To the Far North District Plan. Relating to SIGNS AND LIGHTING.

Transcription

1 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND Proposed Plan Change 19 To the Far North District Plan Relating to SIGNS AND LIGHTING. DECISION REPORT: 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF DECISION This report contains the Decision made by the Far North District Council ( the Council ) in relation to its Proposed Plan Change 19 ( the plan change ) to the operative Far North District Plan ( the District Plan ) in accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991 ( the RMA ). The recommendations from the Independent Hearing Commissioners were approved at the Council meeting held 15 December This Decisions Report includes commentary from the Independent Commissioners on the matters regarded in terms of the RMA in assessing the plan change. 2.0 DECISION Our Decision is that the plan change be approved, with some minor modifications, and that the submissions be accepted, accepted in part, or rejected in line with that recommendation. This report should be read in full for the reasons to approve the Plan Change and set out below is a brief summary of those reasons: The benefits of the proposed Plan Change provisions outweigh the costs and the risks of not acting are considered to be greater than the risks of acting. The proposed provisions to address the management of Signs and Lighting, as shown in the documentation, within the Far North district are the most appropriate method to achieve Part 2 of the RMA. The Section 32 report underpinning the Plan Change appropriately and adequately identified and assessed the pros and cons of the chosen methods. The proposed objectives are the most appropriate means to achieve the purposes of the RMA and that the proposed policies, rules and methods are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives. 1

2 Submissions and evidence have generally supported the Plan Change subject to amendments and in some instances submitters have requested further restrictions to the extent of an overall prohibition on signs. The Commissioner was aware that the plan change was part of the Rolling Review of the District Plan which the Council had embarked on and involved a section by section review of the contents of the District Plan. However, in the Section 42A report the Commissioner was told that a consolidated approach to the review of the District Plan was now underway and that PPC19 was, along with a number of other current plan changes, a legacy of the former rolling review. The Plan Change as proposed and subject to modifications will fit into the consolidated approach and will form part of the District Plan in the future. 3.0 BACKGROUND A report addressing details of the plan change and the submissions was prepared by Council's Policy Planner, Steven Sanson, in accordance with Section 42A of the RMA. The report is hereinafter referred to as the Section 42A report or the Report. The Section 42A report included all the relevant statutory considerations. The recommendation in the Section 42A report was that the plan change be approved with some modifications as a consequence of the submissions. 4.0 THE PLAN CHANGE IN MORE DETAIL The Commissioner was told that Proposed Plan Change 19 PPC 19 represented part of the initial phase of a review of the provisions of the Far North District Plan. In Section 1.0 of the hearing report Mr Sanson, in part, stated: When notified, the proposed plan change contained a range of amendments to the sign provisions of Chapter 16. These changes include the introduction of specific controls for different sign types, location based parameters and the use of tables to enhance usability and legibility. A range of amendments to the Context, Issues, Environmental Outcomes Expected, Objectives, Policies, Methods of Implementation and Commentary sections were also undertaken. Minor amendments were proposed to the lighting provisions. In Section 2.0 of the hearing report Mr Sanson referred to the Background and Information behind PPC19 which is as follows and this gives a good synopsis of the signs and lighting provisions and controls in the Far North District area : Background and Information 1. At the Far North District Council (Council) Meeting on 11 December 2014, Council approved PPC19 for public notification. 2. Since the FNDP became fully operative in 2009 the contents of Chapter 16 - Signs and Lighting have been amended on three occasions. The first change occurred as a result of Plan Change 5 Definitions and Clarification Amendments, which deleted unnecessary provisions within the Chapter. The second change included minor amendments pursuant to 2

