Form 5 – Submission on a change proposed to the District Plan
Plan change 94b Papakāinga
Whangarei District Council, Policy and Monitoring Division
Private Bag 9023
Whangarei 0148
Attn: Melissa McGrath
mailroom@wdc.govt.nz
FULL NAME: Landowners Coalition Inc.
POSTAL ADDRESS: PO Box 984, Whangarei 0140
TELEPHONE: 09 4343 836
EMAIL: frank@newman.co.nz
DATE: 11 May 2016
We could not gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission. Our members are directly affected by an effect of the subject matter of the submission that adversely affects the environment; and does not relate to trade competition or the effects of trade competition.
We oppose the proposed plan change.
The provisions of the Plan Change that our submission relates to are:
The plan change is significant. There are 868 parcels of Maori land in the Whangarei district, representing about 5% of the land area, much of it on the coast which the WDC has designated as environmentally sensitive. The average size is 16.76 hectares (with a median of 1.56 hectares). Based on current rules housing would be limited to one dwelling per parcel and under draft proposals in Plan Change 114 Landscapes housing would become either a non-complying or a discretionary activity.
Given the size and location of the land parcels activity permitted by the proposed plan change is likely to have significant effects on surrounding properties, of which there are a substantial number.
In our view the key points of this proposed plan change are:
• Housing and commercial and industrial developments on Māori freehold land would become a permitted activity. No resource consent would be required and the normal district plan provisions would not apply.
• Housing developments on general title land owned by Māori “where an ancestral link has been identified” will be discretionary activity, permitted at the discretion of the local council. This significantly extends the potential impact of Papakāinga development and makes it impossible for landowners to know if they will be affected.
• In cases where resource consents would be required, applicants may request that the consent application be heard by a commissioner(s) with “expertise and qualifications in tikanga and Mātauranga Māori and resource management”.
Our reasons for opposing the plan change are:
1. Environmental effects are effects regardless of the race of the landowner that causes them. It is harmful to the environment to regulate the environmental effects of one community group and not another.
We submit, “2. The underlying Environment provisions shall not apply to papakāinga developments under the papakāinga provisions below”, should be changed to, “2. The underlying Environment provisions shall apply to papakāinga developments.”
Allowing an outright exemption from the underlying Environment provisions would conceivably permit intensive housing and commercial and industrial activities in areas of outstanding natural landscapes and on outstanding natural features. This is simply unacceptable from an environmental effects perspective. Furthermore, adjoining landowners may find their amenity adversely affected but be denied any opportunity to be treated as an affected party. For example, they would have no opportunity to have a say on the intensity of housing next door. Conceivably any number of dwellings could be built creating what in effect would be a camping ground on their doorstep; or an industrial activity.
Allowing an outright exemption from the underlying Environment provisions would conceivably permit intensive housing and commercial and industrial activities in areas of outstanding natural landscapes and on outstanding natural features. This is simply unacceptable from an environmental effects perspective. Furthermore, adjoining landowners may find their amenity adversely affected but be denied any opportunity to be treated as an affected party. For example, they would have no opportunity to have a say on the intensity of housing next door. Conceivably any number of dwellings could be built creating what in effect would be a camping ground on their doorstep; or an industrial activity.
2. We submit, “3. Allow maximum flexibility for Māori to develop their ancestral lands, while ensuring appropriate health, safety and amenity standards are met”, should be changed to, “Allow maximum flexibility for Māori to develop their ancestral lands, while ensuring appropriate health, safety, amenity and environmental standards are met.”
3. The adverse effects on adjoining landowners may be potentially significant, and impact on social and economic well-being.
We submit, “2. To require the maximum intensity and scale of papakāinga development to be determined by the sustainable servicing capacity of the land and the surrounding environment”, be changed to, “2. To require the maximum intensity and scale of papakāinga development to be determined by the sustainable servicing capacity of the land and the surrounding environment, and the environmental effects of the proposed development.”
Where an activity would not be permitted under the underlying Environmental provisions, that activity should be treated as a discretionary activity requiring notification to adjoining and affected landowners.
4. We strongly oppose the policy permitting commercial and industrial activities of any scale. We find it ironic that this plan change permits commercial and industrial activities if the gross floor area is less than 500m2, while Plan Change 114 Landscapes prohibits such activities. Commercial or industrial activities should be treated as a non-complying activity subject to public notification.
5. We submit PKA.1.6 b, “The land has not been the subject of proceedings before the Māori Land Court to convert the land to Māori freehold land but an ancestral link to the land has been identified”, should be deleted as such land is unidentifiable to existing and potential landowners that are likely to be affected by a papakāinga development.
6. We submit PKA.1.8 1, “Subject to the requirements of section 33 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the transfer of powers to the relevant iwi authority for the rohe in which the land is located, is available for the consideration and determination of discretionary activities in this chapter”, be deleted as the effects of a papakāinga development extend beyond the iwi authority and therefore should not exclude the public from participating in the management of the powers.
Summary
We make the general comment that there is an unacceptable irony that under the proposal non-Maori have to ask iwi for consent when developing their land, but Maori do not have to ask non-Maori.
We do not disagree with the notion that issues regarding housing on ancestral land should be addressed. But the issues with papakāinga housing are the very same issues that arise in the wider community when a family has a close attachment to land – for example, land settled by ancestors or land that may be intended as a legacy property in the future.
The papakāinga provisions should apply to all properties, or they should not apply at all. Ones connection to land and environmental effects are, after all, not defined by race.
We wish to be heard in support of our submission.
If others make a similar submission, we will consider presenting a joint case with them at a hearing.
Frank Newman
on behalf of the Landowners Coalition Inc.