Telephone: Daytime: After Hours: Fax:

Transcription

1

2 Telephone: Daytime: After Hours: Fax: Contact person: Karen Yates Senior Policy Analyst, Policy Group - Dement of Internal Affairs Note: A copy of your submission must be served on the original submitter within 5 working days after making this further submission. 2

3 FURTHER SUBMISSION POINTS: Submission Whakatane District Council Private Bag 1002 Whakatane 3158 General Whakatane District Council ( WDC ) seeks to ensure the bottom line approach endorsed by the Supreme Court case does not lead to inadvertent outcomes (or barriers) in the Plan. WDC has requested a review of the relevant objectives, policies and rules in the plan arising from the King Salmon Supreme Court decision. WDC also seeks to ensure that the large scale at which Indigenous Biological Diversity Area A sites and Outstanding Natural Features are defined and mapped do not result in unintended outcomes driven by the Supreme Court decision. Agree with WDC that the provisions within the proposed RCEP have potential to result in inadvertent outcomes and an overly restrictive planning framework as a consequence of the recent King Salmon decision, with icular regard to the IBDA and ONFL areas associated with Motiti Island, Tuhua and Whaakari. A similar submission was also made by Opotiki District Council (58-1), which is also supported for the reasons above Whakatane District Council Private Bag 1002 Whakatane 3158 david.bewley@whakatane.govt.nz Policy NH1 (page 25) Whakatane District Council has submitted that clause (a) of Policy NH1 should recognise anticipated land use changes permitted through an operative zone in a District or City Plan, and has sought an amendment so that it reads: (a) Are compatible with the existing built environment and level of modification to the environment, or that is anticipated by the zoning in the District or City Plan. The amendment sought is appropriate in terms of recognising long term planning for development and use within the Coastal Environment, which has already been established through plan making processes. However, the amendment requested could be improved to refer to permitted activities anticipated by zoning as follows: (a) Are compatible with the existing built environment and level of modification to the environment, or that is anticipated as a permitted activity by the zoning in the District or City Plan Nepia Ranapia Motiti Island Private Bag Tauranga 3140 ranapia@xtra.co.nz Schedule 6 The submitter states that there are wahi tapu sites that need recognition and protection within the coastal marine area. The submission states that there are significant wahi tapu heritage sites within the sea boundaries of the island and that these sites are reefs and offshore islands that form the basis of the ancient history and first occupation of Motiti that need recognition and protection. The submitter seeks to identify, recognise and protect the, in The proposed RCEP identifies Motiti Island and the surrounding area as an Area of Significant Cultural Value by way of an overlay. The submission is supported to the extent that it is consistent with the Motiti Island Environmental Management Plan. The submission is also supported to ensure there is appropriate protection of wahi tapu sites within the Coastal Marine Area in a manner that is consistent with that provided for by the Motiti Note: A copy of your submission must be served on the original submitter within 5 working days after making this further submission. 3

4 Wahi Tapu sites identified in the coastal marine area around Motiti Island (refer to Motiti Hapu Management Plan Coastal Environment Sites within the sea boundaries of Motiti island known as "Tauranga tai kukume o te hukarere o nga Aturere" Motiti Resource Management Plan Volume (I) and (IV). The submission identifies 24 sites within the BOPRC s jurisdiction, which are sought to be identified and protected within the RCEP. Island Environmental Management Plan Nepia Ranapia Motiti Island Private Bag Tauranga 3140 ranapia@xtra.co.nz Schedule 6 (page ) The submitter states that the description of ASCV-25 for Motiti Island and Associated Islands/Reefs and Shoals should recognise the correct hapu turangawaewae of Motiti Island. It is requested that: 1. The first paragraph of the description of ASCV-25 for Motiti Island and Associated Islands/Reefs and Shoals be amended to read: Mōtītī Island has icular cultural interest significance to the Patuwai hapū of Ngāti Awa and the NgāI Tauwhao hapū of Ngāiterangi Ngati Te Hapu whanau hapu turangawaewae and Whanau a Tauwhao., in The submission is supported to the extent that the description for ASCV-25 should be factually correct and further discussion needs to take place with all relevant tangata whenua. In addition, the description should not be inconsistent with the Motiti Island Environmental Management Plan ( MIEMP ). In this regard, the MIEMP has recently been subject to a lengthy Environment Court process and the Minister of Local Government does not wish to relitigate matters that have already been the subject of Environment Court decisions. Mōtītī Island has a long history of Maioriori and Māori occupation beginning from the ancient Uru ancestors and the arrival with the tradition of the ancestral migratingon canoe, Te Arawa waka, haurua which landed at Maketū directly on-shore from Mōtītī. 2. That the last paragraph is amended to read as follows: Otāiti is a reef within an area culturally known as Te Maamangi of icular cultural and spiritual significance to Te Patuwai, Ngāti Whakahemo, Ngāti Te Hapū and whanau hapu turangawaewae. and Ngāti Awa. The source of the mauri (life force spiritual essence) of Otāiti Note: A copy of your submission must be served on the original submitter within 5 working days after making this further submission. 4

