HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0349.904 2006-2008
Resolution 169-07 Page 1 of 1
Swallow, Linda
From: Chris Haley (Finegand) [c.haley@ppcs.co.nz]
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 12:47 PM
To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us
Subject: Resolution 169-07
Attachments: Potato Point.pdf; Potato Point Decision.pdf
T0: Council Members Higa, Hoffman, Ikeda, Yagong, Yoshimotow
I have previously written to voice my support of Resolution 169-07. I also wrote previously to
say thank you for overwhelmingly supporting this resolution after your first vote. I strongly
believe that this area requires preservation not only for the local community but for everyone.
If capturing the tourist market is a major goal of the council, wouldn't preserving this sacred
site coupled with Eco-tourism be more beneficial than just another set of condos and resorts? If
you have a long look at the islands of Hawaii, too often what you find are resorts and condos.
What about offering a different kind of tourism, one not as prevalent on the islands? Would this
not create a niche? One, which operated properly, and tied in with the local community could
capitalize on a market that is unique at the present time. As more and more people become
conscientious of the environment, there is an ever increasing demand for tourism which is
beneficial to the land and local communities instead of the same old resort and hotel environment
which is present all over the globe.
Other communities have said no to development taking place for the sake of taking place.
Preservation is more important now than ever with the slew of other global problems facing us. I
have attached a newspaper article and a judge's decision to this email, displaying how one
community and local body has said no in the hope of giving you inspiration to do the same. Though
this development is small in nature to the one proposed at Punalu'u, please read these
attachments. I implore you to re-consider your latest vote and return to supporting Resolution
169-07 not just for me, or for those who support preservation like me, but for everyone in the
future, so that they too will get a chance to see this area as it was meant to be seen. Thank you
for your time.
Chris Haley
Environmental Engineer
PPCS Limited
Tel: 64 3 418 O1S0
Mobile: 64 21 070 5823
email: c.haley@ppcs.co.nz
«Potato Point.pdf» «Potato Point Decision.pdf»
Comm. No. ~ 7 ~ '
Ref. Ta.'_2'.
Ref. Date , AU~z
8/20/2007
' ,:1.' d~ d•Wd 7Sd° q~N pm ..m,q moo
~Y o~"o~md '~y.um. yda aq°
w aui ~F+...~a, cmiq''a= ;;vm Q~d
m u h--a~:a % a ~ m~
vo .n °a6 ~~.'C..~~~'oo•a3w°a a~od
• ~ ' t` o. O ti ~SpQ C~yy'O yO d~wR p~pbw~~O~pay b~~R"
~ auioaF,°1q~::q~~.y~z~~i.]Cby~~"o$agi
r. ~o 'Cum 3P+~idd0 m3w° m'Cfa um~
rW-i ~ e>~ ~dGWq O.o O'~C,>r "Nti Gdo
ao~°.d bo'~goaWi aA1 .QF~
m d
3 qa m,u,yoa~°i~°v qm6
s d o~.~~ .CCann^,Wa'a Wxm
a ~Wv•~o~ga~a~~ QafLy '~Gm
a
~`°'~3-''~'q„~ceoR83'o~oa you...
