintain or clear an existing lawful drainage system

(1) The activity may only take place adjacent to land that is continuous with land that has a rural zone.

(2) The volume of material cleared must not exceed 500m3. [Deleted] (3) There must be no diversion of any part of the channel to a different course. (4) The must be no deepening or widening of the channel beyond the limits of its

original profile. (5) Any visible disturbance to the surrounding coastal marine area must be

remedied or restored within seven days.



24

174

(6) Best practicable dredging methods must be used in order to minimise sediment mobilisation and dispersal

(7) In identified wading bird areas (Appendix 5 Wading bird areas), dredging and drainage clearance must be timed to avoid bird nesting seasons and avoid adverse effects on birds using roosting areas and must not damage or disturb areas of salt marsh or nesting or roosting birds, or other indigenous biota.

(8) No dredged material may be deposited in the coastal marine area or on land where it could re-enter a water body unless the deposition of that material is listed in this plan as a permitted activity or has a resource consent.

(9) Upon completion of dredging, all equipment and litter must be removed. (10) Written advice must be given to the Council at least 10 working days prior to

the work starting. (11) In significant wading bird areas as identified in Appendix 5 Wading bird areas

dredging must be timed to avoid bird nesting seasons and avoid adverse effects on birds using roosting areas and must not damage or disturb areas of salt marsh or nesting or roosting birds, or other indigenous biota. [Deleted]

…

F2.21.8. Standards – Discharges

…

F2.21.8.1 All permitted activities (other than discharges from firefighting and other emergency response activities undertaken by the New Zealand Fire Service Fire and Emergency New Zealand)

…

F2.21.8.7. Discharges of hull bio-fouling organisms from in-water cleaning of vessels Rule Activity Standards (A71) Removal of micro-fouling (LOF 0-1) and goose barnacles

(1), (2), (5) and (7)

(A72) Small scale manual removal of macro-fouling (up to 5 per cent of the hull surface area, including niche areas) not provided for in Rule A71 or A73

(2), (3), (5) and (7)

(A72) Removal of macro-fouling where the fouling is: • of international origin; or • of domestic origin but more than low biosecurity risk or has not

had a risk assessment (or extensive to very heavy macro-fouling)

(2), (3), (5) and (7)

(A73) Removal (including small scale manual removal) of macro-fouling where the fouling is: • from within Auckland; or • of domestic origin following a risk assessment that determined a

relative biosecurity risk of negligible or low

(2), (5) and (7)





25

175

(A76) Treatment methods that render bio-fouling organisms non-viable

(2), (6) and (7)

(1) Gentle non-abrasive cleaning techniques must be used.

(2) The cleaning method will not compromise the existing anti-fouling coating system.

(3) In water c Cleaning technologies should capture debris to a minimum of greater than 50 micrometers micrometres in diameter. All captured debris shall be collected and disposed of appropriately.

(4) Any debris is collected and appropriately disposed of. [Deleted] (5) If unusual or suspected harmful aquatic organisms (or species designated as

pests in the relevant pest management plan prepared under the Biosecurity Act) are found, the vessel owner or operator must take the following steps:

(a) all cleaning must cease;

(b) the Council must be immediately notified; and

(c) cleaning may not recommence until notified by Council to do so.

Note 1 Council may contact the Ministry for Primary Industries for advice on the nature of the

species and the appropriate measures to be taken.

(6) The discharge or escape of hull bio-fouling organisms or debris onto the foreshore, seabed or into the water must be collected as far as practicable and removed from the coastal marine area.

(7) The anti-fouling coating on the hull and niche areas to be cleaned shall not have exceeded its planned service life as specified by the manufacturer.

Notes: The standards apply to the above activities according to the level of risk associated with the origin and extent of the biofouling.

(1) Cleaning of low-level fouling, fouling of regional origin (from within Auckland) and fouling of domestic (NZ) origin that has been assessed and confirmed as low-risk are considered low-risk activities and are encouraged through less stringent standards. Capture of debris is not required.

(2) Small-scale removal of any fouling is enabled but, unless the fouling is from within the Auckland region, capture is required due to the fact that the fouling




26

176

has not been assessed as negligible or low biological risk and the relative ease of capturing small amounts of fouling (Standard 3).

(3) Fouling of international origin or domestic (NZ) origin that has not been assessed and confirmed as low-risk species are considered highest risk and are therefore subject to the most stringent standards, including capture of all bio-fouling debris (Standard 3).

(4) Methods that render the organisms non-viable are subject to a less stringent standard for capture (Standard 6) as the organisms cannot spread after removal; however, chemical treatments may be subject to other controls within this plan (e.g. discharges).

…

F2.21.9. Standards – Use and activities and associated occupation


F2.21.9.1. Public access, passive recreation, navigation and general use Use of the coastal marine area not otherwise provided for in the Plan and that does not involve occupation of the common marine and coastal area

(1) Any visible disturbance to the substrate of the coastal marine area must be remedied or restored within 48 hours of the completion of the works in areas identified in D11 Outstanding Natural Character Overlay, D10 Outstanding Natural Features Overlay and D9 Significant Ecological Area Overlay – Marine 1 and within seven days in other areas of the coastal marine area.

(2) The activity or use must not require exclusive occupation of the common marine and coastal area.

(3) The activity or use must not require exclusion of public use and access to an area.

…

F2.21.10. Standards – Structures


F2.21.10.1. Maintenance, repair and reconstruction of existing lawful coastal marine area structures or buildings

Purpose: ensure works are undertaken to an acceptable standard. (1) The work must maintain the structure or building in a good and safe working

condition.



27

177

(2) The work must not use materials which alter the form or external appearance of the structure in more than a minor way.

(3) The work must not change increase the existing footprint area occupied by the structure except that with respect to network utilities in the Coastal - General Coastal Marine Zone (outside of the overlays other than the National Grid Corridor Overlay), the area of occupation is within 2m of the existing alignment or location.

…

F2.21.10.7. Minor infrastructure upgrades upgrading of network utilities Purpose: ensure infrastructure upgrading work meets required standards.

(1) Upgrading works must meet the relevant standards in E26 Infrastructure in E26.2.5.3(1).

(2) In the: D9 Significant Ecological Areas Overlay – Marine 1 and 2; D17 Historic Heritage Overlay; D21 Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Overlay; D11 Outstanding Natural Character and High Natural Character overlays; and D10 Outstanding Natural Features Overlay; and Outstanding Natural Landscapes Overlay; the work must not change the area occupied by the structure minor infrastructure upgrading must not increase the size or alter the existing location of the existing footprint and must otherwise be in accordance with the permitted activity standards for minor infrastructure upgrading in E26.2.5.3(1).

(3) Any upgrading of infrastructure that does not comply with the standards for minor infrastructure upgrading specified above, shall be subject to the relevant activity status for that activity specified in Activity Table F2.19.10, not the activity tables in E26 Infrastructure.

F2.21.10.8. Occupation of the common marine and coastal area by infrastructure structures

(1) Occupation of the common marine and coastal area by infrastructure structures,

that form part of a network operated or managed by a network utility operator, and are existing at 23 October 2001, and any subsequent upgrade to such a structure, must meet all of the following:

(a) the structure must be located so that it does not cause more than minor erosion, depositing, or disturbance;

(b) the structure must be not redundant, in that it is being used and is physically capable of being used for its required purpose;

(c) the structure and/or its location must be shown on a plan with the NZMS grid references (seven digit easting and northing), and by a photograph, both of which are provided to the Council; and




28

178

(d) any upgrade must comply with the standards for minor infrastructure upgrading of network utilities in E26 Infrastructure at E26.2.5.3(1) the network utilities and energy rules.

…


F2.23.1. Matters of discretion The Council will restrict its discretion to all of the following matters when assessing a restricted discretionary resource consent application:

(1) all restricted discretionary activities:

(a) the effects of construction or works methods, and the timing and hours of operation;

(b) the effects of the location, extent, design and materials;

(c) effects on coastal processes, ecological values, water quality and natural character and landscape values;

(d) effects on public access, navigation and safety;

(e) effects on existing uses and activities (including significant infrastructure);…

…

(3) specific matters for identified activities: …

(d) re-consenting lawfully established aquaculture activities:

effects on … (i)

F2.23.2. Assessment criteria …

(17) structures and buildings in the coastal marine area: …

(g) the extent to which the reconstruction, alteration or extension of existing structures:

do not have significant adverse effects on other uses and values; (i)

result in greater, more efficient, or multiple use of the structure for (ii)marine activities; and

reduce the need for a new structure elsewhere; (iii)

provide for activities that cannot practicably be located on land outside (iv)of the common marine and coastal area;





29

179

will enhance amenity values and not conflict with marine activities; and (v)

any necessary land-based infrastructure can be provided. (vi)

…

(19) re-consenting lawfully established aquaculture activities

…

F3. Coastal – Marina Zone …



marine area [rcp]

Land [dp]

… (A31) New and existing pile moorings including

occupation and use by the vessel to be moored

P NA

(A32) Maimai NC NC (A33) Exclusive occupation of the common marine


RD NA


RD NA

…


F3.8.1. Matters of discretion The Council will reserve its discretion to all of the following matters when assessing a restricted discretionary resource consent application:


(5) for structures or buildings in the coastal marine area and buildings on land:

(a) effects on views to and from the surrounding area, and the visual amenity effects from the presence of the structure.







30

180


F3.8.2. Assessment criteria The Council will consider the relevant assessment criteria below for restricted discretionary activities:

…



F5. Coastal – Minor Port Zone

…



marine area [rcp]

Land [dp]

… (A40) Maimai NC NC (A41) Structures or buildings not otherwise

provided for D D


RD NA


RD NA

…


F5.8.1. Matters of discretion The Council will restrict its discretion to all of the following matters and the relevant matters in the Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone when assessing a restricted discretionary resource consent application.

…

(9) for the occupation of the common marine and coastal area:





31

181

(a) effects on the safe and efficient use, operation and development of the Port of Onehunga.

F5.8.2. Assessment criteria The Council will consider the relevant assessment criteria for restricted discretionary activities from the list below and the relevant assessment criteria in the Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone:

…

(9) for occupation of the coastal common marine and coastal area:


Chapter F6. Coastal – Ferry Terminal Zone

…



marine area [rcp]

Land [dp]

… (A21) New pile moorings established after 30

September 2013 including occupation and use by the vessel to be moored

NC NC

(A22) Maimai D D (A23) Exclusive occupation of the common marine


RD NA


RD NA

…


F6.8.1. Matters of discretion





32

182

The Council will restrict its discretion to all the following matters and the matters in the Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone when assessing a restricted discretionary resource consent application.

…

F6.8.2. Assessment criteria The Council will consider the relevant assessment criteria the Coastal – General Coastal Marine Zone in addition to the matters below.

…

F7. Coastal – Defence Zone …



… (A20) New pile moorings established after 30 September 2013

including occupation and use by vessel to be moored RD

(A21) Pile moorings existing at 30 September 2013 including occupation and use by the vessel to be moored

P


RD


RD

…


F7.8.1. Matters of discretion The Council will restrict its discretion to all of the following matters when assessing a restricted discretionary resource consent application.








33

183

F7.8.2. Assessment criteria The Council will consider the following assessment criteria in when assessing a restricted discretionary resource consent application.

(1) All restricted discretionary activities.

…




34

184

Chapter J. Definitions … Experimental aquaculture activities

Aquaculture activities that are limited to a maximum of 1ha, 10 years in duration and test new species, including polyculture, and or new technology or techniques.

…

Lawfully established aquaculture activities

Aquaculture activities consented and operational at 30 September 2013.

…

New aquaculture

Aquaculture activities not consented and operational at 30 September 2013.

…


Comment [s32 110]: Theme 13 No amendment. Included for comparison with activity table and other definitions.

Comment [s32 111]: Theme 13 No amendment. Included for comparison with activity table and other definitions.

35

185

Consequential changes to other parts of the plan

E26 Infrastructure Annotate the standard for minor infrastructure upgrading as [dp/rcp] as follows.

E26.2.5.3. Specific activities within zones in Table E26.2.3.1 The specific activities listed below are required to comply with the permitted activity standards in E26.2.5.1 and E26.2.5.2. Where a standard in E26.2.5.3 for a specified activity varies from a standard in E26.2.5.1 or E26.2.5.2, E26.2.5.3 shall apply. Minor infrastructure upgrading [rcp/dp]

(1) Minor infrastructure upgrading of network utilities must comply with the following controls (where relevant):

(a) minor re-alignment, configuration, relocation or replacement of electricity, gas distribution, or telecommunication line, pipe, pole, conductors, cross arms, switches, transformers, cabinets or ancillary structures:

that is within 2m of the existing alignment or location; (i)

that is within 5m of the existing alignment or location when associated (ii)with road widening reasons or road safety or electricity clearance reasons. …


36

186

Chapter M Appendices

Appendix 7 Coastal marine area boundaries

All provisions in this appendix are regional coastal plan [rcp].

The coastal marine area boundary at rivers is shown on the maps by the information layer “coastal marine area/river boundary point”.

Under the RMA, the coastal marine area boundary across rivers is referenced to the mouth of the river – the lesser of one kilometre upstream of the mouth of the river or the point upstream calculated by multiplying the width of the river by five. Only the coastal marine area boundary at rivers (not the river mouth) is shown on the maps. The mouth of the river can be determined by back-calculating from the coastal marine area boundary across a river.

For each river identified in the table below, the “coastal marine area boundary” is a straight line drawn from bank to bank through, or as close as possible to, the reference point relating to that river at right angles to the river flow at that point. Where the landward boundary of the coastal marine area is noted below as aligning with a physical structure in the river (for example, a bridge) the landward boundary is the seaward side of the structure, and the structure is not in the coastal marine area.

For rivers not identified in the table below, the “mouth” shall be at that point depicted by a straight line representing a continuation of the line of mean high water springs on each side of the river.

[Delete the six existing tables (Table 1 Kaipara Harbour to Table 6 Great Barrier Island)]

Table 1: Kaipara Harbour



1 Maeneene Creek

Q09 451 500 Seaward side of main trunk railway bridge Q09 452 501

2 Te Hana Creek Q09 460 489 Q09 460 488 3 Whakapirau

Creek, main stem

Q09 442 466 Seaward side Te Hana – Port Albert Rd bridge Q09 448 465

4 Whakapirau Creek, Western Arm

Q09 437 462 Seaward side of Wellsford Valley Road bridge


37

187

Q09 435 461 [… All the tables …]

Table 6: Great Barrier Island



248 Oruawharo Stream

T09 357 447 T09 357 445

249 Kaitoke River T09 318 492 Seaward side Kaitoke Awana Roadbridge

T09 318 493

250 Awana Stream T08 336 525 T08 336 525


S08 244 620 S08 244 620

252 Whangaparapara Stream

S09 260 487 S09 260 487

Note 1

For each river identified in the above schedules the “mouth” is a straight line drawn from bank to bank through or as close as possible to the grid reference relating to that river at right angles to the river flow at that grid reference.

Note 2

For rivers not identified in the above schedules the “mouth” shall be at that point depicted by a straight line representing a continuation of the mean high water springs on each side of the river.

[Insert the following table:]

38

188

Coastal Marine Area/River Boundary Id River Location NZTM Point X NZTM Point Y

KAIPARA HARBOUR

1 Maeneene Creek Seaward side of main trunk railway bridge 1734611.05 5988322.42

2 Te Hana Creek Seaward side of State Highway 1 1735563.76 5986967.50

3 Whakapirau Creek Main Stem Seaward side of Te Hana - Port Albert Road Bridge 1734258.15 5984761.21

4 Whakapirau Creek Western Arm Seaward side of Wellsford Valley Road Bridge 1732676.92 5984238.34

5 Kaiwakawaka River Northern boundary of Lot 2 DP 82152 1729452.15 5983370.07 6 Waireia River

1728576.47 5982088.41

7 Wharehanu Creek Seaward side of Beaver Road Bridge 1727598.10 5982274.05 8 Takapau Creek

1725093.74 5979772.24

9 Takahe Creek Seaward side of reclamation 1724197.01 5979240.97 10 Atiu Creek

1722908.90 5979311.84

11 Mullet Creek East Arm

1720809.89 5978468.54 12 Mullet Creek West Arm

1719523.23 5978464.73

13 Oturapa Creek

1718428.27 5978467.31 14 Otekawa Creek Seaward side of Journeys End Bridge 1714860.54 5979304.39 15 Gum Store Creek West Arm

1716983.48 5976090.91

16 Gum Store Creek East Arm

1717296.07 5975630.02 17 Te Raupa Creek Seaward side of Kakaraea Road 1722795.70 5971350.56 18 Hiki Creek Seaward side of Burma Road Bridge 1722864.60 5972970.64 19 Kahutaewao Creek

1724247.31 5973567.17

20 Whanaki Creek Northern Arm Seaward side of Wharahine Road 1728154.23 5976765.13 21 Whanaki Creek Southern Arm Seaward side of Wharahine Road 1728345.03 5976188.21 22 Te Pahi Stream

1729907.92 5973166.52

23 Hoteo River South boundary Pt Lot 1 DP 64445 1729691.45 5967580.01 24 Omaumau River

1728214.97 5965287.28

25 Mataia Creek

1729258.00 5960581.00 26 Araparera Creek

1729701.02 5959197.07

27 Makarau River Seaward side of Kaipara Coast Highway Bridge 1731149.94 5954273.15

28 Waitangi Stream Seaward side of Kaipara Coast Highway Bridge 1731731.85 5953390.46

29 Wheraroa Creek Seaward side of Jordan Road Bridge 1731017.46 5951742.78 30 Matawhero Stream Eastern boundary of Lot 5 DP 317983 1729647.31 5949003.28

31 Kaipara River Seaward side of confluence of Kaipara River and Kaukapakapa River 1728994.71 5943513.36

32 Upokonui Creek Seaward side of South Head Road 1726184.89 5942959.82 33 Te Hihi Creek Seaward side of South Head Road 1724288.78 5944132.45 34 Takapau Horahia Creek Seaward side of South Head Road 1724120.81 5944270.64 35 Kaituna Creek Seaward side of Old South Head Road 1721839.24 5945096.72 36 Hihi Stream Seaward side of South Head Road 1721205.52 5945881.59

39

189

Coastal Marine Area/River Boundary Id River Location NZTM Point X NZTM Point Y 37 Okaro Creek Seaward side of South Head Road 1720926.35 5945878.02 38 Slater Road Creek Seaward side of South Head Road 1720125.50 5946769.05 39 Tikitu Creek

1719726.52 5947968.26

40 Kaikiore Creek

1718984.62 5949569.67 41 Mairetahi Creek

1718779.73 5952286.76

42 Taumata Creek East Arm Seaward side of South Head Road 1715920.16 5955535.08 43 Taumata Creek West Arm Seaward side of South Head Road 1715853.28 5956249.10 44 Haratahi Creek

1713845.30 5960037.26

MANUKAU HARBOUR 45 Huia Stream Seaward side of Huia Road Bridge 1739404.66 5904157.74 46 Kakamatua Stream

1741735.58 5903871.90

47 Big Muddy Creek

1743851.23 5908001.02 48 Waiohua Creek

1745813.95 5908813.62

49 Little Muddy Creek

1746585.84 5909416.92 50 Paturoa Stream

1747756.14 5909274.90

51 Ann's Creek

1762928.06 5911492.97 52 Harania Creek South West Arm

1761234.80 5908871.58

53 Tararata creek Seaward side of Walmsley Road offramp 1759792.75 5909025.55

54 Tautauroa Creek

1759466.96 5905034.60 55 Pukaki Creek

1760330.15 5905676.58

56 Waokauri Creek Northern Arm

1761959.40 5905885.48 57 Waokauri Creek Eastern Arm

1763174.93 5904810.61

58 Puhinui Creek

1763801.19 5901487.91 59 Puhinui Creek Eastern Arm

1765167.31 5901676.89

60 Waimahia Creek Seaward side of Mahia Road 1766624.14 5899335.08 61 Papakura Stream

1769044.99 5898395.45

62 Hingaia Stream and Slippery Creek Seaward side of State Highway 1 1772745.28 5892790.16

63 Ngakoroa Stream Seaward side of Bremner Road Bridge 1772730.32 5891848.10

64 Oira Stream Adjacent to southern boundary of Lot 4 DP 107835 1770407.55 5890848.03

65 Whangapouri Creek


1766777.23 5894621.23



1765908.10 5892077.32

69 Whangamaire Stream Seaward side of Muir Road Bridge 1766191.27 5890611.46 70 Whangamaire Stream

1765348.26 5892464.26



1765942.80 5894587.64

73 Pahurehure Inlet


1765557.52 5895906.14

40

190

Coastal Marine Area/River Boundary Id River Location NZTM Point X NZTM Point Y 75 Pahurehure Inlet

1764998.86 5896417.47

76 Clarks Creek Eastern Bank

1759263.32 5890658.92 77 Tuhitahi Creek Seaward side of Kingseat Road Bridge 1759246.78 5888389.49

78 Karaka Creek Seaward side of McKenzie Road Bridge 1758291.40 5888569.36


1758119.52 5890666.10 80 Clarks Creek Western bank

1758064.41 5891952.75


1757922.65 5892068.82 82 Clarks Beach Inlet Stream

1755663.45 5890484.74



1753400.92 5887326.02



1754927.68 5887097.79



1756010.04 5886141.10


1756020.94 5885928.55

90 Mauku Stream Seaward side of Glenbrook Road Bridge 1759323.02 5884278.38



1757011.85 5884626.05



1755302.32 5883176.55



1755070.53 5882884.92


1755101.12 5883378.03 98 Waiuku River Eastern Bank

1753185.33 5882785.07

99 Stream east side of Racecourse Road

1754613.96 5877085.70

100 Waiuku Stream Northern side of King Street 1753487.23 5876225.17 101 Rangiwhea Creek

1752429.49 5876775.22

102 Awaruaiti Creek

1751404.00 5877509.80 103 Awaruaiti Creek

1751275.50 5877924.87

104 Awaruaiti Creek

1751310.87 5878050.87 105 McGowan Road Creek

1751299.99 5878687.90

106 Mokorau Creek

1751064.57 5879315.90 107 Parakau Creek

1750355.30 5879923.84

108 Totara Creek

1750874.54 5880958.47 109 Waipipi Creek

1749666.54 5881168.88

110 Waipipi Creek

1749746.17 5881471.05 111 Te Hakono Creek

1749710.33 5882762.49

112 Te Hakono Creek

1749417.93 5882916.23 113 Pukewhau Creek

1749430.19 5884383.83

41

191


114 Kohonui Creek

1749413.25 5885237.77 115 Ohiku Creek

1748056.71 5885756.21

116 Ohiku Creek

1748812.35 5886735.14 117 Rangiriri Creek

1746952.71 5887872.05

118 Rangiriri Creek

1747134.53 5888572.46 119 Rangiriri Creek

1746895.01 5888910.37

120 Matakawau Creek

1746830.84 5890111.22 121 Matakawau Creek

1745837.75 5890404.12

122 Kauritutahi Stream

1745325.71 5894245.04

123 Stream north of Kauritutahi Stream

1745838.24 5895250.28

WAITEMATA HARBOUR AND HAURAKI GULF

124 Unnamed Stream Seaward side of Couldry's Bridge 1793708.86 5909341.82

125 Rautawa Stream Seaward side of Kawakawa Bay Coast Road 1793334.05 5908767.72

126 Kawakawa Bay Stream Seaward side of Clevedon-Kawakawa Bay Road Bridge 1792210.13 5908379.82

127 Rotopiro Stream

1788530.89 5908652.88 128 Urangahauhau Stream Seaward side of Vennon's Bridge 1785180.13 5907744.52 129 Wairoa River

