This following submission is still receiving
input....please read and join our submission
COMMENTS ON THE TAURANGA DISTRICT PLAN REVIEW
2009 FROM THE SANDY WALKER GROUP
THE SANDY WALKERS believe we should
Protect a ‘SENSITIVE ZONE” within sight
of the ocean beach for no building or low building.
Request REDUCE 9 METRE BUILDING HEIGHT (3 storey) for ordinary
homes back to 8 METRES ( 2 storey), particularly along the ocean
beach high dunes
Oppose alterations to sunlight, daylight, overshadowing rules
that reduce sunshine in any zone. Note: Wider streets, big open
malls and boulevards are used overseas in classicly successful
and sustainable cities with higher buildings. Some of these proportions
were set up in the Golden Age! We should not be simply going UP
and producing cold wind tunnels and shade in a NZ climate, especially
Tauranga which has a reputation as a warm sunny place to live,
visit, sip wine, sip coffee along eg The Strand.
Request protection of ‘skyscapes” by use of Wedge
principle of buildings stepped back from beach and higher buildings
inland (prefer opposite of Surfers).
Particular application: unbuilt areas. Tall inland buildings may
have sweeping ocean views.
Also application: in any areas to be intensified whether built
or unbuilt at present.
This would include not giving any further commercial 4 storey
zoning within sight of the ocean beach.
We note that the commercial zoning that is recently built along
coast eg Tay Street “Dairy”, does not have commercial
use above ground floor anyway and higher floors are simply residential.
If further shops are required near the beach a new category of
9 Metre Commercial could be instated. This could be used in eg
Girven Road, Domain Road, Parton Road where useful and popular
businesses are already established and contributing to “live,
work, play” while retaining an open sunny aspect.
Request reassess and protect ALL unbuilt dunes edging beach,
Mauao to Kaituna as Outstanding Natural Features and Landscape.
Oppose over 7 kilometres of Outstanding dunes between Papamoa
and Mauao, being left out of status. Oppose the suggestion from
Boffa Miskel that “there are other ways to protect these
areas.” We are aware that, in Environment Courts, the above
status can be critical to conservation. It is clearly understood
by judges and developers and means, “Hands Off!”
We believe the 30 kilometres of scenery from Mauao to Maketu,
NZ’s most popular white sand beach, should be recognized
in its entirety as an area of national importance. This requires
co-operation between all 3 councils and we note WBOPDC is fully
protecting the Maketu end of this stretch including Sandspit from
Kaituna, Maketu lagoon, and Maketu headland (also Little Waihi).
Mount/Papamoa dunes are more outstanding than the pine forested
coast at Matakana Island which got the status ONF&L.
Request reassess and protect ALL of Mauao including campsite
and hot pools areas as Outstanding Natural Features and Landscape.
It is clearly part of the 2.5 million year old volcano.
Detail:
Oppose criteria used to assess Outstanding Natural Features and
Landscapes.
Request change to use of criteria in proposed NZ Coastal Policy
Statement.
Reasons: The NZCPS criteria; briefer, more robust, are also likely
to be required of all councils after NZCPS is gazetted (even after
streamlining bill). While the Boffa Miskell criteria given in
the definitions chapter under “Outstanding” appear
to come roughly under these categories, they differ in the detail
as listed in the landscape chapter 6.2.1.1.1
( The better criteria are:
the natural science factors; including geological, topographical,
ecological and dynamic components;
aesthetic values including memorability and naturalness;
expressiveness – how obviously the landscape demonstrates
its formative processes;
transient values, including occasional presence of wildlife or
values at certain times of the day or year;
whether the values are shared and recognized;
cultural and spiritual values for tangata whenua; identified in
accordance with tikanga Maori; and
historical associations.)
Detail of particular opposition:
Oppose aesthetic rating of Mauao as only “moderate”.
