Proposed Plan Change 43: Volcanic Viewshaft to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) - Hearing Report Report to:

The Hearing Commissioners

Date:

December 9 2013

Subject

Proposed Plan Change 43: Volcanic Viewshaft

File Reference

U:\CPO\RLP\AAA FC\LAND USE AND PLANNING LUP\OP PLANS\DP WAITAKERE PPC 43

Report Author

Nicholas Lau: Planner

Report Approvers

Eryn Shields, Team Leader, Warren Maclennan, Manager Planning North/West

1.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to consider submissions and further submissions to Proposed Plan Change 43 (PPC 43) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) (the District Plan). This report addresses both the submissions that have been received on PPC 43 only, and also those submissions made on all the volcanic view shaft plan changes including PPC 43. This report forms part of the council’s ongoing obligations under Section 32 of the Resource management Act 1991 (the RMA), to consider the appropriateness of the proposed provisions and the benefits and costs of any policies, rules or other methods. The discussion and draft recommendations included in the report are intended to assist the Hearing Commissioners and those persons and organisations that lodged submissions on PPC 43. The recommendations contained within this report are not the decision of the Hearing Commissioners. PPC 43 seeks to give effect to the Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement (ACRPS) which identifies significant public views of Auckland’s volcanic cones. These views are referred to as ‘Volcanic Viewshafts’ in the ACRPS and areas within the viewshafts are subject to development controls so that visual protection is afforded to Auckland’s volcanic cones. The only volcanic viewshaft identified in the ACRPS which comes within the geographical boundaries administered by the District Plan is ‘Volcanic Viewshaft A13’. This viewshaft originates at the State Highway 16 Te Atatu interchange and provides motorists with a clear view of Mt Albert when heading east on the motorway. In order to provide for Volcanic Viewshaft A13 in the District Plan, existing District Plan Human Environment maps have been amended to reflect its dimensions and physical location, while a new map appendix is proposed (Appendix XXX) which details height restrictions for development undertaken within Volcanic Viewshaft A13. It is also proposed to amend existing policies in the District Plan to protect the visual integrity of significant public views which includes Volcanic Viewshaft A13 being introduced under PPC 43. To ensure that a noncomplying activity status applies to development which breaches the floor of Volcanic Viewshaft A13, additional District Plan rule provisions are proposed for the Transport Environment Rules that apply to State Highway 16. Eleven submissions were received on PPC 43. amendments in response to submissions.

It is recommended that PPC 43 be approved with

Summary of PPC 43 District plan modification

subject

to

Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section)

Status of documents Number and name of change

Proposed Plan Change 43 – Volcanic Viewshaft to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section)

Type of change

Council initiated proposed plan change

Date of approval (or adoption) for notification

17 April 2013 by Regional Development and Operations Committee Definitions section District Plan Text Transport Environment Rules Policy section - Chapters 2, 3 & 5 and Appendix D & K

Parts (sections) of the District Plan affected by the plan change

District Plan Maps

Date of notification of the plan change

31 May 2013

Submissions received (excluding withdrawals)

11

Submissions withdrawn

N/A

Date summary of submissions notified

11 October 2013

Number of further submissions received (numbers)

3

Number of invalid submissions and further submissions

N/A

Main issues or topics emerging from all submissions

   

2.

District Plan Human Environment Map and Legend District Plan Human Environment Maps D10 and E10 District Plan Map Appendix XXX

Supporting PPC 43 as notified Supporting PPC 43 and requesting additional viewshaft protection Opposing PPC 43 opposition and requesting reduced viewshaft protection or exemptions Opposing PPC 43

DECISION MAKING CONSIDERATIONS

This report has been prepared under Section 42A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), to assist the Hearing Commissioners in considering the submissions and further submissions (the submissions) on PPC 43. This report discusses the submissions and includes recommendations on whether to accept or reject the submissions. The recommendations identify whether each submission should be accepted or rejected, in full or in part, and what amendments, if any, should be made to PPC 43 to address matters raised in submissions.

2

The Hearing Commissioners have been delegated full responsibility by the Hearings Committee to determine the council’s decisions on submissions on PPC 43 under Section 34 of the RMA. Therefore, the Hearing Commissioners will not be recommending a decision to the Council, but will be issuing the decision directly.

3.

BACKGROUND

The Auckland volcanic field covers approximately 100 square kilometres and originally contained 48 explosion craters which gave rise to the landmark scoria cones of urban Auckland. A number of these features have been lost through quarrying and development. Many of the remainder are of regional or national significance, while others are of local significance, or contribute cumulatively to the volcanic landscape and character of the region. The 35 Regionally Significant Volcanic Features found in Map Series 2a of the ACRPS contain 13 scoria cones and islands which have volcanic viewshafts and/or height sensitive areas attributed to the protection of their visual integrity. The history of statutory protection of the visual integrity of the volcanic features in Auckland is summarised in Section 32 Report Proposed Plan Change 43: Volcanic Viewshaft to the Auckland Council District Plan: Waitakere Section. PPC 43 is a council plan change which seeks to include Volcanic Viewshaft A13 in the District Plan by amending existing Human Environment to reflect its dimensions and physical location. A new District Plan map appendix is also proposed (Appendix XXX) which details height restrictions for development undertaken within Volcanic Viewshaft A13. Furthermore, PPC 43 amends existing policies in the District Plan to protect the visual integrity of significant public views which includes Volcanic Viewshaft A13 being introduced under the plan change. Additional District Plan rule provisions are also proposed to ensure that a non-complying activity status applies to development which breaches the floor of Volcanic Viewshaft A13. The proposed amendments are intended to give effect to the ACRPS which already contains Volcanic Viewshaft A13. Other plan changes were notified at the same time as PPC 43 to include or amend viewshafts in other sections of the Operative Auckland Council District Plan. These plan changes are: Auckland Council District Plan Operative Auckland City Central Area Section 2005 – Plan Modification 67 (PPPC 67) Auckland Council District Plan Operative Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999 – Plan modification 339 (PPPC 339) Auckland Council District Plan Operative North Shore Section 2003 – Proposed Plan Change 59 (PPPC 43) Auckland Council District Plan Operative Manukau Section 2002 – Proposed Plan Change 59 (PPPC 59) Auckland Council District Plan Operative Auckland City Hauraki Gulf Islands Section 2013 – Proposed Plan Change 1 (PPPC 1) Submissions on these plan changes are addressed in separate reports. An overview map of all volcanic viewshafts in Auckland can be viewed at: http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/DistrictRegionalPlans/Pages/vol canicviewshafts.aspx The viewshafts can also be viewed within the council’s GIS system at: http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/DistrictRegionalPlans/Pages/vol canicviewshafts.aspx When viewed at an appropriate scale, the GIS viewer will also show contours that give the height difference between ground level and the base of each viewshaft.

4.

STATUTORY AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

This section of the report briefly sets out the statutory framework applicable to the consideration of submissions.

3

4.1

The Resource Management Act 1991

The RMA requires that council consider a number of matters for developing proposed plan changes. PPC 43 was prepared and submissions have been considered under the relevant statutory matters. These were summarised by the Environment Court in Long Bay-Okura Great Park Society Incorporated and Others v North Shore City Council (Decision A078/2008) where the court set out the following measures for evaluating objectives, policies, rules and other methods in district plans. These are set out in full below: A.

General requirements

1.

A district plan (change) should be designed to accord with, and assist the territorial authority to carry out - its functions so as to achieve, the purpose of the Act.

2.

When preparing its district plan (change) the territorial authority must give effect to any national policy statement or New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.

3.

When preparing its district plan (change) the territorial authority shall: (a) have regard to any proposed regional policy statement; (b) not be inconsistent with any operative regional policy statement.

4.

In relation to regional plans: (a) the district plan (change) must not be inconsistent with an operative regional plan for any matter specified in section 30(1) [or a water conservation order]; and (b) must have regard to any proposed regional plan on any matter of regional significance etc;

5.

When preparing its district plan (change) the territorial authority must also: • have regard to any relevant management plans and strategies under other Acts, and to any relevant entry in the Historic Places Register and to various fisheries regulations; and to consistency with plans and proposed plans of adjacent territorial authorities; • take into account any relevant planning document recognised by an iwi authority; and • not have regard to trade competition;

6.

The district plan (change) must be prepared in accordance with any regulation (there are none at present);

7.

The formal requirement that a district plan (change) must also state its objectives, policies and the rules (if any) and may state other matters.

B.

Objectives [the section 32 test for objectives]

8.

Each proposed objective in a district plan (change) is to be evaluated by the extent to which it is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the Act.

C.

Policies and methods (including rules) [the section 32 test for policies and rules]

9.

The policies are to implement the objectives, and the rules (if any) are to implement the policies;

10.

Each proposed policy or method (including each rule) is to be examined, having regard to its efficiency and effectiveness, as to whether it is the most appropriate method for achieving the objectives of the district plan taking into account: (a) the benefits and costs of the proposed policies and methods (including rules); and (b) the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, rules, or other methods.