5 reef stems from ancient Uru ancestors and rituals performed by the ttohunga (ritual expert high priest) of Te Arawa waka haurua Ngatoroirangi, who spent his last years at Mōtītī Island. Te Patuwai, the hapū on Mōtītī Island (of Mataatua waka origins) Ngai Te Hapu whanau hapu turangawaewae and Whanau a Tauwhao of Motiti Island continue to regard Otāiti as a toka tipua (reef imbued with spiritual and sacred qualities) alongside Motu Haku island to the north east that holds the same status refers to the deure of the ancient ancestors and view Otaiti reef and Motu Haku Island alongside Oromia tangata ancient rock monuments within the seabed and foreshore that link to a spiritual rock named Kopu Whakaairi at the heart of Motiti Island with the same reverence iwi and hapū on the mainland have towards their maunga or mountain. Otāiti is These areas are also a significant traditional fishery kainga maahinga ika and maahinga mataitai Opotiki District Council PO Box 44 Opotiki aileenl@odc.govt.nz Policy CH10(g) (page 35-36) Opotiki District Council ( ODC ) submitted that LIMs need to be issued in accordance with the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act and generally form the basis of a decision on whether to buy a property. ODC also stated that LIMs must be factual or litigation may result, and states that there is insufficient information or analysis to support the inclusion of tsunami information in LIMs. Agree with the reasons provided by Opotiki District Council. ODC request the removal of requirements to provide information on the effects of tsunami on LIMs Western Bay of Plenty District Council Private Bag Barkes Corner Greerton Part Three Resource management policies to achieve integrated management of the coastal environment (from page 23) Western Bay of Plenty District Council ( WBOPDC ) submit that the RCEP contains a number of policies which state that district councils/plans shall implement various rules or approaches. WBOPDC oppose such statements as it submits Agree with the reasons stated within the WBOPDC submission. Note: A copy of your submission must be served on the original submitter within 5 working days after making this further submission. 5

6 district plans are not required to give effect to a regional plan. Rather, a district plan must not be inconsistent with a regional plan in relation to matters which are a function of a regional council. WBOPDC submits that such statements are attempting to force district councils to adopt specific approaches and specific land use and subdivision rules into their district plans in cases where the Regional Council does not have jurisdiction to include such provisions in the RCEP. WBOPDC requests that all statements which attempt to force district councils/plans to introduce specific approaches (such as methodologies) and specific land use and subdivision rules be deleted from the proposed RCEP. Alternatively, WBOPDC suggests that if retained, such provisions are guidelines only. (This includes, Policies CH9, CH 10, CH 11, CH 12, CH 13, CH 14, CH 15, CH 16 Policy SO 12, Policy RA 5, RA 7) Western Bay of Plenty District Council Private Bag Barkes Corner Greerton tony.clow@westernbay.govt.nz General Provisions referencing subdivision WBOPDC has opposed a number of issues, policies and methods within the proposed RCEP which include references to subdivision. WBOPDC states that these references either attempt to regulate subdivision directly through the RCEP or make district councils regulate subdivision in certain ways. WBOPDC oppose this approach as it is beyond a regional council s function. The WBOPDC is correct in that the regulation of subdivision is beyond the Regional Council s function Tauranga City Council PO Box Policy CH10 (page 35-36) Tauranga City Council ( TCC ) has opposed Policy CH10 stating that the approach is premature. TCC s key concerns are: Agree that the policy approach appears premature and that it has potential to result in significant financial costs for the community, without sufficient evidential justification. Attention: Christine Jones a. Limited work has been undertaken on susceptibility mapping, and no maps of the area under consideration are provided in the RCEP (nor in any other statutory planning document that has been through a schedule 1 process); b. No methodology is provided on the matters to take into account in the RCEP (other than outlining best practice should be used). Note: A copy of your submission must be served on the original submitter within 5 working days after making this further submission. 6

