hearings agenda for vodafone · 14/84272 13 november 2014 report to hearings’ commissioner alan...

Hearings Commissioner

Notice of Meeting A meeting of the Hearings Commissioner will be held in the Council Chambers, Whangarei District Council, Rust Avenue, Whangarei on:

Thursday

13 November 2014 10am

Application by Vodafone NZ Limited

Commissioner Alan Withy

Index Page No

Authorisation Sheet ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Environment Planner (Consents) Report ...................................................................................................... 3

Recommendation ........................................................................................................................................ 25

Attachment 1 The application (as lodged) with a separate A3 copy of the graphic material and photo simulations by Isthmus dated March 2014. ...................................................................... 29

Attachment 2 Amended Detail submitted under cover of email on 29 September 2014 ....................... 90

Attachment 3 District Plan Maps .......................................................................................................... 207

Attachment 4 Submissions Received ................................................................................................... 209

Attachment 5 Assessment prepared by Simon Cocker Landscape Architect ...................................... 222

Attachment 6 District Plan – Objectives and Policies ........................................................................... 228

Attachment 7 Consultation Record ....................................................................................................... 274

Attachment 8 Official Waitangi Tribunal Document – WAI 620 ............................................................ 276

Note: Coastal Management Strategy Structure Plan for Pataua can be found at: www.wdc.govt.nz/PlansPoliciesandBylaws/Plans/CoastalPlanning/StructurePlans/Pages/Pataua.

Private Bag 9023 | Whangarei 0148 | New Zealand T: 09 430 4200 | 0800 WDC INFO | 0800 932 463 | F: 09 438 7632

W: www.wdc.govt.nz | E: [email protected]

14/84272 13 November 2014

Report to Hearings’ Commissioner Alan Withy on a Resource Consent Application

This land use consent application was lodged by Harrison Grierson Limited on behalf of Vodafone New Zealand Limited and was reported on by Council’s Senior Specialist (Consents), Katie Martin.

The applicant seeks consent to erect a telecommunications facility as part of the Rural Broadband Initiative in the form of a 25m high monopole with an attached lightening rod, supporting one antenna platform (at a height of 23m) with 12 panel antennas mounted on the platform, one 1.2m diameter dish antenna (at the height of 18m) and 18.7m² of associated cabinetry located at ground level. The facility is designed to be shared by six telecommunications operators.

The lease area of 49.5m² will have a stock proof fence and access will be achieved via an upgraded existing farm track.

This report was peer reviewed by the following signatories:

Katie Martin – Senior Specialist (Consents) Date

This report was peer reviewed by the following signatory:

Kelly Ryan – Team Leader (Consents) Date

1

14/84272 13 November 2014

Statement of staff qualification and experience

Katie Martin – Senior Specialist (Consents)

I hold the qualification of a Bachelor of Planning (Hons) from the University of Auckland. I have been working at Whangarei District Council since October 1998, initially working full time as an Environmental Planner (Consents), then Team Leader Consents and now after returning from maternity leave part-time as a Senior Specialist (Consents). Overall, my work experience includes assessing, reporting and presenting evidence at hearings on a broad range of subdivision and land use consents within the Whangarei District, guiding and supporting planning staff and using delegated authority to make decisions on applications. I have presented evidence at the Environment Court as an expert witness on behalf of council.

Prior to working at Whangarei District Council I worked at both North Shore City Council and Waitakere City Council undertaking resource consent processing work.

Simon Cocker – Consultant Landscape Architect (Simon Cocker Landscape Architecture)

I hold a Bachelor of Arts in Geography and a Master of Philosophy in Landscape Design, both from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. I have 17 years experience as a landscape architect, practicing primarily in the United Kingdom and New Zealand. In New Zealand I was employed from 1994 to 2002 as a landscape architect by Boffa Miskell Limited, both within their Auckland and Whangarei Offices. From 2002 to 2004 I was employed as Parks Landscape Officer within the Whangarei District Council and from 2004 until 2009 I was employed as a Senior Landscape Architect by Littoralis Landscape Architecture. Since November 2009 I have been operating as a sole practitioner and Principal of Simon Cocker Landscape Architecture.

I am an Associate (full and registered member) of the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects and a fully qualified member of the Landscape Institute in the United Kingdom.

As a consultant with Boffa Miskell, Littoralis and latterly as Simon Cocker Landscape Architecture my primary focus of work has been landscape planning. This has involved assessing the visual or landscape effects of a range of development projects including subdivisions in both the coastal and rural environments, extensions to power stations, quarries, bridges, rail designations and other infrastructure projects and developing mitigation strategies for those activities. I have also assisted Whangarei, Rodney, Kaipara and Far North District Councils with the assessment of resource consents from a landscape and visual perspective and with the provision of landscape architectural advice with regard to consent matters.

The above staff/consultant are familiar with the Environment Court’s ‘Code of Conduct’ for expert witnesses and agree to comply with the Code of Conduct in presenting hearing evidence to the Commissioner.

2

14/84272 13 November 2014

Section 42A Hearing Report

Hearing By: Hearings’ Commissioner Alan Withy of a Discretionary Activity land use proposal by Vodafone New Zealand Limited to erect a telecommunications facility as part of the Rural Broadband Initiative in the form of a 25m high monopole with an attached lightening rod, supporting one antenna platform (at a height of 23m) with 12 panel antennas mounted on the platform, one 1.2m diameter dish antenna (at the height of 18m) and 18.7m² of associated cabinetry located at ground level. The facility is designed to be shared by six telecommunications operators. The site is located at 109 Hutchinson Road, Pataua South being legally described as Part MBLK 3 None Pukahakaha West.

Evidence By: Katie Martin Bachelor of Planning (Hons)

File Refs: LU1400040 P063102.LU

Dated: 29 October 2014

1.0 The Proposal & Background

1.1 The proposal 1.1.1 Harrison Grierson Consultants have lodged a land use application on behalf of Vodafone New

Zealand to establish and operate a telecommunications facility as part of the governments Rural Broadband Initiative (RBI) to create improvement in rural telecommunications infrastructure and services.

1.1.2 Vodafone is proposing to erect a telecommunications facility on the subject site located on Hutchinson Road at Pataua South in the form of:

25m high monopole with an attached lightening rod supporting one antenna platform (at a height of 23m);

12 panel antennas mounted on the platform typically measuring 2.6m x 0.4m x 0.3m; one 1.2m diameter dish antenna (at the height of 18m); and 18.7m² of associated cabinetry located at ground level near the base of the mast made up

of six cabinets of various sizes. The lease area of 49.5m² will have a stock proof fence and access will be achieved via a

gravel track.

1.1.3 The facility is designed to be shared by up to six telecommunications operators but at present only Vodafone New Zealand and Spark New Zealand have confirmed their involvement in utilising the site/facility.

1.1.4 The facility has been designed to comply with the National Environmental Standard for Telecommunications Facilities with regard to radio frequencies.

1.1.5 Due to the facility being part of a government funded initiative (RBI) a series of minimum standards are required to be met and this has contributed to the design submitted for approval. These include having a minimum height of 25m and being designed to accommodate up to six operators.

3

14/84272 13 November 2014

The above plan visually illustrates the proposed tower

1.1.6 A copy of the application as submitted is included as appendix one.

1.2 Background

1.2.1 The application was formally lodged on 27 March 2014. However significant pre-lodgement consultation was undertaken with council staff including Resource Consent staff and Maori Relationships staff. At this early stage council engaged the services of Landscape Architect Simon Cocker to assist with the pre-lodgement feedback.

1.2.2 A pre-lodgement site visit was undertaken on 25 November 2013 which was attended by Katie Martin and Simon Cocker on behalf of council.

1.2.3 After lodgement the application was not circulated internally.

1.2.4 The application was circulated and/ or liaison occurred with the following external parties:

Simon Cocker Landscape Architect (peer review)

1.2.5 A section 92 further information request was not issued in respect of this application.

1.2.6 Subsequent to the close of submissions the applicant has spent a significant amount of time liaising with those submitters who requested to be heard in an effort to further clarify and resolve their concerns. This work includes the following:

Liaising with submitters who have requested to be heard in a effort to address the concerns they have raised;

Making subsequent amendments to their proposal to address the concerns of submitters, including modifying the location of the access track, modifying the lease area to retain additional pine trees, confirming the finished colour of the tower as Resene “Jumbo”, amending the size of the plants to be used in the landscape planting;

Commissioning an archaeological survey of the land and amending the access track location and applying to Heritage New Zealand for an authority to modify;

Commissioning submitter Waimarie Bruce to prepare a Cultural Impact Assessment; and Summarising the post notification Iwi consultation undertaken.