1784148.22 5907650.38

130 Te Puru Creek Eastern Arm Seaward side of Whitford Maraetai Road Bridge 1780223.19 5916128.99

131 Te Puru Creek Seaward side of Whitford Maraetai Road Bridge 1780020.11 5916103.56

132 Grangers Stream Seaward side of Whitford Maraetai Road Bridge 1775670.32 5909903.09

133 Turanga Creek

1775432.63 5908914.07 134 Maungamaungaroa Creek Seaward side of Whitford Road Bridge 1772372.29 5911760.84

135 Pakuranga Creek Pakuranga Road Arm

1768679.55 5913188.09

136 Pakuranga Creek Cascades Road Arm

Seaward side of Cascades Road Bridge 1769685.39 5912948.81

137 Pakuranga Creek Golf Course

1769524.34 5912474.00

138 Pakuranga Creek Power Sub Station Arm Seaward side of footbridge 1769647.13 5911813.36

139 Pakuranga Creek Cryers Road Arm

1768478.43 5911285.75

140 Otara Creek Kerwyn Road Arm

1767536.01 5909726.82

141 Otara Creek Opposite Andromeda Crescent 1767805.18 5909091.55

142 Otara Creek East Tamaki Road Arm Seaward side of footbridge 1767500.28 5908752.62

143 Tamaki River Bairds Road Arm

1765310.43 5908234.75

42

192


144 Tamaki River Middlemore Hospital

1764242.00 5907445.58

145 Tamaki River

1764316.90 5908319.61

146 Otahuhu Creek Adjacent to Meadow Street 1764253.26 5910620.67

147 Unnamed Stream Adjacent to Bowden Road 1764909.44 5912833.78

148 Unnamed Stream Upstream of Donnor Place 1764796.17 5913211.25

149 Omaru Creek

1766745.66 5917014.35 150 Purewa Creek

1763321.90 5918507.35

151 Orakei Basin Stream

1762429.65 5917766.11 152 Orakei Basin Stream

1762021.04 5917542.70

153 Orakei Road Stream Seaward side of Shore Road Bridge 1760873.25 5918485.19 154 Portland Road Stream Seaward side of Shore Road Bridge 1760099.71 5918677.40 155 Newmarket Stream Seaward side of Brighton Road 1759391.60 5918748.10 156 Coxs Creek

1753794.06 5920315.36

157 Motions Creek Seaward side of Meola Road 1753072.07 5919538.28 158 Meola Creek Seaward side of Meola Road 1752571.07 5919221.08 159 Oakley Creek Seaward side of Great North Road 1751960.23 5917779.09 160 Whau River Seaward side of railway bridge 1750782.43 5914036.26 161 Rewarewa Creek

1749733.55 5914545.32

162 Taroa Stream

1749513.35 5914264.25 163 Wairau Creek

1747730.34 5915244.27

164 Glendene Stream

1747397.75 5916685.40 165 Henderson Creek

1745715.71 5918184.05

166 Paremuka Stream Northern end of Woodside Road 1744125.44 5919875.05 167 Huruhuru/Swanson Stream Seaward side of footbridge 1744066.93 5919963.41 168 Rarawaru Creek

1744940.17 5921649.07

169 Taikata Creek (Kopupapa Stream)

1745996.97 5922628.41

170 Lawson's Creek

1745413.84 5923384.24 171 Waipareira Stream

1746492.88 5924758.98

172 Romeo Stream

1746536.94 5924785.45 173 Waiorahia Stream

1746077.94 5926388.04

174 Rarawaru Creek

1744433.56 5928078.66 175 Totara Creek Seaward side of Brigham Creek Road 1742953.36 5926686.17 176 Brigham Creek Seaward side of State Highway 16 1741976.51 5926903.72

177 Rangitopuni Creek Seaward side of Coatesville-Riverhead Highway Bridge 1742529.56 5931228.08

178 Paremoremo Creek

1746231.10 5931387.36

179 Lucas Creek Waterfall upstream of Dairy Flat Highway 1751178.70 5934498.21

43

193


180 Oteha Stream Seaward side of Albany Highway 1751331.20 5933565.42 181 Te Wharau Creek Northern Arm

1750317.22 5930110.94

182 Te Wharau Creek Southern Arm

1750053.95 5929671.74 183 Kingfisher Grove Creek

1748747.04 5929180.44

184 Hellyers Creek

1751961.05 5929121.54 185 Kaipatiki Creek

1752426.05 5927689.73

186 Kaipatiki Creek Eskdale Road Arm

1752192.03 5927105.37

187 Kaipatiki Creek Beach Haven Road Arm Seaward side of Beach Haven Road 1751425.10 5927246.92

188 Soldiers Bay Stream

1751635.62 5924518.54 189 Little Shoal Bay Stream Seaward side of Maritime Terrace 1755168.46 5924118.40 190 Onepoto Stream Seaward side of Lake Road 1755587.67 5925143.42 191 Hillcrest Creek Seaward side of Esmonde Road 1757398.78 5926107.67 192 Wairoko Creek Seaward side of footbridge 1758871.75 5925540.75

HAURAKI GULF COASTLINE

193 Wairau Creek Immediately downstream of Wairau Creek outfall 1757347.06 5928967.62

194 Deep Creek Seaward side of Beach Road Bridge 1756461.70 5936802.06 195 Awaruku Creek Seaward side of road bridge 1756439.48 5938133.50 196 Long Bay North Stream Seaward side of bridge 1756019.47 5939152.44 197 Okura Beach Road Stream

1754152.56 5939418.47

198 Okura River

1752664.65 5938895.22 199 Okura River

1752372.20 5939057.36

200 Okura River

1751938.10 5939074.75 201 Okura River North Branch

1752248.97 5940540.10

202 Doctors Creek Opposite northern boundary Lot 4 DP 26549 1753132.87 5944124.61

203 Duck Creek Seaward side of Duck Creek Road Bridge 1751670.58 5944469.17

204 Newman Road Stream

1750743.03 5945442.54 205 Weiti River Seaward side of Tavern Road 1749990.77 5946011.27 206 Orewa River Seaward side of Northern Motorway 1748716.27 5948381.21 207 Orewa River North Branch

1749523.57 5949120.73

208 Nukumea Stream Seaward side of Hibiscus Coast Highway 1751262.71 5950976.06

209 Otanerua Stream South Arm

1751554.87 5952137.41 210 Otanerua Stream North Arm

1751783.89 5952689.76

211 Waiwera River Opposite western boundary Lot 8 DP 61445 1750613.33 5955025.79

212 Okahu Creek

1749649.16 5955910.19 213 Puhoi River

1750189.96 5957249.05

44

194


214 Te Muri-O-Tarariki Stream

1753070.90 5957984.00

215 Pukapuka River Seaward side of Pukapuka Road Bridge 1750500.65 5960894.92

216 Dyers Creek Southern Arm

1751603.97 5962788.22 217 Dyers Creek Northern Arm

1751337.91 5963192.71

218 Cowan Bay Stream West Arm

1751718.05 5965261.22 219 Cowan Bay Stream East Arm

1752311.67 5965455.33

220 Hepburn Creek Seaward side of Hepburn Creek Road Bridge 1751173.02 5966595.89

221 Johnson Creek Seaward side of Hepburn Creek Road Bridge 1750735.88 5968357.73

222 Mahurangi River

1750429.46 5969976.78 223 Duck Creek

1751787.72 5968968.77

224 Dawson's Creek (Te Whau Creek)

Seaward side of causeway to Wastewater Treatment Plant 1754178.38 5968232.18

225 Goodalls Stream

1754984.20 5966693.07 226 Te Kapa River Northern Arm

1755823.29 5964470.31

227 Te Kapa River Eastern Arm

1757020.63 5963100.17 228 Glen Eden River

1753412.94 5973449.69

229 Matakana River Northern boundary Pt Lot 1 DP 169734 1754258.87 5975297.08 230 Baddley's Beach Stream

1757332.53 5972551.43

231 Campbells Beach Western Stream

1758406.49 5972363.69

232 Campbells Beach Eastern Stream

1758685.81 5972300.98

233 Omaha River Northern end esplanade reserve adjacent to Lot 2 DP 83584 1755954.48 5977169.26

234 Tamahunga Stream Southern boundary of Lot 1 DP 8755 1756114.73 5977557.03 235 Birdsall Road Stream

1757606.20 5980133.90

236 Young Creek Seaward side of Ashton (Sadler) Road Bridge 1757839.02 5980261.92

237 Coxhead Creek Seaward side of Coxhead Creek Road Bridge 1759692.99 5980745.50

238 Kohuroa Stream Seaward side of footbridge 1761405.56 5981202.57 239 Omaha Cove Western Arm Seaward side of footbridge 1762059.11 5982560.65 240 Omaha Cove Northern Arm Seaward side of footbridge 1762053.06 5982804.39

WAIHEKE ISLAND 241 Okahuiti Creek

1782500.91 5926136.76

242 Taiwaipareira Creek Seaward side of Ostend Road 1783205.55 5925739.63 243 Rangihoua Creek

1784527.45 5925021.03

244 Rangihoua Creek

1784462.15 5924915.44 245 Awaawaroa Bay Stream

1787571.55 5923582.34

246 Awaawaroa Bay Stream

1788088.42 5923453.42

45

195


247 Te Matuku Stream Seaward side of Orapiu Road Bridge 1790772.07 5922462.56

GREAT BARRIER ISLAND 248 Oruawharo Stream

1824993.48 5983118.35

249 Kaitoke River Seaward side of Gray Road 1821663.88 5987612.64 250 Awana Stream

1822991.40 5990966.10


1813938.52 6000465.15 252 Whangaparapara Stream

1815388.41 5987185.44

46

196

AUP GIS Viewer Add a new map layer to show the updated coastal marine area boundary points at rivers. The points will be shown as dots where the indicative coastline crosses the relevant rivers. The layer will be named “Coastal marine area/river boundary point”. The layer will be added to the legend in the “Information” section. The following two maps show an overview of location of all the points and an example of how the points will appear in the viewer.


47

197

48

198

49

199

200

The proposed plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan seeks to address identified technical issues

within the viewer.

PLAN CHANGE 17:

Improving consistency of coastal provisions

ATTACHMENT D


201

202

Auckland Unitary Plan - Operative in Part

PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 17 (PC 17)

Improving consistency of provisions in the Viewer of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part)

Public notification: 29 November 2018

Close of submissions: 31 January 2019

This is a council initiated plan change

In accordance with Section 86B (3) of the Resource Management Act 1991 some of the proposed plan change rules have immediate legal effect.

The amendment which has immediate legal effect from notification has been highlighted with a NOTE before the proposed change.

Explanatory text – not part of the plan change

The proposed plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan Viewer seeks to address identified inconsistencies on the AUP Viewer. This document contains proposed spatial amendments to 212 sites in PC 17 to the AUP Viewer as well as consequential amendments to 11 diagrams within Chapter I Precincts as a result of a proposed change to the Viewer.

Note:

1. The words in italics indicate the proposed action sought.2. The proposed spatial change to the Viewer (maps) has not been made.3. The map is shown to place the changes in context.

All notes that appear in Chapter I Precincts are explanatory notes and are not part of the plan change.

203

Plan Change Provisions

Page 2 of 56Plan Change 17 - AUP Viewer 204

Map change: 1 Subject property: 390B Richardson Road, Mount Roskill Legal Description: 1/3 SH Lot 3 DP 46135, Flat 5 DP 146558

1/3 SH Lot 3 DP 46135, Flat 4 DP 146558 1/3 SH Lot 3 DP 46135, Flat 3 DP 134801 Lot 3 DP 46135

Current zone: Business – Light Industry zone Proposed change: Rezone 390B Richardson Road, Mount Roskill from

Business – Light Industry zone to Residential – Mixed Housing Urban zone

Proposed zone: Residential – Mixed Housing Urban zone

Unitary Plan Zones

Rezone from Business – Light Industry zone to Residential – Mixed Housing Urban zone


Map change: 2 Subject property: 514 Leigh Road, Whangateau Legal Description: Lot 1 DP 40695 Current zone: Rural – Rural Coastal zone Proposed change: Rezone 514 Leigh Road, Whangateau from Rural – Rural

Coastal zone to Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone

Proposed zone: Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone

Rezone from Rural – Rural Coastal zone to Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone


Map change: 3 Subject property: 116 Mill Flat Road, Riverhead Legal Description: Lot 6 DP 173336, Lot 7 DP 173336 Current zone: Rural – Mixed Rural zone Proposed change: Rezone 116 Mill Flat Road, Riverhead from Rural – Mixed

Rural zone to Rural – Countryside Living zone Proposed zone: Rural – Countryside Living zone

Rezone from Rural – Mixed Rural zone to Rural – Countryside Living zone


Map change: 4 Subject property: 318 Coatesville-Riverhead Highway, Coatesville Legal Description: Lot 2 DP 100291 Current zone: Rural – Rural Production zone Proposed change: Rezone 318 Coatesville-Riverhead Highway, Coatesville

from Rural – Rural Production zone to Rural – Countryside Living zone

Proposed zone: Rural – Countryside Living zone

Rezone from Rural – Rural Production zone to Rural – Countryside Living zone


Map change: 5 Subject property: Big Bay Road, Waiuku Legal Description: Lot 11 DP 336027, Lot 3 DP 25574, Lot 2 DP 427776 Current zone(s): Rural – Rural Coastal zone and Rural – Mixed Rural zone Proposed change: Rezone the north-western split zone section of Big Bay Road

from Rural – Rural Coastal zone to Rural – Mixed Rural zone and rezone the south-eastern split zone section of Big Bay Road from Rural – Mixed Rural zone to Rural – Rural Coastal zone

Proposed zone: Rural – Rural Coastal zone and Rural – Mixed Rural zone

Rezone from Rural – Rural Coastal zone to Rural – Mixed Rural zone

Rezone from Rural – Mixed Rural zone to Rural – Rural Coastal zone


Map change: 6 Subject property: Hingaia North

See Table below. Legal Description: See Table below. Current zone(s): Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone Proposed change: Rezone Hingaia North (properties identified in the black

hatching below) from Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone to Residential – Single House zone

Proposed zone: Residential – Single House zone

Affected sites:

Subject properties Legal Descriptions 296-310 Hingaia Road Hingaia Lot 1 DP 8046, Lot 2 DP 8046 332 Hingaia Road Hingaia Lot 4 DP 52149

Rezone from Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone to Residential – Single House zone


336 Hingaia Road Hingaia Lot 4 DP 44257 352 Hingaia Road Hingaia Lot 5 DP 44257 358 Hingaia Road Hingaia Lot 4 DP 45203 364 Hingaia Road Hingaia Lot 5 DP 45203 370 Hingaia Road Hingaia Lot 6 DP 45203 3 Towai Road, Hingaia Lot 1 DP 44257 9 Towai Road, Hingaia Lot 1 DP 43045 15 Towai Road, Hingaia Lot 1 DP 57835 21 Towai Road, Hingaia Lot 2 DP 57835 25 Towai Road, Hingaia Lot 1 DP 77579 40 Towai Road, Hingaia Lot 2 DP 77579 36 Towai Road, Hingaia Lot 3 DP 45203 32 Towai Road, Hingaia Lot 2 DP 45203 28 Towai Road, Hingaia Lot 1 DP 45203 24 Towai Road, Hingaia Lot 3 DP 60754 22 Towai Road, Hingaia Lot 2 DP 60754 18 Towai Road, Hingaia Lot 1 DP 60754 14 Towai Road, Hingaia Lot 1 DP 40679


Map change: 7 Subject property: 63-65 Victoria Street, Onehunga

38A Alfred Street, Onehunga Legal Description: PT ALLOT 5 SEC 16 Village ONEHUNGA, PT ALLOT 5

SEC 16 Village ONEHUNGA Current zone(s): Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zone

and Business – Light Industry zone Proposed change: Rezone 63-65 Victoria Street and 38A Alfred Street

Onehunga from a split of both Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zone and Business – Light Industry zone to Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zone

Proposed zone: Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zone

Rezone from split: Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings and Business – Light Industry zone to Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zone


Map change: 8 Subject property: 1229 Coatesville-Riverhead Highway, Riverhead Current zone(s): Rural – Rural Production zone Proposed change: Rezone a narrow section to the north of 1229 Coatesville-

Riverhead Highway, Riverhead from Rural – Rural Production zone a to Special Purpose – School zone

Proposed zone: Special Purpose – School zone

Rezone from Rural – Rural Production zone to Special Purpose – School zone


Map change: 9 Subject property: 4 Queensway, Three Kings Legal Description: Lot 24 DP 17070 Current zone: Residential – Single House zone Proposed change: Rezone 4 Queensway, Three Kings from Residential –

Single House zone to Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban zone

Proposed zone: Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban zone

Rezone from Residential – Single House zone to Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban zone


Unitary Plan Management Layers – Controls and zones

Map change: 10 Subject property: 4 Oioi Lane, Kaukapakapa

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 Magnolia Lane, Kaukapakapa

Legal Description: Lot 56 DP 449408 Lot 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 DP 449408

Current zone: Rural – Countryside Living zone Proposed change: Extend the Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone

to the properties that have a split zone or have been already subdivided within the area identified in black hatching below. Remove the Subdivision Variation Control which currently applies to the properties at 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 15, 13, 11 and 9 Magnolia Lane, as identified below.


1. Rezone from Rural – Countryside Living zone to Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone

2. Remove the Subdivision Variation Control


Unitary Plan Management Layers – Precincts and zoning

Map change: 11 Subject property: See Table below. Legal Description: See Table below. Current zone/s: Residential – Single House zone and Residential – Mixed

Housing Suburban zone split zone Proposed change: Rezone 15 properties currently subject to a split zoning to

Residential – Single House zone in their entirety. Realign the eastern boundary of Takanini sub-precinct C and western boundary of Takanini sub-precinct D with the road boundary of Pakaraka Drive.



Affected sites:

Subject properties Legal Descriptions 1 Pakaraka Drive, Ardmore Lot 22 DP 504247 3 Pakaraka Drive, Ardmore Lot 23 DP 504247 5 Pakaraka Drive, Ardmore Lot 24 DP 504247 7 Pakaraka Drive, Ardmore Lot 25 DP 504247 9 Pakaraka Drive, Ardmore Lot 26 DP 504247 11 Pakaraka Drive, Ardmore Lot 27 DP 504247 13 Pakaraka Drive, Ardmore Lot 77 DP 516819 23 Pakaraka Drive Ardmore Lot 33 DP 504247 15 Pakaraka Drive Ardmore Lot 29 DP 504247 36 Twin Parks Rise Ardmore Lot 28 DP 504247 21 Pakaraka Drive Ardmore Lot 32 DP 504247 31 Pakaraka Drive Ardmore Lot 37 DP 504247 29 Pakaraka Drive Ardmore Lot 36 DP 504247 17 Pakaraka Drive Ardmore Lot 30 DP 504247 27 Pakaraka Drive Ardmore Lot 35 DP 504247 19 Pakaraka Drive Ardmore Lot 31 DP 504247


25 Pakaraka Drive Ardmore Lot 34 DP 504247 33 Pakaraka Drive Ardmore Lot 700 DP 504247


Map change: 12 Subject property: 2D Northcote Road, Takapuna and 8 and 10 Rangitira

Avenue, Takapuna Legal Description: Lot 1 DP 505164

Lot 3 DP 513260 Lot 4 DP 513260 Lot 2 DP 505164

Current zone/s: Current precinct/s:

Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban zone and Residential – Mixed Housing Urban zone split zone Smales 2 sub-precinct A and Smales 2 sub-precinct B

Proposed change: Rezone the southern part of the property at 2D Northcote Road which is currently zoned Residential – Mixed Housing Urban to Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban; and Rezone northern parts of the properties at 8 and 10 Rangitira Avenue which are currently zoned Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban to Residential – Mixed Housing Urban. Realign the southern boundary of the Smales 2 sub-precinct B with the boundaries of properties 2D Northcote Road, 8 Rangitira Avenue, and 10 Rangitira Avenue, Takapuna.

Proposed zone:

Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban zone and Residential – Mixed Housing Urban zone



Map change: 13 Subject property: See Table below. Legal Description: See Table below. Current zone/s: Residential – Single House zone and Residential – Mixed

Housing Suburban zone split zone Proposed change: Rezone the properties that are directly along the coast

(identified in the above map) to Residential – Single House in their entirety.