7 c. The policy applies to all new development, whether it is large scale or small scale. This is impracticable and has a potential compliance cost that is not justified until the scale of the hazard effects are known and technically robust. For example, infill subdivision/ development would have limited, if any ability to achieve the mitigation matters, which relate to cumulative effects of numerous proposals over time. TCC also state that without susceptibility mapping being undertaken and assessments appropriately completed the policy approach places a significant financial or compliance burden on future subdivision, use and development across the region without evidential justification. TCC has requested that the policies relating to tsunami hazard risk be deleted until susceptibility mapping has been undertaken by BOPRC as per the draft proposed Plan Change to the RPS through a schedule one process, or that an amended set of policies be worded so that they stipulate a return period so that tsunami susceptibility is able to be modelled with certainty. TCC seek that the use of a 1 in year return period be adopted for land use planning (RCEP) and management purposes. If Policy set is retained in some form TCC request that Policy CH10 be amended to make it clear that the mitigation options referenced in a) h) will not be tested through a consent approval process but are for an applicant / readers information only Bay of Plenty Regional Council PO Box 364 Whakatane 3158 info@boprc.govt.nz Schedule 3 (ONFL 43, ONFL 44, ONFL 46) (page228) Amendment sought to include more comprehensive description of each ONFL (including existing activities) and the attributes and values that contribute to each ONFL. The proposed amendments are based on the 2006 Boffa Miskell report., in Overall, the inclusion of a more detailed schedule and description of ONFL s is supported, as is the inclusion of existing uses. The schedule and mapped overlays for Tuhua and Motiti Island should reflect the District Plans for these Islands, which have recently been finalised and without the need to relitigate matters that have been resolved through those plan processes and via the Note: A copy of your submission must be served on the original submitter within 5 working days after making this further submission. 7

8 Environment Court. In addition, it needs to be made clear in the RCEP that the ONFL for Motiti Island has been the subject of a review since the 2006 Boffa Miskell report, and that the findings of the review are relevant to ONFL 44. ONFL 43 The list of current uses for ONFL 43 (applicable to Tuhua) should be amended to recognise existing access points to the island and the schedule should recognise the areas of the island that have been identified for development within the District Plan. ONFL 44 The title and description of ONFL 44 needs to be amended so that it accurately reflects the Review of ONFL Areas Review of Method of 2006 ONFL Assessment for the Bay of Plenty Regional Coastal Plan prepared by Boffa Miskell (dated 10 July 2013). In icular, the ONFL should apply only to the coastal edge of Motiti Island and it needs to be made clear within the schedule which aspects are outstanding. In addition, and in line with the Minister of Local Government s primary submission, the ONFL should be deleted from the landing areas identified within the Motiti Island Environmental Management Plan. Further to this, the schedule needs to accurately reflect the current uses on the Island, including, but not limited to orchards, residential development, and marae (this applies to the description and current uses ). ONFL 46 The schedule needs to recognise all existing uses, including monitoring stations and activities associated with scientific research, as well as helicopter landing sites. Note: A copy of your submission must be served on the original submitter within 5 working days after making this further submission. 8

9 Tuhua (Mayor Island) Trust Board 40 Queen Road Bellevue Tauranga 3112 General Tuhua (Mayor Island) Request that all references and maps pertaining to Tuhua (Mayor Island) are removed from the proposed RCEP. The reasons given are that Tuhua is located 26 kms from the nearest mainland point north of Waihi Beach and therefore should not be included within the Geographic boundary covered by the Proposed Plan (PRCEP). The Minister of Local Government considers it appropriate for Tuhua to be identified within the proposed RCEP as it is of the Bay of Plenty s Coastal Environment. tuhuatrust@xtra.co.nz Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society NZ Inc PO Box Tauranga 3155 General Policies and rules relevant to s6(c) Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society NZ Inc ( Forest and Bird ) submitted that the policies and rules need to provide for protection of sites that are significant under s6(c), consistent with RPS Policy MN 2B, and seek that all policies and rules are amended to ensure significant sites under s6(c) are protected by the plan policies and rules., in The changes requested by Forest & Bird are not clear and the implications of such changes are not known. Such changes have potential to impact existing and future use and development on off-shore islands within the Bay of Plenty Region Motiti Rohe Moana Trust 20 Matapihi Station Road RD 5 Tauranga Rohemoana@gmail.com General Motiti Rohe Moana Trust submits that there is a failure to give effect to Part II Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), New Zealand Coastal Policy statement (NZCPS) Objective 3 and Policy 2 in icular, and relevant provisions of the Proposed Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement that provide for exercise of tino rangitiratanga, kaitiakitanga, customary values, application of matauranga maori, tikanga, and active protection of taonga in respect to Motiti Rohe Moana. Neutral The detail of the outcomes sought by the submitter are unclear and have potential to result in significant implications for the application and interpretation of the RCEP. However, without knowing the exact nature of the changes sought, it is difficult to make a more informed further submission on this point. The submission includes a range of outcomes sought to address this concern Motiti Rohe Moana Trust 20 Matapihi Station Road RD 5 Tauranga Rohemoana@gmail.com General The submitter strongly supports the inclusion of matauranga Maori in the integrated management process. However, they consider there needs to be specific provisions for its implementation, and request the following be included within the RCEP: a. Marine spatial plan for Motiti rohe moana and whenua, in The Minister of Local Government supports the submission with respect to the inclusion of matauranga Maori in the integrated management process, but considers spatial plans should be undertaken through a full Schedule 1 process under the RMA, involving all relevant ies. Note: A copy of your submission must be served on the original submitter within 5 working days after making this further submission. 9

