Archive | Clevedon

Published 6 August 2010

Manukau City Council’s policy & activities committee endorsed the Clevedon Village sustainable development plan for consultation on Tuesday, though it wasn’t on the published agenda.

The council also endorsed plan change 13 for the Wairoa River Canals project, 5km north-west of Clevedon, in 2007, but that proposal – for up to 267 dwellings in a canal village layout in the last design – was rejected by the Environment Court in June. The Clevedon Village plan outlines the key principles, concepts & outcomes to be incorporated into a plan change for the village. It provides for the expansion of the existing Clevedon settlement on to the rural land outside the village core and between the Wairoa River & Taitaia stream. The study area covered 558.1ha between the river, stream & Tourist Rd and included the existing village. There are about 200 household units within the study area.

The council will hold an information day on Saturday 14 August from 11am-2pm at Clevedon School Hall on the preferred option & the broad framework of the plan change. It began with 3 options.

The sustainable development plan will allow for additional development of up to 600 new houses and more land to be zoned for business purposes within the study area.

Link: Clevedon Village sustainable development plan

Earlier stories:

24 June 2010: Court rejects Wairoa canals plan change

23 September 2009: Wide gulf between regional & city council views on canals subdivision

22 September 2009: Crux of the difference between regional council & canals subdivision developers: relevance of the MUL

25 May 2008: Subdivision on 43ha at Clevedon proposed

Want to comment? Go to the forum.

Attribution: Council release, planning documents, story written by Bob Dey for the Bob Dey Property Report.

Published 24 June 2010

The Environment Court has declined the Wairoa River Canal Partnership’s application for a plan change allowing the marine village development near Clevedon, in the south-east of the Auckland region.

The crux of the court’s finding is that the development proposal would be urban – the partnership wanted a “spot” zoning outside the metropolitan urban limits.

On that finding alone, none of the rest of the hearing spread from May-December last year mattered.

The Manukau City Council had granted private plan change 13 in 2007, but it was then appealed by several parties, including the Auckland Regional Council, Clevedon Cares, Ardmore Airfield Tenants & Users Committee (the court found no reverse sensitivity) & Ngai Tai Umupuia Te Waka Totara.

Force Corp Ltd, a predecessor of one partnership member, Augusta Group Ltd, first sought approval for a marine village in 2001. That was scaled down from a 1980s scheme for a 375-berth marina & a 1990s proposal for an 1100-household canal township.

The present partnership’s proposal would have provided for up to 267 dwellings in a canal village layout a short distance up the Wairoa River and about 5km north-west of Clevedon.

When the proposal was before the city council, it was approved on the basis that it was urban development. However, when it got to the Environment Court, the city council supported the partnership’s contention that it wasn’t urban development. Partnership counsel Richard Brabant argued it wasn’t conventional urban, suburban or rural lifestyle.

On the other hand, the regional council & Clevedon Cares argued that scale, density, visual character and dominance of engineered & built structures made it urban as defined in the regional policy statement.

Environment Judge Gordon Whiting, supported by commissioners Marlene Oliver & Kevin Prime, concluded: “We find the argument put forward by the council & the canal partnership that the proposal is neither inherently ‘rural’ nor ‘urban’ difficult to accept in view of the fact that it will contain 270 residences with a minimum lot size of 350m², concentrated around the canals.

“It seems to us that overall the proposal is not of a ‘rural’ nature, so the antithesis of the first sentence of the rural policy statement definition would apply.” Residentially, it would be a small township bigger than nearby Clevedon.

I hope to report more fully on the decision tomorrow.

Earlier stories:

23 September 2009: Wide gulf between regional & city council views on canals subdivision

22 September 2009: Crux of the difference between regional council & canals subdivision developers: relevance of the MUL

14 September 2009: Wairoa River canals case back in court

7 September 2007: Council clears Wairoa River maritime village

20 November 2005: Wairoa River canal village out to public consultation 11 May 2004: New push for Wairoa River canal village gets same old answer 10 March 2001: Force’s canal village concept before regional council

&nbsp

Published 23 September 2009

The gulf between the approaches of the Auckland Regional Council & Manukau City Council to the Wairoa River canals subdivision proposal raises questions on how such issues will be handled once the region gets its unitary Auckland Council at the end of next year.