1.2.7 A copy of the amended detail submitted is included in appendix two.

4

14/84272 13 November 2014

2.0 Site and Surrounds Description

2.1 Zoning, resource areas and other notations

2.1.1 The subject site is located in the Countryside Environment (white) under the District Plan as depicted in the plan below:

2.1.2 The site is not subject to any Resource Areas but does have multiple archaeological sites in its

vicinity (purple hashing):

Reference Description

Q07/1195 Midden/ Oven

Q07/1008 Pit/ Terrace

Q07/1009 Midden / Oven

Q07/1194 Midden Oven





Q07/987 Midden Oven

2.1.3 A copy of the relevant district plan maps is included in appendix three.

2.2 Site Description

2.2.1 The subject site is located in the small coastal community of Pataua South and is accessed off Hutchinson Road – being a short, no exit gravel road. The site is privately owned and has undulating topography from the estuary flats near Hutchinson Road up to the elevated hill where the proposed mast would be constructed.

5

14/84272 13 November 2014

2.2.2 Detailed site descriptions have been provided by Harrison Grierson in their Assessment of Environmental Effects (refer part 3.2.2 on page 6) and in the supporting Landscape and Visual Assessment prepared by Isthmus Group. I concur with both of these descriptions and copies can be found in the appendices of this report.

2.2.3 The aerial photo below visually depicts the site and its surrounds.

2.2.4 As noted above there are several archaeological sites identified on and around the subject site, generally on the lower reaches close to the Pataua Estuary.

3.0 District Plan Assessment

3.1 Reasons for consent

3.1.1 Operative Whangarei District Plan

Rule Activity Status & Comments

38.3.4 Network Utility Services

The following activities related to network utility services are a permitted activity:

a) The establishment of junction boxes, substations and other equipment cabinets required as part of a utility network that have a height of no greater than 2.5m and a ground coverage not exceeding 4.5 m2; and

b) The establishment of, or extension to, overhead telecommunication and electricity lines located on single poles with a voltage not exceeding 110kV and a design capacity not exceeding 100MVA per circuit have a maximum height of 12.5m in the Coastal Countryside Environment and a maximum height of 18.5m in the Countryside Environment; and

c) The establishment of network utility operations for the purposes of wireless communication, or the measurement, collection and distribution of meteorological information, that comply with the rules for Aerials and Aerial Support Structures; and

d) The minor upgrading, replacement, removal, and

Restricted Discretionary Activity

Network utility services that do not comply with a condition for a permitted activity are a restricted discretionary activity.

Discretion is restricted to:

i. Scale, bulk and form of the installation(s) above ground;

ii. Cumulative effects of additional structures;

iii. Shading effects;

iv. Effects on amenity values;

v. Effects on landscape/streetscape values;

vi. Effects on ecological values;

vii. Effects on heritage values;

viii. Effects on cultural values;

ix. Effects on public health and safety;

x. Issues of reverse sensitivity.

Comments: The proposal cannot comply with

6

14/84272 13 November 2014

maintenance of existing network utility services facilities; and

e) The establishment of, or extension to, underground network utility services, including gas lines with a maximum operating pressure not exceeding 2000 kilopascals.

clause a) of this Rule as the applicant has proposed equipment cabinet areas with a total ground coverage of 18.7m

2 which is 13.2m

2

above the 5.5m2 permitted by this rule. As such it

is thus considered a restricted discretionary activity in respect of this rule, with the matters of discretion listed above.

38.3.17 Aerials and Aerial Support Structures

Aerials and/or aerial support structures are a permitted activity if:

a)

i) In the Countryside Environment there are no more than 5 aerials and/or aerial support structures per site, or per independent residential unit where more than one independent residential unit exists on-site ;

ii) In the Coastal Countryside Environment there are no more than 2 aerial support structures and 5 aerials per site, or per independent residential unit where more than one independent residential unit exist on one site; and

b)

i) Aerials and/or aerial support structures in the Countryside environment have a maximum height of 14.0m, except for dish aerials which shall not exceed a height of 10.0m; and

ii) Arials and/or aerial support structures in the Coastal Countryside Environment have a maximum height of 12.5m except for a dish aerial which is not to exceed a height of 8.5m; and

c)

i) In the Countryside Environment there are no more than 2 dish aerials per site, or per independent residential unit where more than one independent residential unit exists on one site. However, if the dish aerial is for a use other than already specified, there shall be no more than 5 dish aerials per site; and

ii) In the Coastal Countryside Environment there are no more than 2 dish aerials per site; and

d)

i) In the Countryside Environment no dish aerial exceeds a diameter of 2.4m; and

ii) In the Coastal Countryside Environment no dish aerial associated with the residential unit or residential activity exceeds 1.1m in diameter, or 2.4m in diameter if for any other purpose; and

e)

i) All aerials and/or aerial support structures comply with the relevant building setback and daylight angle requirements for the Environment within which they are located; and

f)

i) In the Countryside Environment, between a height of 10.0m and 11.5m any aerial or aerial support structure shall not exceed a width of 1.1m with the exception set out in v. hereunder; and

Discretionary Activity

Aerials and/or aerial support structures that do not comply with permitted activity condition (b) (i), but are less than 20.0m in height are a restricted discretionary activity.

The matters are over which the Council restricts its discretion are as follows:

i. The design and external appearance of buildings;

ii. Landscape treatment and screening;

iii. Site location and layout;

iv. Visual and amenity effects;

v. Construction materials;

vi. The effects on any heritage values.

Aerials and aerial support structures that do not comply with a permitted activity or a restricted discretionary condition are a discretionary activity.

Comments: The proposal results in a number of infringements in relation to the criteria within this rule and is thus considered a discretionary activity:

Clause a)ii) – the proposal includes provision for twelve panel antennas, one dish antenna and one monopole and therefore does not comply with the requirement for no more than 2 aerials and/or aerial support structures per site.

Clause b)ii) – the proposed facility will have a maximum height of 25 metres and the proposed dish antenna will be attached at a height of 23 metres and therefore does not comply with the maximum 12.5m height limit specified in this clause.

Clause f)iii) – the section of the monopole will have a diameter of approximately 1.2m metres between the height of 8.0m and 9.5m, and thus does not comply with the width requirement that is specified in this clause.

Clause f) iv) – the section of the monopole will have a diameter of approximately 1.2m metres between the height of 9.5m and 12.0m, and thus does not comply with the width requirement that is specified in this clause.

7

14/84272 13 November 2014

ii) In the Countryside Environment, between a height of 11.5m, and 14.0m, the components that make up an aerial and/or aerial support structure are to be no greater than 80.0mm in diameter, or have a rectangular section with sides no greater than 80.0mm, with the exception set out in v) hereunder; and

iii) In the Coastal Countryside Environment between a height of 8.0 and 9.5m, any aerial or aerial support structure shall not exceed a width of 1.1m, with the exception set out in v) hereunder; and

iv) In the Coastal Countryside Environment, between a height of 9.5m and 12.0m, the components that make up an aerial and/or aerial support structure are to be no greater than 80.0mm in diameter, or have a rectangular section with sides no greater than 80.0mm, with the exception set out in v. hereunder; and

v) Except for anemometer or similar weather measuring device (excluding a weather balloon), where such device has a cross arm dimension not exceeding 1.1m; and

Any dish antenna located on a site of any listed Heritage Building or Object (refer to Appendix 3) is not visible from any public place.

3.1.2 Overall, the application is considered to be for a Discretionary Activity.

3.2 National Environmental Standards for Telecommunication Facilities 2008

3.2.1 The Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Telecommunications Facilities) Regulations 2008 (‘NES Telecommunications Facilities’) came into force on 9

th October 2008 that substitute existing district plan rules for telecommunications structures in the road reserve and introduce new regulations for radiofrequency emissions. The table below provides an assessment of the proposal against the NES Telecommunications Facilities.

