Phone:

Transcription

1 Phone:

2 Table of Contents 1 Applicant and Property Details 3 2 Proposal 4 3 Reasons for Consent 5 4 No fica on 5 6 Sec on 104 Analysis Conclusion 17 Attachments 1. Revised Scheme and Shadow Analysis 2. Cadastral Plan Statement of Experience Jason Hewson - Planning Consultant I am a planning consultant and director with Hewson Planning Ltd, specialising in resource consents, both landuse and subdivision. I have 13 years experience in the field and while predominantly focused on subdivision and residen al development, have worked on a large variety of projects in the Auckland, Kaipara, Whangarei and Far North districts. I am familiar with the hearing process and agree to comply with relevant protocols in presenta on of evidence to the Commissioner. Evidence By Jason Hewson 2

3 1 Applicant and Property Details Council Ref SD , P Our Ref Applicant Site Iden fica on Total Site Area Noteworthy Interests Governing Legisla on Jerome & Julie Luiten - DP (CT ) ha Gaze e No ce regarding LAR (SH1) - NZTA. RMA / Whangarei District Plan Zone Countryside Zone (Map 7E) Resources No features Shown (Map 7R) Aerial Evidence By Jason Hewson 3

4 2 Proposal The proposal, as originally submi ed, is briefed as follows; The proposal is to subdivide the subject site into three independent tles as detailed on the a ached plan. Lots 1 to 3 are to have areas of 1.76ha, 0.84ha and 0.61ha respec vely, with containing the exis ng dwelling. Access is to be provided from the exis ng SH1 crossing which is to be upgraded as per NZTA requirements (CP63-B). From the crossing, access to each of the proposed allotments is to be provided via exis ng easement (C) and proposed easements (S&T). These are located over the exis ng driveway, which shall be upgraded to WDCEES2010 standards as required. (4) Servicing is to be via onsite effluent and stormwater disposal systems. (5) Covenant Area V has been proposed, which is to provide a formally protected planted buffer between the proposed development and the State Highway. This will also provide visual screening between the development and the Dairy Factory on the opposite side of the Highway. (6) Changes made in response to submissions and assessments contained within the WDC Planners report are briefed as follows; (7) Permanent Shelterbelt protec on is proposed as indicated on the revised scheme plan (a ached). The inten on of this inclusion is to ensure that visual effects associated with exis ng and future built development on the proposed allotments are contained within the boundaries of the site. (8) It is proposed that a consent no ce be placed on the proposed tles s pula ng that the subdividing owner, and subsequent owners of proposed Lots 1 to 3 may not in any form, either directly, or indirectly support any complaint opposi on or submission against permi ed or legally established ac vi es occurring; Within the Kauri Dairy Factory Overlay, or other land owned by Fonterra within a 1km radius of the site. Within the State Highway Road Corridor. With regard to rural produc on ac vi es, within the surrounding Rural Produc on Environment to a 1km radius of the site. The inten on of this inclusion is to ensure that reverse sensi vity issues associated with increased residen al density in an area suppor ng rural produc on/industry are mi gated. Evidence By Jason Hewson 4

5 3 Reasons for Consent The analysis under Sec on 3 of the WDC Planners report is agreed with in full in this respect. The proposal is for a non-complying ac vity in terms of Whangarei District plan Rule Consent is also required as a discre onary ac vity in rela on to the NESCS. 4 Notification The analysis under Sec on 4 of the WDC Planners report is agreed with in full in this respect. 6 Section 104 Analysis 6.2 Legislative Consideration: The analysis under Sec on 5 of the WDC Planners report is agreed with in full in this respect. Being a non-complying ac vity, and pursuant to Sec on 104D of the RMA, the gateway tests rela ng to whether or not the proposal may be approved are; 1. The adverse effects of the ac vity on the environment (other than any effect to which sec on 104 (a) (ii) applies) will be minor; or 2. The applica on is for an ac vity that will not be contrary to the objec ves and policies of i. the relevant plan, if there is a plan but no proposed plan in respect of the ac vity; or ii. the relevant proposed plan, if there is a proposed plan but no relevant plan in respect of the ac vity; or iii. both the relevant plan and the relevant proposed plan, if there is both a plan and a proposed plan in respect of the ac vity. Analysis of the proposal in rela on to these gateway tests is provided as follows; 6.3 Assessment of Environmental Effects In order to ascertain whether the proposal meets the gateway tests, an assessment of effects is provided as follows; Permitted Baseline The Whangarei District plan does not provide for permi ed subdivision, and no permi ed baseline comparison is therefore available in terms of subdivision itself. Evidence By Jason Hewson 5

