Latest News
January 2011
Regional Policy Statement Discussion Document 2010: Vision Kerikeri Response Form
1. Integration P7
“Integration is at the core of the RPS” but the discussion document is divided into chapters which encourages consideration in isolation. It also states that “there is limited recognition of… the interlocking nature of natural systems and cumulative effects of multiple activities” (P8). While this organisational method may be convenient it risks acting against integration. For example there are linkages between infrastructure, energy, water, natural hazards and bio-diversity and climate change. More cross referencing is required if this administrative method is preferred.
1.1 Lack of a vision
The RPS lacks an overarching vision. Climate change is the elephant in the room. There is an inextricable link between Climate Change and development the 2 biggest problems world-wide, and which beset Northland. However the Regional Community Growth Strategy must be truly integrated and sustainable not economic development with a “green tinge” or weak environmentalism giving consideration only to local environmental effects. For example coal mining does not act toward a low-carbon growth and is not sustainable but alternative energy technologies do and would create sustainable economic opportunities.
1.2 A Vision for the RPS
It is proposed that the RPS vision should be an integrated, sustainable, low carbon future.
1.3 Poor coordination
There is a lack of coordination between agencies. In the Bay of Islands, which is an integrated catchment and has multiple stakeholders, responsibilities rest with NRC, FNDC, DOC, MinFish, and Min Transport, Ministry of Aviation with no one agency in charge. Tourism and development pressures could lead to the unfortunate results of the Gold Coast, Acapulco or Spain’s Costa Brava where unsustainable developments, in the name of “progress” have “killed the golden goose”. Recently noisy, low-level helicopter operations have commenced within the islands from an anchored barge but no agency is responsible for the cumulative, adverse planning effects.
2. Infrastructure P14
2.1 Land use, infrastructure and climate change
Managing adverse effects caused by subdivision is an RPS responsibility. For example bulldozer generated “Hopper style” development on the coast affects natural processes and protective dunes. With rising sea-level such expensive but destructive development is likely to lead to future demands for protective works. This is an “externality” not factored into the true cost of development to the community and is a market failure because price is the method used by markets to determine efficient use of resources. Short term development for a few is not sustainable as it is non-essential development taking place in a known area of risk i.e. the coast, which is subject to sea-level rise and adverse storm events.
The IPCC suggested a sea-level rise of up to .59 m by 2100, The Royal Society of N.Z. (Sept 2010) has published a summary of recent international projections and many range from up to +1 metres to more than 2 metres, largely from ice cap melting.
Policies should be developed to manage development on coastal land with setbacks behind the coastal dunes, not to permit development on sand spits, and using the precautionary principle for development on flood plains.
2.2 Energy P17
Before contemplating expensive electricity generation and distribution infrastructure, policy to strengthen demand management and conservation is the essential first step.
From simple observation building in recent years is remarkable for the near absence of solar water heating.
Table 1. Far North District: number of dwellings by census
1991 | 1996 | 2001 | 2006 |
|
15951 | 18204 | 19560 | 20478 |
|
| +2253 | +1356 | +918 | +4527 |
Market purity and an ideological aversion to the use of subsidy to meet policy goals is well established in N.Z. In the absence of any subsidy or grant (until recently) the opportunity to save about 3000 kWh p.a. from solar water heating for each new house has been largely lost. This equals about 13.5 Mwh per annum in the Far North alone or about half the output of Ngawha geothermal power station. Had supportive policies existed it would have contributed to N.Z.’s Kyoto obligations and regional social and economic goals by saving householder’s money, providing local employment and possibly seeding a solar industry.
2.3 Renewable energy
· A goal of regionally promoting renewable energy of say 75% for Northland would reduce our dependence on expensive grid connection through Auckland and limit and wasteful transmission losses.
· This would show a serious commitment to sustainability and recognition of climate change.
· Compulsory inclusion of solar water heating in subdivisions and new houses not yet started should be a compulsory consent requirement.
2.4 Option 6: Decentralised infrastructure P17
· Decentralised energy production at the cost of the user reduces/defers the need for large scale generation and grid network losses and should be encouraged.
· Decentralised (bio-cycle) sewerage systems reduce demand for large sewerage schemes, and are a cost to the user. They reuse water on gardens and should be encouraged.
· It is understood that to make the gigantic sewerage scheme at Kerikeri affordable, self-sufficient land owners may be forced to join the scheme despite their self-sufficiency, which is surely perverse.