Oppose transient values rating of Mauao as only “moderate”
Oppose natural science rating of Papamoa dunes as only “moderate”
Oppose aesthetic rating of Papamoa dunes as only “moderate”
Oppose transient values of Papamoa dunes as only “moderate”
Oppose shared /recognized values of Papamoa dunes as only “moderate”
Support all areas that have been included as Outstanding Natural
Features or Landscapes.
Request re landscape Appendix 6.C “Public Sightlines from
Key Public Viewpoints to Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes”
. add view Mauao along Mount beach.
This most significant public sightline particularly affects thousands
of locals and visitors using the Main Beach and should not be
built in as it has been. This beach is considered a marae by some
tangata whenua.
Support all proposed new Ecological areas along dunes, gullies
estuaries, rivers, coastal waterways, including Wairakei Stream,
and Kaituna
Reasons: By shading streams, holding up banks, keeping out farm
animals and allowing natural water soakage, these buffers assist
kaimoana, all flaura and fauna, soil stability, water quality
and visual amenity.
Support increase to 20 metres coastal border natural resource
strip. However see below:
Request INSTATE Open Coastal Landward Edge Protection Yard of
100 metres moving inland from MHWS in unbuilt edges of dunes between
Mauao and Kaituna.
Reasons:
Landscape and its beauty is an extremely important wilderness
amenity value along our open coast.
TCC residential building height is 9 metres, unlike WBOPDC which
is 8 metres (2 storey) in urban residential areas such as Waihi
beach and Pukehina, while 9 metres in rural.
The 9 metres produces houses on the high dunes which adversely
affect the beach landscape. It would be disappointing to see more
9 metre houses built just 20 metres from MHWM and an absolutely
clear message to this effect should be included in this Plan review.
The CHEPA currently protects certain areas for safety reasons
but may not in future.
Maori values eg Urupa currently protect certain areas but may
not in future because sometimes co-iwi (bones) are moved to make
way for development and tapu is lifted.
Privately owned Conservation land on coastal edges immediately
inland from the 20 metre border may get built on after resource
consents or private plan changes eg as threatened by Frasers Papamoa
who privately own conservation land right out to beach including
foredune
Support improved Policies and Objectives to keep the ocean beach
wild and natural.
Oppose, in Open Space Chapter and other places, lowering of criteria
threshold for Resource Consent for buildings, earthworks, vegetation
removal, in unbuilt open dunes and reserves. Plans for work in
public open spaces and conservation land should continue to require
resource consent and should be publicly notified. We do not consider
boardwalks, paths, or cycleways to be necessarily minor works.
The protection of aesthetic and natural values is very important
to us. These areas should not be developed, built and controlled
by Managers or Management Plans that most public don’t contribute
to. Small-minded selfish busybodies sometimes take these spaces
over to the exclusion of other users. Contractors can get greedy.
Oppose building of boardwalks on the dunes.
Oppose flattening of dunes tops eg at Tay Street and along Marine
Parade in many places.
Request only natural sandy tracks on dunes defined by dune plants
such as Muelenbechia and native iceplant and shrubs ( rather than
fences).
Oppose parking meters at the Mount and Papamoa beaches.
Oppose lessening of tree protection along Pilot Bay and ocean
coast in particular.
Norfolk Pines and Pohutukawa very substantially help soften the
adverse visual effect of buildings. Noticeably there is a missing
Norfolk Pine along Pilot Bay and the spot instead has recently
built angle parking. An ugly building shows in the gap. This is
sadly detrimental to the views from the beach, the water, and
Salisbury wharf and Mauao.
There are fewer big trees along the ocean coast heading away from
Mauao and the new 9 metres buildings there are therefore producing
increasing adverse visual effects. In particular a combination
of flattened dune tops, no trees and high buildings is spoiling
the coast as viewed from the beach.
Oppose renaming of all new residential, commercial etc zones.
The Plan is very muddly reading. Request zones be instead numbered.
There should be, for a start off, a simple list of all zones.
