Section Subdivision

Transcription

1 C E Henderson G and R Cockburn G and R Cockburn C and W McDonald DOC NZTA Radio New Zealand t/a and Minister of Education General General Support most objectives and policies. Not stated. It is considered that the submitter requests the Retain existing objectives and policies. General Support in part with the following concerns: Not stated. It is considered that the submitter requests the In the Te Anau Basin there is a major concern over the number of subdivisions in general and over supply of sections. This is having a negative economic impact on the section market. In addition to economic impact there are potential impacts on Council with being That at the time subdivisions are assessed matters relating lumbered with outstanding issues from undeveloped subdivisions. need and/or detrimental economic effects of excessive General The proposal by Landcorp to subdivide significant amounts of land away from the town nucleus will have long term ramifications on our infrastructure. We are opposed to this type of development. General Oppose this section. The Plan if implemented will be impractical and potentially detrimental to the efficient operation of properties affected by it. It will add yet another unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and cost to our business. Consultation has been inadequate, either as a group or individual. We feel that the effects of this section could have a detrimental effect on our farming operation and impinge on our existing use rights as freehold property owners. General Support in general this section of the Plan. However does not give full effect to Section 6(e) of the Resource subdivision on the area be taken into account. Not stated. It is considered that the submitter requests the That policies are developed or retained that support consolidation of rural residential subdivision close to existing urban areas. Not stated. Delete this section. It is considered the submitter requests the Retain Section 2.6 Subdivision except for an amended Policy Management Act 1991, or New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 in the Coastal. SUB.2. General Support. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the General Introduction Introduction Objective SUB.1 Objective SUB.1 There should be a degree of flexibility provided in the rules in the rural area for subdivision. This is to enable farmers to respond to economic and social drivers which may impact on different farming operations differently, examples: Diversification into tourism operations, disposing of a surplus dwelling, providing for family or staff to live on farm or to implement a succession plan for multiple siblings through small lot subdivision. It would be appropriate for the introduction to specifically refer to the risk of inappropriately designed or located subdivision giving rise to reverse sensitivity effects. Objective needs to recognise that farmers in rural areas often undertake subdivision for different reasons to urban developers, and therefore a number of policies and rules are not appropriate. It should also be acknowledged that managed growth in rural communities is necessary to provide for diversity and vibrancy in rural areas. That the rules and policy framework be amended to provide for appropriate small lot subdivision that allows the landowners to continue with a balance lot that remains in productive use for farming. Amendment to introduction as below: Integrated, well planned subdivision can enhance character and amenity values by creating safe, healthy and pleasant environments. In contrast, inappropriately designed or located subdivision can result in the inefficient use of natural and physical resources and can give rise to adverse environmental effects, including reverse sensitivity effects. A relaxation of rules and requirements around subdivision in the rural areas, through the Plan and the accompanying Subdivision, Land Use and Development Bylaw Objective SUB.1 Support. Not stated. It is considered that the submitter requests the Objective SUB.1 Support. Retain objective. Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 67

2 Forest and Bird District Council t/a and Forest and Bird t/a and Southern DHB Objective SUB.1 Objective SUB.1 Objective SUB.1, 2 and 3 Objective SUB.2 Objective SUB.2 Objective SUB.2 Support in part. Subdivisions need to also consider preservation of the natural character of wetlands, lakes, rivers and their margins, outstanding natural features and landscapes. Support in part. It is important that Council s planning processes recognise that a decision to subdivide a farming block can be made for a number of reasons which do not create significant additional impact on the District s infrastructure, i.e. in providing for farm succession planning. Amend objective as follows: Subdivision is integrated and well planned and gives particular consideration to the preservation of natural character of wetlands, lakes and rivers, outstanding natural features and landscapes, maintenance of indigenous biodiversity and anticipated future land use and development. Adopt the Objective as proposed, but ensure appropriate consideration is given to the need for some flexibility around rules for subdivision. Further we seek recognition that subdivision often required to enable and provide for growth in the rural area. Support. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the Not all areas across District are serviced by Council infrastructure and therefore this connection may not always be possible. Oppose the objective on the basis that it does not recognise that subdivision in rural areas is not necessarily undertaken for residential purposes, and therefore not necessarily require utility services and infrastructure. Amend wording to reflect that connections may not always be possible, and any revised wording should also align with any rules applied through the Subdivision and Land Development Bylaw in respect to distances from council infrastructure. Amend the wording of this objective to exclude rural subdivision. Objective SUB.3 Objective SUB.3 Support. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the Objective SUB.3 Support. Retain policy. Objective SUB.3 Objective SUB.3 Oppose in part. This objective needs to recognise that public access and recreational opportunities must be negotiated with the landowner without the presumption of a right to public access. Secondly, access should be determined based on demand in which the public have identified a desire to have access, rather than just upon the act of subdivision. Oppose the policy because providing public access should not be a requirement of every subdivision. Subdivision consent should not be withheld if landowners object to requirements to provide for public access. Adopt the Objective with the following amendments (or similar wording): Subdivision enables public access and recreational opportunities to and along the District s coastline, lakes, rivers and public spaces where appropriate. Delete this objective or amend wording to address concerns. Policy SUB.1 Policy SUB.1 CPTED should be considered in all subdivision designs. CPTED should be implemented as an expected component of any subdivision activity rather than a consideration. Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 68

