section 2.3 - natural features and landscapes · 2017-10-01 · natural features and landscapes and...

Section 2.3 - Natural Features and Landscapes

Summary of Submissions and Decisions Requested by Plan Section 42 Section 2.3 - Natural Features and Landscapes

Submitter Name/ Submission No. and Point

Plan Provision Summary of Submission Decision Requested

General

C E Henderson 17.6

General Support general comments, objectives and policies in the proposed Plan and as outlined in the Section 32 report. Seek that

Southland community be included in more consultation regarding “un-assessed” landscapes. Whole landscapes as well as vistas

need protection.

Retain objectives and policies as stated.

C and W McDonald 136.3

General Oppose this section. The Plan if implemented will be impractical and potentially detrimental to the efficient operation of properties

affected by it. It will add yet another unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and cost to our business. Consultation has been

inadequate, either as a group or individual. We feel that the effects of this section could have a detrimental effect on our farming

operation and impinge on our existing use rights as freehold property owners.

Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the following: Delete the entire section and associated rules in relation to landscapes.

DOC 134.18

General Support in part.

Southland has internationally significant landscapes that should be protected in the Plan. Also the sites identified in the

New Zealand Geological Society Geopreservation Index should be recognised in the Plan and given appropriate protection to give

effect to S5, 6(e) and s31 of the RMA and in the coastal environment New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010, in particular

Policy 15.

Include in the planning maps the outstanding natural features and landscape of: Te Wahipounamu South West Fiordland World

Heritage Area, the neighbouring lands of the Waitutu Block Settlement Act 1997 that are managed as if National Park and adjacent covenanted areas between Waitutu and Wairaurahiri Rivers;

Statutory Acknowledgement Areas or Töpuni sites such as Takitimu Range as outlined in Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998;

The periglacial landscapes of Garvie, Old Woman, Old Man and Umbrella Ranges as outlined in the Land Information New Zealand Crown Pastoral Lease Conservation Resources Report on Glenaray Station and Gem Lake; and

New Zealand Geological Society Geopreservation Sites;

and include objectives, policies and rules to protect these sites. Amend the introduction to recognise the landscapes identified above, by amending the second sentence in the first paragraph to read: The District is encompassed by a range of landscapes, from those dominated by natural processes and patterns such as those in Fiordland National Park and what is recognised internationally as Te Wahipounamu Southwest Fiordland World Heritage Area; and Rakiura National Parks and surrounding lands such as Tutae-Ka-Wetoweto lands protected under the Tutae-Ka-Wetoweto Forest Act 2001; to those which reflect human modification and settlement such as “working‟ rural landscapes and urban areas. Notable natural landforms and geological features also form a key part of the District‟s landscapes. Amend the last sentence in the second paragraph of the introduction to: • Te Anau Scenic Zones Visibility/Visual Landscape

Assessment 2010; • Ecological studies of a marine terrace sequence in the

Waitutu Ecological District of southern New Zealand. Part 1: The vegetation and soil patterns. New Zealand 1988;

• Marine terraces of Waitutu District and their relation to the late Cenozoic tectonics of southern Fiordland region. New Zealand 1988.

• Crown Pastoral Lease Tenure Review Reports (in particular, Glenary/Whitecoomb Conservation Resources Report 2006);





• New Zealand Geological Society Geopreservation Sites (New Zealand Geopreservation Inventory MfE Website). http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/ser/metadata/land-rep/page31.html

Amend the last sentence in the third paragraph to read: It is expected that identified Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes will not change significantly over time as a result of subdivision, land use and development. Amend the fifth and sixth paragraphs of the explanation to read: Areas of the Southland District where Outstanding Natural Features and landscape values have not been assessed to date, include: • The Inland Mountains (Takitimu, Livingston, Eyre,

Garvie, Old Woman, Old Man, and Umbrella Ranges); • The Southland Hills (Longwoods, Taringatura‟s,

Hokonui‟s and Inland Catlins) in particular the extent of nationally significant features of the Southland geosyncline;

• The Southland Valleys and Plains (Lower Waiau Valley, Waimea Plains, Southland Plains).

As natural feature and landscape assessments of these areas are undertaken, Council, through the Plan change process, may will identify and protect additional Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes and Visual Amenity Landscapes. If a resource consent application is made for quarrying, construction of cuts and embankments such as for a new road, or for clearance of indigenous vegetation, it is essential that any outstanding landscapes or natural features are identified and the effects of the activity on those landscapes or features identified and assessed.

NZ Landcare Trust 161.11

General Support. It is good to recognise the two tiers of landscape values. Also support the need for landscape assessments to be

undertaken where development is proposed.

Retain as stated.

C Stewart 202.2

General Support in part, but the assessment of significant areas needs to be prioritised. Areas and landscapes assessed and documented throughout Southland before any further related consents are considered.

NZ Institute of Surveyors 244.4

General Support, however there is concern as to whether the ONFL and VAL overlay boundaries have been adequately assessed. Not stated. It is considered the submitter is requesting the following: Further investigations into areas covered by overlays.

A and R Johnston 279.5

General Support section in general but more support may be required at a local level. Further initiatives such as education with the local Maori Culture and native species planting to assist with implementation of this section.

Fulton Hogan and Southern Aggregates 240.7

General Support. Retain section as notified.

Southland Conservation Board 115.18

General Activities have often been developed on unsuitable land for the activity eg, dairy farming on peat soils, therefore a policy and rule is

required to avoid this type of inappropriate land use.

Insert new policy and rule should be included to ensure land and its inherent soil type can sustain a given activity.





Growplan Ltd 286.1

General Concerned that the assessment was made on short notice and may result in excess litigation. Concerned also wit the point

sampling approach that was taken which does no approximate human vision sufficiently. (It is considered the submitter is referring

to the Boffa Miskell report).

More time and resources be made available to ensure that visual assessment is robust and less able to be challenged, and more points are use in the further analysis. Review the ONFL and VAL assessment and resulting overlays.

D Baker 233.2

General Oppose need for planning permission regarding visual impact. Farmers already face undue restrictions and do not require further

regulation.

Eliminate need for planning permission regarding visual impact relating farmland.

Taramea (Howells Point) Management Committee 274.3

General A management plan has been prepared after public consultation and outlines the future development plans for the land. As the

tangata whenua of the land, spiritual and cultural values will guide any developments and would undertake them sympathetically to

the coastal land form.

