PALMERSTON NORTH CITY SECTIONAL DISTRICT PLAN REVIEW PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 2: CLIFF PROTECTION LINE

Transcription

1 PALMERSTON NORTH CITY SECTIONAL DISTRICT PLAN REVIEW PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 2: CLIFF PROTECTION LINE

2 PART I DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE This proposed Plan Change seeks to amend the Cliff Protection Area at the top of the Anzac Cliffs near Vaucluse Heights in order to make provision for further development of the Residential Zone land in that area. The potential for further development will be subject to proposed river protection works and slope recontouring being undertaken to avoid or mitigate the existing erosion hazard risk. The proposed Plan Change can be summarized as: Deleting the existing Cliff Protection Area and associated prohibited activity rule for buildings and structures. In place of the Cliff Protection Area provisions, manage the cliff instability hazard using the existing provisions in the District Plan, subject to some modifications, that control development on undevelopable land. The proposed Plan Change recognizes that, subject to appropriate engineering works being undertaken, the land on which development is currently prohibited is likely to be appropriate for development. This reflects the situation for all other undevelopable land in the Aokautere area. Therefore the prohibited activity status is inappropriate and should be amended. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE DISTRICT PLAN The following alterations to the District Plan are proposed: Delete Rule River Terrace and Cliff Protection Lines: R River Terrace and Cliff Protection Lines. In addition to Rules and (1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this rule, within the area shown as shaded on Map , any building or structure, and any addition to or alteration of any building or structure (other than demolition or removal) are Prohibited Activities; (2) Nothing in this rule applies to anything to which Rule or Rule applies (Section 22 Natural Hazards). Explanation In the Aokautere area there is a particular hazard which arises from the combined effects of slope instability and the erosive effects of the Manawatu River. This results in the cliff in the vicinity of Anzac Park being unable to reach a stable angle due to the removal of debris from its base, by the river. Consequently it is important that buildings are located a prudent distance from the edge of this cliff. The remnants of old river terraces which are now well removed from the river are also potentially unstable, though in this case the area excluded from building is much smaller. Further information on land stability in Aokautere is contained in Section 22 Natural Hazards.

3 Rule provides for the possibility that works may be undertaken in the future to stabilise the cliffs and river terraces in the Aokautere area,, as Rule does not take account of the mitigating effect that may be afforded by any such works (whether carried out by a local authority or by the Crown or otherwise). It is acknowledged that if such works are constructed in the future, this may well trigger the need to review or change Rule to permit appropriate development closer to the cliff and within some part of the area for which development is currently prohibited by the Rule. NOTE TO PLAN USERS: Refer also to the Earthworks provision contained in Section 6: General of this Plan. Delete Map Cliff Protection Line Amend the definition of Developable Land to: Developable Land means any land in Aokautere: a) that is identified as developable in Map 10.1; or b) for which any land instability, erosion or subsidence hazard associated with the land will be avoided or mitigated by specifically designed geotechnical engineering works for which a valid, restructured land resource consent exists. Amend Rule R to: R Restructuring of Land in Aokautere Restructuring of land through earthworks or other works to create land with improved slope and soil stability, in the Aokautere Development Area, shall be a Discretionary Activity (Restricted) in respect of: The Avoidance or Mitigation of any Natural Hazard. provided it complies with the following Performance Conditions: Performance Condition (a) Timing of Application and Undertaking of Works (i) Any application to restructure land in the Aokautere Development Area shall be made at the same time as any application is made for a subdivision consent for the same land. (ii) Any works associated with the restructuring must be carried out at the same time as any other works associated with the approved subdivisional consent. In determining whether to grant consent and what conditions to impose, if any, Council will, in addition to the City View objectives in section 2 and the Natural Hazard Section objectives and policies, assess any application in terms of the following further policies: (a) To avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse environmental effects arising from the proposed restructuring works. (b) To ensure that the proposed restructuring works avoid, remedy or mitigate the land instability hazard.

4 (c) To ensure that any proposed restructuring work associated with the development of Lot 51 DP occur at the same time or after river bank erosion protection works occur which protect the toe of the Anzac Cliffs from bank erosion. Explanation While some of the land in Aokautere is naturally unstable, it is possible to undertake carefully designed earthworks to remodel land and to improve its stability. It is important however that such works are carried out with other subdivisional works to ensure that they are undertaken with appropriate technical supervision. In the Aokautere area there is a particular hazard which arises from the combined effects of slope instability and the erosive effects of the Manawatu River. This results in the cliff in the vicinity of Anzac Park (known as the Anzac Cliffs) being unable to reach a stable angle due to the removal of debris from its base by the river. Through a combination of river bank protection works to prevent further erosion of the base of the cliff and restructuring works on the cliff itself, it may be possible to modify this area to avoid or mitigate the natural hazard. Any application for resource consent to restructure land in this area to enable residential development must demonstrate that both the bank protection works and cliff restructuring works will result in the land instability hazard being avoided or mitigated. This rule however does not refer to any earthworks or other works associated with building or development on an existing site. These works will be controlled under the provisions of the Building Act 1991 having regard to the definitions of building work and sitework contained in that Act, and under the provisions of the Earthworks Section (Section 6) of this Plan. NOTE TO PLAN USERS: The provisions of Sections 91 and 92 of the Resource Management Act 1991 would be used to ensure that all consents for any application are heard together. Also refer to the provisions of Section 6 of this Plan with respect to earthworks rules. Earthworks activities are also subject to the provisions of Section 6. Amend R Accessory Buildings by adding the following performance condition: (f) Developable land Any accessory building shall be located on developable land. Amend R Buildings or Structures that do not comply with Performance Conditions (excluding those prohibited by R ) for Permitted or Controlled Activities to: Rules: Discretionary Activities (Restricted) R Buildings or Structures that do not comply with Performance Conditions (excluding those prohibited by R ) for Permitted or Controlled Activities. Any building or structure which does not comply with the Performance Conditions for Permitted or Controlled Activities in relation to: (i) Height (ii) Separation Distances (iii) Site Area, provided it does not propose to reduce the site area by more than 28% (iv) Overlooking (v) On Site Amenity (vi) Parking (vii) Turitea / Aokautere Residential Zone Setback