NES Regulation Activity Status

4. Telecommunication Facilities generating radiofrequency fields: activity status

(3) The network operator plans and operates the telecommunication facility in accordance with NZS 2772: Part 1:1999 Radiofrequency Fields Part 1 – Maximum Exposure Levels – 3 kHz to 300 GHz

Permitted: the applicant has demonstrated by way of a radiofrequency report in appendix 5 of the application that the radiofrequency levels from the operation of the telecommunications facility would comply with this standard.

(4) A report is to be provided to Council to confirm compliance with NZS2772: Part 1: 1999 radio Frequency Fields Part 1- Maximum exposure levels- 3kHz to 300 GHz.

Permitted: the applicant has supplied a radiofrequency report in Appendix 5 of the application that confirms compliance with this regulation.

3.2.2 The proposal seems to comply with all other relevant regulations of the National Environmental Standard for Telecommunication Facilities 2008, and overall in relation to radiofrequency fields, the proposed facility is considered a permitted activity.

3.3 Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011

3.3.1 The Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011 (NES Contaminated Soils) were gazetted on 13th October 2011 and took effect on 1st January 2012. Council is required by law to implement this NES in accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The standards are applicable if the land in question is, or has been, or is more likely than not to have been used for a hazardous activity or industry and the applicant proposes to subdivide or

8

14/84272 13 November 2014

change the use of the land, or disturb the soil, or remove or replace a fuel storage system. The following table assesses the proposal’s compliance with the NES regulations:

Question Answer Comment

Is an activity described on the HAIL currently being undertaken on the piece of land to which this application applies?

No Evidence While the larger site has been used for the grazing of animals there is no indication it has been used in a manner that would be classified as a HAIL activity or trigger consent under the NES. Has an activity described on

the HAIL ever been undertaken on the piece of land to which this application applies?

No Evidence

Is it more likely than not that an activity described on the HAIL is being or has been undertaken on the piece of land to which this application applies?

No Evidence

3.3.2 Overall it is assessed that the proposal complies with the National Standard.

4.0 Notification, Submissions and Written Approvals

4.1 Notification

4.1.1 A notification decision was made on 11 April 2014 stating that the application required full public notification pursuant to section 95A(2)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 as the applicant had specifically requested notification.

4.2 Submissions

4.2.1 The period for submissions opened on 23 April 2014 and closed on 21 May 2014. Copies of the application were specifically served upon surrounding landowners, Northland Regional Council, Department of Conservation, the local Ratepayers Association and the relevant local iwi group.

4.2.2 Council received five submissions within the timeframe, with three in support seeking approval of the application, and two in opposition. Two of the submitters initially requested to be heard in support of their submission, however one of these parties my no longer wish to be heard as their areas of concern have been resolved by Vodafone NZ Limited.

4.2.3 One late submission was received from:

W Newland - Received 22 May 2014 being one day late

4.3.4 As such consideration of these pursuant to section 37 of the Resource Management Act is required to determine whether they will be accepted.

4.2.5 The individual submissions are summarised as follows (a full copy of the individual submissions can be viewed in appendix four):

Submitter Issues and Relief Sought

J & W Paynter

• Support

Relief sought: Approve the Application

9

14/84272 13 November 2014

Submitter Issues and Relief Sought

T Scripps • Oppose the whole application. The installation would be incongruous with the landscape; Excessive height for which mitigation will have limited impact; Question the cost/ benefit ratio; It goes against councils value “Love it Here”.

Relief sought: Decline the Application

L & R Andreassen

• Support


Mike Farrow for the Trevi Trust

• Support

Relief sought: Suggested some alterations to the proposal and subject to these being undertaken will withdraw the request to be heard:-

- Finish the tower in dark grey; make planting mainly kanuka; Reduce the size of the seedlings to RT or tube; Increase the area of pines to be retained; Cut batter tracks to be rounded off to merge the contour and topsoil prior to hydro-seeding; Include a bond condition for the planting, fencing, earthworks and weed and pest management.

Waimarie Bruce

• Oppose the whole application. No consultation undertaken over Sites of Significance; Waitangi Tribunal Claim WAI 620; Wahi Tapu.

Relief sought: Decline the whole application until we are consulted.

W Newland • Support


4.2.6 It is considered appropriate to accept the late submission for the following reasons:

The submission does not introduce matters that have not already been raised by submissions received within the required timeframes and consideration and involvement of all parties is considered to be fundamental in the inclusive intent of the Act.

Acceptance of this submitter will not be prejudicial to the applicant and no unreasonable delay was encountered in the receipt of this submission.

The submission was received only one day late.

4.3 Written Approvals

4.3.1 No written approvals were provided with the application.

10

14/84272 13 November 2014

5.0 Resource Management Act 1991- Statutory Considerations

5.1 Section 37 – Late Submission

5.1.1 A Consent Authority must not extend a limit or waive a time limit under Section 37 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) unless it has taken into account:

(a) The interests of any person who, in its opinion, may be adversely affected by the extension or wavier; and

(b) The interests of the community in achieving adequate assessment of the effects of a proposal, policy statement, or plan; and

(c) Its duty under Section 21 of the Act to avoid unreasonable delay.

5.1.2 A time period may be extended for a time not exceeding twice the maximum time period specified.

5.1.3 A consent authority must ensure that every person who, in its opinion, is directly affected by the extension of a time limit or the waiver of compliance with a time limit, a method of service, or the service of a document is notified of the extension

5.2 Section 104

5.2.1 Section 104 provides the matters, subject to Part 2 of the Act that Council must have regard to when considering and application for resource consent and any submissions received. These matters are:

(a) any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and

[[(b) any relevant provisions of—

(i) a national environmental standard:

(ii) other regulations:

(iii) a national policy statement:

(iv) a New Zealand coastal policy statement:

(v) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement:

(vi) a plan or proposed plan; and]]

(c) any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.

5.3 Section 104B

5.3.1 Section 104B outlines Council’s powers when making a determination on a discretionary or non-complying activity. Section 104B states that:

After considering an application for a resource consent for a discretionary activity or non-complying activity, a consent authority—

(a) may grant or refuse the application; and

(b) if it grants the application, may impose conditions under section 108.

11

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/latest/link.aspx?search=ts_act_resource+management+Act_resel&p=1&id=DLM234810#DLM234810

14/84272 13 November 2014

6.0 Actual and Potential Effects on the Environment (s104(1)(a)

6.1 Definition of Effect

6.1.1 Section 3 of the Act defines the term ‘effect’ as including –

(a) any positive or adverse effects; and

(b) any temporary or permanent effect; and

(c) any past, present or future effect; and

(d) any cumulative effect which arises over time or in combination with other effects – regardless of the scale, intensity, duration, or frequency of the effect, and also includes-

(e) any potential effect of high probability; and

(f) any potential effect of low probability which has a high potential impact.”

6.2 Permitted Baseline

6.2.1 In terms of determining whether the adverse effects of the proposal are more than minor, section 104(2) of the Act provides that Council ‘may’ have regard to the permitted baseline in order for effects on the environment that are permitted under the Plan (or by way of resource consent) to be disregarded.

6.2.2 The application document includes a discussion of the permitted baseline in part 8.1 and I concur with this assessment.

6.2.3 The rules allow for the construction of aerials as a permitted activity provided the following criteria area met.

With regards to aerial or aerial support structures in the Countryside Environment, Rule 38.3.17 provides a permitted height of 14m, with dish aerials not to exceed a height of 10m. Comment: The proposed monopole has a maximum height of 25 metres with a proposed dish antenna attached at a height of 18m.

In respect of the number of aerials and/or aerial support structures five are permitted per

site under Rule 38.3.17. Comment: The proposal providing for twelve panel antennas and one dish antenna attached to one monopole.

The width of an aerial or aerial support structure between a height of 10 and 11.5m shall not exceed 1.1m. Comment: The proposed aerial support structure at this height will be 1.2m and as such is 0.1m wider than permitted.

Rule 38.3.4 provides a permitted baseline of equipment cabinets have a height no greater than 2.5m and a ground coverage not exceeding 4.5m2. Comment: the proposal exceeds this permitted threshold as the facility will have a ground coverage of 18.7m2 for equipment cabinets.

6.2.3 As such the proposal exceeds the permitted baseline, however the first 14m of the proposed tower is considered to be permitted, two of the proposed panel antennas can be considered permitted and 4.5m² of the cabinetry can be considered permitted.