10 incorporating matauranga Maori in collaboration with the Trust. b. Apply Maori attributes of mana, mauri and tapu to assessment of natural character in icular to the island reefs and waters of Motiti rohe moana and whenua Motiti Rohe Moana Trust 20 Matapihi Station Road RD 5 Tauranga Rohemoana@gmail.com General The submitter states that the Natural Heritage issue, objectives and policies do not go far enough in recognising issues of significance to Mana Whenua and Mana moana icipation and decision making in regard to natural heritage and biodiversity or in identifying locations which require restoration and the linkage between natural and cultural heritage. The following amendments have been requested: a. Add Issues Objectives Policies and Methods to give effect to Objective 2, 3 and 7 and Policies 2, 13 and 15. b. Reword issues and objectives to include recognition that natural heritage and restoration of biodiversity is an issue of significance to Mana Whenua and Mana Moana and their icipation and decision making is provided for in regard to indigenous biodiversity and natural heritage., in The Minister of Local Government supports the need recognise issues of significance to mana whenua and mana moana, and for icipation in decision making as anticipated by the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement. However, as the changes sought to the RCEP are described in a broad manner, the implications of such changes are uncertain and could have reasonably significant implications for the application and interpretation of the RCEP Motiti Rohe Moana Trust 20 Matapihi Station Road RD 5 Tauranga Rohemoana@gmail.com Part 4 Activity Based Policies & Rules The submitter states that activities in the Coastal Marine Area are opposed to the extent it does not provide for matters of significance to Mana whenua and Mana moana. The submitter requests additional objectives and policies to provide for marine spatial planning over the Motiti Rohe Moana., in Objectives and policies to provide for marine spatial planning should be undertaken through a full Schedule 1 process under the RMA, including extensive consultation on these specific aspects. Note: A copy of your submission must be served on the original submitter within 5 working days after making this further submission. 10

11 Motiti Avocados Limited c/- Holland Beckett Private Bag Attention: Vanessa Hamm / Nick Swallow Nick.Swallow@hobec.co.nz Issues Small scale transportation infrastructure The submitter states that Objective 25 appropriately recognises structures with a functional need to locate in the coastal marine area, but that policy support for this is tied to either the harbour development zones, or the port zone. It is stated that there is no Policy support recognition of existing small scale infrastructure in the coastal marine area outside these two zones. The submitter requests a new issue to read: The submitters seek a new issue, two policies and a definition to recognise and provide for small scale transportation infrastructure associated with off-shore islands. The issue statement proposed by the submitter is appropriate to assist in addressing the lack of recognition within the proposed RCEP for the need to provide for access to and from offshore islands. New Issue 34a: small scale transportation infrastructure in the coastal marine area plays an important role in providing access to and from off-shore islands Motiti Avocados Limited c/- Holland Beckett Private Bag Attention: Vanessa Hamm / Nick Swallow Nick.Swallow@hobec.co.nz Policies - Small scale transportation infrastructure For the reasons provided in submission point (above), the submitter seeks the following new policies: Policy SO XX: Recognise and provide for existing small scale transportation infrastructure in the coastal marine area. Policy SO XY: Provided that adverse effects on natural heritage values and attributes are suitably avoided, remedied or mitigated, recognise that new small scale transportation infrastructure may be required and may have limited locational options. The policies proposed by the submitter are appropriate to assist in addressing the lack of recognition within the proposed RCEP for the need to provide for access to and from offshore islands Motiti Avocados Limited c/- Holland Beckett Private Bag Attention: Vanessa Hamm / Nick Swallow Nick.Swallow@hobec.co.nz Policies - Small scale transportation infrastructure The submitter seeks the following new definition within the proposed RCEP: Small scale transportation infrastructure: includes transportation activities such as wharves, boat ramps and barge landing areas as well as related structures such as access paths, lighting and navigational markers. The definition is considered appropriate and necessary with respect to the additional provisions sought in submission points and Note: A copy of your submission must be served on the original submitter within 5 working days after making this further submission. 11