3 Radio New Zealand t/a and Minister of Education A and R Johnston Fish & Game Radio New Zealand Policy SUB.1 Policy SUB.1 Policy SUB.1 Policy SUB.1 A further characteristic of integrated and well planned subdivision design is a design which avoids reverse sensitivity effects, particularly on infrastructure. The wording of this policy and the explanation is, in part inappropriate to rural subdivision. Best practice urban design principles may also not be relevant to rural subdivision. Amend to include a statement regarding transport choices. In the future alternatives to the motor vehicle may well be required. Choices could range from better interconnections for walking or cycling to potential for public transport. Support in part. The location or provision of education facilities should be recognised as a matter to be considered when planning a subdivision. Policy SUB.1 Support. This will result in more structured and efficient residential land use and sustainable growth and development. Adopt the policy as proposed. That Policy SUB.1 be amended as follows: Recognise that integrated and well planned subdivision design: 5. Integrates with existing utility services and infrastructure. 6. Avoids reverse sensitivity effects, particularly on existing network utility services and infrastructure... (and consequential renumbering). Amend wording to exclude rural subdivision where the provisions are not applicable to the rural setting. That Policy SUB.1 is amended to include a statement regarding transport choices in accordance with Method URB.2 of the PSRPS Amend Policy Sub 1 (5) to say Integrates with existing utility services, infrastructure and education and community activities. Policy SUB.1 Mining industries seems to cluster with its accommodation which could have impacts on the landscape and amenity. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the Restrictions on proximity of subdivisions to industries such as mining or more encouragement of renewable energy. Policy SUB.1-5, 7-12, and 15 Support. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the Support. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the Support in part however requires amendment to: 1. Provide for the identification of areas of Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes and Visual Amenity Landscapes which have not yet been assessed; and 2. Recognise S 6(a) of the RMA. A further matter which the council should have regard to is the protection of network utility operations and infrastructure. The reverse sensitivity effects of rural subdivision can seriously impede the operation, maintenance and upgrading of infrastructure and network utility operations. Amend SUB.2 to include reference to: Have regard to the following matters through the subdivision process where relevant: 1. The identification and protection of areas of Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes and Visual Amenity Landscapes. 6. The preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment, wetlands, and lakes and rivers and their margins, and the protection of them from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development. That be amended as follows: Having regard to the following matters through the subdivision process where relevant: 6. The protection of network utility operations and infrastructure, including from reverse sensitivity effects. Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 69

4 DOC B Campbell Forest and Bird There is inconsistency between and Section Natural Features and Landscapes. Further does not mention those natural features and landscapes that have currently not been assessed. That (1) and (2) be amended, as follows: Have regard to the following matters through the subdivision process where relevant: 1. The protection of areas of Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes and the preservation of the natural character of the Coastal ; 2. The maintenance and enhancement of Locally Distinctive and Valued Natural Features and Landscapes Visual Amenity Landscapes and the maintenance of valued landscape attributes of landscapes not yet assessed. That the Explanation be amended, as follows: The resource management issues outlined in this policy are detailed further in the following sections of the District Plan - Biodiversity (Section 2.2), Natural Features and Landscapes (Section 2.3), Historic Heritage (Section 2.5), Coastal (Section 2.4), Natural Hazards (Section 2.7) and Waste, Hazardous Substances and Contaminated Land (Section 2.8). Support. Not stated. It is considered that the submitter requests the Support in general. However the policy fails to give effect to s6(a) of the Resource Management Act 1991 as it does not adequately preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and the margins of wetlands, lakes and rivers. This is a matter that has been considered in several subdivisions especially in the Te Anau Basin adjacent to land managed by the Department that are wetlands or parts of riverbeds. Oppose. This policy affects the rights of private property owners to develop, generate wealth and efficiently allocate resources based on the operation of markets. Subdivisions need to also consider preservation of the natural character of wetlands, lakes, rivers and their margins, outstanding natural features and landscapes. Support in part. prefers that these are addressed at time of subdivision rather than imposing onerous and unworkable obligations on farming. However, oppose the idea of visual amenity landscape - any reference to this should be deleted from the Plan in its entirety. Amend to add to the matters: Have regard to the following matters through the subdivision process where relevant: 1. The preservation of natural character of the margins of lakes, rivers and wetlands. Amend Explanation to add at the end: The Coastal (Section2.4) objectives and policies should also be taken account of when considering an application for a subdivision in the coastal environment. Not stated. It is assumed that the submitter requests the Delete this policy. Amend policy as follows: Have regard to the following matters through the subdivision process where relevant: 1. The protection of areas of Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes and Visual Amenity Landscapes. 2. The preservation of the natural character of wetlands, lakes, rivers and their margins. 3 The protection of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna. 4 The maintenance of indigenous biodiversity. 5 The protection of historic heritage and sites of significance to Iwi. 6. Risks associated with natural hazards. 7. Risks associated with areas of land identified as contaminated or potentially contaminated. Amend the policy as follows: 1. The protection of areas of Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes and Visual Amenity Landscapes. Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 70