6.3 Visual and Landscape Effects

6.3.1 The proposed facility predominantly comprises of a monopole at a height and bulk that exceeds that provided for as a permitted activity, having a discretionary activity status. A permitted pole could not exceed 14m in height with the proposal seeking a 25m elevation. As such it is the additional 11m of its extent that needs direct consideration from a visual effect perspective. It is noted that the applicant could seek consent as a restricted discretionary activity for a pole not exceeding 20m in height.

12

14/84272 13 November 2014

6.3.2 In support of the proposal the applicant provided a Landscape and Visual Assessment prepared by Isthmus Group Limited in March 2014. Aspects of the assessment and more particularly the finer design elements were then amended in September 2014 following post notification discussions. This assessment concludes that the natural character, landscape and visual effects of the facility are assessed as less than minor and the following provides a summery of comments from their report:

The wider area has both rural and coastal landscape attributes with the coastal settlements also strongly influencing the character of the environment;

The visual catchment of the site is limited to the northern quadrant due to topography and existing vegetation;

The presence of the mast will not impact the integrity of the natural character values but will maintain and be subservient to the natural elements and patterns. The pine tress provide vertical context to the mast;

The mast will be seen beyond significant modifications and built development;

Planting will provide integration of the mast and enhance the natural character extending the natural edge of the vegetation on the upper slopes; and

A key aspect is the retention of the pine trees within a 25m radius of the lease area plus the vegetation on the lower north-facing slopes;

6.3.3 Council engaged the services of Landscape Architect to peer review the above assessment and provide feedback on the application. A copy of the assessment prepared by Simon Cocker is included in appendix five. Mr Cockers assessment concludes:

He endorses the approach to topsoil the cut batters prior or hydo-seeding;

Suggests that increasing the pine retention area is important to provide greater certainty that a back drop is retained in the longer term;

The proposal will change the character of the immediate context however the degree of change is mitigated to some degree by the modified character of its setting eg. Quarry, pine tree plantation and the proximity of the settlement. The mitigation will ensure the effects on the landscape will be no more than minor;

The site is located in a working rural and coastal residential landscape and the vegetation clearance and earthworks will be minor in extent and the effect on the natural character will be no more than minor;

The effect on the noted viewpoints will be low to moderate with the effects diminishing over time as the mitigation planting establishes; and

The proposal is consistent with the various statutory documents and the effects will initially be minor (at most) diminishing slightly as the mitigation becomes established.

6.3.4 In addition to the above, he recommends that the applicant considers further increasing the area of tree protection on the slope and at the slope crest to the east to ensure greater certainty of backdrop retention in the longer term. This is reflective of the current ability of the land owner to remove those trees outside the retention area at any time.

6.3.5 Both reports reach the conclusion that subject to adherence to the offered and suggested mitigation that the effects on both landscape and natural character will be no more than minor and are sustainable in this receiving environment. On that basis a suite of conditions will be recommended to formally impose the mitigation measures and achieve the overall outcome of no more than minor effect.

6.3.6 On the basis of the two assessments provided it is concluded that the landscape and visual effects of the proposal are acceptable in this context.

6.4 Radio Frequency Effects and Noise Effects

6.4.1 A detailed assessment of the radiofrequency emissions from the proposed installation has been undertaken by the applicant in accordance with the strict New Zealand Standards which are accepted nationally through the NES for Telecommunications Facilities. As this assessment demonstrates compliance with the permitted activity criteria of the National Standards, the radiofrequency effects of the proposal are therefore assessed to be nil in this instance.

13

14/84272 13 November 2014

6.4.2 The application documentation states that the proposal will comply with the relevant noise rules contained in the District Plan and as such it is assessed that there will be no effect in this regard.

6.5 Positive Effects

6.5.1 The scoping exercise by Vodafone has identified a clear and specific ‘gap’ in the coverage in this particular location and it has also been known for some time that the coastal communities along the eastern perimeter currently receive patchy coverage from the network providers.

6.5.2 As such the installation of the proposed facility with up to six mobile and wi-fi operators being able to make use of it, will provide clear benefit to the community in an immediate and wider capacity. The benefits of this can be or have been measured three-fold:

i. An improved cell phone and broadband service;

ii. The combined tower will remove the need for multiple towers by separate companies to be located in the same or similar location;

iii. Implementation of the government’s rural broadband initiative to achieve 80% coverage to rural households.

6.5.3 The location of the facility will not negatively impact on the continuation of existing activities in the surrounding environment, with the subject site still able to be farmed in the same manner and all other existing development located some distance from the facilities location. As such no reverse sensitivity effects are anticipated and the facility will produce positive communication effects to the community.

6.6 Heritage/ Archaeological Effects

6.6.1 As noted in the description of the site the area is scattered with numerous recorded archaeological sites. A detailed analysis of the sites can be found in appendix two being a Archaeological Assessment prepared by Geometria in September 2014. The bulk of the proposal has been designed in a manner whereby there would be little or no damage to the archaeological sites.

6.6.2 However, through the consultation undertaken after the close of submissions it was requested by submitter W Bruce that the access track be relocated to a follow a varied path. While Vodafone were happy to comply with this request, this placed the track in a location where recorded archaeological sites (middens) would be compromised. It has also been identified that some of the landscape planting may cause archaeological features to be modified or potentially destroyed.

6.6.3 On this basis Vodafone commissioned an Archaeological Assessment to be prepared by Geometria in September 2014 to clearly define the archaeological features on site and determine what the effects of the development would be on these features. This was followed up with an application to Heritage New Zealand for an Authority to modify, damage or destroy an archaeological feature. At the time of preparing this report the decision of Heritage New Zealand was not available.

6.6.4 The Geometria report has assessed the archaeological features in the project area as having low to moderate significance, with many of the midden in this area already having been modified by 100 years of land development and farming. It notes that while the Vodafone project has the potential to cause further modification it states that “there is no reason the project should not proceed albeit with appropriate mitigation”.

6.6.5 The report includes eight recommendations associated with the conclusion and these are noted on pages 43 and 44 of the Geometria report in appendix two. On the basis of the reports conclusion and the inclusion of the recommendations as consent conditions it is concluded that the effects on the archaeological features as a result of the proposal will be acceptable.

14

14/84272 13 November 2014

6.7 Effects summary

6.7.1 Overall it is assessed that the effects in regards to the facility proposed are acceptable on this site and in this location for the following reasons:

Subject to adherence with the offered and suggested mitigation the effects on both landscape and natural character will be no more than minor. The effects are considered to be sustainable in this receiving environment with the character of the immediate context already modified by existing development. The effect on the noted viewpoints will be low to moderate with the effects diminishing over time as the mitigation planting establishes;

While the project will result in some modification and possible destruction of known

archaeological sites these sites have low to moderate significance and have been subject to historic modification by prior and current land uses. The impact of the proposal on the archaeological history in this location is sustainable.

The proposal has been designed to comply with the National Standard for Radio

Frequency.

The applicant has been proactive in their response to council and submitter concerns over the aspects of the tower and its surrounds. The additional information, and changes to aspects of the project assist in both alleviating submitter concerns and mitigating the effects on the landscape to an acceptable level that are capable of being absorbed in this location.

The facility will offer positive effects to the immediate and wider communities in terms of improved coverage and will not result in any reverse sensitivity effects.

7.0 Relevant Policy Statements, Plans or Proposed Plans (s104(1)(b))

7.1 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

7.1.1 The Whangarei District Plan was written prior to the release of the NZCPS in 2010 and as such the Plan provisions are not directly reflective of the NZCPS provisions. Given this, it is imperative that careful regard is given to the NZCPS during the consideration of applications in the coastal environment. Section 75 of the Resource Management Act directs council to give effect to the NZCPS through its district plan and consequently the resource consent process.

7.1.2 The NZCPS recognises the values of the coast and seeks to set out a series of polices to achieve the purpose of the Resource Management Act in regards to it. It recognises that the coast has particular qualities and characteristics that mean there are additional challenges in promoting sustainable management. It addresses a range of activities that occur near the coast (including recreation).

7.1.3 The sites location on the coastal edge indicates that the content of the NZCPS is directly relevant in assessing this application. The importance of preserving natural character from the effects of subdivision, use and development and any adverse effects of these outcomes is also sought by our District Plan and Resource Management Act 1991.

