Hearing Agenda Wright & Dugmore · 2019-06-12 · D Dugmore, to subdivide the application site of 8.3080ha, located within the Countryside Environment under the Operative District

Hearings Commissioner

Notice of Meeting A meeting of the Hearings Commissioner will be held in the Whangarei Library, May Bain Room, Rust Avenue, Whangarei on:

Thursday

31 January 2013 10am – 2pm

Application by A Wright & D Dugmore

Commissioner Alan Withy

Index Page No

Authorisation Sheet ............................................................................................................................. 1

Environment Planner (Consents) Report ............................................................................................ 2

Recommendation ............................................................................................................................ 34

Attachment 1 Proposed Scheme Plan of Subdivision .............................................................. 40

Attachment 2 Copy of Application as lodged ............................................................................ 42

Attachment 3 Section 92 request (prior to notification) dated 16 August 2012 and a copy of the applicant’s response, the ‘Access Safety Assessment’ prepared by Engineering Outcomes Ltd, dated 2 September 2012 ..................................... 187

Attachment 4 Copies of submissions received ....................................................................... 198

Attachment 5 Section 92 request (further to close of submissions) dated 1 November 2012 and a copy of the applicant’s response including: ........................................... 213

Surveyors confirmation regarding easement boundaries

Further comment from Engineering Outcomes (dated 14 November 2012), regarding the issues raised in submissions relating to the right of way

Legal Advice from G Currie of Thomson Wilson Law relating to rights and powers afforded under the Property Law Act 1952 and Land Transfer Act 1952

Attachment 6 Operative District Planning Maps, in addition to an aerial photograph, stability hazard maps and parcel lot size map of the immediate locality and broader area ..................................................................................................... 225

Attachment 7 Council’s Senior Environmental Engineering Officer Vlad Rozov’s report dated 8 January 2013 and relevant sections of Whangarei District Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2012 .................................................... 235

Attachment 8 District Plan Chapters ....................................................................................... 247

Chapter 5 Amenity Values

Chapter 6 Built Form and Development

Chapter 8 Subdivision and Development

Chapter 22 Road Transport

Attachment 9 Information relating to Plan Change 93 Urban Transiting Environment and Whangarei District Council’s Rural Development Strategy 2012 Update ........ 298

Attachment 10 Chapter 38 Countryside and Coastal Countryside Environment Rules and Chapter 73 Subdivision Rules Countryside and Coastal Countryside Environments .................................................................................................... 304

Private Bag 9023 | Whangarei 0148 | New Zealand T: 09 430 4200 | 0800 WDC INFO | 0800 932 463 | F: 09 438 7632

W: www.wdc.govt.nz | E: [email protected]

Report to Hearing Commissioner TRIM 13/982 31 January 2013

Report to Hearings’ Commissioner Alan Withy on a Resource Consent Application

This resource consent application was lodged by Resource Management and Assessment Ltd. on behalf of A Wright and D Dugmore and was reported on by Council’s Senior Environmental Planner (Consents), Gemma Sands.

The applicant seeks resource consent to subdivide the application site of 8.3080ha, located within the Countryside Environment, into two allotments of 2.20ha (Lot 1) and 6.10ha (Lot 2, containing an existing residential unit).

The shared access arrangements proposed require consideration as a Restricted Discretionary Activity under Rule 73.3.7 Property Access, whilst the proposal is a Discretionary Activity overall pursuant to the averaging provisions of Rule 73.3.1 Allotment Area.

This report was prepared by the following signatory:

11 January 2013

Gemma Sands – Senior Environmental Planner (Consents)

This report was peer reviewed by the following signatory:

18 January 2013

Alister Hartstone, Manager (Resource Consents)

1


Statement of staff qualification and experience

Gemma Sands – Council Senior Environmental Planner (Consents)

I hold the qualification of a Bachelor of Arts (Geography) and a Master of Planning Practice (Honours) from the University of Auckland. I am a Grad-Plus member of the New Zealand Planning Institute. I commenced employment with the Whangarei District Council on 1 March 2010 as an Environmental Planner (Consents). Prior to this, I held the roles of Policy Analyst (Coastal) with the Northland Regional Council and Development Planner for North Shore City Council. Overall, my work experience includes reporting on a broad range of subdivision and land use consents and drafting of proposed plan changes to the Regional Coastal Plan for Northland.

Vlad Rozov – Council Senior Environmental Engineering Officer

I hold the role of a Senior Environmental Engineering Officer for the Whangarei District Council. I am a civil engineer, having qualified from a Polytechnic University (former USSR) in 1981 with a Bachelor degree in Industrial and Civil engineering. I am a graduate member of the Institute Of Professional Engineers New Zealand Inc. I have many years of experience in roading, drainage, earthworks, civil construction and I have worked for the Whangarei District Council as Environmental Engineering Technician, Support Officer, Officer and Senior Officer since 1999.

My position within the Resource Consents department requires me to assess all engineering aspects of resource consent applications based on the evidence provided by the Applicant, and to provide a report as to the viability of the proposal.

The above staff are familiar with the Environment Court’s ‘Code of Conduct’ for expert witnesses and agree to comply with the Code of Conduct in presenting hearing evidence to the Commissioner. The above staff/consultant are familiar with the Environment Court’s ‘Code of Conduct’ for expert witnesses and agree to comply with the Code of Conduct in presenting hearing evidence to the Commissioner.

2


Section 42A Hearing Report

Hearing By: Hearings’ Commissioner Alan Withy of a discretionary subdivision proposal by A Wright and D Dugmore, to subdivide the application site of 8.3080ha, located within the Countryside Environment under the Operative District Plan, into two allotments of 2.20ha (Lot 1) and 6.10ha (Lot 2, containing an existing residential unit). The application site is located at 44 Forest View Road, Kamo, and includes two parcels held in a single Certificate of Title, being Lot 2 DP 160188 and Lot 2 DP 156177 contained in Computer Freehold Register NA96B/377.

Evidence By: Gemma Sands, Senior Environmental Planner (Consents). MPlanPrac (Hons), BA(Geog).

File Refs: SD1200071 P063088.SD

Dated: 15 January 2013

1.0 The Proposal & Background

1.1 The Proposal

1.1.1 As represented in the scheme plan of subdivision below, (a full copy of which is provided in Attachment 1) the applicant proposes to subdivide the application site (comprising a total area of 8.3080ha) into two allotments of 2.20ha, and 6.10ha . The larger allotment, proposed Lot 2, contains an existing residential unit and accessory buildings, whilst Lot 1 is vacant.

1.1.2 Access arrangements are proposed via the existing Right of Way access extending from the terminus of Forest View Road, which currently serves eight existing users.

3


1.2 Background

1.2.1 The application (as per Attachment 2) was lodged on 10 September 2012, and includes:

An Assessment of Effects on the Environment prepared by Russell Mortimer of Resource Management and Assessment Ltd.

A Subdivision Report prepared by Richardson Stevens Consulting Engineers (Reference 11325, dated 30 May 2012).

A ‘Preliminary Site Investigation Potential Site Contamination’ dated 30 June 2012, confirming the proposal is not subject to the Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011, prepared by Resource Management and Assessment Ltd, dated 30 June 2012.

1.2.2 A request for further information pursuant to Section 92 of the Resource Management Act 1991 was issued on 16 August 2012. This request required the applicant to provide to Whangarei District Council, a technical review (prepared by a suitably qualified person), of the proposed Right of Way access arrangements (including the identified mitigation measures), as detailed in the engineering suitability report of Richardson Stevens Consultants Ltd. dated 30 May 2012. It was requested that the review specifically address the existing levels of traffic using the Right of Way, provide comment on the effects of an additional user of the Right of Way, and comment on whether any effects of the non-compliance with Table 3.7 of Whangarei District Council Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 could be sufficiently avoided, remedied or mitigated. The application satisfied the above request for further information on 7 September 2012. Information relating to the first Section 92 request is contained within Attachment 3.

1.2.3 On 14 September 2012, the Council determined that the application proceed on the basis of limited notification. The period for submissions opened on 17 September 2012 and closed on 15 October 2012. A copy of submissions received is provided within Attachment 5.

1.2.4 Further to the close of submissions, a second request for further information pursuant to Section 92 of the Resource Management Act 1991 was issued on 1 November 2012, which was duly satisfied on 28 November 2012. Information relating to the second Section 92 request is provided within Attachment 3.

2.0 Site and Surrounds Description

2.1 Zoning, resource areas and other notations

2.1.1 As demonstrated on planning map 11E (contained within Attachment 6), the site is located in the Countryside Environment of the operative Whangarei District Plan. Planning Map 67 demonstrates the location of the proposed Urban Transition Environment under Plan Change 93, located approximately 1500m to the east of Forest View Road. Plan Change 93 is currently before the Environment Court, awaiting resolution of outstanding appeals.

2.1.2 The site is not subject to any resource area notations under the Operative District Planning Map 11R (Attachment 6).

2.1.3 In terms of hazard information recorded under Council’s Geographic Information System, the site is identified as having areas of moderate and low stability hazard.

2.1.4 The site is identified as having a Land Use Capability of IV, denoting land with moderate limitations for arable use, but suitable for occasional cropping, pasture or forestry.

2.2 Site Description

2.2.1 The application site, legally described as Lot 2 DP 160188 and Lot 2 DP 156177 (amalgamated in a single Computer Freehold Register pursuant to Sections 241(2)

4


and Sections 242(1) and (2) of the Resource Management Act 1991) is located at 44 Forest View Road, a cul-de-sac accessed from Three Mile Bush Road, on the outskirts of Kamo.

2.2.2 In terms of the history of the application site, the amalgamation of Lot 2 DP 160188 and Lot 2 DP 156177 to produce the application site as it currently exists, was undertaken as part of a 1994 boundary adjustment (Whangarei District Council reference SD93/365) of two independent title areas. The area of land now identified as Lot 2 DP 160188 was acquired from the allotment to the north-eastern boundary (now identified as Lot 1 DP 160188), and voluntarily amalgamated with Lot 2 DP 156177. The purpose of the subdivision was stated as being to provide more privacy to the residential unit in Lot 2 DP156177, by shifting the boundary line further to the east.

2.2.3 The Computer Freehold Register NA96B/377 lists a number of interests, namely relating to easements, however no interests are considered to have implications on the consideration of this application.

2.2.4 Access to the subject site is located from the terminus of Forest View Road, via a Right of Way serving eight existing properties. The access is comprised of approximately 400m of sealed access varying from 3.5m to 4.5m, and 220m of unsealed carriageway of a width at 3.5m wide, serving the last five lots served by the Right of Way.

2.2.5 As denoted on the scheme plan of subdivision, the site is occupied by an existing single level brick and tile residential unit and accessory buildings, served by an existing metalled access extending from the termination of the Right of Way.

