IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act of submissions to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan by:

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE HEARINGS PANEL FOR AUCKLAND COUNCIL IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER of submissions to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan by: Baigent (#6127) Smalley (#5699) Geottler (Brookdale Ltd) (#5878) Wolfgram (#6381) Wallace (Tripp Andrews) (#4998) Chapman (COEL Ltd) (#5172 Vol. 2) STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF PETER JOHN NICHOLLS for Baigent (#6127), Smalley (#5699), Geottler (Brookdale Ltd) (#5878), Wolfgram (#6381), Wallace (Tripp Andrews) (#4998), Chapman (COEL Ltd) (#5172 Vol. 2) FIRST STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE TOPIC 057: Rural Activities & Controls (Subdivision) Dated 28 May 2015

2 INTRODUCTION AND EXPERIENCE 1. My name is Peter John Nicholls. I am a Registered Professional and Licensed Cadastral Surveyor and self-employed director of independent consultancy Tripp Andrews and Partners Ltd Limited. I have over 40 years of Land Surveying and Land Development related employment and have worked in the private sector for over 30 years. 2. I hold a Diploma in Land Surveying from Otago University (1975) and I am a member of the New Zealand Institute of Surveyors. 3. My experience includes subdivision and land development, resource consent processing, and resource consent preparation and representation from private perspectives. I specialise in Land Transfer subdivisions, both urban and rural, and mainly in the rural sector over the last 20 years. More recently I have specialised in the transfer of Rural Development Rights. 4. I am familiar with and experienced in addressing the resource management issues, district plan policy and regulatory tools that apply to the former Franklin District. I have worked in this District almost exclusively since I appear on behalf of the submitters Baigent (#6127), Smalley (#5699), Geottler (Brookdale Ltd) (#5878), Wolfgram (#6381), Wallace (Tripp Andrews) (#4998), Chapman (COEL Ltd) (#5172 Vol. 2). I have prepared this evidence in accordance with the Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note and agree to comply with the Expert Witnesses Code of Conduct. I confirm that the evidence I present is within my area of expertise and I am not aware of any material facts which might alter or detract from the opinions I express in respect of the appropriateness of planning mechanisms proposed by the Council. 6. I am largely speaking for the southern areas of the region. Page 2

3 STRUCTURE OF EVIDENCE 7. The technical evidence prepared on behalf of the submitters is split between this statement of evidence, and that of Nick Williamson (Planner). 8. My evidence discusses the problems with the rules regarding rural subdivision as proposed in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. The problems identified are vast, and far too extensive to reconcile within the statements of evidence. Our evidence has therefore been limited to the most significant failings we have identified, and we offer suggested remedies that are reasonably achievable, but will require further work to be done by all parties. STATEMENT OF POSITION 9. The rural subdivision regulatory methods are inappropriate, and appear to be based on a confused interpretation of rural production. 10. Consequential changes are proposed to the subdivision rules and objectives and policies for the rural areas of Auckland. SUBDIVISION OF A SUBSIDIARY DWELLING FROM THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING. 11. The subdivision of a subsidiary dwelling from the principle dwelling house on the site as a prohibited activity is not a logical method for ensuring that additional buildings are prevented from being built in the rural environment. 12. I understand Councils position that the actual existence of the subsidiary dwelling should not be used as a reason to allow a subdivision. I contend that if the subdivision right is being established via a TRSS or Boundary adjustment, and no additional building rights are being established as a result of the application then the land use creating the subsidiary dwelling can be surrendered contemporaneously with the subdivision and the subsidiary dwelling will then become a principal dwelling on the new lot. 13. When you are required to keep the subsidiary dwelling on the same new lot that is being subdivided you are in-fact creating one additional building right on the balance Page 3