'~S °'a «~aam..yc«,o.s.3W tia
~w d3' '~+..a~;;acaaucamo~v~o
0
c~ $umiU6~3~3 pqy~. ~ao.c~a~q
..O C° 'p .'P~ and ya m'ou ~m
i mb .a•~v~y•yy~5.~o0'6 bh~7 a~
V1 'r a8°v°'0'vm3vq3~p{„aWi°y(y.3~5vc'~r~~.`~aapi
' ~GNoWyYmy,y c~~'pf.i.Y.>~1.~.g5~R~+~..~aV
O m y.C.ia A Oaf y O 0 vy~ F.C I-~.17'O F aaW+
~r^~ is yc°,~°~c°i3.ax~~a°~~nc°~FuE'a~3a~i
V1
-v w p, ~s"'!U'C a d h a .,rw a ~ a, ay a~ o d ~~'o
•p~. ~d~ ~'~d.°o~ g.a3:y iamw°~ ~~~,'rS'~'gR .~ywo~
O O" ~.j W> 8 yy o A.°~=,mg " d ° ar «.e a m Q$ o H >,'Q^Q u~
aqi °:'.s•o•- v m">:'d ~ b m °.3'~m pm q?" a~.WG ua'° a d~d-i
~~'3m~gmr~ o ~am~vo y Wr..CWp."~.. ~ w'Gay•'^~;; a'~a~~
`°p AO~u.«4~ o~ f0~gom,. cmi. ~~„3 W:7~y"d mma. m'O _~~o.~m~
° b~.ai ~.C `a,{''C~~~~,C>~-y ~ aye 'C e~ 3'a'~~d m mUy~a'
~~.2oa a~ dgd u°~~a'~ ~°'E„'w~'SG`"o °o°~3p•~u,~o'gn 3q~iwo
" bNUO' wmo-]~ _q >.'O. p. S r 'O m q .~u
' s q.a U ~ q ~ ~ ^m N ~ v'>.lp0 q'~~ Q 7" d ¢7 m b 7 O m'C o F7'O
~'o'st°g'+°~'u+,•°-;> amaaoama t''uR°'.3a•°~a oam~i mm~ oQ,. F'
= W aa~w Q.$ „N~o°u a~i~,c ~~ov°,,c ~~~°p~A"ai~UE"38~i ~OCCmi ,mq °F
y!u p0 aim ya u ~y m',q bDU oau Oy O'~yq W W...
~~ji 7~~ G 3 A N a1 ~
P+oo >a~iFm'.Qq°,c~~a~~a~x~mF~°dQ~a~ot~Fa~a~gp,,,T,F~`~°i~.ly'm~i
- sayt . QiR+~.Cf{7R,1. RY+!° ~'le~~~i•~,a8 3~ 'A~~'F4 ~
~ 2 Y;e w x s•i,xb s-i;t E•4 a3t,d £ %..7,d 5 C,a,n -.,F.dk~'~e=$,d,dr „~~~+k"r „s°.ti ..~..'°-~.{~.t.... yN''wF~S,?'~.a a ~~n i~
Decision No. C 9'8 /2007
IN THE MATTER of the Resource Managernent Act 1991 (the
Act)
AND
IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to section ! 20 of the Act
BETWEEN BLUESICIN PROJECTS LIMITED
(ENV C 292/05)
Appellant
AND DUNEDIN CTTY COUNCIL
Respondent
BEFORE TI3E ENVIRONMENT COURT
Environment Jttdge J A Smith (presiding)
Environment Commissioner S J Watson
Envirotment Commissioner C E Manning
Hearing at Dunedin on 30 April to 3 May 2007
Appearances
Dr R J Somerville QC for Blueskin Projects Limited (Blueskin)
Mr M R Gazbett and Ms P Jones for the Dunedin City Councit (the City Council)
Mr N S Mazquet for Purakaunui Residents' Group (the Residents' Group)
DECISION
Lrtroductiou ,
[l) Blueskin seek a resource consent to construct two residential homes on Potato'
~~SEAL OFTyF point on the coast some 16 kilometres north-east of Dunedin, between Long Beach and
C
' Purakaunui Estuary inlet.
4p ' t~
~ a.'.ty4-
m Ff'?~!}yT ~
1\ 4+.
l~ ` ~v jjJ, r,~ J
? ~
z
[2] The original application sought a subdivision of the property. [f granted this
would have petnritted the construction of the houses as a controlled activity. However,
Blueskin have now widertaken a boundary adjustment, creating sections 41 and 42, with
section 42 having been sold to a third party.
[3j Accordingly, it is now their intention to construct two houses on tfie one title,
section 41, and they therefore seek to amend the application from subdivision to consent
for the construction of two residences on the same title. Annexed hereto and mazked
"A" is a copy of the updated plan showing section 41 as uow proposed, with the
approximate position of the two houses shown as A and B.
Issues
[4] Issues arise as to whether or not this change is within jurisdiction. If so, it is
agreed that the application is for a restricted discretionary activity, with the relevant
criteria being set out in section 14.6.3(b)(ii) and the relevant assessment criteria from
section 14.7.
[5] In respect of the visual impact arising a corollary issue is whether or not the
planting proposed by the appellant mitigates the visual impact arising or is alternative
compensatory or mitigatory works.
