Notice is hereby given that a Meeting of
the Resource Management Committee will be held on:
|
Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:
|
Friday, 23
October 2015
10am
Council Chambers
15 Forth Street
Invercargill
|
|
Resource Management Committee Agenda
OPEN
|
MEMBERSHIP
|
Chairperson
|
Paul Duffy
|
|
|
Councillors
|
Lyall Bailey
|
|
|
|
Rodney Dobson
|
|
|
|
John Douglas
|
|
|
|
Julie Keast
|
|
|
|
Gavin Macpherson
|
|
IN ATTENDANCE
|
Manager, Resource Management
|
Simon Moran
|
|
|
Senior Planner, Policy Resource
Management
|
Courtney Ellison
|
|
|
Committee Advisor
|
Alyson Hamilton
|
|
Terms of
Reference for the Resource Management Committee
This committee is a committee of Southland
District Council and has responsibility to:
·
Monitor the consent process and make decisions
on all notified hearings, excluding those being heard by a commissioner
·
Monitor non-notified consents and review
decisions where objections are received.
·
Develop a District Plan, and/or District Plan
changes, hear submissions on those and deliberate on those before making
recommendations to Council
·
Participate in joint hearings
·
Decide on designations
|
Resource Management Committee
23 October
2015
|
|
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
ITEM PAGE
Procedural
1 Apologies 5
2 Leave of
absence 5
3 Conflict of
Interest 5
4 Public Forum 5
5 Extraordinary/Urgent
Items 5
6 Confirmation
of Minutes 5
Reports for Resolution
7.1 Draft
Variation to the Proposed District Plan 2012 - Rural Settlement Areas 11
At the close of
the agenda no apologies had been received.
2 Leave
of absence
At the close of
the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.
3 Conflict
of Interest
Committee Members
are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision-making
when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other
external interest they might have.
4 Public Forum
Notification to
speak is required by 5pm at least two days before the meeting. Further
information is available on www.southlanddc.govt.nz
or phoning 0800 732 732.
5 Extraordinary/Urgent
Items
To consider, and if
thought fit, to pass a resolution to permit the committee
to consider any further items which do not appear on
the Agenda of this meeting and/or the meeting to be held with the public
excluded.
Such resolution is
required to be made pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official
Information and Meetings Act 1987, and the Chairperson must advise:
(i) The
reason why the item was not on the Agenda, and
(ii) The
reason why the discussion of this item cannot be delayed until a subsequent
meeting.
Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings
Act 1987 (as amended) states:
“Where an item
is not on the agenda for a meeting,-
(a) That item
may be discussed at that meeting if-
(i)
That item is a minor matter relating
to the general business of the local authority; and
(ii)
the presiding member explains at the
beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item
will be discussed at the meeting; but
(b)
no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that
item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority
for further discussion.”
6 Confirmation
of Minutes
6.1 Minutes
of Resource Management Committee dated 26 June 2015
|
Resource Management Committee
OPEN MINUTES
|
Minutes of
a meeting of Resource Management Committee held in the Council Chambers, 15
Forth Street, Invercargill on Friday, 26 June 2015 at 10.08 am.
present
|
Chairperson
|
Paul Duffy
|
|
|
Councillors
|
Lyall Bailey
|
|
|
|
Rodney Dobson
|
|
|
|
John Douglas
|
|
|
|
Julie Keast
|
|
|
|
Gavin Macpherson
|
|
IN ATTENDANCE
Manager Resource Management Simon Moran,
Senior Resource Management Planner Courtney Ellison and Committee Advisor
Debbie Webster.
1 Apologies
An
apology for absence was received from Crs Dobson and Douglas.
|
Moved Cr Keast, seconded Cr Bailey and resolved:
That the Resource Management Committee accept the apologies.
|
2 Leave
of absence
There were no
requests for leave of absence.
3 Conflict
of Interest
There were no conflicts of interest declared.
4 Public
Forum
There was no public forum
5 Extraordinary/Urgent
Items
There were no
Extraordinary/Urgent items.
6 Confirmation
of Minutes
|
Resolution
Moved Cr
Macpherson, seconded Cr Keast and resolved:
That the meeting
minutes of Resource Management Committee, 12 June 2015 be confirmed.
|
Reports for Recommendation
|
7.1
|
Potential Variations to Proposed District Plan 2012 -
Implementation matters
Record No: R/15/5/8828
|
|
|
Senior Resource Management
Planner Courtney Ellison was in attendance for this item. She said the
purpose of the report was to outline some potential changes to be made to the
Proposed District Plan, in particular around some implementation matters
which had arisen since the plan has had legal effect and been implemented by
the Resource Management team.