Affected sites:

Subject properties Legal Descriptions 24 Tai Crescent Hobsonville LOT 187 DP 508367 30 Tai Crescent Hobsonville LOT 184 DP 508367 36 Tai Crescent Hobsonville LOT 181 DP 508367 42 Tai Crescent Hobsonville LOT 178 DP 508367 23 Scott Road Hobsonville LOT 1 DP 63801 22 Tai Crescent Hobsonville LOT 188 DP 508367 26 Tai Crescent Hobsonville LOT 186 DP 508367 32 Tai Crescent Hobsonville LOT 183 DP 508367 40 Tai Crescent Hobsonville LOT 179 DP 508367 16 Tai Crescent Hobsonville LOT 191 DP 508367 38 Tai Crescent Hobsonville LOT 180 DP 508367


28 Tai Crescent Hobsonville LOT 185 DP 508367 10 Tai Crescent Hobsonville LOT 193 DP 508367 34 Tai Crescent Hobsonville LOT 182 DP 508367 Roa Avenue Hobsonville LOT 305 DP 505573 8 Tai Crescent Hobsonville LOT 194 DP 508367 18 Tai Crescent Hobsonville LOT 190 DP 508367 15 Kano Way Hobsonville LOT 251 DP 505573 17 Kano Way Hobsonville LOT 511 DP 509502 23 Kano Way Hobsonville LOT 508 DP 509502 21 Kano Way Hobsonville LOT 509 DP 509502 19 Kano Way Hobsonville LOT 510 DP 509502 13 Kano Way Hobsonville LOT 250 DP 505573 31 Kano Way Hobsonville LOT 505 DP 509502 29 Kano Way Hobsonville LOT 506 DP 509502 33 Kano Way Hobsonville LOT 504 DP 509502 39 Kano Way Hobsonville LOT 501 DP 509502 41 Kano Way Hobsonville 0618 LOT 500 DP 509502


Map change: 14 Subject property: See Table below. Legal Description: See Table below. Current zone/s: Rural – Mixed Rural zone and Rural – Countryside Living

zone with split zones Proposed change: Rezone properties from Rural – Mixed Rural zone to Rural –

Countryside Living and vice versa to remove split zones on properties. Realign the southern boundary of Whitford sub-precinct A, as well as the zone boundaries of Rural – Countryside Living zone and Rural – Mixed Rural zone so that the six properties created by subdivision are zoned Rural – Countryside Living.

Proposed zone: Rural – Mixed Rural zone and Rural – Countryside Living zone without split zones


Affected sites:

Subject properties Legal Descriptions 500 Brookby Road Brookby 1/2 SH LOT 3 DP 146072, 1/3 SH

LOT 5 DP 195884, LOT 3 DP 492683, 1/7 SH LOT 20 DP 480857

385 Whitford Park Road Whitford LOT 1 DP 147984 21 ridgeline Way, Whitford Lot 16 DP 480857 17 Ridgeline Way Whitford Lot 14 DP 480857 19 Ridgeline Way Whitford Lot 15 DP 480857 15 Ridgeline Way, Whitford Lot 13 DP 480857 13 Ridgeline Way, Whitford Lot 12 DP 487212 11 Ridgeline Way, Whitford Lot 11 DP 480857 9 Ridgeline Way, Whitford Lot 10 DP 480857 7 Ridgeline Way, Whitford Lot 9 DP 480857 5 Ridgeline Way, Whitford Lot 8 DP 480857


Map change: 15 Subject property: See Table below. Legal Description: See Table below. Current zone/s: Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban zone Proposed change: Extend the Residential - Terrace Housing and Apartment

Buildings zone to properties with a split zone and adjust the boundary between Flat Bush sub-precincts A, D and F to align with the revised zone boundaries as shown in the below maps.

Proposed zone: Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone


Affected sites:

Subject properties Legal Descriptions 21 Frisken Road, Flat Bush Lot 88 DP 480979 22 Frisken Road, Flat Bush Lot 80 DP 480979 24 Frisken Road, Flat Bush Lot 81 DP 480979 26 Frisken Road, Flat Bush Lot 82 DP 480979 28 Frisken Road, Flat Bush Lot 83 DP 480979 30 Frisken Road, Flat Bush Lot 84 DP 480979 32 Frisken Road, Flat Bush Lot 11 DP 480979 34 Frisken Road, Flat Bush Lot 12 DP 480979 36 Frisken Road, Flat Bush Lot 13 DP 480979 38 Frisken Road, Flat Bush Lot 14 DP 480979 40 Frisken Road, Flat Bush Lot 15 DP 480979 42 Frisken Road, Flat Bush Lot 16 DP 480979


44 Frisken Road, Flat Bush Lot 17 DP 480979 56 Timmer Road, Flat Bush Lot 104 DP 480979 57 Timmer Road, Flat Bush Lot 97 DP 480979 21 Nightingale Road, Flat Bush Lot 120 DP 502563 22 Nightingale Road, Flat Bush Lot 113 DP 502563 16 Koropa Road, Flat Bush Lot 132 DP 502563 18 Koropa Road, Flat Bush Lot 131 DP 502563 20 Koropa Road, Flat Bush Lot 130 DP 502563 22 Koropa Road, Flat Bush Lot 129 DP 502563 225 Murphys Road, Flat Bush Section 6 SO 472096


Map change: 16 Subject property: 122 – 168 Eaves Bush, Parade Orewa

146 – 192 Landmark Terrace, Orewa 88 Rewa Rewa Lane, Orewa 58 Landmark Terrace, Orewa

Legal Description: Lot 3 DP 482621 Lot 2 DP 482621 Unit 44 DP 475470, AU 103 DP 475470 Unit 1 DP 475683

Proposed change: Realign Orewa sub-precinct boundaries with the property boundaries as shown below.



Map change: 17 Subject property: 32 Market Place, Auckland Central Legal Description: Lot 4 DP 317103 Proposed change: Realign the Viaduct Harbour sub-precinct C boundary, so

that the part of 32 Market Place which is used for commercial activities (shown in black hatching) is in sub-precinct A, leaving the remaining part of the site within sub-precinct C.


Unitary Plan Management Layers – Controls and Overlays

Map change: 18 Subject property: 230 Maraetai School Road, Maraetai

110 Maraetai School Road, Maraetai 1 Maraetai Coast Road, Clevedon

Legal Description: Lot 103 DP 472362 Lot 102 DP 472362 LOT 1 DP 517764

Proposed change: Extend the Subdivision Variation Control to cover 110 and 230 Maraetai School Road, Maraetai and 1 Maraetai Coast Road, Clevedon.


Map change: 19 Subject property: 8 St Marks Road, Remuera

10 St Marks Road, Remuera Legal Description: Lot 1 DP 23263 Lot 2 DP 23263

Lot 1 DP 51650 Proposed change: Remove the Vehicle Access Restriction from Mac Murray

Road frontages of both properties (8 and 10 St Marks Road).


Map change 20 Subject property: 621 Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu Peninsula

623 Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu Peninsula 8 Harbour View Road, Te Atatu Peninsula

Legal Description: PT LOT 3 DP 22578 PT LOT 2 DP 22578 PT LOT 4 DP 22578, PT LOT 3 DP 22578, PT LOT 2 DP 22578, PT LOT 1 DP 22578, SEC 1 SO 383880, LOT 72 DP 50502, PT LOT 2 DP 38397, PT LOT 1 DP 38397, PT LOT 70 DEEDS WHAU 14

Proposed change: Remove the Building Frontage Control – Key Retail Frontage from the frontage of 621 and 623 Te Atatu Road and 8 Harbour View Road, Te Atatu Peninsula.


Map change: 21 Subject property: 71, 75 and 128 Hingaia Road, Hingaia Legal Description: PT ALLOT 4 DP 11824

PT ALLOT 2 DP 424718 Lot 66 DP 479708

Proposed change: Remove the Building Frontage Control - Key Retail Frontage Building Control from the frontage of 128, 71 and 75 Hingaia Road, Hingaia. Extend the application of Vehicle Access Restriction Control - General to cover frontages of properties 71 and 75 Hingaia Road.



Map change: 22 Subject property: 3 Jana Place, Mount Roskill

11 White Swan Road, Mount Roskill 7 Jana Place, Mount Roskill 6 Jana Place Mount Roskill Auckland 1041

Legal Description: LOT 2 DP 513208, 1/6 SH Lot 2 DP 141985 LOT 1 DP 513208, 1/3 SH Lot 2 DP 141985 Lot 64 DP 155755, 1/6 SH Lot 2 DP 141985 1/2 SH Lot 63 DP 155755, Flat 2 DP 164414, 1/12 SH Lot 2 DP 141985

Proposed change: Remove the National Grid Substation Corridor Overlay from areas shown in purple in the map below Apply the National Grid Substation Corridor Overlay to the area marked in red in the map below, joining remaining corridor strips to close the loop.


NOTE: This change will have immediate legal effect

Map change: 23 Subject property: 151 Wiri Station Road Manurewa

11 Puaki Drive Manurewa 220 Wiri Station Road Manukau Central

Legal Description: LOT 1 DP 516602 LOT 500 DP 516602 SEC B SO 68724

Proposed change: Amend the extent of the Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Overlay (037, Wiri North Stonefields) to more accurately reflect the extent of the feature


Unitary Plan Management Layers – Waitakere Ranges zones

Map change: 24 Subject property: 13 Karekare Road, Karekare Legal Description: Lot 1 DP 64691 Current zone: Rural – Rural Conservation zone Proposed change: Rezone 13 Karekare Road, Karekare from Rural – Rural

Conservation zone to Rural – Waitakere Ranges zone Proposed zone: Rural – Waitakere Ranges zone

Rezone from Rural – Rural Conservation zone to Rural – Waitakere Ranges zone


Map change: 25 Subject property: Log Race Road, Piha Legal Description: Lot 1 DP 200568, Lot 2 DP 200568 Current zone: Rural – Rural Conservation zone Proposed change: Rezone Log Race Road, Piha from Rural – Rural

Conservation zone to Rural – Waitakere Ranges zone Proposed zone: Rural – Waitakere Ranges zone



Map change: 26 Subject property: 15 Quinns Road, Waiatarua

17 Quinns Road, Waiatarua Legal Description: Lot 2 DP 55476, PT Lot 11 DP 51334

Lot 3 DP 55476, Lot 10 DP 51334 Current zone: Rural – Rural Conservation zone Proposed change: Rezone 15 Quinns Road and 17 Quinns Road, Waiatarua

from Rural – Rural Conservation zone to Rural – Waitakere Ranges zone

Proposed zone: Rural – Waitakere Ranges zone



Map change: 27 Subject property: Autumn Avenue, Glen Eden Legal Description: Lot 6 DP 109668,

Lot 45 DP 210267 Current zone: Rural – Countryside Living zone Proposed change: Rezone Autumn Avenue, Glen Eden from Rural –

Countryside Living zone to Rural – Waitakere Foothills zone Proposed zone: Rural – Waitakere Foothills zone

Rezone from Rural – Countryside Living zone to Rural –Waitakere Foothills zone


Map change: 28 Subject property: 800 Huia Road, Huia Legal Description: Lot 1 DP 31884 Current zone: Rural – Countryside Living zone Proposed change: Rezone 800 Huia Road, Huia from Rural – Countryside

Living zone to Rural – Waitakere Ranges zone Proposed zone: Rural – Waitakere Ranges zone

Rezone from Rural – Countryside Living zone to Rural – Waitakere Ranges zone


Map change: 29 Subject property: 3 McEntee Road, Waitakere Legal Description: Lot 1 DP44160 Current zone: Rural – Rural Conservation zone Proposed change: Rezone 3 McEntee Road, Waitakere from Rural – Rural

Conservation zone to Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone


Rezone from Rural – Rural Conservation zone to Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone


Map change: 30 Subject property: 4 Kay Road, Swanson Legal Description: PT Lot 1 DP 55266 Current zone: Rural – Rural Conservation zone Proposed change: Rezone 4 Kay Road, Swanson from Rural – Rural

Conservation zone to Rural – Countryside Living zone Proposed zone: Rural – Countryside Living zone

Rezone from Rural – Rural Conservation zone to Rural – Countryside Living zone


Map change: 31 Subject property: See Table below. Legal Description: See Table below. Current zone: Rural – Rural Conservation zone Proposed change: Rezone the properties specified below from Rural – Rural

Conservation zone to Rural – Waitakere Ranges zone. Proposed zone: Rural – Waitakere Ranges

Affected sites:

Subject properties Legal Descriptions 228 Bethells Road, Bethells SEC 1 BLK I SO 47102, SEC 2

BLK I SO 47102, PT 1A ML 1902 17 Erangi Place Bethells LOT 43 DP 72475 240 Bethells Road, Bethells PT LOT 1 DP 52977 284-286 Bethells Road Bethells LOT 4 DP 45364 36 Te Aute Ridge Road Bethells LOT 4 DP 59176 2 Kokako Grove Bethells PT LOT 5 DP 59176 40 Te Aute Ridge Road Bethells LOT 6 DP 59176 10 Kokako Grove Bethells LOT 7 DP 59176



18 Kokako Grove Bethells LOT 10 DP 172677 9 Tasman View Road Bethells PT LOT 3 DP 52977 7 Kokako Grove Bethells 9 Kokako Grove Bethells 5 Kokako Grove Bethells

LOT 12 DP 172677, LOT 11 DP 172677, LOT 7 DP 172677 LOT 12 DP 172677, LOT 11 DP 172677, LOT 8 DP 172677 LOT 12 DP 172677, LOT 11 DP 172677, LOT 6 DP 172677 LOT 1 DP 439729

12 Tasman View Road Bethells LOT 1 DP 62899, LOT 1 DP 192609

18 Tasman View Road Bethells LOT 1 DP 40072 160 Bethells Road Bethells 156 Bethells Road Bethells 156A Bethells Road Bethells 152 Bethells Road Bethells 150 Bethells Road Bethells 154 Bethells Road Bethells 46 Te Aute Ridge Road Bethells

LOT 11 DP 172677, LOT 13 DP 172677, LOT 2 DP 172677 LOT 11 DP 172677, LOT 13 DP 172677, LOT 1 DP 172677 LOT 11 DP 172677, LOT 13 DP 172677, LOT 4 DP 172677 LOT 11 DP 172677, LOT 13 DP 172677, LOT 5 DP 172677 LOT 11 DP 172677, LOT 13 DP 172677, LOT 3 DP 172677 LOT 2 DP 58776

44 Te Aute Ridge Road Bethells LOT 1 DP 341728 44B Te Aute Ridge Road Bethells LOT 3 DP 341728 44A Te Aute Ridge Road Bethells LOT 2 DP 341728 58 Tasman View Road Bethells LOT 1 DP 208433


Chapter I Precincts: Consequential Changes


I211. Viaduct Harbour Precinct …

I211.10. Precinct plans

I211.10.1 Viaduct Harbour: Precinct plan 1 – Precinct and sub-precincts

Note: Consequential change relates to Map Change 17 above.


I412. Flat Bush Precinct …

I412.10 Flat Bush Precinct Plans

I412.10.1. Flat Bush: Precinct plan 1 - Sub-precincts Boundary



I438. Takanini Precinct

…


I438.10.1. Takanini Precinct: Precinct plan 1



I441. Whitford Precinct …


I441.10.1. Whitford Precinct: Precinct plan 1



I441.10.2. Whitford Precinct: Precinct plan 2 - vegetation management



I441.10.3 Whitford Precinct: Precinct plan 3 - coastal and scenic amenity



I441.10.4. Whitford Precinct: Precinct plan 4 - location of road corridor



I529. Orewa 1 Precinct …


I529.10.1 Orewa 1: Precinct plan 1



I539. Smales 2 Precinct …


I539.10.1. Smales 2: Precinct plan 1



6.33 Hingaia 3 …

10. Precinct Plans

Figure 1 - Zoning Map


Figure 2 - Structure Plan


ATTACHMENT E

PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 17 - SECTION 32 EVALUATION REPORT

259

260

Proposed Plan Change 17 (PC 17)

Improving consistency of provisions in the Viewer of the Auckland Unitary Plan

(Operative in Part) SECTION 32

EVALUATION REPORT

Advice note: Please read the ‘Navigation guide’ on the Proposed Plan Change 17 prior to reading any of the reports and attachments.

261

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 4

1.1 Scope and purpose of the report .............................................................................. 4

1.2 Background to the proposed plan change ................................................................ 5

1.3 The resource management issue to be addressed ................................................... 9

1.4 Objectives of the proposed plan change .................................................................. 9

1.5 Development and Evaluation of Options ................................................................ 10

1.6 Evaluation of Options (Evaluation 1 – Overview Evaluation) .................................. 10

1.7 Risk of acting or not acting ..................................................................................... 13

2. Reasons for the proposed plan change ................................................................ 14

2.1 Reasons for the preferred option ............................................................................ 14

2.2 Scope of plan change ............................................................................................ 14

3. Statutory evaluation under Part II and relevant sections of the Resource

Management Act (RMA) ........................................................................................... 15

3.1 Part 2 of the RMA and relevant sections of the RMA .............................................. 15

3.2 Other relevant sections of the RMA ........................................................................ 15

4. National and Regional Planning Context .............................................................. 17

4.1 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement ................................................................. 17

4.2 National Policy Statement ...................................................................................... 18

4.3 National Environmental Standards ......................................................................... 19

4.4 Other Acts ............................................................................................................. 19

4.5 The Auckland Plan ................................................................................................. 21

4.6 Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) ............................................................. 21

4.7 Iwi Management Plans .......................................................................................... 22

5. Development of Proposed Plan Change .............................................................. 22

5.1 Methodology and development of Plan Change ..................................................... 22

5.2 Consultation Undertaken ........................................................................................ 24

6. Evaluation approaches ......................................................................................... 26

Page 2 of 100262

6.1 The zoning of the site(s) is inconsistent with surrounding sites “spot zone”, where

multiple zones have been applied to a single site “split zone” or the incorrect zoning has

been applied ................................................................................................................ 26

6.1.1 Evaluating the proposal against its objectives ..................................................... 27

Table 6.1 – Summary of analysis under section 32(2) of the RMA ............................... 27

6.1.2 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 28

6.1.3 Problem statement and recommendations to amend identified spot zone, split

zone and/or incorrect zone mapping anomalies. .......................................................... 29

6.2 Zone and precinct boundaries that no longer follow road or property boundaries as

a result of a recent subdivision ..................................................................................... 43



6.2.2 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 44

6.2.3 Problem statement and recommendations to amend zone and precinct boundaries

that no longer follow road or property boundaries ........................................................ 46

6.3 Inconsistencies in the mapping of controls and overlays to identified sites ............. 69



6.3.2 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 70

6.3.3 Problem statement and recommendations to amend inconsistencies in the

mapping of controls and overlays to identified sites ..................................................... 72

6.4 Inconsistencies in the mapping of zones, overlays or precincts on certain sites

within the Waitakere Ranges........................................................................................ 84

6.4.1 Evaluating the proposal against its objectives .................................................... 84


6.4.2 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 86

6.4.3 Problem statement and recommendations to amend inconsitencies in the mapping

of zones, overlays or precincts on certain sites within the Waitakere Ranges .............. 87

7. Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 100

Page 3 of 100263

1. Introduction1.1 Scope and purpose of the report This report is prepared by Auckland Council (Council) to fulfil the statutory requirements of section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA) for proposed Plan Change D (PC 17) to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) (AUP).

PC 17 is one of a series of four plan changes to address technical issues across the AUP. These plan changes follow on from Plan Change 4 – Corrections to technical errors and anomalies in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) version (PC4). The series of proposed follow up plan changes, are proposed to have a slightly broader scope than PC4 to enable a number of the technical issues that did not meet the criteria for inclusion within PC4 to be addressed. Other plan changes in the series include:

• Plan Change 14: Aucklandwide and Overlays• Plan Change 15: Zones• Plan Change 16: Coastal

PC 17 introduces changes to the AUP Viewer to amend zone and mapped control, overlay and precinct boundaries to 212 sites across the region. The changes proposed in PC 17 are to:

• ensure the zoning of the site is consistent with surrounding sites;• ensure the spatial application of zones and/or overlays has been applied correctly to

the site, either wholly or partially;• ensure that zone and precinct boundaries follow road or property boundaries;• resolve identified inconsistencies in the mapping of controls and overlays; and• resolve identified inconsistencies in the mapping of zones, overlays or precincts on

certain sites within the Waitakere Ranges.

The plan change documents for PC 17 are set out in Attachment 1 and show:

• proposed amendments to the AUP Viewer included in PC 17, and• any consequential amendments to precinct plans and diagrams.

Section 32 of the RMA requires that before adopting any objective, policy, rule or other method, the Council shall have regard to the extent to which each objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA, and whether the policies and rules or other methods are the most appropriate way of achieving the objectives. A report must be prepared summarising the evaluation and giving reasons for the evaluation. In accordance with Section 32(6) of the RMA and for the purposes of this report:

• the ‘proposal’ means PC 17;• the ‘objectives’ means the purpose of the proposal/ PC 17; and• the ‘provisions’ means the policies, rules or other methods that implement, or give

effect to the objectives of the proposal.

The AUP contains existing objectives, policies, and rules or other methods for the purpose of determining land use, the bulk and location of development and the management of

Plan Change 17 - AUP Viewer Section 32 Evaluation Report Page 4 of 100264

identified values. PC 17 is not altering or re-litigating any of these provisions or the intent of these provisions. This evaluation report relates to technical mapping issues within the existing policy framework of the AUP. The policy approach remains unchanged, and this report will not re-evaluate it in any more detail.

This evaluation will continue to be refined in relation to any consultation that occurs, and in relation to any new information that may arise, including through submissions and during hearings as per Section 32AA of the RMA.

1.2 Background to the proposed plan change The structure of the AUP is complex. It is a combined plan pursuant to section 80 of the Resource Management Act 1991, bringing the regional policy statement, the regional plan (including the regional coastal plan) and the district plan into a single document. This plan applies to almost the entire Auckland region, excluding only the district plan provisions in respect of the land area of the Hauraki Gulf Islands. The scale of such a combined planning exercise has never before been undertaken in New Zealand.

The separation of controls among overlays, zones, Auckland-wide and precinct provisions means that a single site may be subject to four or more layers of plan provisions. Accurately identifying all of the provisions that may be relevant to a site or a proposal is integral to understanding the planning controls that might apply.

As a result of the nature of the layered provisions of the AUP, plan users and Council planning staff have been identifying a number of technical mapping issues. These issues affect the usability of the AUP and the overall integration between the text and the maps. Since the AUP has become operative in part (15 November 2016), the Council has been registering potential errors and issues that have been identified by both staff and members of the public. Issues are sent through via email enquiry and then they are registered, categorised and grouped in a spreadsheet by their respective AUP chapter, section, precinct, GIS mapping layer, provision/standard and/or property.

Over 2,000 potential errors or issues have been recorded to date and the number continues to grow as AUP users continue to identify and send potential issues to the Council’s enquiry line.

The issues identified so far are found in all components of the AUP (text and maps), and cover a range of matters. Examples include:

• spelling and grammatical mistakes;• provisions or references which are ambiguous i.e. where a reference does not make

sense and doesn’t apply to the provision;• duplicated provisions i.e. where a policy or standard has been repeated

unnecessarily;• inconsistency of provisions, references or formatting;• rules or standards that don’t make sense and don’t work in the intended manner that

they have been written; and• where the spatial application of a zone or overlay has been clearly applied to the

wrong site, either wholly or partially.


There are four ways in which issues in the AUP can be corrected under the RMA:

• Clause 16(2) of Schedule 1 to the RMA – for alterations of a minor effect, or thecorrection of minor errors where the plan is not yet operative/still subject to appeal;

• Clause 20A of Schedule 1 to the RMA – for the correction of minor errors where theplan is operative;

• Decisions made on matters subject to appeal; and• Plan change/s to the AUP.