6 In terms of landuse that could be facilitated by comple on of the subdivision, the most likely scenario would be rural residen al use (i.e. two addi onal dwellings). Considera on in this respect can be made in rela on to two separate aspects, one being built form associated with two addi onal units, and the other being in rela on to residen al landuse. In terms of residen al landuse, residen al density to the degree proposed is a discre onary ac vity under the Whangarei District Plan, and no permi ed baseline is therefore available. (4) With regard to built form, the principal control with regard to the degree of built form achievable on site as a permi ed ac vity is that of building coverage. In this respect, the site is ha in size, providing for a permi ed building coverage of 1604m 2. The site currently contains one x dwelling (240m 2 ), 2 x sheds (220m 2 combined) and a large covered structure (400m 2approx ). The combined building coverage currently on site is 860m 2, leaving a poten al available permi ed building coverage of 744m 2. This equates to 372m 2 of available permi ed building coverage across the two proposed allotments assuming that current permi ed building coverage intensi es were maintained post-subdivision. This is considered more than adequate to allow for two new dwellings, even by today's standards. With regard to whether construc on of addi onal sheds on the subject site is fanciful, given; The Countryside zoning, and The landscape business which is run from the site in addi on to a residen al unit, and The current degree of built form I conclude that while full u lisa on of the permi ed building coverage threshold may not be likely, substan al addi onal u lisa on is not out of the ques on nor fanciful. It is therefore my opinion that a relevant permi ed baseline comparison does exist in terms of built form. It is noted that the Rural Production decisions version provisions are even more permissive, allowing up to 20% net site are building coverage (6417m 2 ) Existing Environment The exis ng environment contains a rela vely intense mix of industrial, commercial, hor cultural, rural and rural residen al living. These elements are largely interlinked with the State Highway which runs through the middle of the interest area, adding to its industrious character In a visual sense, the area is viewed primarily from the State Highway. Apprecia on of views, at the high speed limits, therefore emcompasse, or is affected not only by the immediate vicinity, but also by ac vity leading into the area. In this respect, visual character is largely affected by the areas industrial and commercial elements, with apparent hor cultural ac vi es playing a secondary visual role in terms of shelterbelt plan ng. A high intensity of rural residen al living is present, although is not so apparent from a visual perspec ve due to setbacks from the Highway, and integra on of homes into bush and shelterbelt screened areas. With reference to the a ached cadastral printout, the surrounding area contains a widely varied array of allotment sizes, predominantly providing for rural residen al/lifestyle type living. Evidence By Jason Hewson 6