2 With
the implementation of the Proposed District Plan, some potential improvements
that could be made to the plan have been identified.
3 To
make the changes suggested in the report, a variation would have to be
undertaken in accordance with the process outlined in the Resource Management
Act 1991. The process included public notification with two
opportunities for the public to make submissions, and holding hearings for
the submitters to speak on their submission.
Mrs Ellison outlined the
background and noted some small changes could be made to the plan to improve
the clarity and efficiency of the rules in achieving the outcomes intended
with the plan.
There was discussion over issues
around height and boundary of above ground effluent pools. It was
agreed that consistency with Environment Southland rules on this would be
beneficial.
It was noted that point 14 in the
report incorrectly stated Option 1 was endorsed, however it should read
“It is recommended that Option 2 is endorsed and that a draft variation
is prepared to address those issues outlined in this report”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moved Cr Bailey, seconded Cr Keast
and resolved:
That the Resource
Management Committee:
a) Receives
the report titled “Potential Variations to Proposed District Plan 2012
- Implementation matters” dated 19 June 2015.
b) Determines
that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant
in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.
c) Determines
that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local
Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and
in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further
information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and
benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this
matter.
d) Endorse
staff continuing with the preparation of a draft variation to the Proposed District
Plan.
|
|
7.2
|
Potential Variation to the Proposed District Plan 2012 - Rural
Settlement Areas
Record No: R/15/6/10262
|
|
|
Senior
Resource Management Planner Courtney Ellison was in attendance for this item.
She noted the purpose of the report was to outline a potential change to be
made to the Proposed District Plan, to create a new ‘Rural Settlement
Area’ providing for townships that are currently within the Rural Zone.
2 Decisions
on the Proposed Southland District Plan 2012 were released in October 2014
and identified that a future piece of work was required to address how
townships which are currently zoned Rural, such as Orepuki, could be better
provided for.
3 The
new plan imposes some constraints for these townships in terms of setbacks
from other dwellings and some boundaries as well as other activities in the
Rural Zone. It was suggested that a variation could be progressed to
establish a Rural Settlement Area overlay for the Rural Zone to provide for
townships such as Orepuki.
4 Matters
that would need to be considered include the boundaries of any settlement
areas, effluent disposal, servicing, setbacks from other dwellings or
property boundaries, hazards, and provision for the continuation of rural
activities.
5 The
different options available to the Resource Management Committee are outlined
in the report along with the process that would need to be followed,
including requirements under the Resource Management Act (RMA), should a
variation be progressed.
Mrs Ellison said she had
spoken with the Orepuki CDA in May and they were in support of the
variation. She had also spoken with the Lumsden CDA who said that if it
were to be progressed they wanted it to be done in consultation with the
community. Mrs Ellison noted that Orepuki had mostly rainwater tanks
making it easier whereas Lumsden have a number of ground water bores which
created greater difficulty.
Cr Duffy asked if the rural
settlement rules were new to the Southland District Council. Mrs
Ellison replied yes they were, however they are in other districts but with
differing factors to be considered.
There was discussion on where
the responsibility for services should be placed, on developers or owners of
a section. It was noted with smaller sections power should be to the
boundary however this raises the question if copper lines should be at the
boundary, owners may choose to use cell phone cover only. It was
suggested it could be included on the LIM that Council does not guarantee
power/phone to a section.
Cr Keast queried towns like
Niagara and Dipton that aren’t likely to be built on. Cr Duffy
asked what was the reason for going with Option 2 and why not Option 3 to
include more areas? Mrs Ellison responded it was mostly from
demand. She said Option 2 did not preclude Council from rolling this
out to other areas. Mr Moran suggested there could be a selection of
towns the Committee could consider. Orepuki is currently driving it
however it could be used as a pilot for other areas. Mr Moran
commented that Council staff could look at what consents are in other areas,
consider the constraints in each area and comment accordingly, which would
create a bigger picture of current growth in those areas for the Committee to
consider.
It was agreed for Option 2 to
proceed with variation for Orepuki and to add in to the recommendation to
investigate Gorge Road.