4 lot as a permitted right. If you subdivide the subsidiary dwelling off from the main dwelling on the property you will create two new lots that already have existing established dwellings located within their boundaries. This means that there will be no additional potential effects on amenity as the built elements are already present. It is very likely that this sort of subdivision will also occur through the transfer of an existing donor lot under the TRSS, therefore removing an existing development right in the process. In summary there will be no additional burden or effects placed on the rural environment though allowing for this type of subdivision, under the circumstances described above. 14. There are often situations where the subsidiary dwelling is no longer in use on a property and it is simply logical to separate this dwelling into a different land parcel so that it can be more efficiently used for rural residential purposes, rather than waste a perfectly useful built element. 15. I strongly disagree that this should be a prohibited activity as there are a number of positive benefits to allowing for this type of subdivision, in conjunction with a TRSS or boundary adjustment. IN SITU-RURAL SUBDIVISION 16. In his evidence, Barry Mosley has proposed a number of changes to the minimum and average site size for the four main rural zones as proposed under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (Mixed Rural, Rural Coastal, Rural Conservation, Rural Production). 17. In order to investigate a suitable minimum lot size for subdivision in the rural area we have to first work backwards from the total amount of growth from subdivision that is intended in all areas, how much subdivision should be from the rural sector, and then how much subdivision should come from each zone within the rural sector. 18. From the 400,000 new homes intended to be constructed over the next 30 years prescribed by the Auckland Plan, it is intended that 10% or 40,000 new homes should be allocated to the rural sector, mostly in the Countryside Living Zone. Within the rural sector there are 5 zones (Countryside Living, Mixed Rural, Rural Coastal, Rural Conservation and Rural Production). I propose that an appropriate weighting should Page 4

5 be given to each zone to determine what percentage of the 40,000 new homes will come from each zone. I suggest the following weightings: Countryside living 90% or 36,000 new homes, Mixed Rural 4% or 1600 new homes, Rural Coastal - 4% or 1600 new homes, Rural production 1% or 400 new homes and Rural Conservation - 1% or 400 new homes. These are suggested as appropriate figures as it directs 90% of rural development, or 9% of the total intended development towards the Countryside living Zone and only 10% of rural development, or 1% of the total intended development to all other rural zones. The following is a summary of what is available for the whole of the Auckland Region under the Current Proposed Rules (Council Version after Mediation) - Note: Figures taken from Mosley evidence page 17 Table 3. Current Council s Version 19. Mixed Rural Minimum Lot size = 40ha, Average Lot size = 50ha, therefore the eligible number of Parcels = 19 There are 19 parcels currently eligible for subdivision in the Mixed Rural zone. This equates to 0.05% of new homes intended for the rural sector and 0.005% of total new homes to be constructed. 20. Rural Coastal Minimum Lot size = 40ha, Average Lot size = 50ha, therefore the eligible number of Parcels = 93 There are 93 parcels currently eligible for subdivision in the Rural Coastal Zone. This equates to 0.2% of new homes intended for the rural sector and 0.02% of total new homes to be constructed. 21. Rural Conservation Minimum Lot size = 10ha, Average Lot size = 20ha, therefore the eligible number of Parcels = 13 Page 5

6 There are 13 parcels currently eligible for subdivision in the Rural Conservation zone. This equates to 0.03% of new homes intended for the rural sector and 0.003% of total new homes to be constructed. 22. Rural Production Minimum Lot size = 80ha, Average Lot size = 100ha, therefore the eligible number of Parcels = 34 There are 34 parcels currently eligible for subdivision in the Rural Production zone. This equates to 0.09% of new homes intended for the rural sector and 0.009% of total new homes to be constructed. 23. The total number of new parcels from these four rural zones is 159, or 0.4% of new homes expected from the rural sector. Therefore the current Council version of the rules will direct 99.6% of these lots to the Countryside Living zone. No way can Council say subdivision is provided for in other rural areas. 24. The potential growth of the total number of parcels within these four rural sectors over 30 years is 0.55% of the total number using Council version of the proposed rules. 25. It is easy to see that the current Council version of the rules will only facilitate subdivision on a very small number of parcels in these rural zones and will nowhere near achieve the goal of producing the required amount of new homes in the rural sector. It is also noted that table 3 page 17 of Barry Mosley s evidence only refers to parcels of land and no information has been gathered as to type of ownership over these parcels. There are many parcels in the rural sectors that are held in common ownership, meaning that the actual number of certificate of titles that would be eligible for subdivision, would in fact be less. 26. The following is a summary of the minimum rule requirements needed to achieve the required number of new houses as stated under the Auckland Plan: 27. Mixed Rural The average Lot size needs to be 5ha to be eligible to create 1045 parcels Page 6