5 are Discretionary Activities (Restricted) with Regard to: Effects on Adjoining Residential Neighbours Design and Appearance The Safe and Efficient Operation of the Roading Network Site Layout Visual effects on the rural character and amenity of the Turitea Valley Natural Hazards In determining whether to grant consent and what conditions if any to impose, Council will, in addition to the City View objectives in section 2 and the Residential Zone objectives and policies and the policies contained in Rule , assess any application in terms of the following further policies: (a) To ensure the design and appearance of any building or structure is in character with and complimentary to the ambience and amenity values of the surrounding residential area. (b) To take into account the particular features of the site and its relationship to adjoining sites in assessing the appropriateness of the proposed design. (c) To avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects of noise or other environmental disturbance on any adjoining dwelling. (d) To ensure other appropriate off site parking is available to meet the need generated for parking. (e) To avoid remedy or mitigate the effects of parking not accommodated on the site on the safe and efficient operation of the roading network and the amenities of the surrounding neighbourhood. (f) To ensure the location, design and appearance of any building or structure has minimal impact on, and is complementary to, the rural character and visual amenity of the Turitea Valley. (g) To ensure that natural hazards are avoided or mitigated. Explanation Sometimes it is not possible for a dwelling to meet all the performance standards which are required for it to be treated as a permitted activity. In such situations the proposal must be assessed on a case by case basis to determine if some circumstance exists which makes it unreasonable to meet performance standards or if it is possible to achieve the desired outcome or avoid, remedy or mitigate the identified environmental effect, through another means. Some land in the Aokautere area is vulnerable to slope instability, erosion and subsidence and therefore buildings and structures should only be established on such land where the natural hazard has been avoided or mitigated. In most cases, residential allotments will have been created with sufficient developable land to enable dwellings and accessory buildings to be safely established. In circumstances where buildings or structures are proposed on land that is subject to slope instability, erosion or subsidence hazard, they should only be allowed where the hazard is avoided or mitigated. The assessment policies provide applicants with a vehicle by which wider design flexibility can be sought as well as a guide to how such applications will be assessed.

6 PART II SECTION 32 REPORT INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared to fulfill the requirements of Section 32 (5) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), which requires a local authority to prepare a report that summarises the evaluation of alternatives, benefits and costs of the proposed plan change. Section 32 of the RMA requires a local authority, when preparing a plan change, to undertake an evaluation of: 1. The extent to which each objective is the most appropriate to achieve the purpose of the RMA; and 2. whether, having regard to their efficiency and effectiveness, the policies, rules, or other methods are the most appropriate for achieving the objectives. In the case of this Plan Change application, there are no proposed modifications to the objectives of the District Plan and therefore this report does not evaluate the appropriateness of the existing objectives. However changes are proposed to the policies and rules of the District Plan and this report therefore summarises the consideration of the alternatives that has taken place. SITE DESCRIPTION The area that is the subject of this plan change application is located in the area known as Anzac Cliffs, and extends from near the end of Waicola Drive northwest between Vaucluse Heights and the Manawatu River. The area of land in question is a combination of an area that is included within an existing cliff protection area along with other land that is also considered to be within an area that is at risk of erosion associated with the nearby cliffs. Please refer to Appendix 1 to view an aerial photograph with the existing cliff protection line. The land rises steeply from the banks of the Manawatu River to a cliff height of approximately 50 metres above river level. From the top of the cliff the land becomes more level with some gentle undulations. The cliff itself is largely exposed earth, however an area at the southeastern end of the cliff protection area retains some regrowth vegetation primarily because this area has not been subject to recent erosion. The majority of the land is currently zoned Residential. A small part of the area, which follows the banks of the river and a small gully, is zoned Conservation and Amenity. The planning maps also identify a Tangata Whenua Site and a Notable Tree/Groups of Trees/Areas of Significant Vegetation notation. The cliff protection line (more accurately described as a cliff protection area ) is approximately 6 hectares in area and is separated into two sections divided by a gully that discharges into the river. There is a cluster of residential buildings located on sections accessed from Waicola Drive. Parts of these sections are located within the cliff protection line however there are no existing buildings within the cliff protection line. The land that is proposed to be modified to provide for future development only affects the northwestern section of the cliff protection line. The south eastern section of the cliff protection line is owned by private individuals and no modifications to the landform are currently proposed by those landowners. A significant area of land off Vaucluse Heights has already been subdivided into residential sections. Vaucluse Heights road has been partially formed but further road construction has been delayed until the landowner is able to gain certainty as to the outcomes of this plan change application and hence the potential for further development.