Figure 1 - The Application Site

2.2.6 The topography of the application site is subject to moderate rolling slopes falling to the west. The site is predominantly covered in pasture, with native trees and volcanic boulders scattered throughout. The property is fenced with post and wire fencing.

2.3 Surrounding Environment

2.3.1 The application site is situated in the context of a modified rural landscape that has seen an incremental intensification of residential activity, consistent with its situation within easy reach of Whangarei and Kamo, and the natural characteristics of the area which contribute to a high level of amenity. The receiving environment contains a range of allotment sizes predominantly utilised for rural lifestyle and hobby farming activities. This is particularly evident in the node of lifestyle blocks served by the cul-de-sac of Forest View Road.

5


2.3.2 It is considered appropriate to identify the existing or base environment from which the effects of the proposal should be assessed in the following assessment, and in this regard, it is considered that the subject site sits within a cluster of established rural ‘lifestyle’ allotments. I acknowledge the site sits on the outer perimeter of this somewhat enclosed node of development served by Forest View Road, and recognise that the area to the north and west of the application site transitions to a more open landscape, characterised by larger allotments utilised for pastoral farming. For reasons of topography and landform, and lack of established shelterbelts the site displays characteristics which are also consistent with this sense of openness and rural character, however, taking into account the access arrangements which directly link the application site to Forest View Road, via the Right of Way access, it is considered that the application site correlates with this established cluster of lifestyle allotments. It is also noted a number of private accessways extend from the termination of the Forest View Road, extending this node of lifestyle development to the south of the cul-de-sac. This is denoted in Figure 2 below, which provides a visual representation of the surrounding environment.

Figure 2 - The Surrounding Environment

2.3.3 A ‘parcel density map’ of both the immediate locality and wider area is provided within both Attachment 6 and Figure 3 overleaf. As demonstrated on this map, the receiving environment is characterised by a broad range of allotment sizes.

2.3.4 It is noted that prior to 2001, the Whangarei District Council included a controlled activity provision to enable allotment areas to have a minimum area of 1ha in the Countryside Environment. This requirement was subsequently amended to require a minimum allotment area of 4ha in 2001, and amended again further to the direction of the Environment Court in February 2006 to require a minimum allotment area of 20ha to proceed as a controlled activity.

2.3.5 It is important to note that the parcel density map does not accurately portray the area of multiple parcels which, like the application site, are legally held in a single Computer Freehold Register. In this regard, to gain an understanding of allotment areas in the immediate vicinity (within 500m of the application site) it may be appropriate to have regard to the cadastral analysis provided within Table 2 of the Assessment of Effects provided in support of the application. Table 2 records that 56% of properties within 500m of the application site are under 2ha in area (35% are between 1ha and 2ha), and 67% are less than 4ha in area.

2.3.6 Notwithstanding this, rather than relying on a quantitative assessment of allotment areas as a sole key to determine the characteristic amenity values of an environment,

6


it is considered more appropriate to consider qualitative characteristics formed by a visual assessment of the locality. In this regard, it is my opinion that the character and amenity of the receiving environment is characterised by the following attributes (as I have no formal qualification in landscape assessment I do not purport to assess the visual impact of built development on this landscape):

Stone walls (protected under the District Plan) which contribute to both a picturesque heritage character, and high levels of visual amenity.

Mature stands of native vegetation such as Puriri and Totara which provide an attractive setting for residential and lifestyle development to be set within, lend an ‘established’ character and contribute to the high levels of visual amenity within the locality.

Established tall shelterbelts.

Whilst the rural character of the locality is derived from the dominance of open space over built development, visual indicators such as glimpses of residential buildings, clusters of letterboxes along Forest View Road, private access arrangements extending from Forest View Road (particularly beyond the terminus of the cul-de-sac), and the compartmentalisation of the landscape from screening trees, shelterbelts, and fencing arrangements, highlight the prevalence of rural lifestyle blocks and holdings used for hobby farming.

The adjacent property (40 Forest View Road), which is bisected by the right of way access, includes an established avocado orchard.

The name ‘Forest View Road’ likely refers to the views afforded towards the Pukenui Forest, located approximately 650m to the south-east of the application site, being a Conservation Park of 592ha administered by the Department of Conservation, which adjoins the Whau Valley Water Catchment (owned and managed by Whangarei District Council). Together, these extensive land parcels extend in a south-east fashion, towards Whangarei city.

It is considered that the application site is situated on the outer perimeter of the node of rural residential lifestyle development, accessed from Forest View Road. In contrast to the enclosed landscape pattern evident along the Right of Way access (where far reaching views are restricted by shelterbelts and vegetation) the application site is characterised by an openness (attributed to lack of screening vegetation, but also due to sloping topography), with far reaching views over the valley, and the spacious rolling landscape beyond are enabled. The area to the south and west of the application site is characterised by larger allotment sizes consistent with rural pastoral activities.

7


Figure 3 - Parcel Density Map

3.0 District Plan Assessment

3.1 Reasons for consent

3.1.1 Rule 73.3.1 Allotment Area provides for subdivision to be considered as a Discretionary Activity whereby the minimum average net site area of all proposed allotments is 4.0ha (for the purpose of calculating average net site area, any proposed allotment with a net site area greater than 8.0ha will be deemed to have a net site area of 8.0ha).

3.1.2 In this instance, the applicant seeks to create two independent title areas of 2.2ha and 6.10ha, and therefore upon application of the averaging provisions of Rule 73.3.1 Allotment Area, the minimum average net site area achieved under the proposed subdivision is 4.15ha. As such, the proposal requires consideration as a discretionary activity.

8


3.1.3 Notwithstanding the scope afforded as a discretionary activity under the Resource Management Act 1991, the following matters are identified as relevant in the consideration of this application under Rule 73.3.1: These matters are:

i. The matters over which control is reserved; and

ii. The likely location of future rural and urban development, including the effects of sporadic subdivision and ribbon development and effects on the efficient provisions of infrastructure and services; and

iii. The potential effects of the type and density of subdivision and development on rural amenity, landscape, open space, heritage value, ecological values, riparian management, and the natural character of the rural and coastal environment; and

iv. The cumulative effects of subdivision and development on the environment and on the provision of infrastructure and services; and

v. The risks from natural hazards.

vi. Any other matters that council considers relevant.

3.1.4 Rule 73.3.7 Property Access stipulates that subdivision is a controlled activity if vehicular access to a road is shared where there are 2 or more allotments in the subdivision; and the access complies, in all respects, with the relevant standards in Whangarei District Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 and the relevant provisions in Appendix 9; and no more than 8 allotments or 8 residential units are served by a shared access. In this instance, access to the subdivision is gained via a right of way arrangement currently shared by eight existing titles. The applicant proposes to upgrade sections of the right of way, however based on the number of users, the access will not comply with the relevant standards in Whangarei District Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010, and therefore consideration of this aspect of the proposal is required as a Restricted Discretionary Activity. Discretion is restricted to the following matters:

i. The relevant provisions of the Whangarei District Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010;

ii. The adequacy of the access for the anticipated use;

iii. The ability of the access to contain required services;

iv. Traffic safety and visibility;

v. The need for acceleration and deceleration lanes;

vi. Type, frequency and timing of traffic;

vii. Access design, number and location of vehicle crossings;

viii. Efficiency and safety of roads;

ix. Need for forming or upgrading of roads in the vicinity of the site;

x. Need for traffic control, including signs, signals and traffic islands;

xi. The additional matters listed in Chapter 70.3.

xii. The need for access to the allotment;

xiii. The safe and efficient movement of people, vehicles and goods;

xiv. The ability of the road structure to withstand anticipated loads;

xv. The effects of water runoff.

9


3.1.5 The proposal meets the relevant standards and terms to be considered a controlled activity under additional rules of relevance including Rule 73.3.5 Existing Buildings, Rule 73.3.6 Sites of Significance to Maori (none identified), Rule 73.3.8 Vehicle Crossings, Rule 73.3.10 Provision for Extension of Services, Rule 73.3.11 Water Supply, Rule 73.3.12 Stormwater, Rule 73.3.14 Sewage, Rule 73.3.15 Electricity, Rule 73.3.16 Telecommunications and Rule 73.3.17 Earthworks.

3.1.6 Overall the proposal is regarded as a Discretionary activity under the Operative District Plan.

4.0 Written Approvals, Notification and Submissions

4.1 Written Approvals

4.1.1 Under section 104(3)(a)(ii), when considering an application the consent authority must not have regard to any effect upon a person who has given written approval to an application (unless this approval has been withdrawn prior to notification). With respect to the current application, written approvals have been provided from the following registered property owners (refer also to Figure 4), and effects on these parties are therefore discounted for the purpose of the following assessment under Section 104:

Name Address Legal Description

SI Whalen 578A Three Mile Bush Road Lot 2 DP 133346

GJ Hawthorn and KMF Hawthorn

602 Three Mile Bush Road Lot 2 DP 81261

RSHM Hawker Limited

604 Three Mile Bush Road Lot 2 DP 184441

AO & JP Brown & WHPJ Trustees 2005 Ltd.

Forest View Road, Part Lot 3 DP 66475

PJ Magee, VJ Crosby and IJ Hayward

50 Forest View Road Lot 1 DP 426774

RD Thomas & GS Tarsiewicz

42 Forest View Road Lot 1 DP 160188

4.2 Notification

4.2.1 On 14 September 2012, the Council determined that the application proceed on the basis of limited notification. As detailed within the Council’s notification decision, the reasons for this recommendation are summarised as follows:

i. The adverse effects of the activity on the wider environment are considered to be less than minor, on the basis that adverse effects will be confined to the localised environment, taking into account the following matters:

Visibility of the future development being precluded from public viewpoints, including roads, therefore ensuring the proposal will not give rise to adverse visual effects in terms of ribbon development.

10


The allotment areas proposed serving to consolidate an existing development pattern rather than representing sporadic development.

The applicant has demonstrated the site is suitable for the development proposed; an no externalised effects have been identified in terms of hazards, or site suitability.

Forest View Road has sufficient capacity to accommodate an additional user without compromising existing levels of safety or efficiency.

ii. There are no special circumstances to warrant public notification.

iii. Whilst the applicant has provided a number of written approvals from affected parties within the localised environment, the increased density of development resulting from the proposed subdivision may have adverse effects upon existing levels of amenity and character enjoyed by additional parties within the localised environment. As such, the written approval from all persons considered to be adversely affected by the activity has not been obtained, and it is therefore recommended that notice of the application be served on the following parties:

HJ Vink and S Vink of 46 Forest View Road (Lot 1 DP 156177);

G Downie and E Kazmierczak of 48 Forest View Road (Lot 1 DP 127680);

J Grierson and GM Trustees Ltd of 40 Forest View Road (Lot 2 DP 155848 and Lot 2 DP426774)

N Cadle of Lot 3 DP 156177, Forest View Road.

