WHANGAREI DISTRICT

COUNCIL

STATE OF THE

ENVIRONMENT REPORT

Development Trends

August 2007

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... i

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Why monitor the state of the environment? ..................................................................... 1

1.2 Approach taken by this report ......................................................................................... 2

1.3 Indicators and state of the environment reporting ............................................................ 4

1.4 State of the environment reporting and the annual Resource Consents and Complaints

Monitoring Reports .............................................................................................................. 5

2. Development Trends .................................................................................................. 6

2.1 The Whangarei district – profile and population trends ..................................................... 6

2.2 Development trends in the Whangarei district .................................................................. 7

2.3 Subdivisions, new lots created and District Plan zoning................................................... 10

2.4 Density of development ................................................................................................ 13

2.5 Annual growth ............................................................................................................. 20

2.6 A picture of the future .................................................................................................. 25

3. Discussion ................................................................................................................. 32

3.1 Resource consents ....................................................................................................... 32

3.2 Subdivision consents .................................................................................................... 33

3.3 New lots ...................................................................................................................... 35

3.4 Land use consents ....................................................................................................... 37

3.5 Building consents ......................................................................................................... 38

3.6 New dwellings.............................................................................................................. 39

3.7 Annual growth ............................................................................................................. 40

3.8 A picture of the future .................................................................................................. 41

3.9 Population growth, subdivision and building consents ..................................................... 41

4. Conclusions and recommendations .......................................................................... 45

4.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 45

4.2 Recommendations........................................................................................................ 47

Bibliography and references ........................................................................................ 49

Appendices ................................................................................................................... 50

Appendix A – Definition of indicators from WDC’s Monitoring Strategy .................................. 50

Appendix B – District Plan provisions relevant to this report. ................................................ 51

Appendix C – Data ............................................................................................................. 53

List of Figures

Figure 1 – Graph of resource consents granted...................................................................... 7

Figure 2 – Graph of subdivision and land use consents granted .............................................. 8

Figure 3 – Graph of new lots created .................................................................................... 8

Figure 4 – Graph of building consents granted ....................................................................... 9

Figure 5 – Graph of building consents granted for new dwellings ............................................ 9

Figure 6 – Living 1 subdivisions .......................................................................................... 11

Figure 7 – Living 2 subdivisions .......................................................................................... 11

Figure 8 – Living 3 subdivisions .......................................................................................... 11

Figure 9 – Business 2 subdivisions ...................................................................................... 11

Figure 10 – Business 3 subdivisions .................................................................................... 11

Figure 11 – Business 4 subdivisions .................................................................................... 11

Figure 12 – Open Space subdivisions .................................................................................. 11

Figure 13 – Coastal Countryside subdivisions ....................................................................... 11

Figure 14 – Countryside subdivisions .................................................................................. 11

Figure 15 – Living 1 new lots .............................................................................................. 12

Figure 16 – Living 2 new lots .............................................................................................. 12

Figure 17 – Living 3 new lots .............................................................................................. 12

Figure 18 – Business 2 new lots .......................................................................................... 12

Figure 19 – Business 3 new lots .......................................................................................... 12

Figure 20 – Business 4 new lots .......................................................................................... 12

Figure 21 – Open Space new lots ........................................................................................ 12

Figure 22 – Coastal Countryside new lots ............................................................................ 12

Figure 23 – Countryside new lots ........................................................................................ 12

Figure 24 – Subdivision consents density............................................................................. 15

Figure 25 – Land use consents density ................................................................................ 16

Figure 26 – Building consents density ................................................................................. 17

Figure 27 – Building consents for new dwellings density....................................................... 18

Figure 28 – New lots density .............................................................................................. 19

Figure 33 – One Tree Point today ....................................................................................... 26

Figure 34 – One Tree Point all lots occupied ........................................................................ 27

Figure 35 – Ruakaka today ................................................................................................. 28

Figure 36 – Ruakaka all lots occupied ................................................................................. 29

Figure 37 – Parua Bay today .............................................................................................. 30

Figure 38 – Parua Bay all lots occupied ............................................................................... 31

Figure 39 – Comparison of urban population estimates ........................................................ 42

Figure 40 – Comparison of rural population estimates .......................................................... 43

Figure 41 – Comparison of total population estimates .......................................................... 43

i

Executive Summary

Under section 35(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991, local authorities are required to

monitor the state of the whole or any part of the environment of its region or district to the

extent that is appropriate to enable the local authority to effectively carry out its functions under

the Act. This report is Council’s first attempt at examining the state of the district’s environment

with regards to development trends in particular. The approach adopted by this report is

outlined in the Whangarei District Council’s Monitoring Strategy 2001 (the WDC Monitoring

Strategy).

This report focuses specifically on development trends in the district. Development trends are of

particular concern as the district has experienced significant growth during the last five years,

and to date, there has been no in-depth analysis of this development. The only recent attempt

at examining this matter and the issues surrounding it has been the annual Resource Consents

and Complaints Monitoring Reports produced by the Policy and Monitoring Division with Council.

This report also addresses some of the indicators outlined in the WDC Monitoring Strategy, which

are: broad development trends for the district; density, consolidation, sporadic subdivision and

ribbon development; and population/population growth for the district as a whole. The report

examines specific data from five years related to these indicators, namely population, subdivision

and land use consents, new lots, building consents, and new dwellings. A breakdown of the data

is presented, where the overall trends in numbers is given, along with maps of distribution,

densities, spatial trends from year to year, and a future visual perspective of the results of

development to date for three specific parts of the district.

The level of development for the district over the past five years has been high and is likely to

continue for the foreseeable future. Whilst there is a declining trend in the number of resource

consents granted over the period, this is likely skewed by the high number of consents granted

during the 2002 period, and more than compensated by the large scale developments that have

occurred over the five years. This is illustrated by the number of lots created and building

consents issued, both of which (although cyclic in nature) exhibit a positive trend.

Overall, the spatial distribution of development throughout the district shows that whilst

development is widespread, particularly in regard to subdivision and building consents granted,

there are definite nodes of high development distinguishable. The urban/peri-urban area is most

noticeable (and expected) for all indicators. The coastal area has also experienced high levels of

ii

development, particularly in regard to subdivision and building activity. Specific areas on the

coast can be distinguished. These are the Nugunguru/Tutukaka/Matapouri area; the One Tree

Point/Ruakaka area; the South Bream Bay/Waipu area; and, to a lesser extent, Oakura, the North

Harbour fringe, Whananaki and Pataua. In the rural areas, three locations stand out – the

Maunu/Maungatapere area, the Three Mile Bush Road area and the Glenbervie area. As already

mentioned there are, in addition, widespread subdivisions of a smaller dimension throughout the

rural area, except the most western parts of the district.

The analysis of annual growth and distribution of subdivision, land use, building and building

consents for new dwellings has also produced interesting results. Certain parts of the district

have experienced consistently high growth as far as these indicators are concerned. Other areas

experienced sporadic growth and can be described as medium growth areas while some have

experienced very sporadic growth and could be described as lesser growth areas. These

different growth areas are described in the report and implications are discussed and

recommendations for further analysis are offered.

The report presents a series of pictures of the future for three locations, each chosen to

represent areas of high, medium and lesser growth. These computer simulations are presented

to obtain a feel for what these areas may look like in the future. The pictures show that certain

parts of the district, particularly along the coast, are changing rapidly and that various attributes

of these areas will be significantly altered in the future. This has important implications for both

communities living there and for Council in regard to the provision of services and infrastructure.

Finally, the report compares actual population growth with the projected population that could be

accommodated from subdivision and building consents already issued. While the total population

of Whangarei district is growing (it currently stands at 74,430 people), the district presently has

the developed land capacity to accommodate over 100,000 people or over 20 years of increase at

present rates. Additionally, the trends in population capacity for both subdivisions and building

consents are increasing at a rate greater than the actual population growth. This disparity may

be due to either land being bought by non-residents, land being developed in anticipation of a

population surge, land being banked by property speculators, or a combination of these.

Whatever the reason, there appears to be a considerable oversupply of developed land (building

lots) in relation to demand.