7 (4) Some open pastoral areas are present, with wider views toward the hills providing some degree of rural character. However, the area is more strongly characterized by industrial, commercial, hor cultural and rural residen al living aspects. (5) Although the average lot size (1.02ha) is less than the average surrounding lot size of ha (as assessed within the WDC Planners report), there are numerous tles within the surrounding area that are smaller than those proposed. In addi on, reliance on simple figures and averages is misleading in terms of assessing character and effects related ma ers, as well as compa bility with the exis ng environment. There are many elements that can come into play which affect apparent density, rather than actual density. Further, the difference between urban densi es, rural residen al densi es, lifestyle type density and larger lot rural produc on land, in reality, involves a broad range rather than a precise cut-off point between one type and another. Viewing the cadastral map, the proposed allotments, while being on average, less than the surrounding average, are not only fully consistent with the predominant lot size in terms of the use they provide for (rural residen al/lifestyle), but are also consistent with the minimum discre onary ac vity lot size provided for in the Countryside Environment of 4000m 2. As such, I am of the opinion that the proposed development is compa ble with the actual predominant landuse present in the area (being rural residen al/lifestyle), both in terms of landuse and cadastral density. (7) Given the large presence of shelterbelt plan ng in the immediate area, I consider this form of mi ga on to be a viable op on in terms of visual mi ga on and it is proposed that formal protec on of the shelterbelts shown on the scheme plan be implemented as part of the subdivision process. This will ensure that actual built form associated with future development of the proposed allotments will not be visible from outside the site and will therefore be compa ble with the exis ng environment in the manner in which it has responded to the surrounding characteris cs in a visual sense. (8) Given the reverse sensi vity mi ga on strategy proposed in the form of consent no ces, I consider that the proposal will be compa ble with surrounding industrial/commercial/transport related ac vi es, which are already opera ng in close proximity to numerous rural residen al ac vi es. (9) Given all the above, I am of the opinion that the proposal is compa ble with the cadastral development pa erns, landuses and general character displayed within the exis ng environment Written Approvals The summary provided within Sec on 4.3 of the WDC Planners report is agreed within in full. All adjoining property owners have provided their approval to the proposal. As such, effects cannot be considered on these par es, and provision of their approval is considered indica ve of the minimal impacts expected in rela on to the proposal. It is acknowledged that Fonterra have recently purchased the neighbouring property once removed to the north and as such, the approval of this property owner (previously obtained) is now obsolete. Fonterra have submi ed in opposi on to the proposal. Evidence By Jason Hewson 7

8 6.3.4 Traffic Effects The summary provided within Sec on 6.7 of the WDC Planners report is agreed within in full. In short; A traffic assessment has been provided which suggests mi ga on measures and assesses effects (subject to recommenda ons) as no more than minor. It is intended that these recommenda ons be adhered to as part of the subdivision proposal. NZTA have assessed the proposal and have provided their support subject to condi ons. It is intended that these condi ons be adhered to as part of the subdivision proposal. It is understood that the WDC SEEO has assessed the proposal and concludes that effects will be less than minor. It is acknowledged that Fonterra have listed traffic effects in their opposing submission. At the me of wri ng this evidence, it is unknown specifically how the proposal might adverse affect Fonterra in terms of traffic as no specifics have been provided. I would however make the following comments; The traffic assessment by Engineering Outcomes (submi ed with the original applica on) provides a State Highway traffic count of 10,400 traffic movements per day. The generic an cipated figure per lot for traffic genera on is 10 one way movements per day, so the proposed subdivision will theore cally generate 20 addi onal one way movements per day. This is only 0.19% of the current highway movements. Added to this is the fact that the fonterra factory entry and exits are well clear of the site entrance. It is not an cipated that the 0.19% increase in traffic movements along the highway will be at all discernible with regard to Fonterra conflicts associated with their exis ng factory on the opposite side of the highway. If concerns are in rela on to their recently purchased site neighbouring the subject site, then effects associated with traffic movements through this shared entrance have already been extensively canvassed and are not expected to be significant. Rather, it is an cipated that the proposed upgrade will result in a posi ve effect in this respect. (4) Based on the reports provided and mi ga on measures built into the proposal, the proposal is not expected to result in any significant degree of adverse effect with regard to traffic related ma ers, but rather, may result in an overall posi ve effect Infrastructure and Servicing The summary provided within Sec on 6.6 of the WDC Planners report is agreed within in full Reverse Sensitivity Sec on 6.8 of the WDC Planners report touches on the ma er of reverse sensi vity, referencing a summarising quote from the original applica on, that the proposal,... is not anticipated to introduce undue pressures in terms of reverse sensitivity, and suggests that this is unsubstan ated. I would direct a en on to the Sec on en tled, Reverse Sensi vity, within the original AEE which provides a basis for this statement by referencing the mix of industrial, commercial, hor cultural, agricultural, and rural residen al ac vi es currently coinciding within the exis ng environment, and the minimal rela ve change proposed in comparison to the exis ng func oning framework. I also note that the State Highway provides a significant low amenity buffer between the subject site and the Business 4 zoned dairy factory site. It is not likely that Fonterra will introduce ac vi es that will be par cularly discernible over and above effects associated with Evidence By Jason Hewson 8