D.

Rules

11.

In making a rule the territorial authority must have regard to the actual or potential effect of activities on the environment. 4

E.

Other statutes:

12

Finally territorial authorities may be required to comply with other statutes. Auckland Region they are subject to: • the Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park Act 2000; • the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004.

Within the

These principles have been applied with any necessary modifications to account for changes in legislation since the court’s decision. The over-arching provisions are contained in Part 2 of the Resource Management Act (and are not repeated), while Sections 31, 32, 74 and 76 contain specific provisions relating to the preparation of district plans. Section 31 of the RMA provides that: (1)

Every territorial authority shall have the following functions for the purpose of giving effect to this Act in its district: (a)

(b)

(c) (d) (e) (f) (2)

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: the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land, including for the purpose of— (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: [Repealed] the control of the emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of noise: the control of any actual or potential effects of activities in relation to the surface of water in rivers and lakes: any other functions specified in this Act.

The methods used to carry out any functions under subsection (1) may include the control of subdivision.

In relation to the council’s functions under Section 31, PPC 43 provides for the mapping of Volcanic Viewshaft A13 in the District Plan. The control of the actual or potential effects in this context is achieved by requiring built development undertaken within the viewshaft to comply with rolling maximum height contours, as shown on District Plan Map Appendix XXX which is included with PPC 43. This will support the council’s function to control any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land on the views of the volcanic cones. Section 32 requires the council to consider the alternative costs and benefits before making a decision on submissions. The council is required to make an evaluation, and in this respect: (3)

An evaluation must examine— (a)

the extent to which each objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of this Act; and

(b)

whether, having regard to their efficiency and effectiveness, the policies, rules, or other methods are the most appropriate for achieving the objectives.

(3A)…

5

(4)

For the purposes of the examinations referred to in subsections (3) and (3A), an evaluation must take into account— (a)

the benefits and costs of policies, rules, or other methods; and

(b)

the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, rules, or other methods.

A report addressing Section 32 of the RMA (the Section 32 report) is attached in Appendix 3 to this report. Additional Section 32 analysis is provided in this report where changes are recommended in response to submissions. The Section 32 report and additional evaluation meets the requirements of Section 32 of RMA.

Section 73(4) of the RMA requires: A local authority must amend a proposed district plan or district plan to give effect to a regional policy statement, if(a)

the statement contains a provision to which the plan does not give effect; and

(b)

1 of the following occurs: (i)

the statement is reviewed under section 79 and not changed or replaced; or

(ii)

the statement is reviewed under section 79 and is changed or replaced and the plan change becomes operative; or

(iii)

the statement is changed or varied and becomes operative.

Change 8 to the ACRPS introduced new volcanic viewshafts and related policy. This change to the ACRPS became operative on the 16 August 2012. PPC 43 aims to give effect to this part of the ACRPS. Section 74 of the RMA sets out the matters to be considered by a territorial local authority in preparing or changing its district plan. Subsection 1 provides: A territorial authority shall prepare and change its district plan in accordance with its functions under section 31, the provisions of Part 2, a direction given under section 25A(2), its duty under section 32, and any regulations.” Section 75(3) of the RMA states: “A district plan must give effect to— (a) (b) (c)

any national policy statement; and any New Zealand coastal policy statement; and any regional policy statement.”

Currently, the District Plan does not reflect the revised provisions in the ACRPS resulting from Change 8, and it is the statutory obligation of the Council to correct this cascading anomaly as soon as possible. Section 76 requires a territorial authority, in making a rule, to “…have regard to the actual or potential effect on the environment of activities including, in particular, any adverse effect…”. PPC 43 introduces Volcanic Viewshaft A13 into the District Plan which will enable the potential adverse effects of structures on the viewshaft to be managed via the resource consent process. Schedule 1 of the RMA sets out the procedures for plan changes. In summary: 

Clause 8B of Schedule 1 requires the local authority to hold a hearing into submissions on plan changes.



Clause 10(1) requires that the local authority give a decision on the provisions and matters raised in submissions.



Clause 10(2) states that the decision must include the reasons for accepting or rejecting the submissions and, for that purpose, may address the submissions by grouping them according to either the provisions to which they relate, or the matters to which they relate. 6



Clause 10(3) states that for the avoidance of doubt, the local authority is not required to give a decision that addresses each submission individually.

In the case of PPC 43, these matters will be applied by Hearing Commissioners acting under delegated authority.

4.2

Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (HGMPA) recognises the significance of the Hauraki Gulf as follows: 7

Recognition of national significance of Hauraki Gulf (1) The interrelationship between the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments and the ability of that interrelationship to sustain the life-supporting capacity of the environment of the Hauraki Gulf and its islands are matters of national significance. (2) The life-supporting capacity of the environment of the Gulf and its islands includes the capacity— (a) to provide for— (i) the historic, traditional, cultural, and spiritual relationship of the tangata whenua of the Gulf with the Gulf and its islands; and (ii) the social, economic, recreational, and cultural well-being of people and communities: (b) to use the resources of the Gulf by the people and communities of the Gulf and New Zealand for economic activities and recreation: (c) to maintain the soil, air, water, and ecosystems of the Gulf.

The HGMPA sets objectives for management of the Hauraki Gulf, islands and catchments as follows: 8

Management of Hauraki Gulf To recognise the national significance of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, the objectives of the management of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments are— (a) the protection and, where appropriate, the enhancement of the life-supporting capacity of the environment of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments: (b) the protection and, where appropriate, the enhancement of the natural, historic, and physical resources of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments: (c) the protection and, where appropriate, the enhancement of those natural, historic, and physical resources (including kaimoana) of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments with which tangata whenua have an historic, traditional, cultural, and spiritual relationship: (d) the protection of the cultural and historic associations of people and communities in and around the Hauraki Gulf with its natural, historic, and physical resources: (e) the maintenance and, where appropriate, the enhancement of the contribution of the natural, historic, and physical resources of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments to the social and economic well-being of the people and communities of the Hauraki Gulf and New Zealand: (f) the maintenance and, where appropriate, the enhancement of the natural, historic, and physical resources of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, which contribute to the recreation and enjoyment of the Hauraki Gulf for the people and communities of the Hauraki Gulf and New Zealand.

In this context, management of views of Mt Albert from Te Atatu Peninsula are a matter that falls within some of these objectives. Implementation of these objectives is to be provided through mechanisms in other legislation as follows: 9

Relationship of Act with Resource Management Act 1991 (1)

For the purposes of this section and section 10, the terms district plan, plan, proposed plan, regional plan, regional policy statement, resource consent, and New Zealand coastal policy statement have the same meaning as in the Resource Management Act 1991, and regional council and territorial authority have the same meaning as in the Local Government Act 2002. 7

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

A regional council must ensure that any part of a regional policy statement or a regional plan that applies to the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, does not conflict with sections 7 and 8. A territorial authority must ensure that any part of a district plan that applies to the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, does not conflict with sections 7 and 8. A consent authority must, when considering an application for a resource consent for the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, have regard to sections 7 and 8 in addition to the matters contained in the Resource Management Act 1991. The provisions of section 55 of the Resource Management Act 1991 apply as though sections 7 and 8 of this Act were a national policy statement and a regional council or a territorial authority must take action in accordance with that section and notify a change to a regional policy statement, plan, or proposed plan within 5 years of the date of commencement of this Act.

Section 9(1): amended, on 1 July 2003, by section 262 of the Local Government Act 2002 (2002 No 84). 10

Creation of New Zealand coastal policy statement by this Act (1)

(2)

(3)

13

For the coastal environment of the Hauraki Gulf, sections 7 and 8 must be treated as a New Zealand coastal policy statement issued under the Resource Management Act 1991. For the coastal environment of the Hauraki Gulf, if there is a conflict between sections 7 and 8 and the provisions of any New Zealand coastal policy statement issued under the Resource Management Act 1991, the New Zealand coastal policy statement prevails. The provisions of section 55 of the Resource Management Act 1991 apply to the New Zealand coastal policy statement created by this section and a regional council or a territorial authority must take action in accordance with that section and notify a change to a regional policy statement, plan, or proposed plan within 5 years of the date of commencement of this Act.

Obligation to have particular regard to sections 7 and 8 Except as provided in sections 9 to 12, in order to achieve the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising powers or carrying out functions for the Hauraki Gulf under any Act specified in Schedule 1 must, in addition to any other requirement specified in those Acts for the exercise of that power or the carrying out of that function, have particular regard to the provisions of sections 7 and 8.

The provisions of PPC 43, subject to the recommended amendments, will give effect to the HGMPA.

4.3

National Policy Statements Section 55 of the RMA requires the council’s district plan to give effect to any relevant provisions of a national policy statement. The only national policy statements of relevance to PPC 43 are the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS) and the national policy statement on electricity transmission 2008 (NPSET).