· Make compulsory water tanks in new construction a consent condition for gardening and/or potable consumption, reduce water storage infrastructure, and recognise climate change.
2.5 Funding infrastructure P 17
Decentralised energy generation including solar water heating, sewerage and water storage , reduces, defers or supplements large scale reticulation and grid losses at a national level. This could be promoted by rates relief, direct subsidy, grants or interest free loans.
3 Water P18
3.1 Water (and air) is the commons and has been used world-wide by industry and agriculture as a largely free resource. This is an uncosted externality but adverse effects & costs are passed on to the community to be paid for by taxes or rates. This is a market price failure but cleaning up our degraded streams and rivers after deforestation and dairying seems to be unaffordable.
Rules to define water standards and to deal with non-compliance are required.
3.2 Water allocation
· Water has social, economic, cultural and environmental effects. It has been over allocated on a first come first serve basis in Canterbury. A drier climate is predicted in Northland and this should not be repeated here.
· The RPC should consider efficient allocation of water. I support greater integrated management of land-use changes and the impacts on water.
· Some regulation is needed.
4. Minerals and land management (P30)
4.1 Mineral survey
A survey of mineral deposits would be useful for data gathering China clay near Matauri Bay is useful economically and aggregates are in short supply. Regional self-sufficiency for aggregates would reduce transport emissions and contribute to a low-carbon policy. Northland may have valuable rare metals.
4.2 Mineral extraction in areas of high natural value
Northland has no National Parks or Schedule 4 land but it has a number of kauri forest remnants which have been long mooted as a Kauri National Park. It would be unacceptable to mine in areas of high natural values. For example, Puketi Forest apart from having fine stands of kauri, now incorporates a 5500 hectare Mainland Island in which intensive pest control is managed by a Community Trust and rare bird species are being introduced.
4.3 Mining
Mining of heavy metals gold, silver and uranium use a lot of water and need permanent tailing storage of toxic wastes in perpetuity. It is not like “key hole surgery” with minimal impacts. This is not sustainable and should not attract policy support.
5. Climate change p33
As stated (Para 1.2) climate change is the elephant in the room and the vision of the RPS should be a low carbon future. It is a regionally and internationally significant issue that should be addressed in the RPS and not merely as a chapter heading in isolation. We have tried to show in our submission that climate change impacts on almost all of the elements of the RPS and on economic development. Sea-level rise is expected to exacerbate coastal hazards, storm surges and the like, and salt water intrusion into ground water; while increasing frequency, duration and magnitude of extreme weather events - droughts and storms - will affect all of society.
Integrated planning for a longer time frame of 50 years (RPS P6) requires climate change to be factored into all environmental and economic planning as an essential element of Northland’s vision of a sustainable low-carbon future.
6. Biodiversity and ecosystems P46
6.1 Regulation
Some regulation is needed to promote the management of biodiversity and eco systems as a back stop for those who do not care or operate in their self-interest at the expense of the wider community.
6.2 Mapping to identify priority areas and a more targeted approach P47
While absolute priorities may be useful and DOC does target a few key areas, this can be unnecessarily purist and only likely to protect biodiversity and ecosystems if large additional sums of public money surprisingly become available, which although desirable, seems unlikely. Such mapping and reports will remain on bookshelves in the absence of resources to follow through and should not be a high priority use of scarce resources.
6.3 Supporting community participation
A practical method of determining a priority and “targeting” is where a community group takes responsibility using “free and committed local labour operating in their own environmental area of interest”. While the area the community selects may not be the most scientifically important, species will quickly return given enhanced protection/restoration regardless of relative values. On this basis a more effective and positive way of maintaining or enhancing biodiversity in the RPC is to render greater financial support to the community in furthering voluntary partnerships between landowners, Councils and communities. Simple beginnings tend to expand as local “stakeholders” buy into and support success.
As stated (p47) Northland has more than 50 groups devoted to bio-diversity. Some examples are:
What | Where |
Kiwi Foundation
| About 20000 ha. Private land. Kiwi protection |
Guardians of Bay of Islands
| 600 ha. Mostly Crown land. Predator control & reintroduction of species. Partnership with DOC supported by Rawhiti hapu |
Eastern Bay of Islands Protection Society and the 2 Rawhiti hapu | Private land – predator control supported by NRC |
Russell Land Care | Protection & introduced bird species. |
Mahinepua Land Care Trust | Private Land, some reserves. Predator Control and Kiwi protection |
Puketi Forest Trust | 5500 ha. Crown Land. Predator control, reintroduction bird species. |
Bream Head Land Care Trust | Crown land – predator control |
Waimate Land Care Trust | 9000 ha. Private Land. Predator control |
Each group differs but they typically rest on the leadership of a few. “Burn out” is possible and if a group ceases to function predator control, which needs management in perpetuity, will fail.