Plan Change 4 – Corrections to technical errors and anomalies in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) (PC4)

Many of the issues that were registered when the AUP first became operative in part were clear errors or anomalies, which although minor in nature could not be amended using Clause 16 or Clause 20A. In order to resolve these issues quickly to enable the AUP to function how it was intended, PC4 was notified in September 2017.

Where an error or anomaly required further research and investigation, there were various possible scenarios or corrections or where the impact of the correction is unclear, these issues were excluded from PC4.

As such the type of issues addressed through PC4 included:

a) Technical corrections where it is clear from the Independent Hearings Panel (thePanel) recommendations that their intentions have not been carried forward into theAUP;

b) Corrections to reflect agreements reached between a submitter and the councilthrough mediation where the Panel accepted the agreements and recommendedthey be implemented but this is not reflected in the AUP;

c) Technical amendments to the provisions to correct information where it does notchange the policy or intent of the provision;

d) Corrections to an overlay, precinct, zone or control where the spatial application hasclearly been applied to the wrong land (and this is clearly seen to be an technicalerror or anomaly and does not lead to a substantive argument/debate of theproposed change in any form);

e) Corrections to the schedules where there is clear discrepancy between council’sclosing statement evidence and the AUP and the matter has been agreed betweenthe parties and/or is silent in terms of the Panel’s recommendations;

f) Corrections to anomalies within the AUP where it has either deviated from the AUPor have been incorrectly applied for no apparent reason, and thereby is inconsistentwith the provisions and should be amended; and

g) Updating the AUP Viewer to land recently vested as open space, roads and othertypes of reserve (e.g. utility reserves).

At the conclusion of the preparation of PC4 the Council was left with a number of issues which required further investigation for potential inclusion in a plan change that had broader scope than PC4. Additionally a range of issues across the AUP continued to be added to the


register. Consequently the Council decided to prepare a series of follow up plan changes to PC4 to continue to address technical issues within the AUP.

A series of proposed follow up plan changes, of which PC 17 is part of, are proposed to have a slightly broader scope than PC4. This is to enable a number of the technical issues that did not meet the criteria for inclusion within PC4 to be addressed.

A project team was established to review the issues that were out of scope of PC4 in addition to the issues that continued to be identified by both staff members and the public. A scope statement for PC 17, as outlined in section 1.1 of this report, was developed to guide this review.

The project team undertook a review of the potential issues registered at the time to determine one of the following courses of action:

a) Correct the error through Clause 16(2) or Clause 20A;b) No further action; orc) Address the issue through the PC 17.

In recommending an appropriate course of action the project team considered the following criteria:

1. Technical or Policy Matter

As outlined in section 1.1 above, PC 17 is limited to amending technical issues to improve the usability of the AUP, its clarity, and its overall integration. However, many of the registered issues related to dissatisfaction with various policy directions within the plan. Therefore the first task was to determine if the issues were technical or policy matters.

A technical issue is where a change is required so that the AUP will function in the way it was intended. The amendment of technical issues will not, by themselves, result in any substantive changes to the policy direction of the plan. Technical mapping issues may include:

- Where the spatial application of a zone or overlay has been clearly applied to the wrong site, either wholly or partially;

- Where zone and precinct boundaries fail to correctly follow road or property boundaries;

- Where there are identified inconsistencies in the mapping of controls and overlays; and

- Where there are identified inconsistencies in the mapping of zones, overlays or precincts on certain sites within the Waitakere Ranges, causing alignment issues between the text and the AUP Viewer.

2. Complexity of the Issue

Once the project team had established whether the issues were technical or policy matters, they considered the complexity of the issue. This was in order to determine whether it was


appropriate to address particular issues through an omnibus plan change (i.e. one that covered multiple issues) or whether an issue may be of a scale to warrant its own plan change.

3. Alternative Options

In the case of many issues there are alternative options available to resolving the issue other than a change to the plan. The project team considered the alternative options in determining the course of action for each registered issue.

The alternative options include non-statutory methods such as practice notes, guidance or interpretation notes. Non-statutory methods have been utilised where guidance has been needed promptly. In many instances this non-statutory guidance has satisfactorily clarified the provisions thereby resolving the issue. Where this is the case the Council has not pursued amendments to the plan.

In some instances the issues relate to provisions that are the subject of appeals before the courts. There has occasionally been scope to fix the issue through this process.

Another alternative option is to take no further action in relation to an issue. This has been the recommended course of action where the Council does not agree that there is enough evidence to show that this is an issue and will monitor the provisions to determine if a change is warranted in the future.

In some limited circumstances, an amendment via PC 17 is not required as the issue may have been resolved via another process such as a separate plan change. Therefore no change is required to the AUP.

Results of the Review of Registered Issues

As a result of this review the following courses of action were recommended:

• 160 errors were amended using Clause 20a or Clause 16;• 143 errors via another process (such as the appeals process or internal

interpretation/guidance/practice notes);• 136 potential matters were not progressed and had no further action; and• 301 potential issues required further investigation for potential inclusion in a plan

change that had broader scope than PC4.

The recommendations of the project team were audited by a review panel comprising of senior managers, representatives from the legal and resource consents department and Auckland Transport. The review panel sought to ensure the issues proposed to be included within PC17 were within scope of the plan change and most appropriately addressed by the plan change.


1.3 The resource management issue to be addressed The resource management issue to be resolved through PC 17 is to correct the identified mapping anomalies over 212 sites within the AUP Viewer, to improve the workability of the plan and ensure a more unambiguous set of provisions apply to the subject sites.

The identified mapping anomalies are creating confusion for plan users and increasing the likelihood of debate and litigation when administering the AUP. The identified mapping anomalies are also impacting the integrity of the AUP through compromising the ability to implement the plan as intended.

1.4 Objectives of the proposed plan change PC 17 introduces amendments within the AUP Viewer, and these are identified in section 6 below.

Zoning is a key method within the AUP to give effect to the objectives and policies of the Regional Policy Statement. Zoning as a technique allows bundles of regional and district provisions to be grouped by geographic area. Where important values or characteristics exist in a part of the region these are provided for through the use of Overlays and/or Precincts.

An evaluation under Section 32 of the RMA must examine the extent to which the objectives of PC 17 are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA. The objective of PC 17, or the purpose of the plan change, is to address the identified mapping anomalies (as outlined in section 6 below), in order to:

• Ensure the zoning of sites is consistent with surrounding sites;• Ensure the spatial application of zones and/or overlays has been applied correctly to

the site, either wholly or partially;• Ensure that zone and precinct boundaries follow road or property boundaries;• Resolve identified inconsistencies in the mapping of controls and overlays; and• Resolve identified inconsistencies in the mapping of zones, overlays or precincts on

certain sites within the Waitakere Ranges.

The plan change should assist the Council to carry out its functions in order to achieve the purpose of the RMA, being to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

The evaluation of the identified amendments to the AUP Viewer concludes that these are mapping anomalies which have the potential to create confusion for plan users1. The uncertainty or ambiguity created by the current provisions identified in this report impacts the functionality and workability of the AUP and increases the risk of debate and litigation when administering the AUP. Amending the AUP Viewer to resolve these identified issues is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA, as outlined in the evaluation of options below.

1 Council’s resource consents department and external planning practitioners involved in consenting processes as well as the property owners themselves.


1.5 Development and Evaluation of Options

Section 32 of the RMA requires an examination of whether the provisions in PC 17 are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the proposed plan change by identifying other reasonably practical options for achieving the objective. In the preparation of PC 17, the following options have been identified:

Option 1 – Adopt a ‘do nothing’ approach (retain the status quo) with no change to the AUP Viewer.

Option 2 – Undertaking non-regulatory methods to achieve the objective.

Option 3 – Undertaking regulatory methods – a plan change to amend the identified technical mapping issues within the AUP Viewer in respect of 212 sites.

Option 4 – Undertaking other regulatory methods – addressing technical mapping issues at a later but undetermined date, as part of a full AUP review.

1.6 Evaluation of Options (Overview Evaluation)

Option 1 – Adopt a ‘do nothing’ approach (retain the status quo)

The ‘do nothing’ option means the mapping anomalies which have the potential to compromise the integrity of the AUP will not be addressed. By not amending the AUP Viewer, mapping anomalies will continue to cause confusion for plan users increasing the risk of debate and litigation while implementing the plan. The AUP Viewer will continue to have mapping anomalies that affect the ability of the AUP to promote the purpose of the RMA in an integrated way.


Non regulatory methods to address the identified mapping anomalies include practice notes, guidance or interpretation notes. This option is an alternative to addressing mapping anomalies through a plan change.

Option 3 – Regulatory methods - A plan change to amend the identified technical mapping issues within the AUP Viewer in respect of 212 sites

This option will address the identified mapping anomalies within the AUP Viewer, through a statutory process. The statutory plan change process allows the mapping anomalies to be addressed in a clear and legally robust process.

Option 4 – Other regulatory methods – Address technical issues at a later date, as part of a full AUP review

Other regulatory methods to address the identified mapping anomalies include waiting to amend the AUP Viewer to address the identified mapping anomalies as part of the full plan review. This would involve incorporating the amendments proposed to address the mapping anomalies into the review of the AUP which is approximately five to ten years away.


Table 1 – Summary of the analysis of the plan change under Section 32(2) of the RMA Options Efficiency and

effectiveness Benefits Costs

Option 1: Adopt a ‘do nothing’ approach (retain the status quo)

The do nothing option is not an effective or efficient option to achieve the objectives of PC 17 (to address identified mapping anomalies to remove ambiguity and ensure a more workable set of provisions apply to the subject sites). The identified mapping anomalies have arisen as the plan has been used. This option will do nothing to address the identified mapping anomalies which are compromising the ability to implement the pan as intended. This option will also lead to inefficient implementation of the AUP as the plan users will have to clarify mapping anomalies on a case by case basis.

As a plan change is not pursued under this option, there is no financial burden on the Council to undertake a public plan change.

This option also allows the Council more time to collate further mapping anomalies and research appropriate solutions.

There is a risk that in trying to address an issue a further issue can be created. With no action, this can be prevented.

If users of the AUP Viewer interpret the AUP differentially because of the identified mapping anomalies, there is both an economic and environmental cost.

The need to clarify the identified mapping anomalies will slow down the consenting process. There is also the potential for litigation and debate over the correct provisions. This in turn limits the productivity of the AUP.

The identified mapping anomalies compromise the ability to implement the plan as intended. This could result in outcomes that are not aligned with the objectives and policies of the AUP and in turn the purpose of the RMA. Or unintended environmental outcomes that threaten the anticipated environmental results in the AUP.

Option 2: Non- regulatory methods

Non-regulatry methods include practice notes, guidance or interpretation notes which do not have any statutory weight. This lack of weight may limit the effectiveness of this option in achieving the objectives of PC 17 as the guidance contained

This option requires limited staff time and resourcing, compared to a plan change. It also allows mapping anomalies to be addressed in a timely manner as practice notes, guidance or interpretation notes do not need to go through

Due to the non-statutory nature of practice notes, guidance or interpretation notes there is the potential for both an economic and environmental cost.

Non-statutory guidance may be challenged and


within non-statutory guidance can be challenged or ignored. These non-regulatory methods will for most of the AUP Viewer issues, be ineffective. This is due to the changes being the movement of spatial boundaries or affectation types. These are all unique in nature and therefore cannot be clarified or resolved effectively via non-regulatory methods. Furthermore, guidance notes themselves are open to interpretation and therefore there is a risk that these non-statutory documents have the potential to impact on the integrity and public opinion of the AUP.

a statutory process. ignored by plan users, which could slow down the consenting process and increase the potential for litigation and debate over the correct provisions. This in turn limits the productivity of the AUP.

The identified mapping anomalies compromise the ability to implement the plan as intended. If non-statutory guidance is ignored or challenged this could result in outcomes that are not aligned with the objectives and policies of the AUP, and in turn the purpose of the RMA.

Option 3: Regulatory Methods - A plan change to amend the identified technical mapping issues within the AUP Viewer in respect of 212 sites

A plan change can effectively address the mapping anomalies identified in the AUP Viewer to remove ambiguity and ensure a more unambiguous set of provisions apply to the subject sites. Through undertaking four plan changes based on the structure of the plan, a more efficient process can be followed, via a series of small discrete plan changes addressing individual issues. It also ensures that similar issues can be grouped together while stopping the plan change from getting so large that it is difficult to

At present, PC 17 can be resourced through existing staff budgets. Depending on the submissions received and the issues that arise there may be the potential for higher costs in the future.

By addressing the identified mapping anomalies within the AUP Viewer, consenting should become more efficient.

The plan can be implemented as intended which ensures that the outcomes reflect the objectives and policies of the AUP and also the purpose of the RMA.


manage and interpret by plan users.

Option 4: Other regulatory methods – Address technical issues at a later date, as part of a full AUP review

This option involves a comprehensive review of the AUP which allows the identified mapping anomalies to be comprehensively reviewed at the same time. Although it is efficient to review the issues as part of a wider review of the plan, this is not an effective approach as the issues will remain unresolved for the next five to ten years.

This option is cost efficient in that the mapping anomalies can be addressed as part of a wider review of the AUP. As the timeframe for the review however is more than five years away, the costs of the mapping anomalies will significantly outweigh the benefits. There costs include lost development opportunities and costs caused by difficulty in plan interpretation.

As the mapping anomalies will remain in the AUP Viewer until it is reviewed the environmental and economic costs that are associated with these issues will remain.

The need to clarify the identified mapping anomalies will slow down the consenting process. There is also the potential for uncertainty and confusions over the correct zoning, overlays, controls and precincts to be applied to a site. This in turn limits the productivity of the AUP.

The identified mapping anomalies compromise the ability to implement the plan as intended. This could result in outcomes that are not aligned with the objectives and policies of the AUP and in turn the purpose of the RMA.

1.7 Risk of acting or not acting

Section 32(2)(c) of the RMA requires this evaluation to assess the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the provisions. There is considered to be sufficient information about the technical mapping issues being addressed through PC 17 to proceed with the plan change.

This evaluation will continue to be refined in relation to any new information that may arise following notification, including during hearings on PC 17 as required by Section 32AA.


2. Reasons for the proposed plan change

2.1 Reasons for the preferred option The evaluation of options above concludes that a plan change is the most appropriate option to address the identified mapping anomalies in the AUP Viewer.

Option 1, which is to maintain the status quo, is not recommended. The mapping anomalies can result in differing interpretations of the AUP, delay consenting and have an overall impact on the functionality and integrity of the AUP.

Option 2, the non-statutory approach, which would include guidance material or advice on plan interpretation is not recommended as this type of guidance does not have statutory standing and therefore can be challenged or interpreteted differently by different plan users. This can reduce any gains in efficiencies in plan administration and also pose a reputational risk to the integrity of the AUP.

Both regulatory options (options 3 and 4) allow mapping anomalies to be addressed in a legally robust manner and increase efficiencies in the administration of the AUP. While Option 4 is more holistic and cost efficient in the longer term, in the immediate term the issues will remain unresolved. Timeliness is an important dimension in addressing the issues as the potential costs and risks posed by these technical mapping issues are significant and have a real impact on the way land is used in the present. Through proceeding with Option 3 the mapping anomalies can be resolved so that the plan can be efficiently administered.

2.2 Scope of plan change The scope of PC 17 is limited to addressing the mapping anomalies over 212 sites (outlined in section 6 of this report) that are compromising the ability of plan users to efficiently interpret the AUP. PC 17 is limited to amending technical mapping issues to ensure the subject provisions give effect to the objectives and policies of the AUP.

In relation to the AUP Viewer, the following matters are included within the scope of PC 17:

• Where the zoning of the site does not follow the pattern of zoning applied to thesurrounding sites;

• Where the spatial application of a zone or overlay has been clearly applied to thewrong site, either wholly or partially.

• Where zone and precinct boundaries fail to correctly follow road or propertyboundaries;

• Where there are identified anomalies in the mapping of controls and overlays; and• Where there are identified anomalies in the mapping of zones, overlays or precincts

on certain sites within the Waitakere Ranges, causing alignment issues between thetext and the AUP Viewer.

PC 17 does not seek to alter the current policy direction of the plan. It will not alter the outcomes of the objectives and policies nor will it seek to add new objectives and policies.


3. Statutory evaluation under Part II and relevant sections of theResource Management Act (RMA)

3.1 Part 2 of the RMA and relevant sections of the RMA The purpose of the RMA is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, as defined in section 5(2) of the RMA. Zoning is a key method used in the AUP to achieve the purpose of the RMA. Zoning as a technique allows “bundles of activities considered generally appropriate in each zone or area, in recognising the constraints of the environment, and that some activities may not be appropriate in every location2". Zoning also sets out a common policy direction to assist in determining the existing or future nature of those areas.

The AUP adopts a zoning approach to land use and the management of activities in the Coastal Marine Area (CMA). Zones are areas where common land uses and activities are anticipated. Zones are spatially mapped in the AUP Viewer and all land and areas within the CMA are assigned a single zone.

The matters of national importance set out in Section 6 of the RMA represent values that must be recognised and provided for when considering appropriate locations for zones. Many of these values are represented by overlays in the AUP Viewer, such as Significant Ecological Areas (SEA) for example.

In determining the location of zones, particular regard must also be had to the matters listed in Section 7 of the RMA, including the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources, the intrinsic values of ecosystems, the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment, and the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values.

Section 8 of the RMA requires the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Treaty) to be taken into account. PC 17 has a narrow purpose to amend the AUP Viewer in respect of 212 sites in order to address technical mapping issues that are affecting the administration of the AUP. Given that PC 17 is not addressing any policy matters PC 17 is consistent with the principles of the Treaty.

3.2 Other relevant sections of the RMA

In the PAUP as was notified, depending on the location of the zone, zoning is either a regional plan or a district plan method. The statutory framework for assessing the merits of the spatial application of the zones is set out in Sections 30, 31, 32, 63 to 68, 72 to 76 and 80 of the RMA3.

2Keystone Watch Group v Auckland City Council A7/2001 at paragraph [30]

3Section 30 – Functions of regional councils under this Act

Section 31 – Functions of territorial authorities under this Act Section 63 – Purpose of regional plans Section 65 – Preparation and change of other regional plans Section 66 – Matters to be considered by regional councils (plans) Section 67 – Contents of regional plans Section 68 – Regional rules


Sections 30 and 31 of the RMA state that a function of council is to control any actual or potential effects of the use, development or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district and regional level.

Section 80 of the RMA sets out the approach to which local authorities may prepare, implement, and administer the combined regional and district documents. The AUP is a combined regional and district plan.

In preparing PC 17, the council must apply the requirements of Section 80 of the RMA. In particular subsection 6A ‘in preparing or amending a combined document, the relevant local authority must apply the requirements of this Part, as relevant to the documents comprising of the combined document’. The AUP contains a regional policy statement, a regional plan, a regional coastal plan and a district plan for the Auckland region.

Sections 63 to 68 and 72 to 76 of the RMA are relevant to the preparation and implementation of PC 17. In addition to the above, Section 80(6B) of the RMA, ‘the relevant local authorities may also, in preparing the provisions of a regional plan or a district plan, as the case may be, for a combined document that includes a regional policy statement – (a) give effect to a proposed regional policy statement; and (b) have regard to an operative regional policy statement.’

The AUP contains existing objectives, policies, rules and other methods that are of regional and district significance. PC 17 is correcting mapping anomalies within the AUP Viewer. By correcting these mapping anomalies, PC 17 will have regard to the operative regional policy statement provisions and will give effect to any proposed amendments to the regional policy statement.

Overall, it is considered that PC 17 assists the Council in carrying out its functions set out in Sections 30 and 31 of the RMA to meet the requirements of the prescribed sections of the RMA set out above. It is important to note that PC 17 is not altering or re-litigating any of the objectives and policies of the AUP. PC 17 is targeted at corrections of clear technical anomalies within the AUP viewer. The policy approach, their purpose and function remains unchanged, and this report will not evaluate these parts in any more detail.

3.3 Sections 86B–86G of the RMA

Sections 86B to 86G of the RMA specify when a rule in a proposed plan has legal effect.

When deciding the date a plan change takes effect, the RMA provides in Section 86B(1) that ‘a rule in a proposed plan has legal effect only once a decision on submissions relating to

Section 72 – Purpose of district plans Section 73 – Preparation and change of district plans Section 75 – Contents of district plans Section 76 – District rules Section 79 – Review of policy statements and plans Section 80 – Combined regional and district documents


the rule is made and publicly notified’. Exceptions are provided for in Section 86B(3), ‘a rule in a proposed plan has immediate legal effect if the rule –

(a) protects or relates to water, air, or soil (for soil conservation); or (b) protects areas of significant indigenous vegetation; or (c) protects areas of significant habitats of indigenous fauna; or (d) protects historic heritage; or (e) provides for or relates to aquaculture activities.’

Certain types of rules in the AUP have immediate legal effect from the date of notification of PC 17, provided that they fit within section 86B(3) of the RMA. Immediate legal effect means that a rule must be complied with from the day the proposed rule (or change) is notified.

Table 3.3.1 identifies the provision in PC 17 that will have immediate legal effect on and from the date on which the PC 17 is publicly notified (29 November 2018). PC 17 proposes one amendment that is considered to fit within section 86B(3) of the RMA. This is to amend the extent of the Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua Overlay (037, Wiri Stonefields North) at 151 Wiri Station Road, Manurewa, 11 Puaki Drive, Manurewa, 220 Wiri Station Road, Manukau Central. Under Section 86B(3)(d), the amendments relate to the protection of historic heritage. The changes to the AUP as a result of this amendment is contained in Attachment 1.

The remaining proposed amendments in PC 17 (Attachment 1) will not have legal effect until the release of the decision notice of PC 17.

Table 3.3.1 - List of proposed amendments in PC 17 that will have immediate legal effect on and from the date on which the PC 17 is publicly notified (29 November 2018)

Address Theme outlining proposed change Reason for immediate legal effect 151 and 220 Wiri Station Road, Manukau and 11 Puaki Drive, Manurewa (LOT 500 DP 516602, LOT 1 DP 516602, SEC B SO 68724)

Theme 6.3: Inconsistencies in the mapping of controls and overlays to identified sites

Protects historic heritage (Sites of Significance to mana Whenua Overlay)

4. National and Regional Planning Context

In addition to the statutory evaluation detailed in Section 3 of this report, there are a number of other statutes, regulations, national directives, policies and plans that are of relevance to PC 17.

