Waitaki Draft District Plan

The intention of this page is to provide broad information on the Waitaki Draft District Plan and how it might affect land owners. For specific advice on your particular situation please seek professional advice from a planner or RMA lawyer.

Contents

Process

The District Plan is the document which determines what change in use is allowed on your land and and what is not. Central government requirements determine a certain amount of what must be in a District Plan and the Waitaki District Council determines the rest to suit local requirements.

With an increase in the central government requirements the old district plan was about 400 pages of rules and the new one is about 1,200 pages.

We have been fortunate that the Waitaki District Council chose to release a full draft plan for feedback from the public before the upcoming notification of the proposed plan. At present the council's Draft District Plan subcommittee is making changes to the draft based on feedback we (and others) have provided but this has to be within the limits of what central government requires. Once the proposed plan is notified it can still be submitted on but to a lesser degree in a prescribed legal process which is described as quasi-judicial. It also takes legal effect once the proposed plan is notified. Therefore a lot of effort has gone into communicating our rural and urban development needs to the council because the draft plan was very authoritarian. 

The proposed plan will be subject to submissions and cross-submissions between various parties - usually NGO's against locals. There will be hearings with commissioners, not all of whom are democratically elected. The elected members who may be involved are Jim Hopkins, Courtney Linwood and Jim Thompson who hold the qualification to be a commissioner.

At this stage we will need to hire a planner and an RMA lawyer, both of who are already engaged and briefed on the issue. There are significant opportunities to share these costs between our group.

The hearings panel will then make changes to the proposed plan which the council would be expected to adopt as the operative plan.

Waitaki Draft District Plan

The draft plan is available online but is now outdated as the subcommittee has made about 70 changes which will be in the proposed plan and take legal effect when it is notified.

Waitaki Draft District Plan

The agendas for the district plan contain a more updated version with some edits made after feedback (but don't have the edits made after the subcommittee made resolutions). These are huge documents and not all is relevant to our interests. I provide a summary below, but anyone with time on their hands who is interested in the detail of this complex document may read the agendas and watch meetings below:

• 20th June meeting agenda and video.

• 18th December meeting agenda and videos including a lot of rural and residential issues such as maps with overlays, Sites and Areas of Significance to Maori:

  • 18th December 2023 video

  • 19th December 2023 video

  • 13th February 2024 video

  • 7th March 2024 video (part one and part two)

  • 4th April 2024 video

  • 18th April 2024 video

• 4th/5th December 2023 agenda and video (part one and part two) - discussion on earthworks and natural landscapes.

• 27th November 2023 agenda and video. Mostly non-rural and non-residential issues. 

Maps

The plan has maps showing where the different chapters apply. The latest maps are difficult to see in detail but might indicate an issue for your property. They are from the agenda of the 18th December DPRSC meeting and are still under consideration by the subcommittee.

District Plan Maps (latest version, low detail)

For more detail you may look at the draft maps, but there have been changes to these so they won't be totally accurate. We expect the next maps to be released with the proposed district plan.

Draft Maps (older version, high detail)

Issues with the Draft District Plan

When the draft district plan first came out in August 2022 it had a huge range of issues so a group of land owners have been sharing costs to advocate improvements to the council before notification of the proposed plan. In general terms our group supports most of the plan but we are working to adjust and remove overlays where they might impose unnecessary consent requirements on productive land while leaving them intact on areas that need protection which are generally not suitable for development or land use change anyway. We think this would be a win-win and have created our own maps on each property to show where overlays could provide protection to values without unnecessary disruption to farming, residential or development activity. Mapping has been key to this but there have also been improvements to the rules that apply to the maps, but there's still some key changes needed.

The main overlays and chapters we have been working to improve are:

• Sites and Areas of Significance to Maori (SASM) also called Wahi Tupuna

• Outstanding Natural Landscapes (ONL)

• Outstanding Natural Features (ONF)

• Significant Natural Features (SNF)

Sites and Areas of Significance to Maori

These areas were identified by a consultancy called Aukaha which is owned by a number of iwi including Moeraki. They used broad strokes when drawing the overlays on the map because they are concerned about irrigation water seeping through limestone rocks and destroying art work which is a fair concern. However, their research doesn't appear to take good management practice or technology like low rate irrigation into account. As such we are seeking to adjust boundaries of these areas to actual defined features needing protected like cliff tops, or to specific burial sites rather than large areas where something may or may not be buried.

After discussions with iwi there were a few changes to these maps but only two properties now have the changes needed. As a result the councillors on the subcommittee have been looking for a solution and this has caused the whole plan to be delayed. The plan will last at least ten years so it's commendable that the committee are taking the time and expense to work it out.

