web viewtable 5 for chapter 03: ecology and biodiversity related provisions. please note that...

Table 5 for Chapter 03: Ecology and Biodiversity Related ProvisionsPlease note that submissions are ordered in this table chronologically in relation to the Topic Column (and therefore plan provisions number). Submissions on the Section 1.4 Definition section follow the submissions relating to Chapter 3. That is, excepting those submissions specific to Ecological Sites in Schedule 3.1 which are located at the foot of the table and ordered chronologically by Ecological Site Reference number as listed in the Topic Column.

Sub. No.

Submitter Topic Decision Sought Section of this Report

Officer’s Recommendation

Officer’s Reasons / Comments

Recommended Amendments to PDP?

Chapter 03 Ecology and Biodiversity Related Provisions

25 – 1 Sara Velasquez

General – Chapter 3 Natural Environment

Support the protection of waterways and eels 3.3 Accept in Part

Amendments are recommended to the Plan as a result of other submissions but provisions protecting significant indigenous vegetation and habitats of indigenous fauna are recommended to be retained.

No

FS193 Support Accept in Part

As Above No

FS Oppose: None N/A N/A N/A

30 - 2 Paul and Eppie Murton

General – Chapter 3 Natural

Support the conservation principles of the Council but not in the arbitrary way in which they are applied.

3.3 Accept in Part

Amendments as a result of submissions to Rule 3A.1.5 are recommended

No

1

Sub. No.





Environment to make the provisions relating to ecological sites more workable for landowners including by applying a list of exemptions for necessary property maintenance activities involving the modification of indigenous vegetation a permitted activity

FS9, FS10, FS142 Support Accept in Part

As Above No




Do not add further restrictions on landowners until the Council resolves weed species problem on Council esplanade reserves.

3.3 Accept in Part

Recommendations to other specific submissions seek to acknowledge and enable pest management and weed control by amending Policy 3.12 (see section 3.5.1) and Rule 3A.1.5 (see section 3.5.5). Concerns regarding weed issues on Council

No

2

Sub. No.





reserves are a Long Term Plan or Annual Plan matter rather than something that can be resolved through a district plan.

FS9, FS10, FS43, FS142 Support Accept in Part

As Above No


81-4 Pataka Moore


Support the listing and protection of biodiverse areas and the listing of significant native vegetation (in particular trees).

3.3 Accept in Part

Amendments are recommended to the Plan as a result of other submissions but provisions protecting significant indigenous vegetation and habitats of indigenous fauna are recommended to be retained.

No

FS Support: None N/A N/A N/A


138 Bride Coe General – Chapter 3

Oppose the provisions in chapter 3 as many are unworkable and almost impossible to enforce.

3.3 Accept in Part

Amendments as a result of submissions to Rule

No

3

Sub. No.





Natural Environment

3A.1.5 are recommended to make the provisions relating to ecological sites more workable for landowners including by applying a list of exemptions for necessary property maintenance activities involving the modification of indigenous vegetation a permitted activity


As Above No


145 2(2)

Ian Corder General – Chapter 3 Natural Environment

Support the extent to which the biodiversity and the natural environment have been considered in the District Plan specifically:By encouraging the setting aside of suitable areas of land in new subdivisions (Objective 2.18, Policy 3.1 - Ecosystem services, Policy 3.3 - Protection, Policy 8.13 - Indigenous biodiversity).

3.3 Accept in Part

Amendments are recommended to the Plan as a result of other submissions but provisions protecting significant indigenous vegetation and habitats of indigenous fauna are recommended to be

No

4

Sub. No.





retained.



327 – 31

Waa Rata Estate


Both the policy and rules for ecological sites should be amended to support pest management within K017, including track maintenance.

3.3 Accept in Part

Recommendations to other specific submissions seek to acknowledge and enable pest management and weed control by amending Policy 3.12 (see section 3.5.1) and Rule 3A.1.5 (see section 3.5.5).

No

FS1, FS9, FS10, FS16, FS33, FS42, FS43, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126, FS139, FS142, FS146, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187,

Support Accept in Part

As Above No

FS193 Support in Part Accept in Part

As Above No


383 - 5

Gillian Tousoon

General – Chapter 3

Submitter agrees with submission from Waa Rata. See submission number 327 for detail

3.3 Accept in Part

Recommendations to other specific submissions

No

5

Sub. No.





Natural Environment

seek to acknowledge and enable pest management and weed control by amending Policy 3.12 (see section 3.5.1) and Rule 3A.1.5 (see section 3.5.5).

FS1, FS16, FS33, FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126, FS146, FS167, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187,


As Above No


558 - 3

Terry Parminter


Add a policy encouraging landowners in ecological sites to take control and eradicate on their properties, introduced weeds and any potentially invading exotic-species not naturally found in the Kapiti District.

3.3 Accept in Part

Recommendations to other specific submissions seek to acknowledge and enable pest management and weed control by amending Policy 3.12 (see section 3.5.1) and Rule 3A.1.5 (see section 3.5.5).

No



6

Sub. No.





511 - 4

Mari Housiaux


Amend provisions relating to excavation/earthmoving of remaining coastal dunes and identified wetland, buffer areas, peatland remaining from extant wetland and areas of indigenous vegetation to make these activities prohibited.

3.3 Reject No prohibited activities are recommended. Adequate protection will be provided to ecological sites and in particular Te Hapua wetlands ecological sites K055 – K057 which are identified as significant in all of the ecological significance criteria in the reassessment of ecological sites recommended as a new Schedule 3.1 to the Plan.

No

FS197 Support Reject As above No


133 – 1 & 2

Jan Nisbet General– Chapter 3 Natural Environment

Seek amendment so there is a way that neighbours can be assured that trees cannot takeaway sunshine as they grow. Amend so that landowners should have to trim or remove trees that limit sunshine on adjoining properties similar to the sunshine requirements relating to new buildings. Also amend subdivision rules to govern the types of trees that can be planted.

3.13 Reject No changes are recommend as the ‘Property Law Act 2007’ provides the framework to resolve nuisance issues from neighbouring trees.

No


7

Sub. No.





FS48 Oppose

250 - 19

Federated Farmers of New Zealand

Chapter 3 Natural Environment – Ecological Domain(s)

That Ecological Domains classifications and associated mapping and provisions are deleted from the Plan and the Council investigate using this ecological information as an education and partnership tool.

3.5.6 Accept in Part

That reference to Ecological Domain(s) is retained in the Plan and on the maps is retained and will be available for reference as an education tool or when necessary to compare the relative importance of indigenous vegetation in different areas, but that reference to Schedule 3.2 ‘Key indigenous tree species by size and ecological domain’ has been recommended to be removed from the indigenous vegetation trimming and modification rules (3A.1.3 and 3A.1.5 respectively) in response to other submissions.

Yes

FS1, FS9, FS10, FS16, FS33, FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59,


As Above Yes

8

Sub. No.





FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126, FS142, FS146, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187,

FS193 Oppose Accept That use of the term ‘Ecological Domain(s)’ is retained within the Plan.

Yes

271 - 28

Lyndon Enterprises Ltd

Chapter 3 Natural Environment – Ecological Domain(s l

Seek Council to provide full details of justification for the Lowland Hills and Hill Country Eco Domains. Reserve the right to comment on the Eco Domains once the Council provides this information.


That reference to Ecological Domain(s) is retained in the Plan and on the maps is retained and will be available for reference as an education tool or when necessary to compare the relative importance of indigenous vegetation in different areas, but that reference to Schedule 3.2 ‘Key indigenous tree species by size and ecological domain’ has been recommended to be removed from the indigenous vegetation

9

Sub. No.





trimming and modification rules (3A.1.3 and 3A.1.5 respectively) in response to other submissions.

FS1, FS9, FS10, FS16, FS33, FS41, FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126, FS142, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187

Accept in Part

As Above Yes


319 – 10

Waikanae Christian Holiday Park Inc (El Rancho)

Chapter 3 Natural Environment – Ecological Domain(s

Support the use eco domain to help inform decision making.

3.5.6 Accept That use of the term ‘Ecological Domain(s)’ is retained within the Plan to help inform decision making, with an amendment to the definition to include ‘Hill Country’ and removal of reference to Schedule 3.2 from the indigenous vegetation modification rule.


10

Sub. No.






440 – 10

Kāpiti Coast District Council

Chapter 3 Natural Environment – Ecological Domain(s

Amend the definition of ecological domain(s) to include the “Hill Country” ecological domain.

3.5.6 Accept That the definition of ‘Ecological Domain(s)’ be amended as requested to ensure that it is a complete reflection of the variety of the ecological domains present within the District.

Yes

FS139 Support Accept As Above Yes


443 - 9

Allan Smith

IntroductionLocally Indigenous Vegetation

Amend to clarify the meaning of the term “locally indigenous vegetation” to reconcile the difference between the definition and explanatory text following Policy 3.2

3.5.4.4 Accept The term ‘locally indigenous vegetation’ is deleted and where appropriate replaced with the term ‘indigenous vegetation’ with the meaning of ‘indigenous vegetation’ stated under 2e) of the Introduction to Chapter 1. The explanation to policy 3.2 is deleted along with all of the policy explanations to

Yes

11

Sub. No.





the Plan.

FS9, FS10, FS42, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS102, FS139, FS142, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187

Accept As Above Yes


385 - 2

Margaret Smith


Submitter supports the submission from A A Smith. See submission 443 for detail

3.5.4.4 Accept The term ‘locally indigenous vegetation’ is deleted and where appropriate replaced with the term ‘indigenous vegetation’ with the meaning of ‘indigenous vegetation’ stated under 2e) of the Introduction to Chapter 1. The explanation to policy 3.2 is deleted along with all of the policy explanations to the Plan.

Yes

FS1, FS16, FS33, FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126, FS167,

Support Accept As Above Yes

12

Sub. No.





FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187,


250 - 21



That the Locally Indigenous Vegetation classification and associated mapping and provisions are deleted from the Plan, and that Council investigate using this ecological information as an education and partnership tool.

3.5.4.4 Accept The term ‘locally indigenous vegetation’ is deleted and where appropriate replaced with the term ‘indigenous vegetation’ with the meaning of ‘indigenous vegetation’ stated under 2e) of the Introduction to Chapter 1. The other components of this submission are addressed under the topic of ‘Schedule 3.2’..

Yes

FS1, FS9, FS10, FS16, FS33, FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126, FS142, FS146, FS167, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187,

Support


202 - Departmen Ecology and Support Policy 3.11 Retain as written. 3.4 Accept in Policy retained with the Yes

13

Sub. No.





19 t of Conserva-tion

bio-diversity Policies: 3.11

Part amendments included in the SEV version of the PDP to give effect to RPS Policy 23 (Policy 22 of Proposed RPS )



150 - 3

Te Runanga o Toa Rangatira Inc

Ecology and bio-diversity Policies: 3.11

Support the following Policies in principle, Policy … 3.11 …

3.4 Accept in Part

Policy retained with the amendments included in the SEV version of the PDP to give effect to RPS Policy 23.

Yes


FS229 Oppose Accept in Part

As above Yes

39 – 4 DF & AE Smith Partnership & Ratanui Farming Partnership


Amend Policy 3.11 Criteria for identification of significant biodiversity to remove the term "endemic" and to more closely align with the relevant policies of the Regional Policy Statement.

3.4 Accept Policy retained with the amendments included in the SEV version of the PDP to give effect to RPS Policy 23. This includes the specific amendments requested by the submitter.

Yes

14

Sub. No.





FS9, FS10, FS142, FS146 Support 3.4 Accept As above Yes

FS193 Oppose 3.4 Reject As above Yes

77 - 4 Louise Trilloe


Amend the Policy 3.11 criteria so that they are replaced with the criteria for identification of significant biodiversity that are contained in the Regional Policy Statement Policy 22.

3.4 Accept Policy retained with the amendments included in the SEV version of the PDP to give effect to RPS Policy 23 (Policy 22 of Proposed RPS )

Yes

FS1, FS9, FS10, FS16, FS33, FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS68, FS93, FS102, FS106, FS126, FS142, FS167, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187

Support 3.4 Accept As above Yes

FS193 Support in Part 3.4 Accept in Part

As above Yes


100 - 4

Egon Guttke


Amend the criteria under proposed Policy 3.11 to accurately reflect only the criteria in PRPS Policy 22

3.4 Accept Policy retained with the amendments included in the SEV version of the PDP to give effect to RPS Policy 23 (Policy 22 of

Yes

15

Sub. No.





Proposed RPS )

FS1, FS16, FS33, FS41, FS42, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS68, FS93, FS102, FS126, FS139, FS142, FS146, FS167, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187



102 - 4

Irena Guttke


Amend the criteria under proposed Policy 3.11 to accurately reflect only the criteria in PRPS Policy 22

3.4 Accept Policy retained with the amendments included in the SEV version of the PDP to give effect to RPS Policy 23 (Policy 22 of Proposed RPS )

Yes




104 - Declan Ecology and Amend the criteria under Policy 3.11 so that they 3.4 Accept Policy retained with the Yes

16

Sub. No.





3 Graves bio-diversity Policies: 3.11

are replaced with the criteria for identification of significant biodiversity contained in PRPS Policy 22.

amendments included in the SEV version of the PDP to give effect to RPS Policy 23 (Policy 22 of Proposed RPS )




231 - 7

Richard Swan


Oppose Policy 3.11 and amend to be consistent with WRPS.

3.4 Accept Policy amended as per the SEV version of the PDP to give effect to RPS Policy 23 (Policy 22 of Proposed RPS )

Yes


As above

Yes As above Yes

17

Sub. No.






250 - 22



That Policy 3.11 be amended by deleting the word 'using' in the second line, and replacing it with 'as being significant if they meet all of’

3.4 Reject Policy retained with the amendments included in the SEV version of the PDP to give effect to RPS Policy 23 (Policy 22 of Proposed RPS ). Amended Policy states: that indigenous vegetation and habitats of indigenous fauna will be considered significant if they meet ‘one or more of the following criteris…’

Yes


Support 3.4 Reject As above Yes


As above Yes


18

Sub. No.





251 – 12 & 17

Margaret Niven


Amend policy 3.11 to be consistent with the proposed regional policy statement criteria.Amend policy 3.1 (assumed to be 3.11 due to error in summary) and explanatory text to be consistent with the proposed WRPS.

3.4 Accept in Part

Policy retained with the amendments included in the SEV version of the PDP to give effect to RPS Policy 23 (Policy 22 of Proposed RPS). The Explanation of Policy 3.11 is however deleted as part of a plan wide approach of removing policy explanations.

Yes

FS9, FS10, FS59, FS60, FS68, FS93, FS102, FS139, FS142, FS167 FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186

Support 3.4 Accept in Part

As above Yes


As above Yes


258 – 10

Peter Adlam


Amend policy 3.11 to use the proposed regional policy statement criteria for identifying significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna.

3.4 Accept Policy retained with the amendments included in the SEV version of the PDP to give effect to RPS Policy 23 (Policy 22 of Proposed RPS).

Yes

19

Sub. No.








441 - 16

Greater Wellington Regional Council


Policy 3.11- Amend to delete criteria (i) from the policy and amend by adding the words “that meet one or more of” after the word “identified”.

3.4 Accept Policy retained with the amendments included in the SEV version of the PDP to give effect to RPS Policy 23 (Policy 22 of Proposed RPS) this includes that indigenous vegetation and habitats … will be considered significant if they meet ‘one or more of the following criteria..’

Yes

FS Support N/A N/A N/A

FS Oppose N/A N/A N/A

327 –34

Waa Rata Estate

Ecology and bio-diversity Policies:

Amend Policy 3.11 to replace the criteria for identifying significant biodiversity with those contained in the Regional Policy Statement Policy

3.4 Accept Policy retained with the amendments included in the SEV version of the

Yes

20

Sub. No.





3.11 22 and any amendments from mediated outcomes from Environment Court proceedings

PDP to give effect to RPS Policy 23 (Policy 22 of Proposed RPS).




443 - 3

Allan Smith


Amend Policy 3.11 to delete the words “and also species that are endemic to the local ecological district” from clause b); delete clause d); delete the words “or has potential “from clause e); delete clause f); delete (iii) from clause g) and delete the words following “tikanga Maori” from clause h).

3.4 Accept Policy retained with the amendments included in the SEV version of the PDP to give effect to RPS Policy 23 (Policy 22 of Proposed RPS). This includes the specific amendments requested by the submitter.

Yes

FS1, FS9, FS10, FS16, FS33, FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS68, FS93, FS102, FS126, FS142, FS167, FS178,


21

Sub. No.





FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187


263 - 6

Maypole Environ - mental Ltd

General Natural Environment Policies: Policies 3.11 – 3.16

Amend policies 3.11 - 3.16 to the extent that they do or are likely to cut across the outcomes in the Ngarara Structure Plan and Ngarara Precinct, or alternatively ensure these policies do not apply to consideration of activities within the Ngarara Structure Plan and Ngarara Precinct areas.


Policy retained with the amendments included in the SEV version of the PDP to give effect to RPS Policy 23 (Policy 22 of Proposed RPS). Submitters concerns separately addressed by recommended in ‘Section 42A Report: Part B – Chapter 3 Natural Environment – General, Landscapes and Earthworks’ to clarify the status of the Ngarara Structure Plan and Ngarara Precinct in regards to the provisions of Chapter 3

Yes


22

Sub. No.






492 - 15

Kennott Trust Company Ltd & Kauri Trust


Oppose policies in section 3.2 of Proposed Plan, in particular, Policies 3.12 - 3.14 and remove policies and explanatory text or amend to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, ecology and landscape and allow appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form.


Policy 3.12 is retained with modifications generally consistent with the version of the Policy included in the SEV which enables a more balanced approach.

Yes



493 - 14

Kumototo Nominees Ltd and Patone Holdings Ltd

Ecology and biodiversity Policies: 3.12

Oppose policies in part 3.2 the Proposed Plan, in particular Policies 3.12, 3.13 and 3.14, and remove policies and explanatory text or amend to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, ecology and landscape and allow appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form. Amend to replace prohibitive terms such as 'avoid', 'protect', and 'requirements' to enable a fair consideration of resource consents and take into account the cost implications of these matters. The policies should guide towards maintaining and enhancing matters relating to natural values rather than rigid approach of protection. Confirmation should first be provided by Council as to the actual extent of these areas.



Yes


Support 3.5.1 Accept in Part

As Above Yes

23

Sub. No.





FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126, FS142, FS167


494 - 8

Millhaven Ltd


Oppose policies in part 3.2 of the Proposed Plan, in particular Policies 3.12 and remove policies and explanatory text or amend to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment and ecology. Amend to replace prohibitive terms such as 'avoid', 'protect', and 'requirements' to enable a fair consideration of resource consents and take into account the cost implications of these matters. The policies should guide towards maintaining and enhancing matters relating to natural values rather than rigid approach of protection.



Yes

FS9, FS10, FS142 Support 3.5.1 Accept in Part

As Above Yes

FS143 Oppose 3.5.1 Accept in Part

As Above Yes

495 - 15

Mahaki Holdings Ltd


Oppose Policies in Part 3.2 in particular policies 3.12, 3.13 and 3.14 and remove policies and explanatory text or amend to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, ecology and landscape and allow appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form.



Yes

24

Sub. No.





FS9, FS10, FS142, 146 Support 3.5.1 Accept in Part

As Above Yes


500 - 18

Ngatotara Farms Ltd and Rod Agar


Oppose policies in part 3.2, of the Proposed Plan, in particular Policies 3.12, 3.13 and 3.14, remove policies and explanatory text or amend to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, ecology and landscape and allow appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form. Amend to replace prohibitive terms such as 'avoid', 'protect', and 'requirements' to enable a fair consideration of resource consents and take into account the cost implications of these matters. The policies should guide towards maintaining and enhancing matters relating to natural values rather than rigid approach of protection



Yes



280 – 18 & 19

Bryce Wilkinson


Oppose Policies 3.1, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 3.12-3.14, 3.17-3.19, 3.21-3.26Amend these policies and rules following the amendment of the relevant governing principles in Chapter 2 including the removal of the bias against property rights in indigenous species.



Yes

25

Sub. No.





FS139, FS229 Support 3.5.1 Accept in Part

As Above Yes


356 - 15

Christopher Ruthe


Oppose Policies 3.1, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 3.12 - 3.14, 3.17 - 3.19 and 3.21 - 3.26 and amend policies following the reworking of the relevant governing principles in chapter 2. Consequential reworking of the rules implementing the revised policies would also be required.



Yes

FS229 Support 3.5.1 Accept in Part

As Above Yes


358 - 16

Salima Padamsey


Oppose policies 3.1, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.17, 3.18, 3.19, 3.21, 3.22, 3.23, 3.24, 3.25 and 3.26 and rework to be consistent with the reworking of the relevant governing principles in chapter 2, along with any required consequential reworking of the rules implementing the revised policies.



Yes


As Above Yes


26

Sub. No.





380 – 10 & 12

Barry, Suzanne & Timothy Mansell


Oppose policies in Chapter 3.2, particularly Policies 3.12, 3.13, 3.14 and supporting explanations.Delete policies 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14 (including the explanations); or (alternatively)the policies and explanations should be re-worded to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, ecology and landscape and allow appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form. The re-wording of these policies should replace prohibitive terms such as "avoid", "protect", and "requirements" to enable a fair consideration of resource consents and take into account the cost implications of these matters. The policies should guide towards maintaining and enhancing matters relating to natural values rather than rigid approach of protection. Confirmation should first be provided by Council as to the actual extent of these areas.



Yes

FS9, FS10, FS142, FS167 Support 3.5.1 Accept in Part

As Above Yes


369 - Anthony Ecology and Delete Policies 3.1,3.2, 3.3,3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 3.5.1 Accept in Policy 3.12 is retained with Yes

27

Sub. No.