The council to work with Taramea Management Committee and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Tribal Property division to overcome any impediment to the planned longer term development aspirations of Tangata Whenua on Taramea

G M Bell 19.2

General - Lakeside

Protection Area

- Te Anau

Support the imposition of the 12 m height restriction in the commercial area of the Te Anau Township. Oppose the ability to

construct structures up to 12 m high on the land between the Golf Course Road, SH95, Lakefront Drive, Te Anau Terrace, and the

Lake; and including the land surrounding the walkway that extends from the boat harbour round to the mouth of the

Upukeroa River. The land around the bottom of the lake as it regenerates provides a natural corridor and connection between the national park and the township for recreation and connection with nature. This land should be protected from further development (relates also to Urban and Fiordland/Rakiura Zones).

Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the following: Amend the Lakeside Protection Area provisions to provide more protection from development in the specified areas of land around Lake Te Anau. Include this part of the Lake Front in the Fiordland/Rakiura Zone.

Colac Bay Vision Limited 10.1

General - Outstanding

Natural Feature

All properties along Colac Foreshore Road from Bungalow Hill Road to the surf shed outside 350 Colac Foreshore Road should be

zoned the same as Colac Bay Township because they are small allotments and are adjacent to an area of heavy recreational use

for boating, fishing and freedom camping (shown on Map 36B).

The properties described should be zoned as Colac Bay Township and not as an Outstanding Natural Landscape (Map 36B).

P Robertson 124.2


Natural Feature/

Landscape

Oppose. Object to being identified as an Outstanding Natural Feature/Landscape at 744 Papatotara Road.

Seek justification for the farm at 744 Papatotara Road being identified as an Outstanding Natural Feature/Landscape, while surrounding farms are not.

W Baxter 111.1


and Visual Amenity

Landscapes

Oppose in part. The 2006 Landscape Plan determined areas of high natural landscape values for the District Plan. This did not

accurately and consistently determine values in the Hump Burn area of Te Waewae Bay.

Classification and justification of the allocation of High landscape value to land along Papatotara Coast Road.

B Kane 155.1

General - Visual

Amenity Landscapes

and Method NFL.1

Oppose. In particular in the area of Ramparts Road. Creates a restrictive, additional regulatory cost and process and uncertainty

in the planning process. This could inhibit the use of the land as intended at time of purchase.

Support the use of Non-Regulatory Method NFL.1 to encourage their protection through use of non-regulatory design guidelines. R/12/12/22739 - Section 2.1 R/12/12/22744 - Section 2.4 R/12/12/22745 - Section 2.5

Retain the same rules/regulations approved by Council at the time of the subdivision which created the Ramparts Road subdivision. Instead utilise a non-regulatory approach to encourage their protection instead of rules.

P D Hampton 186.1

General - Visual

Amenity Landscapes

Oppose rezoning of land to Visual Amenity Landscapes and the costs that would be associated with increased consent

requirements.

Not stated. It is considered that the submitter is requesting the following: Retain current zoning and associated rules.

M D Cave 219.5

General - Visual

Amenity Landscapes

The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values is recognised in S7 of the RMA along with 10 other matters, all of which

have similar weight. Council does not have the power to establish specific designations relating to amenity over defined areas

under this section. The RMA, also only identified two landscapes (“outstanding natural features and landscapes, and the

remaining landscapes”), and the District Plan is creating a third category “Visual Amenity Landscapes”.

All reference to Visual Amenity Landscapes be deleted from the Plan.

Genesis Power Limited 5.5

General - Visual

Amenity Landscapes

Oppose. While the Plan notes that Visual Amenity Landscapes have been identified in response to Section 7 of the Resource Management Act 1991, it is contended that Visual Amenity Landscapes are not defined nor required by the RMA. Furthermore, the Section 32 analysis has not sufficiently evaluated the inclusion of Visual Amenity Landscapes within the Plan, nor 1. The extent to which each objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA; and 2. Whether the proposed policies and methods are the most appropriate way in which to achieve the objectives in terms of

their efficiency and effectiveness.

While relatively confined (to the Coastal Environment and in the Te Anau Basin), the inclusion of these landscapes in the Plan add

additional landscape requirements when considering development within the District.

Remove all references to Visual Amenity Landscapes from the Plan.





K W Fiordland Ltd (L Wicks and H Kraak) 13.4

General - Visual

Amenity Landscapes

Oppose.

The zoning of our land as Visual Amenity Landscapes will incur additional costs in developing our property.

Why is the Landcorp Farm area known to be ear marked for future development not covered by this zoning as well?

We have had no direct consultation with the Council regarding the proposal to include a new zone excluding building. This shows

a huge lack of transparency shown by the Southland District Council with regard to this whole protect.

The inclusion of our property within this zone will have a dramatic negative effect on our property value and future development

opportunities.

Not stated. It is considered that the submitter requests the following: Remove the requirement for resource consent. Review the extent of the Visual Amenity Landscapes zoning. And Remove the Visual Amenity Landscapes Zone from this specific property.

N Robertson 20.1

General - Visual

Amenity Landscapes

Oppose the extent of the identified landscapes, particularly along Kakapo and Wetland Roads. The area is too large and

ambiguous. More thought is needed to where this change should be made - ie, practice V‟s theory.

Review the extent of the identified landscapes and related rules. Remove the identified Visual Amenity Landscapes from areas along Kakapo and Wetland Roads.

P and R Ward 23.1

General - Visual

Amenity Landscapes

Oppose the expansion of the Scenic Resource Area. Object to the arbitrariness of our farm inclusion and onerous conditions

associated with the classification. There are no special visual features on our farm. Rural social conditions have not been

understood by this proposal in terms of the need for rural accommodation for farm workers.

Remove the Visual Amenity Landscapes Zone from this specific property.

Orepuki CDA 65.5

General - Visual

Amenity Landscapes

Oppose. The areas are dubious in their existence due to the nature of the amenity area. The rural towns that exist within these

landscapes are more closely aligned to Urban Amenity values and will be forced into the resource consent area for any activity that

would otherwise be considered appropriate. Development within these areas should be considered appropriate and enabled.

The existing layout of the townships as surveyed provides for roads and esplanades that will maintain the viewing amenity of that

is appropriate in a residential area.

That the Visual Amenity Landscapes is removed from identified Rural Residential Settlement Areas.

C Brockman 110.1

General - Visual

Amenity Landscapes

Oppose in part.