3 Clause 20A of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), updating references to the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). Both changes occurred in August and September of 2011, respectively. Plan Change 13 Technical Amendments made further Clause 20A Changes regarding NZTA. As such, no comprehensive review of the Chapter has taken place to date. 3. Signs and outdoor lighting within the district are largely administered through two Council regimes; the Control of the Use of Public Places Bylaw (Bylaw) and Chapter 16 Signs and Lighting of the FNDP. The Bylaw administers signs (including illuminated signs) and other activities on land owned by Council e.g. road reserves, footpaths and berms. The FNDP seeks to manage signs and lighting on non-council owned land. Whilst the dual regime provides flexibility to Council in terms of monitoring, enforcing, and controlling activities in different locations of the district, there has been known confusion and uncertainty between the two processes. A review of the Bylaw is likely to be scheduled following the completion PPC NZTA provides further controls on signs through the Signs on State Highways Bylaw They also play a role in providing written approval to sign proposals adjacent to the State Highway and the provision of guidance and industry best practice documents, including the Traffic Control Devices Manual and Road and Traffic Series 7 Advertising signs and road safety: design and location guidelines. 5. Sign and lighting provisions contribute to the integrated management role of the FNDP, and have an important role to play in supplementing the land use zone provisions and associated policy framework. PPC19 proposes amendments and improvements to Chapter 16 of the FNDP to assist in achieving these ends, as well as meeting chapter specific issues which have been found through the policy development process APPOINTMENT The Council appointed William (Bill) Smith as Independent Hearings Commissioner to hear the submitters and the Council s representatives and to make a recommendation on the plan change and recommendations on the submissions to the plan change. Prior to the hearing I had the opportunity to consider the details of the plan change and the submissions (including the further submissions received to submissions on the plan change) and the s42a Report. 6.0 THE HEARING The hearing took place on 12 September 2016 in the Council s Chambers at Kaikohe. Appearances were from: 6.1 Submitters New Zealand Transport Agency (Submitter No.3) represented by Rikash Kumar, Planning Consultant and Mr Mark Newsome, Safety Engineer. 3

4 In addition to the above appearance on the 12 September I received written information as detailed below: Apology and tabled letter dated 29 August 2016 from M J Foster of Zomac Planning Solutions Ltd on behalf of Progressive Enterprises Limited (Submitter No.2). Apology and tabbed letter dated 7 September 2016 from Leonard Dissanayake (Submitter No.1) Apology and tabled evidence dated 9 September 2016 from Hywel Edwards, Associate Planner from Beca on behalf of Transpower New Zealand Limited (Submitter No.12) 6.2 Council Representatives Greg Wilson, Manager, District Planning. Steven Sanson, Policy Planner and Reporting Officer. Jeannette Bosman, Hearings Administrator The Council had appointed me as Independent Hearings Commissioner to consider the plan change and the submissions to it given that it is a Council initiated plan change. I took the Section 42A report prepared by Mr Sanson as read at the hearing. It had also been pre-circulated to submitters. I asked Mr Sanson to present an introduction to the plan change, raised some issues that I had identified in the documentation and then later heard from the submitter s representatives. To conclude Mr Sanson provided a written commentary on the submissions that had been heard and/or tabled and affirmed subject to some amendments to his original recommendation to me that the plan change, with some modifications, be recommended to the Council for approval with the submissions determined in accordance with that recommendation. 6.3 Expert Evidence I received limited expert evidence at the hearing with planning evidence received only from: Mr Kumar on behalf of NZTA. Mr Sanson and Mr Wilson on behalf of the Council. Engineering evidence was heard from Mr Newsome on behalf of NZTA. In regards to the tabled letters Mr Foster, stated that Progressive does not support the officer s recommendations and stands by the relief sought, that it accepts that there is merit in assessing increases in sign sizes on a case by case basis via resource consent, that any exceedances should be assessed as a restricted discretionary activity rather than full discretionary and that Progressive did not wish to attend the hearing. Mr Dissanyake s letter stated that he was unable to attend the hearing, that he was pleased that 10 of his submission points had been recommended to be accepted or accepted in part, that he noted the other 2 submission points had become redundant following acceptance of other submissions and requested that I (Commissioner) accept the Planner s recommendations. 4

