Henderson Valley/Opanuku Local Area Plan ... - Auckland Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4.3. SUBDIVISION ISSUESIn Henderson Valley/Opanuku, there are significant pressures for subdivision over and above theDistrict Plan provisions - an almost inevitable feature at a rural/ urban interface in the Aucklandregion. In the neighbouring areas of Oratia and Swanson, additional subdivision (andaccompanying environmental enhancement measures) has been provided for through ruralstructure planning processes. However the Structure Plan Review and more recent Swansonexperience found that the costs associated with the development of a structure plan (considerablelitigation, technical assessments, and community division) outweighed the gains (limiteddevelopment potential or environmental enhancement) of undertaking the structure planningexercise, particularly in the absence of a strategic framework under which to consider structureplanning. The additional technical work undertaken in Henderson Valley/Opanuku has indicatedthat a Structure Plan is not necessary to accommodate future growth in a sustainable manner.The Local Area Plan process has highlighted a divergence of views on subdivision (refer to theHenderson Valley Community Consultation report). On one hand members of the wider communityhas indicated a strong desire to maintain the status quo by retaining a productive rural landscapewith larger rural properties, and to avoid the structure plan route that would provide for subdivisionbeyond the ‘4 hectare rule’ of the District Plan, as they had observed it in Oratia and Swanson.However, there are also strong views from individual landowners believing that more developmentis possible and desirable, ranging from urban type development through to a staged graduation ofdensity from urban, to large lot rural as one moves through the valley and away from the urbanarea.In addition to these diverse community views, the regulatory landscape has changed considerablyover the past few years, with the passing of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008(WRHAA), amendments to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS) through Plan Change6, and the Waitakere City Operative District Plan 2003 (Waitakere District Plan) via Plan Change16, and also through the recent notification of Plan Changes 35 and 36. (see also the WaitakereRanges Foothills Background report for more detailed analysis of relevant provisions).The WRHAA is clear that the heritage area (including the Foothills) will remain a rural place, thatsubdivision must not lead to urban sprawl, in seeking to protect heritage features the area has littlecapacity to absorb further subdivision, and heritage features (as outlined later in this report) must beprotected, restored and enhanced. Provisions of the WRHHA, including the Objectives andFeatures are proposed to be inserted directly into the District Plan via proposed Plan Change 35 18 .The ARPS identifies the upper part of Henderson Valley/Opanuku as areas of Significant NaturalHeritage Value and Significant Landscape quality and sensitivity and so should be managedaccordingly. Objective 2.6.1.1.19 and Policy 2.6.17 generally, and 2.6.17.1(e)(i) and 2.6.17.3 and 4especially, indicate that the Waitakere Ranges and their associated environmental values shall beprotected from inappropriate subdivision use and development and that low density residentialdevelopment (as anticipated by structure Planning in the Waitakere District Plan) shall be avoidedin rural areas unless additional capacity is required. The ARPS indicates that existing District Planprovisions provide 40 years capacity in the Auckland region, and analysis elsewhere in thisdocument shows that Henderson Valley/Opanuku has over 25 years of potential at current rates oftake up.Pursuant to s 73 of the RMA and s11 of the WRHHA Act, District Plans must “give effect to“ boththe ARPS and the purpose and objectives of the WRHAA. Waitakere District Plan Change 16“gives effect” to these higher order documents through now operative Policy 0.11 by indicating thatfurther intensive settlement will not be provided in the Waitakere Ranges 19 . As noted above18 At the time of writing Plan Change 35 further submissions have just closed, and is at a very early stage ofthe process.19 This Policy has recently been the subject of a Consent Order and is now considered Operative.Page 53 of 65
existing structure plans and subdivision provisions across the foothills and ranges, and withinHenderson Valley Opanuku provide enough capacity to accommodate growth needs for at leastanother 25 years. Within this statutory framework future subdivision options are narrowlyconstrained in Henderson Valley.As outlined earlier the District Plan provides for subdivision in the Foothills Environment to sites of4.0ha as a controlled activity (a minor consent not warranting public notification which also must begranted). To go beyond this standard (by providing for it in the District Plan) a structure planprocess 20 is anticipated in the District Plan or a non-complying activity (usually notified) is requiredon an individual site basis. A ‘structure plan’ approach for Henderson Valley is not anticipated,mandated, or considered necessary based on an assessment of the statutory framework andtechnical and landscape work completed to date. Non-complying subdivision to go beyond theexisting 4.0ha capacity is also not provided for, but neither is it ruled out in the existing District Planstandards 21 .Due to this stringent existing policy framework, the options for this LAP are limited to considering a4.0ha average density (so the overall yield or capacity for new dwellings is not increased) andgiving greater policy guidance to where non-complying activity consents may be more favourablyconsidered to occur in the future, subject to the achievement of specified aims.4.3.1. Large PropertiesCouncil has commissioned Stephen Brown Environments Ltd to compile a Landscape SensitivityStudy to help provide clarity on the various landscape features and sensitivities of areas ofHenderson Valley/Opanuku to assist in determining an appropriate method for managingsubdivision in the future. This study has identified that, in the lower valley (zoned mostly as‘Foothills Environment’), many of the large properties with remaining subdivision potential are inareas of moderate to high landscape sensitivity (that is, are very visible and contribute significantlyto the existing landscape character). Most of these properties have productive rural activities, andcontain either denuded ecosystems requiring restoration, or high quality ecosystems requiring longterm protection and enhancement, or a combination of both.Once the large, currently open or productive areas, are ‘converted’ for residential lifestyle use,building density would increase and spaciousness, quietness, and the sense or essence of‘ruralness’ would be reduced. The 4 hectare rule can result in a ‘chequerboard’ pattern of evenlyspaced and sized lots and houses across the landscape, ‘drawing the eye’ to the even manmaderhythm in an otherwise naturalised rural landscape.On these sites, existing subdivision potential, if realised in accordance within a rigid application of ‘4hectare rule’, would not necessarily provide for the protection, enhancement and/or maintenance ofidentified heritage features, other than incidentally, for example through stormwater neutralityplanting, and would most likely result in an overall decline in landscape quality for the whole Valley.A more flexible approach to lot size (but not total lot yield), access and building spacing may bepreferable, taking into account the individual characteristics of each site in the context of the widerValley. Given the small number of sites in the Valley with significant subdivision potential under the4 hectare rule 22 , the landscape assessment indicates that a site specific approach, such as the20 See Policy 11.29, Waitakere District Plan21 As a non-complying activity, an application may still be made, but as no ‘rules’ provide guidance, it mayonly be granted if the effects are less than minor or, is not contrary to the objectives and policies of therelevant Plan(s) - see s104D Resource Management Act 1991. Compare with a ‘prohibited activity’ for whichno application may be made.22 There are only four large sites in the valley that, under the 4 hectare rule, have at least 5 new sites, with thelargest site having the potential for 24 sites at just under 100Ha. There are a number of other sites across theValley with subdivision potential, but they can be managed by the existing provisions of the District Plan asthey have only 1 additional site each. Refer Figure 32Page 54 of 65
Page 1: In the Henderson Valley/Opanuku are
Page 5 and 6: It is primarily a residential site,
Page 7 and 8: LPMA 3.Lockington and Lyon:10 Gum R
Page 9: Application of the LPMA approach wo

Henderson Valley/Opanuku Local Area Plan ... - Auckland Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?