7.1.4 In considering those that are relevant, one of the main thrusts seeks to preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and all its natural features /landscapes from a range of effects from such things as subdivision, use and development. And most importantly protect it from adverse effects (in an outstanding landscape) and significant adverse effects (in all other areas). It noted there is still a need to provide for some progression to enable people to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing and not preclude all use and development but to ensure it is appropriate in location, scale and design. The objectives and polices include the following comments:

Consider how adverse visual impacts of development can be avoided in areas sensitive to such effects, such as headlands and prominent ridgelines;

15

14/84272 13 November 2014

To preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and to protect it from inappropriate subdivision, use and development;

Recognise that the provision of infrastructure, the supply and transport of energy including the generation and transmission of electricity, and the extraction of minerals are activities important to the social, economic and cultural well-being of people and their communities;

Consider where development that maintains the character of the existing built environment should be encourages, and where development resulting in a change in character would be acceptable;

Avoid significant adverse effects and avoid, remedy or mitigate other adverse effects of activities on the other natural features and natural landscapes in the coastal environment.

7.1.5 The applicants Assessment of Effects identifies that only Objectives 2, 3 and 6 and corresponding Policies 2, 6, 13 and 17 are relevant, however I consider that some pertinent issues are raised in a variety of the objectives and policies and as such have not limited my consideration to those noted clauses.

Objective 2 To preserve the natural character of the coastal environment and protect natural features and landscapes through: Recognising the characteristics of and qualities that contribute to the natural

character, natural features and landscape values and their location and distribution;

Identifying these area where various forms of subdivision , use and development would be inappropriate and protecting them from such activities; and

Encouraging restoration of the coastal environment.

Objective 3 To take account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, recognise the role of tangata whenua as kaitiaki and provide for tangata whenua involvement in management of the coastal environment by: Recognising the ongoing and enduring relationship of tangata whenua over

their lands, rohe and resources; Promoting meaningful relationships and interactions between tangata whenua

and persons exercising functions and powers under the Act; Incorporating matauranga Maori into sustainable management practices; and Recognising and protecting characteristics of the coastal environment that are

of special value to tangata whenua.

Objective 6 To enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and their heath and safety, through subdivision, use, and development recognising that: The protection of the values of the coastal environment does not preclude use

and development in appropriate places and forms, and within appropriate limits; Some uses and developments which depend upon the use of natural and

physical resources in the coastal environment are important to the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of people and communities;

Functionally some uses and developments can only be located on the coast or in the coastal marine area;

The coastal environment contains renewable resources of significant value; The protection of habitats of living marine resources contributes to the coastal,

economic and cultural wellbeing of people and communities; The potential to protect, use and develop natural and physical resources in the

coastal marine area should not be compromised by activities on the land; The proportion of the coastal marine area under any formal protection is small

and therefore management under the Act is an important means by which the natural resources of the coastal marine area can be protected; and

Historic heritage in the coastal environment is extensive but not fully known, and vulnerable to loss or damage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.

7.1.6 The reports provided in support of the application including the archaeological assessment and the landscape/ visual assessment both conclude that the proposed facility can be absorbed into this coastal setting without significant detrimental effect. The consultation with tangata whenua

16

14/84272 13 November 2014

(which is detailed later in the report) also concludes that the local iwi are supportive of the proposal and recognise the positive benefits to the community.

7.1.7 As such it is concluded that the proposal will not undermine the protective outcomes sought by the NZCPS and that the proposal does not offend the thrust of the Statement.

7.2 Northland Regional Policy Statement

7.2.1 The Northland Regional Policy Statement (RPS) covers the management of natural and physical resources across the Northland region. The provisions within the RPS give guidance at a higher planning level in terms of the significant regional issues. As such it does not contain specific rules that trigger the requirement for consent but rather give guidance to consent applications on a regional level.

7.2.2 Having then reviewed the other relevant parts of the current operative RPS it is considered that there are no significant conflicts between the proposal and the provisions it contains. While preservation of the natural character of the coast is sought, this is balanced with recognition that use and development can be appropriately located and undertaken.

7.2.3 The Proposed Regional Policy Statement (pRPS) was publicly notified and open for public consultation in October 2012, with submissions closing 3 December 2012. Hearings have been held, decisions released and appeals have been filed relating to various aspects of the proposed document. As such in accordance with Section 104(1)(b)(iv) regard must be had to its content during the decision making on this consent. The new RPS is described as a document that –

“will underpin the integrated management of our resources (land, water, air, soil, minerals, energy, all plants and animals, and all structures). This means considering the environment as a whole and recognizing that changes, or the effects of human activities, in one area or on one resource, can affect other resources. It will provide for the wellbeing of our people and economic development while sustainably managing our resources for future generations. It will also impact how people, businesses and industry use, develop and protect Northland’s resources and it will influence future district and regional plans”.

7.2.7 As with the current RPS, having read through the relevant objectives and polices contained within this document it is considered that this application is in accordance with these directives and will not raise any issues of regional significance other than to enhance a method of providing public access to the coast in a sustainable manner.

7.2.8 It is noted that the proposed RPS includes mapping of areas denoted as being an “Outstanding Natural Landscape” or containing an “Outstanding Natural Feature”, as well as those areas seen as having High or Outstanding Natural Character. As noted by the map below the subject site is noted as having a circular area of Outstanding Natural Character (pink).

17

14/84272 13 November 2014

Northland Regional Council Proposed Landscape Mapping

7.2.9 The location of the proposed tower falls outside of this area and it is considered that aspects of the proposal will ensure adequate protection of the site features that contribute to this notation including the retention of surrounding pine trees ensuring protection of the natural ‘backdrop’, landscaping planting and the proposed tower finishing colour.

7.2.10 On that basis it is still concluded that this application is in accordance with the directives of the proposed RPS and will not raise any issues of regional significance other than to enhance a method of providing public access to the coast in a sustainable manner.

7.4 Operative Whangarei District Plan

7.4.1 The relevant objectives and policies in the Operative Whangarei District Plan (‘the plan’) for the proposed subdivision are located in Chapter 5 Amenity Values, Chapter 6 Built Form and Development, Chapter 7 Tangata Whanua, Chapter 10 The Coast, Chapter 16 Landscapes and Chapter 23 Network Utility Operators.

Chapter 5- Amenity Values

Objective 5.3.1: The characteristic amenity values of each Environment are maintained and, where appropriate enhanced.

Objective 5.3.5: Subdivision, use and development is appropriately controlled, located and designed, to be compatible with existing and identified future patterns of development, and levels of amenity in the surrounding environment.

Policy 5.4.1 Effects on Local Environment-To ensure that activities do not produce, beyond the boundaries of the site, adverse effects that are not compatible with amenity values characteristic of the surrounding and/or adjacent environment unless such effects are authorised by a district plan, a designation, a resource consent, or otherwise. The following effects should be given particular consideration in this respect: Noise; Nuisance; Shading; Glare; Light spill; Dust; Smoke; Odour; Visual amenity.

Policy 5.4.14 Network Utility Facilities- To ensure that the adverse effects of network utility operations are remedied or mitigated, as far as reasonably practicable, in accordance with the amenity values of the different environments. In the Living Environments, the commercial centres and Open Space Environment, telecommunication and electrical services should be provided underground or by wireless link were practicable. In other environments, undergrounding or wireless links should be encouraged, but where this is not practicable, services should be sited and designed so as to minimise adverse effects on amenity values.

18

14/84272 13 November 2014

Chapter 7 - Tangata Whenua

Objective 7.3.2: To enable tangata whenua to exercise rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga over their ancestral lands, waters, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga in the District.

Policy 7.4.1 Interests of Tangata Whenua: To ensure that in the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources, the views and interests of the tangata whenua are fully represented at every stage of the process, including the preparation and implementation of the District Plan.

Policy 7.4.4 Consultation: To ensure effective consultation with, and participation of tangata whenua in resource management processes by:

Fostering partnerships and relationships with the tangata whenua of the area; Avoiding unnecessary conflict on resource management issues; Recognising and respecting iwi authority and affiliations; Acknowledging and providing for historical circumstances and their impacts on resource

needs; Respecting tikanga Maori; Acknowledging the rights of hapu and whanau to speak and act on matters that affect them; Allowing tangata whenua time for informed assessments of proposals and to determine their

responses, consistent with the time constraints in the Resource Management Act 1991; Encouraging applicants to consult tangata whenua, where appropriate.

Chapter 10 - The Coast

Objective 10.3.1: Preservation and protection of the natural character of the coastal environment from inappropriate subdivision, use or development.