5 t/a and Te Anau Community M Marron Poultry Industry Association and Egg Producers Federation A and R Johnston C E Henderson Fonterra Minister of Education Radio New Zealand Oppose the identification of Visual Amenity landscapes and any associated policies and rules. The policy should be implemented through non-regulatory methods. Delete requirement to protect Visual Amenity Landscapes from the policy. Policy SUB.3 Policy SUB.3 Support. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the Policy SUB.3 Support the proposal for structure plans and the desire for integrated planning and development. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the Policy SUB.3 Object. The use of Greenfield sites for industry shifts the town centre causing loss of business to established shops. Council should only allow this where the applicant has proved that no existing site in town is suitable. Policy SUB.3 Support. Adopt the policy as proposed. Policy SUB.4 Policy SUB.4 Support in part. Replacing the term high value soils with versatile land would more accurately recognise that there are additional factors justifying the protection of land for productive purposes other than soil fertility. Not stated. It is considered the applicant requests the Add the requirement to the policy that an applicant must prove that no site within the town area is suitable. The term high value soils be replaced with versatile land in Policy SUB.4 [where it appears in (1) and the explanation]. Policy SUB.4 Support the protection of high value soils in the Rural Zone. Locations of urban sprawl need to be balanced with the needs of the Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the people with many benefits of those areas they wish to utilise. Policy SUB.4 This policy is very passively written and is more of a statement than a policy, so suggest that the current policy is rewritten. That Policy SUB.4 is rewritten in a manner that puts these policies of principle up front rather than being in the explanation these being Consolidate subdivision etc around existing settlements etc and Discourage urban sprawl,. Policy SUB.4 Support high value soils in the Rural Zone. Seek rural rating adjacent to settlements until change of land-use. Retain existing policy. Policy SUB.4 Support. This policy approach provides for the protection of farming activities utilising high value soils for productive use and recognises that consolidation is preferable than proliferation with regard to urban form and future subdivision. Retain current wording or wording to like effect. Policy SUB.4 Support Retain policy. Policy SUB.4 Support. Retain. Policy SUB.4 Support. This approach can provide for the protection of farming activities utilising high value and versatile soils for productive use. This must be balanced against a landowners right to manage their own property decisions. Further believes that Council subdivision and development policies and planning should provide for managed growth in rural communities. This will enable diversity, vibrancy, sustaining essential community infrastructure and provides employment flexibility and opportunities. Adopt the policy, but with appropriate regard to enabling managed growth in rural communities. Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 71

6 G M Bell 19.9 NZTA Fertiliser Association of New Zealand Poultry Industry Association and Egg Producers Federation Radio New Zealand t/a and C E Henderson This policy has been written without a thorough investigation and evaluation and debate about life style blocks in general - which needs and should be done. Personally, I think there is scope for a max size of 1 acre for large spacious entirely urban sections in or on the outskirts of towns; with 20 acres set as the min size for small farms. The former would slow much of the rampant urban sprawl in the rural environment and discourage willy nilly satellite settlements from occurring; while the later would discourage a lot of speculative ownership and ensure the financial viability of the small farms. This policy is too permissive and could lead to a proliferation of rural residential subdivisions and may result in unintended environmental outcomes. Support. Retain this policy as worded. The policy should contain an additional clause to ensure that rural-residential site are located where potential adverse effects arising from incompatible land uses can be avoided. Rural residential subdivision in close proximity to RNZ s transmission facilities (and other infrastructure) has the potential to give rise to reverse sensitivity effects. Review the policy and associated rules to provide for minimum (rural) and maximum (urban) lot sizes. If Council want to encourage rural residential development, it consider providing a Rural Residential Zone with its own set of objective, policies, rules and environmental outcomes. A new clause added to as follows: 5. Adverse effects arising from incompatible land uses can be avoided. That be amended as follows: Recognises that rural-residential subdivision may be appropriate in locations where: 5. Reverse sensitivity effects on infrastructure and network utility operations are avoided. This policy contains a number of criteria but some are in the body itself and others are in the explanation. That is amended by inserting a new SUB.5 (5) and (6) to maintain open rural character and locate rural residential development in close proximity to existing settlements. Policy RURAL.5 contains a similar statement in the body of the policy. (2) (3) There is a close linkage between policies SUB.4 and RURAL.5 (realistically, all rural-residential subdivision will occur within a rural zone) so there is a need to ensure that the two policies are consistent. At the moment they are not, for example, the infrastructure related criteria are worded slightly differently and Policy RURAL.5 includes a criteria related to open rural character, as recommended for Policy SUB.4 above. Support in part. Including the quality of soil as a consideration partially removes the ability for farmers to react to economic and social pressures on an as needed basis. Subdivision does not in and of itself remove the underlying value of the soil as a resource. Oppose the requirement that rural-residential subdivision maintain open rural character. Subdivision and development policies should be flexible enough to provide for managed growth in rural communities and respond to the need for rural subdivision if and when appropriate. Oppose the restriction places on rural-residential subdivisions in locations where there may be high value soils. The need to protect areas for important primary production should be balanced against an individuals right to manage their own property decisions. There needs to be an underlying profitability to farming to ensure food production in New Zealand is sustainable. Oppose the requirement to achieve integration with existing available reticulated utility services and transport infrastructure. Consideration to the risks of natural hazards is addressed by policy SUB.2 and does not need to be repeated in this policy. Integrated planning and protection or rural land and soils as referred to in the Section 32 is of paramount importance. Define soils of a lesser value. refers to significant risk but there is no attempt to define, explain or provide guidance on what may constitute significant risk. It is noted that the Definitions section has listed Significant Natural Hazard Risk but the current definition is inadequate. That Policy SUB.4 and RURAL.5 are re-evaluated to ensure that both are consistent with each other. Amend the policy as follows: 2. Soils are not identified as being of high value. Amend wording as follows: Recognise that rural-residential subdivision may at times be appropriate and required in locations where: 1. Allotment size, shape and configuration maintain open rural character 2. Soils are not identified as being of high value 3. Sites are not subject to significant risk from natural hazards 4. Integration can be achieved with existing available reticulated utility services and transport infrastructure. Not stated. It is considered that the submitter requests the Define soils of a lesser value. That is amended to add a note to the explanation that states that significant risk in relation to natural hazards has the same meaning as that term in the PSRPS Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 72