7 1045 parcels are eligible for subdivision in the Mixed Rural zone. This equates to 2.6% of new homes intended for the rural sector and 0.26% of total new homes to be constructed. 28. Rural Coastal The average Lot size needs to be 5ha to be eligible to create 1200 parcels 1200 parcels are eligible for subdivision in the Rural Coastal zone. This equates to 3.0% of new homes intended for the rural sector and 0.3% of total new homes to be constructed. 29. Rural Conservation The average Lot size needs to be <5ha to be eligible to create a minimum of 57 land parcels 57 parcels are eligible for subdivision in the Rural Coastal zone. This equates to 0.1% of new homes intended for the rural sector and 0.01% of total new homes to be constructed. 30. Rural Production The average Lot size needs to be 40ha to be eligible to create 400 land parcels. If 400 parcels are eligible for subdivision in the Rural Production zone, this would equate to 1.0% of new homes intended for the rural sector and 0.1% of total new homes to be constructed. Calculated by ratio of eligible lots between 50ha and 100ha sized parent Lots, the eligible lots at 50ha = 699, the eligible lots at 100ha = 206; by ratio calculate that 400 lots will be eligible with parent lot at 80 hectares so 40ha Average. We believe that this is the average lot size required to maintain the existing productive potential, character, and amenity. 31. Submitters Proposed Rules After considering the above figures we request these changes: Page 7

8 32. Mixed Rural Minimum Lot size = 1ha, Average Lot size = 15ha, therefore eligible number of Parcels = 302 If 302 parcels are eligible for subdivision in the Mixed Rural zone. This would equate to 0.8% of new homes intended for the rural sector and 0.08% of total new homes to be constructed. Percentage of Mixed Rural Lots available for subdivision = 5.6% 33. Rural Coastal Minimum Lot size = 1ha, Average Lot size = 20ha, therefore eligible number of Parcels = 382 If 382 parcels are currently eligible for subdivision in Rural Coastal zone. This would equate to 1.0% of new homes intended for the rural sector and 0.1% of total new homes to be constructed. Percentage of Rural Coastal Lots available for subdivision = 8.9% 34. Rural Conservation Minimum Lot size = 1ha, Average Lot size = 5ha, therefore eligible number of Parcels = 57 If 57 parcels are eligible for subdivision in Rural Conservation zone. This would equate to 0.1% of new homes intended for the rural sector and 0.01% of total new homes to be constructed. 35. Rural Production Minimum Lot size = 1ha, Average Lot size = 50ha, therefore eligible number of Parcels = 206 If 206 parcels are eligible for subdivision in the Rural Production zone. This would equate to 0.5% of new homes intended for the rural sector and 0.05% of total new homes to be constructed. Page 8

9 Using the suggested figures above the percentage of Rural Production Lots available for subdivision = 1.3% 36. The total new parcels from these four rural zones = 947 or 2.3% of new homes expected from the rural sector. Therefore 97.7% to come from the Countryside Living zone. This projected figure still directs the very large majority of development to the Countryside Living Zones. 37. Potential growth of total number of parcels of these four sectors over 30 years is 3.3% using our proposed rules. Summary 38. With Councils proposed rules the total number of new parcels from the four rural zones is 159, or 0.4% of new homes expected from the rural sector. Therefore the current Council version of the rules will direct 99.6% of these lots to the Countryside Living zone over the plan s 30 year timeline. With our proposed rules the total new parcels from the four rural zones will be 947, or 2.3% of new homes expected from the rural sector. Therefore 97.7% will still come from the Countryside Living zone over the plan s 30 year timeline. Our position is a small movement towards providing for subdivision in other rural areas. TRANSFERABLE RURAL SITE SUBDIVISION 39. The evidence provided by Barry Mosley details the adjustments and amendments that have been made to the Transferable Rural Site Subdivision rules. Below is a summary of my opinion on these changes to the rural subdivision rules and the desired changes for each of these rules. New Restricted Discretionary Status 40. It is stated in Table 5 that subdivision not complying with the relevant controls of section Rural Zones is a non-complying activity. I am not in agreement with the relevant controls that relate to this subdivision and these need to be changed if any subdivision is to work properly. Page 9