12 Motiti Avocados Limited c/- Holland Beckett Private Bag Attention: Vanessa Hamm / Nick Swallow Nick.Swallow@hobec.co.nz Policy IW2 (page 30) The submitter states that the policy is inconsistent with the purpose of the Act and fails to give effect to the NZCPS. They also state that it introduces elements significantly beyond how the RPS guides recognition and provision for tangata whenua values and interests. The submission also states that the appropriate response in any given situation should be left to the s104 assessment, and that the policy effectively pre-empts an assessment of the appropriate level of effects in any resource consent decision., in Agree with Motiti Avocados Limited that the policy could result in outcomes inconsistent with the Resource Management Act. In some cases certain proposals may be acceptable even though they may result in significant adverse effects on some values. Rather than being deleted in its entirety, the policy could be amended as follows to address the concerns with this policy: The submitter requests that Policy IW2 be deleted. To not allow use and development which will have a significant adverse effect Where practicable, significant adverse effects on resources or areas of spiritual, historical or cultural significance to tāngata whenua in the coastal environment shall be avoided. Where avoidance of significant adverse effects is not practicable unless that the effect shall be can specifically be remedied, or mitigated, or where not possible to remedy or mitigate, that effect can be offset. Methods for remediation, mitigation or off-setting shall be established through engagement with mana whenua Motiti Avocados Limited c/- Holland Beckett Private Bag Attention: Vanessa Hamm / Nick Swallow Nick.Swallow@hobec.co.nz Policy IW10 (page 31) The submitter states that Policy IW10 is inconsistent with the purpose of the Act and fails to give effect to the NZCPS. They also state that it introduces elements significantly beyond how the RPS guides recognition and provision for tangata whenua values and interests. The submitter also states that the appropriate response in any given situation should be left to the s104 assessment, and that the policy effectively pre-empts an assessment of the appropriate level of effects in any resource consent decision. The submitter requests that Policy IW10 be deleted., in Agree with Motiti Avocados Limited that the policy could result in outcomes inconsistent with the Resource Management Act. Rather than being deleted in its entirety, the policy could be amended as follows to address the concerns with this policy: To not allow Where practicable, ensure use and development which would restrict the access of tangata whenua to sites used for cultural practices, gathering kaimoana and areas of cultural significance within the common marine area and coastal area, unless that access can be specifically provided for, or Note: A copy of your submission must be served on the original submitter within 5 working days after making this further submission. 12

13 the loss can be adequately remedied. maintains access by tangata whenua to sites used for cultural practices, gathering kaimoana and areas of cultural significance. Where it is not practicable to maintain access, the loss of existing access shall be remedied, mitigated, or off-set (where remediation is not possible) Motiti Avocados Limited c/- Holland Beckett Private Bag Attention: Vanessa Hamm / Nick Swallow Nick.Swallow@hobec.co.nz Policy RA5 (page 42) The submitter states that the word prohibit in the first line of the Policy is not warranted, and that prohibited activity status should be rarely used under the RMA. They also state that an advice note is also needed to make clear what the Policy applies to. The submitter requests that the policy be amended as follows: District and city councils should restrict or prohibit vehicle use on foreshore, beaches and adjacent public land: Add advice note as follows: Advice note: This policy does not apply to private land adjacent to the coastal marine area. Agree with Motiti Avocados Limited that prohibited is unnecessary and that if retained, the policy should clarified to confirm it does not apply to privately owned land. The prohibition of vehicle use as proposed has the potential to significantly hinder legitimate uses of the foreshore and beaches. In this regard, it is noted that subsection (c) of the policy exempts certain legitimate activities from the prohibition, however, these only apply in urbanised areas and would not apply to offshore islands such as Motiti, Tuhua, and Whakaari Motiti Avocados Limited c/- Holland Beckett Private Bag Attention: Vanessa Hamm / Nick Swallow Nick.Swallow@hobec.co.nz Schedule 6 The submitter states that description for ASCV-25 relates to the whole island and needs to be updated to exclude the barge landing facilities. The following changes have been requested: a. Exclude the barge landing area from ASCV 25 and amend map 43 accordingly. b. Amend Schedule 6 ASCV 25 to make clear in the title that this applies to the Island' s surrounds below MHWS and add an advisory note as follows: The submission is supported as the changes sought are consistent with the Motiti Island Environmental Management Plan. In icular, it is noted that the planning maps within the Motiti Island Environmental Management Plan identify culturally significant on Motiti Island and the surround coastline. None of these are located within the Identified Landing Areas (also shown on the planning maps). "Advisory note: ASCV-25 applies below mean high water Note: A copy of your submission must be served on the original submitter within 5 working days after making this further submission. 13