The Visual Amenity Landscapes covers my section at 880 Haldane-Curio Bay. This designation may have a severe impact on a

potential single family home residence with little to no Visual Amenity Impact benefit to the rural neighbour nor the general public.

The topography (a highly banked hill) almost completely removes my section from the bordering Haldane-Curio Bay (unpaved)

Road view. This view is the only adjacent public viewpoint possible (see submission point 110.1 in Section 3.1 Rural also).

Uplift the Visual Amenity Landscapes designation from 880 Haldane-Curio Bay Road.

G and A Still 137.1

General - Visual

Amenity Landscapes

Oppose the imposition of Visual Amenity Landscapes provisions over the area from Wetlands Road through to the Upukerora for

the following reasons:

• It is a breach of human rights to be told where to build, what height, colour, plantings etc

• Wetlands Road already has covenants on it and is located in an area that is not highly visible.

• There seems to be a big inconsistency of allocation of the expanded landscape area and there should be one rule for all.

• The requirement for resource consent will add substantially to an already expensive building project.

• These restrictions will discourage prospective purchases of our properties in the future.

Remove Wetlands Road subdivision from this overlay.

T and W Holder 139.1

General - Visual

Amenity Landscapes

Oppose. Patience Bay properties already have restrictive covenants, now further restrictions will inhibit our proposed use of the

land (see also submission point 139.2 in Rural summary section).

Patience Bay properties be left out of the Visual Amenity Landscapes Zoning which requires resource consent.

A and S Mouat 147.3

General - Visual

Amenity Landscapes

Oppose any building over 2 m requiring a resource consent. This is not fair as some garden sheds and glasshouses are just over

two metres (see also submission point 147.3 in the Rural Zone summary).

Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the following: Delete the Visual Amenity Layer and associated rules in the rural zone.

Environment Southland 16.24

General - Visual

Amenity Landscapes

This tiered approach to landscape categories is supported in part. However Environment Southland seeks alignment with the terminology used in the PSRPS 2012 which refers to “Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes” and “Locally Distinctive and Valued Natural Features and Landscapes”.

It is noted there are a number of areas within the Southland District that have not been assessed for their landscape significance.

Environment Southland encourages a region wide collaborative process to assess and identify landscapes and natural features.

That all references to “Visual Amenity Landscapes” throughout the District Plan to be replaced with “Locally Distinctive and Valued Natural Features and Landscapes”.

A Sutherland 122.1

General - Visual

Amenity Landscapes

It is assumed the submitter is opposed to this overlay.

We have wetlands and proposed building sites in this zone, some of which are already approved.

Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the following: Delete the overlay from their property - 681 Manapouri Road.

L Grace 237.2

General - Visual

Amenity Landscapes

Support protection of Jacobs Estuary. Not stated. It is considered the submitter is requesting the following: Retain visual amenity overlay over Jacobs Estuary.

G Halder 278.1

General - Visual

Amenity Landscapes

Oppose (it is considered the submitter is referring to the Visual Amenity provisions of the proposed District Plan). The town itself is

an insult to this proposal as already the lake is obscured by new developments. Would ornamental trees need approval under the

proposal? Is the farmland seen as offensive in today‟s world? The Plan is a gross waste of money and resources.

Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the following: Clarification over what would require approval or the deletion of the provisions relating to Visual Amenity Landscapes.





S Vergeer 256.1

General - Visual

Amenity Landscapes

Oppose the Visual Amenity Landscapes proposal. Soon farmers will not be able to farm their land as it will no longer be able to do

so due to restrictions, red tape and costs.

Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the following: Remove the Visual Amenity Landscapes overlay and rules throughout the Plan.

B J Taylor 257.1

General - Visual

Amenity Landscapes

Oppose the Visual Amenity Landscapes proposal as it makes it impractical for any future farming decisions and increases the

costs.

Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the following: Remove the Visual Amenity Landscapes overlay and rules throughout the Plan.

Te Anau Community Board 216.1

General - Visual Amenity Landscapes

In conjunction with areas identified as “Visual Amenity Landscapes” we believe the height restriction should include trees,

particularly relating to those in the Urban Zone.

Make height restrictions also apply to trees.

G Turnbull 166.3, B Cochrane 167.3, G MacKay 172.3

General - Visual

Amenity Landscapes

Oppose. These rules will have negative implications for earthworks contractors and will affect our own personal land use (see

comments in the Rural Zone Summary Sheet also).

See decision requested in Rural Zone - submission point 166.3.

W and S Redwood 225.1

General - Visual

Amenity Landscapes

Object to the proposed re-zoning of areas within the Te Anau Basin as scenic resulting in stricter consent requirements on private

property. Some areas are not visible to the public but have been re-zoned while other areas that are more visible to the public

have not.

The areas to be rezoned to Visual Amenity Landscapes be reassessed, in particular Wetland Road.

N and J Excell 284.1

General - Visual

Amenity Landscapes

Strongly oppose the rural land in the Te Anau Basin and on the south coast be zoned as Visual Amenity Landscapes. Who will

benefit from the proposed changes? This will give Council increased control over how landowners use their land and will stifle

development and economic growth. There would also be an increased cost and use of resources due to the increased consenting

requirements.

Retain „status quo‟ zoning on this land.

J Carter 280.1

General - Visual

Amenity Landscapes

Support the Visual Amenity Landscapes zone and the recognition given to the landscapes special features. Retain zoning.

O Buckingham 135.1

General - Visual

Amenity Landscapes

- Te Anau

Oppose the Te Anau Basin being zoned as a “Visual Amenity Landscapes”. For the following reasons:

• This proposal will impede economic growth and development.

• The high cost associated with resource consent.

• The cost to ratepayers in administering this change.

• Puts rural landowners in Te Anau at a disadvantage to other southland landowners.

• Creates the opportunity for individuals/organisations to frustrate and delay proposals.

Retain “Status Quo” zoning on this land.

R A and M J Youldon 187.2

General - Visual

Amenity Landscapes -

Te Anau

Oppose limitation of height of construction to two metres before needing resource consent for those areas that were zoned scenic

reserve under the Operative Plan.

Wider information and consultation prior to making changes such as these. Remove the requirement for resource consent for buildings in the Visual Amenity Landscapes overlay.

V B Burch 192.2

General - Visual


Te Anau

Oppose the rezoning of parts of Te Anau Basin as Visual Amenity Landscapes, and the limitation on buildings heights to two

metres with colour limitations and the choice of location without a costly consent.

Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the following: Remove the Visual Amenity Landscapes overlay resource consent requirements.