10 41. The major change from the Notified version of the TRSS rules is that the receiver locations within the Rural Zones have now been limited to specific Countryside Living Zones and some serviced Villages. This changes to whole dynamics of the title transfer component of the rural subdivision rules and is very different to those rules which were publically notified and submitted on. In particular, all rural zones, other than some country side living zones and some serviced villages, have been excluded as receiver areas and we note that there appears to be no receiver areas in the southern region of the District. I do not see this as Subdivision in rural zones should be provided for to a greater extent. (AUPIHP Interim Guidance) Suggested Changes 42. I am in agreement with restricted discretionary activity for a complying TRSS subdivision, but not in agreement with the relevant controls relating to these subdivisions, see below for suggested changes. Donor Site Criteria Elite and Prime Soils 43. The requirement for donor sites to contain entirely elite or prime land will not achieve the intended objective of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan of creating large productive units of farm land. There are very few sites within the former Franklin area (or for that matter, the Rodney area) that contain entirely elite or prime land, with even fewer sites that adjoin lots that also contain 100% elite or prime soils that can be amalgamated together. 44. Currently under the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) rules, there is only one Donor Lot that is assessed for compliance and no requirement that the buddy lot that the donor lot will be amalgamated with, needs to be assessed with respect to percentage of soil versatility. As a result there have been a number of situations where we have been able to take a cluster of smaller donor lots that are adjoining one another and over time have been able to remove all of the development rights off these properties until there is one large parcel of open pasture land that can be used for productive purposes, rather than being fragmented across multiple titles. Page 10

11 45. Council s version of the rules will prevent this from happening. See Figures 1-4 below demonstrating this problem. 46. Figure 1 below is an example of 6 adjacent lots with an area of 10ha each all in common ownership, and Figure 2 illustrates the desired outcome of the amalgamation of all six lots and transferring five TRSS to complying receiver areas. The resultant newly amalgamated lot is illustrated in Figure 2 with a total area of 60ha. Figure 1 - Donor lot example 1 Page 11

12 Figure 2 - Donor example Figure 3 illustrates the allowed amalgamations without using the newly amalgamated lots, therefore restricting the ability to fully amalgamate all lots and achieve the desired outcome as shown in Figure 2 above. A further variation is illustrated in Figure 4 where by original Lots 2 and 3 have a minor watercourse and overland flow path that reduces soil versatility below 100%. Therefore the amalgamation of any further lots other than lots 5 and 6 is not permitted. 48. With respect to the donor lot restrictions, if the desired outcome is as shown in Figure 2, this means that the less restrictions there are the higher chance there will be of achieving the desired result of a large rural lot that can be used for productive purposes. Page 12

13 Figure 3 - Donor example 3 Figure 4 - Donor example To illustrate further my point that having restrictions on donor sites will not allow us to achieve the goal of amalgamating smaller titles into larger farms, thus addressing the fragmentation issue as outlined in the Hazledene evidence. 50. Appendix A is an actual example that will illustrate this point. This dairy farm property is located in Pakington in the coastal Glenbrook area and consists of 135 Page 13

14 certificate of titles with a total area in excess of 100 hectares. Utilising the current donor restrictions detailed in PC14 Operative Rules Part22, we have managed to amalgamate these titles into 43 Rural Lots. A rural lot has a definition under Rule 50 and is a qualification for a Donor Lot. The LUC versatility of the 43 lots range from 19% to 100% of versatile soils (either Class 2 or 3). 51. Appendix A shows the external lot boundaries of the large rural property at Wymer Road, Glenbrook that is comprised of a number of titles that make up the old historical Pakington Town. Appendix B shows the property with the existing title structures and individual lot boundaries as sourced from the Auckland GIS viewer. Appendix E Shows the end result of this property after 40 donor sites have been amalgamated and removed from the property (which is possible under the current Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) rules. This property can now continue to be operated as a large dairy farm. 52. Appendix D shows an approved subdivision consent for 43 lots with the majority of the lots located to the north in the coastal environment. This consent is still live and is the result that may have happened if the ability to sell these donor sites for Transferable Rural Site Subdivision and amalgamate the donor lots together was not available to my client. This would be the only option under the current PAUP rules as our client would not be able to use any of the donor lots for TRSS. 53. Appendix F illustrates the location of lots that are 100% prime soils. There are 6 lots that fall within this category, of those 6 lots only 2 are adjoining. It is easy to see that if the restrictions are as prescribed in the Councils version of the PAUP rural subdivision rules, then only one title transfer can occur as there is only one pair of lots that are 100% versatile soils that are adjoining one another. However it should also be noted that these lots were created after November 2010, meaning that they are not eligible as a donor lot, meaning that there are in-fact zero lots that can be used. Therefore this property would be left in a patch work quilt of titles, all over the place and the owner would have been forced to make the commercial decision to subdivide the property in the manner depicted in his approved subdivision consent Appendix D. I believe the best outcome is illustrated in Appendix E. Page 14