4.3.1

NZ Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS) As parts of Volcanic Viewshaft A13 are located within the coastal environment, the relevant provisions of the NZCPS apply to consideration of submissions on PPC 43. The relevant provisions of the NZCPS are considered to be Objective 2 and supporting policies 1 and 15: Objective 2 “To preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and protect natural features and landscape values through:  Recognising the character and qualities that contribute to natural character. 8

Policy 1 Extent and characteristics of the coastal environment - (1) Recognise that the extent and characteristics of the coastal environment vary from region to region and locality to locality; and the issues that arise may have different effects in different localities. (2) Recognise that the coastal environment includes: (f) elements and features that contribute to the natural character, landscape, visual qualities or amenity values. Policy 15 Natural features and natural landscapes - To protect the natural features and natural landscapes (including seascapes) of the coastal environment of the region or district, at minimum by land typing, soil characterisation and landscape characterisation and having regard to: … (iv) aesthetic values including memorability and naturalness;

… (vii) whether the values are shared and recognised; (viii) cultural and spiritual values for tangata whenua, identified by working, as far as practicable, in accordance with tikanga Māori; including their expression as cultural landscapes and features; PPC 43 aims to maintain the visual integrity of Mt Albert (as viewed from both landward and coastal areas, such as Te Atatu Peninsula) through the use of Volcanic Viewshaft A13 and applicable height limitations for built development in the Transport Environment which apply to State Highway 16. Given that Mt Albert is recognised as a regionally significant volcanic feature in the ACRPS (to be owned and co-managed by Mana Whenua as a taonga under the Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Deed of Settlement (refer Section 4.9 of the report)), it is considered that controlling the height of built development within Volcanic Viewshaft A13 is consistent with the NZCPS.

4.3.2

National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission 2008 (NPSET) As part of Volcanic Viewshaft A13 is located under high voltage electricity transmission lines which traverse State Highway 16, the NPSET is relevant to the consideration of submissions on PPC 43. Its objective is as follows: To recognise the national significance of the electricity transmission network by facilitating the operation, maintenance and upgrade of the existing transmission network and the establishment of new transmission resources to meet the needs of present and future generations, while: • managing the adverse environmental effects of the network; and • managing the adverse effects of other activities on the network. In relation to PPC 43, the relevant policies of the NPSET are considered to be policies 2 and 10: Policy 2 In achieving the purpose of the Act, decision-makers must recognise and provide for the effective operation, maintenance, upgrading and development of the electricity transmission network. Policy 10 In achieving the purpose of the Act, decision-makers must to the extent reasonably possible manage activities to avoid reverse sensitivity effects on the electricity transmission network and to ensure that operation, maintenance, upgrading, and development of the electricity transmission network is not compromised.

Given that the part of Volcanic Viewshaft A13 underneath the high voltage electricity transmission lines is entirely located within State Highway 16, it is considered that applying height restrictions to built development with the viewshaft will not compromise the effective operation, maintenance, upgrading and development of the electricity transmission network. This is affirmed by the applicable height restrictions being well below the above-ground height of existing electricity transmission lines traversing the State Highway 16 Te Atatu interchange. It is also noted that any structures within the State Highway 16 corridor need to comply with the New Zealand Electrical Code of Practice for Electrical Safe Distances (NZECP 34), with this requirement also being referenced in the National Code of Practice Utility Operators’ Access to Transport Corridors. In light of the above comments, it is considered that PPC 43 is consistent with the objective and policies of the NPSET. 9

4.4

National Environmental Standards The Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Telecommunication Facilities) Regulations 2008 apply to telecommunication utilities placed in road reserves in certain circumstances. These regulations do not preclude the approach applied under PPC 43 to manage of the effects of structures on Volcanic Viewshaft A13.

4.5

Auckland Council Regional Policy Statement The ACRPS provides for the protection of volcanic features through the following provisions: 

The regionally significant volcanic features are identified in Map series 2a – Regionally Significant Volcanic Features;



The coordinates for the individual volcanic viewshafts, including Volcanic Viewshaft A13, are itemised in Appendix L Volcanic Cone Viewshafts – surveyed Co-ordinates of the ACRPS. PPC 43 District Plan Map Appendix XXX uses these coordinates for Volcanic Viewshaft A13; and



Map series 4a – Visual Protection of Volcanic Cones of the ACRPS contains maps of the individual volcanic viewshafts, including Volcanic Viewshaft A13. PPC 43 District Plan Map Appendix XXX uses these dimensions for Volcanic Viewshaft A13.

The ACRPS contains objectives, policies and methods, but not rules, relating to recognising the heritage and cultural values of Volcanic Viewshaft A13. The relevant objectives, policies and methods are provided below. Objectives 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 1. To sustain the mauri of natural and physical resources in ways which enable provision for the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of Maori. 2. To afford appropriate priority to the relationship of Tangata Whenua and their culture and traditions with their ancestral taonga when this conflicts with other values. Policy 3.4.1 Waahi tapu and other ancestral taonga of special value to Tangata Whenua shall, where agreed by Tangata Whenua, be identified, evaluated, recognised and provided for in accordance with tikanga Maori, and given an appropriate level of protection. Method 3.4.2.1 The ARC and TAs will make provision in regional and district plans to achieve appropriate levels of protection for sites and areas of special significance to Tangata Whenua where such sites and areas are known to exist but are not listed or identified in such plans. Objectives 6.3.1 and 6.3.7 - 6.3.9

1. To preserve or protect a diverse and representative range of the Auckland Region’s heritage resources. … 7. To protect and where practicable enhance the visual and physical integrity and values of the volcanic features of the Auckland Region of local, regional, national and/or international significance including social, cultural, historical, geological, archaeological, scientific, ecological, amenity, iwi, open space and landscape values. 8. To protect significant views to and between Auckland’s volcanic cones.

10

9. To manage heritage resources in an integrated way to ensure their contribution to the variety of heritage values is protected and enhanced. Policies 6.4.1.2 and 6.4.1.3 2. The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga shall be recognised and provided for in the preservation or protection of the heritage resources of the Auckland Region. 3.The subdivision of land, and use and development of natural and physical resources shall be controlled in such a manner that: (i) the values of heritage resources of international, national or regional significance are preserved or protected from significant adverse effects. (ii) where preservation or protection and avoidance of significant adverse effects on the values of such significant heritage resources is not practicably achievable, such significant adverse effects shall be remedied, or mitigated… Method 6.4.2.2(v) 2. In preparing regional, district and annual plans the following mechanisms for the preservation and protection of heritage resources should be considered: … (v) regulatory controls, e.g., volcanic cone viewshafts, rules, abatement and enforcement orders… Policies 6.4.19 1. The volcanic features of the Auckland Region of local, regional, national and/or international significance shall be managed in an integrated manner to protect their multiple values, including social, cultural, historical, geological, archaeological, scientific, ecological, amenity, open space and landscape values and to maintain the range and diversity of volcanic features within the context of the wider Auckland and Franklin volcanic fields. 2. The physical and visual integrity and values of Regionally Significant Volcanic Features shall be protected by: (i) avoiding activities within the boundaries of the Regionally Significant Volcanic Features shown on Map Series 2a that individually or cumulatively: (a) result in significant modification or destruction of the feature; or (b) detract physically or visually from the values of the feature; and (ii) ensuring that, where publicly owned, their open space and amenity values are maintained and where practicable enhanced and that the provision of public access and recreation is consistent with the protection of their other values; and (iii) ensuring activities on land surrounding or adjacent to the Regionally Significant Volcanic Features shown in Map Series 2a, or those parts of the volcanic feature described in Appendix B but not shown on Map Series 2a are managed so that significant adverse effects on the values of the features are avoided, remedied or mitigated, and where practicable the values are enhanced. 3. Subdivision, use and development shall be managed to ensure that the overall contribution of the volcanic cones identified in Map Series 2a as Outstanding Natural Features to the landscape character of Auckland, is maintained and where practicable enhanced, including physical and visual connections to, and views between, the volcanic cones. 4. The views of volcanic cones that are listed in Appendix L and indicated on Map Series 4a, shall be protected, and intrusion into the defined viewshafts by buildings or structures shall be avoided, except where provided for by specified building heights in Height Sensitive Areas that underlie the viewshafts… 5. Urban intensification in High Density Centres and Corridors identified in Schedule 1 shall be 11

undertaken consistent with Policies 6.4.19.1 – 4. Methods 6.4.20.1-4 1. Local authorities and other management authorities with responsibility for the management of volcanic features are to: (i) include in their district and regional plans objectives, policies, rules and other methods, including those available under the Local Government Act 2002, to give effect to Objectives 6.3.6, 6.3.7 and 6.3.8 and Policies 6.4.19; (ii) give effect to Policies 6.4.19 in management plans prepared under the Reserves Act 1977 or other legislation, to the extent consistent with the purpose of that legislation. 2. Resource management and reserve management authorities are encouraged to consider a range of options to achieve the integrated management of Auckland’s volcanic features. Possible methods include joint management plans, the creation of a network of volcanic feature parks, and coordination of interpretive material on Auckland’s volcanic features. Continuing co-operation between all responsible agencies is considered essential for the integrated management of Auckland’s volcanic features. 3. Provision is to be made in district plans and in the Regional Plan: Coastal to control the location, size and height of buildings and other structures on land or in the coastal marine area under the volcanic cone viewshafts listed in Appendix L. 4. Territorial Authorities shall identify and appropriately protect locally significant volcanic features (including, where appropriate, areas referred to in Policy 6.4.19.2(iii) or identified through Method 6.4.20.3A), and locally significant views to and between the volcanic cones. The collective effect of the ACRPS volcanic viewshaft provisions is that the bare minimum content required to give effect to the ACRPS in the Auckland Council District Plan is:   

4.6

inclusion of the regionally significant viewshafts as per the ACRPS viewshafts; incorporation of additional height sensitive areas around the volcanoes, and; insertion of rules that require resource consent for structures entering the viewshafts at a discretionary or non-complying level.

Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal The Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal contains methods which seek to maintain and enhance the diversity, integrity and landscape character of the coastal environment and protect outstanding and regionally significant coastal landscapes from inappropriate use, subdivision and development (objectives 4.3.1 and 4.3.2). The relevant methods for achieving these objectives are provided below. Method 4.6.1 In recognition that the landscape values of the coastal environment have a landward and a seaward component which are inextricably linked, the ARC will work with DOC and other agencies to ensure that appropriate and consistent provisions to protect the quality and diversity of landscapes in the coastal environment are included in regional plans, district plans and other land management documents such as reserve management plans, coastal management strategies and conservation management strategies. Method 4.6.2 The ARC will encourage district plans and other relevant land management documents to contain provisions which give protection to Outstanding and Regionally Significant Landscapes above Mean High Water Springs consistent with that given to those landscapes and seascapes within the coastal marine area. Method 4.6.6 12

In recognition of the importance of views from the water to the land, the ARC will introduce into this Plan by means of plan changes appropriate sight line provisions consistent with those in the relevant district plans which relate to the protection of views to the Region’s volcanoes and other significant features. The above objectives and methods recognise that the preservation of natural character involves protection from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development on land as well as the coastal marine area. This requires taking an integrated approach to the management of land and water areas. Volcanic Viewshaft A13 extends over the coastal marine area and areas under the viewshaft are protected from inappropriate development in order to maintain its visual integrity. PPC 43 aims to maintain the visual integrity of Mt Albert (as viewed from both landward and coastal areas, such as Te Atatu Peninsula) through the use of Volcanic Viewshaft A13 and applicable height limitations for built development in the Transport Environment which apply to State Highway 16. Given that Mt Albert is recognised as a regionally significant volcanic feature in the ACRPS, it is considered that controlling the height of built development within Volcanic Viewshaft A13 is consistent with the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal.

4.7

Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) This section of the report identifies existing District Plan provisions which seek to maintain and protect the visual integrity of significant public views. The majority of these views encompass ridges in the Waitakere Ranges which represent the eroded remains of an ancient volcano. The District Plan places particular emphasis in terms of managing built development on public land and ridgelines which are culturally significant to tangata whenua.

4.7.1

Policy Section – Part 5: Objective 8 “To protect and maintain those aspects of the environment that are of significance to tangata whenua…in a way that promotes the expression and practice of kaitiakitanga (guardianship).”

4.7.1.1 Policy 8.7 “Structures and driveways should not be placed on any ….Natural Landscape Element in a way that detracts from the significance of these landforms and landscape elements for iwi.” Explanation: Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngati Whatua have indicated a particular concern for the way in which structures have been placed on the ridgelines of the Waitakere Ranges. This concern is not simply for the visual effects but, in some cases, is also for the placement of structures on peaks that are considered to be tribal tupuna or ancestors. 4.7.2

Policy Section – Part 5: Objective 9 “ To protect the quality and significance of the City’s outstanding landscapes, including maintaining: … • the landscape character that is associated with each landscape and contributes to its uniqueness and value for residents.” Explanation: “Landscape elements are those tangible natural and physical features that define and contribute to a landscape. Landscape characteristics are those more intangible features, such as a sense of wilderness in the Waitakere Ranges Environment, which contribute to the feeling and overall nature of the landscape. This Objective emphasises the importance of protecting both landscape elements and landscape character, if the totality of the landscape is to survive. The principal reasons for adopting this Objective lie in the requirements of Section 6(b) of the RMA. It also lies in the clear wish of residents to protect what is regarded as a unique and beautiful part of the City.”

13

4.7.2.1 Policy 9.3 “... Particular regard should be had for the placement of structures so that they do not intrude above any sensitive ridgeline when viewed from a public place, or intrude visually on any other Natural Landscape Element. Consideration shall be given to the most practicable option with respect to the placement and provision of infrastructure.” Explanation: “With landscapes that offer such magnificent views, there is considerable pressure to place buildings on ridges and headlands to take advantage of those views. This policy is intended to manage the location of structures, roads and accessways so that they do not intrude into the overall natural character and visual qualities of these landscapes.” 4.7.2.2 Policy 9.13 “Activities involving the trimming and pruning of vegetation may be carried out in a way that maintains, uninterrupted, the identified public views of the City noted on Map 3.6(e) and in Appendix K of the Policy Section. Any such trimming or clearing should be carried out in a way that minimises damage to vegetation.” Explanation: “…These views are highly valued and contribute significantly to the qualities of the City’s outstanding landscapes…. Most are located within areas of regenerating bush. For these reasons, this policy allows for their maintenance.” 4.7.3

Policy Section – Part 5: Objective 11 “To achieve a quality of settlement and associated activities within each of the City’s Human Environments which is sympathetic to, and protects and enhances, the dominant natural and physical (including building) features which contribute to the amenity value and the neighbourhood character of an area…” Explanation “This Objective is concerned with protecting those aspects of the environment that are particularly valued by the community and recognising the varying character of each part of the City…This Objective recognises the importance of maintaining and enhancing the particular elements and characteristics that define the various landscapes, local areas and neighbourhoods of the City.”

4.7.3.1 Policy 11.4 “Structures (including infrastructure) within the Transport Environment should be of a scale (height, form and bulk), and designed, located and managed in a way that avoids, remedies or mitigates the adverse effects on the amenity values and neighbourhood character of any surrounding Environments…” Explanation “The relationship between a road and the surrounding areas can have a major impact on amenity and neighbourhood character. Structures and activities can dominate surrounding sites... This policy manages activities not only in terms of impacts on the Transport Environment itself, but also in terms of impacts on the relationship between the Transport Environment and the surrounding area….” 4.7.3.2 Policy 11.7 Infrastructure should be designed and managed in a way that: … • placement on sensitive ridgelines in a way that visual intrusion above that ridgeline when viewed from a public place is avoided, or where unavoidable, remedied or mitigated; • does not detract from the significance to tangata whenua of any ridgeline; … Explanation “Infrastructure takes many forms, from telecommunication masts to roads and pipes. Often, because of its size, it dominates and visually intrudes on landscape values and the visual amenity of areas. Its location, materials used, height and form can all have an impact on amenity. For these reasons, a policy has been adopted which is concerned with integrating infrastructure, where possible, into the local Environment, in a way that protects and enhances the amenity of these areas.” 14

4.7.4

Policy Section – Appendix D & K

4.7.4.1 Significant Public Views “A number of views of particular note or importance were identified in a report prepared for Council and through field work by Council staff, as being worthy of special protection. The view points were chosen for: • their scenic qualities; • their views of notable locations; • their contribution to the visual experience of road travel; These views have been limited to those visible from the roadside and which are already recognised by the presence of signs, platforms and a formed path leading from a formal parking area, as such views are likely to be valued by the greatest number of people. The majority of viewpoints identified are concentrated around the edge of the Ranges or along the coast. Views were described and the extent of the view determined by the use of compass measurements. “ These views are formally described and listed in Appendix K of the District Plan’s Policy Section. 4.7.5

Rules Section – Vegetation Alteration Assessment Criterion In support of Policy 9.13, an assessment criterion is provided within all of the District Plan’s vegetation alteration rules which refers to the extent to which pruning is required “…to preserve public views.”

4.7.6

Rules Section– Building Location (Natural Landscape Elements) Assessment Criteria In support of Objectives 8, 9 and 11, the following are included in the assessment criterion which are used to assess proposals subject to the District Plan’s Building Location (Natural Landscape Elements) rules:

  

The extent to which buildings and development compromise the visual landscape qualities of sensitive ridgelines, and other natural landscape elements; The extent to which development adversely affects the visual, historical, cultural and spiritual significance for iwi of sensitive ridges; and The extent to which the height of a building or will interrupt identified public views, as listed in Appendix K of the Policy Section of the Plan. The District Plan’s Building Location (Natural Landscape Elements) rules apply to development upon ridge lines, headlands, cliffs and scarps which represent landscapes containing the majority of significant public views in West Auckland.