[6] Li the course of the hearing it also became clear that the applicant intends to
remove a number of senescent indigenous trees to construct the house in the azea
identi5ed as B. This may, in fact, require a further consent from the Council, depending
on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Plan.
The setting
[7] Potato Point is a well rounded headland crowned with remnant bush. While its
l~~~gEnt o`TyF western slopes were historically subdivided as part of the township and Purakaunui.
f~' he balance of Potato Point has been managed as part of a farm unit for some time. On
m
9 ~ ~w~ ~
nF 'i ~.:vd
T^
3
its western side is the Purakaunui Inlet, and nestled at the foot of Potato Point is the
small settlement of Purakaunui set amongst regenerated native vegetation. The two sites
in question camtot be seen frotn the village due to the steep topography. The headland
itself, however, provides good views to sea, towards Warrington in the west and wider
views of the coastal azea aztd inland ridges to the east. Potato Point is exposed and
wind-swept and, we accept, experiences drought conditions, particularly during the
summer months.
[8J Photographs and plans of the area over flte last hundred years or so demonstrate
that there was been a gradual reduction in the remnant indigenous vegetation on Potato
Point. Much of the remnant vegetation is accessible, at least to stock near the crown of
Potato Point. There are signs that the vegetation is under stress from grazing and
exposure. Nevertheless, there is a reasonable range of native species present and the
plants have shown a remarkable resilience to farming activity over the last hundred
years or so.
[9] The balance of the Point is essentially in native and introduced grasses,
particularly those that are drought-resistant. We accept the evidence from the witnesses
that the soil and moisture conditions are such that it would not constitute high-quality
grazing.
T/~e jurisdictior:al issue
[lOJ The applicant proposes to build two large houses with footprints of around 400
mZ and 600 m2 on one certificate of title. No undertaking to prevent subdivision of the
site has been proffered. Counsel for the City Council suggested that if consent to this
application was granted, Blueskin would inevitably seek subdivision of the site. The
Court has a clear preference to address maners byway of integrated management.
[11] In the Court of Appeal case Baylcry~ v Manukau Ciq~ Cauncilr the Court was
addressing notification issues. Nevertheless they discussed multiple consents being
seat o~
p dealt with separately at page 579-580.
~ yF
(~E~IMp~
- ~yA,~
~ {3' o ' [ 1999] I NZLR 569 at 579-580.
'°~W'i V
`fi`r,...\.,_Y-- 3~ti/ .
.`r JUM1t F~~
Such a course ntay be inappropriate where m+o[her form oJconsent is also being
sought or is necessn+y. The effects to be considered in relation to each
application neay be quite distinct. Bu[ more often i! is likely that die neatters
requiring consideration under multiple land use consent applicatio>s in respect
of the same development will overlap. The consent authority should direct its
mind to this question and, where there is nn overlap, should decline to dispense
with notification of one application tmless it is appropriate to do so with all of
them. To da otherwise would be for the authority to jail to look at a proposal in
the round, considering at the o+¢e time all the nwtiers which it ought to consider,
and instead to split it artificially into pieces.
[12] AIthough addressed in the notification context, there can be no doubt the issues
of subdivision and house construction are interhvined in this case. In Kittg v Artck(attd
City Councilz the High Court discussed this issue in the following terms. After quoting
Bayley as cited, Randerson J (as he then was) stated:
This approach is consistent with the clear statutory intention of the Ac[ to treat
the sustainable management of natural and physical resources in a
comprehensive manner. That is why a consen! authority has power under s91 to
require that all relevant resource caruertts relating to u proposal be dealt wi[h
together. I have no doubt in the ptesen[ case that a compartmentalised
approach would trot have been appropriate. Indeed, bosh PDL as applicant ar+d
the Council's planning o~cer• accepted that the applications were to be deal[
with as a whole and should be treated overall as an application for• consent to a
discretionnry activity.
The ea+•thworks and excavation jot which caTSen1 was sought related solely to
the proposed construction of the dwelling house. They consisted of the
excavation of the building platform +•equir•ed jot the dwelling ns well as that
;~~.,E SEAL p~ ~ required for a massive barrier pile wall near the crest of the steep slope on the
HF.
iw
~ ~ ' [2000] NZRMA 145 at pa+agraphs 49 end 50.