The report makes a number of recommendations foremost of which is the necessity for further

analysis on a number of issues. This is particularly so in regard to the effects of the present and

future growth of development, particularly land use development, on the environment, and the

iii

implications of both the rate and spatial distribution of development for the provision of services

and infrastructure. These are important matters that require further scrutiny. This report

provides essential data and analyses concerning the rate and spatial distribution of development,

and provides a benchmark for future analyses. But it is insufficient in itself to provide adequate

information on both environmental effects (present and future) and the provision of services and

infrastructure into the future. These should be the subjects of future state of the environment

reports (environmental effects) and further analysis by relevant divisions within Council

(infrastructure and service provision).

1

1. Introduction

1.1 Why monitor the state of the environment?

Under section 35(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991, local authorities are required to

monitor the state of the whole or any part of the environment of its region or district to the

extent that is appropriate to enable the local authority to effectively carry out its functions under

the Act. The approach adopted in this report is outlined in the Whangarei District Council’s

Monitoring Strategy 2001 (the WDC Monitoring Strategy).

A state of the environment report:

1. Provides baseline information on the state of the district’s environment, particularly in

regard to the significant issues identified in the Whangarei District Plan (the District

Plan).

2. Provides information on changing environmental conditions (and development pressures)

over time, particularly in regard to the significant issues identified in the District Plan.

3. Identifies new issues and significant trends occurring in the district which require

responses through district planning processes.

Baseline information about the state of the environment is essential for assessing what changes

are occurring in the environment and whether those changes are detrimental (both to ecosystem

functions and to human well being). Resource management and environmental policy directions

can be instituted and reviewed accordingly.

Monitoring the state of the environment provides valuable information that can be used in the

development of future resource strategies, and provides indications of the effectiveness of

current strategies and policies by comparing results against baseline information. This report will

establish some baselines by which future comparisons can be made.

The Ministry for the Environment (the MfE) describes state of the environment monitoring and

reporting as encompassing systematic monitoring, gathering, and analysis of environmental data,

2

as well as the dissemination of reliable, scientifically based, and easily understood information

about the condition (state) of the environment, the pressures on it, and the effectiveness of

measures taken to correct any problems. The MfE outlines the basic steps as follows, and

commentary has been added stating how Council has addressed these steps to date:

Regular standardised monitoring of the environment to detect environmental conditions

and trends. This is undertaken by Council in the form of annual Resource Consents and

Complaints Monitoring Reports, as well as this state of the environment report.

Regular reporting of information to the public and other interested parties. This has not

been undertaken by Council at this stage; however stakeholders such as the Northland

Regional Council (the NRC), the Department of Conservation (DoC) and other territorial

authorities in Northland have been kept updated through regular communication via the

Northland Regional Monitoring Forum hosted by the NRC.

Regular publication of a state of the environment report. This report is Council’s first

attempt to produce such a report, although data is collected and reported in the annual

Resource Consents and Complaints Monitoring Reports.

Compilation of a directory of sources of environmental information. The Northland

Regional Monitoring Forum, which is hosted by the NRC and includes the Kaipara and Far

North District Councils, is currently putting together a directory of environmental

information. The annual Resource Consents and Complaints Monitoring Reports also

provide a major source of information.

Potential establishment of national (and possibly regional and local) resource accounts.

This may be undertaken in the future as a joint effort between local, regional and central

government organisations.

1.2 Approach taken by this report

State of the environment monitoring responsibilities for territorial authorities are more limited

than those of regional authorities, who are the major functionaries in respect to comprehensive

environmental monitoring. In particular, state of the environment monitoring at a district level

3

has a more limited land based scope, with its primary focus being on land use activities and the

effects of those activities on particular aspects of the environment. Monitoring duties for

territorial authorities have the added complexity of considering amenity values, natural character

and the quality of the urban environment.

Effective state of the environment monitoring for territorial authorities should be directed at those

aspects of resource management and environmental regulation where outcomes can most clearly

be linked to the responsibilities of territorial authorities. In this way, overlap between regional

councils and territorial authorities can be reduced. (Additionally, this overlap is also addressed by

the Northland Regional Monitoring Forum, which facilitates dialogue between the regional and

territorial authorities and ensures that duplication of monitoring functions is avoided).

Nationally, there has been a trend to move away from large single-volume reports which

encompass multiple aspects of the environment. For instance, environmental reporting at the

Ministry for the Environment is moving away from single volume reports that cover the whole

environment to smaller reports on specific topics related to the needs of its intended audience

(MfE, 2006).

Consequently, this report focuses specifically on development trends in the district. Development

trends are of particular concern as the district has experienced significant growth during the last

five years. To date, with the exception of the NRC’s State of the Environment Report 2002, there

has been no in-depth analysis of this development. The only attempt at examining this matter

and the issues surrounding it to date has been the annual Resource Consents and Complaints

Monitoring Reports produced by Council. These reports have collected data on development in

the district, and this data has been used in this report on development trends. Further analysis

will be required in the future.

This report examines certain indicators which are specified in the WDC Monitoring Strategy.

These indicators refer to: population, population growth, broad development trends, density, and

land use. The report contains graphs of relevant data and provides images that are used to

examine trends in resource consents, new lots created, densities, and changes in growth in the

district over time. Additionally, three areas are specifically targeted for a “future view” of the

effect of development from a birds-eye perspective. These areas were selected as they have

experienced some of the densest subdivision in the district. All aspects of the data are discussed,

and a picture of the growth of the district during the last five years is obtained.

4

Additionally, this report will also examine, in a very preliminary way, the role of the District Plan

in terms of development. The objectives, policies and rules of the District Plan effectively

determine how development should take place. Whether or not the District Plan is working in this

regard can be examined in this report, although a District Plan Monitoring Report will be

produced in the future which specifically examines its performance, and will recommend

improvements where needed. There is a statutory requirement under the RMA to produce such a

report five years after the District Plan has been made operative

1.3 Indicators and state of the environment reporting

An indicator is something that is measured regularly to show trends or sudden changes in the

state of a system, population or individual (MfE, 1997). The power of an indicator lies in its

ability to tell us how a specific condition is changing over time. The WDC Monitoring Strategy

states that indicators need to be policy relevant, analytically valid, cost effective, simple and

easily understood (see Appendix A for the excerpt).

The indicators used by MfE for national state of the environment reporting are, in the main, not

suitable for reporting on the state of the environment at the territorial authority level. Instead

the indicators used here are outlined in the WDC Monitoring Strategy, and form the basis for this

report.

As stated previously, this report focuses specifically on development and more particularly on

land development. While the WDC Monitoring Strategy lists many indicators associated with

state of the environment monitoring, this report only provides information on a selected set of

these indicators, all of which are associated with development. For instance, while education

statistics and ethnic profiles are quoted as state of the environment indicators in the WDC

Monitoring Strategy, they do not link very well to land development. Additionally, indicators that

do link to development such as storm water and waste disposal are not specifically included as

data in this report, because they are influenced by other factors than just development alone

(e.g. heavy rain events or closing of the Pohe island landfill).

The following indicators from the WDC Monitoring Strategy are analysed in detail in this report,

and are listed below:

5

Population and population growth for the district as a whole. Information on the present

population along with past and future trends could be useful for planning for

development in the district, resource use, environmental pressures, provision of services

and infrastructure, etc.

Broad development trends for the district. The broad development trends for the district

are indicated by the number of land use, subdivision and building consents issued over

time, together with the spatial distribution of each type of consent issued. In other

words, the spatial arrangement of development – where development is occurring at

present, and where it is expected to occur in the future, is mapped and quantified.

Density, consolidation, sporadic subdivision and ribbon development. Information on

development density, consolidation, sporadic subdivision and ribbon development is

obtained by analysis of the existing land use and development pattern together with the

broad development trends indicated above. Trends relating to density, consolidation,

sporadic subdivision and ribbon development over time are established.

1.4 State of the environment reporting and the annual Resource

Consents and Complaints Monitoring Reports

This state of environment report on development trends ties together the five annual Resource

Consents and Complaints Monitoring Reports that have been produced by Council since 2002.