15 54. My conclusion from this real example is the restrictions on donor lots as proposed by the Council is a fatal flaw in the whole TRSS regime that they are offering. In other words it is a complete waste of time. 55. These examples have also have proven that a very good environmental outcome can still be achieved by amalgamating areas of productive farm land regardless of whether or not they entirely consist of elite or prime land or say consist of a large proportion of elite and prime land. In-fact, restricting the right for donor lots to be entirely elite or prime soils will likely prevent amalgamation from happening. 56. Furthermore the current property market within the Franklin area (which is within the Incentivised Land Amalgamation Area) is so valuable that property owners will be extremely unlikely to sell off (the building right) on a site containing entirely elite or prime land as a donor site when they could get much more value for this site by selling it outright. Size of Donor Lot 57. I do not agree with the requirement for donor lots to be between 1ha and 10ha in area. 58. I understand that Council wish to deal with fragmentation of rural land but the overall positive environmental outcome of transferring a development right from a large open area of productive soils, to an area with a much smaller area that contains less elite or prime soils is still achieved when utilising donor lots larger than 10 ha. In fact the benefits of amalgamating say 2 x 30 ha productive units resulting in a single 60 ha farm far outweighs the benefits of amalgamating say 12 x 5ha blocks that result in 6 x 10ha farms that are spread sporadically all over the district. Requirement for Donor lot to have existed prior to 1st November This rule will severely limit the potential for eligible donor lots. A cluster of donor lots will not be able to be amalgamated together over time through multiple TRSS applications because once a single amalgamation has been completed the resultant lot will no longer be eligible for amalgamation, meaning that other adjoining lots cannot be amalgamated with this lot. (one big handbrake) Page 15

16 Suggested Changes 60. Change the requirement for a donor lot to have entirely elite or prime soils. 61. Remove the requirement for a donor lot to be between 1ha and 10ha in area. 62. Remove the requirement for a donor lot to have been either: in existence; or shown on an approved scheme plan of subdivision which would, if given effect to, create sites that could be used under these rules as at or before 1st November The donor lots (including consented lots that have not yet proceeded to title issue) should be able to come from anywhere in the region, with the only requirement that the same number of building rights exist before and after subdivision. Receiver Site Criteria Elite or Prime Soils 64. I do not believe that it is necessary that the entire receiver site is comprised of nonelite or non-prime land (Class 1, 2 and 3 soils). The definition of Class 4 soils with respect to slope, classify Class 4 land as being steeper than 15 degrees of slope (approximately 1 in 4) 65. This will make it extremely difficult to provide for a safe and stable building platform and effluent disposal areas on the un-serviced receiver site without having to undertake significant earthworks, which will come as a great cost to prospective purchasers of these lots and will create adverse effects on the environment. It is considered that there should be at least some allowance for flatter land to make up the component of the receiver lot such that earthworks are kept to a moderate level. This is one reason to utilise the suggested method of having the donor lot comprise a greater area or % of elite and prime land that the resulting receiver lot. This is one method to ensure there is a benefit from preserving soils. Qualifying Receiver Site Zones 66. I do not agree that the transfer of residential development rights should only be from rural areas to Countryside Living Zones and serviced Villages. Page 16