Funding is the biggest problem these groups face. While highly cost effective funding availability is meagre. NRC, which allocates only 8% of its budget to biosecurity, and FNDC much less, do not meet their biosecurity responsibilities.
Typically funders will not fund salaries but avoidance of “burn out” if it is an issue may be assisted by as little as 20 hours part time weekly which could suit a retired person or a younger person wishing to get a start in environmental management. An executive style salary is not what is contemplated - most in the environmental volunteer sector have modest expectations.
Summary
NPS could best support biodiversity and ecological systems by greater support of volunteer groups this is best done by increasing NRC rates which are only about $12/household. Councils are always under pressure to fund roads, sewerage and water and biodiversity will not attract the priority it deserves and understanding its importance to the future will probably remain limited among the majority of ratepayers and possibly Councillors.
Domain concept Plan (actual is different) !
The plan of the Domain Park as approved by the Committee chaired by Wayne Brown on 13th January, Vision Kerikeri approved the design incorporated the sculpture and re design to benefit the community. more details will be forthcoming from Council as it is their project and planned in conjunction with the Rugby club move to the Procter Field and having facilities available, such as changing rooms etc.
See a committee member for a look at the plan.
Vision Kerikeri fully supports the installation in the location as preferred by the Benefactor and sculpturer on the Domain.
The Sculpture is 16.5 meters in diameter around the water feature and the highest stack is 11 metres, all of the boulders are from the Kerikeri region and features very interesting bronze shells
Stage 2 ( rear plot )
(Sept 07) Council look certain to purchase this block of land and develop it in conjunction witrh the existing land used as car parking in Homestead Road, the land will be developed under the Far North Holdings banner who may sell it on or develop it into something of benefit to the town, guesses run from a private hospital, medical complex, bowling alley, shopping mall with parking, cinemaplex, recreation centre but not high rise apartments for a quick buck!
Far North District Council's Media release
Consent order sought for Kerikeri development
25th August 2006
An agreement that paves the way for a multi storey apartment and tourist accomodation building to proceed in Kerikeri has been reached by the FNDC and Kerikeri Serviced Apartments.
The two parties have agreed to file for a consent order from the Environment Court that would allow the development to go ahead, although there is to be no on site building work for 12 months, Only earthworks infrastructure and car parking can begin within that time.
Kerikeri Servced Apartments Ltd will use the year to commission an architectural review of the concept design for the building and consult with the Council, key stakeholders and adjoining property owners about the building design size and height.
Although the resource consent could allow up to eight storeys, the review will take into account Urban design protocol, the District Plan Variation limiting height in the Kerikeri and financial viability of the development options for the size.
As part of the agreed processes, traffic issues will be considered, including the addition of a condition requiring payment of a contribution to the upgrade of the roundabout at Kerikeri rd, Hobson and Bulter rd.
Council CEO Clive Manley said 'The agreement gives the council and the developer a year in which to consult with the affected parties and work together on issues associated with the proposed development. This is a good outcome that gives us both time to do what is needs to be done before any construction starts on site'.
FNDC Media release 25th August 2006
26th August 2006
Vision Kerikeri's response to FNDC Media release
Dear Vision Kerikeri Members,
Your Committee wishes to inform you, that FNDC has entered into an agreement with Kerikeri Serviced Apartments resulting in the two parties filing in the Environment Court to withdraw from the appeal against the non-awarding of a Resource Consent.
Under this agreement, the stage 2 (high rise building) will not be constructed for 12 months, and during this period Mr Hook is to have the concept and the project design reviewed, and is also to consult with the council, stakeholders and local property owners about the new design.
Although under the present District Plan rules, the new structure could still be up to eight levels in height. It has also been agreed that the urban design protocol will be taken into account as well as the District Plan variation in which the council has proposed introducing a height ceiling in the commercial zone. It is understood that a hotel is now contemplated as opposed to the initial structure, which was essentially an Auckland style apartment building.
If so Vision Kerikeri, would be supportive of a hotel of modest height which could be regarded as an asset for the community and a positive outcome, but we reserve the right to comment on any aspect of the revised plan.