Objective 10.3.2: The maintenance or, where appropriate, enhancement of the amenity, landscape, cultural, intrinsic and ecological values of the coastal environment by taking account of the cumulative effects of subdivision development.

Policy 10.4.1 Natural Character: To ensure that subdivision, use and development is managed in a manner that seeks to preserve, enhance and restore (where appropriate) the natural character of the coastal environment. Particular consideration should be given to: Landscapes, seascapes and landforms; Significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna; Intrinsic values of ecosystems; Sites of Significance to Maori; Amenity values

Policy 10.4.2 Natural Character: To recognise, in assessing the actual and potential effects of an activity, that most parts of Whangarei District’s coastal environment have some degree of character which requires protection from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.

Policy 10.4.4 Services and Infrastructure: To avoid adverse effects on the natural character, amenity, landscape, cultural, intrinsic and ecological values and functioning of an area by ensuring that subdivision, use and development occur where there is adequate infrastructure, services and on-site mitigation measures

Chapter 16 - Landscape

Objective 16.3.2: The protection of outstanding landscapes and natural features, including geological sites from inappropriate subdivision, use and development

Policy 16.4.6: Buildings and Structures - To ensure that buildings and structures are of a scale, design and location that, where possible, avoids adverse visual effects on landscape character and values, and otherwise mitigates such adverse effects to the maximum extent practicable.

Policy 16.4.7: Ridgelines - To ensure that buildings and structures within Outstanding and Notable Landscapes avoid locating upon, or intruding above, ridgelines, where this results in adverse visual effects which cannot be mitigated or remedied, or unless there is a functional need for location on the ridgeline

Chapter 23- Network Utility Operators

19

14/84272 13 November 2014

Objective 23.3.1- The orderly, efficient and effective installation, operation, maintenance and minor upgrading of network utility operations throughout the District, to enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being and for their health and safety. Objective 23.3.2- The protection of the environment from, as far as practicable, from the potential adverse effects of network utility operations, particularly effects on the health and safety of communities, the natural character of the environment, sites of historical and cultural significance, and the amenity values of the surrounding area. Policy 23.4.1 Provision of Services- The orderly and efficient provision of network utility operations should be enabled, and the essential nature and operational needs of network utility operations should be taken in to account, when assessing the location, design and operation of these services. Policy 23.4.2 Environmental Effects- Network utility operations should be sited, designed and operated in such a way that the adverse effects on the environment will be avoided, remediated or mitigated, as far as practicable. When siting and designing network utility facilities, particular regard should be made to : Areas of Notable and Outstanding Landscape value; Significant Ecological Areas; The natural character of the coastal environment; Ridgelines and skylines; Heritage Buildings, Sites and Objects; Sites of Significance to Maori.

Policy 23.4.3 Amenity Values- The adverse effects of network utility operations should be avoided, remedied or mitigated as far as reasonably practicable in accordance with the amenity values of the different Environments. In the Living Environments, the commercial centres and in the Open Space Environment, telecommunication and electrical services should be underground or by wireless link, where practicable. In other environments, undergrounding or wireless links should be encouraged, but where this is not practicable, feasible services should be sited and designed so as to minimise adverse effects on amenity values. Policy 23.4.5 Radio Frequency Fields (RF) and Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR)- To ensure that any effects from the generation of Radio Frequency Fields and Electromagnetic Radiation are in accordance with the relevant New Zealand Standard.

7.4.2 The objectives and policies within the District Plan are targeted to both provide opportunities for

the development of network utilities to serve communities in both and economic and social capacity while also seeking to preserve amenity values and outlooks, particularly in those fragile locations such as our coastal reaches. They also encourage participation and consideration of Tangata Whenua.

7.4.3 The proposed facility will increase the provision of telecommunications infrastructure for the east coast settlements of Pataua North and Pataua South and it is anticipated it will offer some expanded coverage beyond these areas as well. It will also allow the Governments Rural Broadband Initiative to be enacted in this location and provide a basis for shared facility for up to six network operators. This is clearly in line with the intent of Chapter 23.

7.4.4 A concern of this proposal has been the visual impact the facility could have in a sensitive elevated location in the settlement of Pataua South and its surrounds. The submission received from Mike Farrow on behalf of the Trevi Trust highlighted this concern from a local perspective. The proposal is not directly in line with those objectives and policies seeking avoidance, but is more in line with those seeking to manage potential effects. The applicant has sought to reduce and mitigate the potential effects thereby being proactive. However their site scoping exercise means they have not been able to avoid all the effects, with the subject location being the site that meets all the relevant technical criteria. While there is a commitment to achieve a best outcome and recognition of Pataua South’s coastal significance, the proposal will not directly meet all of the relevant objectives and policies given the nature of the infrastructure sought and the characteristics of the subject site, however is not directly repugnant of them either.

7.4.5 The proposal is in line with the main intent and offers a balance between the positive outcome of installing new and better broadband /cell phone capability and preserving the landscape and natural features of the location. The applicant has been proactive in their response to issues raised in submissions and as a result of this aspects of the design have been amended.

7.4.6 The applicant has demonstrated compliance with relevant noise provisions in the plan and in regards to radiofrequency effects in relation to the relevant New Zealand Environmental Standard.

20

14/84272 13 November 2014

7.4.7 As will be outlined the following section of the report the applicant has been proactive in their involvement of iwi in the project from the pre-application stage and as such has clearly recognised the directives set by chapter 7 of the Plan.

7.4.8 It is therefore concluded that the proposed land use is consistent with the overarching intent of the aforementioned relevant objectives and policies of the Operative District Plan, if not directly supportive of each individual statement. It is therefore assessed as passing the second gateway test in section 104D(b).

8.0 Other Matters

8.1 Non-statutory Planning Documents & Plan Changes

8.1.1 Whangarei Coastal Management Strategy – Structure Plan: Pataua

8.1.1.1 As part of the Whangarei Coastal Management Strategy the Policy Department undertook studies of the Pataua area and developed a non-statutory structure plan which was adopted in February 2009. A copy of this structure plan can be found on councils website www.wdc.govt.nz/PlansPoliciesandBylaws/Plans/CoastalPlanning/StructurePlans/Pages/Pataua. The overall strategy is set out in three parts with the first two parts covering District wide strategies while part 3 covers the specific structure plans for priority areas (12 in total). The Pataua area is one of these areas.

8.1.1.2 Pataua was identified as a priority area due to the growth issues in the settlements and apparent conflicts between demand for growth, landscape, sense of place and the natural environment.

8.1.1.3 The structure plan identifies key elements for living, working, playing and protecting Pataua as identified though community consultation. The elements include retention of the “village” feel while also encouraging appropriate levels of tourism and economic development.

8.2.4 While not a statutory document, the development of a new telecommunications facility is considered to appropriately support these issues.

8.2 Alternative Sites

8.2.1 As part of the site selection a careful analysis takes place by Vodafone to establish which sites or site are viable for the establishment of a proposed facility. This assessment includes analysis of:

Target Identifying a target area by finding gaps in the current network.

Search Ring Map rings around the current coverage areas to identify nominal areas where it would be best to locate a new facility.

Property Acquisition Physically traversing the identified areas to further refine possible sites based on elevation and landowner options (candidate sheet).

Site Audit Evaluating the candidate sheet from a planning perspective to identity any resource management constraints or issues.

Site Visit An expert panel undertaking a visit of the possible sites to balance out the radio frequency requirements, landowner issues, and any consenting issues.

8.2.2 This then equates to the ‘best fit’ site being identified.

8.2.3 This analysis took place in identifying the subject site and various other possible locations were also scoped out but for technical reasons were not compatible. On this basis it is considered that the applicant has undertaken a clear analysis of alternative sites for the location of the proposed facility.

21

14/84272 13 November 2014

8.3 Consultation

8.3.1 The submission by W Bruce states “no consultation, cultural issues of sites of significance” and that the application should be declined until she is consulted.

8.3.2 Since the close of submissions the applicant has undertaken to directly consult with Ms Bruce on a number of occasions and a record of this consultation is included in appendix two. This consultation also lead to the applicant commissioning Ms Bruce to prepare a cultural impact assessment - a copy of which can also be found in appendix two.