The regional council is a strong opponent of the canals subdivision, a short distance up the Wairoa River and about 5km north-west of Clevedon. The city council, on the other hand, processed the application by the Wairoa River Canals Partnership for the zone changes under private plan change 13, and has proceeded to support the development in the Environment Court.

Councils tend to follow a theme in their policymaking, which opposing submissions generally don’t alter. So Auckland’s regional council has built up a history of being strongly environmentalist, guarding nature with a much weaker emphasis on economic advancement. Territorial councils tend to give a warmer reception to economic development, brushing aside some environmental concerns but not going overboard in their support of development schemes.

In the Wairoa River case, the regional council argues the development is outside the region’s metropolitan urban limits and breaches the regional policy statement. It also argues the development would breach the regional plan change 6, which still has 47 appeals against it and is therefore some time away from getting final approval.

The city council granted consent for the plan change in 2007, allowing the development which had been devised 6 years earlier. Various opponents began their appeal case in May, but the appeal ran out of time and was adjourned in June, returning this week, followed by a week off then a closing week from Monday 5 October.

The central issues it seems Judge Gordon Whiting & commissioners Marlene Oliver & Kevin Prime will need to decide are whether the development should be within the metropolitan urban limits, whether it breaches the regional policy statement, and whether it is urban development.

In submissions yesterday, city council counsel Melinda Dickey said some parts of the development would be urban in nature while other parts weren’t, it had spot zonings which couldn’t easily be repeated elsewhere and it ought not be considered as urban development in the sense of suburban expansion.

Ms Dickey said the site had a long history of maritime proposals, had been the subject of careful planning over many years, the Manukau rural strategy (in a 2006 interim decision) provided for it and plan change 13 didn’t allow sporadic development.

Council planning witness Dave Serjeant said in his evidence the site “has been specifically chosen for its purpose and, as it cannot be easily located anywhere else or expanded, it is neither sporadic nor sprawling. It is well contained by its environment.”

The plan change introduces 2 zones – maritime village residential & recreational – together with detailed rules, objectives & policies, including detailed design & development controls. Among amendments agreed to by the development partnership, buildings will have an 8m & 2-storey height restriction.

The number of residential sites has been reduced from 297 to 270. The minimum lot size has been reduced from 650m² to 350m² to allow for boat houses near the village centre, but the overall average residential lot size remains 750m².

That’s in the context of a total 129ha development area, including 44ha of residential plus recreational zones, and a separate 111ha which will contain a reservoir & wastewater disposal field.

Ms Dickey said when the application for the subdivision was first made, the council saw plan change 13 as providing for new urban development. The development partnership appealed, seeking detailed amendments to the plan change & concept plan, and the council had done a new analysis.

Ms Dickey said it wasn’t a black & white issue, that if development wasn’t rural it had to be urban. This development, she said, could fit into the continuum between urban & rural activities.

Earlier stories:

22 September 2009: Crux of the difference between regional council & canals subdivision developers: relevance of the MUL

14 September 2009: Wairoa River canals case back in court

7 September 2007: Council clears Wairoa River maritime village

20 November 2005: Wairoa River canal village out to public consultation 11 May 2004: New push for Wairoa River canal village gets same old answer 10 March 2001: Force’s canal village concept before regional council

Want to comment? Go to the forum.

Attribution: Hearing, story written by Bob Dey for the Bob Dey Property Report.

Published 22 September 2009

The Environment Court hearing of appeals against the Wairoa River canals subdivision near Clevedon reached the crux of the difference between the Auckland Regional Council & the development group yesterday. (Artist’s impressions at right & below).

The regional council argues the subdivision would be a rural or coastal settlement outside the Auckland metropolitan urban limits of a kind not permitted by the regional policy statement, a line of thinking pushed by counsel Rob Enright as he cross-examined the developers’ final witness at the resumed hearing, planning specialist Max Dunn.