7 16.43 New Zealand Fire Service Minister of Education t/a and Milford Sound Development Authority A and R Johnston G M Bell A and R Johnston t/a and G M Bell and Policy RURAL.5 The term high value soils or like terms needs to be defined or clarified to understand the significance of this policy. The explanation of Policy RURAL.5 states that high value soils may include soils classified as Class 1, 2 or 3 in the NZLRI. That includes a lot of soils, many of which are found on the relatively flat areas surrounding many existing townships. The PSRPS 2012 contains a definition of high value soils that is less specific than the explanation to this policy suggests. That clarification and a definition of what is meant by high value soils or similar terms is inserted in the draft Plan as consistent with the PSRPS Policy SUB.6 Policy SUB.6 Support. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the Policy SUB.6 Policy SUB.6 Policy SUB.6 Oppose. No discretion has been granted to Council in the proposed Bylaw provisions. Non -compliance with such a rule should trigger an activity status of no more than discretionary status. Adherence to the bylaw should be the main method but not the only method. Support in part. To be subject to both the bylaw and RMA designation requirements means the same issues will be assessed twice with the possibility of two different outcomes, creating uncertainty for the Ministry. The Bylaw was not adequately consulted on, and is too onerous to the effect that it will reduce the economic viability of subdivision. The bylaw requirements may not be appropriate to rural subdivision and therefore there must be some flexibility in applying the Bylaw to rural subdivision applications. Provide for Council discretion in the policy where the bylaw is not complied with. Amend policy to say Except for Requiring Authorities subdivision is.... Allow submitters who commented on Policy SUB.6 to make further submissions on the bylaw if they require. The bylaw must be implemented in a flexible manner. Policy SUB.7 Policy SUB.7 Support the use of septic tanks being discouraged if a reticulated sewage connection is available. That all sewage discharges at Milford Sound are via the reticulated sewage scheme and that all existing septic tanks are replaced with connections via the reticulated sewage scheme. Policy SUB.7 Support but more importantly promote self sufficiency with harvesting of water being a vital component of building. Amend policy to provide greater strength to self sufficiency. Policy SUB.8 Policy SUB.8 People should be encouraged and supported for installing their own independent alternate energy systems, like small wind turbines, Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the so long as they do not unduly impinge on their neighbours in any way. Amend Policy to provide more encouragement to use alternative energy systems. Policy SUB.8 Support. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the Policy SUB.8 Support recognition that technologies are changing and cellphone use is becoming more predominant in rural areas. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the Policy SUB.8 Support. Adopt the policy as proposed. Policy SUB.8 Support. Adopt policy as proposed. Policy SUB.9 Policy SUB.9 Consideration needs to be given for access by horses as more and more people are using this healthy form of transport / recreation. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the Amend Policy to provide for horse trail linkages as well. Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 73

8 Fish & Game Forest and Bird t/a and Fish & Game t/a and Forest and Bird Policy SUB.9 Support. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the Policy SUB.9 The existing policy seems to be trying to cover two different things, public access to the coastline, lakes and rivers and, integrating pedestrian and cycle networks and open space. The policy could simply be rewritten to Integrate pedestrian and cycle linkages through the subdivision process. That the term public access used in Policy SUB.9 is expanded by adding a statement on what or where to public access will be maintained or enhanced. That Policy SUB.9 is replaced with the following two suggested policies: Ensure that public access to the coastline, lakes, rivers and public spaces is maintained or enhanced through the subdivision process. Integrate pedestrian and cycle linkages, open space and recreational and open space opportunities through the subdivision process. Policy SUB.9 Support. Not stated. It is considered that the submitter requests the Policy SUB.9 Support in part. As drafted Policy SUB.9 appears to be restricted to maintaining or enhancing public access by integrating foot and cycle linkages. For the sake of consistency with s 6(d) of the RMA maintain or enhance in Policy SUB.9 should be replaced with maintain and enhance and restrictions to foot and cycle access struck out. Policy SUB.9 Support. Retain policy. Policy SUB.9 Oppose the current wording of this policy as it is not appropriate to rural subdivision and public access should not be a requirement of every subdivision. Amend Policy SUB.9 to provide: Maintain or and enhance public access by integrating pedestrian and cycle linkages to and along the coastal marine area, lakes, rivers and public spaces through the subdivision process. Amend the policy wording to make it applicable to urban subdivision only. Policy SUB.10 Policy SUB.10 Support. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the Policy SUB.10 Support. Retain policy as drafted. Policy SUB.10 Oppose this policy because providing esplanade mechanisms should not be a requirement of every subdivision planned along the coastline, lakes or rivers. Delete this objective or amend wording to address out concerns. Esplanade mechanisms must be negotiated between the Council and landowners on a case by case basis. Policy SUB.10 Support. Not stated. It is considered that the submitter requests the Policy SUB.10 Support. Retain. Policy SUB.11 No submission were received on this provision. Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 74