Mr Moran
updated the Committee on the proposed Forestry submission led by the Ministry
of Primary Industries (MPI) for the National Environmental Standard. He
commented there was a meeting several months ago with MPI and other
territorial organisations and Councils. The meeting covered a series of
rules, categorizing regions into low, medium and high risk, looking at
erosion in most part, noting Southland was considered mostly low risk.
He mentioned Council needed to make sure conditions in our District Plan
connect clearly with this. Mr Moran said he would send the electronic
link of the National Environmental Standard Document to the Committee and
would endeavour to get back to the Committee with the completed submission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moved Cr Bailey, seconded Cr Keast and
resolved recommendations a, b and c and d with the new words as underlined:
That the Resource
Management Committee:
a) Receives
the report titled “Potential Variation to the Proposed District Plan
2012 - Rural Settlement Areas” dated 16 June 2015.
b) Determines
that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant
in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.
c) Determines
that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local
Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and
in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require
further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of
costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision
on this matter.
d) Recommends
to Council the scoping and drafting of a variation to the
Proposed District Plan to create a new Rural Settlement Area for Orepuki
and to investigate a new Rural Settlement Area for Gorge Road.
|
The meeting closed at 11.11 am CONFIRMED
AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD AT A MEETING OF THE Resource Management Committee HELD ON
26 JUNE 2015
DATE:...................................................................
CHAIRPERSON:...................................................
|
Resource
Management Committee
23 October
2015
|
|
Draft
Variation to the Proposed District Plan 2012 - Rural Settlement Areas
Record No: R/15/9/16641
Author: Courtney
Ellison, Senior Resource Management Planner - Policy
Approved by: Bruce
Halligan, GM - Environment and Community
☒
Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information
Purpose
1 The
purpose of this report is to seek the Resource Management Committee’s
approval of the draft variation for the Rural Settlement Areas, for
consultation with the relevant communities.
Executive
Summary
2 On
5 August, Council gave approval for staff to draft a variation to create new
Rural Settlement Areas for Orepuki and Gorge Road. Staff have prepared
a draft variation which shows the proposed changes to the text of the Proposed
District Plan 2012, and establishes the potential boundaries which would be
shown on the Proposed District Plan Maps.
3 It
is proposed to consult with the communities on the proposed changes prior to
starting the formal process under the Resource Management Act (RMA) to provide
more flexibility for the communities to shape the rules that will affect them.
|
Recommendation
That the Resource
Management Committee:
a) Receives
the report titled “Draft Variation to the Proposed District Plan 2012 -
Rural Settlement Areas” dated 9 October 2015.
b) Determines
that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant
in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.
c) Determines
that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local
Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and
in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require
further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of
costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision
on this matter.
d) Approve
the draft Variation to the Proposed District Plan 2012 to create
Rural Settlement Areas at Orepuki and Gorge Road for informal consultation.
|
Content
Background
4 On
5 August Council approved staff starting the preparation of a variation to the
Proposed District Plan to create Rural Settlement Areas at Orepuki and
Gorge Road.
5 Since
that meeting, staff have undertaken site visits, discussed the proposal with
other departments of Council including water and waste, and drafted the
potential changes to the Proposed District Plan. The draft Variation is
attached as Attachment A and shows the suggested changes to the rules, in
particular the rules around dwellings and accessory buildings within the Rural
Zone.
Issues
6 Wastewater
disposal
7 Gorge
Road has a reticulated wastewater system and staff have discussed the existing
capacity of the system and the potential for future connections to be made with
Water and Waste staff. A preliminary assessment indicates that
development within the boundary suggested for the Rural Settlement Area (refer
to Attachment B) could be accommodated by the existing wastewater system.
8 There
is no reticulated system in Orepuki. A report has been prepared by Veena
Boon in her capacity as an Environmental Consultant on the potential
constraints or requirements for disposing wastewater within the Orepuki
township. This report indicates that a house could be constructed on a
quarter acre section if a secondary treatment system is used, and if the
section is larger, then there could be more flexibility around the type of
treatment system used.
9 The
New Zealand Standard 1547:2012 “On-site Domestic Wastewater
Management” in conjunction with the Building Code already ensures that
any new development will meet those legal requirements and the wastewater is
disposed of on the site correctly.
10 Therefore
no rules relating to wastewater requirement are considered necessary within the
District Plan. However, given the information Council holds on the likely
section size and treatment options suitable for Orepuki, it is recommended that
there is some guidance material developed specific to the Orepuki township to
assist anyone thinking of building a dwelling in that area.
