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 6^th and 7^th 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

16 February 2006

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 27^th 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 7^th.

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)