Each zone should have its separate description in the plan. Start
with zone name, zone place or areas concerned; next purpose, policies,
objectives, rules, controls and exceptions, plus sunlight, parking
etc. All other parts of the plan affecting the said zone should
be at least page referenced in this place.
The zones have confusingly overlapping names eg city living zone
and high density urban residential zone. The High Rise Policy
Area continues to be within another zone and it should be separated
out to avoid ongoing confusion.
Oppose purpose of “mixed use” in high density urban
residential zone. 14.1.3 There is too much traffic there already
and plenty of commercial within short walking distances.
Oppose 14.2.6.3.1 Policy –Building Bulk and Scale- High
Density Urban Residential Zone.
In particular re
High Rise Policy Area at Mauao
Request public referendum to reduce height.
Request built height be reduced initially to 18 metres, and eventually
after a change over period, reduced to 3 or 4 storey.
Oppose 14.2.6.3.1.(d) which excludes High Rise Policy Area from
listed constraints. Wording given is: ……“In
all other sites in the Zone” (this means all sites in the
High Density Urban Residential Zone except the High Rise Policy
Area) buildings and structures must recognize and provide for
the preservation of outstanding natural features and landscapes
and be subservient to the landscape values afforded by:
The Norfolk Island pines along Marine Parade and The Mall;
Hopukiore (Mount Drury)’
Mauao;
The coastal environment; and
The relationship of tangata whenua with the ancestral landscape
of Mauao and Hopukiore
Change required,Add “all” to read “In all sites
in the Zone”….
Reasons: The wording change TCC proposes means less environmental
protection. The above policy has been totally ignored as evidenced
by the high rises showing well above the Norfolk Island pines
and dominating the coastal environment scenery Mauao to Hopukiore.
Removing the High Rise Policy Area from the constraints of this
protective policy 14.2.6.1. (d), TCC is opening up the area to
even more visual abuse by developers. Its not the words that should
be changed. The abuse should be challenged! The trees, big strong
and established over many decades could not grow fast enough to
screen these rapidly rising, oversized buildings. The buildings
should be lower. The trees, Mountains and coast are important
and sacred heritage. The buildings are not.
Parking and Public transport.
Request All units in Mt North, whether claimed by developers to
be temporary or permanent residential units should be required
to have minimum of two car parks.
Plus a realistic quota of genuine visitor car parks should be
required on top of that.
Reasons:
Promised closing of loop holes in the parking rules has NOT improved
the situation in Mt. North which is becoming critical. Developers
should provide ALL parking needed within their sites for both
residents and visitors. So called “visitor accommodation”
proposed in high rise and apartment plans is blatantly marketed
as “permanent residential” accommodation while planners
have given car park requirements consideration under the lesser
requirements for visitor accommodation. Developers make no secret
of this and even brag about it. No inspections are done by this
council. The big towers continue to get add-on consents and do
cumulative damage to the traffic noise/parking situation. They
provide eg only 4 visitor car parks in one of the towers and only
11 in another. The community is paying a big price for this cumulative
dishonesty.
People who buy the expensive apartments in Mt North are extremely
unlikely to use public transport.
Developer contribution to public car parks is only a 1/3 of the
real price. We oppose these unrealistic minimal levels of car
parks being imposed on large developers.
Eg Cars are at all times parked along ocean beach road to take
overflow from sausage apartments at Girven Road and nearby flats.
SANDY WALKERS bitterly oppose parking meters at Mount and Papamoa
beaches as stated above.
Request: Improvements to bus services
are long overdue and we repeat our request for a public car park
near Mount Port and a frequent bus, cheap or free, constantly
circulating in the area of Mt North. However we should not be
forced to use rare or non-existant bus services due to being squeezed
out of beach parking areas by the rich and greedy overflowing
from max. profit towers onto the public streets.
While some members want also to comment on Tauranga waterfront
plans we are hindered by those plans, rules, being unavailable
to us at this time.