9 Fertiliser Association of New Zealand A and R Johnston Clark Fortune McDonald and Associates Policy SUB.12 Policy SUB.12 Support, subject to the retention of detail in the explanation. Retain policy and explanation as worded. Policy SUB.12 Support in part. Contamination is also coming from fertilisers. These should be banned over time and a more proactive rather than Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the reactive approach being taken. More restrictions placed on the provision and application of fertilisers. Policy SUB.12 Support. Not stated. It is considered that the submitter requests the Policy SUB.12 Policy SUB.13 Policy SUB.13 Policy SUB.13 Support in part. This policy should explicitly recognise that a contaminated site may not always result in declining or significant modification of an application. In addition there should be appropriate criteria to determine the level of risk to human health. Support the adoption of a precautionary approach but question whether the second part of the policy i.e. whereby each allotment provides a natural hazard free area suitable for future development is required. Policies NHZ.1 and 2 and Policies SUB.2 and CE.2 and 3 and others manage development in natural hazard areas and if these policies were amended along the lines suggested in this submission, they would provide a satisfactory means of providing for hazard free areas. If the words hazard free are to be retained, they will invite queries about just what is meant by hazard free. SDC should review what is meant by the words precautionary approach and how and when it will apply such an approach. The term is not defined in the proposed Plan but it is defined in the PSRPS An alternative policy to the current policy is Adopt a precautionary approach where there is uncertainty about natural hazard risks but depending on what the SDC has in mind, this may Adopt the policy, but adopt a reasonable response to potentially contaminated land in line with the risk of the land use activity. That the words within Policy SUB.13 whereby each allotment provides a natural hazard free area suitable for future development are deleted. That a definition is inserted to define precautionary approach in accordance with the PSRPS limit the Council s application of such an approach. Policy SUB.13 The first two sentences of the explanation to this policy are more applicable to Policies NHZ 2 than they are to this policy. That within Policy SUB.13, the first two sentences of the explanation are deleted, and add the following two sentences: Our knowledge of natural hazards is incomplete, evolving and inherently uncertain to some degree. The most damaging natural hazard events are often infrequent with recurrence intervals that span generations. Past natural hazard events are often poorly documented as well because in earlier times there was less statutory focus and management of natural hazards. Policy SUB.13 Policy and explanation are supported. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the Policy SUB.14 Policy SUB.14 Policy SUB.14 Policy SUB.14 Support the intention of the policy. However, the policy itself refers to the Natural Hazard Overlay which is an area covering areas of virtually no risk to areas of very high risk. The explanation of the policy refers to known significant flood hazard which is a lot smaller than the Inundation Hazard Overlay itself. The policy needs to focus on the higher risk areas. This policy conflicts with many other parts of the Plan as other policies, rules and references refer only to a significant risk of natural hazards, not of any natural hazard. This policy also means that under rule SUB.1 boundary adjustments or amendments to cross leases within the Natural Hazard overlay would no longer be permitted. Oppose. This should be a rule not a policy. It also contradicts some aspects of Policy SUB.13. The policy does not provide for assessing the level of risk within the natural hazard overlay, partially affected allotments or where a proposed activity has no more than minor adverse effects. That Policy SUB.1 is retained, with the following amendment: Where subdivision is proposed in the Rural Zone within areas of significant flood hazard, a minimum lot size of 8 hectares is required. Remove policy. Delete Policy SUB.14. Include a rule to similar effect as the current policy with amended wording. Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 75