7 PLAN CHANGE OBJECTIVE The objective of this proposed plan change is to amend the provisions of the District Plan to enable development of land at the top of Anzac Cliffs once erosion mitigation works have been undertaken. The Palmerston North City Council s Planning and Policy Committee, on 2 November 2009, recommended: 52.1 That the Chief Executive be authorised to review the Cliff Protection Line and associated rules and prepare a change to the District Plan That the review of the Cliff Protection Line take into account the river bank protection works proposed by Horizons Regional Council and the physical works proposed by the affected landowner That it be noted that a Geotechnical Peer Review initiated by the Council supported the physical works proposed by the affected landowner That it be noted that the river bank protection works proposed by Horizons Regional Council and the physical works proposed by the affected landowner were subject to resource consent approval That it be noted that consultation with surrounding landowners, Rangitaane and other potentially affected parties would occur as part of the statutory Plan Change process under the Resource Management Act That it be noted that further detail including the proposed location of the Cliff Protection Line would be included in a Proposed Plan Change that would be reported to the Planning and Policy Committee for approval prior to public notification under the Resource Management Act These recommendations were adopted by the Palmerston North City Council at its meeting on 25 November REASON FOR THE PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE BACKGROUND The proposed plan change has been prepared in order to address an on going erosion hazard issue in the area known as Anzac Cliffs. The site is located adjoining a cliff that is experiencing erosion over time. The erosion is caused by a number of factors but is primarily influenced by the slope, the geology of the area and the erosive influences of the Manawatu River. Development of land at the top of the cliff has previously been proposed. Some parts of the land have been granted subdivision consent and development has proceeded. However in the areas where there exists a higher risk of cliff instability, subdivision consent has not been granted. The result is that there is currently a large area of land (Lot 51 DP ) which remains undeveloped but which could be should the hazard be avoided or mitigated by way of engineering works and amendments made to the District Plan to allow dwellings to be constructed within those improved areas. The land at the top of the cliffs (which is in the Residential Zone) has significant value if developed and therefore the current property owner wishes to resolve the erosion issue to enable the full potential of the land to be realized. The work required to achieve this outcome includes modifications to the cliff to stabalise it, and the establishment of river bank erosion protection to prevent further undercutting by the Manawatu River. The current planning mechanism controlling development of the area is focused around a Cliff Protection Area within which any new building or structure, or any addition or alteration to an existing building or

8 structure, is a prohibited activity. The cliff protection line was established based on engineering recommendations which took into account factors such as geology and the rate of river bank erosion at the time. Subsequent to the initial evaluations, river bank erosion and hence cliff erosion has occurred at a greater rate than was predicted and therefore the cliff protection line does not now accurately reflect the area of land that is at higher risk of erosion; land beyond the cliff protection line is now recognized as being at risk of erosion and therefore not appropriate for development. The current land owner, PMB Land Co, and Horizons Regional Council have both indicated that they are prepared to undertake works (cliff stabilization works and river bank erosion works respectively) to reduce the erosion risk. The combination of river bank protection works and slope improvement works are considered by engineers to be suitable to enable development of the site. As a result, the prohibited activity status for buildings and structures within part of the existing cliff protection line would no longer be appropriate. Therefore, a change to the District Plan is proposed to remove the prohibited activity status for dwellings and instead enable resource consent to be obtained in those areas of the site that are likely to be suitable for development once the stabalisation works have been completed. EXISTING PROVISIONS Within the District Plan, the area in question is primarily influenced by a number of different planning controls (See Figure One below). 1. The underlying zoning of the site is Residential with some Conservation and Amenity (Planning Map 23) 2. The entire area is within the Aokautere Development Area (Map 10.1), which is a specific zoning overlay recognizing the topographical and geographical characteristics of this area. 3. Parklands Area this overlay influences land accessed from Waicola Drive. This overlay has been established as a transition area between the higher density residential development within the remainder of the Aokautere Development Area and the adjoining rural and rural residential zones. 4. Undevelopable and Developable Land these are areas within the Aokautere Development Area characterized by land unsuitable for development without modification (undevelopable land) and areas that are already suitable for development (developable land). 5. Cliff Protection Area (Maps 10.1 and ) this is a specific overlay associated with the area above the Anzac Cliffs that is vulnerable to cliff instability and erosion. All land within this overlay is also shown as Undevelopable Land.