5 Mr Edwards letter stated that Transpower had reviewed the hearing report and as a result had opted not to attend the hearing, that Transpower supported the recommendations as they relate to its submissions and that this support be considered by me as part of the decision-making process. Transpower considered that the recommendations would give effect to the National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission 2008 (NPSET). The evidence tabled and read by Mr Kumar and Mr Newsome forms part of the hearing and is on Council s file and a brief summary is shown below. Mr Kumar s evidence which also included Annexure 1 Amendments Sought related to: NZTA s submission and the amendments that NZTA sought to the Rules relating to the separation distance of advertising signs from official signs and traffic signs and thirdparty advertising. Standards developed by NZTA such as the Manual of Traffic Signs and Markings (MOTSAM) and the Traffic Control Devices Manual (TCD) and that NZTA actively encourages Councils to adopt the standards. The Signs on State Highways Bylaw Justification for the amendments sought by NZTA. Comments on the issues in the NZTA submissions which were recommended to be accepted in the Section 42A report. Comments on the remaining issues regarding separation distances between signs and official signs and signals, except in Commercial and Industrial zones where no separation distance is proposed and the fact that there is no provision explicitly requiring signs facing the state highway on land adjacent to the state highway to be site related. Suggested wording and table (as shown in Annexure 1) to be accepted and inserted into the plan change. The table refers to separation distances derived from MOTSAM and are consistent with the requirements that NZTA places on its own official signs. Safety of road users, effects on land owners and his opinion that the NZTA s proposed provisions strike an appropriate balance between safety considerations and unnecessary restrictions on landowners. Comments on site specific signs (paragraph 26 of his evidence) and suggested amendments for clarity (paragraph 27 of his evidence). As a result of questioning from me Mr Kumar stated the words shown under 1 in the table on page 42 which in part reads greater than 70km/h should be amended to 70km/h or greater, exceptions for signs to close to NZTA signs could require resource consent, that his table attached as Annexure 1 does need to be amended and re-numbered to include v as shown in the S42A Report as it is missing from his table and that he considers that his suggested clause viii shown in the table is in accordance with NZTA s original submission as shown on page 129 of the S42 Report under 3/1 a) vii. Mr Newsome s evidence related to: The amendments being sort by NZTA taking into account the recommendations in the s42a Report. Rule (f), 11.1, to 11.5 which he does not oppose but his concerns relating to the size of lettering and his view that greater lettering heights would allow faster recognition of signs from greater distances. 5

6 His lack of support for the wording in 13.1 (sub-paragraph (iii), 13.2 (sub-paragraph (vi), 13.3 (sub-paragraph (viii) and 13.4 relating to separation distances, visibility distances, set back from state highway intersections and off-site signs. Each of these topics was covered in his evidence. His support for the table attached to Mr Kumar s evidence to be accepted and incorporated into the plan change. His support for 180m visibility distance requirement on a rural road (>70km/hr) and his desire (paragraph 21 of his evidence) for the inclusion of a visibility distance of at least 60m in an urban area (50km/hr). Electronic and Illuminated signs which he considered were not specifically addressed by the FNDC and which he considered should be developed (paragraphs 23 and 24 of his evidence). In regards to Mr Newsome s comments regarding a visibility distance of at least 60m in an urban area and electronic and illuminated signs both Mr Kumar and Mr Newsome did state that these issues were probably out of scope and would have to be looked at in the future. As a result of questioning by me Mr Newsome did acknowledge that Rule (d) (i) and (ii) as shown on page 56 of the S42A Report would appear to satisfy and cover his concerns. 7.0 PRELIMINARY MATTERS 7.1 Introductory Statement Mr Sanson give a brief introductory statement outlining the details of his s42a report and confirmed that there were no changes to it since it had been circulated and that his recommendations were as shown. At the start of the hearing there were no submitters in attendance so after outlining the process for the hearing and after tabling the 3 written letters of apology I went through (in open meeting) the hearing report and raised a number of issues with Mr Sanson. As a result of questioning from me Mr Sanson said that: reference to s95 of the RMA should be replaced with a reference to the Act as the Act is described in the Definitions section as the Resource Management Act he agreed with the word it being added to he agreed that the correct wording on page 54 should refer to State Highways Bylaw reference on page 56 under (b) Engineering Standards and Guidelines (2004) should be amended to read Engineering Standards and Guidelines (June 2004 Revised 2009) on page 65 at (c) the word use should be amended to uses and (a) should refer to Rule (g) After hearing the evidence from the NZTA representatives Mr Sanson provided me with a written response to the issues raised and I have shown this in full below: Please find a response to the NZTA submissions and in particular Annexure 1 from the evidence of Mr Kumar (regarding rule (f) Signs Adjacent to State Highways). Support 6