8.3.3 It is also noted that the applicant had undertaken extensive consultation with the local iwi representatives, with such consultation commencing early in the design phase and prior to a formal consent being lodged with council. A précis record of this consultation is included in the application documentation (part 3.2.3) in appendix one, with an additional record included in appendix seven. In support of this the applicant has also provided a statement from Pereri Mahanga confirming that he holds the mandate on behalf of Te Waiariki/ Ngati Korora/ Ngati Te Takapari Hapu Iwi Trust to engage in the consultation process. A copy of this can also be found in appendix two.

8.3.4 On the basis of the records presented it is assessed that significant consultation with the relevant iwi representatives for the Pataua area has occurred during the journey of this project. While Ms Bruce as a member of the Te Waiariki/ Ngati Korora/ Ngati Te Takapari Hapu Iwi Trust was not individually consulted the applicant undertook to liaise with the delegated representative as required/ requested. This has lead to a positive outcome with the Iwi group confirming their support of the project in recognition of the benefits for Tangata Whenua and the wider community.

8.3.5 The post notification consultation directly with Ms Bruce demonstrates the applicant’s keenness to follow an inclusive process and engage the community.

8.4 Treaty of Waitangi Claim

8.4.1 Ms Bruce in her submission makes reference to Treaty of Waitangi claims WAI620 and others. Research into this claim did not reveal any detail that specifically linked the claim to the subject site but rather outlined a more generalised claim for the return off ancestral land, with areas of Pataua South falling within the rohe of Te Waiariki/ Ngati Korora/ Ngati Te Takapari Hapu Iwi Trust.

8.4.2 Waitangi Tribunal hearings have been held and a copy of the official document recording the claim is included in appendix eight. Having traversed this document I cannot find evidence to suggest it has a direct impact on the consideration and decision making surrounding this application.

9.0 Part 2 Matters

9.1 Section 5 – Purpose

9.1.1 Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 details the overarching purpose and principles of the Act

9.1.2 In terms of Part 2 of the Act, the proposed activity must meet the purpose of the Act set out in section 5 which is “to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.” As outlined in section 5(2), “sustainable management” means:

“managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well being and for their health and safety while -

(a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and

22

14/84272 13 November 2014

(c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.”

9.1.3 As discussed in the assessment of effects the proposal has been carefully designed with mitigative detail to allow its insertion in this environment to minimise adverse impact from a visual and archaeological perspective. The proposal will have minimal impact on natural and physical resources available on this site while allowing the continued use of the majority of the subject site by its current and future owners. The positive outcome of improved telecommunication services will improve people and communities social, economic and cultural well being. As such it is considered to be supportive of section 5.

9.1.4 Section 5 of the Act is supported by a number of other ancillary principles contained in sections 6, 7 and 8 in Part 2 of the Act that provide decision makers with a set of guidelines that reflect current government policies and ideologies in regards to resource management, and assist in the interpretation of sustainable management. The relevance of these sections to the proposed subdivision is assessed below.

9.2 Section 6 – Matters of National Importance

9.2.1 Section 6 of the Act highlights matters of national importance that shall be recognised and provided for in order to achieve the sustainable management purpose of the Act. The matters from section 6 that are considered relevant are:

(a) Preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment.....and protection of them from inappropriate subdivision, use and development;

(e) The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other toanga;

(f) The protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.

9.2.2 As highlighted in the above sections of the report the applicant has been proactive in its actions to address all of the above matters, with detailed landscape assessment and mitigation, extensive consultation with mandated Iwi representatives and application to Heritage New Zealand for the necessary authority with respect to the archaeological features. As such it is considered that that application has directly recognised and provided for the matters of national importance in line with section 6.

9.3 Section 7 – Other Matters

9.3.1 Section 7 of the Act lists other matters that particular regard shall be given to in order to achieve the purpose of the Act. Those matters from section 7 that are considered relevant are: (b) The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources;

(c) The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values;

(f) Maintenance and enhancement of natural and physical resources.

9.3.2 The application has had regard to the above matters.

9.3 Section 8 – Treaty of Waitangi

9.3.1 Section 8 requires that decision makers take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in managing the use development and protection of natural and physical resources. As discussed above account has been taken of both the principles of the Treaty and reference claims made by a submitter to this application.

10.0 Conclusion & Recommendation

10.1 Conclusion

10.1.1 The proposal is considered to be an acceptable form of development for the local and wider receiving environment because:

23

14/84272 13 November 2014

Subject to adherence to the offered and suggested mitigation that the effects on both landscape and natural character will be no more than minor. Furthermore, the effects are sustainable in this receiving environment with the character of the immediate context already modified by existing development. The effect on the noted viewpoints is low to moderate with the effects diminishing over time as the mitigation planting establishes;

The impact of the proposal on the archaeological history in this location is sustainable; The proposal has been designed to comply with the National Standard for Radio

Frequency; The applicant has been proactive in their response to council and submitter concerns over

the aspects of the tower and its surrounds; The facility will offer positive effects to the immediate and wider communities in terms of

improved coverage and will not result in any reverse sensitivity effects;

Significant consultation with the relevant iwi representatives for the Pataua area has occurred during the journey of this project and this has lead to a positive outcome with support of the project and recognition of the benefits for Tangata Whenua and the wider community; and

The applicant has undertaken a clear analysis of alternative sites for the location of the

proposed facility and determined the subject site is the most suitable with the least environmental effects.

10.1.2 The proposal is assessed to be supportive of the NZCPS, Regional Plan and District plan objectives and policies as;

The proposal will not undermine the protective outcomes sought by the NZCPS and that the proposal does not offend the thrust of the Statement by producing minimal adverse effect in the coastal setting and being supportive of tangata whenua;

The application is in accordance with the directives of the RPS and proposed RPS and

will not raise any issues of regional significance;

The proposed land use is consistent with the overarching intent of the aforementioned relevant objectives and policies of the Operative District Plan, if not directly supportive of each individual statement.

10.1.2 Having considered the application against the relevant provisions of the Act, it is therefore recommended that this application be granted.

10.2 Section 37 – Late Submissions

10.2.1 Having considered the late submission received including the severity of the lateness and the content of the submission it is considered appropriate to accept the submissions for the following reasons:

The submission does not introduce matters that have not already been raised by submissions received within the required timeframes and consideration and involvement of all parties is considered to be fundamental in the inclusive intent of the Act; and

Acceptance of this submitter will not be prejudicial to the applicant and no unreasonable delay was encountered in the receipt of this submission.

24

14/84272 13 November 2014

11.0 Recommendation

Recommendation One

THAT pursuant to section 37 of the Resource Management Act 1991, it is recommended that the late submission from W newland received 1 working day late on 22 May 2014 be accepted.

Reasons for the Recommendation:

1. The submission does not introduce matters that have not already been raised by submissions received within the required timeframes and consideration and involvement of all parties is considered to be fundamental in the inclusive intent of the Act; and

2. Acceptance of this submitter will not be prejudicial to the applicant and no unreasonable delay was encountered in the receipt of this submission.

Recommendation Two

THAT pursuant to sections 104 and 104B of the Resource Management Act 1991, it is recommended that the Commissioner grant consent to Vodafone New Zealand Limited (LU1400040) to erect a telecommunications facility as part of the Rural Broadband Initiative in the form of a 25m high monopole with an attached lightening rod, supporting one antenna platform (at a height of 23m) with 12 panel antennas mounted on the platform, one 1.2m diameter dish antenna (at the height of 18m) and 18.7m² of associated cabinetry located at ground level. The facility is designed to be shared by six telecommunications operators and includes a lease area of 49.5m² that will have a stock proof fence and access will be achieved via an upgraded existing farm track.

Recommended Conditions of consent

1 That the proposed development proceeds in accordance with the site plan, elevations and accompanying details submitted with this application by Harrison Grierson Consultants Limited on behalf of Vodafone New Zealand Limited with the relevant plans and information as follows:

Harrison Grierson - Resource Consent Application and Assessment of Environmental

Effects Dated March 2014 Reference R002v2-AK131774-25-nhg Arrow international –Site Plan and Site Locality Survey Date 23 May 210 Reference SP-01

Rev 4. Arrow international –Site Plan and Site Locality Survey Date 23 May 210 Reference LP-01

Rev 4. Arrow International – Site Elevations Survey Date 23 May 2013 Reference SP-02 Rev 4. Vodafone New Zealand Limited – Notice and Report Statement of Compliance Dated 24

March 2014 Site Code N1PAT. Isthmus Group – Landscape and Visual Assessment Dated 18 March 2014, Reference

3287/C4 with subsequent amendments submitted via email exchange between Nick Grala and Brad Coombes dated 3 July 2014 and entitled “Pataua Landscape Mediation”.