4.8

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) was notified for submissions on 30 September 2013. This is a combined proposed regional policy statement, coastal regional plan and district plan covering the entire Auckland City including the coastal marine area, with the exception of the district plan for that area of land subject to the Auckland City District Plan Operative Hauraki Gulf Island Section 2013. The PAUP establishes a framework for how council will work together with Mana Whenua to harness their valuable knowledge in managing Auckland’s natural and physical resources. This includes creating opportunities for Mana Whenua to help inform decisions and make decisions about resources which are important to them, such as Maunga and associated viewshafts across the Auckland Region. The PAUP has a variety of provisions relating to volcanic view shafts. These include regional policy on protection of volcanic viewshafts, maps of viewshafts and rules to give effect to that policy. The overall approach is similar to that of the operative Auckland Council Regional Policy, with Volcanic Viewshaft A13 being included in the PAUP. As the PAUP is still in the notification stage, only the PAUP’s objectives and policies have legal effect, with the relevant provisions being contained within the regional policy statement chapter under clause 4.3.2 (titled ‘Landscape and natural features’). 15

The relevant PAUP objectives, policies and methods from clause 4.3.2 are provided below. Objectives

… 2. The ancestral relationships of Mana Whenua with, and their perspectives on, the landscapes and natural features of Auckland is identified and provided for.

… 4. The visual and physical integrity and values Auckland's volcanic features that are of local, regional, national and/or international significance are protected and where practicable enhanced. 5. The significant views to and between Auckland’s maunga are protected… Policies … 5. Manage the outstanding natural features including the volcanic features in an integrated manner: to protect and, where practicable and appropriate, enhance their multiple values which may include social, cultural, historic, geological, archaeological, scientific, ecological, amenity, open space, and landscape values across jurisdictional, tribal, or ownership boundaries to maintain their range and diversity that maintains, and where practicable, enhances Mana Whenua values. 6. Enable works and development that maintains or enhances the values or appreciation of the outstanding natural features and outstanding natural landscapes. 7. Require urban intensification to be consistent with the protection of volcanic features and viewshaft policies.

… 9. Protect ONLs including volcanic features by: a. avoiding activities that individually or cumulatively result in significant modification or destruction of the feature b. maintaining, and where practicable, enhancing the amenity values of publicly owned, historic heritage, cultural, scientific, landscape, and open space. Provision of public access and recreation are consistent with the protection of these values c. maintaining, and where practicable, enhancing Mana Whenua values associated with ONLs. 10. Require activities to avoid adverse effects on outstanding natural features by avoiding:

… g. a significant reduction in the value of the feature in its wider historic heritage, cultural, landscape, natural character, and amenity context h. destruction of, or significant reduction in, the educational, scientific, amenity, social, or economic value of the feature i. a reduction in the value of the historical, cultural, and spiritual associations with the feature held by Mana Whenua.

… 13. Maintain, and where practicable enhance, the overall contribution of the regionally significant volcanic features to Auckland’s landscape character, including physical and visual connections to, and views between, the maunga. 14. Protect the historic, archaeological and cultural integrity of regionally significant volcanic features and their surrounds to avoid activities that detract from these values and their mana. 15. Avoid new buildings or structures within viewshafts identified in Appendix 3.3 and development above the specified building heights in height sensitive areas to protect views to and between the maunga. 16. Protect the physical and visual integrity and the landscape values of ONLs by: a. appropriate type, scale, intensity and location for subdivision, use and development b. making built elements subservient to the dominance of the features, patterns, processes and qualities that make the landscape an ONL c. avoiding activities that individually or cumulatively detract physically or visually from the values of the landscape 16

d. maintaining the visual coherence and integrity of the landscape

… f. maintaining the visual or physical qualities that make the landscape iconic or rare… Methods Regulatory Unitary Plan: … Volcanic Viewshaft and Blanket Height Sensitive areas overlays, objectives, policies and rules…

4.9

The Auckland Plan The Auckland Plan is a spatial plan prepared under section 79 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. It is a relevant strategy document that council should have regard to under section 74(2) of the RMA. Some of the long-term goals of the Auckland Plan which are relevant to PPPC40 are summarised below: Chapter 7 provides information on the council’s intentions regarding the protection of the volcanic cones and features. Figures 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 identify Auckland's volcanic features in the context of various values Figure 7.1.1 identifies the Auckland’s volcanic features and the related viewshafts. Directives 7.2 and 7.3 below provide a general statement of intent to recognise and protect natural heritage and significant landscapes. Directive 7.2 Recognise and promote:  the contribution of natural heritage to urban character, quality, amenity and sense of place … Directive 7.3 Identify significant landscapes, landscape character, natural character and natural features, and appropriately manage these to protect and enhance their biophysical and sensory qualities, and associated values. Overall the Auckland Plan promotes the protection of volcanic heritage largely in accordance Change 8 to the ACRPS. In addition one clear directive from the Auckland Plan (pg 365) is to achieve World Heritage Status for the Volcanic Field by 2020. In order to get this status, the proposal will be assessed against certain criteria including what protection exists now to ensure the features stay protected into the future Fig 7.1.1 shows the urban volcanic landscape and the operative regional viewshafts. It is proposed to implement the Auckland Plan by inclusion of these viewshafts in the Unitary Plan.

4.10

The Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Deed of Settlement On the 8 September 2012, the Crown signed a deed settling historic iwi and hapu claims relating to maunga in Auckland which provides for their ownership and management by a Maunga Authority. The Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill currently before Parliament will give effect to the deed. The deed names the maunga it applies to, which currently includes Mt Albert. The institutions resulting from the deed will apply primarily to the maunga rather than the land use within the viewshafts to the maunga. Nevertheless, views of the maunga are a significant part of their cultural value which is recognised in the deed of settlement.

17

4.11

The Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Iwi Management Plan 2012 The Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Iwi Management Plan 2012 is an iwi management plan that council must have regard to under section 74(2)(b)(i) of the RMA. This document is referred to in the discussion on the submission from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Maia Ltd (section 6.2 of the report).

5

CONSULTATION A summary of consultation undertaken in preparation of PPC 43 is provided in the Section 32 Report which is attached as Appendix 3 to this report.

6

NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS Date of public notification for submissions

31 May 2013

Closing date for submissions

1 July 2013

Number of submissions received Date of public notification for further submissions Closing date for further submissions

11 11 October 2013 21 October 2013

Number of further submissions received

3

All submissions were received on time. There are no late submissions. Copies of the submissions are attached as Appendix 4 to this report. It should be noted that there are several referencing anomalies with the regional submissions, with no submission being allocated the reference ‘R6’ or R11’. Instead, a distinction is made between submissions received specifically on PPC 43 which are given the reference ‘L’ to indicate a ‘local submission’, while the reference ‘R’ is given to ‘regional submissions’ received which sought relief on all of the volcanic viewshaft plan changes. The following sections of this report address the submissions received on PPC 43, discuss the relief sought in the submissions and make recommendations to the Commissioners. Submissions that address the same issues and seek the same relief have been grouped together in this report under the following topic headings: 1. 2. 3. 4.

6.1

Supporting PPC 43 as notified Supporting PPC 43 and requesting additional viewshaft protection Opposing PPC 43 opposition and requesting reduced viewshaft protection or exemptions Opposing PPC 43

Submissions supporting PPC 43 Sub. No. R9

Name of Submitter James Hilford

Summary of the Relief Sought by the Submitter Accept the plan change.

Further Submissions

Discussion The submitter requests that PPC 43 be adopted for the following reason: “I want to protect the beautiful views our city has and not have greed destroy them - property values is NOT a good reason to not do this. We need to protect the beauty we have before its too late.” Recommendations on submissions That submission R9 be accepted for the reason that Volcanic Viewshaft A13 is regionally significant, but noting that some amendments are made in response to other submissions. 18

6.2

Submissions supporting PPC 43 and requesting additional viewshaft protection Sub. No. R1/1

Name of Submitter Peake Design Ltd

Summary of the Relief Sought by the Submitter That a rule be added to all of the affected Plans covering any application, to include an assessment of effects and criteria for assessment. A suitable example is considered to be Rule 5C.7.6.5 of the Auckland Plan (Isthmus). That an image of each view be included in the Plan, in addition to the surveyed co-ordinates. Volcanic viewshafts and landscapes need to be considered from a Maori cultural perspective. New ‘cultural viewshafts’ should be added after identification by Mana Whenua. E.g. views from cultural places of significance to their ancestral maunga New policies should be added which protect the new ‘cultural viewshafts’.