9 Figure One: Map showing relevant planning controls

10 The basic structure of the District Plan in relation to the development of land in the Aokautere Development Area is: Land that is currently shown as being Developable Land on Map 10.1 is considered to be appropriate for development and can be subdivided and built on subject to standards similar to normal residential zones. Land that is currently shown as Undevelopable on Map 10.1 cannot be subdivided or built upon unless land use consent has first been obtained to restructure the land so that it is suitable for development. The mechanism to achieve this are o o o o o The Definitions section of the Plan includes a definition for developable land ; developable land means any land in Aokautere identified as developable on Map 10.1 or for which a valid restructured land resource consent exists. a performance condition for controlled activity subdivisions that requires a specific area of developable land within each lot (R (b)). If this condition is not met, the subdivision becomes a discretionary (restricted) activity (R (3)) with matters of discretion which include the matters described in Sections 108 and 220 of the RMA (which include reference to avoiding or mitigating natural hazards). A performance condition for permitted activity dwellings that requires dwellings to be located on sites with a specific area of developable land (R (d)). If this condition is not met, the dwelling becomes a discretionary (restricted) activity (R ). Importantly, there is no matter of discretion relating to natural hazards in this rule. Accessory buildings to residential activities are a permitted activity regardless of whether they are on developable or undevelopable land (R ). There is no performance condition requiring developable land to be available. Non residential activities other than landscape works, public reserves, and drainage and water supply works (R ), within undevelopable land are non complying activities (R ). To enable a subdivision application to be processed as a controlled activity, either a previous land use consent to convert undevelopable land to developable land must have been obtained or a land use consent application for the necessary restructuring is submitted at the same time as the subdivision consent application (the two consents are processed together). Generally, the expectation is that land use consent applications to re structure land will be lodged at the same time as subdivision consent applications for the same area to enable a comprehensive evaluation of the development. Land use consent for earthworks associated with any restructuring is also likely to be required (R ). Outside of the Cliff Protection Area but within an undevelopable land area, if subdivision consent is approved with an associated land use consent for restructuring, subsequent development of dwellings on the resulting lots is a permitted activity (the land has become developable by definition because a valid restructured land use consent exists). This is subject to the allotments having the minimum amount of developable land required. Within the Cliff Protection Area, dwellings are prohibited (R ) regardless of whether subdivision consent or land use consent to restructure the land has been granted. Subdivision could technically be applied for with an associated land use consent to restructure the land within the Cliff Protection Area (as above) however the prohibition of dwellings in the area would make this unlikely.

11 HOW THE EXISTING PROVISIONS RELATE TO THE ANZAC CLIFFS LAND LAND ACCESSED FROM VAUCLUSE HEIGHTS Land use consent to restructure part of Lot 51 DP , which is located at the top of Anzac Cliffs and is accessed from Vaucluse Heights, has previously been granted (RM 2079). This restructuring consent includes land outside of the existing Cliff Protection Area, but within the area that is considered to be at higher risk of cliff erosion. The restructured land use consent does not address the cliff instability hazard, but instead deals only with some recontouring of land along the road alignment to provide for road construction and building platforms. A previous subdivision consent application for this area was withdrawn and no subsequent subdivision consent has yet been applied for or granted for this area of land at higher risk. The current definition of developable land in the District Plan includes land for which there is a valid restructured land resource consent. This definition would enable the existing restructured land use consent to be used to support an argument that the land within the cliff protection area and the adjoining high risk area is developable (because there is a valid restructured land use consent in place). This would enable a controlled activity subdivision to be applied for. The only avenue for the Council to be able to decline the subdivision consent on the basis of the instability hazard not being avoided or mitigated, would be to use s106 of the RMA (the existing restructured land resource consent could be set aside if the Council considers that it does not adequately avoid or mitigated the hazard). In reality, it is unlikely that the landowner of Lot 51 DP would consider submitting a subdivision consent application unless they were confident that the natural hazard issues were addressed (which they are not by the existing land use consent). The landowner would therefore logically anticipate lodging a fresh land use consent for restructuring the land to address the cliff instability hazard at the same time as any subdivision consent application. The primary reason this hasn t happened is most likely because the Cliff Protection Area, within which buildings and structures are prohibited, would prevent a marketable residential subdivision of sufficient scale to off set the costs of undertaking the necessary restructuring works. If the landowner proposed to establish dwellings on the site without first subdividing the land, there would be sufficient developable land (either because it is shown on Map 10.1 as developable or because the existing restructured land resource consent creates enough developable land within the site) within Lot 51 DP to enable the establishment of a dwelling as a permitted activity. The dwelling would not however be able to be constructed within the Cliff Protection Area. The existing rule framework would also allow buildings and structures for residential uses (a dwelling or accessory building) to be constructed on undevelopable land as a restricted discretionary activity because Rule R does not include natural hazards as a matter of discretion. This appears to be a gap in the existing provisions. This would place the onus on the Council to address the hazard via the Building Act rather than the RMA. LAND ACCESSED FROM WAICOLA DRIVE There is also an area of land that is vulnerable to cliff erosion which is accessed from Waicola Drive (numbers and 92 Waicola Drive). This area has already been subdivided and dwellings have been constructed on all of the lots that are within the increased hazard area close to the cliffs. Further development within these lots is largely prevented because the majority of the undeveloped area in these lots is currently within the Cliff Protection Area. As discussed above, dwellings and accessory buildings could be built within developable