These reports analysed trends in land use and subdivision consents, as well as monitoring and

conservation. In particular, each report contains data pertaining to resource consents (both land

use and subdivision), building consents, new lots created, and monitoring information, some of

which is correlated to underlying Environments (e.g. number of subdivisions or lots created in

different Environments). The reports also presented images of the spatial distributions of land

use consents, subdivision consents, building consents, building consents for new dwellings and

conservation covenants. These pictures allowed for a spatial analysis of where development is

occurring in the district, and assist in predicting future trends.

6

2. Development Trends

2.1 The Whangarei district – profile and population trends

Before undertaking a detailed analysis of development trends in the Whangarei district, it is

important to set the scene. Whangarei is the largest urban area in Northland, accounting for

33% of the regional population. The land is predominantly hill country with flats restricted to

river valleys and coastal areas. The economy of the Whangarei district is largely based on

livestock farming, horticulture, forestry and fishing, along with an increasing contribution from

tourism. Extensive indigenous and exotic forests are a feature of the Whangarei district

landscape, with Pinus radiata, plantations among the highest density and fastest growing in the

country.

In the recent census (2006) undertaken by Statistics New Zealand, Whangarei has a population

of 74,430. This is an increase of 6,318 people since the 2001 census (68,112). This data will be

compared with growth data presented later in the report, and a determination will be made as to

how this growth in population is being catered for.

The growth of the district’s population over the last four censuses is as follows:

Census Year Population

1991 62,202

1996 66,696

2001 68,112

2006 74,430

Table 1 – Population by census year

This population growth is analysed in more detail later, where it is compared with the capacity for

growth as determined by trends in land development including the creation of lots from

subdivision and building consents granted.

7

2.2 Development trends in the Whangarei district

The following graphs present the data sets that form the basis for this report. The data sets are:

resource consents granted (which is then broken into land use and subdivision consents

granted), new lots created, building consents granted and building consents granted for new

dwellings. The data for these graphs can be found in Appendix C.

Please note that, in this report, graphs have been formatted so that the Year-axis denotes the

financial year (e.g. by “2002” is meant the financial year beginning 1 July 2001 and ending 30

June 2002). This is done is for simplicity of presentation. As such, any reference to years in the

body of the report also refers to the financial year in order to maintain consistency.

Resource consents granted

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Nu

mb

er

of

co

nsen

ts

Consents Trend

Figure 1 – Graph of resource consents granted

8

Subdivision and land use consents granted

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Nu

mb

er

of

co

nsen

ts

SDs LUs Trend (LUs) Trend (SDs)

Figure 2 – Graph of subdivision and land use consents granted

Number of new lots created

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Nu

mb

er

of

new

lo

ts c

reate

d

New lots Trend

Figure 3 – Graph of new lots created

9

Number of building consents granted

2100

2200

2300

2400

2500

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Year

Nu

mb

er

of

co

nsen

ts

Building consents Trend

Figure 4 – Graph of building consents granted

Number of buidling consents granted for new dwellings

600

700

800

900

1000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Nu

mb

er

of

co

nsen

ts

Building consents (dw ellings) Trend

Figure 5 – Graph of building consents granted for new dwellings

10

2.3 Subdivisions, new lots created and District Plan zoning

An analysis of development trends at the territorial level includes relating development back to

the underlying District Plan zoning (Environment) in which the development is taking place, and

this is especially the case for subdivision consents and new lots. The rules governing subdivisions

vary quite significantly with the underlying Environments; therefore by analyzing trends in each

Environment, an indication as to how and where development is taking place can be obtained.

The same goes for the number of new lots in each Environment, as these result directly from

subdivision.

The data presented in this way allows evaluation of the specific rules, objectives and policies that

govern subdivision and development in the Whangarei district. However, it is not the intention of

this report to provide such an analysis – this will need to be done later as a part of District Plan

monitoring. The relevant overview of the provisions relating to subdivision in the District Plan is

useful to refer to, and is reproduced in Appendix B.

Each Environment has been graphed separately with trend lines added. The data for these

graphs can be found in Appendix C.

Please note that Business 1 subdivisions and new lots were not included because the amount of

data was too small for meaningful trends to be determined. The Business 1 Environment in the

Whangarei District has had a total of 3 subdivisions, and only 8 new lots have been created over

the five years covered in this report. Additionally, both the Living 2 and Open Space

Environments have only had a small number of subdivision consents during the last five years (6

and 4 respectively), however the number of lots created from these subdivisions does allow for

an analysis of trends in those Environments, and the graphs have been included.

Also note that the size of these graphs precludes the use of legends, so they have been omitted.

As with the previous graphs, the dashed line in each image is the linearly-extrapolated trend for

the underlying data.

11

Living 1 - Subdivisions

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Year

Num

ber

of S

Ds

Living 2 - Subdivisions

0

1

2

3

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Num

ber

of S

Ds

Living 3 - Subdivisions

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Num

ber

of S

Ds

Figure 6 – Living 1 SDs Figure 7 – Living 2 SDs Figure 8 – Living 3 SDs

Business 2 - Subdivisions

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Num

ber

of S

Ds

Business 3 - Subdivisions

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Num

ber

of S

Ds

Business 4 - Subdivisions

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Year

Num

ber

of S

Ds

Figure 9 – Business 2 SDs Figure 10 – Business 3 SDs Figure 11 – Business 4 SDs

Open Space - Subdivisions

0

1

2

3

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Year

Num

ber

of S

Ds

Coastal Countryside - Subdivisions

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Year

Num

ber

of S

Ds

Countryside - Subdivisions

150

180

210

240

270

300

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Year

Num

ber

of S

Ds

Figure 12 – Open Space SDs Figure 13 – Coastal Countryside SDs Figure 14 – Countryside SDs

12

Living 1 - New lots

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Year

Num

ber

of new

lots

Living 2 - New lots

0

2

4

6

8

10

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Year

Num

ber

of new

lots

Living 3 - New lots

0

50

100

150

200

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Year

Num

ber

of new

lots

Figure 15 – Living 1 new lots Figure 16 – Living 2 new lots Figure 17 – Living 3 new lots

Business 2 - New lots

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Num

ber

of new

lots

Business 3 - New lots

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Num

ber

of new

lots

Business 4 - New lots

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Num

ber

of new

lots

Figure 18 – Business 2 new lots Figure 19 – Business 3 new lots Figure 20 – Business 4 new lots

Open Space - New lots

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Year

Num

ber

of new

lots

Coastal Countryside - New lots

0

50

100

150

200

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Year

Num

ber

of new

lots

Countryside - New lots

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

YearN

um

ber

of new

lots

Figure 21 – Open Space new lots Figure 22 – Coastal Countryside new lots Figure 23 – Countryside new lots

13

2.4 Density of development

The graphs in the previous section quantify the level of development occurring in the district. They also

provide an indication as to how development is progressing from a general, district-wide perspective.

However, this development is not occurring evenly throughout the district, and the above data does not

show this beyond the specific Environments in which development is occurring. While the annual

Resource Consents and Complaints Monitoring Reports do show spatial distributions of development for

specific activities (subdivision, land use, building consents, and new dwellings), the reports only cover the

year for which they were written.

Placing all five year’s data onto a map of the district does not adequately show where development is

most intense. Instead, a system of mapping density was devised for this report to address this. The

system essentially divided the district into spatially relevant blocks, or cells, similar to the mesh-block

system used by Statistics New Zealand; however the method used in this report differs from the mesh-

block system in that it uses a uniform grid in which each cell is one square kilometer (Statistics New

Zealand’s mesh-block system uses spatially-varying areas). The resulting grid was 90 kilometres north-

to-south and 80 kilometres east-to-west, and covered the entire district.

The reason a grid system was used instead of the more complex mesh-block system was for simplicity.

The placement of the grid was arbitrarily determined, and did not matter as far as development density

analysis was concerned. What was important was the size of each cell in the grid, as smaller cells would

provide better resolution but less information regarding overall density. A size of one square kilometer

was chosen per cell as it was large enough to contain urban and rural lots without compromising urban

lots to any great degree. This technique was applied to data on subdivision, land use, building consents

and new dwellings granted during the last five years.