7 The following submission points were considered to have merit and are supported: Changes proposed to Maximum Number column, specifically the inclusion of 70km/hr or greater (as referred to in Paragraph 27 of Mr Kumar s evidence). The reasoning for this support is that the proposed amendment will ensure that all speed environments are captured in the rule. Changes proposed to Other Requirements column, specifically the inclusion of (excluding those located in the State Highway Road Reserve). The reasoning for this support is that the proposed amendment will make clear that signs in this area do not form part of the regulatory requirements as they will fall within the Signs on State Highways Bylaw.. Support in Part The following submissions are supported in part: Changes proposed to clause (iii) of the rule, specifically the inclusion of the speed and separation distance table to be applied outside of the Commercial and Industrial Zone. I can only support the amendment in part as applying the separation distance in the Commercial and Industrial zones is considered impractical and inefficient. These Zones are considered the best location for a range of activities and for them to be subject to onerous signage requirements would limit their effectiveness for the range of activities that could potentially locate there. However, in those other parts of the District such as our rural areas, I would agree with the use of the proposed changes. The inclusion of clause (ix). Clause (ix) is in part already covered by the Rule (see Placement column) which already determines that signs should be located and relate to activities on-site. While this is not explicit, this was the intent of column and wording. There is internal inconsistency with the proposed rules as 3 rd party advertising (or off-site ) signs are permissible in the Commercial and Industrial Zones (for example). The use of fingerboard signs or consolidated signs in the Commercial and Industrial Zones is an outcome that should be encouraged. I am of the opinion that, similar to the differentiation provided for in clause (iii) above, that Commercial and Industrial Zones should be excluded from the proposed requirement (in order to facilitate fingerboard or consolidated signs and remove internal inconsistency). However, I also see merit in the use of a speed limit provision (as identified in NZTA s original submission) to reduce the number of signs and whether or not they are located on or off-site (see page 129 clause a(vii)) of Hearings Agenda). This would also be an appropriate response as a number of commercial and industrial areas are typically located in environments where the posted speed limit is less than 70km/hr. 7