R1/2

Peake Design Ltd

R2/1

Ngati Whatua Orakei Maia Ltd

R2/2

Ngati Whatua Orakei Maia Ltd

R2/3

Ngati Whatua Orakei Maia Ltd

New rules should be added to ensure that buildings or structures which penetrate ‘cultural viewshafts’ are noncomplying activities and notifiable to iwi.

R4/1

New Zealand Historic Places Trust

R4/2

New Zealand Historic Places Trust

R7/1

Te Akitai Waiohua Waka Taua Trust

Supports the proposed viewshafts and seeks consideration of the views, described below, to determine whether they are of sufficient significance to merit protection. (a) Views of a number of volcanic cones (including Owairaka, Maungawhau and Maungakiekie) that have become available looking north from the vicinity of the Maioro Street interchange on SH20. (b) Views between Mount Hobson and Mount St John. (c) A view from Highwick House, 40 Gillies Ave, Epsom, to Mount St John. (d) Additional views of Mangere Mountain from SH20 and SH20A. (e) Views of Mt St John and Mt Hobson from SH1 between Newmarket and Greenlane. (f) Views of the Waitakere ranges, including that from Crayford Street in Avondale. Clarification that the viewshaft provisions will be used to help determine whether a proposal constitutes a Qualifying Development in accordance with the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas legislation. Greater consideration should be given to cultural values and landscapes within the planning framework which underpins the proposed plan changes. This requires

Further Submission

1. Auckland Transport (partly opposed) 2. HNZ (opposed) 3. Tram Lease Ltd (opposed)

1. Auckland Transport (partly opposed) 2. HNZ (opposed) 3. Tram Lease Ltd (opposed) 1. Auckland Transport (partly opposed) 2. HNZ (opposed) 3. Tram Lease Ltd (opposed) 1. Auckland Transport (partly opposed) 2. HNZ (opposed) 3. Tram Lease Ltd (opposed)

2. HNZ (support)

1. Auckland Transport (partly opposed) 2. HNZ (opposed) 19

Sub. No.

Name of Submitter

Summary of the Relief Sought by the Submitter revision of the policies, rules and assessment criteria.

Further Submission

R7/2

Te Akitai Waiohua Waka Taua Trust

1. Auckland Transport (partly opposed) 2. HNZ (opposed)

R7/3

Te Akitai Waiohua Waka Taua Trust

Support for the protection of those viewshafts which relate to Te Pane o Mataoho/Mangere Mountain, Maungakiekie/One Tree Hill, Maungawhau/Mt Eden, and Maungarei/Mt Wellington. Particularly M4, M5, M6 and O11. Amend rules to ensure that where buildings or structures penetrate the volcanic viewshafts and exceed specified height limits and height sensitive areas, these are non-complying activities.

R7/4

Te Akitai Waiohua Waka Taua Trust

1. Auckland Transport (partly opposed) 2. HNZ (opposed)

R7/5

Te Akitai Waiohua Waka Taua Trust

R7/6

Te Akitai Waiohua Waka Taua Trust

R7/7

Te Akitai Waiohua Waka Taua Trust

Requests new viewshafts and associated height sensitive areas are added to the District Plan to provide protection to views between the following key places of local and cultural significance: (a) Pukaki Marae and Matukutureia/McLaughlins Mountain (b) Pukaki Marae and Te Pane o Mataoho/Mangere Mountain (c) Puketutu Island and Te Pane o Mataoho/Mangere Mountain Requests new objectives, policies, rules and assessment criteria that support the new viewshafts above to recognise cultural values, the relationship between maunga and mana Whenua and the importance of maunga as part of the wider cultural landscape. Supports the provisions of height sensitive areas (in particular around Te Pane o Mataoho/Mangere Mountain), as these areas provide a visual and spiritual connection between mana whenua’s wider rohe and the important cultural site (the maunga). Objectives, policies, rules and assessment criteria associated with height sensitive areas should be amended to recognise important cultural values.

1. Auckland Transport (partly opposed) 2. HNZ (opposed)

1. Auckland Transport (partly opposed) 2. HNZ (opposed)

1. Auckland Transport (partly opposed) 2. HNZ (opposed)

1. Auckland Transport (partly opposed) 2. HNZ (opposed)

Discussion Submission R4/1 supports PPC 43 and requests the insertion of additional view shafts. The support for including and protecting Volcanic Viewshaft A13 under PPC 43 is acknowledged, with the viewshaft being identified as regionally significant in the ACRPS. This does not necessarily preclude inclusion of other volcanic viewshafts in the District Plan and the views identified by the submitter may be significant, even if they are not currently identified as being regionally significant. Regarding item (f) in the submission, most of the recommended additional viewshafts are not associated with a specific location. Consequently, considerable research investment would be required to assess and accurately survey all other potential viewshafts. This would need to occur through a separate planning process, such as the PAUP. In addition, consideration would need to be given to the cumulative effect on future development potential in Auckland from adding additional view shafts. As this research and assessment has not been done, it would be inappropriate to include additional viewshafts, as proposed by the submitter, through this plan change process. 20

to the extent of supporting the inclusion of Volcanic Viewshaft A13 in the notified version of PPC 43 for the reason that the viewshaft is regionally significant and necessary to give effect to the ACRPS. Submission R4/2 requests clarification that the viewshaft provisions will be used to help determine whether a proposal constitutes a Qualifying Development in accordance with the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas legislation. In response, the critieria for determining qualifying special housing areas (SHA) are set out in the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (HASHAA). In summary:      

the criteria for determining a qualifying development are determined under the HASHAA process; viewshafts are not part of the qualifying criteria for SHA set out in the HASHAA; the council has the discretion under the HASHAA to recommend to the Minister, that a lower building than the HASHAA maximum height for a qualifying development and such a recommendation could be influenced by viewshafts, the Minister may or may not except such recommendations for reduced heights; resource consent applications would still be required; the provisions of proposed plans, i.e. the PAUP, and plan changes are given greater weight in determining the consent applications, than the operative plan.

Consequently, the council is not in a position to confirm that the viewshaft provisions will be used to help determine whether a proposal constitutes a Qualifying Development. Submission R1/1 requests a new rule covering all applications for resource consent inserting assessment criteria and proposes those used in the Auckland Council District Plan Operative Auckland City Isthmus Section 1999 (the isthmus plan), Rule 5C.7.6.5 which states: Any application shall include an assessment of the effects on the environment made in accordance with PART 4 - GENERAL PROVISIONS AND PROCEDURES of the Plan. This assessment shall, in addition, include: (a)

Plans and written material to describe the nature, extent and form of the built object;

(b)

A visual impact assessment shall include an assessment of the extent to which the noncomplying object obscures the protected view of the volcanic feature. In assessing the degree of intrusion into the protected view the following criteria will be considered – i) The silhouette of the volcanic feature, including the lower slopes.

c)

ii)

The amount of unencumbered greenspace visible on the volcanic feature from the viewing point(s) selected in (b) above.

iii)

The extent to which the non-complying object constitutes a visually competing intrusion into the background or foreground of the unencumbered view of the volcanic feature;

A cultural impact assessment which should include an assessment of the extent to which the non-complying object detracts from the cultural significance of the volcanic cone.

For the purposes of this rule, cultural significance means asthetic, historic, scientific or social value for past, present and future generations as outlined in Clause 5C.7.6.4 STRATEGY. In applying its discretion the Council will consider: 

Any policies and objectives of this Plan relevant to the circumstances of the application;



The necessity for the infringement and any alternative methods available to the applicant for carrying out the works which would meet the requirements of the Plan;



The assessment of the effects of the environment as requested above;



The assessment of the effects on the cultural significance of the volcanic cone(s) as requested above;



Ways in which any adverse effects may be mitigated;



Reasonable adherence to Plan requirements.

Parts (a), (b), (c) of this rule set out some information requirements for consent applications in volcanic view shafts defined in the isthmus plan. The bulleted part of the rules sets out some matters 21

that the council will apply its discretion to in considering consent applications. It is not clear whether the intention is to limit discretion to only those matters. In response to submission R1/1, it is generally not good resource management practice to set assessment criteria, or limit discretion, for non-complying activities. The RMA sets out specific requirements for consideration of non-complying activities under sections 104 and 104D. Key requirements are that the effects of any activity on the environment will be minor and will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the District Plan. Therefore the appropriate response to submission R1/1 is to check whether the District Plan objectives, policies, rules and consent application information requirements are appropriate, and collectively give effect to the ACRPS and relevant national policy statement. The relevant objectives, policies and rules are set out in section 4.6 above. To give effect to section 6.4.19 Policies: Volcanic Features of the ACRPS, in summary:    

the values of the features and their physical are to be protected in an integrated manner which includes RMA mechanisms and non-RMA mechanisms; ensuring that the effects of activities on land around the features are avoided, remedied or enhanced; the overall contribution of the features to Aucklands landscape is to be maintained, including connections to and views between the volcanic cones; and the identified views of the volcanic cones are to be protected, and intrusion into the viewshafts is to be avoided except for the intrusion provided for in specified height sensitive areas.