4.2.2 The location of the above referenced parties is represented in Figure 4 below, with a circle symbol denoting the application site, a star symbol reflecting the location of parties from which written approval has been received, and the location of properties subject to limited notification also denoted by the name of the property owner.

11


Figure 4 - Location of Written Approvals () and Parties subject to Limited Notification

4.3 Submissions

4.3.1 The period for submissions opened on 17 September 2012 and closed on 15 October 2012. Copies of the application were served upon the following parties:

Name Owner/Occupier Address Legal Description

HJ and S Vink Owners 46 Forest View Road

Lot 1 DP 156177

G Downie and E Kazmierczak

Owners 48 Forest View Road

Lot 1 DP 127680

J Grierson and GM Trustees Ltd.

Owners 40 Forest View Road

Lot 2 DP 155848 and Lot 2 DP 426774

N Cadle Owner Forest View Road

Lot 3 DP 156177

4.3.2 Council received a total of three submissions. Two submissions were received within the timeframe, with the submission of S Vink received by Council one day following the close of submissions (on 16 October 2012). As the submission was served upon the applicant within timeframe, it is recommended that the submission of Ms Vink be accepted pursuant to Section 37A of the Resource Management Act 1991 as no undue prejudice will result in the acceptance of this submission.

12


4.3.3 All of the submissions received request that the application be declined. Only one of the submitters (Downie and Kazmierczak) has requested to be heard in support of their submission.

4.3.4 The individual submissions are summarised as follows (a full copy of the individual submissions can be viewed in Attachment 4.

Submitter Issues and Relief Sought

Suzzana Vink

46 Forest View Road

• The Right of Way is heavily used, and poorly maintained by current property owners.

• The accessway is narrow and does not allow for additional lots.

• There are two vacant allotments served by the right of way arrangement that have not yet been developed.

• The suggested upgrades to the access are unsatisfactory, and do not comply with the required standards.

Relief sought: Decline the application (Does not wish to be heard).

Jacqueline Grierson

40 Forest View Road

• The submitter (as servient tenement of the Right of Way marked A), does not give consent to the alteration or modification of this section of the access arrangement (e.g. construction of speed bumps).

• The first passing area (marked P1) on the plans is an entranceway, and the submitter does not want/ nor agree to this area being potentially blocked by use of this land as a passing area.

• The submitter states the section of access after the second bend is too narrow, and believes that the passing bay in this area is on private property. The boundary within this section of the driveway is in dispute, and the submitter states that the shelterbelt trees on the left hand side of the access are not within the access arrangement.

• The submitter asserts that the legal access in the vicinity of the third bend (outside the Downie property) is narrower than it appears. The submitter states that pegs denoting the legal boundary were placed in the ground two and a half years ago to prevent the submitter’s private land being used as access. The submitter intends to replace the pegs and place metal posts and fence this area, which will result in the width of the access being reduced. The submitter also raises concerns relating to additional traffic on this blind corner.

• The submitter considers that the easement rights afforded to the applicant do not extend to the ability to make improvements or undertake modification of the accessway.

• The mitigation measures proposed by the applicant in terms of the creation of passing bays, rely upon areas of private property, driveways and unfenced land. As private property owners could fence off unauthorised passing areas, these should not be taken into account by Council.

13



• The submitter notes that no concerns are raised in terms of visual effects or the density of development proposed.

• The submitter also intends to seek consent to subdivide her property in the future (proposed scheme plan enclosed) and considers that her proposal has been designed to avoid adverse safety effects within the access arrangement.

• The submitter has supplied documentation (sourced from the internet) on the disadvantages of rubber speed bumps (additional maintenance and deterioration).

• Relief sought: Decline the application (Does not wish to be heard).

G Downie and E Kazmierczak

• The submitter purchased the property (3 years ago) with the understanding that there would be 8 properties served by the right of way arrangement, and no more. The submitter did not anticipate that further subdivision of the area would be enabled under the current planning regime.

• The shared access arrangement does not comply with the relevant standards for eight users, and an additional user should not be allowed. The submitter believes that the mitigation measures proposed within the application are inadequate and do not address effective access concerns, on the basis that the recommendation to seal the first section of the right of way (C) does not address adverse effects, and the recommendation to construct four short passing bays and a longer central passing bay is ‘disingenuous’ as these passing bays currently exist due to this land being unfenced/ or the fence being setback from the access. The submitter believes that if all property owners erected fences along the access there would not be sufficient land available for passing bays.

• The corner on the first bend of the right of way is tight with limited visibility due to a stone wall and tree line limiting views. The application does not address this hazardous situation. In addition, the 9m long passing lane (as shown on Beasley and Burgess Plan of Access E2686 1/3) is located directly in front of another gate/ entrance which raises safety concerns. The submitter notes that this also a potential entrance point to a proposed subdivision being contemplated by the neighbour.

• The proposed passing bay (as per Beasley and Burgess Plan of Access E2686 3/3) is located directly outside the entrance to the submitter’s property, and they object to its location on the grounds of safety concerns. The submitter also objects to their land being used for the passing bay, furthermore a ditch would be required to address water runoff, and it is directly adjacent to a stone wall.

• The submitter disputes statements in the traffic report that the proposed passing lanes will remove the requirement for cars to reverse when they meet.

14



• The submitter considers that the proposed installation of rubber speed humps is insufficient to mitigate safety concerns within the right of way.

• The submitter notes that statements within the engineering report (Richardson Stevens, page 4) relating to runoff from the shared access causing undetectable issues is incorrect, with heavy downpours eroding gravel driveways and creating paths through fields and lawns, with inadequate runoff drains on either side of the access. The submitter is concerned that if additional sealing occurs, an increase in erosion would result.

• The submitter believes that road signage, markings and speed humps are characteristic of a suburban environment, and detract from rural amenity.

• The submitter raises concerns relating to adverse effects upon amenity, though additional noise, visual pollution, vehicular traffic and the intensity of development proposed. The submitter states the proposed dwelling and future buildings will be visible from private places around the allotment. In terms of visual effects upon the submitter, the entranceway and driveway to proposed Lot 1, in addition to landscaping and buildings constructed on this lot, will be visible from the submitter’s gardens and lawns, where rural and pastoral views down the valley to the northwest are currently enjoyed.

• The submitter does not accept that any effects of the construction phase would be acceptable upon them.

• In terms of cumulative effects, the submitter notes that two other owners of properties served by the Right of Way are considering subdivision applications, and believes that the cumulative effects would be ‘disastrous’ for the area, and believes that a precedent would be set through the approval of this application. The submitter considers that there are existing available sections in the area that are smaller in size that could be purchased by the applicant if they desire a smaller piece of land, also noting pending zoning changes along Thee Mile Bush Road.

• The submission disputes the statement that the proposal will give rise to positive social and economic effects, and is therefore not consistent with sustainable management.

Relief sought: Decline the application and wishes to be heard.

5.0 Resource Management Act 1991- Statutory Considerations

5.1 Section 104

5.1.1 Section 104 provides the matters, subject to Part 2 of the Act that Council must have regard to when considering an application for resource consent and any submissions received. These matters are:

15


(a) any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and

(b) any relevant provisions of—

(i) a national environmental standard:

(ii) other regulations:

(iii) a national policy statement:

(iv) a New Zealand coastal policy statement:

(v) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement:

(vi) a plan or proposed plan; and

(c) any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably

necessary to determine the application.

5.2 Section 104B

5.2.1 Section 104B outlines Council’s powers when making a determination on a discretionary or non-complying activity. Section 104B states that:

After considering an application for a resource consent for a discretionary activity or non-complying activity, a consent authority—

(a) may grant or refuse the application; and

(b) if it grants the application, may impose conditions under section 108.

6.0 Actual and Potential Effects on the Environment (s104(1)(a)

6.1 Definition of Effect

6.1.1 Section 3 of the Act defines the term ‘effect’ as including – (a) any positive or adverse effects; and

(b) any temporary or permanent effect; and

(c) any past, present or future effect; and

(d) any cumulative effect which arises over time or in combination with other effects – regardless of the scale, intensity, duration, or frequency of the effect, and also includes-

(e) any potential effect of high probability; and

(f) any potential effect of low probability which has a high potential impact.”

6.2 Permitted Baseline

6.2.1 In terms of determining whether the adverse effects of the proposal are more than minor, section 104(2) of the Act provides that Council ‘may’ have regard to the permitted baseline in order for effects on the environment that are permitted under the Plan (or by way of resource consent) to be disregarded.

6.2.2 In terms of the lawfully existing environment, it is recognised that the application site is occupied by an existing residential unit, and accessory buildings.

6.2.3 There are no granted, but as yet unexercised resource consents applying to the application site.

16


6.2.4 In determining the extent to which the District Plan anticipates for further intensification or development ‘as of right’, it is recognised that there are no permitted forms of subdivision under the Operative Whangarei District Plan, and therefore the standards for land use activities provide a relevant consideration in this regard. Additional development rights applying to the application site under the Operative District Plan are therefore identified as follows:

Building coverage over 500m² or 5% (which ever is the greater) of the net site area of the property, with buildings located in accordance with the prescribed setbacks, and within the maximum height limit of 10m. In terms of the maximum height limit of 10m, it is recognised that the applicant has offered a condition of consent to restrict the height of buildings within proposed Lot 1 to no more than 8 metres (refer to page 12 of the application within Attachment 2).

Whilst Rule 38.4.2 Minor Residential Unit provides for the construction of a minor residential unit on the site, such development would not be enabled as a permitted activity as an additional user within the Right of Way arrangement would require resource consent under Rule 47.2.11 given the failure to achieve compliance with Whangarei District Council Environmental Engineering Standards 2010. Notwithstanding this, it is also recognised that the applicant has offered a condition of consent to preclude the ability to construct a minor residential unit on either proposed allotment (refer to page 12 of the application within Attachment 2).

The ability to establish a commercial or industrial activity on the application site is also precluded by Rule 38.3.1(e) Activities Generally which stipulates resource consent is required where such an activity is located within 100m of any existing residential unit on a separate site. When applying this rule it is Council practice to also include access arrangements to the activity, and as the shared access arrangement is within 100m of residential units on separate sites, the requirement for resource consent would be triggered under Rule 38.3.1.

Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that the permitted baseline is of limited relevance to the consideration of this application for a discretionary activity subdivision.

The actual and potential effects arising from the proposed development relate primarily to effects upon rural character and amenity (including landscape and visual amenity effects), effects of servicing and access arrangements, and cumulative effects which are discussed as follows.