8 I have carefully read and reviewed the evidence from the NZTA experts and the evidence from Mr Sanson and have formed the view that I agree with the evidence from Mr Sanson that some of the suggested amendments from NZTA should be accepted in full and some in part and the result of this is shown in the amended Plan Change attached as Appendix A. In regards to certain controls on signs in the Commercial and Industrial zones I agree with Mr Sanson that they are impractical and inefficient and could place onerous signage requirements that could limit the effectiveness of the range of activities that are already in those zones or could potentially locate in the zones. 8.0 SUBMISSIONS The Section 42A report included a summary of the submissions received to the plan change and also included a copy of each submission. I had read all the submissions and the summary attached to the Section 42A report that outlined what the submitters had requested. There were 12 primary submitters and 2 further submitters. Nine of the submissions generally supported the PPC but requested amendments to it, 1 both supported and opposed the PPC but requested amendments and 2 opposed the PPC and also requested amendments to it. In regards to the 2 further submissions 1 opposed a submission to delete Rule and 1 both supported and opposed some submissions. Apart from the NZTA representatives no other submitters attended the hearing to provide me with any submissions and/or expert evidence to consider. The planning report that had been prepared by Council staff had been pre-circulated to submitters and me. The planning report was structured under headers of the different issues. It provided a tabulated reference to the issues. Under each issue the details in the submissions was followed by a discussion on the submissions and a recommendation to me. I was able to question the reporting officer and submitter s experts during the hearing. I have found that I am largely in agreement with the recommendations made by the reporting officer, subject to the matters listed in 7.1 and below. The final recommended version of the proposed plan change provisions are attached as an Attachment to this recommendation report. When making my recommendations to the Council, and when it makes its subsequent decisions, under Clause 10 of the First Schedule of the RMA, it is necessary to give reasons for allowing or not allowing any submissions (grouped by subject matter or individually) either in part or wholly. The recommendations and the Council decision may also include consequential alterations arising out of submissions and any other relevant matters considered relating to matters raised in submissions. I wish to acknowledge the appearance of the submitter s representatives, and also the tabled information from submitters, at the hearing, both in support and opposition to parts of the plan change. The information that was provided from the submitters assisted me in understanding the issues and indeed, I note that Mr Sanson fairly acknowledged a number of those points in his response and final recommendations. 9.0 LOCALITY VISITS I am familiar with the Far North area and the District Plan having both worked in and visited the area over a number of years. I was able to, during driving around the areas of the Kaikohe, 8

9 Kerikeri and Waipapa observe some aspects/issues that were mentioned in the plan change, the Section 42A report and the submissions STATUTORY CONTEXT Section 74 of the RMA sets out the matters to be considered by a territorial authority in preparing or changing its district plan. These matters include doing so in accordance with its functions under Section 31, the provisions of Part 2 and its duty under Section 32. Further, also having regard to other documents, including regional planning documents, management plans and strategies prepared under other Acts and iwi planning documents. Section 75 of the RMA, in addressing the contents of district plans, requires that a district plan must give effect to any national policy statement, any New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement any regional policy statement and must not be inconsistent with a regional plan. Section 31 addresses the functions of territorial authorities under the RMA and includes: (a) the establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and methods to achieve integrated management of the effects of the use, development, or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district; (b) the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land, Section 32 RMA provides for the consideration of alternatives, benefits, and costs and requires that an evaluation must be carried out and that an evaluation must examine: (a) the extent to which each objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of this Act; and (b) whether, having regard to their efficiency and effectiveness, the policies, rules, or other methods are the most appropriate for achieving the objectives. For the purposes of this examination, an evaluation must take into account the benefits and costs of policies, rules, or other methods. A Section 32 Report had been prepared and was notified with PPC19. I have read the analysis and was told that the changes are appropriate, efficient and effective also taking into account the scale and significance of the changes recommended. Part 2 of the RMA, being the purpose and principles of the statute, is the overarching part of the RMA. Regard is to be given to all matters within it. Part 2 includes: The purpose of the Act as contained in Section 5; Section 6 - Matters of National Importance that are required to be recognised and provided for; Section 7 - Other Matters that require particular regard in achieving the purpose of the Act; and Section 8 - Treaty of Waitangi. 9