9 the Highway (although this is obviously an unsubstan ated comment). It is noted that the Fonterra factory is plainly obvious, and any party interested in purchasing the proposed sites in future will be well aware of its presence and of the associated Business 4 zoning etc. Despite the above however, the WDC Planners report makes a valid point with regard to noise in terms of the way in which standards are administered. In this respect I make the following comments; Technically (albeit unlikely) the applicant, or some future owner of the site as it exists, could decommission the exis ng home and construct a new home nearer the highway, in which case, via a permi ed ac vity, the same degree of reverse sensi vity poten al could exist. As detailed within Sec on 2(8) of this evidence, it is proposed that a consent no ce be placed on the tles of the proposed allotments, inhibi ng the ability of lot owners to object to permi ed or legally established ac vi es on neighbouring sites containing lower amenity ac vi es. Based on the above, it is my opinion that the proposal will not result in any significant reverse sensi vity issues, but rather, as a consent no ce is to be placed not only on the proposed addi onal lots, but on all three tles, poten al for reverse sensi vity may be reduced from current poten als Cultural Values The summary provided within Sec on 6.4 of the WDC Planners report is agreed within in full Contamination The summary provided within Sec on 6.5 of the WDC Planners report is agreed within in full. It is noted that the two par es involved in preparing, and in peer reviewing the soil contamina on report are qualified and experienced in their fields but have not come to a resolu on with regard to the ma er at hand. Given the opposing views, it is understood that further tes ng of the site will be required at some stage to determine whether contamina on levels are present as to require remedial ac on. However, it is an cipated that the samples and tes ng undertaken by Gary Carthew provide at least enough evidence to determine with a reasonable level of certainty that the site is not likely to be contaminated, and if it is, is likely to be at a level that can be adequately remedied. (4) As such, it is proposed that re-tes ng of the site be deferred to post-approval as a condi on of consent. this is provided for under the NESCS as a discre onary ac vity Amenity values The RMA defines amenity values as follows; Amenity values means those natural or physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to people's appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, and cultural and recreational attributes: Evidence By Jason Hewson 9

10 The WDC Planners report indicates that amenity values are considered to consist of two general elements, being tangible ma ers such as noise and nuisance type effects, and the other rela ng to less tangible, more subjec ve ideals around people's expecta ons. While I agree with the first general element presented, the second is inconsistent with the defini on of Amenity values as defined under the RMA. People s own personal and subjec ve percep ons do not in any form or cons tute natural or physical qualities and characteristics of an area. Therefore, effects arising from a proposal may affect natural and physical a ributes that in turn will affect one's ability to appreciate an areas pleasantness, aesthe c coherence, and cultural and recrea onal a ributes. However, one s personal opinions and expecta ons do not form a part of those amenity values. Even if people's expecta ons where to be considered, the premise that a certain ac vity cannot be undertaken because it is non-complying is false. The RMA recognises that a District plan is not a comprehensive document and that ac vi es that have not been specifically provided for by the plan can be approved, or be er environmental outcomes achieved, subject to the two gateway tests under Sec on 104(D) of the RMA. As such, people's expecta ons should be that any ac vity (other than prohibited ac vi es) could be undertaken, provided that they are either consistent with the District plan objec ves and policies, or, that they will result in no more than minor adverse effects, which in turn relates back to a more tangible effects assessment. (4) Given the above, I am of the opinion that assessment of amenity values should only encompass tangible elements (or natural or physical qualities and characteristics ) that have the poten al to adversely affect people's appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, and cultural and recreational attributes. (5) The WDC Planners report (Sec on 6.3.2) cites the defini on of amenity values contained within the district plan as an important basis for understanding expecta ons around subdivision and development in the Countryside Environment. The WDC Planners report (Sec on 6.3.3) also states, I consider the amenity values as defined in the District plan identify the Countryside Environment as being an area of high amenity value. While these comments may be generally true in a generic sense, the area in ques on does not convincingly demonstrate any of the listed characteris cs a ributed to the Countryside Environment, and this defini on, as it relates to this proposal it considered in terms of prac cal purposes, essen ally redundant. This proposal should be assessed on its own merits in the context of the exis ng environment. In this respect, I agree with the WDC Planners report (Sec on 6.3.4) which states, To measure the level of effects on the amenity characteristics resulting from the proposal, the existing environment must be considered. (6) I have inserted the defini on of Amenity Values from Chapter 5, Whangarei District Plan, and added my comments in blue as follows; The Countryside Environment tends to be used predominantly for primary production, but is also used for low-density residential purposes. When choosing to live in a rural area, people must expect and accept a certain level of odour, noise and other effects which are characteristic of primary production, recognising the scale and intensity of these activities which contribute to rural character. Rural areas do, however, tend to have high amenity values, due primarily to the following characteristics: Evidence By Jason Hewson 10