8 and Anne McEwan


3.12,3.13, 3.14 and 3.21. Or (alternatively) amend the policies and explanations to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, ecology and landscape and allow appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form. The re-wording of these policies should replace prohibitive terms such as "avoid", "protect", and "requirements" to enable a fair consideration of resource consents and take into account the cost implications of these matters. The policies should guide towards maintaining and enhancing matters relating to natural values rather than rigid approach of protection.

Part modifications generally consistent with the version of the Policy included in the SEV which enables a more balanced approach.

FS9, FS10 Support 3.5.1 Accept in Part

As Above Yes


408 - 13

USNZ Forestry Group Limited


Oppose Policies 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7 , 3.12, 3.13, and 3.14 and related explanations and remove or alternatively, amend policies and explanations to reword to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, ecology and landscape and allow appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form. The rewording of these policies should



Yes

28

Sub. No.





replace prohibitive terms such as "avoid", "protect", and "requirements" to enable a fair consideration of resource consents and take into account the cost implications of these matters. The policies should guide towards maintaining and enhancing matters relating to natural values rather than rigid approach of protection. Confirmation should first be provided by Council as to the actual extent of these areas

FS1, FS9, FS10, FS16, FS33, FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102,FS106, FS126, FS142


As Above Yes

FS176 Oppose 3.5.1 Accept in Part

As Above Yes

411 - 13

Land Matters Limited


Oppose Policies 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7, 3.12, 3.13, and 3.14 and related explanations and remove the policies (including the explanations) or alternatively amend policies and explanations to reword to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, ecology and landscape and allow appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form. The re-wording of these policies should replace prohibitive terms such as "avoid", "protect", and "requirements" to



Yes

29

Sub. No.





enable a fair consideration of resource consents and take into account the cost implications of these matters. The policies should guide towards maintaining and enhancing matters relating to natural values rather than rigid approach of protection. Confirmation should first be provided by Council as to the actual extent of these areas.



As Above Yes

FS176 Oppose

416 - 3

Hamish & Leigh Wells


Oppose policies in part 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the Proposed Plan, in particular Policies 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.7, 3.8, 3.12 - 3.14 and 3.21 and related explanations. Remove policies and explanations or amend the policies and explanations to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, ecology and landscape and allow appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form. Amend to replace prohibitive terms such as 'avoid', 'protect' and 'requirements' to



Yes

30

Sub. No.





enable a fair consideration of resource consents and take onto account the cost implications of these matters. The policies should guide towards maintaining and enhancing matters relating to natural values rather than rigid approach of protection.



As Above Yes


425 - 2

Lutz Brothers Limited and CE Lutz


Oppose policies in parts 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the Proposed Plan, in particular Policies 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7 3.12, 3.13, 3.14 and 3.21 and related explanations. Remove policies and explanations or amend the policies and explanations to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, ecology and landscape and allow appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form. Amend to replace prohibitive terms such as 'avoid', 'protect' and 'requirements' to enable a fair consideration of resource consents and take onto account the cost implications of



Yes

31

Sub. No.





these matters. The policies should guide towards maintaining and enhancing matters relating to natural values rather than rigid approach of protection.

FS1, FS9, FS10, FS16, FS29, FS33, FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126, FS142, FS167


As Above Yes


756 - 15

Pascal Odijk


Oppose Policies 3.1, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.17, 3.18, 3.19, 3.21, 3.23, 3.24, 3.25, and 3.26

3.5.1 Reject Policy 3.12 is retained with modifications generally consistent with the version of the Policy included in the SEV which enables a more balanced approach.

Yes



757 - 15

Marianne Tavenier



3.5.1 Reject Policy 3.12 is retained with modifications generally consistent with the version of the Policy included in the SEV which enables a more balanced approach.

Yes

32

Sub. No.







231 - 6

Richard Swan


Oppose the inclusion of Policy 3.12 until consultation with landowners has occurred.


Policy 3.12 is retained with modifications generally consistent with the version of the Policy included in the SEV which enables a more balanced approach. Consultation with landowners has occured after the close of submission during the ‘submitter engagement phase’.

Yes



As Above Yes


487 - 4

Bellcamp Trust Company Ltd


Oppose policies in Part 3.2 of the proposed plan, in particular Policies 3.12-3.14.

3.5.1 Reject Policy 3.12 is retained with modifications generally consistent with the version of the Policy included in

Yes

33

Sub. No.





the SEV which enables a more balanced approach.


FS125 Support in Part

Oppose: None N/A N/A N/A

212 - 17

Quicksilver Ecology and bio-diversity Policies: 3.12

Oppose Policy 3.12 and amend clause (a) so that it provides for the mitigations of adverse effects where modification or disturbance cannot be completely avoided and insert a new clause into Policy 3.12 as follows: "e) allowing the modification of indigenous vegetation that occurs within areas of plantation forestry or which occurs within four years of a plantation forest being harvested."


Policy 3.12 is retained with modifications generally consistent with the version of the Policy included in the SEV which includes the insertion of ‘where practicable’ into clause a) and new clause f) enabling indigenous vegetation modification associated with forestry and within 2 years of a forest being harvested.

Yes

FS9, FS10,FS139, FS142 Support 3.5.1 Accept in Part

As Above Yes

FS176 Oppose N/A N/A N/A

202 - Departmen Ecology and Amend Policy 3.12 to read “ b) managing land 3.5.1 Reject Policy 3.12 is retained with Yes

34

Sub. No.







use activities resulting in increased sediment, changes to water quantity and contaminant levels of surface water, including storm water, and potential changes to ground water to reduce…”

modifications generally consistent with the version of the Policy included in the SEV which does not included the amendments sought to clause b). Managing the effects of water quantity and ground water fall within the functions of a regional council under section 30(1)(c) of the RMA and are not therefore appropriate to address in the PDP.


FS42, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS102, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187

Oppose 3.5.1 Accept As Above Yes

100 - 5

Egon Guttke


Amend proposed Policy 3.12 to acknowledge the difference in size and quality of ecological sites, and in particular remove buffers of K017 due to its scale and enable pest and weed management within ecological sites and the maintenance of existing tracks (See submission for specific


Policy 3.12 is retained with modifications generally consistent with the version of the Policy included in the SEV and with the intent of the specific

Yes

35

Sub. No.





wording requested for this policy). Amend Policy 3.12 as follows (added text underlined): "a) avoiding, where practicable, and minimising the removal or significant modification of any significant locally indigenous vegetation, in particular the disturbance of all indigenous vegetation within ecological sites; …; c) creating and maintaining appropriate buffer zones around and linkages between remnant areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna including aquatic ecosystems to ensure that wider ecological processes are considered when making decisions about significant sites; and …. e) enabling pest and weed management within ecological sites, and the construction and maintenance of fences at the margins of ecological sites;"

amendments sought to clauses a), c) and e), no specific reference is however made to K017.



As Above Yes


102 - Irena Ecology and Amend proposed Policy 3.12 to acknowledge the 3.5.1 Accept in Policy 3.12 is retained with Yes

36

Sub. No.





5 Guttke bio-diversity Policies: 3.12

difference in size and quality of ecological sites, and in particular remove buffers of K017 due to its scale and enable pest and weed management within ecological sites and the maintenance of existing tracks (See submission for specific wording requested for this policy). Amend Policy 3.12 as follows (added text underlined): "a) avoiding, where practicable, and minimising the removal or significant modification of any significant locally indigenous vegetation, in particular the disturbance of all indigenous vegetation within ecological sites; …; c) creating and maintaining appropriate buffer zones around and linkages between remnant areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna including aquatic ecosystems to ensure that wider ecological processes are considered when making decisions about significant sites; and …. e) enabling pest and weed management within ecological sites, and the construction and maintenance of fences at the margins of ecological sites;"

Part modifications generally consistent with the version of the Policy included in the SEV and with the intent of the specific amendments sought to clauses a), c) and e), no specific reference is however made to K017.



As Above Yes

37

Sub. No.





FS142, FS146, FS167, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187


251 - 9

Margaret Niven


Amend policy 3.12 to allow pest and weed management within ecological sites and the maintenance of existing tracks and distinguishing between ecological sites and eco-domains.


Policy 3.12 is retained with modifications generally consistent with the version of the Policy included in the SEV and with the intent of the specific amendments sought to enable pest and weed management to and track maintenance, but no specific reference is however made to eco-domains.

Yes



As Above Yes


258 - 6

Peter Adlam

Ecology and bio-diversity

Amend policy 3.12 to address the issues of pest and weed management within ecological sites,


Policy 3.12 is retained with modifications generally

Yes

38

Sub. No.





Policies: 3.12

maintenance of existing tracks, establishing linkages and providing buffers and distinguishing between ecological sites and eco-domains.

consistent with the version of the Policy included in the SEV and with the intent of the specific amendments sought to enable pest and weed management to and track maintenance, but no specific reference is however made to eco-domains.



As Above Yes


327 –33

Waa Rata Estate


Amend proposed Policy 3.12 and 'Explanation' to sufficiently recognise pest and weed management in ecological sites, the construction and maintenance of fences at the margins of ecological site and to provide for passive recreation on existing publicly accessible


Policy 3.12 is retained with modifications generally consistent with the version of the Policy included in the SEV and with the intent of the specific

Yes

39

Sub. No.





walkways in ecological sites. Amend Policy 3.12 as follows: Amend clause a) to read "avoiding, where practicable or otherwise minimising the removal or significant modification of any significant locally indigenous vegetation, in particular the disturbance of all indigenous vegetation within ecological sites;" Amend clause c) to read "creating and maintaining appropriate buffer zones around and linkages between remnant areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna including aquatic ecosystems to ensure that wider ecological processes are considered when making decisions about significant sites; and" Add clause e) to read "enabling pest and weed management within ecological sites, and the construction and maintenance of fences at the margins of ecological sites;" Add clause f) to read "providing for passive recreation on existing publicly accessible walkways in ecological sites." Add a paragraph to explanation after the paragraph "Generally, development has some... site specific situation of the receiving environment", to read "Some activities, such as pest/weed management within ecological sites or fencing the margins of these sites, have positive

amendments sought to clauses a), c), and e) and reference is made to passive recreation; but amendments are not made to the policy explanation due to a plan wide approach of removing policy explanations.

40

Sub. No.





effects on the quality of indigenous biodiversity and should be enabled. This includes enabling appropriate access to and within sites. Some passive recreational activities should be able to continue within ecological sites." Add the sentence "Council is also responsible for managing reserves, esplanade reserves and riparian margins that it owns." to the following paragraph after "...have a detrimental effect on water quality."



As Above Yes

FS193 Support in Part 3.5.1 Accept in Part

As Above Yes


443 - 8

Allan Smith


Amend Policy 3.12 to change clause a) to read as “ avoiding where possible the removal or substantial modification of significant locally

3.5.1 Accept Policy 3.12 is retained with modifications generally consistent with the version

Yes

41

Sub. No.





3.12 indigenous vegetation, in particular minimising disturbance to indigenous vegetation within ecological sites: except when work is undertaken as part of creating or maintaining access tracks or fences associated with pest management or tracks for regulated pedestrian recreation, or fences to protect the site from grazing animals. When modification or removal of indigenous vegetation is required it should be kept to the minimum practical amount consistent with the effective completion of the work”. Amend clause c) by adding the words” small areas (less than 20 hectares)” after the words “linkages between”.

of the Policy included in the SEV and with the intent of the specific amendments sought to soften clause a) and to enable pest and weed management to and track and fence maintenance, and by deleting the reference to linkages in clause c).


Support 3.5.1 Accept As Above Yes


208 – 19 & 20

Transpower New Zealand Ltd


Support in part and oppose in part Policy 3.12 approach to biodiversity protection and amend to add the word ‘inappropriate” before “subdivision, use and development” and minor change to clause a), add in "the" before "indigenous


Policy 3.12 is retained with modifications generally consistent with the version of the Policy included in the SEV. Due to the way

Yes

42

Sub. No.





vegetation within ecological sites" and add make "ecological sites" singular by adding "an" before and delete the "s" from "sites".Oppose in part the explanation to Policy 3.12 approach to biodiversity protection and amend by changing “must“ to “should” before “be avoided”

that the policy is worded it is not necessary to add the word ‘inappropriate’ as the policy is softened by the addition of ‘where practicable to clause a). No amendments are made to the explanation due to a plan wide approach of removing policy explanations.



480 - 18

Kapiti Coast Grey Power Association Inc


Amend explanation text in the penultimate paragraph of policy 3.12 (p3-14) from “Council have a responsibility” to “Council has a responsibility'.

3.5.1 Reject Policy 3.12 is retained with modifications generally consistent with the version of the Policy included in the SEV. Amendments are not however made to the policy explanation due to a plan wide approach of removing policy explanations..

Yes


43

Sub. No.






137 - 2

Caleb Royal


Support policies which enhance and protect indigenous flora and fauna


Policy 3.13 is retained with modifications to encourage rather than require enhancement as enhancement cannot be achieved by district plan regulation as it requires affirmative action.

Yes


As Above Yes


447 - 3

Kapiti – Mana Forest & Bird

General Ecology and bio-diversity Policies: 3.13

Strongly support policies in the chapters on the Natural Environment, the Rural Environment and the Coastal Environment, which all stress the need to take account of biodiversity when resource consent decisions are made, and hope that Policy 3.14 - Restoration - will be implemented to the greatest degree possible, in order to create linkages between existing remnants, restoration projects, and along riparian margins




FS125, FS229 Oppose Accept in Part

As Above Yes

44

Sub. No.





462 - 12

Wellington Fish & Game Council


Support policies 3.10, 3.13, & 3.14 and seek that the policies be retained in it their entirety.



Yes



Oppose Accept in Part

As Above Yes

191 - 31

Landlink Ltd


Concerned that the Chapter 3 Policies go beyond requirements of the Resource Management Act 1991. Remove references to ecosystems services.


Policy 3.13 is retained but with modifications to encourage rather than require enhancement as enhancement cannot be achieved by district plan regulation as it requires affirmative action.

Yes

45

Sub. No.





FS9, FS10, FS41, FS142, FS167, Support Accept in Part

As Above Yes


212 – 13 & 18


Amend the overly restrictive Objectives and Policies so that they provide a balanced approach to enabling rural landowners to provide for their economic wellbeing and recognise the value to the Kapiti community of doing so, while avoiding, remedying, or mitigating adverse environmental effects.Oppose and remove Policy 3.13



Yes


As Above Yes


250 - 23



That Policy 3.13 is deleted. 3.7.1 Accept in Part


Yes

FS1, FS9, FS10, FS16, FS33, Support Accept in As Above Yes

46

Sub. No.





FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126, FS142, FS146, FS167, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187,

Part


As Above Yes

275 - 5

Ian Jensen Ecology and bio-diversity Policies: 3.13

Concerned in Policy 3.13 that the standards applying to this Policy will place a burden that may never be able to be met. The Policy explanation text references Rule 3A.3.3 and states further information on enhancement is provided however it appears not to provide any meaningful information to that degree. The requirement for a 20 m buffer mentioned in the explanatory text and Rule 3A.3.3 would result in a additional minimum of 6 ha on the submitter's property which more than 50% of the existing ecological site as the ecological site has in excess of a 3 km margin and achieving the 20 m buffer rule will be difficult.



Yes



As Above Yes

47

Sub. No.





FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187,


As Above Yes

280 – 18 & 19

Bryce Wilkinson





Yes

FS139, FS229 Support Accept in Part

As Above Yes


356 - 15

Christopher Ruthe





Yes

48

Sub. No.






As Above Yes


358 - 16

Salima Padamsey





Yes


As Above Yes


369 - 8

Anthony and Anne McEwan


Delete Policies 3.1,3.2, 3.3,3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 3.12,3.13, 3.14 and 3.21. Or (alternatively) amend the policies and explanations to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, ecology and landscape and allow appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form. The re-wording of these policies should replace prohibitive terms such as "avoid", "protect", and "requirements" to enable a fair consideration of resource consents and take into



Yes

49

Sub. No.





account the cost implications of these matters. The policies should guide towards maintaining and enhancing matters relating to natural values rather than rigid approach of protection.

FS9, FS10 Support Accept in Part

As Above Yes


380 – 10 & 12



Oppose policies in Chapter 3.2, particularly Policies 3.12, 3.13, 3.14 and supporting explanations.Delete policies 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14 (including the explanations); or (alternatively)the policies and explanations should be re-worded to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, ecology and landscape and allow appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form. The re-wording of these policies should replace prohibitive terms such as "avoid", "protect", and "requirements" to enable a fair consideration of resource consents and take into account the cost implications of these matters. The policies should guide towards maintaining and enhancing matters relating to natural values rather than rigid



Yes

50

Sub. No.





approach of protection. Confirmation should first be provided by Council as to the actual extent of these areas.


As Above Yes


408 - 13



Oppose Policies 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7 , 3.12, 3.13, and 3.14 and related explanations and remove or alternatively, amend policies and explanations to reword to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, ecology and landscape and allow appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form. The rewording of these policies should replace prohibitive terms such as "avoid", "protect", and "requirements" to enable a fair consideration of resource consents and take into account the cost implications of these matters. The policies should guide towards maintaining and enhancing matters relating to natural values rather than rigid approach of protection. Confirmation should first be provided by Council as to the actual extent of these areas



Yes


51

Sub. No.





FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102,FS106, FS126, FS142

Part


411 - 13



Oppose Policies 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7, 3.12, 3.13, and 3.14 and related explanations and remove the policies (including the explanations) or alternatively amend policies and explanations to reword to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, ecology and landscape and allow appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form. The re-wording of these policies should replace prohibitive terms such as "avoid", "protect", and "requirements" to enable a fair consideration of resource consents and take into account the cost implications of these matters. The policies should guide towards maintaining and enhancing matters relating to natural values rather than rigid approach of protection. Confirmation should first be provided by Council as to the actual extent of these areas.



Yes



As Above Yes

52

Sub. No.





FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187, FS229


As Above Yes

416 - 3



Oppose policies in part 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the Proposed Plan, in particular Policies 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.7, 3.8, 3.12 - 3.14 and 3.21 and related explanations. Remove policies and explanations or amend the policies and explanations to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, ecology and landscape and allow appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form. Amend to replace prohibitive terms such as 'avoid', 'protect' and 'requirements' to enable a fair consideration of resource consents and take onto account the cost implications of these matters. The policies should guide towards maintaining and enhancing matters relating to natural values rather than rigid approach of protection.



Yes



As Above Yes

53

Sub. No.





FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187, FS229


425 - 2



Oppose policies in parts 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the Proposed Plan, in particular Policies 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7 3.12, 3.13, 3.14 and 3.21 and related explanations. Remove policies and explanations or amend the policies and explanations to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, ecology and landscape and allow appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form. Amend to replace prohibitive terms such as 'avoid', 'protect' and 'requirements' to enable a fair consideration of resource consents and take onto account the cost implications of these matters. The policies should guide towards maintaining and enhancing matters relating to natural values rather than rigid approach of protection.



Yes



As Above Yes


54

Sub. No.





492 - 15






Yes



493 - 14






Yes


55

Sub. No.





FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126, FS142, FS167

Part


494 - 8

Millhaven Ltd


Oppose policies in part 3.2 of the Proposed Plan, in particular Policies 3.12 and remove policies and explanatory text or amend to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment and ecology. Amend to replace prohibitive terms such as 'avoid', 'protect', and 'requirements' to enable a fair consideration of resource consents and take into account the cost implications of these matters. The policies should guide towards maintaining and enhancing matters relating to natural values rather than rigid approach of protection.



Yes


As Above Yes


495 - 15

Mahaki Holdings Ltd




Policy 3.13 is retained but with modifications to encourage rather than require enhancement as enhancement cannot be achieved by district plan regulation as it requires

Yes

56

Sub. No.





affirmative action.

FS9, FS10, FS142, 146 Support Accept in Part

As Above Yes


497 - 3

RNR Trust Ecology and bio-diversity Policies: 3.13

Oppose policies in part 3.2 of the Proposed Plan, in particular Policy 3.14 remove policies and explanatory text or amend to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, landscape and allow appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form. Amend to replace prohibitive terms such as 'avoid', 'protect', and 'requirements' to enable a fair consideration of resource consents and take into account the cost implications of these matters. The policies should guide towards maintaining and enhancing matters relating to natural values rather than rigid approach of protection.



Yes



500 - 18



Oppose policies in part 3.2, of the Proposed Plan, in particular Policies 3.12, 3.13 and 3.14, remove policies and explanatory text or amend to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, ecology and landscape and allow appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form. Amend to replace prohibitive terms such as 'avoid', 'protect', and 'requirements' to


Policy 3.13 is retained but with modifications to encourage rather than require enhancement as enhancement cannot be achieved by district plan

Yes

57

Sub. No.





enable a fair consideration of resource consents and take into account the cost implications of these matters. The policies should guide towards maintaining and enhancing matters relating to natural values rather than rigid approach of protection

regulation as it requires affirmative action.



756 - 15

Pascal Odijk





Yes



757 - 15

Marianne Tavenier




Policy 3.13 is retained but with modifications to encourage rather than require enhancement as enhancement cannot be achieved by district plan regulation as it requires

Yes

58

Sub. No.





affirmative action.



202 - 21

Department of Conserva-tion


Amend Policy 3.13 to read “Where a subdivision or development is undertaken…”

3.7.1 Accept Policy 3.13 is amended including removal of the word significant . The other amendments encourage rather than require enhancement as enhancement cannot be achieved by district plan regulation as it requires affirmative action.