6.3 Rural Character and Amenity

6.3.1 ‘Amenity’ as a resource management issue, is comprised of two components. This matter is discussed in The Ministry for the Environment’s publication ‘Managing Rural Amenity Conflicts’ (February 2001) which identifies the resource management issues surrounding rural amenity as follows:

“Amenity, as a resource management issue, is comprised of two components. First amenity attributes- these are the tangible and measurable matters such as noise, odour, density of development, shading etc that together define the amenity character of an area. The second component is perceptions and expectations that people hold about rural amenity. These derive from people’s culture, values and desires, and from people’s differing tolerances in relation to amenity attributes and to changes to those attributes. It is the difference in people’s perceptions and expectations that lie at the root of most amenity conflicts and these vary significantly within rural communities and between different communities”

17


6.3.2 It is recognised that there are varying forms of rural character which will inevitably feature residential activity to an extent, recognising that the Countryside Environment is not only used for primary production, but also as an area of low density residential living, including development commonly referred to as ‘rural residential’ or ‘lifestyle’ activity. There are no fixed definitions on these terms and therefore it is considered appropriate to refer to the District Plan to determine the extent to which the receiving environment relates to the framework of provisions applying to the Countryside Environment. In this regard, the District Plan identifies that the key attributes of the Countryside Environment, and high amenity values typically found within rural areas, are largely derivatives of the following attributes:

The intermittent nature of most agricultural activities;

Open landscape and views;

A low intensity of development;

Feelings of remoteness and community;

Low noise levels, particularly at night;

A high degree of privacy;

Daylight and sunlight access;

Low levels of vehicular traffic;

Green ‘unspoiled’ landscape with indigenous vegetation

6.3.3 In considering the above attributes in the context of the application site it is considered that:

Agricultural activity is intermittent in the sense that the predominant land use within the locality of Forest View Road is hobby farming, rather than self sustaining economic farming units. However larger land holdings to the west of the application site appear to be retained as pastoral farming units.

For reasons of topography and landform, the application site enjoys open landscapes and views to the west, however a more enclosed and contained pattern of development is evident along Forest View Road, and from properties along the right of way arrangement serving the application site. The sense of enclosure results from the prevalence of established shelterbelts and screening vegetation.

A low intensity of development is observed in the locality insofar as open space dominates over built upon space, however residential activity within the locality is evident through glimpses of residential units and additional visual cues such as letterboxes, private accessways, shelterbelts and screening vegetation.

Low noise levels are likely enjoyed within the locality.

A high degree of privacy is likely enjoyed by those residing within this area, owing to the separation distances between residential units, and other factors such as shelterbelts and vegetative screening.

Due to the ample separation distances between residences, daylight and sunlight access is not impeded by built development on neighbouring allotments.

Low levels of vehicular traffic are typically encountered within Forest View Road and the Right of Way Access arrangement, based on observations under two site visits, and statements within the access safety report that estimate total traffic generation from the right of way catchment to be approximately 48 movements per day.

18


The receiving environment features small stands and scattered patterns of established native vegetation, however cannot be considered an ‘unspoiled’ landscape, as it is a landscape which has been culturally modified by land use practices (farming) and residential development. It is however ‘green’ in the sense that is dominated by expanses of grass, shelterbelts and clusters of established vegetation.

6.3.4 A minimum net site area of 20 hectares has been assessed as appropriate for a controlled activity subdivision under the operative Whangarei District Plan, in order to recognise and protect the above characteristics, and provide for the efficient and orderly provision of services. It is widely accepted by the Environment Court that there is a direct correlation between a decreasing average lot size and loss of rural character (as affirmed in Foster v Rodney District Council [2010] NZRMA 159). To this end, the District Plan places significant emphasis on allotment size as a mechanism for maintaining rural amenity and character. In this regard, section 73.4 Principle Reasons for Rules/ Explanations of the District Plan directs the guidance of subdivision applications as follows:

“A range of allotment sizes has been provided for as a discretionary activity to enable flexibility in subdivision design. This has been achieved by using an average allotment size, together with restrictions on the number and size of allotments below 3 hectares in the Countryside Environment and 5 hectares in the Coastal Countryside Environment. Separate development rights in exchange for the protection of natural heritage or revegetation/enhancement have been incorporated by way of ‘Environmental Benefit’ allotments.

Subdivision that does not comply with a standard for a controlled or discretionary activity is a non-complying activity. Consequently, for any such proposal to be assessed as acceptable, the applicant would first need to show that the proposed subdivision would have no more than minor effects on the overall level of density appropriate to the Environment in question, and/or was consistent with the density of development in the immediate area surrounding the proposal. In other words, the proposed subdivision would need to be in keeping with the surrounding allotment sizes already in existence and should not increase the existing density of development by producing smaller allotment sizes.

6.3.5 Through the subdivision of the application site into two independent titles of 2.2ha and 6.1ha, the proposal facilitates additional development rights in the form of:

A further residential unit within Lot 1 (an existing residential unit is located within Lot 2).

An additional user of the Right of Way access, but no further users as a minor residential unit is precluded on Lot 1 or Lot 2.

Total building coverage of 500m² or 5% of the net site area of each allotment (which ever is the greater). Given the net site area of Lot 1 is identified as 2.20ha, total building coverage of 1010m² would be enabled, however the applicant’s agent has since confirmed their acceptance of a condition restricting building coverage (of all buildings) to no more than 500.0m² (as discussed in 6.3.9 of this report).

There is no limit upon the number of accessory buildings, providing compliance with the relevant bulk and location controls is achieved. These are set out under Chapter 38 of the District Plan, a copy of which is provided in Attachment 9.

6.3.6 It is recognised that the application incorporates the following measures to control future development within Lot 1 as a means to mitigate adverse effects on rural character and amenity:

The identification of prescribed building area (as identified on the scheme plan of subdivision) to contain all residential buildings.

19


A height restriction of 8 metres applying to all buildings within the building area (a height limit of 10m is otherwise enabled within the Countryside Environment);

Controls on the reflectivity of buildings and paving; and

Precluding the opportunity for a minor residential unit to be constructed (on both Lot 1 and Lot 2).

Restricting building coverage on Lot 1 to no more than 500.0m² (refer to 6.3.10 of this report).

6.3.7 The proposed scheme plan of subdivision (supported by a consent notice condition proposed by the applicant to ensure ongoing compliance) identifies a building envelope for a residential unit and all accessory buildings associated with the residential unit. The suggested condition (as detailed on page 13 of the application) enables additional structures such as barns, pump sheds and water tanks to be located outside the identified building area.

6.3.8 The identified building area is located centrally within Lot 1. The application states that any proposed residential unit will be screened by landscaping planting from views from neighbouring properties to the north and east. Whilst a condition of consent to this effect is not proposed, it is noted that the adjoining properties to the north, west and southern boundaries have provided their written approval to the activity, and visual effects on these parties are discounted accordingly. In addition, it is noted that the application site is characterised by a sense of openness, and the creation of shelterbelts would likely result in a compartmentalisation that may detract from this character. In addition, landform and topographical considerations, in addition to mitigation measures to control the location and scale of built development, ensure that building and accessways within Lot 1 would not be visually obtrusive, and would be viewed in the context of existing built development within Lot 2. In this regard, a landscaping condition is not considered necessary or appropriate in this instance.

6.3.9 The submission of G Downie and Edith Kazmierczak raises concerns relating to the density of development and associated visual effects of future development of Lot 1, noting, ‘the entrance way to the new proposed allotment, the driveway, any landscaping and dwellings built will be visible from our gardens and lawns which currently have rural and pastoral views down into the valley to the north west”.

6.3.10 As per the Section 92 request contained within Attachment 5, the applicant’s agent was invited to provide comment in relation to the concerns raised by Mr Downie and Ms Kazmierczak. In his response, Mr Mortimer notes that the proposed building envelope within Lot 1 is separated from the Right of Way by approximately 40m, and is separated from their residence by a distance in excess of 100m. Mr Mortimer also notes that the Downie/ Kazmiercak residence is elevated above Lot 1. Combined with the mitigation measures proposed, Mr Mortimer considers any change in amenity effects to be less than minor on this party. Taking into account the separation distance between the Downie residence and Lot 1, and the elevation of this property which will serve to maintain privacy and outlook, I also consider that the future effects of potential development within Lot 1 are unlikely to detract from existing levels of amenity enjoyed by Mr Downie and Ms Kazmierczak, particularly in light of the suite of mitigation measures proposed. However it is suggested that potential building coverage of 1010m² may be excessive on an allotment of 2.020ha. In this regard, a consent notice condition restricting building coverage on Lot 1 to not exceed 500.0m² is considered appropriate in the context of the scale of this allotment. This matter has been put forward to the applicant, who has confirmed their acceptance to such a restriction.

6.3.11 It is noted that the applicant has volunteered a building height restriction of 8 metres (applying to all buildings within the designated building area), however to ensure that residential buildings are of a similar character to residential buildings in the locality (generally single level), and to ensure such buildings are not visually obtrusive

20


elements in the receiving environment, it is recommended that a 6 metre height limit is imposed by way of consent notice.

6.3.12 It is noted that Mr Downie and Ms Kazmierczak raise concerns about the effects of a construction phase, however there is no information to suggest that such effects would be outside the ambits of noise effects enabled under Rule 38.3.11 Construction Noise, and would likely be short term in duration.

6.3.13 The proposal is not considered to represent sporadic subdivision on the basis that the allotment areas proposed are consistent with the existing development pattern within the receiving environment, and it is recognised that the overall density of development meets the relevant criteria to be considered a Discretionary Activity under the allotment area provisions, which were developed to enable flexibility in subdivision design (as stated in 73.4 Principle Reasons for Rules/Explanations). Furthermore, the allotment areas proposed are also of sufficient area to incorporate a component of rural activity. Taking into account mitigation measures relating to the scale and location of built development, it is further considered that the allotment areas proposed are of sufficient area to maintain the open space character enjoyed within the existing environment. As such, it is considered that the density of development enabled under this application will not undermine existing levels of rural character and amenity enjoyed within the locality.

6.3.14 The District Plan places emphasis upon avoiding the visual effects of ribbon development. As the site is well separated, with visibility precluded from, Three Mile Bush Road and other public viewing points, no concerns in relation to ribbon development are identified in this instance.

6.3.15 Overall, taking into account the above matters, including the suite of mitigation measures proposed, I am satisfied that the density of development set by the proposal will result in minor effects on existing levels of rural character, and visual amenity, and consider such effects to be acceptable in the context of the receiving environment.

6.4 Site Suitability and Servicing

6.4.1 The application is supported by a subdivision report prepared by Richardson Stevens Consulting Engineers (reference 11325, dated 30 May 2012) which provides an investigation on the stability of the proposed subdivision, wastewater management, water supply and stormwater. Access arrangements are also discussed within this report (refer to the assessment contained in section 6.5 of this report).

6.4.2 In terms of stability, the subdivision report prepared by Richardson Stevens Consulting Engineers has regard to the Whangarei District Council hazard maps (refer Attachment 4), which denotes proposed Lot 1 having areas of low and medium instability hazard. It is noted that the proposed development area as identified on the scheme plan of subdivision is situated within the area of low instability hazard. The report concludes that the risk of instability within the identified development area is low as the soils comply with the NZS:3604 2011 definition of ‘good ground’, and standard foundations would be suitable, however any development outside of this envelope would require further investigation by a Chartered Professional Engineer. This report has been reviewed by Senior Environmental Engineering Officer, Vlad Rozov, and no concerns with the findings of this report have been identified. A full copy of Mr Rozov’s report (including recommended conditions of consent) is provided within Attachment 7 for the consideration of the Hearing Commissioner.