While this decision is not all that we at Vision Kerikeri would have hoped for in a perfect world, the fact that we, the residents of Kerikeri, have been able to encourage the Council and the developer to undertake an architectural review of the project, using a different level of design. Public impact standards should be considered a major step in our efforts to regain meaningful influence over our local community. This is the first major step in developing for Kerikeri a plan to carry it into the next generation or two and to help us plan for the growth that is expected in our community.
Thanks to all for your efforts in this long drawn out process!
Rod Brown
Chairperson
Vision Kerikeri
SCANNED COPY
FAR NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL
IN THE MATTER of the Resource
Management Act 1991:
AND
IN THE MATTER of an application
under the aforesaid Act, 1991
by Kerikeri Serviced Apartments Ltd.
APPLICATION NUMBER RC 2050143
Hearings application – Land use consent application to construct an eight storey building for residential accommodation, tourist hotel accommodation, manager's accommodation, guest facilities with car parking and other associated activities.
The properties in respect of which the application is made, are situated at the corner of Kerikeri Road and Butler Road , Kerikeri (Lot 1 DP 28912, Lots 1 & 2 DP 144906 and Lot 17 DP 38925)
HEARING
Before the Hearings Committee of the Far North District Council, on the 6th and 7th of December 2005 and 28 February 2006 the following decision was made;
DECISION A:
THAT PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 37(l) AND 37A OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991, THE FAR NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL WAIVES THE TIME PERIOD FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF SUBMISSIONS AND ACCEPTS THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE FOLLOWING.
V E Hunton R B Hunton G D Richards J Burling M & S Van Horn H A de Ridder I R Taylor T Quinlan A Coen M D Newmann R W F Bubendorfer
K Walsh J Walshe J E & E H Toms D J Retton Kerikeri District Business Association S Hufton M Honiss D Bell L Bell M D Neuinann J S Kurtovich
Reasons for the decision
1. No persons are considered to be prejudiced by acceptance of the late submissions. The applicant did not oppose the acceptance of these submissions.
2. The interests of the community are considered to be better served in receiving the submissions and assisting to better achieve adequate assessment of the effects of the proposal.
3. No unreasonable delay will be introduced to the process by acceptance of the late submissions.
DECISION B:
THAT PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 104, 10413, 104C AND 104D OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991, THE FAR NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL DECLINES CONSENT TO APPLICATION NUMBER RC 2050143 BY KERIKERI SERVICED APARTMENTS LIMITED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING AND USE THEREOF AS DESCRIBED IN THE APPLICATION FOR RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION (24 SERVICED APARTMENTS); TOURIST HOTEL ACCOMMODATION (42 HOTEL SUITES); MANAGER'S ACCOMMODATION; GUEST FACILITIES; CAR PARKING AND LOADING FACILITIES; AND, THE REMOVAL OR DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING FACILITIES AND STRUCTURES ON THE SITE AT THE CORNER OF KERIKERI ROAD AND BUTLER ROAD, KERIKERI, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1 DP 28912 (CT NA1104/286), LOT 1 DP 144906 (CT NA86A/15 ), LOT 2 DP 144906 (NA86A/16) AND LOT 17 DP 38925 (CT NA1065/273).
Pursuant to Section 113 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the reasons for this decision are as follows.
(a) The proposal was considered to be a restricted discretionary activity under the Revised
Proposed District Plan because of non-compliance with development controls relating to traffic intensity, loading facilities and car parking standards. Although technically the proposal is a non-complying activity under the Transitional District Plan this Plan was afforded little weight in the decision making process due to the respective stages of each of the District Plans in the statutory planning process. The non-compliance of the proposal with the ‘traffic intensity' control in the Commercial zone of the Revised Proposed District Plan was considered the key issue in the consideration of the application. In relation to the traffic intensity the Hearings Panel found it was not satisfied that it had been sufficiently demonstrated that it could reasonably conclude that the adverse effects of the activity on the environment would be minor.
(b) The proposal constitutes a staged development of the site. The total traffic Intensity of the
proposal (Stage 2) together with the approved development on the site (Stage 1) is assessed as 1,139 daily one-way movements. That comprises 873 movements for Stage 1 and 266 movements for Stage 2. The cumulative effects of the traffic generated from this proposal on the neighbouring roads and in particular on the Kerikeri Road - Butler Road round about, which was a major concern of many submitters, are considered to be more than minor and it was not sufficiently demonstrated that the adverse effects were capable of mitigation to a degree where those effects could be considered to be minor or of little concern. This was neither through details that may be included as part of the proposal nor via the imposition of consent conditions.