4.1 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement


Sections 62(3), 67(3) and 75(3) of the RMA require that a regional policy statement, regional plan and district plan must give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS).

The AUP contains existing objectives, policies, rules, zoning and other methods that give effect to the NZCPS.

PC 17 proposes the following amendments to the AUP Viewer to properties that border the Coastal Marine Area (CMA) or are in the coastal environment:

• Rezoning properties in the Hingaia North area which are zoned Rural and CoastalSettlement zone and are inside the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) to Residential -Single House zone;

• Correcting split zoning anomalies over two properties on Big Bay Road, Waiuku toensure that zone boundaries follow property boundaries;

• Extending the Subdivision Variation Control to two areas of land within the MaraetaiTownship zoned Single House to manage the existing pattern and density ofsubdivision to protect the low-density character of Maraetai; and

• Correcting split zoning anomalies over several coastal properties along Kano Way onScott Point, Hobsonville. The proposed amendment to correct the split zoninganomalies is to apply Residential – Single House zone consistently to the propertiesthat border the Coastal Marine Area.

The following provisions of the NZCPS are of particular relevance to the amendments to the AUP Viewer proposed to properties that border the CMA or are in the coastal environment:

• Policy 6(1)(f) encourages consideration to be given to where development thatmaintains the character of the existing built environment should be encouraged, andwhere development resulting in a change in character would be acceptable;

• Policy 6(1)(i) seeks to set back development from the CMA and other water bodies,where practicable and reasonable, to protect the natural character, open space,public access and amenity values of the coastal environment.

The amendments do not seek to change the character of the coastal environment, and are intended for the purpose of maintaining and protecting the character and values of the coastal environment. The amendments will not affect the character of the coastal environment, and are therefore consistent with the NZCPS.

4.2 National Policy Statements National policy statements are instruments issued under Section 52(2) of the RMA and state objectives and policies for matters of national significance. There are five national policy statements in place:

• National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity• National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management• National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation• National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission• National Policy Statement on Plantation Forestry


At present, the Ministry for the Environment is in the process of developing a proposed National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity.

The National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity sets out a desire to provide for urban environments that enable the social, economic, cultural and environmental wellbeing of current and future generations as well as provide opportunities for development of housing and business land to meet demand.

Sections 62(3), 67(3) and 75(3) of the RMA require that a regional policy statement, regional plan and district plan must give effect to any national policy statements.

In light of the narrow purpose of PC 17 to amend the AUP Viewer to address identified technical mapping issues at a property scale, overall PC 17 is consistent with the purpose and principles of the national policy statements listed above.

4.3 National Environmental Standards There are currently five National Environmental Standards in force as regulations:

• National Environmental Standards for Air Quality• National Environmental Standard for Sources of Drinking Water• National Environmental Standards for Telecommunication Facilities• National Environmental Standards for Electricity Transmission Activities• National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil

to Protect Human Health

Section 44A of the RMA requires local authority to recognise national environmental standards.

In light of the narrow purpose of PC 17 to amend the AUP Viewer to address identified technical mapping issues at a property scale, overall PC 17 is consistent with the purpose and principles of the national environmental standards listed above.

4.4 Other Acts

4.4.1 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (HGMPA) has the purpose of seeking the integrated management of the national, historic and physical resources of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments. It also established the Hauraki Gulf Forum, the Park itself and the recognition of tangata whenua with the Hauraki Gulf and its islands. PC 17 does not propose any changes to zoning within the Hauraki Gulf or its islands and therefore it is consistent with the purpose of HGMPA and Section 6 of the RMA (recognition of the national significance of the Hauraki Gulf, and its islands).

4.4.2 Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008

The purpose of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 (WRHAA) is to recognise the national, regional and local significance of the Waitākere Ranges heritage area and promote its protection and enhancement for present and future generations.

To achieve this, the WRHAA established the Waitākere Ranges area as a matter of national significance (Section 6 of the RMA) and defines its heritage features. Furthermore, it


provides additional matters for the council and other parties to consider when making decisions, exercising a power or carrying out its duty that relate to the heritage area.

PC 17 seeks the following outcomes in relation to the Waitākere Ranges area:

• Correct and consistent application of established zones to parcels of land removingspot zones that bear no relationship to the adjacent zones, land parcels with splitzones, and incorrect zoning of land.

In light of the limited purpose of PC 17 to amend technical mapping issues at a property scale within the AUP Viewer, overall PC 17 is consistent with the purpose of WRHAA and Section 6 of the RMA (recognition of the national significance of the Waitākere Ranges and its heritage features).

4.4.3 Local Government Act 2002

Council’s functions and powers are derived from the purpose of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). The LGA mandates the purpose, funding, and governance duties of the council. With additional responsibilities for Auckland Council under the provisions of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, including the preparation of a spatial plan.

Section 12 of the LGA states that a local authority has full capacity to carry out or undertake any activity or business, do any, or enter into any transaction with full rights, powers and privileges subject to any other enactment and the general law.

PC 17 is prepared under the RMA and overall is consistent with the LGA.

4.4.4 Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010

The purpose of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA) is to resolve further matters relating to the reorganisation of local government in Auckland begun under the Local Government (Tāmaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Act 2009 and continued under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009.

In Section 3(2)(d) of the LGATPA it states this Act “provides a process for the development of the first combined planning document for Auckland Council under the RMA”.

Part 4 (Sections 115-171) of the LGATPA outline the process for development of the combined plan for Auckland Council. The development of the first combined plan followed the legislation set out in LGATPA, and the Hearings Panel (also known as IHP) was set-up under the LGATPA.

Although the AUP is now operative in part, and PC 17 is prepared under the RMA, the purpose of the plan change is to address technical mapping issues that have arisen from the development of the first combined plan process. Consequently reference is made to the material developed in this process to support the proposed amendments included in PC 17. In particular, reference is made to the best practice approaches to re-zoning and precincts set out in the Interim Guidance produced by the IHP dated 31 July 20154 (see Attachment

4 AUPIHP Interim Guidance Best Practice Rezoning, Precincts and Changes to the Rural Urban Boundary dated 31 July 2015.


2). This is guidance on the spatial application of zones and precincts that the IHP released to assist with responding to the many submissions on zoning.

4.5 The Auckland Plan The Auckland Plan 2012 is a 30 year strategy for Auckland’s future growth and development required under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. The Auckland Plan is a strategy prepared under other legislation to which regard should be had pursuant to section 74(2)(b)(i) of the RMA. The Auckland Plan specifically identifies the AUP as a means of implementing the Auckland Plan.

Section D of the Auckland Plan is of particular relevance to the AUP Viewer as it sets out a development strategy for Auckland to 2050. A key element of the development strategy is moving to a more compact quality urban form. The Auckland Plan also identifies the need to achieve a balance between increasing the development potential of land in Auckland, and ensuring the protection of historic and natural heritage, integration with infrastructure, resilience to natural hazards and enabling housing choice. The RPS broadly gives effect to the strategic direction set out in the Auckland Plan.

The Auckland Plan has been reviewed and the Auckland Plan 2050 is now available. The plan sets out three key challenges Auckland will face over the next 30 years – our high population growth and its various impacts, sharing prosperity across all Aucklanders and reducing environmental degradation. The plan is framed around six outcomes and a development strategy. The development strategy sets out how Auckland will grow and change over the next 30 years, including sequencing of growth and development.

The strategic directions in the Auckland Plan (2012) influenced the spatial application of zones, overlays and controls within the AUP. The amendments to the AUP Viewer proposed within PC 17 are minor and do not change the way in which the AUP implements the strategic direction of the Auckland Plan 2012 or the Auckland Plan 2050.

4.6 Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in part) When preparing or changing a district plan, Council must give effect to any RPS and have regard to any proposed RPS. The RPS identifies a number of issues of regional significance, and several of these are relevant to PC 17.

• B2: Tāhuhu whakaruruhau ā-taone - Urban growth and form• B3 Ngā pūnaha hanganga, kawekawe me ngā pūngao - Infrastructure, transport and

energy• B4 Te tiaki taonga tuku iho - Natural heritage• B5 Ngā rawa hanganga tuku iho me te āhua - Built heritage and character• B6 Mana Whenua• B7 Toitū te whenua, toitū te taiao - Natural resources• B8 Toitū te taiwhenua - Coastal environment• B9 Toitū te tuawhenua - Rural environment

Relevance to PC 17


PC 17 is correcting mapping anomalies within the AUP viewer. By correcting these anomalies, PC 17 will have regard to the objectives and policies within the RPS. PC 17 is not proposing any amendments to the RPS itself. Overall, it is considered that PC 17 is consistent with the RPS provisions of the AUP.

4.7 Iwi Management Plans An iwi management plan (IMP) is a term commonly applied to a resource management plan prepared by an iwi, iwi authority, rūnanga or hapū. IMPs are generally prepared as an expression of rangatiratanga to help iwi and hapū exercise their kaitiaki roles and responsibilities. IMPs are a written statement identifying important issues regarding the use of natural and physical resources in their area.

The RMA describes an iwi management plan as "…a relevant planning document recognised by an iwi authority and lodged with the council5". IMPs must be taken into account when preparing or changing regional policy statements and regional and district plans (Sections 61(2A)(a), 66(2A)(a), and 74(2A) of the RMA).

Council is aware that the following iwi authorities have an iwi management plan:

• Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

• Te Kawerau-a-Maki • Ngāti Rehua • Ngāti Paoa

• Waikato – Tainui

• Ngāti Te Ata • Ngātiwai

• Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

• Te Uri o Hau

The amendments to the AUP Viewer proposed within PC 17 are minor and will have little bearing on the Iwi Management Plans listed above.

5. Development of Proposed Plan Change5.1 Methodology and development of Plan Change

5.1.1 Develop the Scope of PC 17

First, council developed a statement on the scope of PC 17. This is outlined in section 1 of this report. The statement on scope provided the criteria to determine which issues could be included in PC 17.

5.1.2 Review of Issues

As outlined in section 1.2 of this report, council staff and the public have identified potential issues in the AUP and sent these to the council’s unitary plan email address. The project

5 Sections 61(2A)(a), 66(2A)(a), and 74(2A) of the RMA


team and staff then undertook a review of all identified issues and determined an appropriate course of action for each of the issues.

The recommendations of the project team were audited by a review panel comprising of senior managers, representatives from the legal and resource consents department and Auckland Transport. The review panel sought to ensure the issues proposed to be included within PC 17 were within scope of the plan change and most appropriately addressed by the plan change.

5.1.3 Development of Proposed Amendments

Issue definition

The issues proposed for inclusion within PC 17 have been recorded verbatim from the original source email. As a first step the project team grouped similar issues and clarified the issues so that it was clear what the plan change is trying to achieve.

Research and Collection of Evidence

Once the issues had been clearly defined the project team undertook background research to determine how the issue had come about and built up an evidence basis to support or reject proposed amendments to the plan.

Depending on the issue, this process included reviewing recent consent decisions, seeking input from experts, undertaking site visits and consulting with internal and external stakeholders. The consultation is outlined in section 5.2 of this report.

Development of first draft of proposed amendments and draft Section 32 evaluation

The project team drafted amendments to the AUP to address the various issues and documented the Section 32 evaluation process.

Identify affected sections of the plan

The project team then identified an initial index of the sections of the AUP and property addresses affected by proposed amendments to address the identified issues. The purpose of the index was to ensure that consequential amendments could be identified and to identify any crossover between different workstreams. It was also used in consulting with stakeholders to determine areas of interest.

Stakeholder Review of draft amendments and Section 32 evaluation

The proposed amendments and draft Section 32 evaluation report was circulated to internal stakeholders for comment and feedback. The internal stakeholders included plan users across the Council including resource consents department and Council Controlled Organisations such as Auckland Transport and Watercare.

Upon receiving this feedback the proposed amendments and Section 32 evaluation reports were further refined.


5.2 Consultation Undertaken In accordance with clause 3 of Schedule 1 of the RMA, during the preparation of a proposed policy statement or plan, Council is required to consult with:

a) the Minister for the Environment; andb) those other Ministers of the Crown who may be affected by the policy statement or

plan; andc) local authorities who may be so affected; andd) the tangata whenua of the area who may be so affected, through iwi authorities; ande) any customary marine title group in the area.

A local authority may consult anyone else during the preparation of a proposed policy statement or plan. A letter was sent on the 14th of August 2018 to the Ministry for the Environment.

5.2.1 Summary of general consultation undertaken

As PC 17 is focused on mapping anomalies on privately owned properties, specific consultation was undertaken with the affected property owners prior to notification of the plan change. Letters were sent on 5 June 2018 to all affected property owners. The letters provided an explanation of the proposed plan change, the amendment to the property proposed by Council to correct identified mapping anomalies, as well as offering the opportunity for direct discussion meetings and/or further clarification provided via phone or email. 15 property owners responded to the direct discussion letters sent out.

In summary, of the property owners who responded:

• 12 sought clarification on what the letter meant, and what changes the proposedamendment would have on their property; and

• Three property owners provided additional information and/or evidence that Councilwas not aware of which resulted in an informed amendment to the original proposal.

Staff advised members of the public and internal staff within the council who had sent in potential issues to the email address ([email protected]) to advise them on the course of action in response to the issue raised. A number of these customers were advised that their potential issue would be addressed as part of a plan change process.

Council have also sent a copy of PC 17 to statutory bodies and parties specifically affected by amendments in PC 17 (such as the Ministry for the Environment and the specific Local Boards for each AUP Viewer amendment).

5.2.2 Consultation with iwi authorities

Clause 3(1)(d) of Schedule 1 to the RMA, states that local authorities shall consult with tangata whenua of the area who may be so affected, through iwi authorities, during the preparation of a proposed policy statement or plan.

Due to the nature and scale of PC 17, staff have identified, through the mana whenua-defined rohe maps, the following iwi authorities who Council must consult with on the content of the plan change:


• Ngāti Wai• Ngāti Manuhiri• Ngāti Rehua• Te Runanga o Ngāti Whātua• Te Uri o Hau• Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara• Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei• Te Kawerau a Maki• Ngāti Tamaoho• Te Akitai Waiohua• Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua• Te Ahiwaru• Ngai Tai ki Tāmaki• Ngāti Paoa• Ngāti Whanaunga• Ngāti Maru• Ngāti Tamaterā• Te Patukirikiri• Waikato-Tainui

Clause 4A of Schedule 1 to the RMA states that local authorities must:

• Provide a copy of a draft proposed policy statement or plan to iwi authorities toconsider

• Have regard to feedback provided by iwi authorities on the draft proposed policystatement or plan

• Provide iwi authorities with sufficient time to consider the draft policy statement orplan.

And in addition to the above, recent legislation changes to the RMA introduced Section 32(4A):

(4A) If the proposal is a proposed policy statement, plan, or change prepared in accordance with any of the processes provided for in Schedule 1, the evaluation report must—

(a) summarise all advice concerning the proposal received from iwi authorities under the relevant provisions of Schedule 1; and

(b) summarise the response to the advice, including any provisions of the proposal that are intended to give effect to the advice.

Summary of feedback from iwi authorities

A draft copy of PC 17 Unitary Plan Viewer was provided to the iwi authorities in the Auckland region on 14 August 2018 with the accompanying section 32 evaluation reports. The only response received was from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei who were supportive of the proposed plan changes. A Hui was held with the planning representative from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei to go over the key points face to face.


6. Evaluation approaches

This part of the report evaluates the proposed amendments to the AUP Viewer contained within PC 17. The proposed amendments fall within four themes:

• The zoning of the site is inconsistent with surrounding sites (i.e. a “spot zone”), wheremultiple zones have been applied to a single site (i.e. a “split zone”) or the incorrectzoning has been applied;

• Zone and precinct boundaries no longer follow road or property boundaries as aresult of a recent subdivision;

• Inconsistencies in the mapping of controls and overlays to identified sites; and• Inconsistencies in the mapping of zones on certain sites within the Waitakere

Ranges.

The evaluation that follows relates to these four key themes.

6.1 The zoning of the site(s) is inconsistent with surrounding sites “spot zone”, where multiple zones have been applied to a single site “split zone” or the incorrect zoning has been applied

There are nine identified mapping anomalies within the AUP Viewer where the zoning of site(s) is causing issues because:

• more than one zone has been applied to a property (split zone) in an urban setting;or

• the zoning of the site is inconsistent with surrounding sites (spot zone); or• the incorrect zone has been applied to the site.

The identified spot zoning, split zoning and incorrect zonings within the AUP Viewer are causing workability issues as property owners do not have a clear understanding of what they can and cannot do on their properties. The identified spot zoning and incorrect zoning creates inconsistencies when development occurs in an area. The objective of this plan change is to correct zoning issues, improving the efficiency, effectiveness and usability of the AUP Viewer for property owners as well as Council staff and the public generally.

While split zoning is generally not supported, it is sometimes warranted on large rural sites, or where the characteristics of the land justify a different zoning pattern.

The spot zone, split zone and incorrect zoning mapping anomalies have been identified by both property owners/residents and by Council staff.

The alternatives available to address the problems identified above are:

Option 1 - Retain the status quo

To retain the status quo would mean to leave the identified spot zone, split zone and/or incorrect zone mapping anomalies as they are and not make any changes to the AUP Viewer.


Option 2 – Amend the AUP Viewer to fix identified spot zone, split zone and/or incorrect zone mapping anomalies.

To amend the AUP Viewer to fix spot zone, split zone and/or incorrect zoning anomalies will correct inconsistencies to the zoning applied on the identified sites.


Table 6.1 – Summary of analysis under Section 32(2) of the RMA Options Efficiency and

effectiveness Costs Benefits

Option 1: Retain the status quo.

Split zoning results in a different set of provisions applying to one part of the property, but not the other. Conflicting land uses, rules or standards may apply to different parts of the property. This causes confusion that will lead to inefficient implementation of the AUP. Furthermore, a split zone could end up with a property being undevelopable to its full potential.This would not contribute to the efficient management of natural and physical resources.

Spot zone and incorrect zoning mapping anomalies result in inconsistent development patterns which could fail to deliver on the environmental outcomes intended by the AUP.

Where two zones have been applied to one site there is uncertainty for consents staff and property owners who are wanting to progress development plans.

If property owners or resource consents staff interpret the zoning, overlays or precincts on properties differently because of the errors and anomalies, there is an economic and potential environmental cost.

The cost to the cohesive development of an area associated with ‘spot zone’ anomalies could be an inconsistent development pattern and a haphazard development approach.

A potential benefit of not correcting the errors in the AUP Viewer and retaining the status quo is that more potential errors and anomalies can be discovered and potentially remedied at a later date.

Another benefit is that there is a risk that the correction of zoning anomalies could create further issues, however with no action, this can be prevented.

Option 2: Amend the AUP Viewer to fix identified spot zone, split zone and/or incorrect zone mapping anomalies.

Amending the AUP Viewer to fix/remove the identified split-zone and spot-zone mapping anomalies will remove ambiguity and

Amending the AUP Viewer to remove split-zone and spot-zone mapping anomalies will reduce consenting costs at each stage

By addressing the identified incorrect zoning mapping anomalies within the AUP Viewer, consenting should


confusion from the AUP Viewer.

Property owners will have a clear understanding of what they can and cannot do on their property, which will increase the effectiveness of the AUP Viewer and the Unitary Plan.

Correcting the spot zone and split zone mapping anomalies improves overall efficiency of the AUP Viewer. Spot zone and incorrect zoning anomalies can cause boundary conflicts and result in an inconsistent development pattern.

of the consenting process and implementation of consents granted.

become more efficient as it will be clear what land use is intended on a property.

Environmental benefits improve, as the future development of the properties will more fully achieve Plan objectives. Higher level of accuracy of zoning information in AUP Viewer improves quality of statutory planning processes.

6.1.2 Conclusion The amendments sought in the AUP Viewer PC 17 and Attachment 1 – (Proposed amendments to the maps in the AUP Viewer) are the most appropriate ways to correct the identified mapping anomalies. Correcting these technical mapping issues in PC 17 to the AUP:

is effective, as it better aligns with its relevant objectives, policies and purpose ofthe RMA;

is efficient, as the potential for users to interpret these provisions incorrectly isreduced;

is appropriate, as the AUP will function more efficiently and productively with thecorrection of these errors; and

gives effect to the objectives and policies of the AUP.

This evaluation applies to the following properties where a “spot zoning” or “split zoning” issue has been identified.


6.1.3 Problem statement and recommendations to amend identified spot zone, split zone and/or incorrect zone mapping anomalies.

390B Richardson Road, Mount Roskill

The residential property at 390B Richardson Road, Mount Roskill has been incorrectly zoned Business – Light Industry zone. This incorrect zoning was identified by the property owner. The 1,065m² property contains two established residential dwellings accessed via a long narrow shared driveway off Richardson Road, Mount Roskill.

The adjacent residential properties to the north are zoned Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone and generally comprise of subdivided sites with areas ranging from 385m2 through to un subdivided sites as large as 930m2.The adjacent residential properties located southwest of the subject site are zoned Mixed Housing Urban zone, and are generally larger

Rezone from Business – Light Industry zone to Residential – Mixed Housing Urban zone


sites (790m2-820m2) with standalone residential dwellings at the front of each site with vacant rear yards.

There are two reasonably practicable options to address this inconsistent zoning pattern:

• Rezone the property from Business – Light Industry zone to Residential – MixedHousing Urban zone, or

• Rezone the property from Business – Light Industry zone to Residential – TerraceHousing and Apartment Building zone.

The recommendation is to rezone the property from Business – Light Industry zone to Residential – Mixed Housing Urban zone. The option to rezone the property to Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zone is not considered appropriate, given the existing level of established residential development on the site, the property comprising of multiple owners as well as maintaining consistency with the residential zone applied to the adjacent established residential properties to the south of the subject site. Given the established residential development already on site, it is therefore unlikely that the site will be redeveloped in the next 50 years, and beyond the life of this plan.

Rezoning the site to Mixed Housing Urban zone is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the Mixed Housing Urban zone and the plan, which in turn achieves the objectives of this plan change.

Council wrote to the property owners on 5 June 2018 to outline the proposed amendment to the zoning of the property. On 12 June 2018 Council received an email from the owner of 1/390B Richardson Road confirming that they support the proposed recommendation.


514 Leigh Road, Whangateau

The property at 514 Leigh Road, Whangateau is zoned Rural – Rural Coastal zone . This zoning is inconsistent with the zoning applied to neighbouring sites that extend along Leigh Road to the north and the south (which are also residential lifestyle blocks with one dwelling on each site, with frontages along Leigh Road) which are zoned Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone. The property at 514 Leigh Road is 817m2 and has an established residential dwelling on the site as well as a large accessory building. This current land use is consistent with neighbouring sites zoned Rural and Coastal Settlement zone.