5
site in order to ensure site stability mrd to Jorna part of the foundations jot die
dwelling. As well, other piling was required to support the dwelling. As !Inter
ftnd and, as Mr Gault conceded, the Council reserved for itseljpawer under the
district plan to control the bulk and location of the dwelling at the site. It
follows that there was a direct camection between the excavation and
earthworks required and the bulk mrd location of the dwelling on the site.
Plainly, this was a case where the consents overlapped in the sense described in
Bayley to such an extent that they could not realistically or properly be
separated either jot the purposes of x94 or for the grant of the consents
themselves.
{13] The consent for subdivision is separate to the consent for a dwelling. If
subdivision is likely or contemplated, the two wnsents are so intertwined they should be
dealt with at the same time.
[14j The second major issue is that Blueskin has sought to convert the application for
subdivision to an application for construction of dwellings. There was no dispute that
the Dunedin City Plan separates out the subdivision activity from the use of any such
subdivided land for dwellings. Iru Garbett for the City Council remains concerned in
practical terms as to the almost inevitability that the owners of the dwellings would seek
subdivision of the property in order that they could secure separate mortgage funding,
and separately control the land in question.
[t5] There was a suggestion that, given there were a number of other titles on the
western side of the paper road available to the developer, these might be incorporated
within one or other of the titles. However, there are several problems with this.
[I6] The first is that there would be a disconnection between the various parts of the
titles as they cross a paper road. This is likely to involve having to stop the road before
the District Land Registrar woulrt allow creation of a title straddling such a road.
rye [17] Further, it is clear that the access road for the two properties is problematic. The
/ p~/+4 ~+,y:~ ~ current compliance certificate relies upon a road being created as shown in "A" from
c '
F, µ ~ i is s
n~.;
6
the existing Hill Street entrance, creating a right of way over several pieces of land and a
public road, then accessing the relatively steep area through the southern end of section
42 until it can travel north in a line to the east but parallel with boundaries of the
unformed Boundary Street. We suspect alternative vehicular access to a separate title at
the end of Potato Point would be impractical. For example, we do not understand [he
existing paper road could be fanned for vehicular travel given its topography.
[Ig] In the proposals put before this Court, it was clear that there was a need for
ttnifomt control of the use of the balance land around both the potential dwelling sites.
Proposals for restoration planting and mitigation planting, for example, would
necessitate a comprehensive fencing and maintenance regime which could be disrupted
if the ownership of the properties devolved to separate owners without identical
conditions dealing with both properties. Concerns were expressed that even if there
were identical conditions, one owner may not properly meet their obligations whereas
the other may. If the obligations were due by both owners equally then those might be
enforced against the willing owner.
[19] Wider issues, however, arise relating to potential for planting different species on
each property given its sensitivity within a Coastal Landscape Area of special value in
terms of the Plan. Different approaches to earthworks, fencing, walls and the like,
different potentials for stocking, pastures, curtilage azeas and the like would arise,
making ht obvious to those who viewed the area that the land was controlled by two
separate owners.
Scope of application
[20] The Plan makes buildings a controlled activity under 14.6.4(a) if there is a
subdivision and building platforms aze identified, but if not then a restricted
discretionary activity. For our part we are not satisfied that we have the complete
proposal before us. We have concluded that it is inevitable that there will be attempts to
subdivide the property and that difficulties will arise with ensuring that a common
EAi of rye approach is taken to bout properties.
m i i i 9`d a
~ /,ti
[21] The Court could approach this matter by imposing a condition requiring a
covenant to prevent subdivision and requiring only one property owner. However none
has been proffered. Our conclusion is that any subdivision application should not be
considered in isolation for two reasons:
(a) The application now before the Court is for a fundamentally different
activity than that applied for. The construction of a dwelling was not part
of the application for subdivision and was to be considered subsequently
by the Council if consent was granted. It would be a controlled activity
and issues of conditions would then be addressed. As now proposed, there
is no application for subdivision, only the question of dwellings on the site.
Although there is an overlap between the two, the Plan identifies these as
completely sepazate consents;
(b) Many of the conditions proposed by the applicant and/or necessazy for
consideration of this dwelling would require ongoing actions by owners in
the future. It is unclear as to how such conditions could be enforced if
there was to be any application for subdivision.