R Smith 193.2

General - Visual


Te Anau

Oppose the rezoning of parts of the Te Anau Basin as Visual Amenity Landscapes. There has been a lack of consultation on the

proposed rezoning.

Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the following: Remove the Visual Amenity Landscapes overlay from Te Anau Basin.

C A Hampton 189.1

General - Visual


Te Anau

Oppose rezoning of land to Visual Amenity Landscapes, and the lack of consultation on the zoning changes. Proposal removed from the proposed District Plan and if necessary re-proposed with information in a form that can be understood by the public, and consultation with all affected landowners.

Manapouri Community Development Area Subcommittee 262.2

General - Visual


Te Anau

Oppose limitation of height of construction to two metres before needing resource consent for those areas that were zoned

Scenic Reserve under the Operative Plan.

Wider information and consultation prior to making changes such as these.





S Slee 146.1, M Slee 154.1

General - Visual


Te Anau

Oppose.

The proposal will impede economic growth and development.

Costs imposed on landowners to go through resource consent process and costs to ratepayers to administer this change.

Disadvantages rural landowners in Te Anau more than other Southland landowners with regard to potential land use change.

Creates opportunities for other organisations / individuals to frustrate legitimate development proposals.

(See also submission point 146.1 under the Rural Zone summary - affects rules the rural zone also.)

Retain “status quo” zoning on this land.

R Smith 162.2

General - Visual


Te Anau

Oppose. Against any changes to the District Plan for the Te Anau Basin area.

Not stated. It is considered that the submitter requests the following: Delete the Visual Amenity Landscapes overlay and associated provisions.

Fiordland Aero Club 164.1

General - Visual


Te Anau

Oppose. Council has not had the decency to consult with the individual landowners on this issue.

It restricts development and places unnecessary restrictions on landowners.

The area is too vast.

Not stated. It is considered that the submitter requests the following: Delete the Visual Amenity Landscapes overlay and associated restrictions.

R Pearce 165.1

General - Visual


Te Anau

Oppose. Strongly object to rezoning parts of Te Anau Basin Visual Amenity Landscapes.

Not stated. It is considered that the submitter requests the following: Delete the Visual Amenity Landscapes and associated restrictions.

W Hames 169.1. A Hames 173.1, M. Hames 175.1

General - Visual


Te Anau

Oppose.

These restrictions on land in Te Anau (as shown on the map in the Fiordland Advocate) will make it impossible to improve the land.

Not stated. It is assumed that the submitter requests the following: Delete the Visual Amenity Landscapes overlay and associated restrictions on development.

P and S Goble 179.1

General - Visual


Te Anau

Oppose. This will severely restrict our options for relocating a house onto our land and further intentions to subdivide. Extra costs

will be imposed on us. The extent of the overlay seems unfair with one side of the state highway being treated differently to the

other.

Not stated. It is assumed that the submitter requests the following: Delete the Visual Amenity Landscapes overlay and associated restrictions on development.

B Campbell 144.5

General - Visual


Te Anau

Oppose.

The cost/benefit relationship is flawed.

The rules will encumber the existing property owners and their rights which effect peoples livelihoods.

At no time have consultants or Council staff approached any of the landowners to seek their scrutiny.

Council has ignored the submission process made to Council on the Boffa Miskell Report which is against RMA process.

It is not in the best interests of the Te Anau Community and should be removed in its entirety.

G M Bell 19.1

General - Visual


Te Anau

In the Te Anau area the current Scenic Resource Area is considered an Outstanding Landscape and significant resource in terms

of Section 6 of the Act. The proposed expansion and amendment to Visual Amenity Landscapes devalues this landscape from

being Outstanding and Significant to a mere amenity. This signals Council no longer cares about those matters outlined in Section

6 of the Act.

Retain Scenic Resource Area status as an outstanding landscape.

M and B Hagen 289.1

General - Visual


Te Anau

Oppose. The Visual Amenity Landscapes restrict development around Manapouri in the future, and the areas are too vast for farm

land that landowners have developed at their own expense only to have Council place restrictions on them.

Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the following: Removal or amendment to the areas covered by Visual Amenity Landscapes.

N Lamb 258.1

General - Visual


Te Anau

Oppose expansion of scenic resource area. In the interests of road safety sightseeing while driving should not be encouraged.

The landscape in the Te Anau Basin has been highly modified by the development of farms. The reasons some areas and not

others have been included in the Visual Amenity overlay are not clear. The overlay also puts restrictions on the development of

the airport when the airport was put there to encourage development.

Review boundaries and need or benefit of the overlay. Investigate developing more scenic viewpoints along state highways, promoting road safety and not imposing unnecessary restrictions on rural landowners

S Robertson 283.1

General - Visual


Te Anau

Strongly object to the rezoning of parts of Te Anau Basin in visual amenity. Not rezone parts of Te Anau Basin Visual Amenity Landscapes.

Introduction

Forest and Bird 215.22

Introduction Support in part. There are a number of areas dominated by natural processes that should be included. While they may not have

been assessed for planning purposes, many have been assessed in various documents. There is a danger that potentially

outstanding natural features and landscapes will be adversely affected before assessments and Plan changes are completed. In

the mean time Council should use the resource consent process to ensure that potentially outstanding natural features and

Add the following: Landscapes reflect relationships between landform, land cover and land use and continue to evolve through natural and cultural processes.





landscapes are not adversely affected.

The District is encompassed by a range of landscapes, from those dominated by natural processes and patterns such as those in Fiordland National Park, all lands within the Te Wahipounamu Southwest Fiordland World Heritage Area, Catlins Rainforest Park, Eyre Mountains Taka Ra Haka Conservation Park, Mavora Lakes Park and Rakiura National Parks; to those which reflect human modification and settlement such as “working‟ rural landscapes and urban areas…….. Activities located in areas of with Outstanding Natural Features and/or Landscapes should will be managed to ensure that outstanding values are protected from inappropriate subdivision, land use and development. It is expected that identified Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes will not change significantly over time as a result of subdivision, land use and development. …… As landscape assessments of these areas are undertaken, Council, through the Plan change process, may Council will identify and protect additional Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes and Visual Amenity Landscapes, by completing a District wide assessment and introducing Plan changes by 2015. In order to ensure that potentially outstanding natural features and landscapes are not adversely affected resource consents will be required to assess the values of landscapes and natural features and the potential effects of proposed activities, using specific criteria.