11 The intermi ent nature of most agricultural ac vi es; The area does not support, to any significant degree, agricultural ac vi es as such. Obviously Fonterra is strongly linked to agriculture, but is itself an industrial ac vity. As discussed, previously, leading into the area, from both direc ons, as well as the immediate area itself is largely characterized by industrial/commercial type ac vity, with hor cultural ac vity being (in terms of visual appearance) a secondary use. The actual predominant use of the surrounding area is rural residen al, but this is not apparent due to the way it has been visually mi gated. Open landscapes and views; As discussed, previously, leading into the area, from both direc ons, as well as the immediate area itself is largely characterized by industrial/commercial type ac vity. Shelterbelt plan ng associated with hor cultural ac vi es is also prevalent. As such, open landscaped and views are not a strong characteris c of the area. I note that the proposal is not expected to adversely affect this a ribute, as it will generate no visible changes to the surrounding environment. A low intensity of development; With reference to the a ached cadastral map, the surrounding area is developed to a high rural residen al intensity, not to men on the prevalent industrial/commercial presence, and the strong link to the State highway. As evidenced within Sec on of this document, the proposed development is not expected to introduce an intensity of development that is incompa ble with the exis ng environment. Feelings of remoteness and community; The area is an easy 5 minutes drive to Kamo and a few minutes from Hikurangi and could hardly be described as remote, or to have a feeling of remoteness. The proposal is in no discernible way expected to compromise this value beyond the exis ng situa on. Low noise levels, par cularly at night; Rela vely high noise levels are present almost con nuously due to proximi es to the State highway. The proposal is in no discernible way expected to compromise this value beyond the exis ng situa on. A high degree of privacy; A reasonable degree of privacy appears to be available due to substan al plan ng. However, this cannot be a ributed to the spacious low density high amenity characteris cs iden fied through this defini on as the area is already developed to a high rural residen al density in combina on with industrial/commercial and heavy transport ac vi es. The proposal is in no discernible way expected to compromise this value beyond the exis ng situa on. Evidence By Jason Hewson 11

12 Daylight and sunlight access; I note that the WDC Planners report makes men on of this quality with reference to the shelterbelt plan ngs around the lots, and indicates that the lots may be subject to high levels of shading as a result. I have provided some shadow analysis which demonstrates a reasonable degree of sunlight access into the lots, even in the middle of winter and with full shelterbel ng maintained. Low levels of vehicular traffic; This is obviously not the case in this instance due to proximi es to the State Highway. The proposal is not an cipated to worsen the exis ng situa on to any discernible degree. Green 'unspoiled' landscape with indigenous vegeta on. Again, this is not the predominant characteris c of the area. The proposal will not alter the landscape in a visual sense. Given the above, it is my opinion, that the amenity values as defined within Chapter 5 of the Whangarei District Plan are already compromised to a large degree, and that the proposed ac vity will not introduce levels of adverse effect that will further detriment these values in any discernible way. (7) In addi on to the defini on of Amenity value, the WDC Planners report (Sec on 6.3.5) lists the discre onary ac vity assessment criteria, which I have addressed in the context of this applica on as follows; i. The loca on of vehicle crossings. access or right-of-ways and proposed allotment boundaries so as to avoid ribbon development: The proposal is in no way conducive to ribbon development. ii. The loca on of proposed allotment boundaries and building areas so as to avoid poten al conflicts between incompa ble land use ac vi es. including the avoidance of reverse sensi vity effects: As previously evidenced, the proposal is not expected to result in incompa bility or reverse sensi vity issues. iii. The loca on of proposed allotment boundaries, building areas and access ways or right-of-ways so as to avoid sites of historic and cultural heritage including Sites of Significance to Maori; There are no known features of this nature on the site. iv. The likely loca on of future rural and urban development, including the effects of sporadic subdivision and ribbon development and effects on the efficient provision of infrastructure and services; and The site is located within an area that is already intensely developed in both rural residen al and industrial/commercial direc ons. the proposal is not sporadic, but will result in consolida on of an exis ng development pa ern. As discussed previously, adequate servicing is possible. Evidence By Jason Hewson 12