14 springs and excludes the Island's identified landing areas and related structures where those are present in the coastal marine area." Blakely Pacific Limited c/- Holland Beckett Private Bag Attention: Vanessa Hamm / Nick Swallow Nick.Swallow@hobec.co.nz Policy RA8 (page 43) The submitter states that a blanket provision to commit the Regional Council to advocate for esplanade reserves or strips fails to consider these are not always warranted or practicable or consider the impacts and obligations to landowners (icularly if an esplanade strip is used). The submitter requests that sub-paragraph (a) is deleted from Policy RA 8. Agree with submitter that committing to advocate for esplanade reserves or strips fails to consider these are not always warranted or practicable Blakely Pacific Limited c/- Holland Beckett Private Bag Attention: Vanessa Hamm / Nick Swallow Part 2 Section 1 Issues (from page 9) The submitter states that many of the issues raised under Part 2 of the RCEP do not relate to issues crossing the land/water divide. They state that if the prcep is to impose provisions of general application above MHWS, these need to carry through the full range of issues from higher order planning documents. Blakley Pacific requests the following issue be included: The new issue sought provides an appropriate recognition for the role of, and need for certain activities to be located within the coastal environment. Nick.Swallow@hobec.co.nz Issue 3: There is a need to recognise that the coastal environment contains a range of existing activities and uses important for people s social and economic well being, while new uses and activities will also need to locate in the coastal environment in suitable areas Blakely Pacific Limited c/- Holland Beckett Private Bag Attention: Vanessa Hamm / Nick Swallow Policy NH 11 (page 27) The submitter states that because the initial words do not mention NH 4 it suggests the Policy applies to all subdivision, use and development in the coastal environment. They state it is not clear if this Policy is intended to capture existing activities and a reference to NH 5 would assist in this regard. Policy IR 8C [of the BOP RPS], divides responsibilities between district and regional plans for biodiversity and The changes requested provide appropriate linkages to other policies and provide appropriate recognition for the need to locate certain infrastructure and development within the coastal environment, which may not be defined as regionally or nationally significant infrastructure. Note: A copy of your submission must be served on the original submitter within 5 working days after making this further submission. 14

15 expressly states that district councils are to manage biodiversity above mean high water springs, and the prcep is to manage this below that line. Paragraph (d) is inconsistent with Schedule 13 of the prcep in terms of when an offset is to be used, where offsets are only applicable to significant residual adverse effects. The submitter seeks that the policy be deleted or amended as follows: "Manage the adverse effects of the new subdivision, use and development activities in the coastal environment on the values and attributes of areas listed in Policy NH 4 in accordance with the following management regime: (aa) the matters contained in Policy NH 5; (a) Route or site selection considers the avoidance of significant natural heritage areas listed in Policy NH 4; (b) Adverse effects are avoided to the extent reasonable, having regard to the technical and operational requirements associated with regionally or nationally significant infrastructure or the activity in question; (c) Adverse effects which cannot be avoided are remedied or mitigated; and... (d) Significant residual adverse effects on the values and attributes that contribute to any Indigenous Biological Diversity Area A (as identified in Schedule 2, Table 1) or on any Taxa that meet the criteria listed in Policy 11(a)(i) or (ii) of the NZCPS below mean high water springs which cannot be avoided, remedied or mitigated are offset to result in no net loss and preferably a net indigenous biological diversity gain. A biodiversity offset should be developed in a manner consistent with the principles contained in Schedule 13." Note: A copy of your submission must be served on the original submitter within 5 working days after making this further submission. 15

16 Shad Rolleston Rule DD7 Permitted Vehicle access and use (page 69) The submitter states that access and development at Tuhua is currently limited to areas around Opo Bay (Southeast Bay), Te Panui and Oira (Northwest Bay). He states that Rule DD7 restricts any vehicle access onto Tuhua and is contrary to objectives and policies set out in the Tuhua District Plan, and in this case, Rule DD7 is also inconsistent with Policy 2 (a) and (f) in the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement. Submission opposes Rule DD7, and correctly notes that vehicle access is required by machinery and vehicles from time to time at Tuhua. This is also the case for other islands and such access should be provided for, subject to appropriate management of effects in a manner similar to the provisions for identified landing areas on Motiti Island. The submitter states that there are limited vehicle landing access points onto the island and states that from time to time, the Trust Board requires vehicles (tractor, quad bike etc.) and other machinery (diggers) to be transported to Tuhua. There are currently only two vehicle access points on Tuhua Opo Bay (Southeast Bay) and Oira Bay (Northwest Bay) linked by internal tracks. The submitter requests that amendments are made to exclude discrete areas of Tuhua from Rule DD7 Opo Bay (Southeast Bay) and Oira Bay (Northwest Bay) as Indigenous Biological Diversity Area A; or to permit vehicle access and use in Opo Bay (Southeast Bay) and Oira (Northwest Bay) Transpower c/- Incite Po Box Christchurch Attention: Matthew McCallum- Clark matthew@incite.co.nz Objective 25 (page 19) Transpower seeks that Objective 25 is strengthened by making the following amendment: Activities and structures that depend upon the use of natural and physical resources in the coastal marine area, or have a functional need to be located in the coastal marine are recognised and provided for. The amendment requested clarifies that certain activities need to be provided for within the coastal environment. Note: A copy of your submission must be served on the original submitter within 5 working days after making this further submission. 16