Catlins Coast Inc 191.1

Introduction Tourism is promoted based on the concept of significant landscapes and these need to be protected. Council needs to prioritise

the assessment of priority three areas that have not been done and include public Southland opinion in this classification.

The Catlins landscape as a whole should be identified as an area of significance prior to the Plan being adopted. Nothing should be consented in these areas until they have been assessed.

G H Parr 200.4 West Catlins Preservation Inc 203.4

Introduction Council needs to priorities the assessment of priority 3 areas that have not been done and include public Southland opinion in this

classification.

Nothing should be consented in the unassessed Outstanding Landscape areas until they have been assessed.

M D Cave 219.6

Introduction The areas that have been identified have been based on what can be seen from a particular public place, without any

consideration of its visual amenity value. The Te Anau Landscape Assessment Study 2006 awards no area in the Te Anau Basin

with “high aesthetic value”.

No land in the Te Anau Basin be classified as in a Visual Amenity Landscapes Zone.

Federated Farmers 268.16

Introduction Support in part - Paragraph 1. Support the acknowledgement that the District‟s landscapes include those which reflect human

modification and settlement such as those within „working‟ rural landscapes. Support the acknowledgement that it is inappropriate

land use subdivision and development that landscapes and natural features are vulnerable from.

Adopt paragraph 1 as stated.

P Dolamore 261.1

Introduction Oppose the Te Anau Scenic Zones Visibility/Visual Landscape Assessment prepared by Boffa Miskell. It appears that this report

does not take into account there are farms on either side of the roads.

Remove this proposal from the District Plan.

Objective NFL.1


Objective NFL.1 Support in part. Some areas are still to be assessed. Amend to read: Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes are identified and protected from inappropriate subdivision, land use and development.


Objective NFL.1 Supported in part. The identification of outstanding natural features and landscapes should also be included within this provision,

given that not all landscapes have currently been assessed.

That Objective NFL.1 be amended to: Objective NFL.1 Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes are identified and protected from inappropriate subdivision, land use and development.

R Dalley and L Shaw 118.12

Objective NFL.1 Support.

Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the following: Retain as stated.





DOC 134.19

Objective NFL.1 Support. Retain as stated.


Objective NFL.1 Support. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the following: Retain as stated.

Fish & Game 195.19

Objective NFL.1 Support in part. Objective requires amendment to provide for the identification of further Outstanding Natural Features and

Landscapes and Visual Amenity Landscapes in the Southland region which have not yet been assessed.

Amend NFL.1 to provide: “Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes are identified and protected from inappropriate subdivision, land use and development.”

New Zealand Wind Energy Association 267.1

Objective NFL.1 Support. Retain objective.


Objective NFL.1 Support in part. Support the emphasis on inappropriate subdivision, land use and development. Adopt the objective as proposed.

N Johnstone 130.1, S Bradshaw 131.1

Objective NFL.1 and

NFL.2

Oppose. There is no need for a Visual Amenity Map or these provisions because it will unfairly and unreasonably prevent

residential and other development.

Delete Objectives and associated overlays in the planning maps.

Catlins Coast Inc 191.3 G H Parr 200.3 West Catlins Preservation Inc 203.3

Objective NFL.1 and

NFL.2 and Policies

NFL.1 and NFL.2.

Support Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the following: Retain as stated.

Objective NFL.2


Objective NFL.2 Support. Retain.

New Zealand Wind Energy Association 267.2

Objective NFL.2 Oppose. Maintaining amenity values and visual qualities is open to interpretation and very subjective. Rewording of the objective

is sought to better align it with Part 2 of the RMA.

Amend objective as follows: “Within Visual Amenity Landscapes, subdivision, land use and development is undertaken in a manner that maintains managed to ensure that particular regard is given to the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values and visual qualities.”

Meridian Energy 184.12

Objective NFL.2 While it is appropriate to recognise the values of these landscapes it is important that the District Plan provisions do not seek to

preserve the status quo with respect to amenity values and visual qualities.

Amend the Objective NFL.2 as follows: “Within Visual Amenity Landscapes, Subdivision, land use and development within Visual Amenity Landscapes is undertaken in a manner that maintains appropriately considers the amenity values and visual qualities of these areas.”

P D Chartres T/A Te Anau Downs, P D Chartres Trust, P D Chartres and F Munster 264.18

Objective NFL.2

Policy NFL.2

Policy NFL.3

NFL rules

Method NFL.1

Method NFL.2

Oppose the concept of identifying “Visual Amenity Landscapes” for the following reasons:

The balance between the working rural environment and visual amenity is already being achieved without imposing

additional rules.

Subdivision and land use is already managed through s2.6 (Subdivision) and s3.1 (Rural zone)

The Visual Amenity Landscapes creates an additional layer of objectives, policies and rules, adding to the constraints and

costs for landowners.

The concept of “amenity value” is highly subjective and questionable.

It should be recognise that agriculture by definition results in changing landscapes. Attempting to create a static landscape

will only inhibit growth in rural areas.

It is disappointing that „maintenance of amenity values‟ for the benefit of tourism is valued more highly than farming and is

used as motivation for placing restraints on farm development when farming itself contributes to tourism.

Question the methodology used in the landscape assessments to delineate Visual Amenity Landscapes.

Delete all reference to Visual Amenity Landscapes throughout the Plan,

Delete all policies and rules that impose restrictions on subdivision land use and development within Visual Amenity Landscapes,

Delete provisions to undertake further landscape studies and assessments that may lead to the extension of Visual Amenity Landscapes to other parts of the Southland District in future.





Consultation has not been undertaken with affected landowners despite this being requested previously.


Objective NFL.2

Oppose

The objective as stated is ambiguous and does not reflect the Act‟s premise of “avoid, remedy or mitigate” in respect of adverse

effects.

Delete Objective NFL.2.


Objective NFL.2 Supported in part. As noted in the submission above, references to “Visual Amenity Landscapes” should be replaced with the term “Locally Distinctive and Valued Natural Features and Landscapes” in line with the provisions of the PSRPS 2012.

The introduction to this section mentions that “activities located in Visual Amenity Landscapes should achieve a balance between

the maintenance and enhancement of natural feature and landscape values with a focus on the visual aspects of amenity…”

Section 7(c) of the RMA also states that “…shall have particular regard to - (c) the maintenance and enhancement of amenity

values”.

That Objective NFL.2 be amended as follows: Objective NFL.2 Within Visual Amenity Landscapes Locally Distinctive and Valued Natural Features and Landscapes, subdivision, land use and development is undertaken in a manner that maintains and enhances amenity values and visual qualities.