Yes


FS9, FS10, FS29, FS32, FS42, FS43, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS102, FS113, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187, FS194

Oppose: Reject As Above Yes

208 - 21

Transpower New Zealand


Oppose in part the explanation to Policy 3.13 and remove Policy 3.13 or amend the Explanation to clarify what constitutes a Significant

3.7.1 Accept Policy 3.13 is retained but with modifications to encourage rather than

Yes

59

Sub. No.





Ltd 3.13 Development, and in what circumstances the ecological buffer zone would be applied.

require enhancement as enhancement cannot be achieved by district plan regulation as it requires affirmative action. The explanation to the policy is deleted.



231 - 8

Richard Swan


Oppose the use of the word "enhancement" in Policy 3.13.



Yes


Accept in Part

As Above Yes


60

Sub. No.





251 - 13

Margaret Niven


Amend policy 3.13 to clarify the term "enhancement" as it is unclear what it means, how it will be applied and who will determine this.



Yes

FS9, FS10, FS59, FS60, FS93, FS102, FS139, FS142, FS167 FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186


As Above Yes


327 –36

Waa Rata Estate


Amend proposed Policy 3.13 and Explanation to require enhancement where the existing ecological values are low and enhancement is feasible, as per page 30 of submission. Amend Policy 3.13 to read: "Where a subdivision or significant development...vegetation species shall be required where the quality is low and enhancement is feasibly.



Yes

FS1, FS9, FS10, FS16, FS33, FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126,


As Above Yes

61

Sub. No.





FS142, FS146, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187


403 - 7

Chris Rutten and Cavallo Agistment Ltd


Oppose Policies … and 3.13 and delete these policies from the District Plan or alternatively reword them to allow a balanced approach by removing the words "protect, avoid and requirements" from the policies. Any similar or consequential relief



Yes

FS1, FS16, FS33, FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126


As Above Yes


443 - 10

Allan Smith


Amend Policy 3.13 to add the words “where the ecological site is already larger than 20 hectares, this requirement shall be deemed to have been met” at the end of the policy.

3.7.1 Accept Policy 3.13 is retained but with modifications to encourage rather than require enhancement as enhancement cannot be achieved by district plan regulation as it requires

Yes

62

Sub. No.





affirmative action. The explanation to the policy is deleted.




487 - 6



Remove policies and explanatory text or amend to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, ecology and landscape and allow appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form.



Yes



As Above Yes

137 - 2

Caleb Royal


Support policies which enhance and protect indigenous flora and fauna

3.7.2 Reject Policy 3.14 is rejected in its entirety due to the

Yes

63

Sub. No.





Policies: 3.14

‘Priority Areas for Restoration’ provisions being withdrawn from the Plan and as ‘restoration’ of biodiversity cannot be achieved via district plan regulation nor is it a function of Council under s31 RMA. Restoration of biodiversity is more appropriately pursued via non-regulatory methods.

FS193 Support Reject As Above Yes


202 - 21

Department of Conserva-tion


Support Policies 3.14 & 3.16 3.7.2 Reject Policy 3.14 is rejected in its entirety due to the ‘Priority Areas for Restoration’ provisions being withdrawn from the Plan and as ‘restoration’ of biodiversity cannot be achieved via district plan regulation nor is it a function of Council under s31 RMA. Restoration of

Yes

64

Sub. No.





biodiversity is more appropriately pursued via non-regulatory methods.



Oppose Accept As Above Yes

447 - 3

Kapiti – Mana Forest & Bird


Strongly support policies in the chapters on the Natural Environment, the Rural Environment and the Coastal Environment, which all stress the need to take account of biodiversity when resource consent decisions are made, and hope that Policy 3.14 - Restoration - will be implemented to the greatest degree possible, in order to create linkages between existing remnants, restoration projects, and along riparian margins

3.7.2 Reject Policy 3.14 is rejected in its entirety due to the ‘Priority Areas for Restoration’ provisions being withdrawn from the Plan and as ‘restoration’ of biodiversity cannot be achieved via district plan regulation nor is it a function of Council under s31 RMA. Restoration of biodiversity is more appropriately pursued via non-regulatory methods.

Yes


FS125, FS229 Oppose Accept As Above Yes

65

Sub. No.





462 - 12

Wellington Fish & Game Council


Support policies 3.10, 3.13, & 3.14 and seek that the policies be retained in it their entirety.

3.7.2 Reject Policy 3.14 is rejected in its entirety due to the ‘Priority Areas for Restoration’ provisions being withdrawn from the Plan and as ‘restoration’ of biodiversity cannot be achieved via district plan regulation nor is it a function of Council under s31 RMA. Restoration of biodiversity is more appropriately pursued via non-regulatory methods.

Yes




38 - 22

North Otaki Beach Residents Group Inc


Remove Policy 3.14 or amend so that is does not apply to the existing residential allotments or otherwise modify the maps in the manner requested in this submission so that the policy does not apply to residential allotments.

3.7.2 Accept Policy 3.14 is rejected in its entirety due to the ‘Priority Areas for Restoration’ provisions being withdrawn and as ‘restoration’ cannot be

Yes

66

Sub. No.





achieved via the district plan. Restoration of biodiversity is more appropriately pursued via non-regulatory methods.

FS29, FS111, FS229 Accept As Above Yes


92 - 34

Winstone Aggregates


Delete Policies 3.8 and 3.14. 3.7.2 Accept Policy 3.14 is rejected in its entirety due to the ‘Priority Areas for Restoration’ provisions being withdrawn and as ‘restoration’ cannot be achieved via the district plan. Restoration of biodiversity is more appropriately pursued via non-regulatory methods.

Yes



191 - 31

Landlink Ltd


Concerned that the Chapter 3 Policies go beyond requirements of the Resource Management Act 1991. Remove references to ecosystems services.

3.7.2 Accept Policy 3.14 is rejected in its entirety due to the ‘Priority Areas for

Yes

67

Sub. No.





3.14 Restoration’ provisions being withdrawn and as ‘restoration’ cannot be achieved via the district plan. Restoration of biodiversity is more appropriately pursued via non-regulatory methods.

FS9, FS10, FS41, FS142, FS167, Support Accept As Above Yes


212 – 13 & 18


Amend the overly restrictive Objectives and Policies so that they provide a balanced approach to enabling rural landowners to provide for their economic wellbeing and recognise the value to the Kapiti community of doing so, while avoiding, remedying, or mitigating adverse environmental effects.Oppose and remove Policy 3.14

3.7.2 Accept Policy 3.14 is rejected in its entirety due to the ‘Priority Areas for Restoration’ provisions being withdrawn and as ‘restoration’ cannot be achieved via the district plan. Restoration of biodiversity is more appropriately pursued via non-regulatory methods.

Yes

FS9, FS10, FS139, FS142 Support


68

Sub. No.





221 - 14

Ngahina Develop-ments Ltd


Oppose policy 3.14 and delete the policy. Any other decision that would meet submitter's concerns.


Yes

FS1, FS9, FS10, FS16, FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS102, FS126, FS139, FS142, FS167, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187



250 - 24



Submission seeks that Policy 3.14 is deleted. Accept As Above Yes



69

Sub. No.





FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126,FS139, FS142, FS146, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187

193 Oppose Reject As Above Yes

275- Ian Jensen Ecology and bio-diversity Policies: 3.14

Concerned in Policy 3.14 that the expanded ecological sites on the submitter's land would effectively sever the property which is an impractical solution. The mapping of areas for priority restoration could almost be regarded as acquisition of land by stealth.


Yes



FS172 Oppose Reject As Above Yes

70

Sub. No.





280 – 18 & 19

Bryce Wilkinson



3.7.1 Accept Policy 3.14 is rejected in its entirety due to the ‘Priority Areas for Restoration’ provisions being withdrawn and as ‘restoration’ cannot be achieved via the district plan. Restoration of biodiversity is more appropriately pursued via non-regulatory methods

Yes

FS139, FS229 Support Accept As Above Yes


286 – 6

Waikanae North Ltd


Oppose Policy 3.14 and amend as restoration of indigenous vegetation is not a purpose or principle of the Resource Management Act 1991.


Yes

71

Sub. No.







356 - 15

Christopher Ruthe




Yes



358 - 16

Salima Padamsey



3.7.2 Accept Policy 3.14 is rejected in its entirety due to the ‘Priority Areas for Restoration’ provisions being withdrawn and as ‘restoration’ cannot be achieved via the district plan. Restoration of biodiversity is more

Yes

72

Sub. No.





appropriately pursued via non-regulatory methods.



369 - 8



Delete Policies 3.1,3.2, 3.3,3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 3.12,3.13, 3.14 and 3.21. Or (alternatively) amend the policies and explanations to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, ecology and landscape and allow appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form. The re-wording of these policies should replace prohibitive terms such as "avoid", "protect", and "requirements" to enable a fair consideration of resource consents and take into account the cost implications of these matters. The policies should guide towards maintaining and enhancing matters relating to natural values rather than rigid approach of protection.


Yes

FS9, FS10 Support Accept As Above Yes


380 – 10 & 12

Barry, Suzanne & Timothy


Oppose policies in Chapter 3.2, particularly Policies 3.12, 3.13, 3.14 and supporting explanations.

3.7.2 Accept Policy 3.14 is rejected in its entirety due to the ‘Priority Areas for

Yes

73

Sub. No.





Mansell 3.14 Delete policies 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14 (including the explanations); or (alternatively)the policies and explanations should be re-worded to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, ecology and landscape and allow appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form. The re-wording of these policies should replace prohibitive terms such as "avoid", "protect", and "requirements" to enable a fair consideration of resource consents and take into account the cost implications of these matters. The policies should guide towards maintaining and enhancing matters relating to natural values rather than rigid approach of protection. Confirmation should first be provided by Council as to the actual extent of these areas.

Restoration’ provisions being withdrawn and as ‘restoration’ cannot be achieved via the district plan. Restoration of biodiversity is more appropriately pursued via non-regulatory methods.

FS9, FS10, FS142, FS167 Support Accept As Above Yes


408 - 13



Oppose Policies 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7 , 3.12, 3.13, and 3.14 and related explanations and remove or alternatively, amend policies and explanations to reword to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, ecology and landscape and allow

3.7.2 Accept Policy 3.14 is rejected in its entirety due to the ‘Priority Areas for Restoration’ provisions being withdrawn and as ‘restoration’ cannot be

Yes

74

Sub. No.





appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form. The rewording of these policies should replace prohibitive terms such as "avoid", "protect", and "requirements" to enable a fair consideration of resource consents and take into account the cost implications of these matters. The policies should guide towards maintaining and enhancing matters relating to natural values rather than rigid approach of protection. Confirmation should first be provided by Council as to the actual extent of these areas

achieved via the district plan. Restoration of biodiversity is more appropriately pursued via non-regulatory methods.

FS1, FS9, FS10, FS16, FS33, FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102,FS106, FS126, FS142



411 - 13



Oppose Policies 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7, 3.12, 3.13, and 3.14 and related explanations and remove the policies (including the explanations) or alternatively amend policies and explanations to reword to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, ecology and landscape and allow appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form. The re-wording of these policies should replace prohibitive terms


Yes

75

Sub. No.





such as "avoid", "protect", and "requirements" to enable a fair consideration of resource consents and take into account the cost implications of these matters. The policies should guide towards maintaining and enhancing matters relating to natural values rather than rigid approach of protection. Confirmation should first be provided by Council as to the actual extent of these areas.





416 - 3



Oppose policies in part 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the Proposed Plan, in particular Policies 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.7, 3.8, 3.12 - 3.14 and 3.21 and related explanations. Remove policies and explanations or amend the policies and explanations to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, ecology and landscape and allow appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form. Amend to replace prohibitive terms


Yes

76

Sub. No.





such as 'avoid', 'protect' and 'requirements' to enable a fair consideration of resource consents and take onto account the cost implications of these matters. The policies should guide towards maintaining and enhancing matters relating to natural values rather than rigid approach of protection.





424 - 3

CD Bowie Ecology and bio-diversity Policies: 3.14

Oppose policies in part 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the Proposed Plan, in particular Policies 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7, 3.14 and 3.21 and related explanations. Remove policies and explanations or amend the policies and explanations to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, ecology and landscape and allow appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form. Amend to replace prohibitive terms such as 'avoid', 'protect' and 'requirements' to enable a fair consideration of resource consents and take onto

3.7.2 Accept Policy 3.14 is rejected in its entirety due to the ‘Priority Areas for Restoration’ provisions being withdrawn and as ‘restoration’ cannot be achieved via the district plan. Restoration of biodiversity is more appropriately pursued via

Yes

77

Sub. No.





account the cost implications of these matters. The policies should guide towards maintaining and enhancing matters relating to natural values rather than rigid approach of protection.

non-regulatory methods.

FS1, FS9, FS10, FS16, FS33, FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126, FS142, FS167



425 - 2



Oppose policies in parts 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the Proposed Plan, in particular Policies 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7 3.12, 3.13, 3.14 and 3.21 and related explanations. Remove policies and explanations or amend the policies and explanations to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, ecology and landscape and allow appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form. Amend to replace prohibitive terms such as 'avoid', 'protect' and 'requirements' to enable a fair consideration of resource consents and take onto account the cost implications of these matters. The policies should guide towards maintaining and enhancing matters relating to natural values rather than rigid approach of


Yes

78

Sub. No.





protection.




448 - 1

Geoffrey Thompson


Considers Policy 3.14 provides excessive powers to interfere with land owners' private interests, the language used is too generalised and not supported by research or factual material.


Yes


Accept As Above Yes


79

Sub. No.





487 - 6



Remove policies and explanatory text or amend to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, ecology and landscape and allow appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form.


Yes



As Above Yes


492 - 15





Yes

80

Sub. No.








493 - 14





Yes




494 - 8

Millhaven Ltd


Oppose policies in part 3.2 of the Proposed Plan, in particular Policies 3.12 and remove policies

3.7.2 Accept Policy 3.14 is rejected in its entirety due to the

Yes

81

Sub. No.





Policies: 3.14

and explanatory text or amend to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment and ecology. Amend to replace prohibitive terms such as 'avoid', 'protect', and 'requirements' to enable a fair consideration of resource consents and take into account the cost implications of these matters. The policies should guide towards maintaining and enhancing matters relating to natural values rather than rigid approach of protection.

‘Priority Areas for Restoration’ provisions being withdrawn and as ‘restoration’ cannot be achieved via the district plan. Restoration of biodiversity is more appropriately pursued via non-regulatory methods.

FS9, FS10, FS142 Support Accept As Above Yes


495 - 15

Mahaki Holdings Ltd




Yes

FS9, FS10, FS142, 146 Support Accept As Above Yes


82

Sub. No.





497 - 3

RNR Trust Ecology and bio-diversity Policies: 3.14

Oppose policies in part 3.2 of the Proposed Plan, in particular Policy 3.14 remove policies and explanatory text or amend to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, landscape and allow appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form. Amend to replace prohibitive terms such as 'avoid', 'protect', and 'requirements' to enable a fair consideration of resource consents and take into account the cost implications of these matters. The policies should guide towards maintaining and enhancing matters relating to natural values rather than rigid approach of protection.


Yes



500 - 18



Oppose policies in part 3.2, of the Proposed Plan, in particular Policies 3.12, 3.13 and 3.14, remove policies and explanatory text or amend to allow a balanced approach to matters relating to the natural environment, ecology and landscape and allow appropriate rural activities, earthworks, and built form. Amend to replace prohibitive terms such as 'avoid', 'protect', and 'requirements' to enable a fair consideration of resource consents and take into account the cost implications of these matters. The policies should guide towards maintaining and enhancing matters relating to natural values rather than rigid approach of


Yes

83

Sub. No.





protectionFS Support: None N/A N/A N/A


756 - 15

Pascal Odijk




Yes



757 - 15

Marianne Tavenier



3.7.2 Accept Policy 3.14 is rejected in its entirety due to the ‘Priority Areas for Restoration’ provisions being withdrawn and as ‘restoration’ cannot be achieved via the district plan. Restoration of

Yes

84

Sub. No.





biodiversity is more appropriately pursued via non-regulatory methods.



208 - 22



Oppose Policy 3.14 and amend by deleting the words “land use or development” following the word“subdivision”.


Policy 3.14 is rejected in its entirety due to the ‘Priority Areas for Restoration’ provisions being withdrawn from the Plan and as ‘restoration’ of biodiversity cannot be achieved via district plan regulation nor is it a function of Council under s31 RMA. Restoration of biodiversity is more appropriately pursued via non-regulatory methods.

Yes



327 - 38

Waa Rata Estate


Amend proposed Policy 3.14 and Explanation to recognise associated land uses, take into account


Policy 3.14 is rejected in its entirety due to the

Yes

85

Sub. No.





Policies: 3.14

the expansion of isolated and remnant ecological sites and to recognise where active measures have already been undertaken to restore ecological sites or to enhance habitats, And to amend the explanation accordingly (to recognise council’s role regarding esplanade reserves and other riparian areas and active management) as per page 33 of submission.Amend Policy 3.14 to read: "When considering applications for subdivision and associated land use or development, active restoration or remediation maybe required on sites identified as priority areas for restoration, to achieve the following biodiversity benefits: a) resilient riparian margins which provide... b) expansion of isolated and remnant ecological sites... Where active measures have already been undertaken to restore ecological sites or to enhance habitats, these activities will be taken into account when assessing whether restoration or remediation may be required. Explanation ....and restoration planting (i.e. using locally indigenous plants). Council also has a responsibility to manage esplanade reserves and other riparian areas that it owns. Taking account of active management

‘Priority Areas for Restoration’ provisions being withdrawn from the Plan and as ‘restoration’ of biodiversity cannot be achieved via district plan regulation nor is it a function of Council under s31 RMA. Restoration of biodiversity is more appropriately pursued via non-regulatory methods.

86

Sub. No.





when considering whether restoration or remediation is required helps to encourage landowners to take such measures independently of any application for resource consent."



As Above Yes


443 - 7

Allan Smith


Amend Policy 3.14 by replacing it with the following: “Encouraging biodiversity enhancement Active participation of landowners is seen as vital to the protection and enhancement of areas of significant indigenous vegetation. The council will work with landowners, recognise their stewardship and current practices, and will promote the use of non-regulatory methods, including assistance with obtaining suitable plants, the establishment of protective covenants where appropriate, service delivery, education, and other incentives. A particular focus will be the development and enhancement of resilient riparian margins and enhancement of biodiversity


Policy 3.14 is rejected in its entirety due to the ‘Priority Areas for Restoration’ provisions being withdrawn from the Plan and as ‘restoration’ of biodiversity cannot be achieved via district plan regulation nor is it a function of Council under s31 RMA. Restoration of biodiversity is more appropriately pursued via

Yes

87

Sub. No.





values through assistance in the planting of indigenous vegetation surrounding and linking small ecological sites in the coastal environment, duneland, lowland alluvial terrace or salt zone eco-domains.”

non-regulatory methods.



As Above Yes


As Above Yes

451 - 50

Rob Crozier & Joan Allin


Delete "land use or development" from Policy 3.14.


Policy 3.14 is rejected in its entirety due to the ‘Priority Areas for Restoration’ provisions being withdrawn from the Plan and as ‘restoration’ of biodiversity cannot be achieved via district plan regulation nor is it a function of Council under s31 RMA. Restoration of biodiversity is more

Yes

88

Sub. No.







Support: None Accept in Part

As Above Yes


556 - 1

Robert & Patricia Nobel-Beasley


Amend Policy 3.14 by rewording to recognise private efforts to protect and restore indigenous vegetation, as well as remove arbitrary subdivision requirements.


Policy 3.14 is rejected in its entirety due to the ‘Priority Areas for Restoration’ provisions being withdrawn from the Plan and as ‘restoration’ of biodiversity cannot be achieved via district plan regulation nor is it a function of Council under s31 RMA. Restoration of biodiversity is more appropriately pursued via non-regulatory methods.

Yes



202 - Departmen Ecology and Support Policies 3.14 & 3.16 3.7.3 Accept Policy 3.16 is retained No

89

Sub. No.







unchanged.



Oppose Reject As above. No

327 –35

Waa Rata Estate


Amend Explanation to Policy 3.16 to refer to section 35 of the Resource Management Act 1991 to monitor the state of the environment, and to fix the typo “and” to “are”, as per page 29 of submission. Amend Policy 3.16 to add the following to the start of the explanation: "The Council has a duty under Section 35 of the Resource Management Act 1991 to monitor the state of the environment."

3.7.3 Reject Policy 3.16 is retained unchanged. Although the suggestion to amend the explanation to add reference to RMA s35 would have been accepted a decision has been made to remove all Policy explanations on a plan wide basis.

No



As above; No

90

Sub. No.






383 - 5

Gillian Tousoon



3.7.3 Reject Policy 3.16 is retained unchanged. Although the suggestion to amend the explanation to add reference to RMA s35 would have been accepted a decision has been made to remove all Policy explanations on a plan wide basis.

No


Support Reject As Above No


172 - 4

Richard Heerdegen & Johanna Rosier

District-wide Rules & StandardsRules – Effect of Grazing

Support the identification of the wetland area to the east of the Waitohu Stream as an ecological site with amendment to add rules to address the effects of grazing animals, planting of non indigenous vegetation and other agricultural

3.8.1 Reject The PDP remains unchanged as a result of the submission as the protection of significant indigenous vegetation from modification is as far

No

91

Sub. No.





Animals activities in this area. as the PDP can go in terms of jurisdiction under section 31 of the RMA. Jurisdiction for restricting stock access to waterways falls with the regional council.



458 - 2

Waitohu Stream Care Group

District-wide Rules & StandardsRules – Effect of Grazing Animals

Does not support the lack of rules, which deal with the effects of grazing animals, planting of non-indigenous vegetation and other agricultural activities on Wetland area to the East of the Waitohu Stream.