[22] Even in the absence of such subdivision, it is difficult to see how, in practical
terms, any conditions of consent (for example as to pasture forms, rehabilitation and
mitigation planting and maintenance, cartilage areas and the like) would be enforced.
For example, it is almost inevitable that there would be exclusive use azeas between the
two parties. Far example, it would not be possible to require the owner of the house on
A to undertake work on or around house B to comply with conditions.
[23] However, for current purposes the Court will proceed to consider the application
on the basis that a covenant were proffered against further subdivision or that it is
«nnecessazy to deal with any subdivision issues. This is on the basis that the Court may
be wrong in its primary holding and that subdivision is either not the eventual aim or is
irrelevant.
"~gtAL OFTH
~'V
P t( F
In ~ .tt~~~~~~p~~~3 Z
/ l1!
~~'~'fIMI ~}i
s
The Pfmt criteria jor multiple dwellings
[24] A building on a site is a restricted discretionary activity within the Coastal
Landscape Area except where a building platform has been identified in subdivision
consents (14.6.3(a) attd (b)). The restricted discretionary criteria of the Plan are
particularly narrow. The genesis of these criteria is from rule 14.6.3 which states:
The council's discretion is restricted to the visual impact arising front the
activity on the landscape chmacter and quality oJits setting.
[25] The assessment criteria aze set out at rule 14.7 annexed hereto as "B". These
criteria focus on the visual impact of the dwelling, both on the general chazacter of the
azea and on its setting. Having heard from the landscape architects and ecologists, we
aze satisfied that the witnesses are in agreement that there will be visual impacts which
are more than minimal from the construction of the houses. The approach of Mr A M
Rackham for the appellant was that such effects could be adequately mitigated by
planting in key positions around the homes. Further, his view was that, in the ovetat[
exercise of discretion, compensatory planting, which would take place to enhance the
existing bush on the site, would mean that overall the buildings could be granted
consent.
[26] We note that this site is within a Coastal Protection Zone overlay and is situated
an a headland with cleaz views to sea. It is visible from the settlements of Warrington
and Long Beach, though at a distance. More practically, Boundary Street, although
unformed, does provide legal access proximate to the house positions, from wlticlt a
view of at least house lot $ can be obtained.
Evaluation
[27] We have concluded that the Court should not permit this further incursion into
the Rural Zone within the Coastal Protection Zone overlay. Our reasoning is based on
~;(;fu or- % the following conclusions:
6
~r G
I ~i
ih; i'
l''C1
9
(1) Without screenng [he sites will still be vjsjble from important public view
points, both on the sea and on land. Although the views from land-based
positions such as Warrington are likely to be limited, in certain conditions
and sunlight we suspect that at lease one house will be clearly vjsjble. This
was accepted by Mr Rackhanr whose proposal was to provide for
mitigatory planting which would eventually screen houses from land-based
views. However, Mr Rackham did not suggest any mitigation in respect of
the views available from the sea. We have concluded that the houses
would be clearly visible from the sea in most conditions, pazticulazly Crorn
one to two kilometres offshore. Although that viewing audience may not
be large, we consider this area is likely to be subject to passing sea traffic,
including cruise liners from time to lime.
(2) The effect of screening is particularly uncertain given the following
factors:
(a) the climatic factors, particularly the wind and lack of summer rain;
(b) the slow growth and need for good height of any plants to provide
screening of the buildings from other Land viewpoints. In this iegard
[here was a suggestion that the growth may be sufficient within five
to eight years. For our part we conclude, assuming the plants do not
require replacement, that it is likely to be in the order of 10 to 15
years before any planting would provide sufficient screening. By
that time the initial change to the visual environment will have
become firmly established;
(c) we have concluded that there is a real potential for any mitigation
screening and compensatory planting, in itself, to emphasise the
existence or likely presence of a dwelling. In llris regard we accept
the ecological evidence that the replication or enhancement of the
existing remnant planting will be particularly difficult. It is likely to
require extensive maintenance, irrigation and care. We conclude that
even with careful planning, such planting is likely to stand out. This
;\~~SEAL p`FT
~ js a prominent and wind-swept point. Plants have considerable
' ~~C difficulty becoming established naturally and take many generations
III
({.k'o4 N:t~'~T'~
m ~(1;.,,`P.;~~; o to reach full maturity. Thriving native plants grown quickly on this
J~Mi` Q
.~F t~ ~I" e 'p•JJw e
/.zC
~~~~~IIS~ 4j~
1D
site (if this could occur) would create a point of contrast with the
balance of the Point;
(d) we are not satisfied that the changes generally to the cartilage around
Ute buildings (including pastures and species of grasses used),
fencing, earthworks, vehicles and stock can be controlled to such a
level that they would not be evident. We conclude it is inevitable
that there would be a domestication of the surrounding site, with the
consistent emphasising of the managed nature of the environment on
this point. At the present time the Point looks like a remote and
occasionally grazed part of the farm. Construction of the homes
would lead to a further intensity of the activities around them, even if
this was only of a grazing naturc.