The Hearings Panel heard conflicting evidence from traffic engineering consultants for the applicant and for submitters in opposition as to the potential adverse effects of the proposal on the Council's roading network and in particular on the capacity of the Kerikeri Road - Butler Road roundabout to cope with the increased traffic flow. From all of the evidence the Hearings Panel concluded that the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence or any traffic design solutions to satisfy the Hearings Panel that the adverse effects of the additional traffic generated by this proposal could be avoided, remedied or mitigated.
The Hearings Panel acknowledges the relevance of traffic related matters given in submissions and evidence at the Hearing by some of the submitters who have opposed the application. The presentation of their concerns, supported by technical evidence, provided useful information and for a local point of view to be advanced for the consideration of the Hearings Panel.
(c) In all of the above respects the proposal is found by the Hearings Panel to not meet the relevant assessment criteria for restricted discretionary activity consideration particularly as the criteria relate to considerations of the capability of streets to cope with the extra vehicle movements; the existing volume of traffic on the streets affected; existing congestion and safety problems; and, the ability to sufficiently mitigate effects.
(d) For the above reasons the Hearings Panel finds the proposal does not meet, and is indeed contrary to, the relevant objectives and policies of the Transitional District Plan.
(e) While the Hearings Panel acknowledges and accepts that the application was a restricted discretionary activity, and the limitations on its considerations in that respect, it did further conclude that the proposal did not meet the relevant objectives and policies of the Revised Proposed District Plan and urban design protocols intended for Kerikeri.
Note:
The above decision and the reasons for that decision have been reached by the Hearings Panel after considering the application, submissions, site visits, submissions and evidence at the Hearing, the report prepared by the reporting planner, all the relevant statutory and planning provisions as well as the principal issues, particularly the matters relating to traffic intensity, that were in contention.
Laurie Byers
CHAIRMAN - HEARINGS PANEL
FAR NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL
Date: 9 March 2006
Council does an 'about turn !!...
FAR NORTH COUNCIL PRESS RELEASE
COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Media release
GROWTH ISSUES
CHANGING TIMES, CHANGING APPROACHES
Legislative changes and burgeoning commercial and residential growth, particularly on the eastern seaboard, has triggered a comprehensive review of the way development will be managed in the Far North in future.
“We have had to re-think the way we do things and the tools and resources necessary to achieve sustainable growth, Far North District Council Chief Executive Clive Manley said today.
The introduction of financial contributions, the Long Term Council Community Plan process including the development of asset management plans, and more recent initiatives such as the proposal to introduce a Plan Variation to address height issues in commercial zones, were all part of a package to address urban growth.
“Making the rules is one thing, but we also have to have experienced people on the ground to carry new policies forward. To achieve this we have recently created two new positions- Sustainable Environmental Manager and Development Engineer,” he said.
The first position was to provide an overview of community-based structure plans, to head the District Plan and the Iwi Services team, and the second position was to co-ordinate the engineering and technical requirements associated with new developments.
“It is not as if we have had a sudden change of heart in re-introducing control mechanisms. The proposed Plan Variation on height thresholds has come about as a result of vastly changed circumstances.
“The speed of growth and the development pressures experienced over the last 12 months are a very different scenario to the situation which existed in the late 1990s.
“Six years ago there was an urgent need to stimulate the Far North economy and encourage commercial development. Responding to a huge groundswell of community concerns, the Council of the day freed up the planning environment in a bid to make it more user-friendly.
“The intent was to encourage new development. One of the better known examples of that intent was the decision to withdraw height thresholds from most commercial zones to encourage commercial investment. The Council of the day saw opportunities to encourage the private sector to develop more car parking on upper floors of commercial buildings, taking some of the load off the cost to the community of land purchases and development costs associated with public car parking,” he said.
“Community support for this approach was self-evident- among more than 12,000 submissions received on the Proposed Plan there was not a single submission opposing this view.
“Recent public comment that there was little community consultation is unfair and does little more than belittle and denigrate the thousands of hours of work and the invaluable input from those who took the time to attend public meetings and to make submissions,” he said.
“When the rate of development took off beyond all reasonable expectations, the situation was compounded in 2003 by an amendment to the restricted discretionary provisions in the Resource Management Act. Prior to the amendment there was sufficient flexibility in the legislation to enable the Council to exercise a measure of discretion.