3.8.1 Reject The PDP remains unchanged as a result of the submission as the protection of significant indigenous vegetation from modification is as far as the PDP can go in terms of jurisdiction under section 31 of the RMA. Jurisdiction for restricting stock access to waterways falls with the regional council.

No



92

Sub. No.





229 - 1

Gordon and Sylvia Moller

District-wide Rules & StandardsRules Natural Hazards

Oppose rules in chapter 3 that make stream and river clearance not a permitted activity and amend to remove any zoning or overlays that makes stream or river clearance require resource consent.

3.8.2 Accept Exemptions are added to Chapter 3 for ‘natural hazard mitigation works where authorised by Rule 9B.1.6’

Yes

FS229 Support Accept As above Yes


229 - 3

Gordon and Sylvia Moller


Ensure that no rules in Chapter 3 override the permitted activity Rule 9B.1.6.


Yes

FS229 Support


451 - 56



Where rules refer to "development", including Rule 3A.4.5, ensure that such rules do not restrict river and stream clearance permitted activities.


Yes

93

Sub. No.





FS24, FS25, FS26, FS27, FS28, FS113, FS148, FS194, FS224, FS225

Support Accept As above Yes


263 - 7


District-wide Rules & StandardsRules General

Amend Rule, 3A.2.3, 3A.4.5, 3A.3.1, 3A.1.2, 3A.1.3, 3A.1.4, 3A.1.5, 3A.3.2, 3A.4.2 so it is clear that they do not apply to any activity within an identified Neighbourhood Development Area that is in accordance with a Council approved Neighbourhood Development Plan granted under Rule 5C.4.2 or within the Ngarara Precinct.


Submitters concerns separately addressed by recommended in ‘Section 42A Report: Part B – Chapter 3 Natural Environment – General, Landscapes and Earthworks’ to clarify the status of the Ngarara Structure Plan and Ngarara Precinct in regards to the provisions of Chapter 3

Yes



263 - 9


District-wide Rules & StandardsRules

Amend Rules 3A.2.4, 3A.3.5, 3A.3.8, 3A.3.10, 3A.3.11, 3A.5.2 so it is clear that they do not apply to any activity within an identified Neighbourhood Development Area that is in


Submitters concerns separately addressed by recommended in ‘Section 42A Report: Part B –

Yes

94

Sub. No.





General accordance with a Council-approved Neighbourhood Development Plan granted under Rule 5C.4.2 or within the Ngarara Precinct

Chapter 3 Natural Environment – General, Landscapes and Earthworks’ to clarify the status of the Ngarara Structure Plan and Ngarara Precinct in regards to the provisions of Chapter 3



243 - 2

Owen Cox District-wide Rules & StandardsRules 3A.1

Submission opposes Rule 3A as written. Amend Rules 3A.1.2 and 3A.1.3 to amend the coverage of the permitted activity from 'urban environment' to beach residential and residential zones.'

3.13 Accept in Part

The term ‘urban environment’ is retained as it is specifically defined in the RMA and has formed the basis for the ‘Urban Tree Variation’, but recommendations are made under sections 3.5.2.4 and 3.5.5.4 separate out the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones from the remainder of the

Yes

95

Sub. No.





District not covered by the term ‘urban environment’ so as to allow residential zones not covered by the ‘urban environment’ definition to be treated in a similar way to residential zones within the urban environment.


As above Yes


243 - 3

Owen Cox District-wide Rules & StandardsRules 3A.1

Delete standard '1 b)' from Rule 3A.1.2, and delete Rules 3A.3.1 a), 3A.3.2 b) and 3A.4.2 b).

3.13 Reject Reference is retained to Schedule 3.2 in relation to residential zones not defined as being within the urban environment, but other changes are recommended so that these rules in regards to indigenous vegetation are similar to those applying to the residential zones within the urban

No

96

Sub. No.





environment..



406 - 4

Paekakariki Community Board

District-wide Rules & StandardsRule 3A.1

Oppose Rule 3A.1 relating to trimming of vegetation, remove standard 1.b) from rule 3A.1.2 and remove rules 3A.3.1a), 3A.3.2 b) and 3A.4.2 b).

3.13 Reject Reference is retained to Schedule 3.2 in relation to residential zones not defined as being within the urban environment, but other changes are recommended so that these rules in regards to indigenous vegetation are similar to those applying to the residential zones within the urban environment..

No



406 - 5

Paekakariki Community Board


Amend Rules 3A.1.2 and 3A.1.3 to change the coverage from "urban environment" to Beach Residential Zone and Residential Zone.

3.13 Accept in part

The term ‘urban environment’ is retained as it is specifically defined in the RMA and has formed the basis for the

Yes

97

Sub. No.





‘Urban Tree Variation’, but recommendations are made under sections 3.5.2.4 and 3.5.5.4 separate out the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones from the remainder of the District not covered by the term ‘urban environment’ so as to allow residential zones not covered by the ‘urban environment’ definition to be treated in a similar way to residential zones within the urban environment.


As above Yes


75-1 Christine Stewart

District-wide Rules & StandardsRules

Remove Rule 3A.1.2.1(b) and amend so that resource consent for trimming schedule 3.2 trees should only be required when they also feature on schedules 10.1 or 3.1.

3.13 Accept in Part

Rule 3A.1.2 has been superseded by Variation No 1 Urban Trees which resulted in reference to Schedule 3.2 being

Yes

98

Sub. No.





3A.1.2 replaced by a new Schedule 3.2A of specifically identified trees by property within the ‘urban environment’.


As above Yes


202 - 15

Department of Conserva - tion

District-wide Rules & StandardsRule 3A.1.3 & 3A.3.1

Support provisions in section 3A (District-wide Rules and Standards).

3.5.2 Reject Rules 3A.1.3 and 3A.3.1 regarding the trimming of indigenous vegetation in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones are deleted and consequential amendments are made so that trimming is covered under the ‘modification’ Rule 3A.1.5. Rules 3A.1.3 and 3A.3.1 are retained in a modified form in relation to other areas not within the defined urban environment. The extent to which the trimming of

Yes

99

Sub. No.





indigenous vegetation is permitted is addressed below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification.



92 – 49

Winstone Aggregates

District-wide Rules & StandardsRules 3A.1.3

Retain Rule 3A.1.3 and 3A.1.5. 3.5.2 Reject Rule 3A.1.3 regarding the trimming of indigenous vegetation in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones is deleted and consequential amendments are made so that trimming is covered under the ‘modification’ Rule 3A.1.5. Rules 3A.1.3 is retained in a modified form in relation to other areas not within the defined urban environment. The extent to which the trimming of indigenous vegetation is

Yes

100

Sub. No.





permitted is addressed below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification.



44 – 1 MY & SA Blackburne

District-wide Rules & StandardsRules 3A.1.3 & 3A.3.1

Remove all Rules 3A.1 to 3A.5 and/or amend permitted activity standards. Consequential amendments to policies or other rules necessary to give effect to any request in this submission.


Rules 3A.1.3 and 3A.3.1 regarding the trimming of indigenous vegetation in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones are deleted and consequential amendments are made so that trimming is covered under the ‘modification’ Rule 3A.1.5. Rules 3A.1.3 and 3A.3.1 are retained in a modified form in relation to other areas not within the defined urban environment. The extent to which the trimming of indigenous vegetation is

Yes

101

Sub. No.





permitted is addressed below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification.



233 - 3

Helen Naylor

District-wide Rules & StandardsRule 3A.1.3

Oppose policy 3.14, rule 3A.1.5 and rule 3A.1.3 and amend as set out in the submission.


Rule 3A.1.3 regarding the trimming of indigenous vegetation in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones is deleted and consequential amendments are made so that trimming is covered under the ‘modification’ Rule 3A.1.5. Rule 3A.1.3 is retained in a modified form in relation to other areas not within the defined urban environment. The extent to which the trimming of indigenous vegetation is permitted is addressed

Yes

102

Sub. No.





below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification.

FS9, FS10, FS139, FS142, FS167 Support Support 3.5.2 Accept in Part As Above


250 – 13



That Rule 3A.1.3 is deleted and that trimming of vegetation is a permitted activity with no limits.


Rule 3A.1.3 is deleted regarding the trimming of indigenous vegetation in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones and consequential amendments are made so that trimming is covered under the ‘modification’ Rule 3A.1.5. Rule 3A.1.3 is retained in a modified form in relation to other areas not within the defined urban environment. The extent to which the trimming of indigenous vegetation is permitted is addressed

Yes

103

Sub. No.





below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification.

FS1, FS16, FS33, FS42, FS43, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126, FS139, FS142, FS146, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187.

Support Support 3.5.2 Accept in Part As Above


251 - 10

Margaret Niven


Amend Plan rules to allow trimming of indigenous vegetation in ecological sites.


Rules 3A.1.3 and 3A.3.1 regarding the trimming of indigenous vegetation in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones are deleted and consequential amendments are made so that trimming is covered under the ‘modification’ Rule 3A.1.5. Rules 3A.1.3 and 3A.3.1 are retained in a modified form in relation to other areas not within

Yes

104

Sub. No.





the defined urban environment. The extent to which the trimming of indigenous vegetation is permitted is addressed below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification.

FS9, FS10, FS59, FS60, FS93, FS102, FS139, FS142, FS167 FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186


As Above Yes


356 - 16

Christopher Ruthe


Oppose chapter 3 Rules. 3.5.2 Accept in Part

Rules 3A.1.3 and 3A.3.1 regarding the trimming of indigenous vegetation in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones are deleted and consequential amendments are made so that the ‘indigenous vegetation modification’ Rule 3A.1.5, also

Yes

105

Sub. No.





accommodates trimming. Rules 3A.1.3 and 3A.3.1 are retained in a modified form in relation to other areas not within the defined urban environment.


As Above Yes


258 - 7

Peter Adlam


Amend rules to permit trimming of indigenous vegetation in ecological sites for setting trapping lines and clearing weed pests.


Rules 3A.1.3 and 3A.3.1 regarding the trimming of indigenous vegetation in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zonesare deleted and consequential amendments are made so that trimming is covered under the ‘modification’ Rule 3A.1.5. Rules 3A.1.3 and 3A.3.1 are retained in a modified form in relation to other areas not within the defined urban

Yes

106

Sub. No.





environment. The extent to which the trimming of indigenous vegetation is permitted in ecological sites is addressed below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification.



As Above Yes


558 - 1

Terry Parminter


Amend rules to allow trimming and modification of locally indigenous vegetation in ecological sites and significant amenity landscape as a permitted activity where it involves: - Maintaining an existing driveway to a residence by removing potential regrowth from the formed areas and associated water tables. - Removing dangerous side branches, or dead and dying plant material that could impede vehicle access along an existing


Rules 3A.1.3 and 3A.3.1 regarding the trimming of indigenous vegetation in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones are deleted and consequential amendments are made so that trimming is covered

Yes

107

Sub. No.





driveway to a residence. - Establishing areas of path, lawn, flower gardens and vegetable gardens used for domestic purposes and within 50 meters of an existing house. - Removing vegetation rubbing against walls and guttering of houses. - Establishing and maintaining tracks of up to 1 meter wide, to service bait stations, providing that the main structure of trees are not damaged or removed and the canopy overhead is not reduced.

under the ‘modification’ Rule 3A.1.5. Rules 3A.1.3 and 3A.3.1 are retained in a modified form in relation to other areas not within the defined urban environment. The extent to which the trimming of indigenous vegetation is permitted in ecological sites is addressed below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification.



100 - 10

Egon Guttke


Amend Rule 3A.1.3 by adding the following words "other than required for pest control, fire control or to maintain access tracks"


Rule 3A.1.3 is deleted so that all ‘indigenous vegetation modification’ in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones is covered under the ‘indigenous vegetation modification rule’ . The

Yes

108

Sub. No.





extent to which the trimming of indigenous vegetation is permitted is addressed below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification.



As Above Yes


102 - 10

Irena Guttke


Amend Rule 3A.1.3 by adding the following words "other than required for pest control, fire control or to maintain access tracks"

Rule 3A.1.3 is deleted so that all ‘indigenous vegetation modification’ in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones is covered under the ‘indigenous vegetation modification rule’ . The extent to which the

109

Sub. No.





trimming of indigenous vegetation is permitted is addressed below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification.



As Above Yes


As Above Yes


320 - 12

Carter Family of Reikorangi


Amend Permitted Activity Rule for trimming of trees overhanging existing tracks and driveways to also allow for emergency vehicle access and prevent fire hazards


Rule 3A.1.3 is deleted so that all ‘indigenous vegetation modification’ in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones is covered under the ‘indigenous vegetation modification rule’ . The

Yes

110

Sub. No.





extent to which the trimming of indigenous vegetation is permitted is addressed below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification. Rule 3A.1.3 is retained in a modified form in relation to other areas not within the defined urban environment.

FS1, FS9, FS10, FS16, FS33, FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126, FS139, FS142, S178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187,


As Above Yes


327 –39 & 40

Waa Rata Estate


Amend rules 3A.1.3 and 3A.1.5 to add new standards, amend existing standards and delete policy reference 3.14, as per pages 51&52 of submission.


Rule 3A.1.3 is deleted so that all ‘indigenous vegetation modification’ in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes

Yes

111

Sub. No.





Amend Rule 3A.1.3 as follows: Standard 1 d) add "or foot" before access ways. Standard 2 a) amend to read "within any part of an ecological site within one or more of the lowland alluvial terrace, duneland, or salt zone eco-domains; Add new clause x) between a) and b) to read "within any part of an ecological site within one or more of the lowland hill or hill country eco-domains, except if trimming is to construct or maintain a fence at the margin of an ecological site, for the purpose of pest and weed management of introduced species, or to maintain a safe public walkway or existing track (schedule 3.1); Remove "is" from the start of clauses b)-d) Amend e) to read: "in or within 20m of a waterbody unless trimming is to maintain an existing vehicle or foot access way, to construct or maintain a fence along riparian margins, or to carry out pest and weed management of introduced species, Amend f) to read: "in or within 20m of the coastal area."

Zones is covered under the ‘indigenous vegetation modification rule’ . The extent to which the trimming of indigenous vegetation is permitted is addressed below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification. Rule 3A.1.3 is retained in a modified form in relation to other areas not within the defined urban environment.



As Above Yes

112

Sub. No.





FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187,


443 - 11

Allan Smith


Amend Rules 3A.1.3 and 3A.1.5 so that trimming and modification of indigenous vegetation, including locally indigenous vegetation is permitted in all areas and zones when required for the purposes of track or fence maintenance. The trimming or modification should be kept to the minimum need to complete the required maintenance effectively


Rule 3A.1.3 is deleted so that all ‘indigenous vegetation modification’ the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones is covered under the ‘indigenous vegetation modification rule’ . The extent to which the trimming of indigenous vegetation is permitted is addressed below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification. Rule 3A.1.3 is retained in a modified form in relation to other areas not within the defined urban environment.

Yes

FS1, FS9, FS10, FS16, FS33, Support 3.5.2 Accept in As Above Yes

113

Sub. No.






Part


442 - #

Chorus New Zealand Ltd


Provide a new rule which allows as aPermitted Activity r the trimming of trees for thepurposes of maintaining the efficient operation and maintenance of existing telecommunications andradiocommunications in all zones (whether inside oroutside the urban environment) and all overlay areasexcept where:a) the tree is in an identified ecological site (Schedule3.1 );b) the tree is listed as a notable tree (Scheule10 .1);c) it is a rare and threatened species (listed inSchedule 3.3), provided the species in this scheduleare specifically recorded on the Planning Maps.


Rule 3A.1.3 is deleted so that all ‘indigenous vegetation modification’ in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones is covered under the ‘indigenous vegetation modification rule’ . The extent to which the trimming of indigenous vegetation is permitted is addressed below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification. Rule 3A.1.3 is retained in a modified form in relation to other areas not within the defined urban environment.

Yes

114

Sub. No.






As Above Yes Accept in Part


444 - #

Telecom New Zealand Limited


Provide a new rule which allows as aPermitted Activity r the trimming of trees for thepurposes of maintaining the efficient operation and maintenance of existing telecommunications andradiocommunications in all zones (whether inside oroutside the urban environment) and all overlay areasexcept where:a) the tree is in an identified ecological site (Schedule3.1 );b) the tree is listed as a notable tree (Scheule10 .1);c) it is a rare and threatened species (listed inSchedule 3.3), provided the species in this scheduleare specifically recorded on the Planning Maps



Yes

115

Sub. No.






As Above Yes Accept in Part


447 - 4

Kiwi Rail Holdings


Amend rule 3A.1.3.2 to add an additional clause “Unless the trimming is for the removal of branches interfering with buildings, structures, overhead wires or utility networks, but only to the extent that they are touching those buildings, or structures, or interfering with those overhead wires or utility networks”.



Yes


116

Sub. No.






208 - 22



Oppose in Rule 3A.1.3. standard 1 to add a clause e) as follows “ the removal of branches which do not form part of the main structure of the tree to protect electricity transmission (including associated telecommunication) lines.” and delete clause b) "is a key indigenous tree species" from standard 2.


Rule 3A.1.3 is deleted so that all ‘indigenous vegetation modification’ in the the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones is covered under the ‘indigenous vegetation modification rule’ . The extent to which the trimming of indigenous vegetation is permitted is addressed below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification. Rule 3A.1.3 is retained in a modified form in relation to other areas not within the defined urban environment.

Yes




District-wide Rules &

Amend policies and rules relating to management of biodiversity, especially within K017 ecological

3.5.2 Accept in Rules 3A.1.3 and 3A.3.1 are deleted so that all

Yes

117

Sub. No.





StandardsRules 3A.1.3 & 3A.3.1

site, to permit activities for the purpose of track maintenance and pest management.

Part ‘indigenous vegetation modification’ in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones is covered under the ‘indigenous vegetation modification rule’ . The extent to which the trimming of indigenous vegetation is permitted is addressed below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification. Rule 3A.1.3 is retained in a modified form in relation to other areas not within the defined urban environment.

FS1, FS9, FS10, FS16, FS33, FS42, FS43, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS106, FS126, FS139, FS142, FS167, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187


As Above Yes

118

Sub. No.






As Above Yes


104-2 Declan Graves


Amend policies and rules relating to management of biodiversity, especially within K017 ecological site, to permit activities for the purpose of track maintenance and pest management.


Rules 3A.1.3 and 3A.3.1 are deleted so that all ‘indigenous vegetation modification’ in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones is covered under the ‘indigenous vegetation modification rule’ . The extent to which the trimming of indigenous vegetation is permitted is addressed below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification. Rules 3A.1.3 and 3A.3.1 are retained in a modified form in relation to other areas not within the defined urban environment.

Yes

FS1, FS9, FS10, FS16, FS33, Support 3.5.2 Accept in As Above Yes

119

Sub. No.





FS42, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126, FS139, FS142, FS167, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187

Part




Amend Rules 3A.1.3 to 3A.1.5 to allow for trimming of vegetation for pest control, fire control, weed management, maintenance of fences and access tracks.


Rule 3A.1.3 is deleted so that all ‘indigenous vegetation modification’ in the the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones is covered under the ‘indigenous vegetation modification rule’ . The extent to which the trimming of indigenous vegetation is permitted is addressed below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification. Rules 3A.1.3 and 3A.3.1 are retained in a modified form in relation to other areas not within the defined urban environment.

Yes

120

Sub. No.





FS9, FS10, FS43, FS142, FS146 Support 3.5.2 Accept in Part

As Above Yes


As Above Yes


32 – 3 Aaron Johnson


Amend to allow trimming trees and maintenance on existing tracks regardless of the zoning to provide access across the property for maintenance emergencies and pest management of both trees and animals.


Rules 3A.1.3 and 3A.3.1 are deleted so that all ‘indigenous vegetation modification’ in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones is covered under the ‘indigenous vegetation modification rule’ . The extent to which the trimming of indigenous vegetation is permitted is addressed below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification. Rules 3A.1.3 and 3A.3.1 are retained in a modified form in relation to other areas not within the defined urban

Yes

121

Sub. No.





environment.



As Above Yes


380 - 13


District-wide Rules & Standards Rule 3A.1.3

Amend Rule 3A.1.3 by replacing standards ‘1’ and ‘2’ with new standards to permit trimming/removal of vegetation for the purposes of farm tracks and fence lines.


Rule 3A.1.3 is deleted so that all ‘indigenous vegetation modification’ in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones is covered under the ‘indigenous vegetation modification rule’ . The extent to which the trimming of indigenous vegetation is permitted is addressed below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification. Rule 3A.1.3 is retained in a modified form in relation to other

Yes

122

Sub. No.





areas not within the defined urban environment.

FS9, FS10, FS142, Support 3.5.2 Accept in Part

As Above Yes


408 - 3



Amend Rule 3A.1.3 by replacing standards ‘1’ and ‘2’ with new standards to permit trimming/removal of vegetation for the purposes of forestry tracks and fence lines.


Rule 3A.1.3 is deleted so that all ‘indigenous vegetation modification’ in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones is covered under the ‘indigenous vegetation modification rule’ . The extent to which the trimming of indigenous vegetation is permitted is addressed below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification. Rule 3A.1.3 is retained in a modified form in relation to other areas not within the defined urban

Yes

123

Sub. No.





environment.

FS9, FS10, FS106, FS142, FS167 Support 3.5.2 Accept in Part

As Above Yes


411 - 3



Amend Rule 3A.1.3 by replacing standards ‘1’ and ‘2’ with new standards to permit trimming/removal of vegetation for the purposes of forestry tracks and fence lines.



Yes

124

Sub. No.