6.4.3 In terms of water supply, the absence of reticulated water supplies in the locality will require the provision of rainwater storage and collection tanks within proposed Lot 1. It is also noted that the construction of a residential unit within proposed Lot 1 would require the provision of sufficient water supply for fire fighting purposes by way of tank storage or other approved means, and that the water supply be accessible by way of by fire fighting appliances in accordance with Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 and more particularly with the New Zealand Fire Service Fire Fighting Code of Practice SNZ PAS 4509:2008. Should the consent be

21


approved, Mr Rozov has recommended this requirement form a consent notice condition pursuant to Section 221 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

6.4.4 In terms of stormwater, the subdivision report concludes that there are no obvious overland flow paths within the proposed development area of proposed Lot 1. The report notes that as the area of Lot 1 exceeds 1ha, and impervious areas are anticipated to be less than 5%, stormwater attenuation will not be required in accordance with Section 4.11.1 of Whangarei District Council Environmental Engineering Standards 2010. In his report, Mr Rozov notes that at the time of building consent to develop proposed Lot 2, the applicant would be required to demonstrate that stormwater disposal off-site will not exceed that which existed prior to development.

6.4.5 In terms of wastewater management, the report noted that the existing residential unit within Lot 2 is serviced by an existing wastewater system which is operating effectively within the proposed boundaries, and that proposed Lot 1 has sufficient area to accommodate an on-site waste-water management system in compliance with the Northland Regional Council Regional Water and Soil Plan and Australian/New Zealand Standard (AS/NZS) 1547: 2012 On-site Domestic Wastewater Management. Having regard to geology (volcanic Silty Loams) and topography (a maximum slope of approximately 10º), the report recommends the area of land to the north of the building site on Lot 1 as being suitable for wastewater disposal via a primary treated septic tank discharging to shallow trenches, or a primary treated septic tank discharging to evapo-transpiration (ETS) beds, which should be designed by a Chartered Professional Engineer prior to any application for building consent. Mr Rozov has recommended a consent notice condition to ensure any development of proposed Lot 1 proceeds in accordance with the recommendations and restrictions of the subdivision report prepared Richardson Stevens Consulting Engineers (reference 11325, dated 30 May 2012.

6.4.6 In conclusion, subject to recommended conditions of consent to ensure on-site servicing does not give rise to externalised effects, it is considered that the applicant has demonstrated that the site is suitable for the development proposed.

6.5 Access and Safety Effects

6.5.1 The application (as provided within Attachment 1) contains a subdivision report prepared by Richardson Stevens Consulting Engineers (reference 11325, dated 30 May 2012) which includes an assessment of existing and proposed access arrangements to the subdivision. The report notes that the current right of way, which currently serves eight allotments, is constructed of approximately 400m of seal varying from 4.5m- 3.5m, and 220m of 3.5m wide unsealed carriageway serving the last five lots. Table 4 Rights of Way as provided within the application contains details of all titles subject to a Right of Way Easement Certificate on the respective Computer Freehold Registers.

6.5.2 The existing access arrangement does not achieve the required width stipulated under Whangarei District Council Environmental Engineering Standards 2010, and the proposed subdivision will add an additional user within the shared access arrangement, thereby resulting in 9 users over the Right of Way easement marked A, and 6 users over the Right of Way marked C.

6.5.3 As per Category G of Table 3.7 Minimum Width Requirements- Private Accessways of Whangarei District Council Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 (a copy of which is provided within Attachment 7), a private accessway serving 6-8 users is required to have a minimum legal width of 10m, including 5.5m of seal. For the part of the access serving 9 users, Whangarei District Council Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 requires the access to be formed to public road standard (unless an alternative standard is authorised by way of resource consent).

6.5.4 In terms of the effect of an additional user within the right of way, the subdivision report provided Richardson Stevens Consulting Engineers states as follows:

22


‘This is a low speed access and being largely lifestyle residential, conflicting traffic movements at peak times are expected to be infrequent. To mitigate the under width right of way our clients are proposing to construct a number (four) of short passing bays and a longer central passing bay as shown on the attached plans. From our site visit we consider this to be the most practical option and anywhere that is available has been utilised in the proposal. The upgraded access should provide safe and efficient vehicle access to the 9 properties it will service”.

6.5.5 The applicant was requested to obtain a technical review of the assessment and mitigation recommendations contained in the Richardson Stevens Consulting Engineers assessment, as per the Section 92 request dated 16 August 2012. The applicant duly obtained an Access Safety Assessment prepared by Engineering Outcomes Ltd, a copy of which is provided within Attachment 3.

6.5.6 The Access Safety Assessment concludes that the average traffic generation from houses in this locality is estimated to average 6 movements per household, thereby increasing traffic generation using the right of way from 48 movements per day to 54 movements. The report notes that the entire catchment leads onto the access beyond Bend 1, however only four existing (five proposed) lots lead onto the access beyond Bend 3. In this regard, the traffic at Bend 3 is anticipated to increase from 24 movements to 30 movements per day.

6.5.7 The Access Safety Assessment considers that the safety of a single access arrangement is based upon a combination of three factors, being: forward visibility, the speed of vehicles as they approach locations with restricted forward visibility; and the frequency of meetings of opposing vehicles at locations with restricted forward visibility. The report goes on to assess the Safe Stopping Sight Distances (SSSD) in both directions of bends within the access, and recommends that speed bumps on the eastern approach to Bend 1 and Bend 3 are installed, in order to reduce vehicle travelling speed to less than 10 kilometres per hour. The sealing of the carriageway through Bend 3 is also identified as appropriate in order to ensure the minimum SSSD is achieved. Given satisfactory forward visibility experienced at Bend 2, no speed control is identified as necessary in this location.

6.5.8 The report notes that the proposed passing bays will ensure that reversing along the access is not required (however this finding is disputed by a submitter).

6.5.9 Further to the close of submissions, a Section 92 request (as provided within Attachment 5), was issued to require the applicant to provide legal advice to confirm that the Right of Way Easement rights enable the applicant to undertake all necessary and proposed mitigation measures (including creation of passing bays and installation of speed bumps). The Section 92 response (also provided within Attachment 5) includes legal advice from Grant Currie of Thomson Wilson Law, that states:

“Given that our client currently enjoys a general easement consisting of a right of way there is no requirement that they obtain the consent of the servient tenement owners. The existing right of way easements will automatically attach to the subdivided properties.

The implied rights and powers available under the ninth schedule of the Property Law Act 1952 and seventh schedule of the Land Transfer Act 1952 permit the owner’s of the dominant tenements to form a carriageway over the defined easement area. These rights should fully encompass any of council’s requirements as to the standard of formation”.

Based on the above legal advice, it is accepted that the applicant has the legal right to give effect to the mitigation measures proposed within the application”

6.5.10 The submissions of both G Downie/ E Kazmierczak and J Grierson raise concerns that the proposed passing bays will encroach upon areas of privately owned land beyond the Right of Way Easement. In this regard, Attachment 5 contains confirmation from the applicant’s surveyor (Sam Beasley) that all right of way

23


construction and proposed passing bays are within the extent of the existing legal right of way, and do not utilise privately owned land.

6.5.11 The submission of J Grierson raises concerns that the necessary mitigation measures encroach onto areas of private land, and that the first passing area (P1) is an entrance gate to her property, and a passing bay in this location may impede access to her property. In response (contained within Attachment 3) the applicant’s traffic engineer notes that a passing bay in this location will not block the gate:

“The proposed passing bay will not block the gate. In fact, this passing bay has already been formed as an approach to the gate... Vehicles that use this passing bay will only have to wait in it for a few seconds. The gate leads onto part of an orchard, not an existing house. As such, the gate will receive very little use- much less than a gate that leads to a house.

The probability of a vehicle being blocked from using that entrance/ gate while another vehicle waits in the passing bays is extremely small. In the unlikely event that such conflict does occur, the effect will be no more than the need for one vehicle to wait a few seconds longer than otherwise.

Furthermore, the area in front of the gate might be already used as a passing bay in which case the effect is only the incremental effect of one additional lot.”

6.5.12 The submission of G Downie/ E Kazmierczak is concerned that the creation of a passing bay outside the entrance to their property is within private land (as discussed in 6.5.10) and the location is likely to raise safety issues as it is ‘directly outside the entrance’ to their property. In response, the applicant’s agent has provided further information relating to this matter (as contained within Attachment 5):

“The passing bay in question is nearly 10 metres clear of, and entirely beyond Mr Downie and Ms Kazmiercak’s driveway entrance. Mr Downie and Ms Kazmiercsak will almost always, if not always, travel to and from Forest View Road. In doing so, they will not travel past the passing bay they are concerned about”.

No safety concerns with the location of the relevant passing bay have been identified by Senior Environmental Engineering Officer, Vlad Rozov.

6.5.13 The submission of G Downie/ E Kazmierczak raises concerns relating to run off, particularly as a result of the proposal to seal Bend 3 (a length of approximately 40m) of the access. In this regard, further comment was invited from the applicant in relation to potential effects (as per Attachment 5). In response, the applicant’s traffic engineer notes that whilst sealing will increase runoff, the drainage and crossfalls encountered within the access will give rise to negligible effects, unlikely to be noticed by residents. This information has been reviewed by Senior Environmental Engineering Officer, Vlad Rozov, who has not identified any concerns with these findings.

6.5.14 Ms Grierson’s submission raises concerns relating to the durability of rubber speed bumps. As such, the Section 92 request of 1 November 2012 (letter and response contained within Attachment 5) invited further comment in this respect. In response, the applicant’s traffic engineer states as follows:

“The design of the proposed devices includes their use in the offroad parking areas, including those of large retail stores. Such areas receive far more frequent use than a private access that leads to only nine lots. I have inspected similar devices in the carparks of several large retailers as part of other projects. I have not noticed any significant deterioration on those devices. Overall, I am confident the proposed devices are fit for purpose and will have more than adequate durability”.

6.5.15 Overall, having regard to the mitigation measures identified within both the subdivision report prepared Richardson Stevens Consulting Engineers, and the Access Safety Assessment prepared by Engineering Outcomes, the latter concludes that “with these measures in place, it is concluded that the traffic from the additional

24


lot will be adequately managed such that the access will have an adequate factor of safety against head-on collisions and the effects of the additional traffic will be less than minor”. In his report (provided within Attachment 7), Whangarei District Council’s Senior Environmental Engineering Officer, Vlad Rozov, concurs with this finding. Taking into account the mitigation measures proposed to ensure safety within the access is maintained or improved where necessary, it is considered that the effects of an additional user within the Right of Way will be acceptable upon all existing users.