(3) Although we accept it might be possible to screen the site in 10 to 20
years' time, that outcome is in itself very uncertain and in the interim the
buildings will permanently change the visua[ amenity of the azea.
Tke inrpoHarrce of the existing landscape
[28] The value of this landscape is recognised in the Plan. It forms part of the Coastal
Landscape Area. Potato Point is a distinctive landform feature within this landscape. In
this regazd we prefer the evidence of Ms D J Lucas, landscape architect for the section
274.pariies, to the extent that this conflicted wiUr Mr Rackham's opinion. We conclude
Utat Mr Rackham accepted Ute value of Potato Point in general landscaping terms but
concluded that with adequate mitigation and compensatory planting, the effects of the
proposed development would be acceptable.
Compensatory planting
[29] In large part this argttment tamed upon the benefit to Potato Point in ait
ecological sense from being able to reinforce the existing remnant indigenous vegetation
- ~r pf i on Ute site and provide for its long-term future. There appeared to be agreement that this
'c`.-° h
' would not mitigate the visual effects of the buildings but may improve the site's setting.
k~ --':<;r7~ 1 We recognise that such an approach may have its place. However, Dr K M Lloyd,
4t 'l`Q; ~ S it
Vii, iv~
11
called by the City Council, opined that there are alternative sites that have far higher
prospects of successful restoration planting than this one. [n short, he considered the
combination of the difficult climatic conditions, the poor soil types and the slow growth
are likely to compromise any realistic prospects of success with such a restoration
programme. We agree.
[30] Both ecologists, Dr E van Eyndhoven and Dr Lloyd, were agreed:
(a) fencing a,td destocking dte restoration areas was unlikely to have
immediate benefits, given the likely proliferation of weeds and cocksfoo[;
(b) control of predators present in the area (including stoats, rabbits and
possums) would be needed on an ongoing basis.
Senescent trees
[31] We note in passing that it was accepted by the appellant that they would crave to
remove a number of trces for house site B. A number of other trees growing close to the
proposed house site are likely to be affected and would, in our view, eventually be
removed. The azgument appeared to be that these trees were senescent and thus in a
state of decline. However, given the photographic evidence we saw, they appear to have
been there for many decades and we were told might continue under the cuRent regime
to survive for a number of decades: 50 years in Dr van Eyndhoven's opinion, and 50 to
150 years in the case ofDr Lloyd.
[32] From the Court's point of view we therefore face [he prospect of particular
uncertainty in respect of restoration planting on the one [rand compared with the known
loss of trees which are continuing to grow (albeit in particularly diffcult climatic
conditions, and where some have fallen and regrown). We are tentatively of the view
that a consent for their removal is required under section 16.6.2 of the District Plan. We
do not consider that these trees, even wind-thrown or dead standing trees, area [!treat to
life or property (section 16.6.2.12).
. a~y@:1L Ca Tye
[33] We aclatowledge that there is the potential for increased adverse effect on dre
~.-~~-+:F:q remnant forest if, for example, deer were to be graztd in this area rather than sheep.
~~'[t' 'rir~l
,~r.
1,
•i iLl l CT
12
However, we have reached the conclusion that intensity of stock use is likely to
accompany intensity of dwelling use.