As Above Yes


416 - 4



Amend Rule 3A.1.3 Standards 1 and 2 to replace standards to permit trimming/removal of vegetation for the purposes of farm tracks and fence lines.



Yes

125

Sub. No.





FS1, FS9, FS10, FS16, FS33, FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126, FS142, 167, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187, FS229


As Above Yes


424 - 3

CD Bowie District-wide Rules & StandardsRule 3A.1.3

Amend Rule 3A.1.3 Standards 1 and 2 to permit trimming/removal of vegetation for the purposes of farm tracks and fence lines.



Yes

126

Sub. No.





environment.



As Above Yes


425 - 3



Amend Rule 3A.1.3 Standards 1 and 2 and replace these standards to permit trimming/removal of vegetation for the purposes of farm tracks and fence lines.



Yes

127

Sub. No.





environment.



As Above Yes


493 - 4

Kumototo Nominees Ltd and Patone Holding Ltd


Amend Rule 3A.1.3 Standards 1 and 2 to replace standards to permit trimming/removal of vegetation for the purposes of farm tracks and fence lines.



Yes

128

Sub. No.





environment.



As Above Yes


494 –4

Millhaven Limited


Amend Rule 3A.1.3 Standards 1 and 2 to replace standards to permit trimming/removal of vegetation for the purposes of activities associated with driveway maintenance, curtilage activities and residential amenity



Yes

129

Sub. No.





environment.



As Above Yes


495 – 5

Mahaki Holdings Limited


Amend Rule 3A.1.3 Standards 1 and 2 to replace standards to permit trimming/removal of vegetation for the purposes of forestry tracks and fence lines.



Yes

130

Sub. No.





environment.



As Above Yes


92 – 49

Winstone Aggregates


Retain Rule 3A.1.3 and 3A.1.5. 3.5.5 Accept in Part

Rule 3A.1.5 is retained as it is required to give effect to s6(c) RMA and Policy 24 RPS and to achieve objective 2.2 of the PDP, however the Rule is amended in response to other submissions.

Yes



202 - 15

Department of Conserva - tion

District-wide Rules & StandardsRules 3A.1.5l

Support provisions in section 3A (District-wide Rules and Standards).


Rule 3A.1.5 is retained as it is required to give effect to s6(c) RMA and Policy 24 RPS and to achieve objective 2.2 of the PDP, however the Rule is amended in response to

Yes

131

Sub. No.





other submissions.



232 - 6

Nga Hapu O Otaki


Support controls on vegetation clearance (outside urban areas).


Rule 3A.1.5 is retained as it is required to give effect to s6(c) RMA and Policy 24 RPS and to achieve objective 2.2 of the PDP, however the Rule is amended in response to other submissions.

Yes



44 – 1 MY & SA Blackburne


Remove all Rules 3A.1 to 3A.5 and/or amend permitted activity standards. Consequential amendments to policies or other rules necessary to give effect to any request in this submission.


Rule 3A.1.5 is retained as it is required to give effect to s6(c) RMA and Policy 24 RPS, however the Rule is significantly amended to be more efficient and to reduce the costs of achieving objective 2.2 of the PDP. Specifically a differentiation is made to

Yes

132

Sub. No.





treat the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones differently with regards to indigenous vegetation modification by providing appropriate exemptions to enable typical rural property maintenance activities. Remaining areas are provided for in a similar way to the definition of ‘urban environment’



233 - 3

Helen Naylor


Oppose policy 3.14, rule 3A.1.5 and rule 3A.1.3 and amend as set out in the submission.


Rule 3A.1.5 is retained as it is required to give effect to s6(c) RMA and Policy 24 RPS, however the Rule is significantly amended to be more efficient and to reduce the costs of achieving objective 2.2 of the PDP. Specifically a differentiation is made to

Yes

133

Sub. No.





treat the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones differently with regards to indigenous vegetation modification by providing appropriate exemptions to enable typical rural property maintenance activities. Remaining areas are provided for in a similar way to the definition of ‘urban environment’

FS9, FS10, FS139, FS142, FS167 Support Accept in Part

As Above Yes


356 - 16

Christopher Ruthe

Rules & StandardsRule 3A.1.5

Oppose chapter 3 Rules. 3.5.5 Accept in Part

Rule 3A.1.5 is retained as it is required to give effect to s6(c) RMA and Policy 24 RPS, however the Rule is significantly amended to be more efficient and to reduce the costs of achieving objective 2.2 of the PDP. Specifically a

Yes

134

Sub. No.





differentiation is made to treat the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones differently with regards to indigenous vegetation modification by providing appropriate exemptions to enable typical rural property maintenance activities. Remaining areas are provided for in a similar way to the definition of ‘urban environment’


As Above Yes


32-3 Aaron Johnson


Amend to allow trimming trees and maintenance on existing tracks regardless of the zoning to provide access across the property for maintenance emergencies and pest management of both trees and animals.


Exemptions a) – j) are added to Rule 3A.1.5 to ensure that various activities necessary to be undertaken for farming , living or network utility provision in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural

Yes

135

Sub. No.





Dunes Zones, that do not compromise the integrity of areas of significant indigenous vegetation are permitted.



As Above Yes




Amend Rules 3A.1.3 to 3A.1.5 to allow for trimming of vegetation for pest control, fire control, weed management, maintenance of fences and access tracks.


Exemptions a) – j) are added to Rule 3A.1.5 to ensure that various activities necessary to be undertaken for farming , living or network utility provision in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones, that do not compromise the integrity of areas of significant indigenous vegetation are

Yes

136

Sub. No.





permitted.

FS9, FS10, FS43, FS142, FS146 Support Accept in Part

As above Yes


As above Yes






Exemptions a) – j) are added to Rule 3A.1.5 to ensure that various activities necessary to be undertaken for farming , living or network utility provision in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones, that do not compromise the integrity of areas of significant indigenous vegetation are permitted.

Yes



As above Yes

137

Sub. No.





FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187


As above Yes


104-2 Declan Graves





Yes



As above Yes

138

Sub. No.






231 - 4

Richard Swan


Amend the policies and rules to enable pest management to occur within areas of indigenous biodiversity which may require cutting tracks and trimming activities which the rules as currently drafted would require resource consent



Yes


Accept in Part

As above Yes


251 - 8

Margaret Niven

District-wide Rules & Standards

Amend provisions to support pest management within ecological sites, including track maintenance.


Exemptions a) – j) are added to Rule 3A.1.5 to ensure that various

Yes

139

Sub. No.





Rule 3A.1.5 activities necessary to be undertaken for farming , living or network utility provision in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones, that do not compromise the integrity of areas of significant indigenous vegetation are permitted.



As above Yes


258 – 8

Peter Adlam


Amend rules relating to KO17 to permit pest management within ecological sites, including track maintenance


Exemptions a) – j) are added to Rule 3A.1.5 to ensure that various activities necessary to be undertaken for farming , living or network utility provision in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones, that do not compromise the integrity

Yes

140

Sub. No.





of areas of significant indigenous vegetation are permitted.



As above Yes


327 – 31

Waa Rata Estate


Both the policy and rules for ecological sites should be amended to support pest management within K017, including track maintenance.



Yes

141

Sub. No.







As above Yes


As above Yes


383 - 5

Gillian Tousoon




Exemptions a) – j) are added to Rule 3A.1.5 to ensure that various activities necessary to be undertaken for farming , living or network utility provision, that do not compromise the integrity of areas of significant indigenous vegetation are permitted.

Yes



As above Yes

142

Sub. No.





FS167, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187,


388 - 1

Reikorangi River and Bush Group


Amend Policy 3.12 and Rules 3A.1.3 and 3A.1.5 to better enable and encourage management of introduced pest and weed species, including track maintenance to support a trap or bait station network.



Yes


As above Yes


385 - 2

Margaret Smith




Exemptions a) – j) are added to Rule 3A.1.5 to ensure that various activities necessary to be undertaken for farming , living or network utility

Yes

143

Sub. No.





provision, that do not compromise the integrity of areas of significant indigenous vegetation are permitted.



As above Yes


443 - 11

Allan Smith


Amend Rules 3A.1.3 and 3A.1.5 so that trimming and modification of indigenous vegetation, including locally indigenous vegetation is permitted in all areas and zones when required for the purposes of track or fence maintenance. The trimming or modification should be kept to the minimum need to complete the required maintenance effectively



Yes



As above Yes

144

Sub. No.





FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126, FS142, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187


558 - 1

Terry Parminter


Amend rules to allow trimming and modification of locally indigenous vegetation in ecological sites and significant amenity landscape as a permitted activity where it involves: - Maintaining an existing driveway to a residence by removing potential regrowth from the formed areas and associated water tables. - Removing dangerous side branches, or dead and dying plant material that could impede vehicle access along an existing driveway to a residence. - Establishing areas of path, lawn, flower gardens and vegetable gardens used for domestic purposes and within 50 meters of an existing house. - Removing vegetation rubbing against walls and guttering of houses. - Establishing and maintaining tracks of up to 1 meter wide, to service bait stations, providing that the main structure of trees are not damaged or removed and the canopy overhead is not reduced.



Yes

145

Sub. No.







208 – 29



Oppose in part Rule 3A.1.5 and amend to remove clause e).

3.5.5 Accept That clause e) is removed from Rule 3A.1.5 along with other amendments as applying in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones improve the efficiency and reduce the costs of the rule to landowners in achieving objective 2.2 of the PDP.

Yes


FS125 Oppose Reject As above. Yes

442 - 12

Chorus New Zealand Ltd


Amend rules 3A.1.4 and 3A.1.5 to allow the modification of locally indigenous vegetation for works associated with the construction of permitted telecommunications and radio communications and their maintenance and operation except when in an ecological site, on a listed tree or a rare or threatened species.


Rule 3A.1.5 is amended to only protect indigenous vegetation that is that is within an identified ecological site (Schedule 3.1), is identified as rare or threatened (Schedule 3.3) or is within 20m of a water body or the coast in regards to the in the Rural

Yes

146

Sub. No.





Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones. In regards to other areas not meeting the definition of ‘urban environment’ reference to Schedule 3.2 is retained but other ‘catch all’ rules are removed.


As Above Yes


444 - 10



Amend Rules 3A.1.4 and 3A.1.5 to allow the modification of locally indigenous vegetation as a Permitted Activity for works associated with the construction of permitted telecommunications and radio communications, and their maintenance and operation in all areas, except where: a) the tree is in an identified ecological site (Schedule 3.1); b) the tree is listed as a notable tree (Schedule 10.1) c) it is a rare and threatened species (listed in Schedule 3.3) provided the species in this schedule are specifically recorded on the Planning Maps so they can be easily identified.


Rule 3A.1.5 is amended to only protect indigenous vegetation that is that is within an identified ecological site (Schedule 3.1), is identified as rare or threatened (Schedule 3.3) or is within 20m of a water body or the coast in regards to the in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones. In regards to other areas not meeting the definition of

Yes

147

Sub. No.





‘urban environment’ reference to Schedule 3.2 is retained but other ‘catch all’ rules are removed.


As Above Yes


212 - 26

Quicksilver District-wide Rules & StandardsRule 3A.1.5

Amend provisions relating to significant indigenous vegetation so that this resource management issue is addressed and controlled in relation to ecological sites identified on the Plan maps only. Or such other relief as satisfies this submission and any consequential amendments that may be required


Rule 3A.1.5 is amended to only protect indigenous vegetation that is that is within an identified ecological site (Schedule 3.1), is identified as rare or threatened (Schedule 3.3) or is within 20m of a water body or the coast in regards to the in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones. In regards to other areas not meeting the definition of ‘urban environment’ reference to Schedule 3.2 is retained but other ‘catch

Yes

148

Sub. No.





all’ rules are removed.



As Above Yes


250 - 14



That Rule 3A.1.5 is deleted, and that modification of indigenous vegetation that is not an Ecological Site is permitted with no limits.


Rule 3A.1.5 is amended to only protect indigenous vegetation that is that is within an identified ecological site (Schedule 3.1), is identified as rare or threatened (Schedule 3.3) or is within 20m of a water body or the coast in regards to the in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones. In regards to other areas not meeting the definition of ‘urban environment’ reference to Schedule 3.2

Yes

149

Sub. No.





is retained but other ‘catch all’ rules are removed.



As Above Yes


100 – 11 & 12

Egon Guttke


Amend standard 2(f) under Rule 3A.1.5. to apply to an area >100m by 100m, and to allow for the removal of poisonous plants.Amend standard 2(g) under Rule 3A.1.5. to allow the maintenance of tracks, fords, bridges and fences

3.5.5 Accept Rule 3A.1.5 is amended is amended so that standard f) is deleted and the requested maintenance activities to standard g) would be provided for by the list of exemptions. This improves the efficiency and reduces the costs of the rule to landowners in achieving objective 2.2 of the PDP.

Yes



150

Sub. No.







102 – 11 & 12

Irena Guttke


Amend standard 2(f) under Rule 3A.1.5. to apply to an area >100m by 100m, and to allow for the removal of poisonous plants.Amend standard 2(g) under Rule 3A.1.5. to allow the maintenance of tracks, fords, bridges and fences

3.5.5 Accept Rule 3A.1.5 is amended is amended so that standard f) is deleted and the requested maintenance activities to standard g) would be provided for by the list of exemptions. This improves the efficiency and reduces the costs of the rule to landowners in achieving objective 2.2 of the PDP.

Yes




151

Sub. No.





212 - 20

Quicksilver District-wide Rules & StandardsRules 3A.1.5

Oppose Rule 3A.1 (5) and amend standard 1 of Rule 3A.1.(5) so that the timeline for modification following harvesting is four rather than two years. Amend standard 2 of Rule 3A.1 (5) to add "Except for modification undertaken in accordance with standard (1)," and remove clauses a), c) and e)-g) or such other relief as satisfies this submission.


The time period for modification after forestry harvest remains at 2 years as this is considered appropriate to protect significant indigenous vegetation, but Rule 3A.1.5 is amended to remove standards a), e) and f) to improve the efficiency and reduces the costs of the rule to landowners in achieving objective 2.2 of the PDP.

Yes



As Above Yes


As Above Yes

327 –39 &

Waa Rata District-wide Rules &

Amend rules 3A.1.3 and 3A.1.5 to add new standards, amend existing standards and delete

3.5.5 Accept in Rule 3A.1.5 is amended in the Rural Hills, Rural

Yes

152

Sub. No.





41 Estate StandardsRule 3A.1.5

policy reference 3.14, as per pages 51&52 of submission.Amend Rule 3A.1.5 as follows: Amend Standard 2 b) to read "is within an ecological site within one or more of the lowland alluvial terraces, duneland or salt zone eco-domains" Add new sub clause between b) and c) to read "is within an ecological site within one or more of the lowland hill or hill country eco-domains, except if modification is to construct or maintain a fence at the margin of an ecological site, for the purpose of pest and weed management of introduced species, or to maintain a safe public walkway or existing track;" Amend e) to read "is listed in the schedule of key indigenous tree species (Schedule 3.2) and exceeds the maximum diameter and height;" Amend f) to read "forms a contiguous area of more than 100m2 within one or more of the lowland alluvial terraces, duneland or salt zone eco-domains; or" Add new sub clause to read "forms a contiguous tree canopy of more than 100m2 within the lowland hill eco-domain; or" Amend g) to read "is within 20m of a waterbody (including within the waterbody itself) unless modification is to maintain an existing vehicle or

Part Plains and Rural Dunes Zones as set out under 3.5.5.4 below to protect indigenous vegetation that is within an identified ecological site (Schedule 3.1), is identified as rare or threatened (Schedule 3.3) or is within 20m of a water body or the coast; but to also permit necessary activities to farming and living that do not pose a threat to the integrity of the indigenous vegetation via exemptions a) – j) so as to improves the efficiency and reduce the costs of the rule to landowners in achieving objective 2.2 of the PDP.

153

Sub. No.





foot access way, to construct or maintain a fence along riparian margins, or to remove tutu (coriaria arborea) within the lowland hill or hill country eco-domains" Add sub clause to read "is within 20m of the coastal marine area."



As Above Yes


250 - 10 Federated Farmers of New Zealand


Seeks that agricultural, horticultural and forestry activities are permitted within Sensitive Natural Features where these are mapped over privately owned rural land.


The list of exemptions in the amended Rule 3A.1.5 ensures that in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones the presence of an ecological site will not prevent the maintenance of fences, tracks and buildings that may be associated with agricultural activity, but that the significant indigenous vegetation

Yes

154

Sub. No.





within the ecological site is subject to regulatory protection.

FS1, FS9, FS10, FS16, FS32, FS33, FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS68, FS93, FS102, FS126, FS139, FS142, FS146, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187.


As Above Yes


As Above Yes

219 - 33

Horticulture New Zealand


Include a permitted activity rule for trimming and modification of any vegetation in the rural zone.

3.5.2 Reject It would add additional complexity to the Plan to resolve the issue of the inadvertent capture of shelterbelts or horticultural trees by adding a new permitted activity rule to section 3A.1 to provide for the modification of non-indigenous vegetation in rural areas. See section 3.5.4 recommendations where this issue is

Yes

155

Sub. No.





addressed under the definition of ‘modification of vegetation’.

FS9, FS10, FS43 3.5.2 Reject As Above Yes

FS N/A N/A N/A

558 - 2

Terry Parminter


Amend the rules to allow the following activities as controlled activities in ecological sites and significant amenity landscapes: - The removal of locally indigenous vegetation within 50 meters of buildings for the purposes of fire control. - The removal of locally indigenous vegetation within 1 meter of the boundary for the purpose of building a boundary fence.


No new controlled activities are recommended as a result of this submission however the recommended amendments to Rule 3A.1.5 ‘indigenous vegetation modification’ do include exemptions for fencing and fence maintenance and fire control albeit not to the extent sought by the submitter.

No



77 - 2 Louise District-wide Remove rules requiring buffering and restoration 3.6 Accept in Rule 3A.2.3 is deleted in Yes

156

Sub. No.





Trilloe Rules & StandardsRule 3A.2.3

of areas adjacent or adjoining K017. Part its entirety and Rule 3A.4.5 is amended by replacing the 10m buffer with 5m to be more efficient in achieving objective 2.2 by reducing costs to landowners and still ensuring the protection of significant indigenous vegetation.



As Above Yes


As Above Yes

104 - 1

Declan Graves


Remove rules requiring buffering and restoration of areas adjacent or adjoining K017.

3.6 Accept in Part

Rule 3A.2.3 is deleted in its entirety and Rule 3A.4.5 is amended by replacing the 10m buffer with 5m to be more efficient in achieving

Yes

157

Sub. No.





objective 2.2 by reducing costs to landowners and still ensuring the protection of significant indigenous vegetation.



As Above Yes


As Above Yes

191 – 33 & 34

Landlink Ltd


Delete the requirement for a 20 m ecological buffer zone as it will not be achievable in the urban environment and will compromise clustering of buildings in the rural environment. Oppose these rules.

3.6 Accept in Part

Rule 3A.2.3 is deleted in its entirety and Rule 3A.4.5 is amended by replacing the 10m buffer with 5m to be more efficient in achieving objective 2.2 by reducing costs to landowners and still ensuring the protection of significant indigenous vegetation.

Yes

158

Sub. No.







As Above Yes

FS193 Oppose

231 - 5

Richard Swan


Amend rules regarding buffers around ecological sites, particularly K017 as these unreasonably restrict the use of rural land and small building such as a chicken house would not be likely to have an adverse effect on this large ecological site. Amend to make small non habitable building permitted adjacent to ecological site K017

3.6 Accept in Part

Rule 3A.2.3 is deleted in its entirety and Rule 3A.4.5 is amended by replacing the 10m buffer with 5m to be more efficient in achieving objective 2.2 by reducing costs to landowners and still ensuring the protection of significant indigenous vegetation. A building would be permitted subject to the rules applying in the zone if it was setback a minimum of 5m from the boundary of an ecological site.

Yes

159

Sub. No.






Accept in Part

As Above Yes


250 - 25



Rule 3A.2.3

That Rule 3A.2.3 is deleted. 3.6 Accept Rule 3A.2.3 is deleted in its entirety and Rule 3A.4.5 is amended by replacing the 10m buffer with 5m to be more efficient in achieving objective 2.2 by reducing costs to landowners and still ensuring the protection of significant indigenous vegetation.

Yes



160

Sub. No.





FS187

FS167 Support in Part

251 - 11

Margaret Niven


Remove all buffer zones for ecological sites from the submitter’s land.

3.6 Accept in Part


Yes



As Above Yes


258 –9

Peter Adlam


Oppose buffers for ecological site KO17 due to its large expanse.

3.6 Accept in Part

Rule 3A.2.3 is deleted in its entirety and Rule 3A.4.5 is amended by replacing the 10m buffer with 5m to be more efficient in achieving

Yes

161

Sub. No.





objective 2.2 by reducing costs to landowners and still ensuring the protection of significant indigenous vegetation.



As Above Yes


320 - 11



Oppose Rules that have immediate legal effect that differ from the operative District Plan including Rule 3A.1.1, 3A.2.3, 3A.3.3, 3A.3.1.a) and d), 3A.3.5, 3A.3.7, 3A.3.8, 3A.3.10, 3A.3.11, 3A.4.2.a) d) and f) and 3A.5.2.

3.6 Accept Rule 3A.2.3 is deleted in its entirety and Rule 3A.4.5 is amended by replacing the 10m buffer with 5m to be more efficient in achieving objective 2.2 by reducing costs to landowners and still ensuring the protection of significant indigenous vegetation.

Yes

162

Sub. No.








327 –32

Waa Rata Estate


Seek amendments to rules to delete the proposed buffer applied to K017

3.6 Accept in Part


Yes



As Above Yes

163

Sub. No.





