Planners Report rejects bulk of plan change opposition

---

Independent planning consultants hired to assess Mangawhai Central’s controversial Proposed Private Plan Change, PC78, returned their verdict on October 30, recommending to Kaipara District Council that the plan change be ‘approved with modifications’.

New community watchdog group, Mangawhai Matters, immediately got to work, inspecting the consultant’s report, analysing the fine details and summarising what the outcome means to Mangawhai, concluding that overall the recommendations are not favourable, with only a few indications of good news.

Kaipara District Council’s preliminary response to Viranda’s application for Plan Change 78 is contained in a Planner’s Report (prepared by planning consultancy Barker & Associates of Whangarei), required by the Resource Management Act and published on Friday October 30.

Its analysis of the original application and recommendations will now go before a planning hearing later this month, after which independent Planning Commissioners will make their recommendations to the Council on whether to allow the Plan Change, and what adjustments and conditions they might require.

The Planner’s Report reviews the application documents, which are also subject to peer review, and considers the hundreds of submissions from the public on the Plan Change.

The report’s recommendations are not good news for Mangawhai Matters members or for the many people who voiced opposition to many aspects of the proposed Plan Change. The majority of concerns have been rejected, although recommendations have been made for plugging gaps in the application regarding groundwater and ecological matters and how development in the Coastal Marine Area will be managed.

Below is a brief summary, and response by Mangawhai Matters, of the Planner’s Report in the areas Mangawhai Matters believe are important to the community.

 

Amenity and Character

The Report rejects a call for doing away with a large number of small lots of a minimum 350sq metres proposed by the Plan Change. It says “changes are inevitable with urban development in a predominantly rural area at the start of a process of urbanisation.”

Mangawhai Matters: This is a major presumption. The resident population in the Heads and Village is currently around 3,600, with another 2,600 people classified as rural. From this level, the Report accepts the Plan Change as a starting step in the transformation of Mangawhai from two closely-linked village communities on the coast to an urban area of 10,000 or more people at which level it might justify higher density development.

 

Community Facilities

The Report rejects calls for more community facilities in the planned subdivision, saying “consideration of the establishment of community facilities will be more efficiently made at the time of subdivision and development, subject to the negotiation between the applicant and the Council”.

MM: Our view is that a commitment should be made to the needs of the community that is expected to emerge at Mangawhai Central through the objectives and policies of the Plan Change and its land use provisions, especially if it does attain the substantial increase in population planned.

 

Consultation

The Report rejects claims that the community had not been adequately consulted. It says: “Consultation on PC78 undertaken by Mangawhai Central prior to lodgement was in excess of that required under the RMA (Resource Management Act)”.

MM: Our view remains that the process failed to achieve the level of consultation that is required by a Plan Change that, if accepted by the Council, will have far-reaching consequences for the entire community and wider environment, and not simply the Mangawhai Central site.

 

Wastewater

The Report accepts that there is sufficient capacity within the MCWS and that it can be upgraded to cater for additional demand in the future (should the need arise).

 

Wastewater Disposal

The report recommends that this should be addressed “most effectively” at the time of subdivision. It states that the Council’s “development contribution policy” is not within the scope of the Plan Change and rejects calls for greater transparency.

MM: Again, given the magnitude of change proposed, it is our view that long term arrangements for wastewater treatment and disposal should be detailed and the impact on the long Term Plan and funding arrangements made clear by the Council, even if that is outside the plan Change Process.

 

Potable Water

MM: In rejecting calls for water tanks on all sections within the subdivision, the Report says that “to support a mandatory roof water collection may not be suitable or possible (to collect) from every roof.” This is hardly surprising if there is an expectation that the majority of sites sold will be less than 500sqm and as small as 350sqm.

As it is, the peer review of provisions for potable water acknowledges the uncertain nature of the aquifer and the likely limitations on its capacity to supply the level of development that PC78 would enable.

This appears to be a major shortcoming of the application and of the suggestion in the Report that it is something that can be resolved at the time of subdivision. Unless there is certainty over the capacity to sustainably supply water to the development or to allow only residential development capable of collecting rainwater, it is hard to see the development as proposed being realised.

One problem this raises is that we don’t know what compromise – or compromised – development might eventuate. There is consequently too much uncertainty over the development as a whole. This something we expect the Commissioners will have to consider closely.

 

Residential lots and numbers

The Report accepts the applicant’s position that the 500-unit cap as approved for Estuary Estates on the site “unduly limits residential yields despite the land clearly having a much greater capacity for development.” It concludes that “reducing lot sizes to 350sq metres is a better outcome than enabling lower density sprawl elsewhere in the wider (Mangawhai) area.” MM: This raises several questions. Mangawhai comprises a relatively small settlement which, as such, does not sprawl. It enjoys the amenity and diversity of a mixture of section sizes, reflecting both its history and its topography. It does not have the high density of a fully urban area of new

commuter suburbs like Millwater and Hobsonville. There is no obvious reason why it should. As noted above, a large population increment may not be sustainable without a totally new source of potable water or a significant reduction in density.

 

Infrastructure General

It is expected that the rates generated by an increased rating base at Mangawhai Central will be “in excess of the additional costs of increased demand for council services.” Consequently, the Planner’s Report rejects submissions concerned with the impact of PPC78 on council infrastructure.

MM: This begs the question of how far infrastructure investment required off the site to cater for the development and the additional population will be met by the Development Contributions negotiated between the council and Viranda.

There was one bright light for submitters who had major concerns about the impact of increased traffic resulting from the development.

The peer reviews recommend that because of potentially serious traffic issues, the development is limited to 850 lots and that the development of further lots be a “restricted discretionary activity.” This means the developer of future sections will need to prove the roading and infrastructure can cope. The same goes for water supply.

We were also pleased to see that the Planner’s Report accepts our recommendation (which aligns with the view of the Northland Transport Alliance) that there should be a western entry to the site from the Old Waipu Rd. The cost of this, and recommended changes to the Insley Rd/Moir St and Moir St/Molesworth Drive intersections, are among the off-site impacts that we hope to see covered by Development Contributions from the development.

The Mangawhai Central development continues as a Planner’s Report reviews and considers hundreds of submissions from the public on the controversial Plan Change. PHOTO/SUPPLIED

---