Isthmus Group - Mitigation Planting Plan, Dated March 2014, Job Reference 3287 Figure 23 with subsequent amendments submitted via email exchange between Nick Grala and Brad Coombes dated 3 July 2014 and entitled “Pataua Landscape Mediation”.

Geometria – Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed New Telecommunication Site – Pataua South Dated 11 September 2014 Reference 2014-108 with specific reference to the recommendations and mitigation included on pages 43 and 44.

2 That a detailed landscape plan in general accordance with the Mitigation Planting Plan prepared by Isthmus Group and entitled Mitigation Planting Plan, Dated March 2014, Reference 3287 Figure 23 shall be formally submitted to council in a final form within 3 months of the date of the decision and shall be supported by a detailed document outlining the proposed planting for the purposes of visual mitigation and softening, incorporating the following information:

25

14/84272 13 November 2014

i. The size and species of any existing planting, and whether it is to be retained; ii. Name of proposed species, (plants shall be appropriate to the immediate area and shall

be eco-sourced from within the local ecological district); iii. Size of proposed stock for planting; iv. Numbers, locations and spacing of proposed plants, details of staking of trees, etc; v. Details of proposed mulch, type, depth etc; vi. A schedule of quantities and costs for the above work; vii. The replacement and removal plan of the fast-growing exotic species intended to be

superseded by slower growing native species over time; viii. Maintenance and replacement regime to ensure the planting is maintained in perpetuity; ix. Fencing to ensure adequate protection from stock damage; x. Top-soiling and hydro-seeding of all cut batters.

The plan and supporting document shall be submitted to and receive approval from councils Resource Consents Manager in conjunction with Landscape Architect Simon Cocker.

3 That within 3 months of commissioning of the telecommunications tower the landscape plan and document prepared by Isthmus Group and approved in condition 2 shall be planted (including any fencing), with written certification from a suitably qualified and experienced Landscape Architect being provided to the approval of Council’s Monitoring and Compliance Team Leader, stating that the planting required has been implemented to their satisfaction. Any planting required shall be maintained in perpetuity with replacement planting required for any planting that is removed or otherwise destroyed. Replacement specimens shall be the same or similar to the original specimen.

4 That the applicant shall provide on an annual basis, for a period of three years from

commissioning of the telecommunications tower, a report prepared by a suitably qualified person detailing the physical condition of the landscape planting required by condition 2 above, noting the health of the plants and whether it is being maintained to a suitable standard for optimum growth and survival in perpetuity. Any remedial works identified by the report shall be completed by the applicant within 3 months of the date of the report to the satisfaction of the Resource Consents Manager.

5 In accordance with section 128 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the council may serve

notice on the consent holder of its intention to review the above conditions of consent six months following the commencement of the activity and in one year intervals thereafter. The review will be for the purpose of dealing with any adverse visual effects on the neighbouring/surrounding environment not currently mitigated through the landscaping proposed under conditions 2 and 3 with regards to species, height and location of the planting and which may arise from the exercise of the consent and/or is appropriately dealt with at a later stage or to require the consent holder to adopt the best practicable option to remove or reduce any adverse effects on the environment through additional or alternative landscape planting. This condition will allow the council to have particular regard to the on-going management of the activity to ensure that it is carried out in the manner described in the application and in a manner that does not result in any concerns in the locality.

6 That within 3 months of this decision the applicant shall submit an amended Tree Protection and Re-vegetation Plan to reflect an extended protection area. The plan shall be a visual reflection of the agreed area resulting from post notification negotiations and the request of Simon Cocker in his report Dated 24 October 2014 whereby he recommends an extension on the slope and at the east slope crest to the east (refer part 3.0 Conclusion and recommendations).

7 That the pines trees located within the proposed tree protection area identified on the plan submitted under condition 6 above shall be protected and retained in perpetuity or until such time as the tower and associated equipment boxes are no longer required and are removed from site. The applicant shall replace any trees that fail over the life of the facility with similar fast growing and hardy evergreen species to ensure a suitable vegetative backdrop and vertical context to the proposed facility as per the Isthmus Landscape and Visual Assessment dated March 2014.

26

14/84272 13 November 2014

8 The boundaries of the proposed tree protection and re-vegetation area identified on the plan submitted under condition 6 above are to be fenced to a standard equivalent to one of the specimen types of rural fence (excluding electric fences) as provided for in the Second Schedule to the Fencing Act 1978 to ensure adequate on-going stock exclusion from this area.

9 Pursuant to Section 108(2)(b) and 108A of the Resource Management Act 1991 a bond shall be entered into in respect of conditions 2 and 3 to cover ongoing maintenance and failed plant replacement costs of the plantings over a 3 year period from the date of issue of this consent decision. The amount of each bond shall be calculated for the landscaping by council’s Team Leader Compliance or their delegated authority based on the information supplied in the landscaping plan submitted under condition 2.

The bond shall be prepared by the council’s solicitor at the expense of the applicant and shall be drawn up if required by the council in a form enabling it to be registered pursuant to Section 109 of the Resource Management Act 1991 against the title to the land to which this bond relates. Performance of the bond shall be by way of a cash bond. The bond shall be reduced by 20% in any one year on certification by an appropriately qualified horticulturist that any replacement planting or supplementary planting required by the landscaping plan approved under condition 2 has been carried out.

Reasons for the Recommendation: That pursuant to section 113 of the Resource Management Act 1991 the reasons for this decision are as follows:

1. The proposal is considered to be an acceptable from of development for the local and wider receiving environment because:

Subject to adherence to the offered and suggested mitigation that the effects on both landscape and natural character will be no more than minor. Furthermore, the effects are sustainable in this receiving environment with the character of the immediate context already modified by existing development. The effect on the noted viewpoints is low to moderate with the effects diminishing over time as the mitigation planting establishes;

The impact of the proposal on the archaeological history in this location is sustainable; The proposal has been designed to comply with the National Standard for Radio

Frequency; The applicant has been proactive in their response to council and submitter concerns

over the aspects of the tower and its surrounds; The facility will offer positive effects to the immediate and wider communities in terms of

improved coverage and will not result in any reverse sensitivity effects;

Significant consultation with the relevant iwi representatives for the Pataua area has occurred during the journey of this project and this has lead to a positive outcome with support of the project and recognition of the benefits for Tangata Whenua and the wider community; and

The applicant has undertaken a clear analysis of alternative sites for the location of the

proposed facility and determined the subject site is the most suitable with the least environmental effects.

2. The proposal is assessed to be supportive of the NZCPS, Regional Plan and District plan objectives and policies as;

The proposal will not undermine the protective outcomes sought by the NZCPS and that the proposal does not offend the thrust of the Statement by producing minimal adverse effect in the coastal setting and being supportive of tangata whenua;

27

14/84272 13 November 2014

The application is in accordance with the directives of the RPS and proposed RPS

and will not raise any issues of regional significance;

The proposed land use is consistent with the overarching intent of the aforementioned relevant objectives and policies of the Operative District Plan, if not directly supportive of each individual statement.

Advice Notes 1 The applicant shall pay all charges set by Council under Section 36 of the Resource

Management Act 1991. The applicant will be advised of the charges as they fall.

2 Section 357B of the Resource Management Act 1991 provides a right of appeal to this decision. Appeals must be in writing, setting out the reasons for the appeal, and lodged with the Environment Court within 15 working days after the decision has been notified to you. Appellants are also required to ensure that a copy of the notice of appeal is served on all other relevant parties

11.0 Attachments

1. The application (as lodged) with a separate A3 copy of the graphic material and photo simulations by Isthmus dated March 2014

2. Amended Detail submitted under cover of email on 29 September 2014

3. District Plan Maps

4. Submissions Received

5. Assessment prepared by Simon Cocker Landscape Architect

6. District Plan – Objectives and Policies

7. Consultation Record

8. Official Waitangi Tribunal Document – WAI 620

Note : Coastal Management Strategy Structure Plan for Pataua can be found at:

www.wdc.govt.nz/PlansPoliciesandBylaws/Plans/CoastalPlanning/StructurePlans/Pages/Pataua.

28