These images plot density on a scale of five monochromatic levels in order to easily pinpoint hotspots of

development. Consequently, the scales used are not linear, as the density of development does not

occur linearly. An area which has, for example, 74 new dwellings per square kilometre is likely to be next

to an area with far less. If a linear scale was used i.e. each scale being an increment of 15 or so, areas

of high-density development would not be shown as clearly.

14

The image for new lots, however, does not use the grid system. Instead, the new lots are mapped with

respect to the location of the underlying subdivisions and in proportion to the number of lots created. It

was deemed that this method was more appropriate for new lots in particular, as the largest-lot

subdivisions can be easily identified.

As more data is collected by Council, development density analysis will present growth trends that can be

used by policy and decision makers to determine whether objectives have been achieved and where

controls are required. Also, as data collection improves, the analyses will be more detailed, and will

enable analysis of more parameters than covered in this report.

15

Subdivision Consents Density

1 - 3

4 - 5

6 - 10

11 - 18

19 - 26

Figure 24 – Subdivision consents density

(Subdivision consents/sq. km)

16

Land Use Consents Density

1 - 3

4 - 7

8 - 14

15 - 22

23 - 36

Figure 25 – Land use consents density

(Land use consents/sq. km)

17

Building Consents Density

1 - 7

8 - 24

25 - 56

57 - 105

106 - 197

Figure 26 – Building consents density

(Building consents/sq. km)

18

New Dwellings Density

1 - 3

4 - 9

10 - 20

21 - 37

38 - 74

Figure 27 – Building consents for new dwellings density

(New dwellings/sq. km)

19

New Lots

! 0 - 3

! 4 - 6

! 7 - 11

! 12 - 18

! 19 - 25

! 26 - 36

! 37 - 48

! 49 - 58

! 59 - 111

! 112 - 198

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!!!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !!

!

!

!!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!

! !!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

! !

!

!! !

!

!

!! !!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!! !

!! !! !

!

!!

!

!!!!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!

!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!!!!!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !

!!!!

!

!!!!!

!!! !!

!!!!!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!! !!

!!!!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

!

!!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!!!

!! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!!

!! !

!

!!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!!! !

!!!!!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

Figure 28 – New lots density

(New lots/subdivision)

20

2.5 Annual growth

The previous density analyses show how and where development has occurred overall. What the images

do not show is how this pattern has changed over time. The next section of this report is an analysis of

this. Here, the images of yearly distributions of development are shown, and areas which have been

experiencing growth have been highlighted.

For the purpose of this analysis, the types of growth experienced by particular areas of the district were

categorized as:

Consistent growth, where the number of consents granted between years does not

change significantly. These are high growth nodes, and have been highlighted green.

Sporadic growth, where the number of consents granted between years changes from

year to year. These are medium growth areas. The change may be either an increase

or decrease in consent numbers. These areas have been highlighted yellow.

Very sporadic growth, where an area may experience a sudden and significant change in

numbers of consents from year to year. These are lesser growth areas, and have been

highlighted orange.

The intention of this exercise is to clearly show where development is occurring in a manner that needs

attention, and areas that need to be monitored for their continued development. Areas which have

experienced very sporadic growth (orange) need to also be monitored closely, as they may or may not

have the necessary infrastructure to maintain such growth.

21

Subdivisions

K E Y

Consistent growth (no significant change in

growth from year to year)

Sporadic growth (some change from year to year)

Very sporadic growth (significant differences in growth between years)

Figure 29 – Annual growth of subdivision consents

2006 2005 2004

2003 2002

22

K E Y

Consistent growth (no significant change in

growth from year to year)

Sporadic growth (some change from year to year)

Very sporadic growth (significant differences in growth between years)

Land Use

Figure 30 – Annual growth of land use consents

2006 2005 2004

2003 2002

23

Building Consents

K E Y

Consistent growth (no significant change in

growth from year to year)

Sporadic growth (some change from year to year)

Very sporadic growth (significant differences in

growth between years)

Figure 31 – Annual growth of building consents

2006 2005 2004

2003 2002

24

2006

Building Consents for New Dwellings

K E Y

Consistent growth (no significant change in

growth from year to year)

Sporadic growth (some change from year to year)

Very sporadic growth (only one year experienced

significant growth)

Figure 32 – Annual growth of building consents for new dwellings

2005 2004

2003 2002

25

2.6 A picture of the future

While identifying trends in data and spatial trends in growth is important and useful, a feel for

what is happening on the ground is not achieved as well as it could be. Current trends are

important in that they show how the district has developed, and indicate where the district may

grow in the future, but a picture of what this development actually looks like is still not fully

presented.

The use of 3-dimensional imaging to map development is a relatively new phenomenon. Cheap

software combined with powerful hardware that is becoming more affordable means that such

analysis is relatively easy to do. In this report, areas were identified where significant subdivision

has taken place, which will dramatically alter the appearance and character of the area in the

future. Further development of the newly created lots may or may not have occurred, but the

images presented here show the final result of all development in these critical areas.

These sites were selected as they represent a range of densities of subdivision in the district. It

is important to note that these images are based on lots that have already been created. They

do not show subdivision consents which have not reached the Section 223 stage, neither do they

show proposed subdivisions nor plan changes. For this reason, the images presented may be

considered conservative. Taking into account subdivision consents already granted (but lots not

yet legally created) and plan changes lodged or proposed, the true pictures are likely to show

significantly more development.

The areas for which 3-dimensional analysis was undertaken were:

One Tree Point (highest level of subdivision)

Ruakaka (moderately high level of subdivision)

Parua Bay (moderate level of subdivision).

Note that the aerial photos used in these images were taken in 2004. The changes since then

have been incorporated into both images where possible; however there may be some omissions

in the “Today” pictures. It is not the intention of this exercise to portray these areas with 100%

accuracy, but rather to give an impression of how development will affect the appearances of

these places in the not-too-distant future, what the overall effects will be on the landscape,

natural character, and visual amenity.

26

One Tree Point – Today

Figure 33 – One Tree Point today

27

One Tree Point – All Lots Occupied

Figure 34 – One Tree Point all lots occupied

28

Ruakaka – Today

Figure 35 – Ruakaka today

29

Ruakaka – All Lots Occupied

Figure 36 – Ruakaka all lots occupied

30

Parua Bay – Today

Figure 37 – Parua Bay today

31

Parua Bay – All Lots Occupied

Figure 38 – Parua Bay all lots occupied

32

3. Discussion

3.1 Resource consents

Figure 1 shows the total number of resource consents granted in the last five years, and the

associated trend.

The number of resource consents being received (and subsequently granted) by the Whangarei

District Council over the five year period decreased overall (see Figure 1). This has three

possible implications for development:

1. The level of development is on the decrease for the district as a whole; this does not

seem likely, and whilst the actual number of resource consents granted shows a

decreasing trend over the five years, the size and complexity of developments may well

overcompensate for this decline.

2. The provisions of the District Plan are changing over time, and developments today do

not require the same planning permissions as in previous years. Considering that the

District Plan has not changed fundamentally during the last five years, this is not likely,

and the major changes to the District Plan that have occurred (e.g. subdivision) have

made the Plan provisions more restrictive rather than less.

3. Because of the cyclic nature of development apparent in the trend analysis, future figures

could alter this trend line. In other words, the time period under scrutiny (five years) is

not sufficient to give a true reflection of trends over larger timeframes, and the trend line

may be skewed by the high number of consents in the 2002 year.

Resource consents have five years to be given effect to, so it is anticipated that the decline in

resource consents will not show up in related data (e.g. building consents and new lots created)

for some time. However, this apparent decline in resource consent numbers, along with the

cyclic nature of development, should be taken into account by policy-makers when reviewing

strategies to cater for future development of the district.

33

When the data for resource consents is split into subdivisions and land use (see Figure 2), the

trends in both data sets sheds some light on the pattern of overall development. The total

number of consents granted per year has decreased by approximately 100 consents during the

five year period for both subdivision and land use consents, and the trends in both data sets are

almost identical. The declining trend in subdivision consents is largely due to the high number of

consents granted in the 2002 period. From the 2003 year onwards, the trend is positive, and

data collected in future years will determine the long-term trend. There was a substantial

decrease in land use consents granted in the 2006 year compared to previous years. The reason

for this is not known at this point but future trends should be scrutinized, to determine whether

this is a structural change and, if so, why it is occurring.