FS187,


383 - 5

Gillian Tousoon



3.6 Accept in Part


Yes



As Above Yes


385 - 2

Margaret Smith



3.6 Accept in Part

Rule 3A.2.3 is deleted in its entirety and Rule 3A.4.5 is amended by

Yes

164

Sub. No.





Rule 3A.2.3 replacing the 10m buffer with 5m to be more efficient in achieving objective 2.2 by reducing costs to landowners and still ensuring the protection of significant indigenous vegetation.




420 - 2

David Hedger


Remove the buffer around Ecological Site K212. 3.6 Accept in Part

Rule 3A.2.3 is deleted in its entirety and Rule 3A.4.5 is amended by replacing the 10m buffer with 5m to be more efficient in achieving objective 2.2 by reducing costs to landowners and still ensuring the protection of significant

Yes

165

Sub. No.





indigenous vegetation.



As Above Yes


443 – 1 & 2

Allan Smith


Oppose buffers around ecological sites and amend to only apply in eco-domains where less than 20% of the land is in indigenous vegetation andOppose buffers around ecological sites and amend to only have ecological sites on private land in these areas if landowner agrees and assistance with weed and pest control is provided.

3.6 Accept in Part


Yes

FS9, FS10, FS43, FS142, FS167, Support Accept in Part

As Above Yes


201 - Joan District-wide Oppose Rule 3A.2.3 and amend the rule so that it 3.6 Accept in Rule 3A.2.3 is deleted in Yes

166

Sub. No.





3 Barbalich Rules & StandardsRule 3A.2.3

is clear that buildings and development in and within 10 m of an Ecological Site is a discretionary activity.

Part its entirety and Rule 3A.4.5 is amended by replacing the 10m buffer with 5m to be more efficient in achieving objective 2.2 by reducing costs to landowners and still ensuring the protection of significant indigenous vegetation.

FS9, FS10, FS142, FS167, Support Accept in Part

As Above Yes


206 - 2

Hadyen Gaisford


Oppose Rule 3A.2.3 and amend the rule so that it is clear that buildings and development in and within 10 m of an Ecological Site is a discretionary activity.

3.6 Accept in Part


Yes

167

Sub. No.





FS Support: None Accept in Part

As Above Yes


222 – 6

Takahe Family Trust



3.6 Accept in Part


Yes


As Above Yes


224 – 6

Malcolm Morris



3.6 Accept in Part

Rule 3A.2.3 is deleted in its entirety and Rule 3A.4.5 is amended by replacing the 10m buffer with 5m to be more efficient in achieving objective 2.2 by reducing

Yes

168

Sub. No.





costs to landowners and still ensuring the protection of significant indigenous vegetation.

FS1, FS16, FS33, FS42, FS54, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126, FS167, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187


As Above Yes


226 – 5

Isabella Barbalich



3.6 Accept in Part


Yes



As Above Yes

169

Sub. No.







238 - 3

Zoran Barbalich



3.6 Accept in Part


Yes

FS1, FS9, FS10, FS16, FS33, FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59,FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126, FS142, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186 FS187


As Above Yes


241 - 3

Anthony David


Oppose Rule 3A.2.3 and amend the rule so that it is clear that buildings and development in and

3.6 Accept in Part

Rule 3A.2.3 is deleted in its entirety and Rule

Yes

170

Sub. No.





Grenfell StandardsRule 3A.2.3

within 10 m of an Ecological Site is a discretionary activity.

3A.4.5 is amended by replacing the 10m buffer with 5m to be more efficient in achieving objective 2.2 by reducing costs to landowners and still ensuring the protection of significant indigenous vegetation.



260 - 3

Hendrik Trimmer



3.6 Accept in Part


Yes


As Above Yes

171

Sub. No.






270 - 3

Antipodes NZ Ltd


Oppose Rule 3A.2.3 and amend the rule so that it is clear that buildings and development in and within 10 m of an Ecological Site is a discretionary activity

3.6 Accept in Part


Yes


As Above Yes


273 - 4

Steven Brohashire

District-wide Rules & StandardsRule 3A.2.3 & Rule 3A.4.5

Oppose Rules 3A.2.3 and 3A.4.5 and amend so that buildings and development in and within 10 metres of an ecological site is a discretionary activity and amend the common boundary between ecological site and special amenity landscape to mirror the "Moderate Erosion Susceptibility" yellow hatch area.

3.6 Accept in Part

Rule 3A.2.3 is deleted in its entirety and Rule 3A.4.5 is amended by replacing the 10m buffer with 5m to be more efficient in achieving objective 2.2 by reducing costs to landowners and still ensuring the

Yes

172

Sub. No.





protection of significant indigenous vegetation.


As Above Yes


278 – 4

Paul Permiskie

District-wide Rules & StandardsRule 3A.2.3 & Rule 3A.4.5

Oppose Rules 3A.4.5 and 3A.2.3 and amend so that buildings and development in and within 10 metres of an ecological site is a discretionary activity and amend the common boundary between ecological site and special amenity landscape to mirror the "Moderate Erosion Susceptibility" yellow hatch area.

3.6 Accept in Part


Yes


As Above Yes


119 - 1

Colin Pearce


Amend provisions relating to ecological sites and buffers to enable harvesting of firewood from an area adjacent to an ecological sites as a Permitted Activity.

3.6 Accept in Part

Rule 3A.2.3 is deleted in its entirety and Rule 3A.4.5 is amended by replacing the 10m buffer

Yes

173

Sub. No.





with 5m to be more efficient in achieving objective 2.2 by reducing costs to landowners and still ensuring the protection of significant indigenous vegetation. Firewood harvesting would not be restricted provided it did not involve indigenous vegetation identified in Schedules 3.1 or 3.3 or within 20m of a waterbody.



201 - 10

Joan Barbalich


Oppose Rule 3A.2.3 and amend to allow one dwelling and one family flat and earthworks to the extend of 500m2 and cut or fills of up to 3m high to be a permitted activity on the submitters property. Rule 3A.3.8 will always over-ride Rule 3A.2.3.

3.6 Accept in Part

Rule 3A.2.3 is deleted in its entirety and Rule 3A.4.5 is amended by replacing the 10m buffer with 5m to be more efficient in achieving objective 2.2 by reducing costs to landowners and still ensuring the

Yes

174

Sub. No.





protection of significant indigenous vegetation. Buildings could therefore be built up to 5m from an ecological site boundary without resource consent.

FS1, FS9 FS10, FS16, FS33, FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126, FS142, FS167, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187

Accept in Part

As Above Yes


440 - 40

Kapiti Coast District Council


Amend 3A.2.3 to replace ”sites containing an ecological site where buildings are located” with “land”

3.6 Reject Rule 3A.2.3 is deleted in its entirety and Rule 3A.4.5 is amended by replacing the 10m buffer with 5m to be more efficient in achieving objective 2.2 by reducing costs to landowners and still ensuring the protection of significant indigenous vegetation.

Yes

175

Sub. No.






FS9, FS10, FS32, FS124, FS139, FS142, FS194


442 - 13

Chorus New Zealand

District-wide Rules & StandardsRules 3A.3

Add a restricted discretionary activity rule, with no standards, for vegetation modification that does not comply with the permitted activity standards.


A default status of restricted discretionary activity is recommended for trimming and modification for those areas not within the defined No‘urban environment’ but that fall outside of the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones. A simplified permitted activity structure with exemptions is provided for modification of indigenous vegetation in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones with a default to Discretionary Activity Status.

No

FS229 Support Accept in As above No

176

Sub. No.





Part


444 - 11


District-wide Rules & StandardsRules General

Amend Chapter 3 to provide a default status of Restricted Discretionary Activity, with no discretionary standards applicable.


A default status of restricted discretionary activity is recommended for trimming and modification for those areas not within the defined No‘urban environment’ but that fall outside of the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones. A simplified permitted activity structure with exemptions is provided for modification of indigenous vegetation in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones with a default to Discretionary Activity Status.

No


As Above No

177

Sub. No.






320 - 11



Oppose Rules that have immediate legal effect that differ from the operative District Plan including Rules … 3A.3.1.a) and e),….


Rule 3A.3.1 regarding the trimming of indigenous vegetation in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones is deleted and consequential amendments are made to the definition of ‘vegetation modification’ to also accommodate trimming in non-urban areas.

Yes


Support Support 3.5.2 Accept in Part As Above


208 - 31



Oppose in part Rule 3A.3.1 and amend to remove clause b). And any consequential amendments.


Rule 3A.3.1 is deleted in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones and consequential amendments are made to

Yes

178

Sub. No.





the definition of ‘vegetation modification’ to also accommodate trimming in those zones. Modifications are made to Rule 3A.3.1 with regards to trimming and modification outside of the above zones, however reference to Schedule 3.2 remains.



327 – 15

Waa Rata Estate


Amend Rule 3A.3.1 to add "is not expressly permitted and which:" at the end of introductory statement. Add "irreversibly" before "damaged or destroyed" in Standard 1. a).


Rule 3A.3.1 is deleted in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones and consequential amendments are made to merge the trimming and modification rules.

Yes



As Above Yes

179

Sub. No.





FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187


380 - 17



Delete Rules 3A.3.1(a) and (e) to provide for reasonable trimming and removal of vegetation for farm fencing and track maintenance within ecological sites and within 20m of a water body, and replace these rules with permitted activity rules and appropriate standards.


Rule 3A.3.1 is deleted in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones and consequential amendments are made to merge the trimming and modification rules. The extent to which the trimming of indigenous vegetation is permitted in ecological sites and within 20m of a water body, is addressed below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification.

Yes


As Above Yes


408 – 7

USNZ Forestry


Remove Rules 3A.3.1(a) and (e) to provide for reasonable trimming and removal of vegetation


Rule 3A.3.1 is deleted in the Rural Hills, Rural

Yes

180

Sub. No.





Group Limited

StandardsRule 3A.3.1

for farm fencing and track maintenance within ecological sites and within 20m of a water body, and replace these rules with permitted activity rules and appropriate standards.

Plains and Rural Dunes Zones and consequential amendments are made to merge the trimming and modification rules. The extent to which the trimming of indigenous vegetation is permitted in ecological sites and within 20m of a water body, is addressed below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification.


As Above Yes


411 - 7



Delete Rules 3A.3.1(a) and (e) to provide for reasonable trimming and removal of vegetation for farm fencing and track maintenance within ecological sites and within 20m of a water body, and replace these rules with permitted activity rules and appropriate standards.


Rule 3A.3.1 is deleted in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones and consequential amendments are made to merge the trimming and modification rules. . The

Yes

181

Sub. No.





extent to which the trimming of indigenous vegetation is permitted in ecological sites and within 20m of a water body, is addressed below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification.



As Above Yes


416 - 8



Remove Rule 3A.3.1(a) and (e) and replace with permitted activity rules and appropriate standards to provide for reasonable trimming and removal of vegetation for farm fencing and track maintenance.


Rule 3A.3.1 is deleted in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones and consequential amendments are made to merge the trimming and modification rules. The extent to which the trimming of indigenous vegetation is permitted is

Yes

182

Sub. No.





addressed below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification.



As Above Yes


424 - 7

CD Bowie District-wide Rules & StandardsRule 3A.3.1

Delete Rules 3A.3.1(a) and 3A.3.1(e) and replace these rules with permitted activity rules and appropriate standards.


Rule 3A.3.1 is deleted in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones and consequential amendments are made to merge the trimming and modification rules. The extent to which the trimming of indigenous vegetation is permitted is addressed below in regards to the submissions on

Yes

183

Sub. No.





indigenous vegetation modification.



As Above Yes


425 - 7



Amend Rules 3A.3.l(a) and 3A.3.l(e) by deleting and replacing with permitted activity rules and appropriate standards


Rule 3A.3.1 is deleted in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones and consequential amendments are made to merge the trimming and modification rules. The extent to which the trimming of indigenous vegetation is permitted is addressed below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification.

Yes



As Above Yes

184

Sub. No.





FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126, FS142, 167


493 - 8

Kumototo Nominees Ltd & Patone Holding Ltd




Rule 3A.3.1 is deleted in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones and consequential amendments are made to merge the trimming and modification rules. The extent to which the trimming of indigenous vegetation is permitted is addressed below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification.

Yes



As Above Yes


494 – 6

Millhaven Limited


Remove Rule 3A.3.1(a) and (e) and replace with permitted activity rules and appropriate standards


Rule 3A.3.1 is deleted in the Rural Hills, Rural

Yes

185

Sub. No.






to provide for reasonable trimming and removal of vegetation for farm fencing and track maintenance.

Plains and Rural Dunes Zones and consequential amendments are made to merge the trimming and modification rules. The extent to which the trimming of indigenous vegetation is permitted is addressed below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification.



As Above Yes


495 – 9

Mahaki Holdings Limited




Rule 3A.3.1 is deleted in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones and consequential amendments are made to merge the trimming and modification rules. The

Yes

186

Sub. No.





extent to which the trimming of indigenous vegetation is permitted is addressed below in regards to the submissions on indigenous vegetation modification.



As Above Yes


212 - 23

Quicksilver District-wide Rules & StandardsRules 3A.4.2

Oppose Rule 3A.4.2 and amend to include an exception for activities permitted under Rule 3A.1(5)(2)


Rule 3A.4.2 is recommended to be reworded to ensure that it only covers indigenous vegetation modification that is not a permitted, controlled, or restricted discretionary activity.

Yes

FS1, FS9, FS10, FS16, FS29 FS33, FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102,


As Above Yes

187

Sub. No.







As Above Yes

320 - 11



Oppose Rules that have immediate legal effect that differ from the operative District Plan including Rule 3A.1.1, 3A.2.3, 3A.3.3, 3A.3.1.a) and d), 3A.3.5, 3A.3.7, 3A.3.8, 3A.3.10, 3A.3.11, 3A.4.2.a) d) and f) and 3A.5.2.

3.9.2 Reject Rule 3A.4.2 is recommended to be reworded to ensure that it only covers indigenous vegetation modification that is not a permitted, controlled, or restricted discretionary activity.

No


Support Reject As above No

FS Oppose: None

38 - 20

North Otaki Beach


Add discretionary activity rule that authorises coastal erosion hazard protection infrastructure in sensitive natural features or significant amenity

3.8.2 Reject The rule structure already exists in Chapter 3 for any activity involving the

No

188

Sub. No.





Residents Group Inc

Rule 3A.4 landscapes including associated earthworks and vegetation clearance

modification of indigenous vegetation in ecological sites or within 20m of the coastal marine area to be assessed as a discretionary activity. No separate discretionary activity rule is required in Chapter 3. Rules to authorise coastal erosion hazard protection infrastructure. are currently provided by the Operative District Plan.



327 – 23

Waa Rata Estate


Amend rules 3A.4.2 and 3A.4.5 to correct grammar and align with other proposed amendments to related provisions, as per page 65 of submission.



Yes

189

Sub. No.







As Above Yes


327 –24

Waa Rata Estate


Amend Rule 3A.4.2 to add "not expressly permitted:", add "to" to b) and c) and "to a" to d) and delete "as a" from d), and add "is" after "area where it".



Yes



As Above Yes


283 - 5

Gillian Tousoon




Rule 3A.4.2 is recommended to be

Yes

190

Sub. No.






reworded to ensure that it only covers indigenous vegetation modification that is not a permitted, controlled, or restricted discretionary activity.



As Above Yes


327 –25

Waa Rata Estate


Amend Rule 3A.4.5 to change the 10m restriction to a 5m restriction.

3.6 Accept The buffer setback is changed to 5m to be more efficient in achieving objective 2.2 by reducing costs to landowners and still ensuring the protection of significant indigenous vegetation.

Yes

FS1, FS9, FS10, FS16, FS33, FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126,


191

Sub. No.







383 - 5

Gillian Tousoon



3.6 Accept The buffer setback is changed to 5m to be more efficient in achieving objective 2.2 by reducing costs to landowners and still ensuring the protection of significant indigenous vegetation.

Yes




212 – 9

Quicksilver District-wide Rules & StandardsRule 3A.5

Delete the Non-Complying Activity status for rural activities located within the Rural Zone and which occur in areas covered by the overlays included in the natural environment section of the Proposed District Plan.


Indigenous vegetation modification in the Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes Zones not meeting the permitted

No

192

Sub. No.





activity standard defaults to discretionary. The s42A Report Chapter 3: General, Earthworks & Landscapes, recommends a significant reduction in the number of non-complying activities.



As Above No


139 - 3

Raumati South Residents Association

Schedule 3.2

Amend Schedule 3.2 to include wetland plants - Baumea teretifolia and Gleichenia for reasons set out in the submission.

3.10 Reject These plants are not eligible to be listed in section 3.2 ‘Key Indigenous Tree Species’ as they are not trees, nor are they eligible to be included in Schedule 3.3 ‘Rare and Threatened Vegetation Species’ as they do not meet the criteria of being

No

193

Sub. No.





threatened at a regional or national level.



250 - 18


Schedules 3.2 & 3.3

That Rare and Threatened Vegetation Species and Key Indigenous Tree Species categories and associated mapping and provisions are deleted from the Plan.

3.10 Accept in Part

Schedule 3.2 is recommended to be deleted from Rule 3A.1.5 and the ecological domain references and mapping of them are recommended to be deleted from Schedule 3.2 and the planning maps; but a modified Schedule 3.2 is retained and referred to in recommended amended Rule 3A.1.3 and new Rule 3A.1.5A in regards to those areas not within the urban environment and not zoned Rural Hills, Rural Plains and Rural Dunes. Schedule 3.3 is retained on the basis that it is a tool in ensuring the

Yes

194

Sub. No.





protection of significant indigenous vegetation.

FS1, FS9, FS10, FS16, FS33, FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126, FS142, FS146, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187,


As above Yes


As Above Yes


As Above Yes

Appendix 3.1 Development Incentive Guidelines and Related Provisions

145 – 2(3)

Ian Corder Appendix 3.1 Development Incentive Guidelines

Support the extent to which the biodiversity and the natural environment have been considered in the District Plan specifically:3. By the development incentive scheme (Policy 3.6 - Incentives, Objective 2.15 - Incentives, (Appendices 3 - Appendix 3.1) which "aims to support those landowners and land developers who are prepared to go 'above and beyond' standard levels of resource management practice in carrying out activities".

3.12 N/A Recommendations on submissions received in relation to the Appendix 3.1 Development Incentive Guidelines and / or Policy 3.6 are deferred to the hearing on plan “Integration” (date to be determined)

N/A

195

Sub. No.







191-35

Landlink Ltd

Appendix 3.1 Development Incentive Guidelines

Seek amendment to widen the range of incentives to include heritage features and neighbourhood level assessment (neighbourhood rating tool or similar), green infrastructure and urban design.


N/A

FS9, FS10, FS41, FS142, FS175 Support As above


191-36

Landlink Ltd


Seek amendment to acieve flexibility in the way credits are achieved..


N/A

FS9, FS10, FS41, FS142, FS175 Support As above

196

Sub. No.






191-37

Landlink Ltd


Seek amendment to clarify whether incentives apply on land with no current development potential.


N/A

FS9, FS10, FS41, FS142, FS175 Support


191-38

Landlink Ltd


Seek amendment to include development incentives that reduce compliance costs rather than increasing yield e.g. change of activity status or reduced car parking requirements.


N/A

FS9, FS10, FS41, FS142, FS175 Support As Above


197

Sub. No.





191-39

Landlink Ltd


Seek amendment to biodiversity incentive to recognise the significance of the feature or improvement to be achieved.


N/A



191-40

Landlink Ltd


Seek amendment to point 6 and 7 of the energy packages to be clear about performance required to be achieved and how this will be measured.


N/A



236 – Kensington Appendix Supports concept of development incentives in Appendix 3.1, but seeks amendment as follows:

3.12 N/A Recommendations on N/A

198

Sub. No.





3 Farm Park Ltd

3.1 Development Incentive Guidelines

-there is no reason why multiple development incentives in combination to make up the required points should not be a valid method of improving the overall sustainability of a site, particularly on a development wide scale where the opportunities for sustainable development are greatest;-the biodiversity incentive should recognise the relative difference in the base assessment when compared to the improved assessment, thereby measuring the improvements which may be possible;-the incentive scheme should also acknowledge and reward schemes which protect historic building or archaeological features where they are not protected by other mechanisms;-the range of energy efficiency measures should be broadened to incorporate ‘on-site no-polluting renewable energy generation, such as solar, wind, geothermal, small-scale or micro hydroelectric, and/or biomass, with production capacity of at least 60% of the projects annual electrical and thermal energy cost (including existing buildings wherepossible)

submissions received in relation to the Appendix 3.1 Development Incentive Guidelines and / or Policy 3.6 are deferred to the hearing on plan “Integration” (date to be determined)

FS Support: None

FS175 Support in Part As Above

FS Oppose: None

199

Sub. No.





250 – 67



Seeks that the application of the incentives guidelines be clarified.


N/A


Support As Above


257 – 3

Julie Drake, Geoffrey Alexander and MC2 Group Ltd


Support the concept of development incentives in Appendix 3.1 with the following amendments:-allow a combination of multiple development incentives to make up the required points as a valid method of improving the overall sustainability of a site.-in the biodiversity incentive, recognise the relative difference in the base assessment to when compared to the new assessment to measure improvements which may be possible.


N/A

200

Sub. No.





-acknowledge and reward schemes that protect historic building, archaeological features where they are not protected by other mechanisms.- broaden energy efficiency measures to incorporate 'onsite non-polluting renewable energy generation, such as solar, wind, geothermal, small-scale or micro hydroelectric, and/or biomass, with production capacity of at least 60% of the projects annual electrical and thermal energy cost (including existing buildings where possible)'.