12 (permitted activity) and undevelopable land (discretionary (restricted) activity), provided they are not within the Cliff Protection Area. Further subdivision of the lots on Waicola Drive is unlikely to occur unless significant restructuring work occurs to address land instability hazards. CHRONOLOGY The following actions have occurred to date in relation to this proposed plan change: Date Action 24 August 2009 Project meeting between Horizons, PNCC and PMB LandCo. September 2009 April 2010 Consultation with Tanenuiarangi Manawatu Incorporated and Te Rangimarie Marae Trustees at regular bi monthly meetings held with Council. September 2009 April 2010 Consultation and communication with agents of PMB LandCo and Horizons Regional Council. 5 October 2009 Project update at City Reach Meeting. Palmerston North City Councilors invited to attend. 2 November 2009 Report to Planning and Policy Committee. Chief Executive authorized to review the Cliff Protection Line. 25 November 2009 Recommendations of the Planning and Policy Committee adopted by Council. December 2009 Consultation letters sent to affected landowners at Waicola Drive. 17 December 2009 Meeting with landowner at 92 Waicola Drive. February 2010 Follow up letters send to affected landowners at Waicola Drive. 9 April 2010 Meeting arranged with landowner at 82 Waicola Drive. April 2010 Copy of Plan Change provided to clause 3 parties for comment. 3 May 2010 Proposed Plan Change reported to Planning and Policy Committee for approval. INDICATIVE TIMETABLE OF THE PLAN CHANGE PROCESS An indicative timetable of the plan change process is illustrated below: Step Indicative Date Prepare Proposed Plan Change and s32 Report taking April 2010

13 into account consultation Present Proposed Plan Change and s32 Report to Planning and Policy Committee 3 May 2010 Council publicly notifies Proposed Plan Change June 2010 Submissions Close July 2010 Summarise submissions July 2010 Notify Summary of Submissions for Further Submissions August 2010 Receive and analyse further submissions September 2010 Hearing held to hear submissions received October 2010 Decision by Council publicly notified November 2010 Appeals to Environment Court close December 2010 Adoption of Plan Change by council (if no appeals) January 2011 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS PART 2 OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 Part 2 of the RMA sets out the purpose and principles of the Act. The following section identifies the relevant matters in Part 2 as they relate to the proposed Plan Change. SECTION 5 PURPOSE Purpose (1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

14 (2) In this Act, 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 (a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and (b) safeguarding the life supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and (c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment. SECTION 6 MATTERS OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE Matters of national importance In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall recognise and provide for the following matters of national importance: (a) the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment (including the coastal marine area), wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins, and the protection of them from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development: (b) the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development: (c) the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna: (d) the maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along the coastal marine area, lakes, and rivers: (e) the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga: (f) the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development: (g) the protection of recognised customary activities Of the S6 matters, only (e) and (f) are considered to be relevant to this proposal. Within the Cliff Protection Area, the District Plan shows an area of indigenous bush remnant (R12) as well as a Tangata Whenua Site (Te Motu a Poutoa, which is located at the Anzac Park carpark). However, because this Plan Change addresses a building restriction line and does not result in any changes or modifications to these sites, nor does it alter the existing recognition and protection of these sites in the District Plan, the proposed Plan Change is not considered to adversely affect these matters. SECTION 7 OTHER MATTERS Other matters

15 In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall have particular regard to (a) kaitiakitanga: (aa) the ethic of stewardship: (b) the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources: (ba) the efficiency of the end use of energy: (c) the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values: (d) intrinsic values of ecosystems: (e) [Repealed] (f) maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment: (g) any finite characteristics of natural and physical resources: (h) the protection of the habitat of trout and salmon: (i) the effects of climate change: (j) the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy. The proposed Plan Change involves amending the District Plan to enable development within an area that is currently at risk from natural hazards. The proposed Plan Change does not alter the other existing provisions in the District Plan that address the relevant matters in s7 in relation to the management and use of resources. In relation to managing the effects of climate change, which is a relevant consideration when addressing erosion hazards, this is more appropriately addressed at the time of resource consent for any proposed works, buildings or structures. This proposed Plan Change sets up a framework where the effects of natural hazards need to be addressed through individual resource consent applications. SECTION 8 TREATY OF WAITANGI Treaty of Waitangi In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi). The relevant principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in relation to this proposed Plan Change are the duty to act in good faith and the duty to make informed decisions through consultation. As discussed in the Consultation section of this report, consultation has been undertaken with the appropriate tangata whenua organizations during the preparation of this proposed plan change. SECTION 31 FUNCTIONS OF TERRITORIAL AUTHORITIES 31 Functions of territorial authorities under this Act

16 (1) Every territorial authority shall have the following functions for the purpose of giving effect to this Act in its district: (a) the establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and methods to achieve integrated management of the effects of the use, development, or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district: (b) the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land, including for the purpose of (c) [Repealed] (i) the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards; and (ii) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage, use, disposal, or transportation of hazardous substances; and (iia) the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the development, subdivision, or use of contaminated land: (iii) the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity: (d) the control of the emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of noise: (e) the control of any actual or potential effects of activities in relation to the surface of water in rivers and lakes: (f) any other functions specified in this Act. (2) The methods used to carry out any functions under subsection (1) may include the control of subdivision. The proposed Plan Change sets up a framework that enables development to occur within an area that is currently subject to a natural hazard provided that the natural hazard is avoided or mitigated. This framework is consistent with functions of the Council as set out in s31. SCHEDULE 1 Schedule 1 of the RMA sets out the process that must be followed when preparing district plans, including plan change applications. Within that process, the following matters are relevant for the preparation of the Plan Change application document CONSULTATION Clause 3 of Schedule 1 requires that, during the preparation of a proposed plan, consultation shall be undertaken with: (a) the Minister for the Environment; and (b) those other Ministers of the Crown who may be affected by the policy statement or plan; and (c) local authorities who may be so affected; and