6.6 Cumulative Effects

6.6.1 Dye v Auckland Regional Council [2002] 1 NZLR 337 is regarded as the leading case on cumulative effects. In considering the characteristics of cumulative effects, the Court stated:

“A cumulative effect is concerned with things that will occur rather than with something that may occur, that being the connotation of a potential effect… The concept of cumulative effect arising over time is one of a gradual build up consequence.

The concept of combination with other effects is one of effect A combining with effects B and C to create an overall composite effect D. All of these are effects which are going to happen as a result of the activity which is under consideration.”

6.6.2 Having regard to the above, the following assessment considers whether the residual effects of the proposed activity (after mitigation by conditions) will give rise to an unacceptable increase in cumulative adverse effects that are beyond the carrying capacity of the receiving environment, including supporting infrastructure and the amenity and character values that form the surrounding environment.

6.6.3 For a cumulative effect to be significant, it must breach a threshold or ‘tip the balance’. In this instance, the proposal represents one additional allotment, thereby providing the opportunity for the development of an additional residential unit (and accessory buildings within the applicable bulk and location controls), which will generate associated visual effects of additional buildings within the landscape, and associated effects associated with residential activity (such as noise, light spill, vehicle movements). In considering the cumulative effects of the proposal, regard has been had in terms of the location of parties who have provided their written approval to the activity, topographical and landform factors which will generally serve to maintain rural amenity and outlook from other properties in the locality, and expert evidence from a Traffic Engineer that suggests additional vehicle movements (projected to be in the vicinity of 6 additional movements daily) generated within the Right of Way, combined with mitigation measures to address safety within the access, will ensure safety is maintained.

6.6.4 For the above reasons, and taking into account the allotment areas proposed, which are considered to represent a pattern and density of land use which is appropriate to the locality I am satisfied that the proposal is unlikely to demonstrably ‘tip the balance’ to give rise to unacceptable effects beyond the supporting capacity of the receiving environment, at this particular moment in time.

6.6.5 It is recognised that the submission of J Grierson acknowledges her future intention to subdivide her property (40 Forest View Road) and a copy of her proposed scheme plan of subdivision is enclosed within her submission. The scheme plan illustrates her intention to subdivide her property of 4.3830ha into three title areas of 2.162ha, 1.25ha (net) and 8720m². It is recognised that at this point in time, no such subdivision application relating to this property has been received by Whangarei District Council, and therefore no consideration of such a proposal may be had in terms of cumulative effects as there is no certainty that this will occur. In the event that such an application is lodged, it will be considered on its own merits. It is noted that the allotment areas proposed under the Wright/Dugmore application are a Discretionary Activity pursuant to Rule 73.3.1 Allotment Area. As the proposal is not

25


a Non Complying Activity, precedent effects are not a relevant consideration in this instance.

6.7 Effects summary

6.7.1 On the basis of the above assessment, taking into account recommended conditions of consent, I am of the opinion that the adverse effects on the environment arising from the proposal will be minor and acceptable.

7.0 Relevant Policy Statements, Plans or Proposed Plans (s104(1)(b))

7.1.1 The following sections assess whether the proposal will be contrary to the relevant objectives and policies of the relevant plans for the subject site- being the Operative Whangarei District Plan, Northland Regional Policy Statement (both the operative and proposed) and the Regional Water and Soil Plan for Northland.

7.2 Northland Regional Policy Statement

7.2.1 The Regional Policy Statement for Northland (RPS) was made operative in July 2002, however in October 2012, a new Proposed Regional Policy Statement for Northland (PRPS) was publicly notified, which will (in its final form) supersede the 2002 document. These documents contain high level policy guidance for the development of lower order statutory documents, including the Regional Soil and Water Plan, and the District Plan.

7.2.2 No apparent conflicts between the proposed RPS have been identified.

7.2.3 In terms of the PRPS, new objectives and policies are presented in terms of guiding regional form. In particular policy 5.1.1 Planned and Co-Ordinated Development seeks to ensure that:

“Development should be located, designed and built in a planned and co-ordinated manner which:

(c) recognises and addresses potential cumulative effects of subdivision, use and development and is based on sufficient information to allow assessment of the potential long-term effects of development;”

(e) Should not result in incompatible adjacent land uses and avoids the potential for reverse sensitivity; and

(f) Maintains or enhance the sense of place and character of the surrounding environment.

7.2.4 The above policy seeks to introduce a ‘strategic and pro activity policy’ that will guide sustainable regional form that not only connects with existing infrastructure, but contributes to sense of place. It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the above policy, on the basis that the allotment areas proposed are consistent with the density of development that underpins the character of the locality, and whilst recognising that the proposal adjoins larger tracts of land to the west and south that are used for pastoral farming, the written approval of these landowners suggests that no concerns relating to reverse sensivity considerations exist.

7.2.5 Notwithstanding the above it is recognised that the PRPS is still in the early stage of consultation and is still a significant way from becoming operative. Thus while consideration of the proposed RPS is useful, it should be attributed little weighting in this instance as it is only a working draft in the early stages of consultation. Therefore on balance it is considered that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the relevant objectives and policies within the operative RPS.

7.3 Regional Water and Soil Plan for Northland

7.3.1 The Regional Water and Soil Plan for Northland (RWSP), which is administered by the Northland Regional Council, covers the land and water resources of the

26


Northland region, it controls discharges and land disturbance activities. The Plan aims to prevent activities occurring which would result in unacceptable adverse effects.

7.3.2 Council’s Senior Environmental Engineering Officer, Vlad Rosov, has considered matters relating to site servicing, including the engineering advice included within the application. Mr Rosov is satisfied that with appropriate conditions of consent, future development will likely achieve the environmental results anticipated by the RWSP.

7.4 Operative Whangarei District Plan

7.4.1 In terms of the objectives and policies of relevance to the proposal, these are included within Chapter 5 ‘Amenity Values’, Chapter 6 Built Form and Development, Chapter 8 ‘Subdivision and Development’ and Chapter 22 ‘Road Transport’. A full copy of these chapters is included in Attachment 8.

7.4.2 The following table assesses the proposed subdivision against the relevant objectives and policies within these Chapters:

7.4.3 Assessment of Relevant Objectives and Policies within the District Plan

Chapter 5 – Amenity Values

Objective Comment

5.3.1 The characteristic amenity values of each Environment are maintained and, where appropriate enhanced.

Taking into account the density and pattern of development within the locality of Forest View Road, I am satisfied that the proposal is consistent, and will not detract from, the characteristic amenity values found within this area. In addition, mitigation measures proposed by the applicant will ensure development of Lot 1 would be located and designed to ensure existing levels of amenity in the surrounding environment will be maintained.

5.3.5 The actual or potential effects of subdivision use and development is appropriately controlled and those activities located and designed, are to be compatible with existing and identified future patterns of development and levels of amenity in the surrounding environment.

Policy Comment

5.4.5 Countryside Environments - To ensure rural amenity values in the Countryside Environments are protected from subdivision, use or development that is sporadic or otherwise inappropriate in character, intensity, scale or location.

Having regard to the existing density and pattern of development characterising the locality, I am satisfied that the proposal does not represent development that is sporadic or otherwise inappropriate in character, intensity, scale or location.

Chapter 6 – Built Form and Development

Objective Comment

6.3.2 Subdivision and development that ensures consolidated development in appropriate locations and avoids sprawling or sporadic subdivision and ribbon development patterns in the coastal and rural environment.

The Oxford Dictionary defines ‘consolidated’ as making something stronger or more solid or to combine (a number of things) into a single more effective or coherent whole’. Conversely, ‘sporadic’ is defined as (something) occurring at irregular intervals or only in a few places; scattered or isolated.

27


Policy Taking into account the established pattern of lifestyle development within the locality of Forest View Road, I believe that the subdivision will consolidate the existing development pattern. Whilst it is arguable that the proposal will intensify development through the creation of an additional allotment, I do not consider the level of intensification as unacceptable or beyond the supporting capacity of the receiving environment. As such, I do not regard the proposal as a form of sporadic subdivision or a significant departure from the existing form of lifestyle development characterising the locality.

6.4.2 Consolidated Development To consolidate urban development by:

i. Further develop within existing built up areas, so as to avoid sporadic or sprawling subdivision and ribbon development patterns, particularly in rural areas and along the coast.

ii. Directing rural lifestyle and rural-residential development to appropriate locations adjacent to existing settlements, rather than allowing sporadic development throughout rural and coastal areas.

6.4.10 Policy – Productive Soils

i. To identify and protect the district’s highly productive and versatile soils for their productive capacity.

ii. To recognise the value of productive soils and economic farming units to the District’s economy.

The existing allotment is not of sufficient area to be considered an economic farming unit. Notwithstanding this, intensive primary production on the site would be likely to give rise to sensitivity issues (for example, spraydrift) upon adjacent residential lifestyle holdings.

As such, it is considered that objectives and policies relating to productive soils have limited relevance in this instance.

Chapter 8 – Subdivision and Development This chapter provides a policy framework to address the effects of subdivision and development on the environment, and acknowledges that subdivision and development can have both positive and negative effects.

Objective Comment

8.3.1 Subdivision and development that achieves the sustainable management of natural and physical resources whilst avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the environment.

I am satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the purpose and principles of sustainable management, and subject to recommended conditions of consent, will incorporate sufficient and appropriate means to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the environment.

8.3.2 Subdivision and development that does not detract from the character of the locality and avoids conflicts between incompatible land use activities.

As previously discussed, I am satisfied that the proposal will not detract from the character of the locality, and no conflicts between incompatible land use activities have been identified.

8.3.7 Subdivision and development that provides for comprehensive development of land with a range of

Having regard to the density and pattern of allotment sizes which characterise this locality, I am satisfied that the allotment areas proposed under the

28


allotment sizes and is appropriate to the character of the Environment in which it is located.

application are appropriate within the context of the environment in which they are located.

Policy

8.4.3 Density of Development To ensure that subdivision and development results in a pattern and density of land use which reflects flexibility in allotment size, and is of a density appropriate to the locality.

8.4.4 Cumulative Effects To ensure that the cumulative effects of on-going subdivision and development do not compromise the objectives and policies of this Plan, in particular those objectives and policies relating to reducing conflicts between incompatible landuse activities, the consolidated and orderly development of land and the density of development.

As discussed earlier in this report, I do not consider the development rights facilitated by the proposal will give rise to cumulative effects that are beyond the absorption capacity of the receiving environment.

8.4.12 Services and Infrastructure To ensure that all subdivision and development is capable of being provided, by the subdivider or developer, with adequate services and infrastructure having regard to Whangarei District Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 (except where the subdivision or development is for specific protection purposes), including:

Vehicle access, including emergency service vehicle access;

Water supply, (including for fire fighting purposes), storm water and sewage disposal;

Energy and telecommunication connections;

Useable open space in urban areas;

During the design and construction of the subdivision, measures to reduce storm water run off.