The properties that are zoned Rural Coastal zone to the north of the subject site which also have access off Leigh Road are much larger in area than the property at 514 Leigh Road, with the smallest property (465 Leigh Road) being 4,456m2 and not contiguous with other properties zoned Rural and Coastal Settlement zone.

The recommendation is to rezone 514 Leigh Road, Whangateau from Rural – Rural Coastal zone to Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone.This will ensure that development in this area is appropriate, given the physical and environmental attributes of the area and surrounding properties.

Rezoning the property at 514 Leigh Road to Rural and Coastal Settlement zone is therefore the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the plan which in turn achieve the objectives of the plan change.

Council wrote to the property owners on 5 June 2018 to outline the proposed amendment to the zoning of the properties. No response was received.

Rezone from Rural – Rural Coastal zone to Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone



116 Mill Flat Road, Riverhead

A section of 116 Mill Flat Road, Riverhead (approximately 2,164m2 in area) has been zoned Rural – Mixed Rural zone, whilst the majority of the property (the remaining 70,341m2) is zoned Rural – Countryside Living zone. This is a spot zone anomaly where the small island of land, which is flat, undeveloped land surrounded by an esplanade of Open Space – Conservation zone is zoned Mixed Rural zone and does not meet the characteristics of this zone. This spot zone portion does not have a consistent zoning pattern with the majority of the site, which is zoned Countryside Living zone. The island of land subject to this amendment is separated by an esplanade reserve that runs between the majority of the site zoned Countryside Living and the island of land zoned Mixed Rural, however is physically connected.

The spot zone anomaly is a result of the rezoning that occurred in the Coatesville area, led by the IHP, from Mixed Rural zone to Countryside Living zone. Council’s recommendation was for the Coatesville-Riverhead area to be zoned Mixed Rural, however the IHP disagreed with Council’s position, and rezoned the area to Countryside Living zone. The small section of 116 Mill Flat Road that has retained the Mixed Rural zone was omitted by the panel when they rezoned it for the recommendations version of the plan. The retention of the Mixed Rural zone on the section of 116 Mill Flat Road is an error and there are no reasons to suggest that the Mixed Rural zone was intentional or that it should be retained.

The recommendation is to rezone the section of land identified from Rural – Mixed Rural zone to Rural – Countryside Living zone, to be consistent with the zoning applied to the majority of the property at 116 Mill Flat Road, Riverhead as well as the surrounding area.


Rezone from Rural – Mixed Rural zone to Rural – Countryside Living zone


318 Coatesville-Riverhead Highway, Coatesville

The property at 318 Coatesville-Riverhead Highway is zoned Rural – Rural Production zone. This zoning is inconsistent with the zoning that has been applied to the surrounding sites and is incorrect given the existing land use. The neighbouring sites are zoned Rural – Countryside Living zone and Business – Neighbourhood Centre zone. There is a residential dwelling in the centre of the site, and an accessory building at the rear (northern most edge) of the property. The property is 1,420m2 in area and is not currently used for rural production purposes, nor is it in a suitable location or of a suitable size to be used for rural production purposes in the foreseeable future.

The properties to the north are zoned Rural – Countryside Living zone and have one residential dwelling and a shed per site. The properties southeast of 318 Coatesville-Riverhead Highway are zoned Business – Neighbourhood Centre zone. Small shops which house a Barfoot & Thompson, a café and a local general store and a restaurant are currently located in the Neighbourhood Centre.

Rezone from Rural – Rural Production zone to Rural – Countryside Living zone


In Council’s notified version of the AUP Viewer, all of the properties to the west of 318 Coatesville-Riverhead Highway were zoned Rural Production zone, and the properties to the northeast were zoned Countryside Living zone. 318 Coatesville-Riverhead Highway was zoned Rural Production zone. However, a submission was received by the IHP to rezone all rural zoned properties along a section of Coatesville-Riverhead Highway from Rural Production to Countryside Living zone. Council changed their position in the recommended version and all Rural Production zoned properties were rezoned to Countryside Living zone, with the exception of 318 Coatesville-Riverhead Highway. There is no explanation or obvious intent behind this.


• Rezone the property from Rural – Rural Production zone to Rural – CountrysideLiving zone, or

• Rezone the property from Rural – Rural Production zone to Business –Neighbourhood Centre zone.

Properties along Coatesville-Riverhead Highway which are similar in size and use are zoned Rural – Countryside Living zone. The current zoning of the property as Rural – Rural Production zone is a clear mistake and spot zone anomaly. The existing land use is aligned with the Rural – Countryside Living zone, and the property has never been zoned Neighbourhood Centre zone, and it has never been the intent that it would be zoned Neighbourhood Centre in the future.

The option to address this inconsistent zoning pattern is to rezone the property at 318 Coatesville-Riverhead Highway, from Rural – Rural Production zone to Rural – Countryside Living zone.



Big Bay Road, Waiuku

The site at Big Bay Road, Waiuku (Legal Description Lot 11 DP 336027, Lot 3 DP 25574, Lot 2 DP 427776) is zoned both Rural – Rural Coastal zone and the Rural – Rural Mixed Rural zone. The northern part of the property is zoned Rural – Rural Coastal and the southern part of the property is zoned Rural – Mixed Rural. The zoning boundary does not follow the property boundary, and this creates a split zoning within the site itself.

The areas of the property that are effected by the misalignment of the zone boundary and property boundary are relatively small (40,100m2 approx.) compared to the total area of the property (1,170,200m2 approx.).

This misalignment or split zone was not included in the notified version of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) and the Rural – Rural Coastal and Rural – Mixed Rural zones were applied to the entire property. There were no submissions received in relation to this property. The misalignment or split zone was included within the recommendations version of the AUP. Therefore, this appears to be a GIS mapping error that has occurred in the Recommendation Version of the Auckland Unitary Plan and had been carried forward to subsequent versions by oversight.

It is recommended to realign the boundaries of Residential – Rural Coastal zone and Rural – Mixed Rural zone with the common boundary of two adjoining properties. This recommendation to change zone boundaries so they follow property boundaries.The proposed change is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the plan, which aligns with the objectives of the Plan Change.


Rezone from Rural – Rural Coastal zone to Rural – Mixed Rural zone

Rezone from Rural – Mixed Rural zone to Rural – Rural Coastal zone


Hingaia North

296-310, 332, 336, 352, 358, 364, 370 Hingaia Road, Hingaia

3, 9, 15, 21, 25, 40, 36, 32, 28, 24, 22, 18, 14 Towai Road, Hingaia

Hingaia North (the area identified in the black hatching above) abuts the Hingaia urban area and is inside the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB)6 which follows the coastline. Hingaia north is currently zoned Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone. This is the only location in the Auckland Region where residential properties inside the RUB have been zoned Rural and Coastal Settlement zone. The subject area was a potential Special Housing Area, however this did not progress, and therefore the most appropriate residential zone has not been applied to the area.

The Residential 1 zone which was applied to these properties in the Papkura District Plan aligns with the objectives of the Single House zone in the AUP(OP). A similar settlement

6 The Rural Urban Boundary identifies land potentially suitable for urban development.

Rezone from Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone to Residential – Single House zone


north of Hingaia, Bottletop Bay, was correctly rezoned from Residential 1 in the Papakura District Plan, to Single House zone in the AUP(OP).

There are 20 properties in the Hingaia North area that remains zoned Rural and Coastal Settlement zone. The majority of these properties have one residential dwelling on each site, and range between 807m2 and 1495m2 in area. These properties face the street and are already developed at an appropriate single house scale.


• Rezone the Hingaia North area from Rural and Coastal Settlement zone toResidential – Single House zone.

• Rezone the Hingaia North area from Rural and Coastal Settlement zone toResidential – Mixed Housing Suburban zone.

The recommendation is to rezone the Hingaia North area to Residential – Single House zone. This is a unique zoning anomaly as this is the only location in the Auckland region where properties have been zoned Rural and Coastal Settlement zone inside the RUB. Therefore, an appropriate residential zone needs to be applied to this area. Rezoning the Hingaia North area to Single House zone, consistent with the rezoning applied to a similar coastal settlement north of Hingaia, Bottletop Bay, is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the plan change, whilst protecting and respecting the unique qualities of the coast.



63-65 Victoria Street & 38A Alfred Street, Onehunga

Sites at 63-65 Victoria Street and 38A Alfred Street, Onehunga both have two zones applied to the properties, Business – Light Industry and Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zones. These are split zone mapping anomalies, which given the urban context, the existing characteristics of the sites and the size of the sites, need to be corrected to have a single zone applied to each property.

63-65 Victoria Street, Onehunga is 2,716m2 in area and contains two existing stand-alone dwellings at the front of the site, however the majority of the site is vacant due to a printing plant which was at the rear of the site burning down in September 2017. There is currently no industrial activity on this property, and there is a residential activity (dwelling) on the section of the site zoned Light Industry. The site is unlikely to transition back to industry given the current land use and the intent of the landowner to establish a residential development on the site in the foreseeable future. Across the road at 64-74 Victoria Street, Onehunga high density residential properties are currently being developed.

38A Alfred Street, Onehunga is 2,348m2 in area and conatins one large building at the rear of the site, which is used as a church.

Both properties are adjacent to an established area Business – Light Industry zoned land which adjoins the southern boundary of both properties (61 Victoria Street and 36A Alfred Street, Onehunga). The properties are also directly adjacent to properties zoned Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zone to the north.


• Rezone the properties from a split of Residential – Terrace Housing and ApartmentBuilding zone and Business - Light Industry zone to Residential - Terrace Housingand Apartment Building zone over the entirety of the sites.

Rezone from split: Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings and Business – Light Industry zone to Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zone


• Rezone the properties from a split of Residential – Terrace Housing and ApartmentBuilding zone and Business - Light Industry zone to Business – Light Industry zoneover the entirety of the sites.

As the split zoning applied to both properties at 63-65 Victoria Street and 38A Alfred Street is a mapping anomaly, the most appropriate outcome is to rezone the properties so there is a single zone that applies across the entirety of the properties.

The recommendation is to rezone the properties to Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zone over the entirety of the sites. The existing land uses and activities on the two sites, being residential dwellings and a church mean that the sites are unlikely to transition back to industry. Also, cohesive industrial activity is unlikely to develop on the long narrow industrial zoned portions of the sites, because the lots are on the edge of the Light Industry zone and can’t be supported by industrial activities to the north. The properties are within a 750m walkable catchment of the Onehunga town centre. Based on existing land uses, the location on the periphery of high density residential land, the long and narrow nature of the site it is not expected that the site will accommodate productive industrial activities. In my view the most appropriate zone to be applied to the two sites is Residential – Terrace housing and Apartment Building zone.

Council wrote to the property owners on 5 June 2018 to outline the proposed amendment to the zoning of the property. Harrison Grierson contacted Council on behalf of the property owner of 63-65 Victoria Street, Onehunga, advising Council of a pre-application meeting the property owner engaged with resource consents staff earlier in the year to discuss development options for residential development on the site. In light of the discussion with Harrison Grierson and additional information provided, the recommendation to correct the mapping anomaly and apply Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zone over the entire sites is the most appropriate recommendation.


1229 Coatesville-Riverhead Highway, Riverhead

There is a narrow section to the north of 1229 Coatesville-Riverhead Highway, Riverhead (Hare Krishna School) which is zoned Rural – Rural Production zone. The section of land which has been incorrectly zoned is 2,582m2, is long and narrow, is primarily used as a driveway providing access off Short Road and is part of the larger Hare Krishna school site, zoned Special Purpose – School zone.

The site is located outside the RUB in Riverhead, which is primarily low density residential development, there is also a large area of Future Urban zone land to the northeast of the site.

The preferred option to address this inconsistent and incorrect zoning pattern is to rezone the 2,582m2 section of the property currently zoned Rural – Rural Production zone to Special Purpose – School zone to correct the split zone mapping anomaly.

The section of the property which has been incorrectly zoned for rural production is part of the wider school site, and is not used for rural production purposes, nor is it of the size or nature that it will be used for rural production in the foreseeable future. The most appropriate zone to be applied to this section is Special Purpose – School zone, and the proposed rezoning is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the plan which in turn achieves the objectives of the plan change.


Rezone from Rural – Rural Production zone to Special Purpose – School zone


4 Queensway, Three Kings

A residential property located at 4 Queensway,Three Kings is zoned Residential – Single House. This is a spot zone anomaly as the neighbouring properties to the north and to the south are zoned Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban. Furthermore, 4 Queensway is not subject to the Special Character Area overlay which correlates with a Single House zoning. This mapping anomaly was identified by the property owner, who contacted Council in July 2017, requesting justification for the inconsistent zoning pattern.

The option to address this inconsistent zoning pattern is to rezone 4 Queensway, Three Kings from Residential – Single House zone to Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban zone.

The recommendation to correct the spot zone anomaly on 4 Queensway, Three Kings is to rezone the site from Residential – Single House zone to Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban zone. The Mixed Housing Suburban zone is the most appropriate zone for 4 Queensway, Three Kings given the size and scale of residential development that has already occurred on the site being consistent with adjacent properties which are also zoned Mixed Housing Suburban zone. The property is 808m2 with one residential dwelling on the site. The property is not subject to any different overlays to those properties to the north and the south of the subject site. Rezoning the property will remove the spot zone anomaly and will ensure a consistent zoning pattern is applied along Queensway, Three Kings.


Rezone from Residential – Single House zone to Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban zone


6.2 Zone and precinct boundaries that no longer follow road or property boundaries as a result of a recent subdivision

Plan users, including Council staff have identified mapping anomalies within the AUP Viewer where there is a misalignment of zone, precinct and sub-precinct boundaries with identifiable physical boundaries, such as a road or property boundaries. Precincts are a tool for enabling local differences to be recognised by providing place-based provisions which can vary the outcomes sought by the zones or Auckland-wide provisions. This has often transpired as a result of a subdivision occurring after the IHP zoning process, which has created lots which do not align with the zone.

The misalignment of property boundaries with zone boundaries, precinct boundaries and sub-precinct boundaries reduces the effective usability of the AUP Viewer. It creates a split in the zoning or precinct provisions that apply to a site affecting the future development potential of the identified properties. Furthermore, it creates uncertainty and ambiguity for property owners and developers.

The proposals to address the problem identified above are:

• Option 1 - Retain the status quo leaving identified mapping anomalies withoutchanging the current zone and precinct boundaries.

• Option 2 - Amend the AUP Viewer to fix the identified mapping anomalies relating tothe misalignment of zone and precinct boundaries with property boundaries to rectifyinconsistencies with the spatial application of zoning and precincts.




Option 1 : Retain status quo

The misalignment of zone and precinct boundaries with property boundaries results in different sets of provisions applying to one part of the property, but not the other. This means that different land uses, rules or standards may apply to different parts of the property creating a highly complex rule framework which is not clearly identified.

There is a potential for greater costs of consenting processes where zones or precints are in place but are not intended by the Plan. Zoning is generally used to determine lot size, building envelope and development capacity. When two zones are assigned to a single property, development could have competing requirements for

There are no specific benefits to property owner or to other stakeholders.


As a result, the intended built or environmental outcomes for the site are unclear.

determining building footprint and height, vehicle access, drive ways, layout etc.

A precinct can modify the development standards that apply in the underlying zone. Consequently, when a precinct only covers half of a site this introduces further complexities in setting out the rule framework. Optimum benefits of the property would not be available to the owners, because of difficulties in enforcing correct development rights.

Option 2: Amend the AUP GIS Viewer to fix identified issues relating to split zoning, overlays and preceincts

AUP Viewer becomes more efficient and effective as fixing these mapping issues removes ambiguity over development potential of the related properties. The built outcomes sought for the site are clear to all plan users.

Use of methods such as zoning and precincts becomes effective.

Reduces consenting costs at each stage of consenting process and implementation of consents granted.

Enables property owners to derive optimum benefits from developing the property. Sustainable management of natural and physical resources is facilitated. Environmental benefits improve, as the future development of the properties will more fully achieve anticipated environmental outcomes. GIS information in AUP Viewer is more accurate which improves the quality of statutory planning processes.

6.2.2 Conclusion The amendments sought in the AUP Viewer Plan Change PC 17 and Attachment 1 – (Proposed amendments to the maps in AUP GIS Viewer) of PC 17 are the most appropriate


ways to correcting the identified mapping anomalies. Correcting these technical mapping issues in PC 17 to the AUP:





This evaluation applies to the following properties where a “split zoning” and/or incorrect precinct boundary issue has been identified.


6.2.3 Problem statement and recommendations to amend zone and precinct boundaries that no longer follow road or property boundaries

Magnolia Lane, Kaukapakpa – Proposed change of zoning and removal of Subdivision Variation Control

Five of the new residential lots at Magnolia Lane, Kaukapakapa have been zoned Rural – Countryside Living. The other 12 properties currently have a split between the Rural – Countryside Living and Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement zones. The zoning that has been applied within this area aligns to the parent lot prior to subdivision. This subdivision of 34 Peak Road, Kaukapakapa was approved in December 2006 creating 51 residential lots and four access lots7.

The newly created lots range from 448 to 765 square metres. The site size and the layout of sites is inconsistent with the characteristics of the Rural – Countryside Living zone, which has a subdivision minimum site size of 2 hectares (without transferable rural site subdivision) and 8000m2 (with transferable rural site subdivision).

In addition to the split zone that has resulted from the subdivision of the parent lot at 34 Peak Road, Kaukapakapa, the. Subdivision Variation Control still applies to already subdivided properties. The Subdivision Variation Control has a minimum site size of 2 hectares and therefore is not consistent with the Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone.

The recommendations to rectify these anomalies are: • Extend the Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone to the properties that

have been already subdivided within the area identified in the above map; and

7 Subdivision reference: Legacy Number RD_SLC-50832 and SUB60033318

1. Rezone from Rural – Countryside Livingzone to Residential – Rural and CoastalSettlement zone

2. Remove the Subdivision Variation Control


• Remove the Subdivision Variation Control currently applies to the properties at 4, 6,8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 15, 13, 11 and 9 Magnolia Lane, as identified in the above map

The proposed changes are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the plan, which aligns with the objectives of the Plan Change because the proposed change aligns with the Policy E39.3 of E39 Subdivision – Rural and are consistent with the objectives and policies of two zones, namely, Rural – Countryside Living and Residential – Rural and Coastal.

Council wrote to the property owners on 5 June 2018 to outline the proposed amendment to the zoning of the property. No response was received.


Takanini Precinct

Map 1– Proposed changes to zoning


Map 2 – Changes to Sub-Precinct C Boundary

The mapping of the eastern boundary of sub-precinct C and the western boundary of sub-precinct D of I438 Takanini Precinct does not align with property boundaries or the road boundary of Pakaraka Drive. As a result, the mapping of the underlying Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban zone also does not align with property boundaries resulting in a number of properties being subject to a split in zoning between Residential – Single House and Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban zones.

The purpose of I438 Takanini Precinct is to seek subdivision and development of this land in a comprehensive manner to achieve a quality built and a well-connected environment. The precinct is located at Old Wairoa Road, Takanini and is made up of four sub-precincts. The spatial application of zones throughout the precinct aligns with the sub-precinct boundaries. Sub-precinct C covers the largest land area of the four sub-precincts of the Takanini Precinct. The zoning is Residential - Mixed Housing Suburban Zone and Residential - Mixed Housing Urban Zone. Sub-precinct D applies to an area of land between Papakura-Clevedon and Old Wairoa Roads. Development within this sub-precinct is at a lower density to assist in maintaining the elements of amenity and open space character. The zoning within this sub-precinct is Residential - Single House zone.

The recommendation is to:


• Realign the eastern boundary of Takanini sub-precinct C and western boundary ofTakanini sub-precinct D with the road boundary of Pakaraka Drive

• Rezone the 15 properties currently subject to a split zoning to Residential – SingleHouse zone in their entirety as shown in the Map -1 above.

The proposed change is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the plan, which aligns with the objectives of the Plan Change because the zone boundary, sub-precinct boundary, and road boundary align with the property boundaries.


2D Northcote Road, Takapuna and 8 and 10 Rangitira Avenue, Takapuna

Map 1 – Proposed Changes to zoning

51 Plan Change 17 - AUP Viewer Section 32 Evaluation Report Page 51 of 100311

Map 2 - Proposed changes to Smales 2 Sub-Precinct B Boundary

The mapping of the southern boundary of sub-precinct B of I539 Smales 2 Precinct does not align with the property boundaries of 2D Northcote Road, Takapuna and 8 Rangitira Avenue, Takapuna. As a result, the underlying zones do not align with property boundaries creating a split zoning between Residential – Mixed Housing Urban and Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban zones.

I539 Smales 2 Precinct seeks to provide for comprehensive redevelopment of two blocks of land which form two distinctive parts of the precinct. The precinct is located on the southern side of Northcote Road, at the edge of Lake Pupuke, Takapuna and is made up of two sub-precincts A and B. The spatial application of zones throughout the precinct aligns with the sub-precinct boundaries.


A major part of the land area of the former SHA (known as Northcote Road, Takapuna SHA) is currently included in the Smales 2 Precinct. Northcote Road SHA became operative on 31 July 2014 and was disestablished on 16 September 2016.There were no resource consent applications lodged during this period. Smales 2 sub-precinct B boundary has followed the former SHA boundary, causing the misalignment.

A subdivision consent application was lodged for a boundary adjustment between 2D Northcote Road, Takapuna and 8 Rangitira Avenue, Takapuna and was approved on 28 October 2016 (Application No.SA-3023003).

Recommendations are to:

• Realign the southern boundary of the Smales 2 sub-precinct B with the boundaries ofproperties 2D Northcote Road, 8 Rangitira Avenue, and 10 Rangitira Avenue,Takapuna;

• Rezone the southern part of the property at 2D Northcote Road which is currentlyzoned Residential – Mixed Housing Urban to Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban;and

• Rezone northern parts of the properties at 8 and 10 Rangitira Avenue which arecurrently zoned Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban to Residential – MixedHousing Urban.

As Consequential Changes, I539.10.1 Smales 2 Precinct Plan 1 is amended accordingly.

The recommended changes resolve identified anomalies relating to sub-precinct boundaries and zoning. The proposed change is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the plan, which aligns with the objectives of the Plan Change because the proposed change ensures the alignment of the zone boundary and sub-precinct boundary with property boundaries.


Scott Point, Hobsonville

Several coastal properties along Kano Way on Scott Point, Hobsonville have been zoned both Residential – Single House and Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban. The split in zoning that applies to these properties is the result of a series of recent subdivisions which were approved under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 20138.