10 Ralph Moir and Associates A and R Johnston Rayonier NZ Radio New Zealand Meridian Energy Transpower NZ Limited Policy SUB.14 Policy SUB.14 Policy SUB.14 Oppose in part. The requirement of a minimum lot size of 8 hectares appears arbitrary, while providing certainty it reduces the ability for landowners to make land use decisions which reflect their particular needs, and the particular risks posed within a hazard zone. Requiring a minimum size of 8 ha will create large, costly and time consuming lots and which risk the loss of potentially productive land to residential activity. A smaller lot size may be more efficient and effective for no significant risk to either the occupants of that subdivision or others within the hazard area. An 8 hectare minimum lot size is not sufficiently flexible. The hazard overlay is not precise and often includes land that upon closer inspection is hazard free. Oppose minimum 8 ha lot size in rural zone within Natural Hazard Overlay. Mitigation should be the key and civil defence should advocate what is best. Delete the proposed policy; AND Adopt a case by case approach which assesses the particular merits of each subdivision proposal within a Natural Hazard Overlay, including the development of appropriate site standards for areas prone to natural hazards. Amend the policy as follows: Where subdivision is proposed in the rural zone within the natural hazard overlay an average lot size of 8 hectares is required in cases where a hazard free site cannot be achieved. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the Removal of minimum 8 ha lot size requirement. Policy SUB.15 Policy SUB.15 Conditionally support, provided reverse sensitivity is not just for transmission corridors but for all neighbouring land uses. Amend policy to state: Avoid, remedy or mitigate reverse sensitivity effects on neighbouring land uses. Policy SUB.15 Reverse sensitivity effects are an issue for all types of infrastructure and not simply transmission lines. That Policy SUB.15 be amended as follows: Avoid, remedy or mitigate reverse sensitivity effects on transmission corridors infrastructure and network utility operations. Policy SUB.15 Policy SUB.15 Policy SUB.15 addresses potential reverse sensitivity effects on transmission corridors and this can appropriately be extended to also include significant infrastructure and renewable electricity generation activities. Oppose in part. It is considered sufficient that Council acknowledge the NPS and the intent to give effect to this by including a policy that the buffer zones sought are a matter of negotiation between the transmission line owner and the landowner. (Amendments to the proposed definition of Transmission Corridor are discussed in Section 4 - Definitions of this summary document). Amend Policy SUB.15 by adding the Avoid, remedy or mitigate reverse sensitivity effects on transmission corridors, significant infrastructure and renewable electricity generation activities. Amend the explanation and reasons by adding the following as paragraph 2: Given the high level of investment that has occurred for significant infrastructure and renewable electricity generation activities it is not appropriate to allow development that could undermine the effective continued operation of these activities. Retain the proposed policy as worded to give effect to Policy 10 of the National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission, while amending the proposed definition of Transmission Corridor as outlined further in this subdivision. Policy SUB.15 Support with amendments to be consistent with the NPSET. Amend policy as follows: Avoid, remedy or mitigate reverse sensitivity effects on the transmission network, corridors.in particular: (a) (b) To ensure that building platforms are identified for subdivisions in close proximity to transmission corridors or the wider transmission network, with regard being given to the range of activities that are likely to be subsequently established; To recognise that compatible activities, such as infrastructure, roads or open space areas, can be appropriately located under or in close proximity to transmission lines. Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 76

11 Transpower NZ Limited Minister of Education Rule SUB - general Rule SUB - General Rule SUB - General Rule SUB - New Rule Rule SUB.1 Rule SUB.1 The general hierarchical approach to the subdivision rules, i.e. less controlled activities and more discretionary activities is supported. Oppose the removal of restricted discretionary status for subdivision applications. This provides less guidance to applicants (and consent officers) as to which applications require more scrutiny and the lack of assessment criteria creates uncertainty around what will be expected in the application and when an application might be notified. In order to more effectively achieve Policy SUB.15, a new restricted discretionary activity should be inserted providing matters for consideration when subdivision is proposed with a building platform outside a transmission yard but within a transmission corridor. Support in part. The matter over which council reserves the right of control should also include the consideration of educational facilities. That the current rules are retained. Inclusion of assessment criteria. It is also considered the submitter is requesting the inclusion or restricted discretionary status for subdivision applications. A new rule SUB.2 inserted as follows (and consequential amendments to the numbering of other rules) Rule SUB.2 - Restricted Discretionary Activity Any subdivision within a Transmission Corridor with a building platform identified outside of a transmission yard, is a restricted discretionary activity, and the matters over which the Council shall restrict its discretion are: (a) The risk to the structural integrity of the transmission asset; (b) The extent to which the subdivision design avoids, remedies or mitigates conflicts with existing transmission assets, for example through the location and design of roads, reserves, landscaping and building platforms; (c) The ability for operation, maintenance and planned upgrade of the transmission asset, including inspection (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) of transmission lines; The extent to which the subdivision design and consequential development will minimise the risk of injury and / or property damage from such lines; The extent to which the subdivision design and consequential development will minimise the potential reverse sensitivity and nuisance effects of the transmission asset; The ability to provide a complying building platform; Compliance with the New Zealand Electrical Code of Practice for Electrical Safe Distances (NZECR34:2001); and Technical advice from the lines operator on the effects on and from the transmission network. Addition of a further matter over which Council reserves its control has below: Location of education facilities: (a) (b) Proximity of the development to community facilities. The impact the development will have on the capacity of local community facilities. Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 77