But Mr Dunn said the group of developers, who have formed the Wairoa Canal Partnership, believed the subdivision & its maritime village were outside the realm of the metropolitan urban limits managed under the regional policy statement, and the regional policy on settlements wasn’t relevant to this development.

It’s proposed that the village – on land currently zoned rural 1 & used for dairying – would have 2 zones, residential covering 44ha & recreational, with a total 129ha in the development. A reservoir & wastewater disposal field would be on a separate 111ha west of North Rd, 5km north-west of Clevedon. It was originally to have had 297 residential lots – subsequently reduced to 270 – ranging from 650-1000m², all with canal frontage.

To Prue Kapua, for the Ngai Tai iwi, who wanted to know how the plan change would fit with ancestral taonga, Mr Dunn said removal of stock would at least improve the quality of the water and uphold the taonga. He said use of the river would increase.

Ms Kapua said it would still be developed – implicit in her statement that this would be adverse. Mr Dunn’s view: “The river – I wouldn’t say cluttered – but it has an awful lot of moorings in it. It will have a different form of development. The current form of development is mainly pastoral, the land is heavily developed as a farming unit….

“The commitment to conservation is a driver of the plan change, but the plan change doesn’t say who will do that, plan changes don’t get into that level of detail.”

The Manukau City Council granted consent for private plan change 13 in 2007, allowing the development, and has supported the development partnership in the Environment Court, where various opponents began their appeal case in May. The appeal ran out of time and was adjourned in June, returning this week, followed by a week off then a closing week from Monday 5 October.

At the resumption yesterday, Environment Judge Gordon Whiting called counsel into his chambers to get them to confine the issues – between appellants & the developer there were more than 50. By the end of the morning they’d come back with a list reduced to a dozen.

The hearing is before Judge Whiting and commissioners Marlene Oliver & Kevin Prime.

Want to comment? Go to the forum.

Attribution: Hearing, story written by Bob Dey for the Bob Dey Property Report.

Published 14 September 2009

The Wairoa Canal Partnership returns to the Environment Court next Monday, 21 September, in a long-running quest for approval for a canals subdivision just outside Clevedon. 

The Manukau City Council granted consent in 2007 for private plan change 13, allowing development of the Wairoa River maritime village, and has supported the development partnership in the Environment Court, where various opponents began their appeal case in May. The appeal ran out of time and was adjourned in June, returning for the week starting Monday 21 September, followed by a week off then a closing week from Monday 5 October. 

The Auckland Regional Council, community group Clevedon Cares and representatives of Ngai Tai Umupuia iwi have opposed the development proposal for 297 lots ranging from 650-1000m², all with canal frontage, on land currently zoned rural 1 & used for dairying 5km north-west of Clevedon, between North Rd & the Wairoa River. 

The present proposal was begun by Force Corp Ltd (executive chairman Peter Francis) in 2001 and picked up by Mr Francis’ property-based Augusta Group Ltd when he sold his controlling interest in cinema-dominated Force to Sky City NZ Ltd. 

Earlier plans for the river site included a 375-berth marina in the late 80s and an 1100-household canal township in the mid-90s. 

Earlier stories:

7 September 2007: Council clears Wairoa River maritime village

20 November 2005: Wairoa River canal village out to public consultation 11 May 2004: New push for Wairoa River canal village gets same old answer 10 March 2001: Force’s canal village concept before regional council

Want to comment? Go to the forum.

Attribution: Company statement, story written by Bob Dey for the Bob Dey Property Report.

Published 25 May 2008

Jurisdiction: Manukau

Neighbourhood: Clevedon

Applicant: R&N Duder

Application detail: 935 North Rd, application to subdivide 42.8081ha into 5 lots in the rural 1 zone 2 rural-residential lots of 1.1ha & 9000m², a 2.23ha bush lot, a 25ha rural lot & a 13.2381ha balance lot; the subdivision is a non-complying activity under the rural 1 subdivision provisions

Notification date: 24 May

Submission closure date: Monday 23 June

Want to comment? Email [email protected].

Attribution: Council notice, story written by Bob Dey for this website.