11 Landscape
values
12 Part
of Orepuki township is covered by the Visual Amenity Landscape Overlay.
This overlay was based on the Southland Coastal Landscape Study 2006 prepared by
Boffa Miskell. This report recognised the village character of the area
and that the existing settlement was capable of accommodating further growth.
13 Therefore
it is considered appropriate that some modifications are made to the rules
applying to the Visual Amenity Landscape Overlay, but the boundary of the
overlay is not recommended to change. The rules would be tweaked so that
buildings would still have to meet the more restrictive height requirements for
the VAL, and the building materials however the additional setbacks from roads
that apply within the VAL would not apply within the Rural Settlement Overlay.
Factors to Consider
Legal
and Statutory Requirements
14 The
process for doing a variation to the proposed District Plan is outlined in the
RMA. Following the informal consultation outlined in this report, approval to
notify the Variation will be sought from Council.
Community
Views
15 The
purpose of this report is to seek approval to take the draft Variation out for
community feedback. Following this, the views of the community and any
recommended changes to the variation will be reported back to the Resource
Management Committee and Council.
Costs
and Funding
16 The
costs associated with the informal consultation will primarily be staff
time. The variation work will be undertaken within current District Plan
budgets.
Policy
Implications
17 The
review of the Rural Zone rules in relation to rural settlements was identified
as a future piece of work required in the decisions on the proposed District
Plan. It is likely that any amendments to the District plan would result
in less restrictive plan rules for these areas than the rules that apply at
present.
Analysis
Options Considered
18 The
Committee can decide to progress the variation for the Rural Settlements with
or without the preliminary consultation with communities.
Analysis of Options
Option
1 – Approve the draft Variation for informal consultation
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· The
community would have the opportunity to contribute to the drafting of the
variation ensuring the proposed amendments are practical and reflect the
intended outcomes.
· Pre-consultation
may reduce the time and likelihood of opposition to the proposal through the
formal RMA process.
|
· The
consultation will take time to enable communities to provide feedback and
contributions (however this has been factored into the project timeframes).
|
Option
2 – Recommend the Variation be progressed without informal consultation,
and proceed with the formal process under the RMA
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
· The
Variation could be notified sooner, reducing the overall timeframe for the
project.
|
· The
community would not have the opportunity to contribute towards the
development of the variation.
· Issues
may arise through the formal submission process under the RMA, that would
have been better resolved outside of that formal process where there may be
less flexibility to achieve the desired outcomes.
|
Assessment of Significance
19 It
is not considered that these potential changes to the Proposed District Plan
are significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy
because they will reduce the restrictions that already apply under the Proposed
District Plan. The proposed changes will also be subject to a public
consultation process under the RMA, giving the communities and the wider public
the opportunity to have their say and affect the overall outcome of the
variation.
Recommended Option
20 Option
1 to approve the draft variation on the Rural Settlement Areas for informal
consultation is recommended as it allows the communities affected by the rules
to be involved in developing them. The formal consultation process under
the RMA is also likely to attract less opposition if people have already had
the chance to share their views and contribute to the proposed changes.
Next Steps
21 Meetings
will be held with the communities in Orepuki and Gorge Road to discuss the
background to the proposed changes and what they could look like.
Following these meetings, there will be the opportunity for people to review
the proposal and provide their comments back to Council over a period of 3
weeks.
22 The
draft variation will also be discussed with staff at Te Ao Mārama Incorporated,
Environment Southland, and any other relevant agencies such as the New Zealand
Transport Agency.
23 The
feedback will be collated and any potential amendments included into a revised
draft Variation which will be reported to the Resource Management Committee and
Council for approval to notify the Variation in accordance with the RMA.
Attachments
a Draft
Variation - Rural Settlement Areas - Proposed Text Amendments View
b Proposed
Rural Settlement Area Boundaries View
|
Resource
Management Committee
|
23 October 2015
|
Proposed
Southland District Plan 2012
Variation 3: Rural Settlement Areas
Background
In November 2012, Council notified the Proposed Southland
District Plan and following a submission and hearings process decisions were
released on October 2014. The plan retained a similar boundary to the
Operative Plan 2001 for the Rural Zone which included townships such as Orepuki
and Gorge Road but other amendments to the plan affect development in those
townships. One notable change is that the ability to construct one dwelling per
existing certificate of title is now subject to the other criteria of the
permitted activity rule being met including the need to provide a 150 m
separation between dwellings.