No constraints in terms of the on-site servicing arrangements proposed have been identified, and suitable conditions of consent pursuant to Section 108 of the Resource Management Act 1991 have been recommended to ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with Whangarei District Council Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 and the relevant standards of utility providers.

Chapter 22 – Road Transport.

Objective Comment

22.3.1 Establish and maintain a safe and efficient road transport network.

Taking into account the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant to maintain the safe

29


22.3.3 Protect the road transport network from the adverse effects of adjacent land use, development or subdivision.

operation of vehicles and pedestrians within the Right of Way, Council’s Senior Environmental Engineering Officer is satisfied that the increase in traffic levels associated with the proposal will be less than minor, with no adverse effects upon traffic safety or efficiency. Hence the proposal is regarded as being consistent with the objectives and policies of Chapter 22 of the District Plan relating to road transport

7.4.4 On balance, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the emphasis of the above objectives and policies. Taking into account the established pattern of lifestyle development characterising the locality, I am satisfied that the proposal does not represent sporadic subdivision or a ‘scattered form of residential development’. It is considered that the proposal will generally consolidate the existing development pattern characterising the locality. Whilst it is arguable that the proposal will intensify development through the creation of one additional allotment, I do not consider the level of intensification as unacceptable or beyond the absorption capacity of the receiving environment, particularly given the scale of the allotments proposed, which will facilitate rural activity and maintain the open space character of the receiving environment. In addition, restrictions on the height, scale and location of future built development within Lot 1 will ensure that such development does not compromise the visual amenity and character of the rural landscape. Overall, as the overall density of development set by the approval of this application will not erode existing levels of rural character and amenity, I am satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the overarching objectives and policies of the Operative District Plan.

8.0 Other Matters

8.1 Non-statutory Planning Documents & Plan Changes

8.1.1 In terms of additional matters of relevance to the consideration of this application pursuant to Section 104(1)(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991, it is appropriate to consider the Kamo, Springs Flat, Three Mile Bush and Whau Valley Structure Plan, Plan Change 93 Urban Transition Environment and Draft Rural Development Strategy. These matters are discussed as follows.

8.2 Kamo, Springs Flat, Three Mile Bush and Whau Valley Structure Plan

8.2.1 Whangarei District Council adopted the ‘Kamo, Springs Flat, Three Mile Bush and Whau Valley Structure Plan’ in February 2009. The site is included within the Structure Plan area, and was identified as retaining the current Countryside Environment zoning, however the area approximately 1.5km east of the application site was identified as appropriate for the creation of a new District Plan Environment (zone) providing for rural residential subdivision and development, as per Figure 5 below.

30


Figure5 : Rural Residential Development- Three Mile Bush Road (excerpt from Kamo, Springs Flat, Three Mile Bush and Whau Valley Structure Plan).

8.2.2 Since the adoption of the above structure plan, Whangarei District Council has since given effect to the stated intentions for this area under Plan Change 93 Urban Transition Environment.

8.3 Plan Change 93 Urban Transition Environment

8.3.1 Plan Change 93 Urban Transition Environment (UTE): seeks to introduce a new ‘environment’ (zone) to the Operative District Plan that will include a New ‘Urban Transition’ section – with objectives, policies and rules guiding land use, subdivision and development and introducing updated District Plan maps – denoting the Urban Transition Environment. Attachment 8 contains documentation relating to Plan Change 93.

8.3.2 At this point in time, Plan Change 93 is not yet operative, as Whangarei District Council is currently awaiting the Environment Court’s consideration of appeals to the plan change. However it is relevant to note that in terms of subdivision controls, it is anticipated that subdivision proposals whereby allotments are no larger than 2500m² (with one lot per 5000m2 of net site area, qualified by a ‘no dwelling’ restriction on no less than 50% of the total site area prior to subdivision) will be enabled within this area. The overall intent of the zone is to enable residential zone, with a rural outlook. Whilst it is relevant to note that the application site was not identified for inclusion within the Urban Transition Environment, it is located in close proximity to both this zone, and the township of Kamo. In this regard, it is worthwhile noting that the current Countryside Environment subdivision provisions, as they relate to the application site and all other areas of the District, are currently in the process of being reviewed as part of the Draft Rural Development Strategy.

8.4 Draft Rural Development Strategy 2012

8.4.1 Whangarei District Council is currently reviewing the Countryside Environment and Coastal Countryside Environment under the draft Rural Development Strategy, which has been prepared to identify the important resource management issues for the rural area, and provide a high level vision for the rural area that will underpin future District Plan changes (likely to be drafted in 2013).

8.4.2 It is anticipated that the current generic Countryside Environment and Coastal Countryside Environment will be replaced with new Environments that recognise and provide for the characteristic rural amenity values of particular rural areas, for example, the creation of new Environments (zones) which provide specific objectives,

31


policies and rules which more accurately recognise and provide for land use, subdivision and development of specific areas of the district which are characterised by either rural production, rural living, rural villages or rural industry.

8.4.3 Given the early stage of this planning process, no information is available relating to a potential plan change to the locality of Forest View Road is available, however it is fair to assume that any future plan change to this area will have regard to the pattern of rural lifestyle development which currently characterises this area.

9.0 Part 2 Matters

9.1 Section 5 – Purpose

9.1.1 Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 details the overarching purpose and principles of the Act.

9.1.2 In terms of Part 2 of the Act, the proposed activity must meet the purpose of the Act set out in section 5 which is “to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.” As outlined in section 5(2), “sustainable management” means:

“managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well being and for their health and safety while -

Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and

Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.”

9.1.3 For the reasons identified earlier in this report, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the purpose of the Act.

9.1.4 Section 5 of the Act is supported by a number of other ancillary principles contained in sections 6, 7 and 8 in Part 2 of the Act that provide decision makers with a set of guidelines that reflect current government policies and ideologies in regards to resource management, and assist in the interpretation of sustainable management. The relevance of these sections to the proposed subdivision is assessed below.

9.2 Section 6 – Matters of National Importance

9.2.1 Section 6 of the Act highlights matters of national importance that shall be recognised and provided for in order to achieve the sustainable management purpose of the Act. No matters provided under section 6 are considered to be relevant to consideration of this application.

9.3 Section 7 – Other Matters

9.3.1 Section 7 of the Act lists other matters that particular regard shall be given to in order to achieve the purpose of the Act. The following matters as outlined in Section 7 of the Act are considered particularly relevant to the consideration of this application;

(b) The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources;

(c) The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values;

(f) Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment

9.3.2 The proposal is considered to be consistent with the above imperatives.

32


9.4 Section 8 – Treaty of Waitangi

9.4.1 Section 8 requires that decision makers take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in managing the use development and protection of natural and physical resources. No conflicts with the provisions of Section 8 have been identified.

9.4.2 Overall, the proposal is considered to be consistent with Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

10.0 Conclusion & Recommendation

10.1 Conclusion

10.1.1 The proposal is consistent with Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 insofar as it is consistent with the sustainable management of natural and physical resources; recognises the right of people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing; will maintain existing levels of amenity and character within the locality; and incorporates appropriate means to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the environment.

10.1.2 On the basis of the mitigation measures volunteered by the applicant, the development is regarded as consistent with the array of relevant objectives and policies of the operative Whangarei District Plan; particularly those which seek to ensure subdivision and development results in a pattern and density of land use which are of a density appropriate to the locality.

10.1.3 The development is also regarded as achieving the relevant issues, objectives and policies of the Regional Policy Statement for Northland relating to soil conservation and land management, and transport, and no conflicts with the Regional Policy Statement or Proposed Regional Policy Statement have been identified.

10.1.4 The actual and potential effects of the proposal are considered to be no more than minor and acceptable in this instance, as:

The proposal consolidates an existing density and pattern of development that characterises the locality of Forest View Road.

The applicant has demonstrated, through the provision of a Traffic Safety Assessment prepared by a Traffic Engineer, that the mitigation measures proposed (including additional sealing, creation of passing bays and installation of speed bumps) will ensure the ongoing safety of vehicles and pedestrians within the Right of Way, and the Right of Way access has sufficient capacity to accommodate an additional user without comprising safety.

Taking into account mitigation measures proposed relating to the location and scale of built development within Lot 1, it is considered that the receiving environment has sufficient capacity to absorb the effects of the proposal without ‘tipping the balance’ or compromising the existing levels of rural amenity or character which currently define this environment.

10.1.5 Having considered the application against the relevant provisions of the Act, it is therefore recommended that this application be granted.

33


10.2 Recommendations THAT pursuant to sections 104, 104B and 108 of the Resource Management Act 1991, it is recommended that Commissioner Alan Withy grant consent to A Wright and D Dugmore (SD1200071) to subdivide the application site (legally described as Lot 2 DP 160188 and Lot 2 DP 156177 contained in Computer Freehold Register NA96B/377) of 8.3080ha, located within the Countryside Environment, into two allotments of 2.20ha (Lot 1) and 6.10ha (Lot 2, containing an existing residential unit).

The site has a zoning of Countryside Environment under the operative provisions of the Whangarei District Plan, and is not subject to any Resource Area notations.

Under the subdivision rules contained within Chapter 71 of the Operative District Plan The shared access arrangements proposed are a Restricted Discretionary Activity under Rule 73.3.7 Property Access, whilst the proposal is a Discretionary Activity overall pursuant to the averaging provisions of Rule 73.3.1 Allotment Area.

Recommendation A

1. That the submission of S Vink, received by Whangarei District Council 1 day after the close of submissions be accepted pursuant to Section 37A of the Resource Management Act 1991, as the applicant received the submission within the time period, and the acceptance of this submission is consistent with the interests of the community, and no unreasonable delay was encountered in the receipt of this submission.

Recommendation B

1 Prior to issue of a Section 223 certificate

a) That subject to incorporating any changes necessitated by the following conditions of consent, the survey plan submitted for approval shall be in general accordance with the layout shown on the subdivision plan ‘Subdivision of Lot 2 DP 156177 & Lot 2 DP 160188 at Forest View Rd, Kamo for: A & D Wright’ prepared by Beasley & Burgess Surveyors, reference C28683, dated June 6 2012 (copy attached to this decision).

b) The consent holder must submit a detailed set of engineering plans prepared in accordance with Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 Edition. The engineering plans are to be submitted to the Senior Environmental Engineering Officer for approval.

It is to be noted that certain designs may only be carried out by an Independently Qualified Person (IQP) or Chartered Professional Engineer (CPEng) working within the bounds of their assessed competencies. IQP’s must have been assessed by Council and hold current registration to submit engineering design work.

All work needing design/certification by a Council approved IQP/CPEng will require the submission of a producer statement (design) on form EES-PS1 (or similar approved) to the satisfaction of the Senior Environmental Engineering Officer.