17 67. The rural zoning as proposed in the PAUP does not reflect the actual land use and development within the rural environment and there are in-fact a number of land use patterns that countryside living and small size rural lifestyle blocks that are capable of assimilating new transferred rural lots. Nick Williamson has provided in his evidence an example of a mapped overlay receiver area for rural infill subdivision that is accurately based on current land use patterns. 68. Furthermore, the recent changes to Table 10 within the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan rules only allows for transferable rural site subdivision to land within the Countryside Living Areas of Wellsford, Kaukapakapa and Helensville, Warkworth, Puhoi, Parakai Helensville and South Rodney. These are all areas that are located north of the Auckland Harbour Bridge, meaning that there is no opportunity for Transferable Rural Site Subdivision within southern area of the region in the CSLZ. Further, there are no serviced Villages in the southern region that have CSLZ attached to them and therefore no ability to absorb receiver lots. The southern area is now been left as a donor area only. I don t think Council s intention was to move vacant capacity from south to north of the Harbour bridge. The TDR regime relies on marketplace relationships and a commercial contract it works well local to local, but is unlikely to occur between different parts of the region. This TRSS regime would be completely untested. 69. The only opportunity for RURAL subdivision within the former Franklin District Area will be through in situ subdivision, either as of right or through protection of SEA. As detailed in this evidence, the opportunity of this is in-fact very minimal and has a definite finite number that will be reached far before the Unitary Plans expected year timeline. 70. The lack of TRSS opportunity in the southern Region is outrageous considering that there is such a high demand for housing within the southern areas of the Auckland Region. There are a number of settlements within the southern rural area of Auckland that could be classified as Countryside Living Areas and a number of Rural Infill that have been investigated by the evidence that Nick Williamson has provided. 71. I suggest that there is a requirement that at least 50% of the Receiver Site is comprised of non-elite or prime land, except where the receiver site is within a Rural Page 17

18 Infill Area. I m suggesting that prime land should not even be a factor where the receiver area has already tipped into predominantly lifestyle uses. I agree that elite areas should not contain any Rural Infill Areas. 72. Allow for Transferable Rural Site Subdivision to be transferred from rural zoning to rural zoning but into special mapped overlay areas only. In addition to this, there should be an amendment to Table 10 so that there are classified Countryside Living Zones within the former Franklin, Manukau and Papakura Districts, in the southern section of the Auckland Region. This will create opportunities for transferable rural site subdivisions to be located within the southern section of the Auckland Region. Summary of Suggested Transferable Rural Site Subdivision Rules 73. The TRSS receiver areas form an overlay area over the (newly mapped) existing zones. Subdivision is enabled within these areas to a prescribed density, only as a result of a TDR proposal. I suggest that the donor lots can come from anywhere in the region, with the only requirement that the same number of building rights exist before and after subdivision. The donor lots may be sourced from existing latent titles, or from approved environmental lots. Overall it is considered that the rules and assessment matters need to be greatly improved for better workability and so that the results of potential subdivision will in-fact give effect to the desired outcomes sought by the Objectives and Policies of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. The land use controls as per the underlying zone will still apply. SUBDIVISION THROUGH PROTECTING OR RESTORING SEA 74. As explained in the evidence provided by Barry Mosley for the Auckland Council on this topic, a new Rule has been inserted into the Rural Subdivision Rules of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan that introduces the possibility for in situ subdivision for rural lifestyle living as a restricted discretionary activity where a significant area of identified SEA is being protected or a significant area of identified SEA is being restored. Newly inserted Table 8b within the subdivision rules reads as follows: Page 18

19 Table 8b: Maximum number of new sites from protection and restoration of SEA (indigenous vegetation) In situ (non-transferable) Subdivision Protecting or Restoring SEA A (in ha) B 1. Total minimum area of existing SEA Maximum number of new sites that can be (indigenous vegetation) required to be created in accordance with column A. legally protected; or 2. Total area of restoration planting to be added to an existing SEA consisting of indigenous vegetation. 5ha 1 10 to 15ha 2 Greater than 15ha This rule must have been designed solely around the existing significant ecological areas with the northern areas of the Auckland Region (e.g. Rodney) as this is the only area within Auckland that will have any possibility of creating any new lots through these performance standards. There are much larger areas of significant bush within the Rodney area compared to the southern areas including the Franklin area. 76. The Franklin area, particularly Karaka, is a rural area within Auckland that is largely characterised as having land used for small to medium scale countryside living, with the titles either being relatively small at under 1 ha up to 4 ha or larger lots between 30 ha to 75 ha, with very few lots that are larger than this. These larger lots are mainly comprised of pasture land that is used for either dry stock grazing or dairy farming with some cropping on the open areas. 77. In order to gain a sense for the number of existing SEA s that are available for qualification for both TRSS donor sites as well as in-situ SEA protection lots, I have taken a sample of 100 SEA s from both the southern area in the Franklin District and a second sample of 100 from the central Rodney area. These two locations are shown in Figure 5 and 6 attached. Page 19