286 – 10

Waikanae North Ltd


Support the concept of development incentives with the following amendments:- combining multiple development incentives should be a valid method of improving the overall sustainability of a site, particularly on a development wide scale where the opportunities for sustainable development are greatest.- recognise the relative difference in the base assessment when compared to the improved assessment, thereby measuring the improvements which may be possible in the biodiversity incentive- acknowledge and reward schemes which protect historic building or archaeological features where they are not protected by other


N/A

201

Sub. No.





mechanisms- broaden the range of energy efficiency measures to incorporate 'onsite non-polluting renewable energy generation such as solar, wind, geothermal, small-scale or micro hydroelectric, and/or biomass, with production capacity of at least 60% of the projects annual electrical and thermal energy cost (including existing buildings where possible)'.



320 – 29



Support the incentive lot scheme, however note the requirement for net benefit of 2 ha or new native vegetation/wetland is cost prohibitive.


N/A

FS9, FS10, FS142 Support


477 - 4

Kapiti – Mana Forest &

Appendix 3.1 Developmen

Supports the innovative and potentially useful incentive scheme described in Appendix 3.1.

3.12 N/A Recommendations on submissions received in relation to the Appendix

N/A

202

Sub. No.





Bird t Incentive Guidelines

3.1 Development Incentive Guidelines and / or Policy 3.6 are deferred to the hearing on plan “Integration” (date to be determined)


FS229 Oppose As Above

480 – 21



Support Appendix 3.1 – Develop Incentive Guidelines


N/A



232 - 1

Nga Hapu O Otaki

Appendix 3.1 Development Incentive

Support policy 3.6 and Appendix 3.1. 3.12 N/A Recommendations on submissions received in relation to the Appendix 3.1 Development Incentive

N/A

203

Sub. No.





Guidelines Guidelines and / or Policy 3.6 are deferred to the hearing on plan “Integration” (date to be determined)

FS193 Support As Above


319 - 13

Waikanae Christian Holiday Park (El Rancho)

General Natural Environment Policies:3.6

Support Policy 3.6 and Guidelines. 3.12 N/A Recommendations on submissions received in relation to the Appendix 3.1 Development Incentive Guidelines and / or Policy 3.6 are deferred to the hearing on plan “Integration” (date to be determined)

N/A



441 - 11

Greater Wellington Regional Council


Policy 3.6 - Supports intention of policy. Amend to add the words “as in Policy 3.5” after “offsetting”.

3.12 N/A Recommendations on submissions received in relation to the Appendix 3.1 Development Incentive Guidelines and / or Policy

N/A

204

Sub. No.





3.6 are deferred to the hearing on plan “Integration” (date to be determined)



480 - 17



Amend Policy 3.6 in the last line of the first paragraph, change 'having being met' to 'having been met' and amend the reference to 'Development Guideline lines' in Appendix 'XXY'. Y' to include the correct reference.


N/A



Chapter 1, Section 1.4 Definitions

191 – 11

Landlink Ltd

Definitions Modification

Oppose definition of "modification" as this is overly restrictive in relation the trees dripline and seek this definition be amended to be less restrictive.

3.5.3 Reject The definition has been amended by the Urban Tree Variation (UTV) but retains reference to activities under the

No(retain UTV wording)

205

Sub. No.





dripine of a tree. Any consideration of activities that should be permitted or exempted from rules should be made having regard to the rules of the appropriate plan section rather than by amending a broad definition designed to cover activities with consideration of the wider district plan and not just one section. See recommended amendments to Rule 3A.1.5 in section 3.5.4 of this report.

FS9, FS10, FS41, FS142, Support Reject As Above As Above


208 – 8

TranspowerNew Zealand Ltd


Support the definition of Modification and amend by inserting a comma after the word “vegetation”


The definition is amended as a result of the Urban Tree Variation (albeit without inserting

No(retain UTV

206

Sub. No.





the requested comma) but retains its original intent with amendments that improve clarity and the integration between the definitions of trimming and modification

wording)



212 – 2

Quicksilver Definitions Modification

Support definition of 'modification' and retain without amendment


The definition is amended as a result of the Urban Tree Variation but retains its original intent with amendments that improve clarity and the integration between the definitions of trimming and modification.




As Above No(retain UTV wording)


207

Sub. No.





219 – 21

Horticulture New Zealand


Amend the definition of “Modification” of vegetation to add 'and the management of vegetation for horticultural purposes' after 'trimming'.

3.5.3 Reject Horticultural activities are permitted under Chapter 7 of the PDP and the rules in Chapter 3 are specific to indigenous vegetation so do not capture or constrain the modification of exotic vegetation planted in support of agricultural or horticultural activities.


FS9, FS10, FS43 Support Reject As Above As Above


457 - 9

NZ Transport Agency

DefinitionsOff-setting

Add a definition for “off-setting”



208 – 4

TranspowerNew Zealand Ltd

Definitions Trimming

Oppose in part the definition of trimming and amend to add a new clause “4. the removal of branches or vegetation to maintain safe distances from electricity transmission lines."

3.5.3 Reject The definition as amended by the Urban Tree Variation (UTV) appropriately defines the


208

Sub. No.





term ‘trimming’. Ensuring that branches are able to be trimmed to maintain safe distances from electrical lines is more appropriately addressed through the plan rules. See recommendations regarding Rule 3A.1.4 in section 3.5.4.



327 – 6

Waa Rata Estate

DefinitionsTrimming

Amend the definition of 'trimming' to remove unworkable elements in the definition to make it more practical

3.5.3 Accept The amendments to the definition of Trimming as a result of the Urban Tree Variation (UTV) make it workable.


FS1, FS9, FS10, FS33, FS42, FS43, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS61, FS102, FS126, FS139, FS142, FS146

3.5.3 Accept As Above No(retain UTV wording)


383 - Gillian Definitions Submitter agrees with submission from Waa 3.5.3 Accept The amendments to the No

209

Sub. No.





3 Tousoon Trimming Rata. See submission number 327 for detail. definition of Trimming as a result of the Urban Tree Variation (UTV) make it workable.

(retain UTV wording)



Chapter 3 – Specific Submissions on Ecological Sites Schedule 3.1

500-10

Ngatotara Farms Limited and Rod Agar

PDP Maps & Schedule 3.1 Ecological SitesK009, K012

Remove the K009, K012, Sensitive Natural Features, Dominant Dunes, Priority Areas for Restoration, Significant Amenity Landscape notations from the planning maps and Proposed District Plan or, if not removed, amend to be a fairer planning regime around management of the areas.

(Note to submitter: Priority Areas for Restoration have been formally withdrawn from the PDP (October 2014), the term Sensitive Natural Features is recommended to be removed and the rules relating to Significant Amenity Landscapes are recommended to be removed in the s42 report titled ‘Chapter 3 Natural Environment – General, Landscapes and Earthworks’)

3.11 & Appen – dix 3

Reject Ecological Assessment Using RPS Policy 23 Criteria found Cological Sites K009 Lake Waitawa & K012 Ngatotora Lagoon to be significant against all 4 ecological significance criteria. These sites are therefore retained in schedule 3.1 but the boundary of K012 is reduced where it overlaps with K220 at Taylors Rd, Otaki

Yes (K012 bndy)

FS68 Support Reject As Above Yes


210

Sub. No.





492-13

Kennott Trust Company Limited & Kauri Trust

PDP Maps & Schedule 3.1 Ecological SitesK010 & 011

Remove K010 and K011 from the planning maps and Proposed District Plan or, if not removed, amend to be a fairer planning regime around management of the ecological site and other areas.


Reject K010 Waimanguru Lagoon and K011 Rotopotakataka Lake both reviewed with site visit using Policy 23 Criteria both sites found to be ecologically significant .

A minor increase in size toK011 by 0.224 Ha is recommended at landowners request.

No



369-7 & 18


PDP Maps & Schedule 3.1 Ecological SitesK013

Delete ecological site K013 from the Planning Maps and Proposed District Plan. Also delete Sensitive Natural Feature, Priority Areas for Restoration, and Significant Amenity Landscape notations from the Planning Maps and Proposed District Plan.


Reject K013 Pulehou Swamp reviewed with site visit using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant against all 4 ecological significance criteria..

No

211

Sub. No.






No changes to boundaries recommended.

FS9, FS10, FS68 Support Reject As above No


487-2 & 17



Remove K013, Sensitive Natural Features, Priority Areas for Restoration, and Significant Amenity Landscape notations from the planning maps and Proposed District Plan.Remove K013 from the planning maps and Proposed District Plan or, if not removed, amend to be a fairer planning regime around management of the ecological site and other areas.

(Note to submitter: Priority Areas for Restoration have been formally withdrawn from the PDP (October 2014), the term Sensitive Natural Features is recommended to be removed and the rules relating to Significant Amenity Landscapes


Reject K013 Pulehou Swamp reviewed with site visit using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant against all 4 ecological significance criteria..

No changes to boundaries recommended.

No

212

Sub. No.





are recommended to be removed in the s42 report titled ‘Chapter 3 Natural Environment – General, Landscapes and Earthworks’)

FS68, FS125 Support Reject As above No


38 – 25

North Otaki Beach Residents Group Inc


Delete Schedule 3.1 Item K014 as it covers an area that is not within the Council's jurisdiction or revised spatial extent of area.


Reject K014 Waitohu River Mourth reviewed using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant against all 4 ecological significance criteria..

Only very minor changes to boundaries (reduced by 0.001) to align to fence recommended.

No



172-4 Richard Heerdegen & Johanna Rosier

PDP Maps & Schedule 3.1 Ecological

Support the identification of the wetland area to the east of the Waitohu Stream as an ecological site ….


Accept K014 Waitohu River Mourth reviewed using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically

No

213

Sub. No.





SitesK014

(Note the submitter was also concerned about the effects of grazing animals which is addressed in section 3.8.1 of the report.)

significant against all 4 ecological significance criteria

FS68, FS193 Support Accept As above No


458-4 Waitohu Stream Care Group


Supports the identification of the Wetland area to the East of the Waitohu Stream as a significant ecological area.

(Note the submitter was also concerned about the effects of grazing animals which is addressed in section 3.8.1 of the report.)


Accept K014 Waitohu River Mourth reviewed using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant against all 4 ecological significance criteria

No



32-1 Aaron Johnson


Amend Ecological Site K017 boundary and associated policies to east of the Mangaone Walkway, closer to the Tararua Forest Park to release existing scrubland (failed plantation forestry) on submitter's property and others to use for primary production and allow the stream to provide a natural buffer reducing the need to add an additional buffer zone.


Reject K017 Tararua Ranges and Foothills reviewed using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant against all 4 ecological significance criteria.

Some specific minor

No

214

Sub. No.





changes to K017 boundaries recommended in response to other submissions and the Policy 23 review has resulted in K017 being reduced by 137.9ha.




39 – 10 & 13

DF & AE Smith Partnership & Ratanui Farming Partnership


Remove K017 until such time as a proper economic impact report and business case have been prepared and a thorough, evidence-based investigation has taken place, in conjunction with affected landowners, to establish priority areas for inclusion.Exclude from K017 lowland hill margins that are or were recently farmed and exclude the land between Mangaone North Road and Mangaone South Road that is west of the Waikanae River.



Some specific minor changes to K017

No

215

Sub. No.





boundaries recommended in response to other submissions and the Policy 23 review has resulted in K017 being reduced by 137.9ha.

FS9, FS10, FS142, FS146 Support Reject As above No

FS193 Oppose Accept As Above No

54-3 Levack Family Group


Remove part of Ecological Site K017 on the submitter’s land.



Some specific minor changes to K017 boundaries recommended in response to other submissions and the Policy 23 review has resulted in K017 being

No

216

Sub. No.





reduced by 137.9ha.

FS9, FS10, FS54, FS57, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS139, FS142, FS167, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183,FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187



100 – 6, 8, 9 & 11

Egon Guttke


Amend ecological site K017 by reducing its area to only include areas where actual criteria listed in policy 3.11 have been met, or the owner has agreed to their inclusion.Consider excluding private land bounded by Mangaone North Road, Mangaone South and Mangaone walkway.Undertake an economic analysis of the district-wide cost of ecological site K017.Remove ecological site K017 from submitter's property.



Some specific minor changes to K017 boundaries recommended in response to other submissions and the Policy 23 review has resulted in K017 being reduced by 137.9ha.

No

217

Sub. No.





FS1, FS9, FS16, FS32, FS33, FS41, FS42, FS43, FS44, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS93, FS102, FS126, FS139, FS142, FS146, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187


193 Oppose Accept As Above No

102 – 6, 7, 8 & 9

Irena Guttke


Amend ecological site K017 by reducing its area to only include areas where actual criteria listed in policy 3.11 have been met, or the owner has agreed to their inclusion.Remove ecological site K017 from submitter's property.Consider excluding private land bounded by Mangaone North Road, Mangaone South and Mangaone walkway.Undertake an economic analysis of the district-wide cost of ecological site K017.




No

218

Sub. No.








201-1 Joan Barbalich


Oppose the extent of the ecological site KO17 on Map 22D. 3.11 & Appen – dix 3

Reject K017 Tararua Ranges and Foothills was reviewed using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant against all 4 ecological significance criteria.


No

219

Sub. No.







212-12

Quicksilver PDP Maps & Schedule 3.1 Ecological SitesK017

Supports the extent of ecological site K017 on Maps 18D and 20D relating to submitter's property


Accept K017 Tararua Ranges and Foothills has been reviewed using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant against all 4 ecological significance criteria.


No

220

Sub. No.






Support Accept As above No


222-4 Takahe Family Trust


Oppose the extent of the ecological site KO17 on Map 22D.


Reject K017 Tararua Ranges and Foothills has been reviewed using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant against all 4 ecological significance criteria.

Some specific minor changes to K017 boundaries recommended in response to other submissions.

No


221

Sub. No.






224-1, 2, 4 & 8

Malcolm Morris


Oppose 100% of submitter's land being identified as sensitive natural features (either as anecological site, outstanding natural landscape or significant amenity landscape). Amend the sensitive natural features to be restricted to the extent of the Hill Country Eco Domain or removed altogether.Oppose the extent of the ecological site KO17 on Map 22D.





No



222

Sub. No.






226-1, 2, 3, 6 & 7

Isabella Barbalich


Oppose the extent of the ecological site KO17 on Map 22DOppose 100% of submitter's land being included as a sensitive natural feature. Seek to remove these features from mapOppose Sensitive Natural Features on site and amend to be restricted to the extent of Eco-Domain – Hill Country in Map 22D.





No



223

Sub. No.






231-3 & 10

Richard Swan


Amend the boundaries of K017 ecological site to exclude areas of forestry and pasture.Amend Schedule 3.1 to include a full description of the ecological unit and its significant values of K017.


Accept in Part

K017 Tararua Ranges and Foothills has been reviewed using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant against all 4 ecological significance criteria.


Schedule 3.1 is recommended to be amended to the revised schedule in Appendix 5 of the Wildlands Review Report attached as

Yes

224

Sub. No.





Appendix 3 to this Report.


Support

193 Oppose

238-1, 4 & 5

Zoran Barbalich


Oppose the extent of the ecological site KO17 on Map 22D.Oppose 100% of submitter's land being included as a sensitive natural feature. Seek to remove these features from map Oppose Sensitive Natural Features on site and amend to be restricted to the extent of Eco-Domain – Hill Country in Map 22D.

(Note to submitter: Priority Areas for Restoration have been formally withdrawn from the PDP (October 2014), the term Sensitive Natural Features is recommended to be removed and the rules relating to Significant Amenity Landscapes


Reject K017 Tararua Ranges and Foothills has been reviewed (including a site visit to the submitters property) using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant against all 4 ecological significance criteria.

Some specific minor changes to K017 boundaries recommended in response to other

No

225

Sub. No.





are recommended to be removed in the s42 report titled ‘Chapter 3 Natural Environment – General, Landscapes and Earthworks’)

submissions and the Policy 23 review has resulted in K017 being reduced by 137.9ha.




241- 1, 4 & -5

Antony David Grenfell


Oppose the extent of the ecological site K017 on Map 22DOppose 100% of submitter's land being included as a sensitive natural feature. Seek to remove these features from map Oppose Sensitive Natural Features on site and amend to be restricted to the extent of Eco-Domain – Hill Country in Map 22D.

(Note to submitter: Priority Areas for Restoration have been formally withdrawn from the PDP (October 2014), the term Sensitive Natural Features is recommended to be removed and the



Some specific minor changes to K017 boundaries recommended in response to other submissions and the

No

226

Sub. No.





rules relating to Significant Amenity Landscapes are recommended to be removed in the s42 report titled ‘Chapter 3 Natural Environment – General, Landscapes and Earthworks’)

Policy 23 review has resulted in K017 being reduced by 137.9ha.




251-15

Margaret Niven


Amend the ecological sites from the submitter’s land to remove the extensions and additions proposed


Accept in Part

K017 Tararua Ranges and Foothills has been reviewed (including a site visit to the submitters property) using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant against all 4 ecological significance criteria.

The site boundary of the submitters property is recommended to be realigned to exclude

Yes

227

Sub. No.





0.87ha of exotic trees.Further to this changes to recommended in response to other submissions and the Policy 23 review has resulted in K017 being reduced by 137.9ha.



As Above Yes


258-4 & -5

Peter Adlam


Amend schedule 3.1 to recognise KO17 as a large intact area that is well connected through existing linkages to ecological sites and riparian margins and describe the ecological unit and its significant values. Amend the boundaries of KO17 based on consultation with effected land owners.


Accept in Part

K017 Tararua Ranges and Foothills has been reviewed (including site visits and consultation with those landowners visited) using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant against all 4 ecological

Yes

228

Sub. No.





significance criteria.K017 and its values are described in the recommended replacement schedule 3.1 in Appendix 5 of the Wildlands Report (attached as Appendix 3).Some amendments to the boundaries of K017 have been recommended following the review resulting its area being reduced by 137.9ha.



As above Yes


As above Yes

260-1, 4 & 5

Hendrik Timmer

PDP Maps & Schedule

Oppose the extent of the ecological site K017 on Map 22D.

3.11 & Appen

Reject K017 Tararua Ranges and Foothills has been

No

229

Sub. No.





3.1 Ecological SitesK017

Oppose 100% of submitter's land being included as a sensitive natural feature. Seek to remove these features from mapOppose Sensitive Natural Features on site and amend to be restricted to the extent of Eco-Domain – Hill Country in Map 22D.


– dix 3 reviewed using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant against all 4 ecological significance criteria.




FS Oppose: None Accept As above No

270-1, 4 & 5

Antipodes NZ Ltd

PDP Maps & Schedule

Oppose the extent of the ecological site KO17 on Map 22D.

3.11 & Appen


No

230

Sub. No.






Oppose 100% of submitter's land being included as a sensitive natural feature. Seek to remove these features from mapOppose Sensitive Natural Features on site and amend to be restricted to the extent of Eco-Domain – Hill Country in Map 22D.







271-31

Lyndon Enterprise

PDP Maps & Schedule

Remove the proposed ecological site K017 over the back part of the submitter's forestry block.

3.11 & Appen


No

231

Sub. No.





s Ltd 3.1 Ecological SitesK017






273-1, 2 & 5

Steven Brohashire

PDP Maps & Schedule

Oppose 100% of submitter's land being identified as sensitive natural features (either as an

3.11 & Appen


No

232

Sub. No.






ecological site, outstanding natural landscape or significant amenity landscape).Amend the sensitive natural features to be restricted to the extent of the Hill Country Eco Domain or removed altogether.Contest the extent of the existing native bush line as shown on Map 22D for K017, on the grounds that it includes a large area of vegetation which is predominantly gorse and not native bush.

(Note to submitter: The term Sensitive Natural Features is recommended to be removed and the rules relating to Significant Amenity Landscapes are recommended to be removed in the s42 report titled ‘Chapter 3 Natural Environment – General, Landscapes and Earthworks’)






278-1, 2 & 5

Paul Perniskie

PDP Maps & Schedule

Oppose 100% of submitter's land being identified as sensitive natural features (either as an

3.11 & Appen


No

233

Sub. No.






ecological site, outstanding natural landscape or significant amenity landscape).Amend the sensitive natural features to be restricted to the extent of the Hill Country Eco Domain or removed altogether.Contest the extent of the existing native bush line as shown on Map 22D for K017, on the grounds that it includes a large area of vegetation which is predominantly gorse and not native bush.

(Note to submitter: The term Sensitive Natural Features is recommended to be removed and the rules relating to Significant Amenity Landscapes are recommended to be removed in the s42 report titled ‘Chapter 3 Natural Environment – General, Landscapes and Earthworks’)






320-6, 10, 12

Carter Family of

PDP Maps & Schedule

Oppose the new generic layer sensitive natural features and in particular the inclusion of K017

3.11 & Appen


No

234

Sub. No.





& 13 Reikorangi 3.1 Ecological SitesK017

where it covers the submitter’s land.Oppose the extent of ecological site K017 over the submitter’s land.The area of bush (approx. 40 ha) located at the end of Cattle Ridge should be included in ecological site K017. The small fingers of regenerating bush that extends along the edges of the gullies on the submitter’s land and identified in the operative District Plan as part of E17 should be defined as a separate ecological site.





193 Oppose Accept As above No

327-42, 44

Waa Rata Estate

PDP Maps & Schedule

Amend Schedule 3.1 text for K017 under heading 'Description/ Significance/ Dominant Habitat or

3.11 & Appen

Accept in K017 Tararua Ranges and Foothills has been

Yes

235

Sub. No.