Council have already made the rules more sensible however. Previously SASM required consent for almost anything within that area except for a limited list of activities or existing use rights (which are easy to lose). The rules have now flipped that around so consent is only needed for a limited list of things. The rule now says, in summary:

You are permitted without consent to undertake:

• Food gathering/Mahika Kai - but does not allow people to access a farm without permission. SImply says it's allowed to happen but people need your permission to cross your land. It's a problem that it still appears to give access when it doesn't.

• Buildings up to 200 sq m and subject to some other restrictions including not within 100m of a limestone escarpment, and not within 20m vertically of a ridge.

• Vegetation clearance for maintaining fire breaks, tracks, yards, irrigation, fences, dams, ponds, walking tracks, driveways, storm water infrastructure and sediment ponds, culverts, drains, foundations of a building or structure, or flood protection. Has to be within 2m. Residential sections may clear indigenous vegetation. 

• Earthworks conditions are similar to the vegetation clearance, i.e. only good for maintenance. Earthworks has it's own chapter and this has huge implications for anyone who needs a consent for earthworks because applying for consent takes unknown amounts of time and money. This is not just a rural issue but also an issue for residential subdivisions where new owners all will now need consent from iwi to do a house scrape.

• Tree planting is OK but not within 100m of a limestone cliff.

The following would need consent:

• Agricultural intensification - which presently means converting dry land to irrigation, or converting to dairy. This is still very problematic obviously and councillors are highly aware of this and have instructed staff to remove the irrigation reference. This is central to making SASM workable on farms.

• Commercial outdoor recreation. Would limit diversification options to tourism, or even charity 4WD trips, trail rides etc. So still a problem.

• New plantation forestry.

• Mining or quarrying

• Landfills

Banned:

• Planting wilding conifers.

SASM also have complications for Winter Grazing Consents which hopefully won't be an issue soon, but also effluent consents. Freshwater Farm Plans may also take them into account, but it's not known how these will take shape yet.

A further detailed analysis has been undertaken by Frans Schlack and includes legal opinions which his group has commissioned.

Outstanding Natural Features and Outstanding Natural Landscapes

Existing landscape protections were greatly expanded and had been done by "landscape architects" using satellite imagery and driving around the road making lines on maps in an attempt to take something subjective like landscape values and measure them against a criteria that attempts to be objective. They had huge buffers into productive land. Council got a second opinion and after talking directly with land owners most of these maps have been fixed so that landscape protections now apply mostly to genuinely scenic features such as cliffs rather than productive paddocks which may need to change land use in the future as they have in the past. 

What these maps will mean in the proposed plan is that as permitted activities in these areas you can continue to:

• Build structures and buildings that are underground. Otherwise a resource consent would be needed.

• Build fences.

• Undertake earthworks to maintain tracks, yards, irrigation, fences, dams, ponds, driveways and access, culverts and storm water infrastructure. Must be within the original length and width, and resown. Undertake earthworks for conservation up to 25m sq per 3 years. All other earthworks needs consent in these areas.

• Primary production activities (except intensive farms like chicken farms/pig farms, or adding new irrigation where it is currently dry land, or converting to dairy)

• Planting shelterbelts up to 30m width, but can't be wilding species.

• Recreational activity, including some commercial activity.

• Landscape enhancement

• Flood protection works - but undertaken by an agent of the district or regional council so would need to partner with them.

Things that would need consent:

• New plantation forestry on significant natural feature or landscape.

• New mining or quarrying.

• Intensive indoor or outdoor primary production (chicken farms, pig farms 10 pigs/ha etc) on a significant natural feature or landscape .

Things that are banned:

• New plantation forestry on outstanding natural feature or landscape.

• Planting wilding conifers.

• Intensive indoor or outdoor primary production activity on an outstanding natural feature or landscape.

Other issues already resolved

The following are some of the issues the elected councillors and council staff have resolved over the last two years as a result of our submission:

• The core of the issue was avoiding unnecessary consenting on productive farm land. This has been improved by a second opinion from another landscape architect which has made the maps more sensible where land owners requested. 

• The subcommittee resolved that ONL's should only apply where the landowner agreed.

• They also resolved to remove some specific ONF's from the proposed plan.

• Another significant resolution was to remove some historic heritage items not already in the plan, unless the owner specifically wants them in.

• Anyone who objected to their overlays prior to April 18th will have their correspondence reassessed by staff who will recommend solutions to council to resolve the objections.

There are some fish hooks in all of the above so please get advice from council about your specific case.

• Historic settings were going to put controls on some grazing of pasture but this has been removed from the plan. 