The current zoning pattern has remained the same since notification of the PAUP. It has only been since the titles have been created following the subdivision approval that the road boundaries do not align with zone boundaries giving rise to this anomaly.

Scott Point, Hobsonville is subject to the Special Housing Area (SHA) Precinct 5.61 -Scott Point. Objective 5 of Special Housing Area Precinct 5.61- Scott Point specifies the transition of building density and height from low along the coast to higher inland as follows:

“5. Development results in a transition of building density and heights (from low along the coast to higher inland and adjacent to amenity features and public transport routes) to provide visual integration to the harbour setting.”

The proposal is to rezone the properties that are directly along the coast (identified in the above map) to Residential – Single House in their entirety, to be consistent with precinct objective 5 of the Scott Point SHA Precinct. This ensures that property boundaries align with zone boundaries and only one zone applies to previously affected sites.

The proposed change is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the plan, which aligns with the objectives of the Plan Change. Because the proposed change removes

8 LUC-2016-2514 and SUB-2014-2515 and LUC-2015-2020 and SUB-2015-2023


split zoning from the majority of properties along the coast, and appropriately zones them Residential – Single House to meet the requirements of SHA Precinct 5.61 – Scott Point.

Council wrote to the property owners on 5 June 2018 to outline the proposed amendment to the zoning of the properties and did not receive any response.


Ridgeline Way, Whitford

Map 1 – Proposed changes to zoning


Map 2 – Proposed changes to Whitford sub-precinct A Boundary

The Whitford sub-precinct A and the boundary of the underlying Rural – Countryside Living and Rural – Mixed Rural zones at Ridgeline Way, Whitford do not align with property boundaries. This is a result of a subdivision that h as occurred.

I441 Whitford Precinct seeks to provide for countryside living development, subject to a management framework to maintain and enhance landscape character. The precinct is located within stream catchments of Turanga, Waikopua, Te Puru and Whitford and is made of two sub-precincts. The spatial application of zones throughout the precinct aligns with the sub-precinct boundaries.

The subdivision consent application (No.42371, 41879, and 41923) sought to subdivide the properties at 371 Whitford Park Road, Whitford and 500 Brookby Road, Brookby on a non-notified basis. This application was approved on 25 November 2013. The seventeen-lot subdivision was later challenged in the High Court through Judicial Review by the neighbouring property owner (Reference: CIV-2014-404-001165). The parties including the Council came to an agreement to reduce the number of lots created from 17 to 15 and discontinued court proceedings. This new subdivision has resulted in the anomaly, causing a number of properties along Ridgeline Way to be split zoned.



• Realign the southern boundary of Whitford sub-precinct A, as well as the zoneboundaries of Rural – Countryside Living zone and Rural – Mixed Rural zone so thatthe six properties created by subdivision are zoned Rural – Countryside Living.

• Rezone properties from Rural – Mixed Rural zone to Rural – Countryside Living andvice versa as shown in the Map – 1 above.

However, as a result of reducing two lots from the previously mentioned subdivision development, a part of the land zoned Rural – Countryside Living with an area of approximately 8300m2 remains attached to the parent lot zoned Rural – Mixed Rural, resulting a split-zone. Considering the size of this part of the land and the fact that it is surrounded by the Rural – Countryside Living zone, zoning change was not proposed.

The recommended changes resolve identified anomalies relating to zone boundaries, sub-precinct boundaries and zoning. The proposed change is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the plan, which aligns with the objectives of the Plan Change because the proposed change aligns the sub-precinct boundary and zone boundary with property boundaries.

Council wrote to the property owners on 5 June 2018 to outline the proposed amendment to the zoning of the properties. One of the property owners responded to communicate his opposition to the previously proposed changes to the zoning and zone boundaries. Considering the property owner’s views, proposed changes were amended as reflected above.


Frisken Road, Flat Bush

Map 1 – Proposed Rezoning from Mixed Housing Suburban to Terrace Housing and Apartment Building


Map 2 – Proposed changes to Sub-Precinct Boundaries

Twelve properties along Friskin Road within I412 Flat Bush Precinct have been split zoned Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Building and Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban zone. Furthermore, the boundaries of Flat Bush sub-precincts A, D and F do not align with the property boundaries or the road boundary. This has resulted from the subdivision of the parent lots, 217 – 221 Murphys Road, Flat Bush, which was granted on 25 August 2014 (Subdivision Application No. 48504).

The purpose of I412 Flat Bush Precinct is to provide for comprehensive development in the Flat Bush Structure Plan area through a range of subdivision controls relating to block design, road design and road construction standards. The precinct is located in an area extending eastwards from Chapel Road up to the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) and is made of ten sub-precincts. The spatial application of zones throughout the precinct aligns with the sub-precinct boundaries.


The recommendation is to extend the Residential - Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zone to Fong Road, Frisken Road and adjust the boundary between Flat Bush sub-precincts A, D and F to align with the revised zone boundaries as shown in the above Maps 1 and 2.

The recommended changes resolve identified anomalies relating to property boundaries and sub-precinct boundaries. The proposed changes are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the plan, which aligns with the objectives of the Plan Change because the proposed changes ensure removal of split zoning from 21 sites and alignment of sub-precinct boundary with property boundaries and zoning boundaries.



Orewa 1 Precinct – Proposed changes to sub-precinct boundaries

Map 1 - Orewa 1 Precinct – Changes to sub-precinct boundaries (Part 1)


Map 2 - Orewa 1 Precinct – Changes to sub-precinct boundaries (Part 2)

There are three segments in the I529 Orewa 1 precinct where the sub-precinct boundaries do not align with property boundaries. All three misalignments have been reviewed and are proposed to be rectified by realigning sub-precincts with property boundaries. As substantial parts of the areas are already built, there is hardly any impact on development potential caused by the changes to sub-precinct boundaries.

The purpose of I529 Orewa 1 precinct is to enable the completion of a comprehensive residential community that will have a range of housing typologies, complemented by community facilities, public open spaces, and accessory commercial activities. The precinct is located at the corner of Centreway Road and Puriri Avenue at the northern end of Orewa and is made up of four sub-precincts. The spatial application of zones throughout the precinct align with the sub-precinct boundaries.

Recommendation is to realign sub-precinct boundaries with the property boundaries as shown in the above map to rectify the misalignments.

As a consequential amendment arising from the recommended changes to the Orewa 1 sub-precinct boundary on the AUP Viewer, I529.10.1 Orewa 1 Precinct Plan 1 will also be amended accordingly.

The recommended changes resolve identified anomalies relating to property boundaries and sub-precinct boundaries. The proposed changes are the most appropriate way to achieve


the objectives of the plan, which aligns with the objectives of the Plan Change because the proposed changes enable sub-precinct boundaries to align with property boundaries along Rewa Rewa Lane and those properties located at Eaves Bush Parade.

Council wrote to the property owners on 5 June 2018 to outline the proposed amendment to the zoning of the properties. A Planning Consultant acting on behalf of one of the property owners responded to communicate his opposition to the proposed amendment to the zoning. There were three others who sought further clarifications but did not oppose the amendments.


32 Market Place, Auckland Central – I211 Viaduct Harbour Precinct

Map 1 – Proposed area to be removed from sub-precinct C and included in sub-precinct A


Map 2 – Proposed area to be removed from sub-precinct C and included in sub-precinct A (Aerial Map)


Map 3 – Proposed changes to sub-precinct boundaries

The property at 32 Market Place, Auckland Central is currently within sub-precinct C of the Viaduct Harbour Precinct in the City Centre zone. Sub-precinct C has been applied to the residential area within the precinct and recognises the established high quality residential environment and the benefits that a permanent residential population provides to the character, vitality, safety and amenity of the precinct. However, the main building at 32 Market Place is currently used for commercial purposes, and this activity makes the building more suitable for inclusion within Viaduct Harbour sub-precinct A. (Please refer to the Map 1 and Map 2 above).

Auckland Industrial Projects Ltd (AIPL) is the owner of the four-level commercial building at 32 Market Place, Viaduct Harbour. AIPL contacted the Council in 2016 outlining the concern that their property was incorrectly located in sub-precinct C and requested the Council address the issue. However, at that time, the sub-precinct C was subject to an appeal filed in High Court by Viaduct Harbour Holdings Limited (CIV-2016-404-002276). The Council was unable to consider this request under Plan Change 4 as the matter was potentially impacted by this appeal. AIPL did not become a party to this appeal to seek relief for this current anomaly. A judgement on this appeal was received in February 2018, this confirmed the introduction of sub-precinct C.

Viaduct Harbour Sub-precinct C was not included in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. A submission was received by a number of the Bodies Corporate of the residential apartments within the Viaduct Harbour precinct seeking that a sub-precinct be added to recognise the


established residential population in the area. At the independent hearing, the Council did not support the creation of a sub-precinct. However, the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) recommendations did support the introduction of sub-precinct C and the Council accepted this recommendation.

It appears that an error resulted from the Panel’s reliance on a map (prepared by the submitter) which includes the property at 32 Market Place as part of sub-precinct C. Mr David Haines, Planning Consultant provided planning evidence to the IHP in relation to submissions by the Bodies Corporate for the residential apartments within Viaduct Harbour. He has since provided further background information to the Council regarding the hearings process relating to sub-precinct C. In an email addressed to the Council on 1 September 2017, on behalf of the owner of AIPL, Mr Haines confirmed that the precinct plan containing the error in relation to 32 Market Place was attached to his evidence. He also confirmed that both the IHP and the Council accepted the planning evidence including the incorrect map, resulting in the sub-precinct boundaries as identified in the AUP(OP) provisions. It is considered appropriate to address the issue under the proposed AUP Viewer Plan Change.

Having established that this is an error, options available for rectifying the issue can be considered. There are two ways to address this issue.

• The first option is to remove the entire site from sub-precinct C and include it in sub-precinct A. This enables the site boundary and the sub-precinct boundary to alignwith each other. However, part of the site forms part of the grounds for The Parcresidential apartments and therefore should remain within sub-precinct C.

• The second option is to include only that part of the site which is used forcommercial activities in sub-precinct A, leaving the remaining part of the site withinsub-precinct C. This will create a misalignment between the site boundary and sub-precinct boundary. However, this is considered appropriate because it reflects thesplit land use of the site. It is noted that AIPL indicated in their correspondence in2016 and 2017 that they are happy for the sub-precinct boundary to follow the landuse, i.e. only the commercial building is removed from sub-precinct C.

Therefore, the second option is recommended. (The proposed changes to the sub-precinct boundaries are shown in Map 3).

As a consequential change, it is recommended that I211.10.1 Viaduct Harbour: Precinct Plan 1 – Precinct and sub-precincts be amended accordingly to reflect the recommended changes.

The recommended changes help resolve the identified anomaly in the sub-precinct C boundary. The proposed change is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the plan, which aligns with the objectives of the Plan Change.


6.3 Inconsistencies in the mapping of controls and overlays to identified sites Plan users, including Council staff have identified issues relating to the mapping of various controls and overlays in the AUP Viewer. These issues have arisen for various reasons including:

• The underlying zoning has been amended through the AUP hearings process andthe mapping of controls is no longer consistent or compatible with the zoning;

• The control or overlay is no longer required, because the surrounding environmenthas changed or an alternative control is in place. However the AUP Viewer has notbeen updated to reflect this. The identified mapping anomalies in respect of themapped controls are causing undue restrictions on future development potential ofaffected properties and creating uncertainty for property owners and plan users;

• The control is applied inappropriately ignoring the purpose and methodology of usingcontrols in the AUP. This causes inconsistencies with the underlying zone and itspolicies and also duplicates an existing control over the activity;

• The overlay is inappropriately applied as it does not accurately reflect the extent ofthe value being protected.

The options to address the problem identified above are:

• Option 1- Retain the status quo, leaving identified mapping anomalies as they areand not make any changes to the AUP Viewer.

• Option 2 - Amend the AUP Viewer to fix identified mapping control anomalies andrectify inconsistencies with the underlying zoning.




Option 1: Retain the status quo without changing the identified anomalies of mapped controls.

Inappropriate or redundant mapping controls may unnecessarily restrict the future development of the property.

This could end up with a property being undevelopable to its full potential. Therefore, this would not contribute to efficient management of natural and physical resources.

Similarly, the

Greater costs in terms of undertaking specialist’s reports to convince approval authorities of the need to change the inappropriate controls when seeking infrastructure and / or resource consents.

Additional costs involved in resolving issues arising from separate boundaries in terms of property, zoning and precincts.

Optimum benefits of

There are no specific benefits to property owner or to other stakeholders.


absence of any mapping control that were intended to apply within the AUP will make plan implementation inefficient and ineffective.

the property would not be available to the owners, because of difficulties in enforcing correct lot size, building envelope and development rights.

Option 2: Amend the AUP GIS Viewer to fix identified issues relating to mapped controls

When mapping controls are made compatible with the Plan’s stated and intended land use and transport policies and best practice approaches for rezoning and precincts, the implementation of the plan will become efficient.

Ensuring application of controls appropriately and consistently through out the entire Plan makes interpretation of plan contents more meaningful to the users.

Fixing of these issues removes ambiguity over development potential of the related properties.

Reduces consenting costs at each stage of consenting process and implementation of consents granted.

Costs of monitoring of consents granted would reduce.

Enables property owners derive optimum benefits from developing the property. Sustainable management of natural and physical resources is facilitated. Environmental benefits improve, as the future development of the properties will more fully achieve Plan objectives. Higher level of accuracy of GIS information in AUP Viewer improves quality of statutory planning processes.

6.3.2 Conclusion The amendments sought in the AUP Viewer PC 17 and Attachment 1 – (Proposed amendments to the maps in AUP GIS Viewer) of PC 17 are the most appropriate ways to correcting the identified errors and anomalies. Correcting these technical mapping issues in PC 17 to the AUP:






This evaluation applies to the following properties where an issue relating to mapping controls has been identified.


6.3.3 Problem statement and recommendations to amend inconsistencies in the mapping of controls and overlays to identified sites

230 Maraetai School Road, Maraetai, 110 Maraetai School Road, Maraetai, 1 Maraetai Coast Road, Clevedon

There are two separate Residential - Single House zoned areas of land (230 Maraetai School Road, Maraetai; 110 Maraetai School Road, Maraetai; and 1 Maraetai Coast Road, Clevedon) where the Subdivision Variation Control has not been applied. Both sites were zoned Rural – Mixed Rural in the PAUP. There were no submissions relating to these sites. However, both sites were rezoned to Residential – Single House in the Recommendation version of the AUP. Despite the amended zoning the Subdivision Variation Control was not applied. This has created an inconsistency with the approach to managing subdivision in the areas of Maraetai Residential - Single House zone. This mapping anomaly appears to be an oversight.

For the property at 1 Maraetai Coast Road, the property summary of the AUP Viewer correctly shows that Subdivision Variation Control, Urban - Maraetai and Omana Beach 700m2 applies. Accordingly, AUP Viewer maps should also show the Control.

Within the Maraetai Township the Subdivision Variation Control has been applied across the majority of the sites zoned Residential - Single House zone. The minimum site area for subdivision within the Residential – Single House zone is 600m2.The purpose of the Subdivision Variation Control in Maraetai is to limit the minimum site area for subdivision to 700m2 . This is to manage the existing pattern and density of subdivision to protect the low-density character of Maratai9.

9 Chapter E38, policy E38.27


The recommendation is to extend the Subdivision Variation Control to cover the above sites. This helps achieving AUP Viewer Plan Change objective of resolving identified inconsistencies in the mapping of controls.

The proposed change is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the plan, which aligns with the objectives of the Plan Change.



Proposed removal of Vehicle Access Restriction Control (VAC) - 8 and 10 St Marks Road, Remuera

St Marks’ Women’s Health Centre site at 10 St Marks Road on the corner of St Marks and Mac Murray Road has a Motorway Interchange Control - Vehicle Access Restriction (VAR) on both frontages. The owner requested to remove the VAR on Mac Murray Road frontage in submission No.7237 to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) to provide for and facilitate the future residential apartment building proposed to be developed on the site.

NZTA agreed with the land owner’s submission No. 7237. However, IHP did not comment on this matter in the recommendation report on Topic 043 and Topic 044. IHP Report to Auckland Council on Hearing Topic 074 NZTA Designation 6727 acknowledged the submission of Saint Marks Women’s Health Limited (No. 7237-9). The AUP Viewer still shows that the VAR has not been removed from the Mac Murray Road frontage. Similarly, the VAR also appears on the opposite side of Mac Murray Road at 8 St Marks Road. This property is currently used for Auckland Eye Clinic, Surgical and Residential Care Facility where traffic generation is limited. To avoid a potential inconsistency by leaving the VAR control on the Mac Murray Road frontage of 8 St Marks Road, Remuera, it is appropriate to remove the VAR on this side of Mac Murray Road as well.

NZTA accepted and supported the request for removal of the VAR from the Mac Murray Road frontage of the property. Consultant Traffic Engineer, Leo Donald Hills on behalf of NZTA stated in his Primary Statement of Evidence that he agreed with the property owner as he did not consider any new or existing access on MacMurray Road in this location could potentially affect the nearby motorway interchange operation10.

10 Primary statement of evidence for Leo Donald Hills for the New Zealand Transport Agency in relation to Topic 043: Transport objectives and policies and Topic 044: Transport Rules and other, dated 16 June 2015


NZTA further explained that when a request for new vehicle access is referred to them, the Agency undertakes an assessment on case-by-case basis to determine the appropriateness of changes to vehicle access to the properties in these Motorway Interchange control areas. Because each interchange has its own unique features. For those sites which do not have VAR, a Restricted Discretionary Activity consent is required where the standards E27.6.4.1(2) and E27.6.4.1(3) apply. Therefore, even after the removal of VAR as proposed, any proposal relating to access across Mac Murray Road boundary of this site will be subject to several tests as given under E27.8.1 Matters of Discretion.

The matters of discretion E.27.8.1(12) applies to assessment of such requests, which include the following:

a) Adequacy for the site and the proposalb) Design and location of accessc) Effects on pedestrians and streetscape amenityd) Effects on the transport network

The recommendation is to remove the VAR from Mac Murray Road frontages of both properties (8 and 10 St Marks Road) as shown in the above map.

The proposed change resolves identified inconsistencies in the mapping of controls as the removal of VAR reflects what was agreed with the submitter during the IHP hearing. Therefore, this aligns with the objectives of the Plan Change.

The proposed change is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the plan, which aligns with the objectives of the Plan Change, because the proposed change enables use of the properties at 8 and 10 St Marks Road, Remuera to its full development potential without causing undue disruption to traffic.

In coming to this recommendation, the Council sought input from the NZTA who agreed with the removal of the VAR from both road frontages of Mac Murray Road. The Council also wrote to the property owners on 8 and 10 St Marks Road, Remuera to outline the proposed amendment to the VAR on 5 June 2018 but did not receive any response.


Proposed changes to Key Retail Frontage Control at 621 – 625 Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu Peninsula

The Building Frontage Control - Key Retail Frontage has been mistakenly applied in locations which it was not intended. This anomaly is found at 621-625 Te Atatu Road. The Key Retail Frontage is intended to apply only to Metropolitan and City Centre zones. The purpose of the application of Building Frontage Control - Key Retail Frontage in Business – Town Centre and Business - Metropolitan zones is to facilitate:

(i) providing high priority for pedestrian movement and safety and amenity and

(ii) continuity of building frontage and associated activities at street level.

Considering the current level of street activation, building continuity along the frontage, and pedestrian amenity at these sites, the Building Frontage Control - Key Retail Frontage cannot be justified for this location.

The properties at 621 – 635 Te Atatu Road and 2 Hereford Street were initially zoned Residential - Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zone in the PAUP.

The Building Frontage Control – Key Retail Frontage was applied within Council’s evidence in chief to the IHP as an accompaniment to the relief sought of rezoning sites to Business –


Town Centre zone. This relief was not accepted by the IHP (see below). However the Key Retail Frontage affectation was retained in error.

Submissions11 were received requesting a change in zoning and, in response to these submissions the properties 621 – 625 Te Atatu Road, 627 – 635 Te Atatu Road, and 2 Hereford Street were rezoned to Business - Mixed Use zone. Despite the change in zoning, the Building Frontage Control - Key Retail Frontage was not removed from the frontage of 621 – 625 Te Atatu Road properties following the zoning change. This is inconsistent with the adjoining properties zoned Business - Mixed Use located at 627 – 635 Te Atatu Road and 2 Hereford Street which are not subject to the Building Frontage Control - Key Retail Frontage.

The Building Frontage Control - Key Retail Frontage should be removed from the frontage of 621-625 Te Atatu Road, Te Atatu Peninsula to align with the change in the underlying zoning. The removal of the Building Frontage Control – Key Retail Frontage from the frontage of these sites aligns them with the rest of the properties zoned Business – Mixed Use. This, in turn, aligns with the policies of the Plan as restrictions of the Building Frontage Control - Key Retail Frontage is only applied to City Centre and Metropolitan Centre zoned properties.

The recommendation is to remove the Building Frontage Control - Key Retail Frontage as it was not intended to apply at these locations.

The proposed change resolves identified inconsistencies in the mapping of controls. Therefore, the proposed change is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the plan, which aligns with the objectives of the Plan Change.

Council wrote to the property owners on 5 June 2018 to outline the proposed amendment to the zoning of the properties. One of the property owners responded and sought further clarifications but did not oppose the amendments.

11 5280-151, 3391-40 and 5277-149


Proposed changes to Key Retail Frontage Control – Hingaia Road, Hingaia

Map 1 – Removal of Building Frontage Control – Key Retail Frontage

The Building Frontage Control – Key Retail Frontage has been applied at two sites located on Hingaia Road, Hingaia. These two sites 128, 71 and 75 are currently zoned Business – Mixed Use zone. The Building Frontage Control – Key Retail Frontage is only applied in Business – Town Centre and Business – Metropolitan Centre zones to maximise street activation, building continuity along the frontage, pedestrian amenity and safety and visual quality. Some street frontages within the Centre zones are subject to a Building Frontage Control - Key Retail Frontage or Building Frontage Control - General Commercial Frontage provisions. Key retail streets are a focus for pedestrian activity within the centre12. However, the areas where these Business - Mixed Use zoned sites at Hingaia Road, Hingaia do not experience the same significance in terms of scale and intensity of pedestrian activity that deserve Building Frontage Control - Key Retail Frontage.

Furthermore, given Hingaia Road is an arterial road, the Vehicle Access Restriction Control already applies to properties on both sides of the road (as provided by Rule E27.6.4.1(3)(c)). Vehicle crossings must not be constructed or used to provide vehicle access across the site boundary which adjoins Hingaia Road.