& 45 3.1 Ecological SitesK017

Vegetation' to state: “... Its intact large scale distinguishes it from remnant areas elsewhere in the district because it makes up over half the district's land area. It includes 98% of the hill country eco-domain and 35% of the lowland hills ecodomain.

K017 includes existing linkages to Hemi Matenga Reserve, the Otaki River and reserves, Mangaone Stream, and Ngatiawa Stream and adjoining reserves.” In addition to the above amendment, a full description of the ecological unit and its significant values should be developed, in consultation with affected landowners.

Amend the boundaries of ecological site K017 on land at Terrace Road on planning map 20D as indicated on the map in the submission.

– dix 3 Part reviewed (including a visit to the submitters site) using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant against all 4 ecological significance criteria.

Some alignment changes to match fences on submitters property. Also minor changes to K017 boundaries recommended in response to other submissions and the Policy 23 review has resulted in K017 being reduced by 137.9ha.



As above Yes

236

Sub. No.





FS185, FS186, FS187, FS193


383-11 & -5

Gillian Tousoon


Submitter agrees with submission from Waa Rata. See submission number 327 for detail.

Accept in Part

As above for submission 327-42, 44 & 45

Yes


Support: None Accept in Part

As above for submission 327-42, 44 & 45

Yes


409-1 The Deborah Charitable Trust


Amend the boundary of Ecological site K017 on the submitter's property to enable a building site south of the Pukeatua Stream at the site of a previous dwelling. This will require an area of approximately 20x50m to be excluded from the ecological site and to allow for a track from the house site to the top of the hill where a hut is intended to be built and provision for other



No

237

Sub. No.





temporary huts on flatter parts of the site.See map in submission for areas requested to be removed from ecological site.




426-12

Joanna Richmond


Remove the priority areas for restoration and ecological site K017 from the submitter's land.

(Note to submitter: Priority Areas for Restoration have been formally withdrawn from the PDP (October 2014).


Accept in Part

K017 Tararua Ranges and Foothills has been reviewed (including a visit to the submitters site) using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant against all 4 ecological significance criteria.

Recommend excluding 3.54ha of access tracks and linked areas of

Yes

238

Sub. No.





pasture grassland on submitters property. Also minor changes to K017 boundaries recommended in response to other submissions and the Policy 23 review has resulted in K017 being reduced by 137.9ha.


As above Yes

FS Oppose: None

443-4 Allan A Smith


Oppose the mapping for the K017 ecological site boundaries on the submitter’s property, and amend to remove the ecological site from the submitter’s land.


Accept in Part

K017 Tararua Ranges and Foothills has been reviewed (including a visit to the submitters site) using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant against all 4 ecological significance criteria.

Recommend excluding 1.13ha of shrub and

Yes

239

Sub. No.





exotic tree land from K017 outlier and additional boundary adjustments resulting in a further reduction of 0.52ha. Also minor changes to K017 boundaries recommended in response to other submissions and the Policy 23 review has resulted in K017 being reduced by 137.9ha.



As above Yes

193 Oppose

385-2 Margaret Smith

PDP Maps & Schedule 3.1

385-2 Submitter supports the submission from A A Smith. See submission 443 for detail.

3.11 & Appen

Accept in Part

As above for submission 443 – 4

Yes

240

Sub. No.





Ecological SitesK017

– dix 3



428-1 Robyn Bowry


Ecological overlay currently listed on submitter's property to be uplifted and not apply to my property.Proposed rules to be amended to allow for the topping of identified trees for the purposes of health, safety, sunlight and reasonable expected views and utilities etc.


Reject K018 Castlehill Farm Bush has been reviewed (including a visit to the submitters site) using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant against all 4 ecological significance criteria. No changes to the K018 boundaries are recommended.

No



251 - Margaret Niven

PDP Maps & Schedule 3.1 Ecological Sites

Amend the ecological sites from the submitter’s land to remove the extensions and additions proposed.


Accept in Part

K025 Rahui Rd Bush C has been reviewed (including a visit to the submitters site) using Policy 23 Criteria and

Yes

241

Sub. No.





K025 found to be ecologically significant against all 4 ecological significance criteria. Changes to the K025 boundaries are recommended to exclude non-indigenous vegetation and to align with property boundary resulting in a reduction of 0.853ha.


Accept in Part

As Above Yes


251-14

Margaret Niven


Amend ecological site K026 so it has the same extent as the operative District Plan.


Accept in Part

K026 Rahui Rd Bush B has been reviewed (including a visit to the submitters site) using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically

Yes

242

Sub. No.





K026 significant. Changes to the K026 boundaries are recommended to exclude 0.256ha of exotic trees.


Accept in Part

As Above Yes


426 Joanna Richmond


Review requested. 3.11 & Appen – dix 3

Reject K051 Hautere Bush A has been reviewed (including a visit to the submitters site) using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant. No Changes are recommended.

No



426 Joanna PDP Maps & Review Requested 3.11 & Accept in K052 Hautere Bush B Yes

243

Sub. No.





Richmond Schedule 3.1 Ecological SitesK052

Appen – dix 3

Part has been reviewed (including a visit to the submitters site) using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant. Changes to the K026 boundaries are recommended to exclude 0.091ha to align with existing fence.



275 Ian Jensen PDP Maps & Schedule 3.1 Ecological SitesK055

Expanded ecological sites would effectively sever the property, this is an impractical solution.


Accept in Part

K055 Te Hapua Rd Swamp A has been reviewed (including a visit to the submitters site) using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be significant for all 4 ecological criteria. Changes to the K055 boundaries are recommended to exclude 0.402ha to align with

Yes

244

Sub. No.





existing fence.



263-37

Maypole Environmental Ltd


Delete the following from Map series 6, 7 and 9 (and any associated references in the Proposed District Plan), insofar as they are not identified in the existing District Plan:c) Outstanding Natural Landscapes Overlay;d) Ecological Sites Overlays; e) Dominant ridgelines and Dominant Dunes;f) Priority Areas for Restoration Overlay;g) Stream Corridor Areas;h) Storage Areas; andi) Ponding Areas. As they relate to the areas in the Ngarara Zone and/or Ngarara Precinct (G.P.5).


Reject K066 Te Harakeke Swamp has been reviewed using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be significant for all 4 ecological criteria and is therefore recommended to be retained.A minor change to the K066 boundary is recommended to correct an overlap with K236 (a new ecological site).

No




PDP Maps & Schedule 3.1 Ecological

Delete ecological site currently listed on submitter's property, as it is a block of Eucalypts planted in 1992 for firewood.


Accept K080 Ngatiawa Road Bush was left off planning maps but listed in schedule 3.1. Most of the ecological site is on

Yes

245

Sub. No.





SitesK080

KCDC land but a portion is on the submitters property. Given this mapping error the site is recommended to be deleted.

FS9, FS10, FS142, FS167 Support Accept As above Yes


372-21

Michael and Elizabeth Welch


Remove various overlays from Planning Maps as they relate to and affect submitter's land (including Ecological Site K091).


Reject K091’Nikau Forest’ has been reviewed using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant.

No changes are recommended to the boundary as a result of the review.

No

FS Support: None

FS Oppose: None

334-1 Kapiti Architectural Design


Remove the ecological site from the majority of the subject properties on Karu Crescent (see submission for details). Amend to allow the ecological site to be offset from the Western and


Accept in Part

K124 Karu Reserve has been reviewed (including a visit to the site) using

Yes

246

Sub. No.





Limited on behalf of J Wakeham


Southern boundaries of the subject properties on Karu Crescent, and the Southern boundary, by no more than 0.5 metres (Please see plan attached in submission).Amend the associated provisions (see below) to ensure the subject vegetation in not restricted from development as proposed. - Rule 3A 2.3: Buildings and earthworks on sites containing an ecological site - Schedule 3.1: 'Ecological Sites', Specifically K124 'Karu Reserve' which aims to protect Kohekohe and Karaka forest. Located on Proposed District Plan Maps 10A and 10B.

Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant. Changes to the K124 boundaries are recommended to exclude 0.081ha of non-local or exotic trees.See the s42A Urban Tree Variation report in regards to 3A.2.3.


As above Yes


FS135

Alan & Ann Parsonage


Support submission 250 Federated Farmers on ecological sites generally – Need for consultation and ground testing (further submission seeks of K133 in particular).


Accept in Part

K133 Ngā Manu Sanctuary has been reviewed (including a visit to the site) using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be significant under all 4 ecological criteria. Changes to the K133 boundaries are recommended to align with property boundaries

Yes

247

Sub. No.





resulting in the removal of 0.042ha.



480-20



Amend Ref: K145 (P3-56) to correct the spelling re: Statue of “Our Lady of Lourdes”


Accept The existing reference to K145 is ‘Lady of Loudes Statue Hill’, although not picked up in the recommended new Schedule 3.1 in the Wildlands Report in Appendix 3, I recommend that the minor change to the title of K145 be accepted so that it is amended to ‘K145 Our Lady of Lourdes Statue Hill’.

Yes



256-1 Timothy John O'Connor


Remove ecological site K185 from the submitter's property in Waikanae


Accept As ‘Nimmo Avenue West Forest’ was not sufficiently referenced

Yes

248

Sub. No.






(Note: the ecological site that the submitter is referring to is not K185 ‘South Waikawa Beach Dune Lake’ as referenced in Schedule 3.1. The submitter is referring to ‘Nimmo Avenue West Forest’ . There has been an error which resulted in Nimmo Avenue West Forest’ being mapped as K185 and not referenced in Schedule 3.1)

and mapped in the PDP its deletion is recommended from map 10D.


FS193 Oppose Reject As above Yes

321-1, 2 & 3

Robin & Feriel Falconer


Object to the proposed ecological site over Leybourne Avenue, Waikanae as shown as K185 on Proposed District Plan map 10D. Remove from the Proposed District Plan.

(Note: the ecological site that the submitter is referring to is not K185 ‘South Waikawa Beach Dune Lake’ as referenced in Schedule 3.1. The submitter is referring to ‘Nimmo Avenue West Forest’ . There has been an error which resulted in Nimmo Avenue West Forest’ being mapped as K185 and not referenced in Schedule 3.1)


Accept As ‘Nimmo Avenue West Forest’ was not sufficiently referenced and mapped in the PDP its deletion is recommended from map 10D.

Yes



440-89

Kāpiti Coast

PDP Maps & Schedule

Remove ecological site mapped as K185 shown on 21 Leybourne Ave, Waikanae from proposed

3.11 & Appen

Accept As ‘Nimmo Avenue West Forest’ was not

Yes

249

Sub. No.





District Council


District Plan map 10D as this was added in error and is not listed in schedule 3.1.

– dix 3 sufficiently referenced and mapped in the PDP its deletion is recommended from map 10D.



007 –1

Bruce Manners


Delete ecological site K197 and priority areas for restoration over proposed Lot 4 of recently subdivided 90 Paetawa Road, Peka Peka.

(Note to submitter: Priority Areas for Restoration have been formally withdrawn from the PDP (October 2014))


Accept in Part

K197 Paetawa Road, Peka Peka has been reviewed (including a visit to the site) using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant. Changes to the K197 boundaries are recommended to align them with remaining indigenous vegetation resulting in the removal of 0.088ha.

Yes



As above Yes

250

Sub. No.







As above Yes

426 Joanna Richmond


Review of sites on property requested. 3.11 & Appen – dix 3

Accept in Part

K198 Best Road, Te Horo has been reviewed (including a visit to the submitters site) using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant. Changes to the K198 boundaries are recommended to exclude 0.023ha to align with property boundary.

Yes



426 Joanna Richmond



Accept in Part

K199 Hautere Cross Road, Te Horo has been reviewed (including a visit to the submitters site) using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be

Yes

251

Sub. No.





K199 ecologically significant. Changes to the K199 boundaries are recommended to exclude 0.330ha of recently harvested pine forest.



44-2 MY & SA Blackburne

PDP Maps & Schedule 3.1 Ecological SitesK198, K199, K202, K203, K204 & K205

Remove K198, K199, K202, K203, K204 and K205 from submitter's property.


Reject K198 Best Road, Te Horo; K199 & K202 Hautere Cross Road, Te Horo; and K203, K204, & K205 Blackburne Road / Hautere Cross Road, Te Horo ; have all been reviewed using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant.

Some specific minor changes to the K198, K199, K202, K203, K204 & K205 boundaries have been recommended in response to other

No

252

Sub. No.





submissions and the Policy 23 review has resulted in these five ecological sites being reduced by between 0.023 and 2.933 hectares..


FS193 Oppose Accept As above No

426 Joanna Richmond



Reject K200 Hautere Cross Road, Te Horo has been reviewed (including a visit to the submitters site) using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant. No changes are recommended.

No



426 Joanna Richmond



Accept in Part

K202 Hautere Cross Road, Te Horo has been reviewed (including a visit

Yes

253

Sub. No.






to the submitters site) using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant. Changes to the K202 boundaries are recommended to exclude 0.844ha of indigenous tree land over pasture.



426 Joanna Richmond



Accept in Part

K203 Blackburne Road / Hautere Cross Road, Te Horo has been reviewed (including a visit to the submitters site) using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant. Changes to the K203 boundaries are recommended to exclude 0.451ha of pasture grassland.

Yes


254

Sub. No.






426 Joanna Richmond



Accept in Part

K204 Blackburne Road / Hautere Cross Road, Te Horo has been reviewed (including a visit to the submitters site) using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant. Changes to the K204 boundaries are recommended to exclude 0.278ha of early succession vegetation.

Yes



426 Joanna Richmond



Accept in Part

K205 Blackburne Road / Hautere Cross Road, Te Horo has been reviewed (including a visit to the submitters site) using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant. Changes to the K205 boundaries are

Yes

255

Sub. No.





recommended to exclude 2.933ha of early succession vegetation and shrubland.



380-30

Barry, Suzanne and Timothy Mansell

PDP Maps & Schedule 3.1 Ecological SitesK206 & K207

Delete various overlays from the Planning Maps as they relate to and affect the submitter's land, and in the alternative make amendments to the Proposed Plan provisions to reflect its submissions.


Reject Ecological Sites K206 & K207 Ōtaki George Road, Ōtaki have been reviewed using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant. These ecological sites are recommended to be retained without amendment.

No

FS9, FS10, FS142, FS178 Support

FS Oppose: None

006 –1

Kim Crysell


Amend the northern boundary of ecological site K212 at 56 County Road, Otaki as per the attached letter and map.


Accept in Part

K212 County Road Escarpment Forest has been reviewed (including a visit to the submitters site) using Policy 23

Yes

256

Sub. No.





K212 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant. Changes to the K212 boundaries are recommended to exclude 0.04ha of non-local and exotic vegetation, with 0.06ha of additional indigenous vegetation added at the landowner’s request.



As above Yes

420-1 David Hedger for Hedger Green - house Ltd.


Do not consider that the district plan and ecological site K212 has been fairly handled by the KCDC.


Accept in Part

K212 County Road Escarpment Forest has been reviewed (including a visit to the submitters site) using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant. Changes to the K212 boundaries are recommended as a result to exclude 0.01ha

Yes

257

Sub. No.





of non-local and exotic vegetation.



428-1 & 3

Robyn Bowry


Remove the ecological site identified on the submitter's land.


Reject K212 County Road Escarpment Forest has been reviewed (including a visit to the submitters site) using Policy 23 Criteria and found to be ecologically significant. No changes to that part of K212 within the submitter’s site are recommended.

No



451-47, -48 & -49



Support ecological site K231 with the following amendments.Amend Schedule 3.1 on pages 3-74 and 3-75 as follows:

- change the ‘Name’ column for K231 should to "Te Horo Beach Gravel Dune" or something


Accept In part

An amended Schedule 3.1 is recommended in the Wildlands Review of Ecological Sites Report attached as Appendix 3. This amended Schedule

Yes

258

Sub. No.





similar to convey the gravel nature of the feature; - change the ‘Location’ column to "Rodney Avenue and Sims Road, Te Horo"; - change the ‘Description/Significance/Dominant Habitat or Vegetation’ column to omit the historical information and focus on the ecological information, including information in the Wildlands report. Such wording should include reference to the following (or similar): "This 4.5 km gravel beach (dunes) is the only example of its kind in the Foxton Ecological District. Gravel beaches (dunes) are naturally rare ecosystems and are endangered. Invasion by weeds and loss of indigenous vegetation cover are problems."; and- the ‘Significance’ column is blank and should be completed based on information in the Wildlands report.

In relation to Map 04D, seek the removal of notation K231 from private property (including Rodney Ave) and from the Mangaone Stream.

3.1 addresses most of the changes requested by the submitter. These changes include an additional column titled ‘Habitat Type’ which describes K231 as “Gravel beach and dune approx. 4.5km long…”The Location column reference is changed to “Rodney Avenue and Sims Road, Te Horo” as requested.The description column is also amended to provide a full explanation of the ecological significance of the site.The description column is populated to record whether the site is assessed as being significant against each of the RPS 23 criteria.

259

Sub. No.





A minor adjustment of the boundary is also recommended to prevent overlap with K027.



As above Yes


As above Yes

494-7 & 9

Millhaven Limited


Remove K234 from the planning maps and Proposed District Plan or, if not removed, amend to be a fairer planning regime around management of the ecological site.(Note: the ecological site that the submitter is referring to is not K234 ‘Te Hapua Road Forest’ as there was a double up in Schedule 3.1 with 2x K234 listed and mapped. The site that the submitter is concerned with is ‘Marycrest’. )


Accept in Part

K234 Marycrest is recommended to be renumbered ‘K235’. It has been assessed as being ecologically significant against the RPS Policy 23 criteria so is recommended to be retained as an ecological site. It is noted that the 20m buffer area referred to in the PDP rules has been recommended to be deleted from the Plan, in this way the submission

Yes

260

Sub. No.





is accepted in part.


As above Yes

193 Oppose Accept in Part

As above Yes

440-42

Kāpiti Coast District Council

PDP Maps & Schedule 3.1 Ecological SitesK234, K235

Amend Schedule 3.1 [P.3-76] to change the identification number in the table for the Marycrest ecological site from K234 to K235.


Accept K234 Marycrest is recommended to be renumbered ‘K235’. It has been assessed as being ecologically significant against the RPS Policy 23 criteria so is recommended to be retained as an ecological site.

Yes



145-1, 2

Ian Corder PDP Maps & Schedule 3.1 Ecological SitesK236

Amend Schedule 3.1 to add the Pharazyn Reserve ponds and the Black Drain as ecological sites.


Accept The Pharazyn Reserve has been assessed as being ecologically significant under the criteria in RPS Policy 23. It is recommended to be

Yes

261

Sub. No.





added to Schedule 3.1 as K236. This ecological site is all located on KCDC land.

FS193 Support Accept As above Yes


92-156

Winstone Aggregates

PDP Maps & Schedule 3.1 Ecological SitesMaps – Map 10D

Amend Map 10D to delete the dominant ridgelines and dominant dunes", "Outstanding Natural Landscapes", "Ecological Sites", "Priority area for restoration" annotations within the Waikanae Quarry site at 15 Reikorangi Road (Lot 1 Deposited Plan 26401).


Accept in Part

The submitter seeks the removal of Ecological Sites within the Waikanae Quarry site at 15 Reikorangi Road. Inspection of the maps reveals that there is no ecological site within that property. The adjacent property to the north east includes K062 ‘Hemi Matenga Forest’ but that ecological site does not cross the boundary onto the submitters property. It is also noted that the 20m buffer area applying to ecological sites in the PDP has been

Yes

262

Sub. No.





recommended to be removed.



139-2 Raumati South Residents Association

PDP Maps & Schedule 3.1 Ecological SitesRequest for New Site

Amend Schedule 3.1 to include Raumati Manuka Wetland for reasons set out in the submission


Reject K131 Raumata South Preatlands and K184 Poplar Avenue Wetland have been reassessed as being significant against the RPS Policy 23 criteria. No additional wetlands of ecological site significance have however been identified in this area.

No

FS193 Support

FS Oppose: None

269-2 Derek Schulz

PDP Maps & Schedule 3.1 Ecological SitesRequest for

Seek to amend the District Plan to include the Wharemauku Dune Lake as an ecological site in the District Plan and protect the site from the Kapiti expressway.


Reject This area is already designated for the Western Link Road.

No

263

Sub. No.





New Site

FS193 Support N/A N/A N/A


250-17



Submission seeks a number of amendments to the provisions relating to Ecological Sites, including:-That robust and objective criteria are used to

identify sites as Ecological Sites, and-That ground-truthing is used to confirm that sites

that meet criteria are truly significant on the ground, and

-That Ecological Sites are mapped and descriptions are given of the attributes of the sites, and

-That landowners of properties that have an Ecological Site are written to and informed of the classification of their site, and invited to participate in the consultation process, and

-That a new policy be included in the District Plan that recognises and encourages voluntary actions to maintain and enhance indigenous vegetation.


Accept in Part

These submission points have generally been responded through via the submitter engagement process involving the ‘Pilot Group Study’, the development of the new Policy 3.11 criteria for the identification of ecological sites in accordance with RPS Policy 23, an open day allowing submitters to talk to the ecologists and seek an on site reassessment of their ecological sites. A detailed description of the processes involved is provided in the Willdlands Report attached as

Yes

264

Sub. No.





Appendix 3.

FS1, FS9, FS10, FS16, FS29, FS33, FS42, FS54, FS57, FS58, FS59, FS60, FS61, FS68, FS93, FS102, FS125, FS126, FS135, FS139, FS142, FS167, FS178, FS179, FS180, FS181, FS183, FS184, FS185, FS186, FS187, FS191, FS199


As Above Yes

FS193, FS197, Oppose Accept in Part

As Above Yes

265

web viewtable 5 for chapter 03: ecology and biodiversity related provisions. please note that...

Documents