Where the split between subdivision and land use consents becomes more interesting is in the

density of development map for each, and this is discussed below.

3.2 Subdivision consents

Figure 2 shows the number of subdivisions granted during the last five years and the associated

trend line. Figures 6 to 14 show the number of subdivisions per Environment of the District Plan.

Figure 24 shows the density distribution of subdivision consents in the district.

Subdivision is effectively the basis for development; it creates communities and releases land for

commercial development. There are also negative effects to subdivision, such as loss of

ecosystem values, loss of versatile soils, sporadic ribbon development, and so on. The issues

listed in the District Plan regarding subdivision include the enhancement that subdivisions can

provide for, the effects on the environment, conflicts that may arise from incompatible land use

activities occurring adjacent to one another, and an increase in demand for infrastructure.

Figures 6 to 14 show subdivisions in the individual Environments of the District Plan. Each of

these Environments have different requirements in terms of minimum lot sizes, provision of

infrastructure (e.g. stormwater), and cater for different effects on the environment (e.g.

earthworks).

The trends for subdivision in the Living 2, Open Space, and to some extent the Business

Environments, are affected by the low number of consents granted in these areas. However,

these low numbers, in comparison to the much higher figures for the Living and Countryside

34

Environments, also give a strong indication as to where development is occurring and where the

policies, objectives and rules of the District Plan are being tested the most.

To begin with, there is some analysis that can be undertaken regarding the areas where

subdivision is not common. In the Business Environments, the variation in the number of

subdivisions during the years is quite significant. The overall trend for the Business 2 and 4

Environments is of increasing numbers of subdivisions being granted, whereas Business 3

appears to be in the decrease. Again, caution is required here, as the numbers are low enough

that a relatively small change from one year to the next will vary the trends significantly.

Focusing on the Environments with significant numbers of subdivision consents, there is

substantial variation between the years for all Environments. Subdivision in the Living 1 and

Living 3 Environments show exactly the same pattern from year to year (although on a smaller

scale for the Living 3 Environment), with 2003 being the year with the lowest number of

subdivisions and 2005 having the highest. In fact the similarity between the two Environments is

uncanny – it may be safe to assume that development in the urban areas of the district is

reasonably uniform.

The Coastal Countryside and Countryside Environments, however, show declines in both

Environments – in fact, it is the trend in these Environments that have resulted in the downward

trend in subdivision consents overall. And again, it appears that the high number of consents

granted in the 2002 period has unduly affected this trend, Countryside subdivisions in particular.

It remains to be seen whether this trend continues, as five years of data is not sufficient to draw

firm conclusions. Note that subdivision in these Environments will be discussed in more detail in

the section on new lots below.

A more productive analysis of subdivision consents in the district can be made from Figure 24,

which shows the spatial density of these consents. There are subdivisions scattered throughout

the district, although there have not been many in western parts of the district. The city and

immediate surrounds show the most concentrated numbers of consents, with certain areas in the

city having the most number of anywhere in the district (between 19 to 26 subdivisions per

square kilometre). Hotspots of consents include Maungatapere, Tutukaka, One Tree Point,

Ruakaka, Waipu, Waikaraka and Parua Bay. Lang’s Cove, Ngunguru, Hikurangi, McLeod Bay and

Whangarei Heads have between 4 to 10 subdivision consents per square kilometre.

35

One of the objectives of the District Plan is that subdivision and development are consolidated in

appropriate locations, and sprawling or sporadic subdivision and ribbon development should be

avoided. It appears, from Figure 24, that this objective is being achieved in part. However, it

needs to be stated that, although subdivision is being concentrated in specific areas (i.e. the

city), the scatter of subdivision consents through the rest of the district may indicate that

sporadic development is occurring without due regard for the objectives of the District Plan. This

may be particularly true for parts of the coastline and rural inland areas, and may well create

problems for the orderly and cost effective provision of infrastructure and services, as well as

cumulative adverse effects on the natural environment.

3.3 New lots

Figure 3 shows the trend in the number of new lots created during the last five years, and

Figures 15 to 23 show the number of new lots per Environment of the District Plan. Figure 28

shows the density distribution of new lots throughout the district.

The trend line in Figure 3 shows that the number of new lots created during the last five years is

declining. It is not expected that this trend will continue, as there is a prominent two- to three-

year lag between the number of subdivisions and the number of new lots created, and as such,

the large number of lots created in the 2004 year is directly attributable to the large number of

subdivisions granted in the 2002 period year. The subsequent slump in the number of new lots

is therefore attributed to the slump in subdivision consents in years following the 2002 period.

However, as can be seen in Figure 2, the number of subdivision consents has climbed since, so it

is expected that the number of new lots being created will also rise during the next two to three

years, and the trend line overall will become positive.

A more interesting analysis can be made of the number of new lots created per Environment,

illustrated in Figures 15 to 23. Here, the two- to three-year difference between subdivisions and

new lots created is definitely noticeable; for instance, comparing Figures 6 and 8 (Living 1 and 3

subdivisions) with Figures 15 and 17 (Living 1 and 3 new lots) it can be seen that the graphs are

evidently two years out of phase.

Comparing the number of new lots in the Living, Business and Countryside Environments, the

following conclusions can be drawn:

36

The level of growth in the number of lots in the Living Environments (Living 1 and 3 in

particular – the Living 2 Environment does not contribute significantly to the level of

growth in general) is fairly stable. On average, new lots are being created at a steady

pace.

The level of growth in the number of lots in the Business Environments is increasing.

The trends for all three Environments shown (as stated before, Business 1 subdivisions

and new lots were too small for any meaningful analysis) are upwards; this effectively

means that there is going to be more land available for industrial and commercial use.

The level of growth in the number of lots created in the Coastal Countryside and

Countryside Environments is decreasing; however, it needs to be pointed out that it is

these areas that are most likely to show correlation with subdivision data, as the total

numbers of new lots for both Environments are much larger than in any of the other

Environments. Consequently, it is expected that this downwards trend will change in the

next two to three years as subdivisions during the last two to three years have been on

the increase (in contrast to the overall trend in subdivision consents – see Section 3.2

above).

Figure 28 specifically shows where new lots are being created. This figure differs from the other

density distribution maps, in that instead of using the one square-kilometre method, the new lots

are mapped with respect to the location of the underlying subdivisions and in proportion to the

number of lots created. Consequently, the map shows at a glance where the largest number of

lots are being created. The urban, peri-urban, Ngunguru/Tutukaka/Matapouri, and One Tree

Point/Ruakaka areas stand out immediately.

Other parts of the district have experienced significant (potential) land development in through

the creation of subdivision lots. These include Southern Bream Bay/Waipu,

Maungatapere/Maungakaramea, Three Mile Bush Road, Glenbervie, Parua Bay/Pataua, and to a

lesser extent Whangarei Heads and Oakura.

Interestingly, Figure 28 also clarifies the effect of the scatter of subdivision throughout the

district. All but a few of these subdivisions were for 12 lots or less. Therefore it can be said that,

while sporadic subdivision is widespread, the subdivisions are not large, which has both negative

and positive implications. On the positive side, the issue of sporadic development is addressed

by ensuring that large-lot, concentrated subdivisions are not frequently occurring in scattered

37

locations. On the negative side, however, the long-term effects of numerous small-lot

subdivisions are similar to large-lot subdivisions, and if effects are not given due consideration,

the environmental consequences may be significant, not to mention the problems associated with

the provision of infrastructure and services to scattered residential development.

3.4 Land use consents

Figure 2 shows the number of land use consents granted during the last five years and the trend,

and Figure 25 shows the density distribution of land use consents in the district.

Land use consents do not receive as much attention as subdivision consents in this report. This

is because land use consents can be granted for matters which do not contribute significantly to

the overall picture of development (e.g. a land use consent to infringe setbacks does not have an

effect on the environment similar to a ten-lot subdivision. However, land use consents can also

be granted for major infrastructural developments such as a lumber mill, therefore it would be

unwise to ignore them altogether). This report does not distinguish between land use consents

for minor activities and land use consents for major activities, therefore the density and five-year

images are treated with some caution.