17 Ngati Makino Heritage Trust PO Box 479 Te Puke 3119 Attention: Pia Bennett - Environmental Officer taiao@ngatimakino.co.nz Schedule 6 With regard to ASCV-25, the submitter states that the current wording and histories is incomplete and fails to acknowledge the existence of others who have legitimate connections. The submitter states that if a RCEP is to use, quote or be guided and informed by another plan that is not available to the public such as the Motiti Island Cultural Heritage Wahi Tapu document, then the information is inappropriate to use and should not be included at all. The submitter also states that the information about Otaiti is also questionable and narrow. Besides creating perceptions of bias (giving a one-sided perspective), they say it has more serious longer term and implications for iwi within processes that this Plan will be guided by., in The submission is supported to the extent that the description for ASCV-25 should be factually correct and further discussion needs to take place with all relevant tangata whenua. In addition, the description should not be inconsistent with the Motiti Island Environmental Management Plan ( MIEMP ). In this regard, the MIEMP has recently been subject to a lengthy Environment Court process and the Minister of Local Government does not wish to relitigate matters that have already been the subject of Environment Court decisions. Ngati Makino Heritage Trust request the following changes to the schedule for ASCV 25: a. First paragraph to include Te Arawa Iwi. b. Second paragraph to be reworded to acknowledge that the first occupant was the esteemed Tohunga, Ngatoroirangi who named the s of the island and lived there with Waitaha descendants. c. The following be added to the last paragraph: Otaiti is a significant tapu maunga of Te Arawa and is connected to the ancestor tohunga Ngatoroirangi who gave it its name. The maunga Otaiti marks the outer gateway to the moana o Te Arawa. It is connected to the geothermal pathways discovered by Ngatoroirangi." Note: A copy of your submission must be served on the original submitter within 5 working days after making this further submission. 17

18 Ngati Makino Heritage Trust PO Box 479 Te Puke 3119 Attention: Pia Bennett - Environmental Officer taiao@ngatimakino.co.nz Schedule 6 The submitter states that exercise of identifying Areas of Significant Cultural Value ( ASCV ) in the coastal environment for the coastal plan will be meaningless if there are no objectives, policies and rules to support their place in the planning framework. It is submitted that work is required on new objectives, policy, methods and rules to ensure the mapping of ASCV s is not a waste of time and money or done to meet expectations or requirements of other planning instruments as a duty rather than meaningful exercise and effort to protect, preserve, enhance or recognise our (tangata whenua) existence., in It is agreed that if areas are to be mapped, appropriate provisions need to be provided within the plan to protect and manage these areas. However, it is not clear from the submission what changes are being requested and how these may impact on off-shore islands Rangiwaea Marae Trust, Rangiwaea Ahikaa Residents, and Whanau a Tauwhao PO Box 32 Tauranga 3140 Attention: Brendon Taingahue brendon@tauwhaotrust.co.nz General - Policies The submitter states that more emphasis needs to be given to recognising our enduring relationship with the coastal environment. The submitter seeks amendments to objectives, policies, methods and rules to ensure the management of our taonga occurs in a way that provides for our social, cultural and political needs. The submission seeks to establish tangata whenua development zones in the coastal area where Maori aspirations, values and benefits are the focus of the nature and types of development that occur., in The intention to ensure the management of our taonga occurs in a way that provides for the social, cultural and political needs of tangata whenua is supported, however, it is not clear exactly what amendments would be undertaken to the provisions of the plan to address the submission. In addition, any new zones or spatial plans should only be developed through a formal Schedule 1 process. It is also sought to incorporate in the RCEP to work with tangata whenua to develop spatial plans and other planning to inform the development of tangata whenua development zones. Note: A copy of your submission must be served on the original submitter within 5 working days after making this further submission. 18