13 v. The poten al effects of the type and density of subdivision and development on rural amenity. landscape. open space. heritage value, ecological values, riparian management, and the natural character of the rural and coastal environment: and As evidenced through this document, it is not expected that the proposal will result in significant adverse effects with regard to these ma ers. vi. The cumula ve effects of subdivision and development on the environment and on the provision of infrastructure and services; and These will be addressed later in this document. As will be evidenced, the proposal is not expected to result in significant cumula ve effects. vii. The risks from natural hazards. There appears no reason to consider that the proposal will be at risk from, nor worse risk of natural hazards. It is my opinion that the proposal adequately addresses the values and requirements expressed through these criteria. (8) The WDC Planners report (Sec on 6.3.7) recognises that the surrounding environment is already fragmented in terms of lot size and varied in terms of landuse. I agree with this statement. (9) However, the WDC Planners report goes on to say that the significant commercial/industrial landuses are in suppor ve zones and should therefore in the opinion of the author be separated from considera on of the Countryside zone development. I disagree with this for the following reasons. (10) It is effects on amenity values that are being considered in this context. As stated previously, amenity values are defined under the RMA as, t hose natural or physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to people's appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, and cultural and recreational attributes. The vast majority of people (in my experience) are only vaguely aware of the District Plan and have li le concept of planning maps and zones. Even with a greater awareness, the experience of travelling through an area is not visually separated or ra onalised by a zone based knowledge. It is based primarily on visual percep on of the exis ng environment around them. (i.e. if a large factory is present, that is what is seen and experienced, regardless of the areas zoning). Again, in terms of amenity (as defined under the RMA) the ability of people to appreciate an areas pleasantness, aesthe c coherence, and cultural and recrea onal a ributes hinge on an area's natural or physical quali es and characteris cs, not an underlying legisla ve framework. As such, the exis ng environment, as experienced should be considered, without considera on of zoning. (11) The WDC Planners report (Sec on ) recognises reten on of the shelterbelts as a viable mi ga on measure in terms of visual amenity of the subdivision itself (micro level). I agree and have proposed permanent protec on accordingly. (12) In conclusion, given that the proposal is not an cipated to result in more than minor adverse effects with regard to traffic genera on, infrastructure and servicing, will not generate any visual changes to the environment, and is consistent and compa ble with development and ac vi es in the surrounding exis ng environment, it is my opinion that the proposal will not result in any significant adverse effects in terms of amenity values. Evidence By Jason Hewson 13

14 6.3.9 Cumulative Effects I agree with the defini on and explana on given for cumula ve effects within Sec ons and of the WDC Planners report. However, the assessment provided in Sec on of the WDC Planners Report appears to be in part inconsistent with the defini on and explana on provided. A significant cumula ve effect relates to an actual quan fiable effect associated with a par cular proposal, which in combina on with effects of ac vi es in the surrounding exis ng environment, will breach a threshold, or p the balance. (4) Sec on of the WDC Planners Report states that, further subdivision of the site will result in continued and permanent change within the local environment that is incongruent with the planning framework. (5) Firstly, a proposal that is incongruent with the planning framework will not necessarily result in adverse effects, individually, or cumula vely. Non-compliance with the District Plan does not cons tute an adverse effect, and certainly not an actual quan fiable effect. (6) Secondly, the statement re-iterated in (4) above seems to refer to se ng of a precedent that will result in con nued permanent change in the local environment. I disagree that the proposal will set an adverse precedent (as will be evidenced later in the document) but aside from that, to state that the proposed will result in in con nued and permanent change within the local environment is unquan fiable and unsubstan able. (7) As has been demonstrated through this document, the proposal is not an cipated to result in more than minor adverse effects on the surrounding environment in terms of servicing, infrastructure, amenity type effects, either individually, or cumula vely. It is therefore my opinion that the proposal will not result in any significant adverse cumula ve effects Precedents I acknowledge that considera on of precedent effects have been upheld by caselaw and have become entrenched in planning philosophy. In this case, considera on of precedents will (as demonstrated through the planners report) centre around density in the Countryside Environment. The policy intent of the Countryside Environment (in essence) is to protect and enhance those a ributes which are considered intrinsic to that environment and beneficial in terms of primary produc on etc. However, as has been largely demonstrated thus far, and will be further demonstrated through considera on of objec ves and policies later in this document, the Countryside policy framework has already been compromised in the surrounding area. As evidenced, the proposal will not result in a density that is inconsistent with the general density and associated use of the surrounding land. Further, the site is located within this exis ng highly developed area Evidence By Jason Hewson 14