12 Radio New Zealand New Zealand Fire Service t/a and Fulton Hogan and Southern Aggregates Transpower NZ Limited New Zealand Fire Service t/a and Rule SUB.1 The best way to address the effects of reverse sensitivity is for the existence of RNZ s facilities to be factored in at the time subdivisions and residential activities are designed and consented, and RNZ given the opportunity to make a submission on such applications. That Rule SUB.1 be amended as follows: The following subdivision activities are Controlled Activities:...Where they comply with the following criteria: (d) The site is more than 1,000 m from Radio New Zealand Limited s radio transmission site, which is located at 756 Edendale Woodlands Highway, Dacre. That Rule Sub.2 be amended as follows: Any subdivision activity not provided for by Rules SUB.1 or SUB.3 or prohibited by Rule SUB.4 is a Discretionary Activity provided that: 3. Applications for sites less than 1,000 m from Radio New Zealand Limited s radio transmission site, which is located at 756 Edendale Woodlands Highway, Dacre, shall be notified and served on Radio New Zealand Limited. Rule SUB.1 Support. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the Rule SUB.1 Rule SUB.1 Rule SUB.1 and 2 Support in part. No provision has been made within the Bylaw for council to be able to grant dispensation for any deviation from the Bylaw. Subdivision is only the mechanism used to create the parcel of land and does not have any effects in itself. It is the subsequent development on the land that may have effects. Therefore we oppose the requirement imposed by this rule for all subdivision to require resource consent. Subdivision may be undertaken for a range of reasons that may not result in a significant change in land use and may not result in any adverse environmental or social impacts. In these cases subdivision should be treated as a permitted activity, subject only to the requirement to comply with the administrative mechanisms for registering subdivisions. Oppose. The list of controlled activities is very narrow. Rule SUB.2 appears to provide for subdivision for residential purposes only, therefore all other subdivision becomes a non-complying activity. This does not provide for subdivisions for other land uses, which in the rural zone may be entirely appropriate. Rule SUB.1(1) Support rule as it gives effect to the NPSET. Retain rule. Provide for council discretion where the bylaw is not complied with. Non-compliance with the bylaw should trigger an activity status no more stringent than discretionary status. Include a rule in the Plan to allow for certain subdivisions to proceed as permitted activities where subdivision: Does not result in a significant change of land use. Does not result in any adverse environmental and social impacts. Make associated amendments to Rule SUB.1-3. Amend Rule SUB.1 by including a further clause to provide for the establishment of depots, quarries and cleanfills in the Rural Zone, and amend the matters over which the Council has reserved control to include the sensitivity of the existing environment and reverse sensitivity issues. Rule SUB.2 Rule SUB.2 All subdivision activity occurring in District should provide for sufficient firefighting water supply and access. The following be added after Rule SUB.2(1)(b): The requirement to comply with the bylaw will provide consistency throughout the Plan while ensuring all activities comply with the (c) Compliance with the Standards set out in the firefighting provisions required by the Fire Service. District Council Subdivision, Land Use and Development Bylaw The following be added after Rule SUB.2(2)(b): (c) Comply with the Standards set out in the District Council Subdivision, Land Use and Development Bylaw Rule SUB.2 Support the content (rather than the activity status). Wording needs to be carefully considered given noncompliance shifts an activity to non-complying. Rule SUB.2 Oppose the requirements for the Rural zone which may not be appropriate in all cases. Council must exercise flexibility and discretion in its infrastructure requirements. Wording of part 2 of this rule must be amended to replace shall with should. The rule must be implemented in a flexible manner. Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 78

13 Te Anau Community Ralph Moir and Associates Orepuki CDA Ralph Moir and Associates Poultry Industry Association and Egg Producers Federation Forest and Bird Rule SUB.2 Subdivision should be a discretionary activity and stormwater be clearly included as required to be a reticulated service. Make subdivision a discretionary activity and include stormwater as a required reticulated services. Rule SUB.2(1) Concerned that in some cases the required infrastructure may not be available. Amend wording as follows: All infrastructure where available...installed to the boundary. Rule SUB.2(1)(a) Oppose. Compliance with this rule is unable to be achieved in a number of urban centres from lack of council reticulated infrastructure. Distinction needs to be made between areas where subdivision is anticipated as being appropriate and areas where the community requests greater scrutiny. Rule SUB.2(1)(a) This proposed rule assumes that all Urban Zones have a reticulated domestic effluent system in place. This rule does not allow for the possible transition of rural residential areas to Urban Zone without a reticulated domestic effluent system planned or in place. The non-complying alternative to this rule will come at a high capital cost to individuals and developments by requiring resource consent. Subdivision in areas anticipated as generally being appropriate should be restricted discretionary status. That this rule is revised to allow onsite effluent disposal within the Urban Zone where a reticulated system is not in place and that it can be demonstrated to be of adequate standard for the property size and the soil type. Rule SUB.2(1)(b) Oppose. A definition of impediments needs to be included in the definition section to provide clarity to the rule. Include definition of impediment. Rule SUB.2(2) Provision of a reticulated electricity supply is not always necessary at the time of subdivision. Increasingly people are using cell phones for telecommunications and the provision of reticulated telecommunications can prove extremely expensive and is unwarranted. Amend wording as follows: (a) Have access to a reticulated electricity supply and suitable form of telecommunications. Rule SUB.2(2)(a) Oppose. The meaning of the rule needs clarification and alignment with Policy SUB.7. Amend wording as follows: Have access to a reticulated electricity supply and suitable form of telecommunications. Rule SUB.2(2)(b) Support. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the Rule SUB.2(3) A minimum lot size and setback should be clearly stated and be consistent with the density provisions of the Rural section outlined in Rule RURAL.1 to ensure there are no affects on rural character or amenity and also avoid any reverse sensitivity effects. Amend Rule SUB.2 as follows: Any subdivision activity not provided for by Rules SUB.1 or SUB.3 or prohibited by Rule SUB.4 is a Discretionary Activity provided that: 2. Each allotment in the Rural Zone, for residential purposes, shall: (a) Have a reticulated electricity supply and telecommunications. (b) (c) (d) Be capable of accommodating a suitable on site wastewater disposal system that complies with the relevant New Zealand Standard. Be located at least 300 metres from the boundary of an intensive farming activity in separate ownership; Be capable of meeting the following minimum lot size: One dwelling site of 8,000 m² provided that the associated parent lot is 40 ha or greater in size. Rule SUB.3 Rule SUB.3 Neither support nor oppose. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the Rule SUB.3 Support. Not stated. It is considered that the submitter requests the Rule SUB.3 Support in part. Potentially outstanding natural features and landscapes need to be protected. Amend rule as follows: The following subdivision activities are Non-Complying Activities: 1. Any subdivision that does not comply with Rule SUB Except as provided in Rule SUB.1, any subdivision in Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 79