“However the amendment made it clear that in considering an application we must consider only matters specifically set out in the rules identified within our own plan. In layman’s terms this means that in commercial zones where there are no specific rules on which to assess height issues, it is very difficult to effectively maintain an element of control.
“We have had to address these very different circumstances in such a way that a very fine balance is maintained between the need to control development and the need to continue to encourage investment and create employment opportunities in the north. At the same time there has to be a balance between growth and our ability as a Council to keep pace with the infrastructure needed to service that growth.
“The last thing we want is to return to the days when the Far North had a reputation for being totally anti-development. Neither do we want a situation under which it is open slather,” Mr Manley said.
Far North Mayor Yvonne Sharp said today she welcomed the directions which were being taken to increase the focus on discretionary mechanisms to control growth.
“Times have very much changed and the new directions the Council is taking will go a long way to addressing those changes. The measures we are now putting in place mean we can continue to help the areas that still need growth, and can work with those communities experiencing expansion difficulties.
“When our Proposed Plan was first drafted, we wanted growth in the Far North. Nobody could reasonably have foreseen the extraordinary development that has occurred, particularly in communities such as Kerikeri, the very short timeframe in which it has all happened, the impact this has had on land values, or the pressure this has applied for higher and higher buildings to enable developers to maximize their returns on investment,” she said.
“Six years ago the Council unanimously supported a resolution to remove the height restrictions at Kerikeri for all these reasons. I moved the recommendation because, at the time, it appeared the right thing to do. Now circumstances have changed dramatically and I had no hesitation in moving a Plan Variation to bring matters back up to date.
“What seemed right six years ago, is no longer the case,” she said.
Further media inquiries should be directed to:-
Clive Manley OR Rick McCall
Chief Executive Communications Officer
Ph 0800 920 029
Recommendations made by the District Plan Policy Committee to the full Council.
.“ THAT THE DISTRICT PLAN POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS TO COUNCIL THAT DISTRICT WIDE HEIGHT THRESHOLDS OF UNDER 12 METRES AS A PERMITTED ACTIVITY AND MORE THAN 12 METRES AS A DISCRETIONARY ACTIVITY IN COMMERCIAL ZONES WHERE NO HEIGHT THRESHOLDS CURRENTLY EXIST SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED DISTRICT PLAN BY WAY OF A VARIATION TO THE PLAN;
AND THAT SUBJECT TO THE VARIATION BEING INCORPORATED INTO THE PLAN IN FUTURE, THE DISTRICT PLAN POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS TO COUNCIL THAT WHEN CONSIDERING A DISCRETIONARY ACTIVITY APPLICATION THE COUNCIL WILL HAVE REGARD TO THE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA SET OUT UNDER CHAPTER 10A OF THE REVISED PROPOSED PLAN.”
Reasons for the Recommendation:
· The committee desires to see rules applied consistently across the district
· To provide greater certainty to the regulatory authority, developers and citizens across the district.
· To take into account the special nature of coastal environment (see New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement)
· To provide a less restrictive standard for the inland commercial zones
· To fulfil Council’s obligation under the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act
· The recommendation fulfils the assessment criteria provided to the Committee on 27th September 2005.
Vision Kerikeri make the following preliminary comments:
1. We are clearly pleased to have a recommendation reinstating height which is one of our two key campaign objectives of the last 15 months. If higher than 12 metres it would become a discretionary activity. That means that should the Council consider anything of greater height, it would be subject to all the assessment criteria in section 10A of the Revised Proposed District Plan, rather than us having to fight with one hand tied behind our back, as we have with the 8 level building, where the only thing that we have been able to argue is its effect on traffic. In short the fine words in the policies and objectives in Chapter 7 would henceforth have effect. We have consistently said that the District Plan is flawed.
2. It recommends doing away with a restricted discretionary category, in which the Council places limits on what it may consider. Again referring to the 8 level building, the Council had restricted its discretion to such an extent it could only effectively consider parking and traffic although it clearly would have much wider impact on the community and the urban environment.
3. It is recommended that these changes be done by a variation to the Plan which we have also been advocating for about 15 months, the council has always had the power to do so but this has been previously declined.
4. As a separate subject, the results of the 2 day hearing regarding the Resource Consent for the 8 level building is expected on February 7th.
5. A further matter for which a response is awaited is a request made under the Local Body Information Act by The KK Ratepayers Association, and also on our behalf, for information on how the height vanished from the District Plan in the first place.(see above)