15 of compromise, such that is is not in any way expanding or extending it, but rather is consolida ng an exis ng development pa ern. (4) Further to this, the site is situated (if not uniquely) at least in a reasonably unusual circumstance with regard to its placement in proximity to a high degree of industrial/commercial ac vity, heavy transporta on route, and exis ng intensive rural residen al development. While this situa on may be relevant to some other loca ons and sites, it is certainly, by a large factor, not the norm within the Countryside Environment. (5) The point made in (4) above, in combina on with the point made in in my opinion results in a situa on whereby the gran ng of consent will not set an undesirable precedent that could reasonably be replicated with undue regularity Positive Effects Given the proposed shelterbelt protec on, and proposed reverse sensi vity consent no ces, it is considered that the proposal will result in a posi ve effect with regard to these ma ers, as the mi ga on measures will not only apply to the proposal addi onal allotments, but to all three, thus providing mi ga on where none currently exists. In addi on, upgrade of the vehicle entrance as per NZTA requirements is an cipated to result in an overall posi ve effect despite the proposed addi onal minimum increase in users Conclusion of Effects Assessment In conclusion, I consider that the overall effects associated with the proposed ac vity will be no more than minor due to the following reasons; The proposal is essen ally consistent with the development pa ern and associated landuse accommodated by the exis ng environment. The proposal will not result in adverse effects with regard to infrastructure and servicing. The proposal will not compromise the amenity values present within the exis ng environment. The proposal will not result in adverse effects with regard to cultural values. It is considered that adequate evidence has been provided to allow soil contamina ons assessments to be referred to post approval stages. The proposal will not result in any cumula ve effects. The proposal will not result in undesirous precedent effects Based on the above, I conclude that the proposal meets the tests under 104(D)(a) of the RMA. Evidence By Jason Hewson 15

16 6.4 Plans and Policy Statements Operative Regional Policy Statement The informa on provided in Sec on 7.1 of the WDC Planners report is agreed with in full. With regard to the Opera ve Regional Policy Statement, and with reference to Sec on of the WDC Planners Report, items c-g as listed are addressed below; (c) An assessment of effects has been provided and as assessment, the proposal is an cipated to result in no more than minor adverse effects. The proposal is therefore consistent with this ideal. (f) While the site may have a soil classifica on conducive to hor cultural produc on, the exis ng size of the site is a limi ng factor. It is considered that the site already represents a state of fragmenta on that has rendered it non-viable in terms of primary produc on, and therefore, further fragmenta on will have no effect in this respect. As such, there is a greater public benefit in releasing addi onal proper es to the market, rather than binding rural residen al poten al in an inu lisable, unproduc ve state. The proposal is therefore not contrary to this ideal. (g) As has been demonstrated, the proposal is consistent with the development pa ern and uses in the exis ng environment. In light of the above, it is my opinion that the proposal is consistent, or at least not contrary to policies (c), (f) and (g) of the RPS Regional Soil and Water Plan The statements contained within Sec on 7.3 of the WDC Planners Report are agreed with in full District Plan (Objectives and Policies) Relevant objec ves and policies have been addressed within the original applica on. The WDC Planners report addresses some relevant objec ves and policies. However, responses are essen ally a reitera on of points made prior throughout the report, and further address is not considered necessary. 6.5 Assessment against Part 2 Matters Part 2 ma ers have been addressed within the original applica on. Evidence By Jason Hewson 16