10 Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the RMA applies to plan changes by local authorities. Clause 10 states a local authority must give a decision on the provisions and matters raised in the submissions received to the plan change and must include the reasons for accepting or rejecting any submissions. In doing so a local authority may address the submissions by grouping them according to the provisions of the plan change to which they relate or the matters to which they relate and, may include matters relating to any consequential alterations necessary to the plan change arising from the submissions. A local authority is not required to give a decision that addresses each submission individually. A local authority may also withdraw its plan change in which case that action is to be notified and reasons given for doing so (Clause 8D) PRINCIPLE ISSUES IN CONTENTION AND FINDINGS Having read the submissions and s42a report and listened to the evidence presented at the hearing I consider the principle issues in contention and my findings in respect of each issue The Overall Purpose and Scope of the Plan Change The overall purpose and scope of the Plan Change was limited to a relatively confined and focused set of effects associated with signs and lighting provisions in comparison to the issues raised in submissions. I acknowledge that Mr Sanson had taken a collaborative approach to dealing with the submissions and issues raised in the submissions and evidence and did, where he considered appropriate, address the concerns of submitters through amendments to the plan provisions. I also note that in some instances the relief sought by submitters was requested without any planning analysis of the merits or consequences of the amendments requested and, as stated earlier, the NZTA representatives were the only submitters in attendance at the hearing. My overriding conclusion on PPC19 and my assessment of the submissions and evidence is that PPC19 should be approved subject to amendments Scope of the Context Statements, Issues, Objectives and Policies A number of submitters requested amendments to the objectives, policies and rules of the plan to ensure their individual interests are represented in the planning framework. I note that the purpose of PPC19 is to address the adequacy of the existing planning framework in relation to signs and lighting and based on the submissions and evidence before me I consider that (subject to amendments) the scope, issues, objectives and policies are appropriate Will the Plan Change Achieve What It Set Out To Achieve I find, from the submissions, evidence, the evidence at the hearing and my observations that the Plan Change with amendments will achieve the purposes set out in the proposed objectives. In particular I can, based on the submissions and the evidence before me, support the Plan Change subject to the amendments identified in the S42A Report, some of the requested amendments given in evidence at the hearing and some of the issues raised by me as I consider that they will assist the Plan Change to achieve what it set out to achieve. 10

11 13.0 Sections 31 and 32 RMA Before a plan change is publicly notified an evaluation must be carried out by the Council that must examine: The extent to which each objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA; and Whether, having regard to their efficiency and effectiveness, the policies, rules, or other methods are the most appropriate for achieving the objectives. An evaluation must take into account: The benefits and costs of policies, rules, or other methods; and The risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, rules, or other methods. A report is required to be prepared summarising the evaluation and give reasons for that evaluation. These Section 32 tests are fundamental to the consideration of any plan change and when discussed reference is usually made to relevant case law that is the Environment Court decisions relating to Nugent, Eldamos and Long Bay. 1 Those decisions have considered the Section 32 process in detail and serve to highlight the importance of it as the basis on which any plan change proceeds. The plan change was accompanied by a Section 32 evaluation which lead through to a conclusion at page 119 of the Section 42A Report. I have had the opportunity to examine that report and heard no concerns expressed about it by submitters. I have come to the view that the plan change is necessarily, or has been demonstrated satisfactorily to be, the most effective means of achieving the objectives of the plan change. The Section 31 RMA functions include requiring the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land. The range of actual or potential effects arising from the plan change had been addressed in the plan change documentation and in the Council s Section 42A Report. I am satisfied that all actual and potential adverse effects associated with the plan change have been taken into account in preparing it and note that some modifications to the plan change provisions to address some submitter s concerns had been recommended to me for consideration. My view is that the range of actual or potential effects arising from the plan change have been addressed in the plan change documentation and in the Council s planning report. Some of the potential effects have been highlighted by submitters to the plan change. I am satisfied that all 1 Nugent Consultants v Auckland City Council, NZRMA 481, 1996; Eldamos Investments v Gisborne District Council, Decision WO47/05; and Long Bay Okura Great Park Society Incorporated & Others v North Shore City Council, AO78/