Figure 2 shows that the number of land use consents granted by Council is declining. Apart from

anything else, this would corroborate the hypothesis given earlier (in Section 3.1) that the

number of consents granted is exhibiting a decline but part of a trend that is cyclic and one that

may well change over the next few years. Some caution is needed as five years of data is not

sufficient to predict long-term trends in the overall level of development. There has also been a

significant decrease in land use consents granted in the 2006 year compared to previous years.

The reasons for this are unknown at this point in time, but future trends need to be scrutinized to

see whether this continues.

The density map for land use consents (Figure 25) provides interesting insight into the nature of

development in the district. It can be seen the city centre is where most land use development is

occurring, with up to 36 consents being granted in one square kilometre. Furthermore, the areas

surrounding the city centre (i.e. the Whangarei urban area) is where most land use consents

have been granted. While there are other areas of the district which have also had land use

consents granted, there are no surprises here. Waikaraka, Maungatapere, One Tree Point,

38

Ruakaka, Lang’s Cove, Ngunguru/Tutukaka and Oakura have all had significant land use

development. Interestingly, Waipu has not experience as much land use development, and

Oakura has experienced higher numbers of land use consents than would be expected

(considering that Oakura has not seen a great deal of subdivision development).

Low densities of land use consents are scattered throughout the rest of the district, and, as with

subdivisions, the western parts of the district have experienced lesser land use developments

over the last five years, as shown through land use consents issued.

3.5 Building consents

Figure 4 shows the number of building consents granted in the last five years, and the associated

trend. Figure 26 shows the density distribution of building consents in the district.

Building consents are an important indication of the level of development occurring in the district.

While land use consents are not required for every activity, building consents are normally

required for most construction and alteration work. However, some of this building work does

not have any effect on the environment per se (e.g. a building consent for internal alterations

such as a staircase has no measurable environmental effect), so building consents are compared

in this report in conjunction with other data. Importantly, the next section deals with building

consents for new dwellings specifically.

Figure 4 shows that the number of building consents is, on the whole, increasing. Interestingly,

Figures 3 and 4 show remarkably similar shapes, though opposing trends (the number of new

lots created, as discussed previously, are declining). It is not surprising to establish a direct

correlation between new lots and building consents, for new lots allow for more development, all

of which require building consents. Therefore the density distribution of building consents

(Figure 26) becomes important in establishing where development is occurring most prominently,

compared with the distribution of new lots (Figure 28), which indicates where development will

occur in the future.

Figure 26 does not produce any surprises as far as development in the district is concerned – it is

patently clear that the city and the peri-urban areas are where building development is most

intense. Other prominent areas include Hikurangi, One Tree Point and Ruakaka, with Waipu,

Ngunguru/Tutukaka and Maungatapere also showing large numbers of building consents granted.

39

However, it is also evident in Figure 26 that the entire district has experienced some form of

development or other, whether it is minor (such as the construction of a fireplace) or not

(construction of a house).

Comparing the density image of land use consents (Figure 25) with building consents (Figure 26),

it comes as no surprise that areas with higher densities of land use consents correspond to

increased numbers of building consents. Prominent examples of this include the city, Tutukaka,

Ruakaka and Whangarei Heads. This suggests that the District Plan is having an effect as far as

ensuring that the quality of development is not compromising the environment, so long as

adequate resource consent conditions are being used as the mechanism to ensure that the

effects of the development are no more than minor.

3.6 New dwellings

Figure 5 shows the number of building consents granted for new dwellings in the last five years,

and the associated trend. Figure 27 shows the density distribution of building consents for enw

dwellings in the district.

Surprisingly, Figure 5 does not resemble the pattern that would be expected, that is, a similarity

to the graph of new lots created (Figure 3). This indicates that the construction of homes on

new lots is not keeping up with the number of lots that have been created. Population trends

become important in this analysis; the more people there are in the district, the more houses

required for them to live in. Unfortunately, the figures do not match – subdivision and the

creation of new lots are well in excess of the population growth of the district. This is discussed

more fully in Section 3.9 below.

The distribution density of new dwellings also shows interesting patterns. The areas which are

densest in terms of new dwellings are relatively easy to determine. Kamo/Three Mile Bush,

Waikaraka, One Tree Point and Ruakaka have had between 38-74 new dwellings constructed per

square kilometre during the last five years. Other areas, such as Parua Bay,

Ngunguru/Tutukaka/Matapouri, Southern Bream Bay including Lang’s Cove, and Oakura have

experience significant residential development. Interestingly, although these areas clearly stand

out, areas that have had between 4 and 20 new dwellings per square kilometre constructed

during the last five years are widespread.

40

3.7 Annual growth

Figures 29 to 32 show where development has occurred in the district on a year-by-year basis.

Areas showing consistent growth or high growth nodes are highlighted in green, while areas

showing sporadic growth or medium growth areas are yellow, and areas with very sporadic

growth or lesser growth areas are orange.

Figure 29 shows that subdivisions have consistently been occurring in the urban and peri-urban

areas and along the coast, in areas such as Ruakaka/One Tree Point, Waipu/Lang’s Cove, and

Ngunguru/Tutukaka/Matapouri. Subdivision in the Maungatapere/Maungakaramea and Three

Mile Bush Road areas has been sporadic from year to year, and the same can be said of Oakura,

Glenbervie, Whangarei Heads and Northern Harbour fringe areas. Interestingly, Hikurangi and

other parts of the district (shown in orange in the sequence) have experienced sudden bursts of

subdivision activity during the last five years.

Figure 30 shows that land use activity has not been as widespread as subdivisions, but from the

sequence it is easy to see that the city area has experienced a consistent number of land use

consents, as have the coastal areas of Ngunguru/Tutukaka/Matapouri and Ruakaka.

Maungatapere, One Tree Point, and Southern Bream Bay/Waipu along with the North Harbour

fringe have had sporadic development, and a few pockets such as Waikaraka and Hikurangi have

experienced the occasional surge in land use consents during the five years.

Figures 31 and 32, which show building consents and building consents for new dwellings, are

harder to analyse over the five year period due to the large number of consents granted per year

and the scattered nature of these consents. In fact, for the building consents data, the size of

each ‘dot’ representing a single consent had to be reduced in order to distinguish the areas of

growth. It is obvious that the city and surrounding urban areas have experienced the most

consistent growth over the period. The Three Mile Bush Road, Glenbervie and

Maungatapere/Maungakaramea areas have likewise experienced consistent growth. Along the

coast the Ngunguru/Tutukaka/Matapouri, One Tree Point/Ruakaka, Southern Bream Bay/Waipu,

and Whangarei Heads/North Harbour Fringe have all shown consistent numbers of building

consents for the last five years.

Other areas such as Pataua, Oakura and parts of Bream Bay have shown sporadic development

over the years. This is even more marked for building consents for new dwellings, where the

41

data for coastal settlements have not been as consistent as building consent data for the same

areas.

3.8 A picture of the future

Figures 33 to 38 show 3-dimensional images of parts of the district as they exist today and as

they will exist in the future when all lots that have already been created have been built on.

Considering the densities of subdivision (Figure 24) and new lots (Figure 28), Figure 34 in

particular comes as no surprise – One Tree Point will be three to four times larger than it

presently is (as seen in Figure 33). However, it needs to be emphasized that these images are

based on consents that have already been granted and lots that have been effectively created (at

the Section 223 stage). In other words, the future images (Figures 34, 36 and 38) will become

reality, once the lots have been purchased and built upon.

Ruakaka (Figures 35 and 36) and Parua Bay (Figures 37 and 38) will look quite different when all

lots are developed. It is understood that there are plans to continue developing these areas in

the future (e.g. there is a proposed 166 lot subdivision south of the Ruakaka racecourse, and a

proposed plan change in Parua Bay that may eventually add some 500 lots or more in one

development), which means that the images shown in Figures 35 to 38 are not the complete

picture. Generally speaking, the images presented are conservative. Taking into account

subdivision consents already granted (but not yet legally created) and plan changes lodged or

proposed, the true picture of future development is likely to show significantly more residential

and commercial use.

The question of when these developments will occur, and these images of growth become a

reality, is the subject of the section below on population growth.