17 6.5 Conclusion For the reasons detailed within the original applica on and evidenced through this document, it is considered that the proposal passes both gateway tests under 104(D) of the RMA. It is therefore sought that the proposal be granted pursuant to condi ons including mi ga on measures proposed. Evidence By Jason Hewson 17

18 Attachment 1 - Revised Scheme and Shadow Analysis

19 Existing Easements (A) to (R) To be transfered to new titles as appropriate. Proposed Easements (S) to (T) ROW/Electricity/Phone and Media Proposed Covenant Areas (A-D) Shelterbelt and Planting Protection Subdivision Scheme Proposed Subdivision of DP Notes Date: 24/1/18 Ref: 00821/2 Drawn For: Jason Hewson: Scale N Dimensions are approximate Page: 1 of 2

20 9:00am (15 July) 11:00am (15 July) 1:00pm (15 July) 3:00pm (15 July) Shelterbelt Shadow Analysis Proposed Subdivision of DP Notes Date: 24/1/18 Ref: 00821/2 Drawn For: Jason Hewson: Scale N Page: 2 of 2 Shelterbelts have been analysed at a 10m height.

21 Attachment 2 - Cadastral Map

22 DP Alot ment 82 ( ) Lot 4 DP Pt Alot ment 27 Pt Alot ment 23 Alot ment Pt Alot ment 23A DP DP Pt Alot ment 23B Pt Alot ment 23B DP DP DP Lot 4 DP DP Lot 4 DP Lot 5 DP Lot 6 DP Pt Alot ment DP Sect ion 6 SO DP DP Lot 4 DP H OF Whangarei otment 164 OF Whangarei ment 233 Whangarei 3814 DP lotment 222 OF Whangarei DP ot DP P DP Apotu Road Apotu Road DP Lot 6 DP DP DP DP DP DP DP DP DP DP DP Lot 5 DP DP Lot 4 DP DP Q uickmap Custom Software Ltd DP Pt DP Apotu Road DP Lot 4 DP DP DP DP DP DP DP DP DP Pt Allotment DP DP DP Apotu Road DP DP Dalkeith Drive DP Lot DP DP Apotu Road Pt DP (6.4708) Lot DP Pt Allotment 23A Lot DP Apotu Road Lot DP DP DP DP Piano Hill Road DP DP Pt DP Lot Lot DP Apotu Road Lot 4 DP DP Lot 4 DP DP DP DP DP Piano Hill Road Richards Road DP Pt DP (6.4708) DP Pt Allotment DP DP DP Pt Allotment 23B DP DP DP DP DP mDP Any person wishing to rely on the information shown DP on this map must independently Lot verify 2 the information DP Scale 1: Topographical and Cadastral map derived from LINZ data. Printed: 25/01/ :28. DP Lot 6 Pt DP Pt Allotment 31 Pt Allotment DP Lot 5 DP DP DP State Highway 1 State Highway 1 State Highway 1 DP Pt Allotment State Highway 1 Saleyards Road DP DP DP DP Pt DP Pt DP Pt DP Pt DP Pt Allotment 31 Pt Allotment 36 DP Section 2 SO Section 4 SO Pt Allotment 35 Section 8 ( ) SO DP Pt Allotment Saleyards Road Pt Allotment Pt Allotment 60 PSH OF Hikurangi Saleyards Road DP Pt Allotment 36 ( ) Vinegar Hill Road Pt DP Pt Allotment 35 ( ) Pt Allotment 36 DP Pt Allotment 35 ( ) Pt Allotment 61 PSH OF Hikurangi DP DP Allotment 159 PSH OF Hikurangi Pt Allotment 62 PSH OF Hikurangi DP DP Pt Allotment 61 PSH OF Hikurangi ( ) DP DP Main Road DP Allotment 158 PSH OF Hikurangi DP DP Allotment 214 PSH OF Whanga DP DP Allotment S PSH OF Hiku DP Allotm PSH OF 16.9 Lo DP DP