20 Figure 5 - Franklin Sample Area 78. Franklin Sample: This area is between Waiuku, Pukekohe and Karaka South. There are 72 SEA s already under covenant and 32 Sea s that are available for protection and resulting in subdivision rights. Of those that are available, only 1 is greater than 5.0 ha, 12 greater than 2.0 ha and 17 greater than 1.00 ha. The number of SEA generated subdivision rights in this sample area is one. This fact alone makes that rule almost unworkable within the southern area of the Auckland Region. Page 20

21 Figure 6 - Rodney Sample Area 79. Rodney Sample: This area is bounded by Kaipara Harbour, SHW1, and Kaipara Flats and Kaukapakapa. From a sample of 100 within the red boundaries in Figure 6 above, there are 49 SEA already under covenant and 51 SEA that are available for protection and subdivision rights. Of those that are available, only 30 are greater than 5.0 ha, 43 greater than 2.0 ha and 47 greater than 1.00 ha. The number of SEA generating subdivision rights in this sample area is considerably larger than the Franklin sample. 80. My conclusion is that the availability of subdivision rights generated by the protection of existing SEA s in Franklin is somewhat less than in Rodney and the numbers are very small. The benefits from protection of significant features will be Page 21

22 insignificant, particularly in Franklin. Perhaps the thresholds have been set far too high. 81. The above Table 8b also states that to create a new non-transferable lot on a property, a minimum of 5ha or restoration planting must be added to an existing SEA consisting of indigenous vegetation if a maximum of one new site is to be created. This means that if a property were to contain 4.5ha of existing SEA (just 0.5 ha less than the 5ha of SEA required to create a new site through legal protection) one would still need to plant an additional 5ha (of grass paddock) of restoration planting to the existing 4.5ha of SEA on the property to gain the right to create one new lot through in situ (non-transferable) subdivision. 82. This may simply be a poor explanation of the rule or improper wording, but to me this situation would mean that you would need to have a total of 9.5ha of land comprising of a combination of existing SEA (indigenous vegetation) and new restoration planting to be added to the existing SEA to gain the right to create one new lot through in situ (non-transferable) subdivision. 83. A much more practical requirement would be to allow for 0.5ha of additional restoration planting to be added to the 4.5ha of existing land so that there is now a total of 5ha of protected indigenous vegetation protected, and therefore allowing for the creation of one new (non-transferable) in-situ site to be created on the site. 84. It seems ridiculous that this is not the case considering that this right would already be allowed for if there was an additional 0.5ha of existing SEA on the property. The current method means that almost 5ha of productive farm land could potentially be lost to being replaced with restoration planting due to needing to gain the right to create one new site through this rule, rather than simply adding additional planting to the existing SEA to create 5ha of indigenous vegetation. 85. The current rules are unworkable and will allow for very little lots to be created through this provision. This is going against the intention of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan to provide for approximately 40,000 new dwellings within the rural environment. Page 22

23 86. As an example, since the Operative date of PC14 of (October 2013) of the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) and using a threshold of 2.00ha of protected feature within the EEOA, Tripp Andrews Surveyors has not made one application for an Environmental Lot, whereas we would have made approximately 10 to 12 applications per year when the thresholds were smaller at 1.00ha for the protected feature. We see the threshold of 5.00ha as a hurdle too high for 99% of farmers, particularly within the southern region. We suggest that in this area that the minimum area of the protected feature be reduced to 2.0ha, albeit 1.0 ha is more appropriate. Suggested Change 87. It is considered that the minimum area of SEA to be protected to create a new site should be reduced. As mentioned above, the Table 8b may appear to be workable when considering the Auckland Region from a holistic perspective, but in reality these requirements are far too restrictive and not practical within the Franklin Area. It is likely very that few new subdivisions, if any, will be created through this rule in the southern rural area of Auckland, resulting in very few areas of significant ecological importance being permanently protected. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 88. The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan states that a boundary adjustment as a controlled activity must not allow for a site to change by more than 10 per cent in net site area is meaningless. When asked the justification for the 10% rule at mediation, Council s response was that it is left over from legacy provisions and offered no real reason for the figure but have failed to remove it. 89. Furthermore, the requirement that all sites comply with the applicable minimum site area and minimum average site area for the Countryside Living, Rural Conservation, Rural Coastal, Mixed Rural, or Rural Production zones will not work. This is because in most cases the existing lots will not comply with the proposed minimum lot sizes in the first place, and a restriction of 10% change to the minimum site area will not allow sites to be large enough to meet these requirements. This is a basis for the 1.0ha minimum lot size proposed earlier in this evidence. Page 23