3.9 Population growth, subdivision and building consents

The Policy Division of the Whangarei District Council has developed a model which projects the

population growth of the district. This growth model has been developed based on population

data such as that presented in Table 1 as well as on population projections. Data relating to the

42

capacity of the district to accommodate projected population has been compared with the actual

growth of the district in relation to land supply, with surprising results. Although all previous data

presented has been for the five years from 2002 to 2006, the data presented here goes back to

the year 2000, which is useful as the overlaps between actual population growth and populations

based on subdivisions and building consents can be seen (in some instances, the overlap

occurred in the year 2000).

The graphs below (supplied by Dianne Zucchetto of the Policy Team) display three data sets

each. The first data set, in brown, is the actual population as determined by census. The second

data set, in blue, is the population able to be accommodated in the district, based on the number

of building consents for dwellings multiplied by 2.4 – the average number of people per

household nationally. The third data set, in green, is the population able to be accommodated in

the district, based on the number of lots created (multiplied by 2.4, as with building consents).

There are three graphs, one for the urban population, one for the rural population, and the third

for the population of the district as a whole.

Comparison of urban population estimates

36,000

41,000

46,000

51,000

56,000

61,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Urb

an

Po

pu

lati

on

Pop based on BCs Pop based on SDs Urban Population

Figure 39 – Comparison of urban population estimates

The urban population of Whangarei is growing. However, in the 2003 period, the capacity for

housing this population, in terms of dwellings and new lots created, and assuming a residential

population of 2.4 people per lot/residential unit, exceeded the urban population, and this trend is

continuing.

43

Comparison of rural population estimates

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Ru

ral

Po

pu

lati

on

Pop based on BCs Pop based on SDs Rural Population

Figure 40 – Comparison of rural population estimates

Whangarei’s rural population is also growing, even more so than the urban areas. However, the

graph above clearly shows that new lots created from subdivision exceeded the rural population

in 2001, and the number of new dwellings exceeded the rural population in 2003, based upon the

assumption of 2.4 people per lot/residential unit.

Comparison of Total Population Estimates

55,000

65,000

75,000

85,000

95,000

105,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Po

pu

lati

on

Pop based on BCs Pop based on SDs Total Population

Figure 41 – Comparison of total population estimates

44

The above graphs (Figures 39 to 41) show three important facts. The first is that, in the urban

environment, the number of lots created now caters for 12,000 more people than currently reside

in the Whangarei urban area. The second observation is that the rural area caters for 16,000

more people than currently reside in the Whangarei rural environs. Overall, this means that the

district has the capacity to support a population of 103,000, almost 28,000 more than presently

reside in the Whangarei district, based on the number of lots already in existence and based

upon 2.4 people per lot/residential unit.

Note that the figure of 2.4 people per lot/residential unit is conservative. It is quite likely in a

town of Whangarei’s size that density per household is in excess of 3 people on average. If this

is the case, the project capacities based on building consents and subdivisions is actually much

higher than the figures given above, and the length of time required to use all lots available on

this basis extends proportionally.

There are several possible reasons for the disparity between population growth and populations

able to be accommodated based on building consents and subdivisions. These are:

1. Lots are being bought and homes are being constructed by non-residents. This may well

be true for the coastal areas of the district; it may be that Whangarei is coming to be

increasingly seen as a place to holiday in, similar to other parts of the country like

Pauanui and Tauranga/Mount Maunganui.

2. Land is being developed in anticipation of a surge in population; with Auckland growing

rapidly, there may well be a spillover into towns close to Auckland such as Whangarei.

3. Land is being developed and banked by property speculators, especially in the coastal

areas. If this is the case, and land is not taken up by either a population surge or by

non-resident purchasers, the consequences may range from a fall in property prices to

on-going loss of productive land which could be better utilized.

4. There is an increasing, unintended incremental oversupply of residential lots in

comparison to the demand. This may be in the order of around 10,000 lots over the

whole district. This oversupply is likely to be greater or lesser in various locations. It is

also likely the result of cumulative individual decisions to undertake subdivisions and

enter the property market.

45

4. Conclusions and recommendations

4.1 Conclusions

According to the District Plan, “inappropriate subdivision and development can result in increased

conflict between activities and adverse effects on the amenity, heritage, landscape and other

values of an area, diminished ecosystem functioning and increasing conflict between incompatible

land uses, as well as placing additional strains upon services and infrastructure.” In rural and

coastal areas, subdivision “can result in adverse cumulative effects, such as ribbon development

and loss of rural and open space character.”

The question of whether subdivision and development in the district has been “inappropriate”,

resulting in the adverse effects mentioned above, can be partially answered by reviewing the

data and the discussion presented in this report. The level of development over the past five

years has certainly been high overall, and it is likely to continue in the foreseeable future.

This level of development needs to be carefully managed to ensure that effects on the

environment are avoided, remedied or mitigated as required under the resource management

legislation. It also needs to be managed so as to ensure the orderly and cost effective provision

of services and infrastructure. In addition, potentially conflicting land uses need to be separated

and existing land owners need to have some surety as to what future neighbouring land uses

they can expect.

The density of development maps show some significant results that need to be taken into

account by policy-decision makers in Council. Subdivisions are occurring frequently in particular

areas (Figure 24), and some of these subdivisions are for large numbers of lots (Figure 28).

However, there are also a large number of subdivisions occurring throughout the district, albeit

for only a few (less than 6) lots each, which indicates a degree of sporadic development taking

place, which may be considered inappropriate under the District Plan, and may create problems

in providing services and infrastructure.

Land use consents are being granted most frequently in the urban areas, which is not surprising.

A similar trend can be seen with building consents for new dwellings, indicating that, despite

46

some large subdivisions in other parts of the district (e.g. One Tree Point, Ruakaka), the urban

and peri-urban areas are still where a large amount of post-subdivision development is occurring.

Overall, the spatial distribution of development throughout the district shows that whilst

development is widespread, particularly in regard to subdivision and building consents granted,

there are definite nodes of high development distinguishable. The urban/peri-urban area is most

noticeable (and expected) for all indicators. The coastal area has also experienced high levels of

development, particularly in regard to subdivision and building activity, and specific areas on the

coast can be distinguished. These are the Ngunguru/Tutukaka/Matapouri area; the One Tree

Point/Ruakaka area; the South Bream Bay/Waipu area; and, to a lesser extent, Oakura, the North

Harbour fringe, Whananaki and Pataua. In the rural areas, three locations stand out – the

Maunu/Maungatapere area, the Three Mile Bush Road area and the Glenbervie area. As already

mentioned there are, in addition, widespread subdivisions of a smaller nature throughout the

rural area, except the most western parts of the district.

The year-by-year analysis of Figures 29 to 32 shows that development is occurring consistently in

parts of the district. By and large, much of the development is consistently occurring in the areas

mentioned above. However, every so often development intensifies in a particular area. This

needs to be monitored in the future – the possibility of rapid development in an area which is not

anticipated may result in adverse effects, such as a lack of infrastructure to handle the increase.

An example of this is the clustered subdivisions inland of Tutukaka during 2004 (see Figure 29).

The “snap shots” of the future for the three locations chosen are useful for getting a feel of what

these areas may look like in the future. As can be readily seen the visual attributes of these

areas will be significantly altered from small rural/coastal settlements to much larger semi-urban

coastal towns. There will be a consequent loss of natural/open space ambience and a much

more pronounced residential/suburban aesthetic. Apart from obvious effects on natural

character, open space, visual amenity, ecological values, etc., there are significant implications

relating to provision of infrastructure and services. These implications need to be investigated

further by the relevant infrastructure and service providers within council.

An important result from this study of development trends in the Whangarei district is that the

supply of new lots, stemming from subdivision, is greatly in excess of projected population levels

of the district. Presently, without any further subdivision, there are sufficient lots in the district to

support an additional 28,000 people. Considering that the population growth over the last five

years was 6,318 people, it could easily be 20 to 25 years before these lots are all required.

47

Additionally, according to Figure 41, in the year 2000 the Whangarei district had an apparent

deficit in the number of lots required to accommodate its population – and yet this did not appear

to be an issue, suggesting that the average of 2.4 people per household used in Council’s growth

model is conservative at best and that a figure of 3 people per household may be more

appropriate. It seems fair to say that there are around 10,000 undeveloped residential lots in the

district. Taking a figure of 3 persons per lot, this equates to a population increase of 30,000 that

could presently be accommodated within the district without any further subdivision.