There are other restrictions on townships such as the ability
to dispose of wastewater on site, and part of the Orepuki township to the west
of the State Highway is also covered by the Visual Amenity Landscape overlay.
This overlay sets out additional criteria for dwellings and accessory buildings
around setbacks from roads and building materials.
Council received a submission on the Proposed Southland
District Plan from the Orepuki CDA requesting a more permissive regime and
greater provision for the development of existing rural residential settlement
areas. The Hearing Committee’s decision did not make any changes to
those rules as a result of this submission but recognised that a specific piece
of work was required to look at how rural residential areas could be better
provided for within the plan, to facilitate the future growth of these areas
based around these existing settlements.
While some aspects of the Proposed District Plan are still
subject to appeal, the provisions relevant to the establishment of Rural
Settlement Areas are being treated as operative. Staff have therefore
investigated options for how these townships could be better provided for
within the plan.
A section 32 report has also been prepared which outlines
the options, and the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed variation.
Plan text amendments
The variation proposes amendments to the Planning Maps,
introduction, and rules of the Rural Zone. These proposed changes are outlined
below.
There are some aspects of the Rural Zone rules which are
highlighted yellow. These reflect the aspects of the Proposed District Plan
which are still subject to appeal. Most of the appealed provisions will not be
affected by this Variation, however some amendments to the Visual Amenity
Landscape overlay rules are proposed in relation to the Rural Settlement Areas
specifically.
It should also be noted that another variation is also
proposed which may result in some changes to the wording of the rules below,
however these are addressed within that Variation document and not in the
wording shown below.
|
AMENDMENT 1 Planning Maps 55 and 64
|
It is proposed to amend Map 55 for Gorge Road and Map 64 for
Orepuki to show a new Rural Settlement Area Overlay for the townships.
Currently the Visual Amenity Landscape overlay extends to Stafford Street
however it is proposed to shift this to the Western boundary of Surrey Street.
Appendix 1 provides an indication of the proposed boundaries
of the Rural Settlement Overlays.
|
AMENDMENT 2 Introduction
– Rural Zone
|
“…Many areas within the Rural Zone are
valued for their rural character and amenity and the Rural Zone can be an
attractive location for residential activities. The Rural Settlement Areas
provide for the consolidation or clustering of development around those
existing established areas. …”
|
AMENDMENT 3 Rules
– Rural Zone
|
“Rule RURAL.1 - Permitted Activities
The following activities are Permitted Activities in
the Rural Zone provided they meet the General Rural Standards:
…
2. (1)
Dwellings outside of Rural Settlement Areas are permitted provided
that:
(a) Maximum
number is one Principal dwelling per Computer Freehold Register,
with Additional Staff Dwellings as follows:
(i) one
dwelling per 50 hectare - 100 hectare property
(ii) two
dwellings per 101 hectare - 150 hectare property
(iii) three
dwellings per 151 hectare - 300 hectare property
(iv) four
dwellings per 301 hectare - 1000 hectare property
(v) five
dwellings per 1001 hectare property
(b) Setbacks
Any
dwelling complies with the following setbacks:
(i) 150
metres from any existing dwelling, or consented dwelling or building platform,
not in the same ownership. For the avoidance of doubt dwellings on
the same property can be closer to each other than 150 metres;
(ii) 20
metres from the boundary of a State Highway where the speed limit exceeds
80 km/hr;
(iii) 4.5
metres from a boundary with any other road;
(iv) 30
metres from a wetland or bed of a river or lake;
(v) 300
metres from the property boundary of an intensive farming activity in separate
ownership;
(vi) 300
metres from a consented milking shed or wintering shed in separate ownership;
(vii) 150
metres from a wastewater treatment facility property boundary (excluding waste
disposal areas associated with domestic on-site wastewater disposal system);
(viii) 200
metres from a gravel or mineral extraction activity where the consented volume
to be extracted is more than 50,000 m3;
(ix) Within the Visual Amenity Landscape Overlay 20 metres
from the boundary of any formed road; and 4.5 metres from the boundary of an
unformed road.
(x) Complies
with RURAL.7(7) National Grid Yards
(c) Height
(i) the
maximum height of the principal dwelling or staff dwelling is 9 metres
above natural ground level;
(ii) the
height of the building in relation to the external property boundaries complies
with Height in Relation to Boundaries and the Height Recession Diagram in Rural
Zone General Standards Rule RURAL.7(6).