DOC 134.20

Objective NFL.2 Support. Retain as stated.



Fish & Game 195.20

Objective NFL.2 Support in part. Explanation requires amendment to recognise that within Visual Amenity Landscapes, subdivision, land use and

development activities should be undertaken in a manner that maintains, restores or enhances amenity values and visual qualities

Amend NFL.2 to provide: “Within Visual Amenity Landscapes, subdivision, land use and development is are undertaken in a manner that maintains and enhances amenity values and visual qualities.”


Objective NFL.2 Oppose in part. Oppose the idea of Visual Amenity Landscapes and any reference to Visual Amenity Landscapes should be

deleted from the Plan in its entirety.

Concerned at the lack of landowner involvement in the process of identifying these landscapes. There has not been the same

inclusive approach taken to the inclusion of these areas in the Plan as provided for as in previous years.

Existing use rights for all lawfully established activities (such as farming) comments in the Boffa Miskell 2012 report may have lead

to landowners considering they did not need to submit against these latest proposed changes.

There is uncertainty around the application of Section 10 RMA itself and difficulties with the onus of proof of an existing use right.

Expected activities should be specifically provided for in the Plan as permitted activities to avoid the uncertainty related to relying

on Existing use rights. For example where some farming activities are irregular by their nature.

Oppose the protection of a rural ideal, landscape or amenity that largely involves working landscapes, any objective must

appropriately acknowledge the importance of also enabling continuation as a working rural environment.

Delete the objective or maned the object as follows: Within Visual Amenity Landscapes, subdivision, land use and development is undertaken in a manner that maintains amenity values and visual qualities while recognising and enabling continuation as a working rural environment. Council also ensure specific provision within the policies and permitted rules framework the continuation of normal and intermittent farming activities previously lawfully established (that occur as permitted activities within the planning framework and / or fall under the definition of those activities).

M D Cave 219.7

Objective NFL.2 and

Policies NFL.1-4

Oppose NFL.2 Objective and Policy Statements. The policy makes the visual impact of land use more important that any other

aspect. The council has a legal obligation not to require the landowners to waste resources on mitigating visual impacts, based on

a highly subjective judgement of the effects.

Deletion of Objective NFL.2 and Policy Statements NFL.1-4 from the Plan.

Pioneer Generation Ltd (PGL) 21.2

Objective NFL.2 and

Policy NFL.3

Oppose. The Southland landscape is a „working landscape‟ and future land use options, particularly renewable energy options,

should not be foreclosed by policies that maintain the status quo.

Delete Objective NFL.2 and Policy NFL.3.

Policy NFL General

PowerNet 241.1

Policy NFL - general Oppose.

Policy gives preference to „avoid‟ over „remedy and mitigate‟ which is inconsistent with s5(2)(c) of the RMA

Amend Policy NFL.1 as follows: Avoid, remedy or mitigate inappropriate subdivision, land use and development within areas identified as Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes.

Transpower NZ Limited 190.6

Policy NFL - new Transpower‟s assets in this area need to be specifically provided for to give better effect to the NPSET. New policy inserted after NFL.1 as follows: “Recognise that activities such as network utilities and other infrastructure may have a functional, technical or operational requirement to be sited within an Outstanding Natural Feature or Landscape, or Visual Amenity Landscapes.”





Policy NFL.1

Fish & Game 195.21

Policies NFL.1-4 Support. Retain as drafted


Policies NFL.1-4 Policies NFL.1-4 are supported. It is considered that this combination of policies enables due consideration of the adverse effects

on natural features and landscapes within the District.

As noted in the submission above, references to “Visual Amenity Landscapes” should be replaced with “Locally Distinctive and

Valued Landscapes and Natural Features” in line with the provisions of the PSRPS 2012.

That Policies NFL.1-4 be amended by replacing references to “Visual Amenity Landscapes” with “Locally Distinctive and Valued Natural Features and Landscapes”.


Policy NFL.1 The explanation does not accurately describe that it is protection from inappropriate subdivision use and development that is

sought, it is not reflective of the policy it is to be explaining and it is not consistent with the matters in s6(b) of the RMA

Amend the explanation to Policy NFL.1 as follows: “Outstanding Natural features and landscapes throughout the District can be vulnerable to modification and destruction from inappropriate activities subdivision, use and development. Within areas identified as Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes activities should be undertaken in a manner that avoids adverse effects on these landscapes and ensures their protection. It is expected that identified Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes will not change significantly over time as a result of subdivision, land use and development. Particular consideration should be given to the design, siting and scale…

“Forest and Bird 215.25

Policy NFL.1 Support in part. The Plan fails to identify all the District‟s outstanding natural features and landscapes and does not meet the

requirements of the Resource Management Act

Amend policy as follows: Avoid inappropriate subdivision, land use and development within areas identified as Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes on the planning maps or through a resource consent process.

Transpower NZ Limited 190.7

Policy NFL.1 Support the reference to “inappropriate” subdivision .Retain policy.

G and R Cockburn 107.3

Policy NFL.1 Support in part.

Natural landscapes such as tussock lands require active management to maintain their aesthetic values. Active management

includes measures such as ongoing weed management.

Comments are included or acknowledged in the explanation of the policy that provide for active management of natural landscapes.


Policy NFL.1 Support. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the following: Retain as stated.

DOC 134.21

Policy NFL.1 Support in part as it could be read as only applying to outstanding natural features and landscapes indentified in the Plan.

Amend Policy NFL.1 to read: Avoid inappropriate subdivision, land use and development within areas identified either within this Plan, future studies, or through the resource consent process as Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes. Explanation: Natural features and landscapes throughout the District can be vulnerable to modification and destruction from inappropriate activities. Within areas identified within this Plan, or as a result of future studies, or through the resource consent processes as Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes activities should be undertaken in a manner that avoids adverse effects on these landscapes and ensures their protection. It is expected that any identified Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes will not change significantly over time as a result of subdivision, land use and development. Particular consideration should be given to the design, siting and scale of buildings and structures and associated curtilage, utilities, signage, earthworks and landscape plantings and the way in which these factors integrate and respect the landform, natural character and landscape quality. Consideration should also be given to the visibility of buildings, structures and activities from public





places.


Policy NFL.1 Support Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the following: Retain as stated.

H W Richardson Group Limited 263.1

Policy NFL.1 Oppose.