[34] Further, we agree with Dr Lloyd chat a large number of controls would be
necessary for a successful restoration outcane and that these would be better suited to a
smaller site with a limited range of plantings. Given evidence the Court heard about
lowland plantings which have struggled for success in this immediate vicinity, the
consider that the proposal would place major onus on the landholder in circumstances
where a successful outcome is not likely.
Section ]04(IJ(e)-Other matters-Settlem¢nipatlerns
[35] The appellant points out that a previous subdivision has been permitted by the
Council on the next ridge (Pilot Point) in circumstances where this required a consent,
The arguments of the Council regarding a distinction between the headland and the ridge
line are not borne out by reference to the Plan provisions.
[36] We accept chat we must take into account the existing Pilot Point subdivision as
part of the existing environment (see Queenstorvn Lakes District Council v Hawthorn
Estates Lirnited3). However, for current purposes we have concluded that the
cumulative impacts of that subdivision, combined with the putative impacts of this
subdivision, would be unacceptable. At the present time the subdivision on fire next
ridge is contained well behind the headland. Although houses will be visible from a
number of positions, including Potato Point, and domesticate the environment, that
change needs to be considered in the context of the wider landscape. The connection of
that change to buildings on this headland is likely to compound the changes which have
already occured.
[37J We take into accomrt that the changes already permitted by [he Council may
have changed the environment but not to such an extent that they would justify
abandonment of [he provisions of [he Plan in respect of its Coastal Landscape Zone.
/~~~r,E~'~ of pyF Nevertheless, for our part we suspect that the Court may have been less willing to
~ {
,r.y,~'
m ~ " TM~(~ j"~•^~d~ Z ~ [2006] NZRMA 424.
Q~
13
approve fire subdivision consented by the Council. The Council appear to have drawn a
distinction between headlands and ridge lines, which is not supported by reference to the
Plan provisions.
[38] We accept the proposition that the ridge lines have traditionally been the focus of
farming settlement in the Dunedin area. Many well-established homesteads can be seen
situated on the ridges and the development at Pilot Point is more in keeping with that
pattern than is settlement on the headlands: Nevertheless, as we have discussed, that
distinction finds no support in the Pian provisions.
[39] Section 14.5.2(a)(ii) identifies the features and chazacteristics of the North Coast
Coastal Landscape Preservation Area to be protected as:
• The general visual dantinance ojthe natural landscape elements, eg natural
landform aver human landscape elements, eg buildings or shelter plantings.
• The i»tegrity, extent, coherence and natural character of the latdjorm,
streams and remaining areas of indigenous vegetation.
• The generally tin±ited visual influence of any large scale structures
• The extent and quality of the dramatic coastal landforn:s and views. Visual
interest is focused on the coastal edge.
• Tl:e remote wilderness character of the beach landscapes and the visual
separation of these areas front adjacent developed areas by dunes or other
landfarms.
[40] The Plan also identifies the principal threats to visual quality. These are
struchires and forestry blocks. Under structures the principal threat is described as:
Inappropriate siting, design, scale, density and finish of structures such that they
become visually dominant fronr public viewpoints.
tiN~SF AL OF y\ [41] It can be seen from this that the Piau draws no particular distinction between
headlands and ridge lines. However, it could be said that it prefers development which
..~e
z 1r ~
~ ~
~
~,.n~...
l4
avoids compromising the landfontt as a whole and thus would support development in
the valleys. To that extent we accept the concern of the Council that granting a consent
in these circumstances may compromise the consistent administration of the Operative
Plan. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Council has already granted consents from time to
tune, of which that on the nearby ridge line is au example. It is inevitable that people
will argue by analogy that other sites, including other ridges and headlands, aze also
appropriate for development.
[42] Despite that we find the situation parallel to that faced by the Environment Court
in Garrr:et Beach Adventrtres Limited v Hastings District Councilr when it concluded
that the ONF restriction on that land was designed to protect from inappropriate
development. In this particular case we conclude Utat the Coastal Landscape Area is
designed in particular to ensure that development in this area is appropriate. We are
satisfied that the effects of such development within this area would compromise the
qualities recognised and provided for in the Plan.
CoucGrsto+a
[43] We have already addressed the relevant Plan provisions and effects. The only
additional matter raised was consistent administration of the Plan, which may have some
limited relevance in restricted discretionary applications. In this case the issues are
established clearly by the Plan, which seeks to avoid inappropriate buildings in Coastal
Landscape Areas.