17 (d) the tangata whenua of the area who may be so affected, through iwi authorities; and (e) the board of any foreshore and seabed reserve in the area. The Act also provides that a local authority may consult anyone else during the preparation of a proposed policy statement or plan. Consultation in accordance with this requirement has been undertaken as summarized below. MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT A copy of the plan change was provided to the Minister for the Environment for comment prior to public notification. OTHER MINISTERS OF THE CROWN WHO MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PLAN CHANGE No other ministers of the Crown are considered to be affected by the proposed plan change and therefore no additional consultation has been undertaken. LOCAL AUTHORITIES WHO MAY BE AFFECTED Horizons Regional Council is the only local authority affected by the proposed change to the District Plan. HORIZONS REGIONAL COUNCIL Consultation has occurred with Horizons Regional Council (Horizons). Horizons is influential in the stabalisation of the Anzac Cliffs by way of a proposal to undertake river bank erosion protection works. As such, the characteristics of that work, and the resulting residential development that those works may enable, identify Horizons as a key stakeholder. Discussions and meetings have occurred with Horizons staff during the development of the proposed plan change. Horizons staff have indicated that the primary issue is the timing of the plan change process as the outcome of the plan change process will influence when Horizons begins its resource consent application work and associated detailed design. In terms of the actual form of the plan change provisions, Horizons have not indicated a particular preference for an approach, however have indicated that the proposed plan change must ensure that the natural hazard associated with the instability of the cliffs are avoided or mitigated. TANGATA WHENUA Consultation has occurred with representatives of Tanenuiarangi Manawatu Incorporated and Te Rangimarie Marae Trustees at the regular bi monthly meetings held with Council. Both Tanenuiarangi Manawatu Incorporated and Te Rangimarie Marae Trustees were supportive of the proposed plan change. Council officers also clarified that the package of physical works proposed to the Anzac Cliffs by Horizons and PMB LandCo were subject to independent resource consent processes which are outside the scope of the Plan Change process. A full copy of the plan change was also provided to Tanenuiarangi Manawatu Incorporated, Te Rangimarie Marae Trustees and Ngati Hineaute Hapu Authority for comment prior to public notification.

18 OTHER PARTIES CONSULTED LAND OWNERS During the process of evaluating the proposed Plan Change, consultation has occurred with the owners of properties currently affected by the existing Cliff Protection Area. The landowners contacted include 82, 84 and 92 Waicola Drive, Palmerston North. Letters were sent to the owners of these properties explaining the proposed Plan Change and offering an opportunity to meet with Council staff to discuss the proposal. A meeting was held with the owners of 92 Waicola Drive which involved a discussion of the proposal. No concerns were raised during the meeting. A meeting was arranged with the owner of 82 Waicola Drive however that meeting did not take place. Consultation has also occurred with PMB LandCo Limited during the course of the preparation of the Plan Change. PMB LandCo Limited owns Lot 51 DP and is the largest landowner within the Anzac Cliffs area. PMB LandCo Limited is particularly supportive of the review of the Cliff Protection Area to enable further development of the land where appropriate. Consultation included written correspondence between the Council and PMB LandCo Limited, as well as meetings and telephone discussions to explore issues and alternatives. Agents of PMB LandCo Limited have indicated a strong preference for plan provisions that are flexible in terms of the area that they apply to in order to recognize that engineering designs will be altered as further investigations of the area occur. ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES, BENEFITS AND COSTS (SECTION 32) ALTERNATIVE 1 Retain the existing cliff protection line and manage subdivision and development proposals via s106 RMA or the Building Act. This alternative is the do nothing approach. At present, the Cliff Protection Area is not accurate in its extent and therefore the provisions of the Plan that limit or enable residential subdivision and development of the area are not effective in the area that is subject to uncertainty. This grey area is unable to be accurately defined without costly detailed geotechnical investigation to determine the extent of the instability hazard area. Retaining the existing provisions in the Plan would enable further subdivision and development of land outside of the cliff protection area if instability mitigation works were to be undertaken (as is proposed), however the prohibition of dwellings within the Cliff Protection Area would prevent dwellings from being established within the area despite restructuring works being undertaken to make some of that land developable. As the current landowner has undertaken geotechnical investigations which, in combination with river works proposed by Horizons, indicate that a significant area of the Cliff Protection Area could be restructured to enable development, retaining the existing prohibited status over this land does not enable the reasonable use of this land. The Cliff Protection Area was principally established to avoid the cliff instability hazard and, at the time the provisions were inserted into the Plan, it appears that there had been no examination of the viability of undertaking works to mitigate the hazard. The purpose of the Act, as set out in Section 5, fundamentally enables development to occur provided resources are used efficiently, life supporting capacity of resources is maintained or enhanced and adverse effects on the environment are avoided or mitigated. In this situation, the prohibited status on dwellings does not enable the reasonable use of the land resource in this area (subject to the natural hazard being mitigated) and therefore does not sit comfortably with the purpose of the Act. FOR