(iii) Within the Visual Amenity Landscape Overlay the
maximum height of the dwelling is 6.5 metres above natural ground level;
(d) The
Building Platform and access to that platform are not identified as being
seaward of the Coastal Hazard Line as shown on the District Plan Maps.
(e) The
site is not identified as being within an area of
Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes as shown on the District Plan Maps.
(f) Materials
- Within the Visual Amenity Landscape Overlay external building materials
(except glazing) and colours are to be recessive with a maximum reflectance
value of 40%.
(2) Dwellings within a Rural Settlement
Area are permitted provided that:
(a) Any
dwelling is setback 4.5 metres from a boundary with any road;
(b) Within
80 metres of the seal edge of a State Highway that has a speed limit of 70km/hr
and greater, or within 40 metres of the seal edge of a State Highway that has a
speed limit of less than 70km/hr, the dwelling shall be designed, sited and
constructed, to ensure that the internal noise levels for dwellings do not
exceed 35 dB LAeq (1hr) inside bedrooms or 40 dB LAeq (1hr) inside other
habitable spaces.
(c) Height
(i) The
maximum height of the dwelling is 9 metres above natural ground level;
(ii) Within
the Visual Amenity Landscape Overlay the maximum height of the dwelling is 6.5
metres above natural ground level;
(iii) The height of
the building in relation to the external property boundaries complies with
Height in Relation to Boundaries and the Height Recession Diagram in Rural Zone
General Standards Rule RURAL.7(6)
(d) Materials
– Within the Visual Amenity Landscape Overlay external building materials
(except glazing) and colours are to be recessive with a maximum reflectance
value of 40%.
Note: Dwellings will need to ensure they can meet the
on-site wastewater requirements of the Regional Council rules and AS/NZS
1547:2012 On-Site Domestic Wastewater Management. Further guidance on on-site
wastewater requirements in the Orepuki Rural Settlement Area is available from
Council.
3. Accessory
Buildings are permitted provided that:
(a) The
accessory building complies with the following setbacks:
(i) 1.5 metre
from the side property boundaries;
(ii) the
height of the building in relation to the external property boundaries complies
with Height in Relation to Boundaries and the Height Recession Diagram in Rural
Zone General Standards Rule RURAL.7(6).
(iii) 4.5
metres from the boundary of a road or State Highway.
(iv) Within
the Visual Amenity Landscape Overlay (except within the Rural Settlement
Overlay) is set back at least 20 metres from the boundary of a formed road
or State Highway, and 4.5 metres from the boundary of an unformed road.
(v) Within
the Visual Amenity Landscape Overlay the maximum height of the Accessory
Building is 6.5 metres above natural ground level.
(vi) Within
the Visual Amenity Landscape Overlay external building materials (except
glazing) and colours are to be recessive with a maximum reflectance value of
40%.
(vii) Compliance
with RURAL.7(7) National Grid Yards
(b) The
maximum height of the accessory building is 9 metres above natural ground
level.
(c) The
site is not identified as being within an area of
Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes as shown on the District
Plan Maps.
…
15. Forestry Activities are
permitted provided that:
(a) Trees
shall be set back a minimum of:
(i) 10 metres
from the northern, eastern or western property boundary
(ii) 20
metres from the southern boundary
(iii) 30 metres
from any Urban Zone or Rural Settlement Area boundary;
(iv) 10 metres
from either side of the banks of any water body whose bed has an average width
of 3 metres or more.
(v)
Shall not be allowed to grow in a position that
will shade, an existing dwelling, consented dwelling or building platform or
building between the hours of 10.00 am and 2.00 pm on the shortest
day of the year;
(b) No
forestry activity shall affect any archaeological site identified on the
District Plan Maps, except where an Archaeological Authority has been granted
by Heritage New Zealand pursuant to the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act
2014, or confirmation is provided that no archaeological authority is required.
(c) Clearance
of indigenous vegetation is limited to amenity plantings and indigenous
vegetation that has grown up under production planting.
(d) The
activity is not undertaken in an area identified as being an area of
Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes.
(e) That
at least 12 months prior to harvesting occurring written notice of intention to
harvest is given to the relevant Road Controlling Authority.
(f) The following
species are not planted within the Mountains Overlay:
· Scots
Pine,
· Corsican
Pine,
· Douglas
Fir,
· All
larches. …”
|
Resource
Management Committee
|
23 October 2015
|
Gorge Road
– Proposed Rural Settlement Area Boundary
Orepuki
– Proposed Rural Settlement Boundary