[44] Part 2 of the Act is enabling not only of the developer but of Ute general
cotmnunity llvouglt the Plau. In this case the development can only occur by
compromising some of the values recognised and provided for by Ute Plan. We aze not
satisfied that the effects of that can be mitigated to such a level that the development is
appropriate.
[45] In the ettd this is a matter for the exercise of the Court's discretion under section
Y: ci.C oi=r ~ 104(1) and turns on a value judgement. That is inferred by the Plan provisions. The
F
~ c~"1~ ~
° 2005 NZRMA 311 at ara 73.
N
i
is
Court seeks to meet llte sustainable management pw}tose under section 5 of the Act.
While the status of the activity is restricted discretionary, objectives and policies
reinforce the assessment criteria seeking to avoid visual impacts. This fulfills llte
section 6 requirement to recognise and provide for the natural character of the coastal
environment of which Pulato Point is pari. The focus of the Plan discretion on
landscape quality and setting directs the Court away From proposals wl»ch simply hide
development to took more generally to maintaining or enhancing the coastal landscape
quality and setting. Tltis proposal relies on a restoration programme wl»ch is unrealistic
in this setting and is unlikely fo remedy or adequately mitigate the clear adverse effects,
much less avoid them.
Outcome
[46] For a number of reasons the Court has reached the conclusion that the appeal in
this case should be refused and the decision of the Council to decline consent confirmed.
We agree with the Council that the nature of the application has fundamentally changed
and a new application should have been made. However, even considering the matter
on its substantive merits (and ignoring jurisdictional matters), we have still reached the
conclusion that the consent should be refused. That conclusion is based on the exercise
of the Court's discretion taking into account all the evidence and submissions that have
been made.
Costs
[47] Any application for costs is to be filed within 20 working days, any response
within 10 working days thereafter, and any final reply five working days thereafter.
DATED at CHRISTCHURCH this 2.5~' day of July 2007
For the ou[ . _
CAL p
A Smith ~ ~ '
~ 3 ~
Envr J dge n•,~ 4~ , ~ tssuea°: 2 6 JUL 2007
J
{r.,~ ' \ i
+'14 Ur
f Sndlli d a~dWK A3.0$aoc '
Annexure A
4
APPENDIX 1: PLAN SHOWING LOCATION OF PROPOSED HOUSES
~ c~~i
o ~
~ m ~F
~t
~ ~ j
A .o
J
mNm pLY 1Yp }
F 6 ~ ~
J ~ _ _ `
Z ~ ~
N ~
m . ,
m N ~
~ ~ ~i~ \
iA ' 1
lA ~ ~ ~ 1 ~a
c ~ ~
e~
7 p ~ _ F~m '
0 7 t ~
~ _ - ~ ~ ~
s i a w~.P
y ( ~ ~m ~
\ ~
~ T ~
p a
s -a S
o ~ Q~ P=s
C `
~ i
s
$EAl OF\
~ ~y
z '<r,
o
ti+ `
v N'dY'i L'
pnnexure B
Dunedin Ciry Diarricr Rlan May 2002
I4.7 Assessment of Resource Consent Applicatio~as
In assessing any application, in addition to the matters contained within the Fourth Schedule, the Council
will have regard to, but oot be restricted by, the following matters:
14.7.1 Visibility
The effects of the visibility of the proposed activity or development from the main public viewpoints.
14.7.2 Adverse Effects
The extent to which any adverse effects on the landscape can be avoided, remedied or mitigated.
14.7.3 Sympathetic Siting and Design
The extent to which the activity or development is sympathetic to'tite forms, character and scale of the
landscape in its siting and design.
14.7.4 Landscape Features and Characteristics
The extent to which the activity or development impacts upon the important landscape features and
characteristics to be protected, preserved or conserved (identified in part 14.5 of this section) within Ute
relevant landscape mattagement area.
14.75 Compatibility of Scale and Character
The extent to which the activity or development is compatible with its landscape setting in tetras of its
scale and character.
,.~tig SEAL p~:}
yF
m F"-a C_r~.
Page 14:32 :~1~'~' Landscape