Plans are to include but are not limited to:

i. Design details of the upgrading of the rights of way system with passing bays (as identified on Beasley & Burgess plan of access ref: E2686 sheets 1 – 3 dated 16 April 2012), sealing the carriageway through Bend 3 and speed humps installed on the eastern approach to both Bends 1 & 3 (as identified on access safety assessment for subdivision of Lot 2 DP 156177 and Lot 2 DP 160188 compiled by Engineering Outcomes Ltd dated 2 September 2012 ) including a typical cross section, long section, culverts, drainage flow paths and overland flow (if necessary).

c) The consent holder shall provide written confirmation from power and telecommunications utility service operators of their consent conditions in accordance with Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 Edition and show necessary easements on the

34


survey plan to the approval of the Senior Environmental Engineering Officer or their delegated representative.

d) The consent holder must create easements over services and rights of way to the approval of the Senior Environmental Engineering Officer (SEEO).

e) The consent holder is to submit a Contract Construction Management Plan (for all works within the Right of Way Access) in accordance with Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010, to the approval of the Senior Environmental Engineering Officer.

2 Prior to issue of a section 224 (c) certificate;

a) All work on the approved engineering plans in condition 1(b) is to be carried out to the approval of the Senior Environmental Engineering Officer or their delegated representative.

In the case of works to remain in private ownership, these may be inspected and approved by a Council approved IQP who has been certified to design/construct such works. A producer statement (construction) on form EES-PS4 is to be provided by Council’s approved IQP, along with copies of all test results/photographs etc. The Senior Environmental Engineering Officer is to be advised of any necessary inspections/testing of private works a minimum of 24 hours before they take place in order that the Senior Environmental Engineering Officer may observe the inspection/testing if so desired.

Note: The Senior Environmental Engineering Officer (or their delegated representative) will not carry out the inspection/testing, this will be the duty of the Applicant’s IQP/project manager/contractor. The Senior Environmental Engineering Officer will simply observe the process.

Failure to comply with these requirements may result in the work not being accepted as complying with the Resource Consent conditions/Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 Edition.

No construction works are to commence onsite until the engineering plans required in condition 1(b) have been approved and all associated plan inspection fees have been paid.

Note: Any works within Public Reserve will require written certification from the controlling

authority.

b) The consent holder shall notify council, in writing, of their intention to begin works, a minimum of seven days prior to commencing works. Such notification shall be sent to the Senior Environmental Engineering Officer and include the following details:

i. Name and telephone number of the project manager/IQP. ii. Site address to which the consent relates. iii. Activities to which the consent relates. iv. Expected duration of works.

A copy of the approved engineering plans and a copy of the resource consent conditions and the above letter are to be held onsite at all times during construction. All personnel working on the site shall be made aware of, and have access to the resource consent and accompanying documentation.

c) The consent holder shall submit written confirmation from power and telecommunications utility services operators that their conditions for this development have been satisfied in accordance with Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 Edition to the approval of the Senior Environmental Engineering Officer or their delegated representative.

d) Spoil from the site must be controlled by the applicant and not be tracked out onto Council or State Highway Road formations.

35


e) Dust nuisance must be controlled onsite (by use of a watercart or similar) by the applicant so as not to cause ‘offensive or objectionable’ dust at or beyond the boundary of the development.

f) The consent holder must provide written confirmation from a Licensed Cadastral Surveyor that the existing effluent disposal field for proposed Lot 2 is contained within the allotment boundaries so as to comply with Section 15.1 - Permitted Activities for Sewage discharges of the Northland Regional Council Regional Water and Soil Plan for Northland noting the required separation distances to boundaries & surface water.

g) The consent holder must provide written confirmation from a Licensed Cadastral Surveyor that all services and accesses are located within the appropriate easement boundaries.

h) Pursuant to Section 221 of the Resource Management Act 1991, a consent notice must be prepared and be registered on the Computer Freehold Register of the specified allotments at the consent holder’s expense, containing the following conditions which are to be complied with on a continuing basis by the subdividing owner and subsequent owners:

Lot 1

i. Any development shall comply with the restrictions and recommendations identified in the engineering suitability report ref: 11325 compiled by Richardson Stevens Consultants Ltd dated 30 May 2012 unless an alternative engineering report prepared by a suitably experienced Chartered Professional Engineer is approved in writing by Council.

ii. Upon construction of any habitable dwelling, sufficient water supply for fire fighting purposes is to be provided by way of tank storage or other approved means, and that this water supply be accessible by fire fighting appliances in accordance with Council’s Environmental Engineering Standards 2010 and more particularly with the ‘NZFS Fire Fighting Code of Practice SNZ PAS 4509:2008’.

iii. The construction of a residential unit and accessory buildings associated with residential activity within Lot 1 shall take place within the designated building area identified on the approved scheme plan of subdivision prepared by Beasley & Burgess Surveyors, reference C28683, dated June 6 2012. For the avoidance of doubt, other buildings, pump sheds and water tanks may be constructed outside the designated building area.

iv. No building constructed within the designated building area shall exceed 6 metres maximum height (natural ground level method).

v. Total building coverage on Lot 1 (as defined under the Operative District Plan) shall not exceed 500.0m².

vi. The exterior surfaces of all buildings within the designated building area shall have exterior facades (excluding joinery and glazing) shall be finished in subdued natural colours or finishes with a reflectance value of no greater than 37%. Reflectance values of various colours are illustrated within the Resene BS5252 Total Colour Chart, Groups A and B). All roofs and water storage tanks within Lot 1 shall shall be finished in earthy recessive colours or finishes with a reflectance value of no greater than 25% (refer Resene BS5252 Total Colour Chart, Groups A and B). Any paving on Lot 1, when graded using the British Standard BS5252:1976 Framework for Colour Co-ordination for Building Purposes, shall have a reflectivity value of no more than 60% for greyness groups A or B, and 40% for greyness groups C. Suitable evidence of proposed colour schemes shall be provided for the approval of Whangarei District Council’s Manager Resource Consents (or delegated

36


representative) as part of an application for building consent.

Lots 1 and 2

vii. No minor residential unit (as defined under the Operative District Plan) shall be constructed on Lot 1 or Lot 2.

Reasons for the Recommendation:

That pursuant to section 113 of the Resource Management Act 1991 the reasons for this recommendation are as follows:

1. The proposal is consistent with Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 insofar as it is consistent with the sustainable management of natural and physical resources; recognises the right of people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing; will maintain existing levels of amenity and character within the localiity; and incorporates appropriate means to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the environment.

2. On the basis of the mitigation measures volunteered by the applicant, the development is regarded as consistent with the array of relevant objectives and policies of the operative Whangarei District Plan; particularly those which seek to ensure subdivision and development results in a pattern and density of land use which are of a density appropriate to the locality.

3. The development is also regarded as achieving the relevant issues, objectives and policies of the Regional Policy Statement for Northland relating to soil conservation and land management, and transport, and no conflicts with the Regional Policy Statement or Proposed Regional Policy Statement have been identified.

4. The actual and potential effects of the proposal are considered to be no more than minor and acceptable in this instance, as:

The proposal consolidates an existing density and pattern of development that characterises the locality of Forest View Road.

The applicant has demonstrated, through the provision of a Traffic Safety Assessment prepared by a Traffic Engineer, that the mitigation measures proposed (including additional sealing, creation of passing bays and installation of speed bumps) will ensure the ongoing safety of vehicles and pedestrians within the Right of Way, and the Right of Way access has sufficient capacity to accommodate an additional user without comprising safety.

Taking into account mitigation measures proposed relating to the location and scale of built development within Lot 1, it is considered that the receiving environment has sufficient capacity to absorb the effects of the proposal without ‘tipping the balance’ or compromising the existing levels of rural amenity or character which currently define this environment.

Advice Notes

1. The applicant shall pay all charges set by Council under Section 36 of the Resource Management Act 1991. The applicant will be advised of the charges as they fall.

2. Section 357B of the Resource Management Act 1991 provides a right of appeal to this decision. Appeals must be in writing, setting out the reasons for the appeal, and lodged with the Environment Court within 15 working days after the decision has been notified to you. Appellants are also required to ensure that a copy of the notice of appeal is served on all other relevant parties.

3. This resource consent will expire five years after the date of commencement of consent unless, before the consent lapses:

It is given effect to before the end of that period; OR

An application is made to the Council to extend the period after which the consent

37


lapses and the Council decides to grant an extension. The statutory considerations that apply to extensions are set out in Section 125(1)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991.

4. Permits are required for drilling any bores in Northland. Therefore, resource consent will

need to be gained from the Northland Regional Council if water is obtained in this way. If a bore is to be constructed, all areas used for sewage effluent disposal and reserve effluent disposal areas must be at least 20 metres away from any groundwater bore.

5. Pursuant to Section 102 of the Local Government Act 2002, the Whangarei District Council has prepared and adopted a Development Contributions Policy. Under this Policy, the activity to which this consent relates is subject to Development Contributions. You will be advised of the assessment of the Development Contributions payable under separate cover in the near future. It is important to note that the Development Contributions must be paid prior to commencement of the work or activity to which this consent relates or, in the case of a subdivision, prior to the issue at a Section 224(c) Certificate. Further information regarding Councils Development Contributions Policy may be obtained from the Long Term Community Consultation Plan (LTCCP) or Councils web page at www.wdc.govt.nz.

11.0 Attachments

1. Proposed Scheme Plan of Subdivision.

2. A copy of the application as lodged.

3. Section 92 request (prior to notification) dated 16 August 2012, and a copy of the applicant’s response, the ‘Access Safety Assessment prepared by Engineering Outcomes Ltd, dated 2 September 2012, received by Whangarei District Council on 7 September 2012.

4. Copies of submissions received

5. Section 92 request (further to close of submissions) dated 1 November 2012, and a copy of the applicant’s response including:

Surveyor’s Confirmation regarding easement boundaries;

Further comment from Engineering Outcomes (dated 14 November 2012) relating to the issues raised in submissions relating to the right of way; and

Legal Advice from G Currie of Thomson Wilson Law relating to rights and powers afforded under the Property Law Act 1952 and Land Transfer Act 1952.

6. Operative District Planning Maps, in addition to an aerial photograph, stability hazard

maps, and parcel lot size map of the immediate locality, and broader area.

7. Council’s Senior Environmental Engineering Officer Vlad Rozov’s report dated 8 January 2013, and relevant sections of Whangarei District Council Environmental Engineering Standards 2010.

8. District Plan Objectives and Policies Chapter 5 Amenity Values Chapter 6 Built Form and Development. Chapter 8 Subdivision and Development

Chapter 22 Road Transport

38


9. Information relating to Plan Change 93 Urban Transiting Environment and Whangarei District Council’s Rural Development Strategy 2012 Update.

10. Chapter 38 Countryside and Coastal Countryside Environment Rules and Chapter 73 Subdivision Rules Countryside and Coastal Countryside Environments.

39