24 90. The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan also states that only sites comprised of a Certificates of Title that existed on the date of notification of this Unitary Plan (30 September 2013) will be subject to compliance with the Boundary Adjustment Performance Standards. There does not seem to be any reasonable explanation for imposing this date. Farmers should be given the flexibility to adjust the boundaries of their land resource to suit the individual circumstances and obtain the maximum benefits from the land. This restriction will limit the potential for future lots to be better suited to make the most productive use of the land available, therefore potentially creating a negative effect on the land and soil resources within the rural environment. Suggested Change 91. I submit that the only limitation on boundary adjustments needs to be that adjustment of common boundary between adjoining parcels does not create additional permitted building rights. (Unless the additional building right is a permitted activity on the new lot(s)). This will ensure that no new development rights are created through the use of common boundary adjustments, which is a much more appropriate way to control boundary adjustments than restricting the change in net size area to 10%. INTENSIVE RURAL LOTS 92. I comment here on the requirement for provisions to be in place within the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan for the creation of lots for Intensive Rural Activities. The use of this rule is vital for allowing the balance of lots that contain intensive rural activities to be used for appropriate rural activates. 93. For example a landowner may operate an intensive rural activity on a 10ha property but will only operate this activity within 2ha of the land parcel, as an intensive rural activity requires that it is operated on a small lot. Therefore this additional 8ha could be separated from the adjoining land through subdivision and used for a more productive rural purpose. This illustrates that the benefits of undertaking this subdivision relate to business rather than lifestyle. Page 24

25 94. A provision for this was introduced within the Environment Court decision for Plan Change 14 of the Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) and inserted as Rule 22B.10 LOTS FOR EXISTING INTENSIVE RURAL ACTIVITIES RURAL ZONE. A provision in the PAUP should closely follow the wording and design of this rule. This was contested in the Environment Court and has now been incorporated into the rules as it was considered an important issue considering the changing practices for how horticulture is undertaken, which is only going to continue in this trend in the future. 95. A land owner should be able to create new lots through a provision of intensive rural activity if the activity can demonstrate that it is viable, sustainable and permanent and the benefits will be derived from the subdivision of the activity. HAMLET SUBDIVISION 96. I simply comment here that I support the submission from Terra Nova Planning Ltd. I have attached a plan (Appendix G) that provides a very good example of how this mechanism can work well within the Franklin / Karaka area. 97. This rule as suggested by Terra Nova Planning Ltd will allow for high quality smaller scale more dense subdivision in appropriate rural locations that can achieve the objectives and policies of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan relating to rural amenity, servicing etc. 98. See Appendix G for an example of how this Hamlet Subdivision provision would work well on a property at 435 Batty Road, Karaka. This subdivision will achieve clusters of medium sized residential lots that are surrounded by a mature hedgeline that will completely screen built elements from the public view. The property is surrounded by rural production to the west, and rural lifestyle living to the east. The features on the site include a polo field, golf course, and watercourses. 99. This property is appropriate for this form of development given its size, location, site features and existing amenity. Page 25

26 CONCLUSION 100. I do not support a number of Council s proposals on the matters of Topics 056 and Clear and unambiguous regulatory methods need to be provided. I have highlighted a number of flaws that are fatal to the practical implementation to the plan Nick Williamson in his evidence has provided a framework for a new set of regulatory methods and I have suggested some issues that need to be addressed when formulating those rules Having due regard to the directions given by the Hearings Panel, we have outlined an alternative subdivision framework that gives effect to the objectives and policies of the plan. It will take some further work by all parties for the framework to be built into a complete suite of provisions, but unless time is taken to do this, we request that the operative provisions remain in place. Peter Nicholls 28 May 2015 Page 26