It is considered that the scope of existing District Plan objectives provides the basis for a policy framework which can be amended (where appropriate) to give effect to the ACRPS. As detailed in the Section 32 report (attached as Appendix 3 to this report), and in response to submission R1/1, PPC 43 proposes to amend existing District Plan policy 11.4 so that it addresses the adverse effects which structures in the road reserve can have on significant public views. In support of this, it is also proposed to amend Appendix D and K of the District Plan’s Policy Section to include Volcanic Viewshaft A13 as a significant public view within West Auckland (recommended PPC 43 provisions attached as Appendix 1 to this report). To ensure that the aforementioned policies are given effect to, PPC 43 also proposes to amend existing District Plan rules relating to the erection and alteration of existing structures in the road reserve so that a non-complying activity status applies to development which breaches the floor of Volcanic Viewshaft A13. The intended rule changes will be supported by additional assessment criteria which appraise the visual obtrusiveness of built development within Volcanic Viewshaft A13. Notwithstanding the proposed policy and rule changes detailed above, and in response to submission R1/1, it is acknowledged that the District Plan’s ‘information requirements for resource consents’ section needs to be amended so that future consent applications involving built development within Volcanic Viewshaft A13 are adequately assessed from a visual perspective. As a result, it is proposed that the section be amended so that specific reference is made to assessing the effects which any proposed activity may have on an identified volcanic viewshaft in the District Plan. Such an assessment would be guided by the relevant assessment criteria contained within the proposed District Plan rules which seek to address the visual effects of built development within Volcanic Viewshaft A13 (PPC 43 provisions, including recommended amendments resulting from submissions received, attached as Appendix 1 to this report). Submission R1/2 requests that images of Volcanic Viewshaft A13 be included in the District Plan. This submission is not supported given that including images of Volcanic Viewshaft A13 in the District Plan will not assist preparation or assessment of associated consent applications. Therefore it is recommended that Council add an image(s) of Volcanic Viewshaft A13 to the part of the Council’s website which addresses volcanic viewshafts instead. Submissions R2/1 and R7/1 request that volcanic viewshafts and landscapes be considered from a Maori cultural perspective, and that the provisions of PPC 43 and other volcanic viewshaft plan changes give greater consideration to cultural values. This includes providing for additional cultural viewshafts. 22

Submission R2/2 requests additional policies to protect new ‘cultural viewshafts’. Submission R2/3 requests rules to make buildings that intrude into ‘cultural viewshafts’ a noncomplying activity. Submissions R7/2 and R7/6 supports the inclusion of viewshafts and height sensitive areas in other sections of the Auckland Council District Plan. Submission R7/3 requests rules to make buildings that intrude into volcanic viewshafts a noncomplying activity and notifiable to iwi. Submissions R7/4 and R7/5 nominate specific cultural viewshafts for inclusion which are outside of the District Plan’s geographic area, along with recommending additional provisions to support these cultural viewshafts. Submission R7/7 requests that plan change provisions associated with height sensitive areas should be amended to recognise important cultural values. In relation to PPC 43, there are no height sensitive areas associated with the portion of Volcanic Viewshaft A13 inside the District Plan’s geographical area. Regarding submissions 2/1, 2/2, 2/3, 7/1, 7/4 and 7/5, the identification of areas across the region of cultural significance has been discussed with the submitters in a hui and the submitters were advised that the best way to achieve the comprehensive mapping and protection of cultural landscapes for all iwi would be through the PAUP. This process would ensure that cultural landscapes were accurately identified and comparisons drawn to determine which were significant enough to be included in the ACRPS. Furthermore, PPC 43 and the other related plan changes were intended to give effect to those volcanic viewshafts already contained in the ACRPS and the Council has not done any research to identify volcanic viewshafts not already in the ACRPS. The Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Iwi Management Plan 2012 may be referred to for additional guidance on the position of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei on the maunga of Tāmaki Makaurau, and this document will be available at the hearing for review upon request. Recommendations on submissions That submission R1/1 be accepted in part as detailed above, and that the resulting plan change amendment detailed in Appendix 1 to this report be made. That submission R1/2 be accepted in part without amendments as detailed above. That submissions R2/1, 2/2, 2/3, R7/1, R7/4 and R7/5 be rejected for the reasons given above in relation to these submissions. That submission R4/1 be accepted in part without amendments as detailed above. That submission R4/2 be rejected for the reasons given above in relation to this submission. That submissions R7/2, R7/3 and R7/6 are noted in terms of their support for volcanic viewshafts and associated height sensitive areas included in other related plan changes, along with supporting the application of a non-complying activity status to any structure penetrating a viewshaft. That submission R7/7 be rejected for the reason that there are no height sensitive areas associated with the portion of Volcanic Viewshaft A13 inside the District Plan’s boundaries. With the exception of further submission 1, that related further submissions be either accepted, accepted in part, accepted in part without amendments or rejected in accordance with the recommendations on the primary submissions. That further submission 1 is noted as the relief sought would only apply if additional viewshafts were proposed for inclusion under PPC 43.

23

6.3

Submissions supporting PPC 43 and requesting reduced viewshaft protection or exemptions Sub. No. L1/1

Name of Submitter Auckland Transport

L1/2

Auckland Transport

L1/3

Auckland Transport

Summary of the Relief Sought by the Submitter That council approve the plan change subject to confirming that Volcanic Viewshaft A13 will not be altered to include any land outside the NZTA designation. the plan being amended to exclude AT structures within the road reserve from the viewshaft control. Also requests that consideration be given to removing the viewshaft control from AT structures outside the road reserve. That council approve the plan change subject to it being amended to exclude Auckland Transport structures within the road reserve from control. That council approve the plan change subject to consideration being given to exclude all transport infrastructure provided by AT, regardless of its location and/or such other relief that will give effect to Auckland Transport’s concerns.

Further Submissions

Discussion The portion of Volcanic Viewshaft A13 within the District Plan’s geographical boundaries is entirely contained within the NZTA designation. Therefore the view shaft rules proposed under PPC 43 will not apply to any structures erected by Auckland Transport in the road reserve. The submitter also requests that Auckland Transport structures outside of road reserves be exempt from the proposed viewshaft rules. These rules aim to protect the visual integrity of Mt Albert, irrespective of the purpose of any building or structure provided for. Any Auckland Transport structures which are considered essential under infrastructure requirements, but infringe proposed viewshaft controls can apply for resource consent. Recommendations on submissions That submission L1/1 be accepted, and submissions L1/2 and L1/3 be rejected for the reasons given above in relation to these submissions.

6.4

Submissions opposing PPC 43 or requesting reduced viewshaft protection or exemptions Submission Part L2/1

L2/2

Submitter Name Housing New Zealand Corporation c/- Boffa Miskell

Summary of Decision Requested

Further Submission

To decline or amend the proposed plan change to ensure that the sites owned and managed by Housing New Zealand and identified in the submission, are able to be developed in accordance with their permitted zone heights. Introduce a variation to the proposed plan change or introduce a further plan change to: i) Allow increased permitted building coverage and reduce the required landscaping and non permeable provisions 24

Submission Part

L2/3

L2/4

Submitter Name

Summary of Decision Requested

Further Submission

on those sites where the height limit imposed to protect the volcanic view shaft is more restrictive than the permitted height in the zone applied to the site. ii) Amend the activity status of applications for structures that exceed the volcanic cone view protection provisions to discretionary activity for consistency across the region. That the View Protection – Volcanic cones sightlines are not applied to those areas identified in the Draft Unitary Plan for population growth and intensification (i.e. mixed housing and terrace and apartment building zones). Any similar amendments to like effect

