Group demands changes to Mangawhai Central plan

 

Ensuring that a quality Mangawhai Central (MC) development will be delivered in keeping with what makes Mangawhai distinctive and special, is the focus of a submission by five Mangawhai residents on opposing MC’s proposed Plan Change PPC78.

Doug Lloyd, Peter Nicholas, Joel Cayford, Phil McDermott and Rachael Williams have made a combined submission which, while acknowledging the need for commercial viability of the project, seeks the following changes to the proposed Plan Change:

The revision of the Plan Change and the structure plan on which it is based in terms of containment, scale, form and density ‘in keeping with the character of Mangawhai’.

Assurance that the impacts from PPC78 can be fully mitigated, to protect Mangawhai’s character and environment. A full analysis of the costs and benefits to justify a major change to an existing plan is required under the Resource Management Act and this has not been done here, with the proposal simply treated as an amend to the existing plan (Chapter 16).

Greater clarity of the costs and an assurance that existing ratepayers will be not be disadvantaged financially from the development. The Plan Change should ideally demonstrate the impact on Kaipara District Council’s asset management plans and Long-Term Plan and the adjustments to capital spending and funding arrangements required to meet the demands the development will make on the environment.

The group would like to see alignment between KDC’s intentions and policies as set out in its asset management plans, Long Term Council Community Plan, Annual Plan and Spatial Plan and PPC78, so that this co-ordination was evident to the community.

The Planning Hearing is scheduled for November. The group, while acknowledging that Mangawhai would continue to grow, is seeking the redrafting of PPC78 provisions to ensure that the impact of the development is not to the detriment of the physical and social environment of Mangawhai. They say that the large number of “submissions concerned about the impact on the character of Mangawhai, demands on infrastructure, and lack of transparency around funding suggest that PPC78 as it stands should be rejected”. “We believe the impacts have been significantly under-estimated and that direct and indirect costs will fall on the wider community,” they conclude.

Among other submission points ,the group states that: “lifting the 500-dwelling cap to potentially 1500 or more dwellings at the same time as substantially reducing green space, and consequently redrafting the underlying structure plan, add up to a fundamental change of use which represents more than an amendment to existing Chapter 16” in the Operative District Plan, and therefore justifies greater consideration of the impacts on the rest of Mangawhai.

Council has thanked all those who have made submissions and further submissions on proposed Private Plan Change 78. Public consultation, asking for submissions and further submissions is part of the requirements to be followed for plan changes under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The Hearing for those submitters who have requested to be heard is also part of the prescribed process.

Council will set the Hearing date and this will be led by independent Commissioners and a Councillor. The Hearings Commission will make a recommendation to Council, which will make a decision.

All submitters will be advised of the Hearing date(s) at least ten (10) working days prior to the commencement of the Hearing, says Council. A Hearing is a public meeting and will be advertised accordingly.

All submitters are welcome to attend. Those that have indicated in their written submission that they wish to be heard, will be asked to present further information relating to their submission or further submission at the Hearing. When asked, Mangawhai Central had no comment to make on this submission.
 

Breaking down the issues While noting general support from 67 other submissions opposing parts of, or the entire plan, the group noted on specific issues: Compatibility: A concern that PPC78 does not reflect Mangawhai’s attraction as a seaside town, its eclectic mix of housing types, and generally low-density housing. PPC78 overlooks the impact of increased site numbers on the “look and feel” of the town, departing from the standards set by and required of, subdivision elsewhere. This problem would be exacerbated by the need to accommodate water tanks and make provision for vehicles, boats and jet-ski trailers given the allowance it makes for a large number of small sections. Green Space: The reduction in green space from the previously approved Chapter 16 Plan change represents a fundamental change in land use and character. Amenities: The lack of capacity of existing community and recreational facilities to cater for additional demand associated with over 1000 new dwellings and their residents. Scale. Analysis revealed that there was the potential for around 2,600 additional residents from the Plan Change, compared to the 2018 totals of 940 in the Village and 2,000 in the Heads. Combined with the estimated 4,300 more residents in summer peaks, PPC78 had the potential to transform the character of Mangawhai, even before allowing for the Plan change’s potential for multi-storey units in the business zone. The impact of this scale of development has not been addressed. Water Supply: In supporting the mandatory provision of water tanks, the group suggest that there should be no further extraction from the aquifer until hydrological evidence was available regarding the aquifer’s capacity. Regardless of the results, the likelihood of further drought conditions through climate change calls for an increase in the planned minimum lot size to ensure that household tanks have the capacity to support firefighting and potable use. Traffic: The proposed Plan Change does not deal adequately with the likely off-site impacts on roads and will require a major shift in safety measures as well as a lift in capacity in the wider Mangawhai and surrounding area. It proposed KDC bring forward a western by-pass, part-funded by the development, as a matter of urgency. Wastewater: A development and funding programme (including the timing and contributions required by Mangawhai Central) should be prepared. Such a programme should ensure that the uptake from the system over the next 20 years does not lead to less than a 10 per cent buffer of unused capacity remaining in the system during peak summer months. The impact on KDC finances: The group is seeking confirmation that the developer will be funding the cost of bringing forward major infrastructure works prior to these works being undertaken. Development contributions should be required to cover the expansion and maintenance costs to affected infrastructure and minor new works as subdivision is taken up. A development agreement between the KDC and the developer should be prepared to deal with cost allocation, and its principles and provisions, if not detail, should be open to public scrutiny. B