19 Minimal cost associated with changing the District Plan because a plan change is not required. Continues to prohibit buildings from the highest risk area, being that area closest to the cliff. The land can still be restructured via a separate land use consent regardless of whether or not subdivision consent or building consent is issued. AGAINST Subsequent to restructuring and bank erosion protection works being undertaken, parts of the current Cliff Protection Area may be appropriate for development. Continuing to exclude these areas from development results in costs to the landowner through not being able to realize the full development potential of the site. Inability to develop areas within the cliff protection area will not enable the costs of the restructuring work to be recovered through lot sales. The cost benefit ratio for the landowner may therefore not support undertaking any of the works at all. All land yet to be approved for subdivision may therefore remain undeveloped resulting in an inefficient use of residential land. The rules of the Plan would not accurately reflect the true situation (dwellings could be developed immediately adjacent to an area where they are prohibited, despite very similar risk) and would therefore not be effective in consistently addressing the resource management issue. ALTERNATIVE 2 Amend the cliff protection line to only cover the area that will be at risk of erosion once the works have been completed This approach relies on the engineering design for the cliff stabalisation works being used to define a revised cliff protection area which reflects the results of the restructuring work. The engineering design would be relied upon to identify land that would remain undevelopable after the restructuring works and would therefore continue to be inappropriate for dwellings. The major disadvantage of this approach is that the engineering works will be subject to land use consent approval prior to proceeding. This resource consent may not be forthcoming or the design and extent of the works may be significantly modified through the course of the land use consent application in response to other issues such as visual effects. The result is that there is significant uncertainty about the exact form of the restricting works at this stage. A revised cliff protection area based on the current engineering recommendations could be inserted however a subsequent plan change would be required to confirm that the new cliff protection area is accurate once the restructuring works have been completed. This would require repetition of the plan change process with associated time and financial costs to the Council and affected parties. Overall, the uncertainty associated with this alternative would result in there being a significant future cost of further plan changes to respond to likely variations in the final design of the restructuring works. FOR Provides certainty around which areas can be developed. Retains the same rule structure in the District Plan thereby resulting in minimal costs associated with the plan change process.

20 AGAINST The resulting cliff protection area may not accurately correspond with the actual built works (due to variations in design resulting from the resource consent process or from site conditions encountered during construction). As a result there may be areas that are included in the cliff protection area that do not need to be or areas that aren t within the cliff protection area that should be. The resource consents required for restructuring and earthworks may require modifications to the design of the works to address other issues such as visual effects. This creates potential variations between the proposed and actual works, resulting in uncertainty. Adjusting Plan to reflect the actual cliff protection area once the works have been completed would require another plan change with associated costs. A fall back cliff protection area would need to be included in the Plan to account for a situation where the restructuring works did not proceed. This would require significant costs to undertake a detailed geotechnical investigation to accurately define the extent of the existing hazard area. If the cliff restructuring work does proceed, the cost of this fall back investigation work would be unnecessary. ALTERNATIVE 3 Retain an erosion risk overlay but make development within that area discretionary or non complying activities where development can only proceed where risk management can be demonstrated. This alternative involves altering the existing Cliff Protection Area to enable development to occur within that area subject to the instability hazard being avoided or mitigated. This would mean altering the land use consent status from prohibited to discretionary (restricted), discretionary or non complying. Resource consent would be required for any dwelling to be established and policies or matters of discretion would be included to require that works are undertaken to stabalise the land prior to a building being constructed. This approach would enable the restructuring works to occur and would also enable subdivision and subsequent development of the new lots to occur. This approach enables flexibility in the extent of undevelopable land and is responsive to the potential variability in the design of the works. However this approach results in a doubling up of land use consents because the Cliff Protection Area is also shown as undevelopable land on Map 10.1 land use consent would be required for a dwelling to establish even if the undevelopable land designation was modified by a restructuring land use consent granted via the subdivision process (as currently occurs on undevelopable land outside of the Cliff Protection Area). The result would be inefficiency in process through the requirement of two land use consents to address the same potential effects. FOR Provides certainty around which areas can be developed. Allows for flexibility within the erosion risk area to enable development if restructuring works have been completed. AGAINST