14 B Campbell Forest and Bird Southern Discoveries Limited (SDL) Patterson Pitts Group Transpower NZ Limited Ralph Moir and Associates Rule SUB.3(2) and (3) Rule SUB.4 Rule SUB.4 Our concern is that if Subdivision rules are too onerous it will reduce the economic viability of subdivision, and stifle growth in the District, particularly the rural areas where growth is necessary. The implementation of any restrictions on subdivision, land use and development needs to be carefully balanced with the need for sustainable growth. Support with modification. See submission in BIO summary sheet, recommending that the policy relates to international conventions. Rule SUB.4 Support in part. has Mavora Lakes Park and the Eyr Mountains Park. Subdivision on these lands is incompatible with the Act. Rule SUB.4 Oppose. This rule could have a significant effect on commercial operators based in Milford Sound where a lease for a term of 35 years is defined as a subdivision under the RMA. Rule SUB.4 Oppose this rule. See submission point 57.1 in Fiordland Rakiura Zone Section summary. By making subdivision in the National Park s Prohibited Council fails to recognise that leases beyond 35 years are considered subdivision. The Department of has entered into long term leases with commercial entities. The prohibition on subdivisions and therefore long term leases acts as a significant deterrent to capital investment in lease properties in Milford Sound. This rule and associated FRZ.5 should be amended to enable subdivision within the Visitor Services Activity Area of Milford Sound - shown on a plan attached to the original submission). the Fiordland/Rakiura Zone outside of a National Park. 3. Subdivision in an area identified as an Outstanding Natural Feature or Landscape, or that meets the criteria listed in Policy NFL.3, or is on land above 700 m. Not stated. It is assumed that the submitter requests the Review the existing rule to ensure that it does not unduly restrict subdivision and development. Rule should also include a prohibition on subdivision of land with RAMSAR status. The subdivision of any land within a National Park, or a conservation park is a Prohibited Activity. Subdivision within National Parks be made a non-complying activity. Amend Rule SUB.4 as follows: (ii) Rule SUB.4 - Prohibited Activities - The subdivision of any land within a national park is a prohibited activity except in the Milford Sound Area provided for in Rule FRZ.3. Rule SUB.4 Support. Not stated. It is considered that the submitter requests the Rule SUB.4 Rule SUB.4 Milford Township contains a number of commercial facilities, including hotels, lodges etc that are, or may be subject to leases with the Department of that are, or could be, for a term exceeding 35 years. The Act considers a lease greater than 35 years to be a subdivision and does not exempt Land (National Park) from these provisions. Many of these facilities have involved substantial capital investment who may wish to pursue a lease longer than 35 years to protect their investments. Support with amendments to have an exception added to the rule to allow for subdivision in the event that Transpower is ever required to take over ownership of the land that is designated by them, through which the infrastructure is located. Amend SUB.4 to read as follows: The subdivision of land within a National Park except within the Milford Township Boundary shown on Map FRZ4, is a Prohibited Activity. And any other consequent amendments to the Proposed Plan required to give effect to this submission. Amend rule as follows: Rule SUB.5 SUB.4 - Prohibited Activities The subdivision of any land within a National Park is a Prohibited Activity, except where required for an unmanned network utility, which is a non-complying activity. Rule SUB.4 There may be legitimate reasons why certain agencies may require to subdivide land within National Parks. Modification to classify subdivision within National Parks as a non-complying activity. Rule SUB.5 Rule SUB.5 Oppose. The word adjacent is used throughout the rule and is uncertain in meaning. The current rule SUB.5(2)(a) is too vague and Replace all references to adjacent to adjoining. Delete the wording in the current operative Plan which refers to the RMA is supported instead. Rule SUB.5(2)(a) and add a new rule as follows: The basis of acquisition of land or its reservation for either esplanade reserve, esplanade strip or esplanade access strip shall be set out in the (Resource Management) Act. Rule SUB.5 Support. Not stated. It is considered that the submitter requests the Rule SUB.5 Support with modification. Esplanade strips should be required in all subdivisions adjacent to lakes and rivers to prevent the loss of Rule amended to require esplanade strips wherever possible. public access to our waterways. Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 80