Policy gives primacy to „avoid‟ over remedy or mitigate which is inconsistent with S5(2)(c) of the RMA.

Amend Policy NFL.1 as follows: “Avoid, remedy or mitigate inappropriate subdivision, land use and development within areas identified as Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes”


Policy NFL.1 Support in part. Federated Farmers supports the development of workable solutions for the management of ONFL‟s in the region

and the restriction of the policy to „inappropriate‟ subdivision, development and land use. Concerned about the costs of defining

and protecting ONFL‟s for rural landowners and by extension the wider economic and social wellbeing of all Southlanders.

The whole community suffers if constraints or disincentives for investment result in static or declining job opportunities.

Adopt the policy with the following amended wording: “Avoid inappropriate subdivision, land use and development within areas identified as Outstanding Natural Features and Outstanding Natural Landscapes.” And make decisions in the area that are made: In full consideration of the adverse economic, social

and cultural effects that might result for farmers; In recognition that farming activities are intrinsic

aspects of the values of the District‟s landscapes, and that on-going stewardship by farmers underlies much of their value.

That landowners are recognised as a critical part of managing the values associated with Outstanding Natural Landscapes and Outstanding Natural Features.

Policy NFL.2

M D Cave 219.11

Policy NFL.2 Oppose the inclusion of “as well as associated land use activities”. This may make an activity require consent just because a

building associated with that activity needs consent. Eg, farming would become a discretionary activity when a new building is

required for the farming operation.

Removal of “as well as associated land use activities” reference in Policy NFL.2 explanation


Policy NFL.2

Oppose.

The requirement for development to be „appropriately integrated‟ within a landscape is subjective and open to interpretation and

conjecture.

Delete Policy NFL.2.

G and R Cockburn 107.4

Policy NFL.2 Support in part.

In the case of productive farmland, these are working landscapes and need to continue to be treated as such. Protection of Visual

Amenity Landscapes in general needs to be undertaken in a consultative approach to enable consideration of practical farm

requirements.

Comments are included or acknowledged in the explanation of the policy that Visual Amenity Landscapes are working landscapes.


Policy NFL.2 It is considered the submitter supports this policy.


DOC 134.22

Policy NFL.2 Support in general.

Recognition should be given in the explanation to the potential of plantings to adversely affect neighbouring areas such as

Fiordland National Park by the introduction of pest plant species.

Retain Policy NFL.2 as notified and amend the explanation to Policy NFL.2 to read: Adverse effects on Visual Amenity Landscapes should be avoided, remedied or mitigated through consideration of the design, siting and scale of buildings and structures and associated utilities, signage, earthworks and appropriate landscape plantings that will not result in the spread of pest plants into neighbouring lands as well as associated land use activities. Particular consideration should also be given to the visibility of activities from public places.


Policy NFL.2 Support. Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the following: Retain as stated.






Policy NFL.2 Support. Retain.


Policy NFL.2 Support. Appropriately recognises that the outcome sought is that appropriate integration between subdivision, land use and

development is achieved within the Visual Amenity Landscapes.


W and M Hunter 253.1

Policy NFL.2 Oppose introduction of Visual Amenity Landscapes because of the arbitrary manner in which the boundaries have been

determined, the lack of consultation with landowners, the cost implications for landowners, and the lack of clarity of the effect of

restrictions.

Policy not adopted until it can be fairly applied across all of the District.


Policy NFL.2 Oppose. Federated Farmers have considerable concern with both the use of the term „Visual Amenity Landscapes‟ and the lack of

consultation with the current extension to the Te Anau Scenic Zone. Opposed to the protection of a rural ideal, landscapes or

amenity that largely involves working landscapes and is there as a result of the activities you would expect to find in a rural zone.

All such normal farming activities should be expected within this landscape.

Delete this policy.

Policy NFL.3


Policy NFL.3 Support in part. One significant attribute that has been accepted by the Environment Court is missing, namely natural character,

and there are other accepted attributes that are also missing.

Amend policy as follows: Avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects of subdivision, land use and development on the District‟s natural features and landscapes which have not been assessed by having regard to the following landscape attributes: 1. Natural science factors, including the geological,

topographical, ecological and dynamic components of the landscape.

2. Aesthetic values, including memorability, cohesion, vividness and naturalness.

3. Expressiveness, (legibility) which is how obviously the landscape demonstrates the formative processes which helped to create it.

4. Transient values, which specifically includes the occasional presence of wildlife, or its values at certain times of the day or of the year.

5. Landscape values that are shared and recognised, including recreational values.

6. Value to tangata whenua. 7. Historical associations. 8. Natural character, including, absence of development,

natural elements, natural patterns and natural processes.


Policy NFL.3 Oppose. This policy potentially is more restrictive on activities occurring in areas that have not been assessed then on areas that

are identified as outstanding natural features and landscapes.

Delete Policy NFL.3


Policy NFL.3

Oppose.

Policies are the course of action to achieve or implement the objective, however, there are no objectives included within the Plan

which seek to protect the “District‟s natural features and landscapes which have not been assessed”. The criteria included within

Policy NFL.3 read as assessment criteria or matters of control/discretion. The matters for which regard is to be had are subjective

and will lead to the need for a comprehensive assessment of the cultural, physical and visual landscape. The matters to have

regard to extend beyond the information requirements associated with development within “significant” natural features and

landscapes, thus extending a pseudo-significant notation to the whole District.

Amend Policy NFL.3 to read: Avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects of subdivision, land use and development on the District‟s significant natural features and landscapes which have not been assessed by having regard to the following landscape attributes: 1. Natural science factors, including the geological,

topographical, ecological and dynamic components of the landscape.

2. Aesthetic values, including memorability and naturalness. 3. Expressiveness, (legibility) which is how obviously

the landscape demonstrates the formative processes which helped to create it.

4. Transient values, which specifically includes the occasional presence of wildlife, or its values at





certain times of the day or of the year. 5. Landscape values that are shared and recognised. 6. Value to tangata whenua. 7. Historical associations.


Policy NFL.3 Support.


DOC 134.23


Retain as stated.


Policy NFL.3 Support Not stated. It is considered the submitter requests the following: Retain as stated.


Policy NFL.3 Oppose for the following reasons:

This level of protection extended within this policy goes beyond the intent of the Resource Management Act 1991, given these

landscapes have not yet been assessed.

These landscapes may hold no such attributes as those set out within 1-7 of this policy so there is no justification for affording

them such a high level of protection.