On the whole, it appears the district has experienced a high level of development over the last

five years. This development has been concentrated in certain hotspots with regards to

subdivisions, new lots and land use consents. The development has been more spread out with

regards to building consents and building consents for new dwellings. On the basis of population

projections, the level of land development is in excess of the projected population growth. This

has resulted in an oversupply of residential building lots and has specific implications for planning

for service and infrastructure provisions.

4.2 Recommendations

This report has presented the first analysis of the state of Whangarei district’s environment in

terms of development. The district as a whole has experienced a high level of land development,

which appears to have exceeded projected population growth. The issue then becomes how to

manage continued development of the district. As there is an apparent oversupply of lots, and

this oversupply will not be filled for some time, then any further subdivision development over

and above this will increase the oversupply, unless there is a surge in population or non-resident

owners. It is recommended that policy-decision makers examine current and future growth

strategies on the basis that an oversupply exists, and may need to be managed accordingly in

regard to services and infrastructure provisions.

The year-by-year analysis of development shows that, occasionally, development concentrates in

areas which are not hotspots. It is recommended that Council continue to monitor all aspects of

development within its jurisdiction (that is, subdivisions, land use consents, building consents and

new dwellings) to ensure that provision of infrastructure is not over- or under-anticipating the

development that may be occurring.

48

This report has only superficially addressed some of the objectives listed in the District Plan,

namely the appropriateness of subdivision. It has not examined the direct effect on natural

character, ecosystem values, habitat loss, etc., as well as positive effects such as the creation of

covenants and esplanade reserves. It is recommended that the next state of the environment

report examine conservation and natural character values in the district in order to address the

potential effect that this development has had on the natural character and ecological values in

the district.

In addition, this report has not addressed in any depth important issues relating to the provision

of infrastructure and services in the future. It is recommended that further analysis of this issue

is undertaken by the divisions in Council that create and maintain infrastructure (e.g. Roading,

Waste and Drainage, etc.). The orderly and cost effective provision of infrastructure and services

is imperative if the present level and spatial distribution of land development is not to result in

major problems and future costs for communities and Council.

49

Bibliography and references

1. Ministry for the Environment, “Reporting on Our Environment”, Ref. INFO 169, October 2006.

2. Whangarei District Council, “Whangarei District Council Monitoring Strategy Manual”, June

2001.

3. Whangarei District Council, “Whangarei District Plan”, May 2007.

4. Ministry for the Environment, “The State of New Zealand’s Environment”, Ref. ME612, 1997.

50

Appendices

Appendix A – Definition of indicators from WDC’s Monitoring Strategy

According to the WDC Monitoring Strategy, indicators should be:

“Policy relevant. Indicators must be able to monitor key outcomes of resource

management and environmental policy initiatives, and measure progress toward those

goals; for example, anticipated environmental results (AERs) in the district plan.

Analytically valid. Indicators must be:

o Measurable

o Representative of the system being assessed

o Replicable or reproducible over time

o Developed within a consistent analytical framework

o Scientifically credible and robust

o Helpful in relating causes, effects and responses

o Responsive to environmental change

o Able to distinguish between human-induced change and natural variations

o Predictive

o Consistent in standards for data collection, analysis and management

o Statistical integrity

Cost effective. Indicators should be cost effective in the sense that:

o Limited numbers of indicators need be selected

o Existing data and information should be used wherever possible

o Indicators should be simple to monitor

Simple and easily understood. Indicators should be simple and easily understood, so that

they:

o Are easy to interpret

o Clearly display the extent of the issue.”

51

Appendix B – District Plan provisions relevant to this report.

From Chapter 8 of “Part C – Policies”, page 1:

“Most of the values mentioned in the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act

1991 (Part II) are potentially affected by subdivision and development. A particular subdivision or

development may have both positive and adverse effects.

The effects and implications of subdivision and development for landscapes, ecological sites and

biodiversity, historic and cultural heritage, financial contributions and esplanades (among others)

are discussed in the chapters of the Plan dealing with these matters. This chapter intends only to

give a general overview and must be read with the more specific chapters. The Whangarei

Coastal Management Strategy, adopted by Council in September 2002, provides additional

guidance on subdivision and development.

Section 6 of the Resource Management Act 1991 refers to ‘inappropriate’ subdivision, use and

development. The Whangarei District Plan 2007 includes inappropriate intensity, scale, character

and design and inappropriate location in this definition.

Inappropriate subdivision and development can result in increased conflict between activities and

adverse effects on the amenity, heritage, landscape and other values of an area, diminished

ecosystem functioning and increasing conflict between incompatible land uses, as well as placing

additional strains upon services and infrastructure. In rural and coastal areas, it can result in

adverse cumulative effects, such as ribbon development and loss of rural and open space

character.

On the other hand, some forms of subdivision and development, if well designed and

implemented, may serve to maintain or even enhance levels of natural and cultural values within

the District. In business and industrial areas, residential development and associated community

activities within and adjacent to these areas, can result in adverse reverse sensitivity effects,

which can lead to calls for restrictions on the flexibility of business to operate in defined Business

Environments.

Subdivision and development are closely related, as subdivision generally enables further

development of a particular area of land to occur. Subdivision is therefore a key factor in

52

determining future land use patterns and an area’s character and sense of place and is linked to

the land use expectations of land owners. In this Plan, sense of place is considered to be the

feeling of attachment and belonging to a particular place or environment and is a balance of both

the ‘landscape’ itself and the values that the community vests in these landscapes.

Most people who buy a vacant site, do so with an expectation of being able to build a house or

other building on the site. However, for Maori land in multiple ownership it is recognised that

there may be no desire to have a house on each apportioned lot, but to have a Papakainga

development in accordance with Maori cultural values.

Subdivision provides an opportunity to construct services such as roading, water supply, sewage

disposal, electricity, telecommunications, and storm water in a co-ordinated, efficient manner.

Natural hazard identification, potentially affecting the suitability of land for anticipated land uses

is also linked to the subdivision process. Servicing of subdivision and development is by no means

the only constraint, but it is an important consideration. In regards to waste water disposal, the

Council has commissioned a 25-year Waste Water Strategy which outlines areas (particularly

coastal) which are likely to require reticulated waste water disposal at later dates.

Subdivision and development can create additional demand for services, including emergency

services. These factors need to be appropriately considered and provided for when subdivision

and development is contemplated in order to help ensure community health, safety and well-

being.”

53

Appendix C – Data

Please note that the “Year” data here refers to the preceding financial year for each item e.g.

“2002” refers to the financial year commencing 1 July 2001 and ending 30 June 2002.

For resource consents, subdivision and land use consents, building consents and building

consents for new dwellings:

Year Number of

resource consents granted

Number of subdivision

consents granted

Number of land use consents

granted

Number of new lots created

Number of building

consents

Number of building consents for new

dwellings

2002 657 419 238 1855 2160 642

2003 474 267 207 1242 2191 783

2004 507 287 220 2650 2445 906

2005 559 318 241 889 2234 837

2006 462 312 160 1075 2341 772

For subdivision consents in different Environments:

Year

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Environments Number of Subdivisions

Living 1 72 54 71 96 67

Living 2 2 2 2 0 2

Living 3 25 9 22 31 15

Business 1 1 0 2 0 0

Business 2 0 3 3 7 2

Business 3 5 1 2 4 2

Business 4 1 1 5 6 3

Open Space 1 0 0 1 2

Coastal Countryside

33 18 17 6 16

Countryside 279 179 163 167 203

54

For new lots created in different Environments

Year

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Environments Number of new lots

Living 1 269 210 493 152 320

Living 2 7 4 8 0 0

Living 3 90 81 166 33 100

Business 1 2 0 0 6 4

Business 2 1 10 10 12 5

Business 3 2 1 6 49 7

Business 4 12 2 11 30 10

Open Space 12 6 6 4 7

Coastal Countryside

125 55 153 61 23

Countryside 1335 873 1797 542 599