Discussion Pursuant to Sections 73(4) and 75(3) of the RMA, the purpose of PPC 43 is to update the District Plan so that it gives effect to the ACRPS which identifies significant public views of Auckland’s volcanic cones, otherwise referred to as ‘Volcanic Viewshafts’. Currently, the District Plan does not reflect the revised provisions in the ACRPS resulting from Change 8, and it is the statutory obligation of the Council to correct this cascading anomaly as soon as possible. Change 8 introduced into the ACRPS has already been the subject of a full RMA process, including public submissions, and a hearing. Environment Court appeals were resolved following negotiations and meetings between those persons and organisations who were sufficiently interested in the topic to participate in that process. The only volcanic viewshaft identified in the ACRPS which comes within the geographical boundaries administered by the District Plan is ‘Volcanic Viewshaft A13’ which originates at the State Highway 16 Te Atatu interchange and provides motorists with a clear view of Mt Albert when heading east on the motorway. PPC 43 intends to give effect to the ACRPS by including Volcanic Viewshaft A13 in the District Plan. Although the portion of Volcanic Viewshaft A13 inside the District Plan’s geographical boundaries comes within the NZTA State Highway 16, it also represents the point of origin for the viewshaft which encompasses properties owned by the submitter within the geographical boundaries of the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus Section). Therefore on this basis the submitter opposes the inclusion of Volcanic Viewshaft A13 in the District Plan, in particular the imposition of additional height restrictions upon built development within the viewshaft which are viewed as hindering future redevelopment plans. In support of submission L2/1, the submitter states that Council needs to balance objectives introduced into the ACRPS by Change 8 against other strategic objectives, such as accommodating the Region’s growth by achieving a compact well designed more sustainable urban form. The submitter also states that the proposed height restrictions are inconsistent with the Auckland Plan which seeks, amongst other things, to achieve sustainable development by providing a range of accessible quality housing and employment choices as a means of accommodating Auckland’s continued high population growth. In response to the submitter views above, ACRPS policy 6.4.19.5 (stated in section 4.5 of this report) explicitly states that the protection of volcanic features, including through the methods of viewshafts and special height limits, has primacy over urban intensification. This ACRPS policy is affirmed in the PAUP’s regional policy statement chapter under clause 4.3.2 (titled ‘Landscape and natural features’), with policy seven of this clause requiring urban intensification to be consistent with the protection of volcanic features and viewshaft policies (stated in section 4.8 of this report). Regarding the Auckland Plan, chapter 7 provides information on the council’s intentions regarding the protection of the volcanic cones and features (as detailed under section 4.8 of this report), which includes achieving World Heritage Status for Auckland’s Volcanic Field by 2020. In support of 25

attaining this outcome, Figure 7.1.1 of the Plan identifies Auckland’s volcanic features and the operative regional viewshafts, including Volcanic Viewshaft A13 which is proposed for inclusion in the District Plan under PPC 43. The submitter is also of the view that existing District Plan provisions already provide sufficient protection for the Region’s volcanic features. In response, the District Plan presently contains no reference to Volcanic Viewshaft A13 and it is therefore necessary to include the viewshaft in the Plan so that it gives effect to the ACRPS. As stated in section 4.5 of this report, ACRPS policy 6.3.19 requires that the physical and visual integrity of regionally significant volcanic features be protected by ensuring that, amongst other requirements, the views of volcanic cones listed in Appendix L and indicated on Map Series 4a are protected. In relation to giving effect to policy 6.3.19, clause 6.4.20 in the ACRPS requires that local authorities responsible for the management of volcanic features include in their District Plan objectives, policies and rules which give effect to this policy. To achieve this outcome, the aforementioned ACRPS clause requires the District Plan to make provision for controlling the location, size and height of buildings and other structures on land under the volcanic viewshafts listed in Appendix L of the ACRPS. If PPC 43 is not declined, the submitter requests that it be amended to allow built development upon sites which it owns within Volcanic Viewshaft A13 be allowed to achieve the maximum permitted height under the District Plan. In response, the viewshaft’s dimensions and contours (as shown on proposed District Plan Map Appendix XXX of the plan change) are taken directly from maps contained in series 4a of the ACRPS, with its coordinates being contained in Appendix L of the ACRPS. It would therefore be inappropriate to change any mapping details proposed under PPC 43 as this would result in the plan change not giving effect to the ACRPS. It is also noted that height sensitive areas underlying Volcanic Viewshaft A13 which cover sites owned by the submitter are located outside the Distict Plan’s geographical boundaries. Therefore the relief sought in terms of amending permitted building heights upon sites which the submitters owns is deemed to be outside the scope of PPC 43, with the same rationale applying to relief sought by the submitter under Submission L2/2 in terms of amending existing bulk and location controls for sites which it owns. Submission L2/2 also requests that a discretionary activity status is applied to structures which exceed viewshaft protection provisions. In response, PPC 43 proposes rule provisions which ensure that a non-complying activity status applies to development which breaches the floor of Volcanic Viewshaft A13. This approach is consistent with existing provisions in the Isthmus Section of the Auckland Council District Plan which encompasses almost the entire length of Volcanic Viewshaft A13. Submission L2/3 is deemed to be outside the scope of PPC 43 as it requests changes to the PAUP which is not the subject of this plan change. Regarding Submission L2/4, and in light of responses provided above to submissions L2/1, L2/2 and L2/3, it is considered inappropriate to recommended alternative amendments which give effect to the relief sought by the submitter. Recommendations on submissions That submissions L2/1, L2/2, L2/3 & L2/4 be rejected for the reasons given above in relation to these submissions.

6.4

Submissions opposing PPC 43 Sub. No. R3

Name of Submitter Jenni Fernandez

R5

Sue L McLachlan

Summary of the Relief Sought by the Submitter Opposes the plan change on the grounds that the submitter is not sure what the pros and cons are and finds the information on the website difficult to access. There can be no penetration by any building into any part of the three dimensional plane of the volcanic viewshafts as plotted from the volcanic

Further Submissions

2. HNZ (opposed)

26

R8

Mountain View School Board of Trustees

R10

Tram Lease Limited, Viaduct Harbour Holdings limit and Viaduct Harbour Management Limited

cones. There can be no penetration by any building into any part of the three dimensional plane of the volcanic viewshafts as plotted from the volcanic cones. That the proposals be withdrawn or that the volcanic viewshafts be deleted or amended over the land owned by the submitter.

3.Tram Lease Ltd (support)

Discussion Submission R3 opposes PPC 43 on the grounds that the submitter is unclear what the advantageous and disadvantages of the plan change are. This report explains the existing rules and the proposed changes in detail which may be of some assistance to the submitter. No change is recommended in response to the submission. Submissions R5 and R8 oppose PPC 43 on the basis of unequivocally opposing any building penetrating the floor of Volcanic Viewshaft A13. In response, it is considered that applying a prohibited activity status to buildings which penetrate the viewshaft would be inconsistent with policy 6.4.19 of the ACRPS which allows for height sensitive areas within a viewshaft to accommodate buildings that exceed its relevant floor plane. Notwithstanding this, PPC 43 proposes that a noncomplying activity status apply to development which breaches the floor of Volcanic Viewshaft A13, thereby indicating that such development is not anticipated by the District Plan. The only exception to this would be contravening development proposed by NZTA in accordance with their designation over State Highway 16 which covers the portion of Volcanic Viewshaft to be included in the District Plan under PPC 43. Such development was recently approved under an alteration to the designation which included widening the State Highway 16 Te Atatu interchange (Ref: NOR 2010-1034). In support of the designation alteration, a landscape assessment was provided by LA4 Landscape Architects Ltd (c/- Stephen Brown) who confirmed that existing lighting standards along State Highway 16 presently breached the floor of Volcanic Viewshaft A13, and that similar breaches would occur when installing new lighting standards to accommodate the future widening of the State Highway 16 Te Atatu interchange. Notwithstanding this, Mr Brown concluded that due to their linear and generally light-weight profile, the new lighting standards would be able to visually co-exist with the Mt Albert landscape without compromising the integrity and value of this view from the State Highway 16 Te Atatu interchange. Submission R10 opposes PPC 43. This submission lists a number of properties that the submitter has an interest in. None of these properties are within the District Plan’s geographic area. The submitter believes that PPC 43 and the other related plan changes will unreasonable restrict use of these properties. In response, I consider that provisions of PPC 43 do provide for reasonable use of land and are necessary to give effect to the ACRPS. No change is recommended in response to this submission. Recommendations on Submissions That submissions R3, R5, R8 and R10 be rejected That related further submissions be either accepted or rejected in accordance with the recommendations on the primary submissions.

7. CONCLUSIONS Submissions have been received in support of and opposition to PPC 43. Some submissions have requested amendments to add additional viewshafts. Other submissions have requested 27

amendments to increase the protection for Volcanic Viewshaft A13, while others have requested amendments to exempt specific activities. Having considered all of the submissions it is concluded that Volcanic Viewshaft A13 should be adopted as notified in PPC 43. In addition, it is recommended that changes be made to the Plan Change which are detailed in Appendix 1 to this report. Subject to these recommended changes, adoption of PPC 43 will:      

assist the council in achieving the purpose of the RMA; give effect to the HGMPA; give effect to the NZCPS; give effect to the ACRPS; be consistent with the Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal; and be consistent with the Auckland Plan.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS 1.

That, the panel accept or reject submissions (and associated further submissions) as outlined in this report.

2.

That, as a result of the recommendations on the submissions, PPC 43 be modified as outlined in Appendix 1 to this report.

SIGNATORIES Role Author

Title Nicholas Lau, Planner North/West Planning, Regional & Local Planning

Reviewer & Authoriser

Eryn Shields, Team Leader North/West Planning, Regional & Local Planning

Attachment One Two Three Four

Signature

Title Recommended amendments to PPC 43 provisions, in response to submissions PPC 43 maps Section 32 Report Copy of submissions and further submissions (not circulated to submitters)

28