This policy will either be inefficient for the low level of protection actually achieved, or it will restrict activities to an equivalent

level to „Outstanding Natural Landscapes‟, both of these are inappropriate.

The Amended Pigeon Bay Criteria are not frozen and are likely to continue to change. This is an important point because the

Environment Court ... “never intended for the list to be used as a static template”.

Aspects of these criteria could be applied to almost any landscape in the rural zone irrespective of its value as a landscape in

the context of the Act. (ie, criteria numbers 4 and 5).

Delete this policy. The protection of these landscapes is most appropriately addressed through non-regulatory methods including education, guidelines, awards and the promotion of good practice.

A and R Johnston 279.6

Policy NFL.3 Removing fault lines on maps means council should be legally accountable for damages which is quite irresponsible. Amend maps to include identification of fault lines.

Policy NFL.4




DOC 134.24

Policy NFL.4 Support. However, Lake Te Anau is part of Fiordland National Park and this should be noted in the Explanation.

Retain Policy NFL.4 as notified and amend the Explanation to Policy NFL.4 to read: Explanation: Te Anau township‟ lakeside is locally distinctive and valued for its open space character and scenic views across Fiordland National Park‟s Lake Te Anau towards the mountains.


Policy NFL.4 Support with modification to include the lakeside in Manapouri township. Amend Policy NFL.4 to apply the lakeside in the Manapouri township also.

Method NFL.1

Fish & Game 195.22

Method NFL.1 Support. Retain as drafted.


Method NFL.1 As noted in the submission above, references to “Visual Amenity Landscapes” should be replaced with “Locally Distinctive and

Valued Landscapes and Natural Features” in line with the provisions of the PSRPS 2012.

That Method NFL.1 be amended by replacing references to “Visual Amenity Landscapes” with “Locally Distinctive and Valued Natural Features and Landscapes”.


Method NFL.1 Support with modification, to include collaboration with DOC and other local authorities. Amend Method to include the requirement for the Council to work with DOC and other local authorities to achieve this.






Method NFL.1 Support. However, we would like to see better support for non-regulatory methods throughout the policy framework. We consider

that the concept of Visual Amenity Landscapes should be deleted from the Plan. It is through the appropriate education, provision

of information and increasing of awareness and through the encouraging of the protection of these landscapes that the best gains

can be made. Providing information on appropriate design guidelines will be more successful that overly bureaucratic rules in this

area.

Adopt the method; and delete reference to Visual Amenity Landscapes throughout the Plan.


Method NFL.1 Support. Retain.

Method NFL.2

Fish & Game 195.23

Method NFL.2 Support. Retain as drafted.


Method NFL.2 Support. It is important to assess those areas that have currently not been assessed for landscape significance to ensure robust

planning outcomes. Without holistic assessment there is potential for ad-hoc development which could result in adverse effects on

some of the Districts most significant landscapes.

That Method NFL.2 be retained.


Method NFL.2 Support. Suggest adding “assessed by qualified personal”.

Add “assessed by qualified personal”.

DOC 134.26

Method NFL.2 Support with additions to recognise natural features.

Amend Method NFL.2 to read: Undertake landscape and natural feature studies and assessments focussed on those areas of the District where natural features and landscapes have not been assessed.


Method NFL.2 Support in part. The method should establish a time line for completion of the studies and include introducing Plan changes. Amend method as follows: Method NFL.2 Undertake and complete landscape and natural feature studies and assessments focussed on those areas of the District where natural features and landscapes have not been assessed, and introduce Plan changes by 2015.

Rule NFL General


Rule NFL - General There is the possibility that some of Southland‟s potentially outstanding natural features and landscapes may have structures and

buildings developed on them. This is within those areas that have not yet had a landscape assessment completed, and

development could fall within the permitted activity rules of the District Plan therefore potentially resulting in adverse effects on

these un-assessed outstanding natural landscapes and natural features. An example of this is Rule RURAL.1 - permitted activities

of the proposed District Plan, which identifies that as long as the location is not within an area of outstanding natural features and

landscapes, or an area of Visual Amenity Landscapes, up to five dwelling houses can be established up to 9 metres high within

close proximity to each other.

It is acknowledged that only a few landscapes within this „not yet assessed category‟ are of potential significance. However the

potential for development to occur in those higher valued areas is of concern to Environment Southland.

That Rule MRA.1 from the operative Southland District Plan 2001 be inserted into the District Plan as an interim rule, until outstanding natural features and landscapes in the Mountains Resource Area are identified via landscape assessments and the findings incorporated into the District Plan, as follows: Rule MRA.1 - Structures and Buildings Mountain Resource All structures and buildings that are visible from any public road or place (which includes esplanade reserves, marginal strips and public land) are controlled activities provided all relevant rules and performance standards of this Plan are complied with and are controlled in respect of the following: • siting of the structure in relation to any skyline, any

physical feature, or natural character of the area; • design in respect of any structures visual

obtrusiveness; • the removal of vegetation; • earthworks. Reason The effects of structures on the visual amenity and soil stability can be mitigated by the imposition of appropriate conditions. This rule will cease to have effect when outstanding natural features and landscapes in the Mountains Resource Area are identified via landscape assessments and incorporated into the District Plan.






Rule NFL - General A new rule is needed to protect potentially outstanding natural features and landscapes that remain to be assessed. Add a new Non Complying Rule as follows: Rule NFL.1 Non complying Activities Any activity which may adversely affect an area identified as an outstanding natural feature or landscape in the Plan, or that meets the criteria set out in Policy NFL.3, or is above 700 m in altitude.

DOC 134.25

Rules NFL - New New Rule. The Director-General considers the Plan fails to consider the effects of activities on the outstanding landscapes and natural features of Southland. A district-wide rule applying to areas identified as outstanding landscapes or natural features would recognise their national and international importance and give effect to Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991. This proposed rule is supported by Method NFL.2 which seeks Council undertake natural feature assessments as several nationally outstanding landscapes and natural features have not been mapped and included in the Plan. The activities of concern are in particular are new roads, large scale earth disturbance (in excess of 1,000 m

3), indigenous

vegetation clearance or the infrastructure associated with damming or diversion of water.

Include a new rule: Rule NFL.1 Any activity which adversely affects an area identified as an outstanding landscape of natural feature in the Plan or by the resource consent process is a non complying activity.

section 2.3 - natural features and landscapes · 2017-10-01 · natural features and landscapes and...

Documents