12 H.9.1 Business – Metropolitan Centre and H.10.1 Business – Town Centre Description


Map 2 – Extension of Vehicle Access Restriction Control – General

Properties at 128, 71 and 75 Hingaia Road, Hingaia are within the 6.33 Hingaia 3 Special Housing Area (SHA) Precinct. Section 6.2 Assessment Criteria specifies under Standard 4(a) Vehicle Access Restrictions that vehicle access restrictions should apply for future lots adjoining Hingaia Road13.

Hence, Vehicle Access Restriction Control – General is applied to sites 91 – 239 Hingaia Road, Hingaia. This means the site at 128 Hingaia Road is already subject to this control. However, this control is not applied to 71 and 75 Hingaia Road. Therefore, the application of the same control should be extended to sites at 71 and 75 Hingaia Road as well.

Considering the above, the Building Frontage Control - Key Retail Frontage should be removed from the frontage of 128, 71 and 75 Hingaia Road, Hingaia, as alternative control is already applied at these locations to restrict vehicle access.

The recommendations are to

• Remove the Building Frontage Control - Key Retail Frontage Building Control fromthe frontage of 128, 71 and 75 Hingaia Road, Hingaia;

• Extend the application of Vehicle Access Restriction Control - General to coverfrontages of properties 71 and 75 Hingaia Road.

As a consequential change, it is recommended that Figure 1 – Zoning Map and Figure 2 – Structure Plan given in Section 10 Precincts Plans of the 6.33 Hingaia 3 SHA Precinct document be amended accordingly to reflect the recommended changes.

13 Page 15, Hingaia 3 SHA Precinct


The proposed change is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the plan, which aligns with the objectives of the Plan Change because, the application of Vehicle Access Restriction Control - General is appropriate at the sites zoned Business - Mixed use, but not the Building Frontage Control – Key Retail Frontage.



3 Jana Place, Mount Roskill - Proposed changes to National Grid Corridor Overlay

Transpower have a substation adjacent to Jana Place in Mount Roskill. The substation equipment is located in an area west of that shown in the map above. There is a Transpower owned access link between Jana Place and the substation equipment. Transpower decided that part of the designated land in this access link was not required for its activities. In April 2017, Designation 8503 was partially uplifted from 3 Jana Place. This was then sold to a third party. The boundary of Designation 8503 now runs along 3 Jana Place’s eastern boundary (as shown by the brown line).

This sale and partial uplift of designation from 3 Jana Place divorced the western area of the substation corridor shown in purple from the edge of the designated area. This proposed overlay map amendment seeks to remove the existing substation corridor areas shown as purple and add a new substation corridor area shown as red.

The National Grid Corridor Overlay contains several types of corridors. One is the National Grid Substation Corridor, which surrounds substations that belong to Transpower and are part of the National Grid. The National Grid Substation Corridor Overlay is the area identified on planning maps which is within 12m of the site boundary of a National Grid substation. The overlay also applies to the road carriageway of sections of specific roads identified on the planning maps. The overlay seeks to manage sensitive activities and


potentially incompatible development in close proximity to those substations. New buildings for activities sensitive to the Grid and subdivision in the corridor are restricted to prevent risks to people and property, preserve access for inspection and maintenance and the operation of substations, and manage potential reverse sensitivity effects.

This will remove the National Grid Substation Corridor area that surrounds the designated access link that links Jana Place with the substation. Transpower has advised that this area does not contain any sensitive equipment that requires the substation corridor overlay to protect it. While there is a Transpower owned house currently located within this access link, an underground cable may be laid through this access link in the future. Transpower advise that this will not create noise, hazard or visual effects issues. In light of the lack of effects requiring management, it is appropriate to remove the National Grid Substation Corridor Overlay surrounding this area. The National Grid Substation Corridor Overlay that remains and the proposed new area shown in red (on Transpower’s land) will continue to manage adverse effects that may arise from the actual substation equipment located in the designated area to the west of the area shown above.

The removal of the substation corridor areas shown in purple is also appropriate as it removes a constraint on privately owned property. The overlay is no longer required in this location.


• Remove the National Grid Substation Corridor Overlay from areas shown in purple inthe map above

• Apply the National Grid Substation Corridor Overlay to the area marked in red in themap above, joining remaining corridor strips to close the loop.

This proposed mapping change will ensure that the integrity of the National Grid Substation Corridor Overlay surrounding the Mount Roskill substation is maintained and will continue to manage sensitive activities and potentially incompatible development in close proximity to those substations.

Council has discussed this change with Transpower, which has requested that the mapping amendment be progressed through this plan change.


151 Wiri Station Road, Manurewa, 11 Puaki Drive, Manurewa, 220 Wiri Station Road, Manukau Central

The Sites of Significance to Mana Whenua Overlay - 037 Wiri North Stonefields (SSMW 037) applies to three sites at 151 Wiri Station Road, Manurewa, 11 Puaki Drive, Manurewa, 220 Wiri Station Road, Manukau Central. However, SSMW 037 is not mapped accurately, as it does not align with the extent of the feature being protected. It is evident from aerial photographs that in some areas, the overlay extends beyond the stonefields feature, whilst in others the feature is not protected by the overlay.

Therefore, it is proposed to amend SSMW 037 to reflect a Conservation Covenant (7768031.1) registered on the title of 151 Wiri Station Road for the protection of the Waahi Tapu. The proposed extent better reflects the outer extent of the stonefields feature. It is noted that the proposed extent differs slightly from the covenant extent to include 220 Wiri Station Road, a Department of Conservation owned site. This is because 220 Wiri Station Road, whilst not being subject to the covenant, is still subject to the feature, and to the operative extent of SSMW 037.

By reflecting the conservation covenant, the proposed extent better gives effect to objectives and policies of the SSMW overlay, by affording protection to the parts of the feature currently not within the overlay boundary from inappropriate development, use and subdivision. This also enhances site development efficiencies by removing the parts of the overlay that do not actually apply to the stonefields feature.

The proposed change is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the plan, which aligns with the objectives of the Plan Change.

Council wrote to the property owners and to the relevant Mana Whenua on 10 October 2018 to outline the proposed amendments.


6.4 Inconsistencies in the mapping of zones, overlays or precincts on certain sites within the Waitakere Ranges

The Waitakere Ranges are subject to several mapping layers within the AUP Viewer, including two zones which are unique to the area; Waitakere Ranges zone and Waitakere Foothills zone and the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area overlay which covers the majority of the Waitakere Ranges. The mapping of the area has an element of complexity to it which is different to anywhere else in the Auckland Region. There has been a number of mapping anomalies identified in the Waitakere Ranges.

There have been errors on the AUP Viewer identified where incorrect and/or inconsistent application of established zones to parcels of land has led to spot zones that bear no relationship to the adjacent zones, land parcels with split zones, and incorrect zoning of land.

There are currently no resource consent applications being processed where the incorrect zoning or overlay is being applied, however correcting these errors will ensure efficient and effective administration of the Auckland Unitary Plan in future resource consent applications for land use or development on the identified properties.

The eight AUP Viewer anomalies specific to the Waitakere Ranges have been identified internally by Council staff, via the review of the zoning maps on the AUP Viewer.

The proposals to address the problem identified above are:

Option 1 – Retain the status quo

To retain the status quo would mean to leave the identified mapping anomalies in the Waitakere Ranges as they are and not make any changes to the AUP Viewer.

Option 2 – Amend the AUP Viewer to fix identified mapping anomalies in the Waitakere Ranges.

To amend the AUP Viewer to fix anomalies in the mapping of zones, overlays or precincts on certain sites idenitifed in the Waitakere Ranges.




Option 1: Retain the status quo

By allowing the anomalies to the AUP Viewer remain, it reduces the efficiency of the zones and overlays that are unique to the

Where the incorrect zone or overlay has been applied to a site there are increased consent costs and uncertainty for consents staff and

A potential benefit of not correcting the AUP Viewer anomalies identified in the Waitakere Ranges and retaining the status quo is that


Waitakere Ranges meeting the relevant objectives and policies, and therefore limits the functionality of the AUP.

This option is not efficient, as users of the AUP Viewer and property owners will need to interpret and clarify the provisions, and will therefore not have a clear understanding of what they can and cannot do on their property.

This raises costs of consenting and undermines the efficiency of both the AUP Viewer and the AUP.

property owners who are wanting to progress development plans.

If property owners or resource consents staff interpret the zoning, and overlays on properties differentially because of the errors and anomalies, there is an economic and potential environmental cost.

The Waitakere Ranges are unique to the region, and therefore not correctly zoning properties or applying the overlays inconsistently could result in both environmental and cultural costs.

if there are more mapping anomalies, there is more time for these to be discovered and potentially remedied at a later date.

Another benefit is that there is a risk that the correction of mapping anomalies in the Waitakere Ranges could create further issues, however if the status quo is retained, this can be prevented.

Option 2: Amend the AUP Viewer to fix identified issues in the Waitakere Ranges

Amending the AUP Viewer to fix/remove the identified mapping anomalies will remove ambiguity and confusion from the AUP Viewer. Property owners will have a clear understanding of what they can and cannot do on their property, which will increase the effectiveness of the AUP Viewer and the Auckland Unitary Plan.

Correcting the zoning and overlay inconsistencies and anomalies identified in the Waitakere Ranges will improve the overall efficiency

Amending the AUP Viewer to remove mapping anomalies, where the incorrect zoning has been applied will reduce consenting costs at each stage of the consenting process and implementation of consents granted.

Costs of monitoring of consents granted would reduce.

Amending the AUP Viewer to correct zoning and overlay mapping anomalies in the Waitakere Ranges enables property owners to derive optimum benefits from developing their property. Sustainable management of natural and physical resources is facilitated.

Environmental benefits improve, as the future development of the properties will more fully achieve Plan objectives. Higher level of accuracy of GIS information in AUP Viewer improves


of the AUP Viewer and is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the plan.

quality of statutory planning processes.

6.4.2 Conclusion

The amendments sought in the AUP Viewer PC 17 and Attachment 1 – (Proposed amendments to the maps in the AUP Viewer) of PC 17 are the most appropriate ways to correcting the identified mapping anomalies. Correcting these technical mapping issues in PC 17 to the AUP:





This evaluation applies to the following properties within the Waitakere Ranges where consistency issues with the mapping of zones, overlays and precincts have been identified.


6.4.3 Problem statement and recommendations to amend inconsitencies in the mapping of zones, overlays or precincts on certain sites within the Waitakere Ranges

13 Karekare Road, Karekare

The property at 13 Karekare Road, Karekare has been zoned Rural – Rural Conservation zone. This is a spot zone anomaly. The property is 809m2, has an established residential dwelling on the site, and is located between an area of Waitakere Ranges Open Space – Conservation zone to the north, and similar sized residential properties to the south zoned Rural – Waitakere Ranges zone. Including a Rural Conservation zoned site within the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area is not supported. The Waitakere Ranges zone is the most appropriate zone for privately owned residential properties in the Waitakere Ranges, ensuring the same zone as contiguous parcels of land is applied, thereby enabling a more certain policy and rule framework to be applied in consenting situations.

The recommendation is to rezone 13 Karekare Road, Karekare from Rural – Rural Conservation zone to Rural – Waitakere Ranges zone. This will correct the spot zone anomaly, making the property a consistent zone with contiguous sites which are similar in size and residential use along Karekare Road. Rezoning 13 Karekare Road to the Waitakere Ranges zone is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the plan, which in turn achieve the objectives of the plan change.




Log Race Road, Piha

Log Race Road, Piha has been zoned Rural – Rural Conservation zone. This is an incorrect zoning anomaly. The area of land that has been incorrectly zoned is 6,954m2, is primarily used as a driveway to a turning circle at the western end of the site and is surrounded by dense Waitakere Ranges native bush which is zoned Open Space – Conservation zone. The properties to the east of the subject site which have been subdivided and are used for residential purposes are zoned Rural and Coastal Settlement zone. The application of the Rural – Rural Conservation zone within the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area is not supported. The Rural – Waitakere Ranges zone has been introduced into the AUP to be applied to privately owned properties around the periphery of the public open space and the regional park within the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area. This is to ensure efficient and effective management of land, and enabling a more certain policy and rule framework to be applied in consenting situations

The recommendation to correct the incorrect zoning applied to Log Race Road, Piha is to rezone the site from Rural – Rural Conservation zone to Rural – Waitakere Ranges zone. The Waitakere Ranges zone is the most appropriate zone to be applied to Log Race Road Piha, as it is consistent with the zoning applied to properties in the surrounding areas which do not consist of Waitakere Ranges bush or established residential settlements.




15 & 17 Quinns Road, Waiatarua

The properties at 15 Quinns Road and 17 Quinns Road, Waiatarua both have a split zone of Rural – Rural Conservation zone and Rural – Waitakere Ranges zone over the properties.

This is a split zone anomaly, where small sections of the properties (the driveways) have not been included in the Rural – Waitakere Ranges zone (the zone applied to the majority of both properties as well as adjacent residential properties). The application of Rural – Rural Conservation zone (the zone incorrectly applied to the driveways of 15 and 17 Quinns Road) is not supported within the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area. The Rural - Waitakere Ranges zone has been established for privately owned land with small holdings and residential properties, on sites that are often surrounded by the public open space and regional park within the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area.

The recommendation is to rezone the front driveway sections of 15 Quinns Road and 17 Quinns Road, Waiatarua, from Rural – Rural Conservation zone to Rural – Waitakere Ranges zone. The proposed rezoning to Waitakere Ranges zone will remove the split zone anomaly and will ensure that one consistent zone is applied over the properties, as well as



ensuring consistency with adjacent residential properties which are also zoned Waitakere Ranges zone.



Autumn Avenue, Glen Eden

(Lot 6 DP 109668, Lot 45 DP 2102670)

The shared access/ driveway off Autumn Avenue, Glen Eden identified by the black hatching above, is zoned Rural – Countryside Living zone. This is a spot zone and split zone mapping anomaly. The shared access is outside the RUB and is also subject to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area overlay, similar to the properties to the west zoned Waitakere Ranges zone. The application of Rural – Countryside Living zone within the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area overlay is not supported.


• Rezone the shared access from Rural – Countryside Living zone to Rural –Waitakere Foothills zone, consistent with the adjacent properties to the west, whichare also located outside of the RUB and are subject to the Waitakere RangesHeritage Area overlay; or

• Rezone the shared access from Rural – Countryside Living zone to Residential –Mixed Housing Suburban zone, consistent with the adjacent properties to the east,which are located inside the RUB.

Rezone from Rural – Countryside Living zone to Rural – Waitakere Foothills Zone


The recommendation is to rezone the shared access from Rural – Countryside Living zone to Rural – Waitakere Foothills zone. The proposed rezoning will ensure that a consistent zone is applied with the adjacent properties to the west which are also located outside the RUB and are subject to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area overlay. The proposed rezoning to Waitakere Foothills zone is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the plan, which in turn achieves the objectives of the plan change.

Council wrote to the property owners on 5 June 2018 to outline the proposed amendment to the zoning of their property. Council did receive a further enquiry from one affected property owner who was seeking clarification on what the change meant for their property, as well as seeking additional advice on the RUB. No further action was required, and the customer was satisfied with the proposed amendment.


800 Huia Road, Huia

The property at 800 Huia Road, Huia has been incorrectly zoned Rural – Countryside Living zone. This is a spot zone anomaly. The property is 1315m2 and has an established residential dwelling on site. The application of Rural – Countryside Living zone within the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area overlay is not supported. The Rural – Waitakere Ranges zone has been introduced into the AUP to be applied to privately owned properties which are used for residential purposes around the periphery of the public open space and the regional park within the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area. Although the adjacent sites are Open Space – Conservation zone and the property is surrounded by established Waitakere Ranges bush, other residential properties similar in size and use in the Waitakere Ranges are zoned the intended Rural - Waitakere Ranges zone.

The recommendation is to rezone the property at 800 Huia Road, Huia from Rural – Countryside Living zone to Rural – Waitakere Ranges zone. The proposed rezoning to the Waitakere Ranges zone will remove the incorrect zoning anomaly and is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the plan, which in turn achieve the objectives of the plan change.


Rezone from Rural – Countryside Living zone to Rural – Waitakere Ranges zone


3 McEntee Road, Waitakere

The property at 3 McEntee Road, Waitakere has been incorrectly zoned Rural – Rural Conservation zone. This is an incorrect zoning anomaly. The property is 1,932m2 and is developed for residential purposes, with two established buildings on-site. In the Waitakere District Plan the property was zoned Rural Village, the same zone as all of the properties rezoned Rural and Coastal Settlement zone in the AUP along McEntee Road and Township Road. There were no submissions on the zoning of this property. The properties that are directly adjacent to the subject site (1 and 5 McEntee Road) are zoned Rural – Countryside Living zone, however, developed sites which are similar in size (between 1,000m2 and 4,000m2) with frontages along McEntee Road and Township Road which were also zoned Rural Village in the Waitakere District Plan are zoned Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone.


• Rezone the property at 3 McEntee Road from Rural – Rural Conservation zone toResidential – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone which is the zone applied in the

Rezone from Rural – Rural Conservation zone to Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone


AUP Viewer to properties that were previously zoned Rural Village in the Waitakere District Plan, or;

• Rezone the property at 3 McEntee Road from Rural – Rural Conservation zone toRural Countryside Living zone consistent with the zoning applied to adjacentproperties (1 and 5 McEntee Road, Waitakere).

The recommendation is to rezone the property from Rural – Rural Conservation zone to Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone. Residential – Rural and Coastal Settlement zone is the most appropriate zone to be applied to this property as it was applied to all properties previously zoned Rural Village in the District Plan and there were no submissions on the zoning of this site. Rural and Coastal Settlement zone is also most appropriate given the site size, the residential development and use on the property and the location fronting McEntee Road. The proposed rezoning is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the plan, which in turn achieves the objectives of the plan change.



4 Kay Road, Swanson

The property at 4 Kay Road, Swanson has been incorrectly zoned Rural – Rural Conservation zone. This is a spot zone anomaly. The site is 1,632m2 and has an established residential dwelling in the centre of the property. The neighbouring properties, both directly adjacent and on the opposite side of Kay Road, which are also outside the RUB are zoned Rural – Countryside Living Zone.

The recommendation is to rezone the property at 4 Kay Road, Swanson from Rural – Rural Conservation zone to Rural – Countryside Living zone.

Objective 1 of the Rural – Countryside Living zone specifies the anticipated land-use of properties zoned Countryside Living as follows:

1. ‘Land is used for rural lifestyle living as well as small-scale rural production’.

Rural – Countryside Living zone is the most appropriate zone to be applied to the property at 4 Kay Road, Swanson given the use of the property being rural living/lifestyle block and the property is located outside of the RUB. The Rural – Countryside Living zone is consistent with the zoning of adjacent properties (2 and 7 Kay Road, Swanson), which in turn removes the spot zone anomaly, and the Countryside Living zone is an appropriate zone to be applied to properties of the scale of 4 Kay Road. Rezoning the property to Countryside Living zone is the most appropriate solution to correct an unintended spot zone anomaly.

Rezone from Rural – Rural Conservation zone to Rural – Countryside Living Zone




228 Bethells Road, Bethells, 17 Erangi Place Bethells, 240 Bethells Road, Bethells, 284-286 Bethells Road Bethells, 36 Te Aute Ridge Road Bethells, 2 Kokako Grove Bethells, 40 Te Aute Ridge Road Bethells, 10 Kokako Grove Bethells, 18 Kokako Grove Bethells, 9 Tasman View Road Bethells, 7 Kokako Grove Bethells, 9 Kokako Grove Bethells, 5 Kokako Grove Bethells, 12 Tasman View Road Bethells, 18 Tasman View Road Bethells, 160 Bethells Road Bethells, 156 Bethells Road Bethells, 156A Bethells Road Bethells, 152 Bethells Road Bethells, 150 Bethells Road Bethells, 154 Bethells Road Bethells, 46 Te Aute Ridge Road Bethells, 44 Te Aute Ridge Road Bethells, 44B Te Aute Ridge Road Bethells, 44A Te Aute Ridge Road Bethells, 58 Tasman View Road Bethells

The properties identified in the black hatching above have been zoned Rural – Rural Conservation zone. This is a mapping anomaly as the application of Rural – Rural Conservation zone within the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area overlay is not supported, with the exception of properties in the Bethells, Wainamu and Te Henga Precincts outlined in red above.

The properties that are subject to the zoning anomaly are generally large life-style block sections, with a residential dwelling on-site as well as significant sections of Waitakere Ranges bush which covers the majority of the properties. The properties are large, with the majority of the properties being between 1 and 3 hectares, and the subject sites also have a similar use as properties that are zoned Rural – Waitakere Ranges zone in the area.



The recommendation is to rezone the properties from Rural – Rural Conservation zone to Rural – Waitakere Ranges zone. This is consistent with the zoning applied to adjacent properties, which are similar in site size, use, and location, and are not subject to one of the three identified precincts. The proposed rezoning to Rural – Waitakere Ranges zone is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the plan, which in turn achieves the objectives of the plan change.

Council wrote to the property owners on 5 June 2018 to outline the proposed amendment to the zoning of their property. Three affected property owners contacted Council requesting clarification on the intent of the recommended change, what the change means for their particular property and the key differences between the Conservation zone and the Waitakere Ranges zone. All three property owners were satisfied with the reasons for the recommended change and required no further information from Council.


7. Conclusion

PC 17 seeks to amend the AUP viewer to address identified technical issues at a property scale. The main conclusions of the evaluation under Part 2 and Section 32 of the RMA are summarised below:

1. PC 17 is consistent with the purpose of sustainable management in Section 5 andwith the principles in Sections 6, 7 and 8 and Part 2 of the RMA.

2. PC 17 assists the Council in carrying out its functions set out in Sections 30 and 31of the RMA.

3. Pursuant to Section 75(3)(c) of the RMA, PC 17 is consistent with the objectives andpolicies of the RPS.

4. The evaluation undertaken in accordance with Section 32 concluded:i. the use of the existing objectives of the AUP would be the most appropriate

way to achieve the purpose of the RMA.ii. the amendment of the spatial applications of zones, overlays or precincts over

xx properties is the most appropriate means of achieving the objectivesidentified in Section 3 of this report.


ATTACHMENT F

PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 17 - SECTION 32 ATTACHMENT 1

361

362

363

364

365

366

Documents

SECTION 32 EVALUATION REPORTS PLAN MODIFICATION 15 … · threshold effects levels (for example, those in'Blueprint for monitoring urban receiving environments, ... Table F2.19.1