21 The extent of the erosion risk area would need to be defined by way of a comprehensive geotechnical investigation. This would involve significant cost to complete which, should cliff restructuring works proceed, would be unnecessary. Resource consent would be required for dwellings and other buildings even if subdivision and restructuring consents have previously been granted. This results in an additional cost to future lot owners which would be unnecessary because the subdivision and associated restructuring consents should have avoided or mitigated the hazard. ALTERNATIVE 4 Remove the cliff protection line and rely on modified existing undevelopable land provisions in the Plan This approach requires the removal of the Cliff Protection Area altogether. The underlying undevelopable land designation would therefore apply, which requires that all allotments must have at least 400m 2 of developable land to meet the necessary development standards set out in the Plan. Where resource consent is obtained for the proposed cliff stablisation works and additional developable land is created, development on that modified land can occur. Where land use consent is not obtained for the stabalisation works, the land will remain undevelopable. Application could still be made for subdivision or dwellings on this land, however the Plan includes requirements that natural hazards are avoided or mitigated and therefore those resource consent applications could be declined. Some additional guidance is necessary in the Plan to ensure that the intent is clear that only land that has been modified to avoid or mitigate the land instability is suitable for subdivision and development, however the majority of the existing provisions of the Plan provide sufficient control to enable development to be prevented where the hazard remains significant. This approach enables flexibility in the definition of undevelopable land but also provides certainty to the landowner that development can occur subject to appropriate stabalisation works being completed. This approach also avoids the land use consent double up that would be created by Alternative 3. This approach does relax the current prohibitive stance the Plan has towards development in this area however the existing stance is not considered to be reflective of the potential to modify the environment to enable appropriate development. FOR Results in minimal modifications to the district plan provisions because it relies on the existing controls that are in place for undevelopable land. Provides flexibility to account for changes that may occur in the restructuring works as a result of resource consent requirements of site conditions. Ensures subdivision consent can be declined if restructuring proposal does not adequately avoid or mitigate the hazard. Provide a consistent approach for all undevelopable land within the Aokautere Development Area. AGAINST

22 Costs of geotechnical investigations is almost entirely incurred by the landowner wishing to undertake development. This cost is considered to be low because the land owner will likely only incur the cost where there is a financial benefit to be derived from developing the land. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The preferred alternative is Alternative 4. It involves minimal changes to the existing provisions of the Plan and enables appropriate development to occur but retains a clear ability for development to be prevented if the slope instability hazard is not avoided or mitigated. REASONS FOR PREFERRED APPOACH Requires minimal modification to the existing District Plan framework which significantly reduces the complexity of the plan change. Enables flexibility for the developer to enable the maximum use of residential zone land subject to appropriate restructuring works occurring. This enables the land owner to put in place the most efficient development approach. Allows the Council to give effect to s5 of the RMA to enable development in appropriate situations. The existing prohibition of buildings in the cliff protection area does not recognize that the local environment can be modified to make development appropriate. Provides the ability for the Council to refuse both subdivision and land use consents if the proposed works do not adequately address the hazard. This ensures the Council can meets its obligations in terms of avoiding or mitigating the effects of natural hazards. The proposed Plan Change utilizes an existing framework within the District Plan which is used to manage all other areas of undevelopable land within the Aokautere area. Relying on this existing approach ensures consistent implementation of the relevant objectives of the District Plan. The relevant objectives are achieved using the same policies and rules throughout the Aokautere area. It avoids the need to undertake costly upfront geotechnical investigations to identify the existing hazard area and instead utilizes planning controls to respond to proposals in the future. It is commonly accepted by the Council and the land owner that significant restructuring works will be necessary to enable development in this area so the land owner will need to undertake their own geotechnical investigations and designs largely regardless of the approach set out in the Plan. To ensure that Anzac Cliffs hazard area can only be developed once the hazard has been avoided or mitigated, the definition of developable land requires a minor amendment. This is to ensure that the definition is clear that any existing restructured land resource consent must actually address the natural hazard. This change improves certainty in the intent of the definition of developable land and its application throughout the Aokautere area. To ensure that Anzac Cliffs hazard area can only be developed once the hazard has been avoided or mitigated, an amendment is needed to the permitted activity standard for accessory buildings (R ) to ensure that they can only be built on developable land. This improves certainty for all development on undevelopable land within the Aokautere area. The existing discretionary (restricted) activity rule (R ) for buildings and structures that do not meet the developable land minimum area does not enable the Council to decline consent or impose conditions in relation to natural hazards. This proposed Plan Change enables this gap in the natural

23 CONCLUSION hazards management framework to be addressed. This amendment improves certainty around the management of natural hazards and development in potentially hazardous areas within the Aokautere area. The Council has resolved to prepare a Plan Change to amend the Cliff Protection Area in the Anzac Cliffs area to reflect the potential for the land to be modified to address the existing cliff erosion hazard and thereby enable further development of residential land in the area. The proposed amendments to the District Plan involve deleting the existing Cliff Protection Area provisions. To ensure that the cliff erosion hazard is avoided or mitigated before any further subdivision or development is enabled in this area, the Plan Change also proposes some other more minor amendments to the existing developable and undevelopable land provisions in the District Plan. With those minor amendments, which ensure that the Council has the ability to decline consent applications or impose conditions of consent where the natural hazard has not been addressed, the proposed Plan Change provides the Council with comprehensive ability to ensure that the natural hazard is avoided or mitigated. The proposed Plan Change is considered to be the most appropriate alternative for achieving the objectives of the District Plan that enable residential development of land and require the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards.

24 APPENDIX 1 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING EXISTING CLIFF PROTECTION LINE

25 E HG TS IC H VA UC LU S LA NE RD BA R CL IF F U EH AP RU DR CA S H M AN N R ED ER AP RIV AT ED R WA ICO LA D R ID NG I RA TIT W AI CO L R EP L Backplot Map 22/11/2010 8:28:06 a.m. 0 SCALE 1: Kilometers Cadastral information derived from Land Information New Zealand. CROWN COPYRIGHT RESERVED. Information shown is the currently assumed knowledge as at date printed. If information is vital, confirm with the authorative owner. E & O.E.