12 actual and potential adverse effects associated with the plan change have been taken into account and some modifications have been made which in my view improve the plan change. In the circumstances, I have concluded from the Section 32 evaluation that the approach adopted in the plan change meets the Section 32 tests of the RMA Approach of District Plan The plan change continues the innovative approach adopted by the Council to the District Plan which has been prepared as an effects-based document that allows people to more freely exercise land choices than the traditional identification of land uses in other district plans. This approach is supported by the Statements of Principle in the District Plan with Principle stating: The Plan sets effects-based parameters which allow people to more freely exercise land use choices and plan for the future with reasonable security. I am of the view that the plan change will support and is in line with the above Statement of Principle Reporting Planner s Amendments to the Plan Change The reporting planner recommended a number of amendments/modifications to the plan change provisions following his consideration of the submissions prior to the hearing and these were comprehensively covered in his report. At the end of hearing submissions on the 12 September 2016 Mr Sanson was given an opportunity to put his response in writing and this was provided to me at 1.14pm on the same day. After reviewing the evidence before me and Mr Sanson s response I closed the hearing at 2.45pm on 13 September 2016 and Ms Bosman was instructed to circulate Mr Sanson s response to all the submitters (for their information only) and also advise all parties that the hearing had been closed. I have carefully considered the recommendations made to me by Mr Sanson and those requested by submitters and I am in general support with the amendments recommended by Mr Sanson STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 16.1 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) Section 75 (3) (b) of the Act requires the District Plan to give effect to any NZCPS and I was told that in relation to the management of signs and lighting it was deemed that no specific matters were relevant to the review and proposed plan change Proposed Regional Policy Statement for Northland 2012 ( PRPS ) In considering the plan change Section 74 and Section 75 RMA requires me to have regard to the RPS administered by the Northland Regional Council. A district plan must give effect to any 12

13 regional policy statement (Section 75(3) RMA) and as such those regional planning provisions should be taken into account in the preparation of the District Plan. I received information in the plan change documents (s32 Report at paragraph 3.2) addressing the PRPS and was told that the relationship between urban design, amenity values, health and safety, and the vibrancy of town centres are all relevant to PPC19. From my consideration of these provisions, and the information and evidence that was put before me, I came to the conclusion that the plan change is consistent with the RPS 16.3 Other Management Plans and Acts I am not aware of any other relevant management plans and any other Acts that are of relevance Section 31 RMA The plan change does not conflict with the Council s functions under Section 31 RMA Section 32 RMA I have found above that the Section 32 RMA evaluation does satisfy this section of the RMA Part 2 RMA All plan changes and the Section 32 evaluation must be considered in terms of Part 2 of the RMA. I did not receive any information relating to concerns by tangata whenua in relation to Section 6, 7 and 8 matters. The plan change clearly sets out to be consistent with the purpose and principles of the RMA and I am able to find that it is consistent and in line with the purpose and principles of the Act CONCLUSIONS ON THE PLAN CHANGE My principal finding is that the plan change should be approved, in accordance with the commentary above and the amendments as shown in the Plan Change attached as Appendix A DECISIONS ON THE PLAN CHANGE Having had regard to the provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 and in particular to Section 74, Section 75, Section 31 and Section 32; and, Having considered the actual and potential effects on the environment of the proposed plan change and the avoiding, remedying and mitigating of those effects; and Having considered the details of the proposed plan change, the submissions, the further submissions, the submissions and the evidence in support of those submissions and further 13

14 submissions, and the Section 42A RMA report from the Far North District Council s reporting planner at the hearing of the proposed plan change and submissions; and Acting under a delegation from the Far North District Council to hear and recommend to it decisions on the proposed plan change and the submissions and further submissions; and For the reasons set out in the text of the recommendations of the Commissioner, Council s Decision is as follows: That pursuant to Clauses 29 and 10 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991, The Proposed Plan Change 19 to the Far North District Plan be approved with modifications; and. Those submissions and further submissions which support the Proposed Plan Change are accepted to the extent that the Proposed Plan Change is approved with modifications; and Those submissions and further submissions which seek further changes to the Proposed Plan Change are accepted to the extent that the Proposed Plan Change is approved with modifications; and Except to the extent provided above, all other submissions and further submissions are rejected. 14