• Hazardous Substances were going to require consent to use or store in many overlays such as SASM, ONL, ONF etc. This would have included everything from petrol to animal health remedies as well as the obvious sprays and drenches. This is no longer the case.

Specific Resolutions

Below in italics is the exact wording of each of the most relevant resolutions from the DPRSC which have gone in our favour in the last few months:

Heritage Resolution

• That Council removes any property currently listed in Schedule 2 of the Proposed District Plan for which the property owner’s consent has not been given for inclusion, and that any such property will be subject to submission from the owner and other parties in the notification process prior to inclusion in the schedule.  

• That the District Plan Review Sub-Committee recommends: That Council agrees that any item included in Schedule 2 that has been carried over from the Operative District Plan remains as part of Schedule 2.  

This was passed by the full council for the proposed plan. Anyone with a new heritage item in the draft district plan should write to council to tell them they expect it to be removed. I would argue this includes all the heritage "settings" which are now around the existing the "items". So in some cases the item should remain but not the setting. There's enough ambiguity in the wording that you will need to proactively advise council that you expect it will be removed. 

Outstanding Natural Landscape Resolution

• That all cultivated land, and land containing any elements and features modified for pastoral agricultural or industrial use is removed from the Outstanding Natural Landscapes overlay in the draft district plan and that the boundaries of the ONL overlays are amended accordingly.

Like all other resolutions in this subcommittee we will need to keep a close eye on the next version of the plan to check it meets expectations.

Outstanding Natural Feature Resolution

• That the district plan subreview committee recommends that council amends the outstanding natural feature maps in the draft Waitaki District Plan to remove the area identified as Outstanding Natural Feature 007 in the vicinity of the Waitaki River, and also the areas identified as Outstanding Natural Features within the boundaries of the Parkside Quarry and the Conlan and McCullough farms for the same reason that the subcommittee recommended redrawing the Outstanding Natural Landscapes maps, namely that the land in question is either cultivated or pastoral land, or land containing any other features required for agricultural or industrial use.

This has been recommended by the subcommittee but has not yet been passed by council.

Significant Natural Area's

No resolutions specifically - the council plans to revisit in three months to wait for government clarification which is expected to be favourable.

Overlay Consultation 

• "That this plan review subcommittee requests officers to propose an appropriate response to property owners who either raised issues of inadequate consultation regarding the extent or character of overlays on their properties in their own names or through an agent between 1.30pm on December 2023 and 1pm April the 18th 2024 and advise on appropriate steps to resolve their issues and confirm or modify the overlays shown on the draft district plan maps."

Despite the intention of this resolution the council staff don't actually intend to consult again with us. Nevertheless, they must respond to us and propose some solutions to the subcommittee to resolve our issues.

 Central Government

The new government is opposed to these new interpretations of the RMA Section 6 which is the root of all these problems. However, their rewriting of the RMA will take two and a half years so in the meantime we have to get the best plan possible.

Key People

David Campbell is the council's Heritage and Planning manager and is the main staff member working on the plan. The plan is so complex he may be the only one who knows it fully! Email dcampbell@waitaki.govt.nz 

District Plan Review Subcommittee (DPRSC): email councillors@waitaki.govt.nz but note that contacting individual councillors is inappropriate because it may prejudice them and exclude them from voting or acting as a commissioner. It's better value to contact them all at once anyway! Once the plan becomes a proposed district plan there is limited ability for councillors to have any influence to change it. They only get to vote in support or opposition.

Cr Jim Thomson

Cr Jim Hopkins (Deputy Chair)
Cr Tim Blackler
Cr Courtney Linwood
Cr Guy Percival
Mayor Gary Kircher

Kate MacGregor and Sven Thelning are working on these issues. Kate is particularly knowledgable about Rural Scenic overlays and SNA's, and Sven is primarily working on SASM, ONF, SNF and ONL overlays but we are all working together for our respective clients. A significant opportunity exists to share the inevitable costs of submitting on the proposed plan. 

Kate MacGregor kmmacgregor@outlook.co.nz

Sven Thelning sven.thelning@gmail.com

Conclusion

These overlays put significant cost and uncertainty relating to new consenting requirements on a lot of land which will be an issue in the future as land use changes or as new buildings, irrigation or other development are required. 

The next step is for each land owner to decide based on the information above whether the district plan still presents a problem for their land and engage a planner (and perhaps later a lawyer) to help make an effective submission on the proposed district plan. Anyone who is thinking along the same lines as our group is welcome to join. At present we are splitting costs between approximately 30 land owners. While there is strength in numbers, this may still involve individual submissions guided by a planner to ensure your story is not lost.