19 Rangiwaea Marae Trust, Rangiwaea Ahikaa Residents, and Whanau a Tauwhao PO Box 32 Tauranga 3140 Attention: Brendon Taingahue brendon@tauwhaotrust.co.nz Section 1.4 Iwi Resource Management Rangiwaea Marae Trust, Rangiwaea Ahikaa Residents, and Whanau a Tauwhao submit that undeveloped Maori lands are being targeted to restore biodiversity in order to compensate the over-development or inappropriate developments and loss of biodiversity on non-tangata whenua lands. To assist in addressing this issue, the submitter seeks the establishment of tangata whenua development zones in the coastal area where Maori aspirations, values and benefits are the focus of the nature and types of development that occur. It is also sought to incorporate provisions in the RCEP to work with tangata whenua to develop spatial plans and other planning to inform the development of tangata whenua development zones., in The development of any spatial planning or other zones should be undertaken through a formal process under Schedule 1 of the RMA. Similar submissions were also made by Ngati Makino Heritage Trust (127-14) and Ngati Ranginui Iwi Inc Soc (129-14). These are also apposed, in, for the reasons noted above Rangiwaea Marae Trust, Rangiwaea Ahikaa Residents, and Whanau a Tauwhao PO Box 32 Tauranga 3140 Attention: Brendon Taingahue brendon@tauwhaotrust.co.nz Policy NH 4 (page 26) The submitter states that in dealing with accumulated effects, and consistent with the NZCPS, tangata whenua may wish to restore culturally important, degraded areas. They state it is critical that such areas, are excluded from developments and seek the following addition to Policy NH4: "(e) Degraded, important cultural sites which tangata whenua have indicated that they want to restore for biodiversity and cultural reasons.", in While the concept of avoiding adverse effects on important cultural sites is supported, it is unclear how the policy is to be applied and how such sites are to be identified (i.e. does the site need to be included within the RCEP, other planning instrument, or Iwi Management Plan for tangata whenua to have indicated that they want to restore for biodiversity and cultural reasons?). The addition to the policy is unclear and appears to enable the identification of areas for restoration without any formal process. The submissions of Ngati Makino Heritage Trust (127-44), Ngati Ranginui Iwi Inc Soc (129-39), and Te Arawa ki Tai Trust (130-37) are similar and are also supported in for the reasons above. Note: A copy of your submission must be served on the original submitter within 5 working days after making this further submission. 19

20 Rangiwaea Marae Trust, Rangiwaea Ahikaa Residents, and Whanau a Tauwhao PO Box 32 Tauranga 3140 Attention: Brendon Taingahue brendon@tauwhaotrust.co.nz Part Three - Natural Heritage Policies (from page 25) The submission seeks the inclusion of a new policy to read: Avoid any adverse effects on any area identified by tangata whenua as a natural heritage cultural restoration site., in While the concept of avoiding adverse effects on important cultural sites is not opposed, it is not clear how this policy is to be implemented and how natural heritage cultural restoration sites are to be identified. Refer also to comments under further submission on Policy NH 4. The proposed policy could be amended to read as follows: Where practicable, Aavoid any adverse effects on any area identified by tangata whenua as a natural heritage cultural restoration sites identified within any regional or district plan. A similar submission was also made by Ngati Makino Heritage Trust (127-48), Ngati Ranginui Iwi Inc Soc (129-43), and Te Arawa ki Tai Trust (130-42). These are also supported in for the reasons stated above Rangiwaea Marae Trust, Rangiwaea Ahikaa Residents, and Whanau a Tauwhao PO Box 32 Tauranga 3140 Attention: Brendon Taingahue brendon@tauwhaotrust.co.nz Policy IW 1 (page 30) The submitter states that it is important that the ahi kaa are recognised as kaitiaki, that is, mana whenua who have lived intergenerationally in the same area that they practise kaitiakitanga. The submitter also states it is important to recognise that tangata whenua may want to restore sites for their cultural/biodiversity values. It is requested that Policy IW 1 be amended as follows: In (c) and (d): insert ahi kaa after "tangata whenua" Add another para (f) "Cultural areas which ahi kaa have indicated that they wish to restore for cultural/biodiversity reasons.", in New clause (f) is opposed insofar as it is not clear how areas for restoration are to be identified. This concern could be addressed through amendments to the proposed clause as follows: Proposals which may affect the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions must recognise and provide for: (f) natural heritage cultural restoration sites identified within any regional or district plan. Cultural areas which ahi kaa have indicated that they wish to restore for cultural/biodiversity reasons." Note: A copy of your submission must be served on the original submitter within 5 working days after making this further submission. 20