Draft Plan Change 1E – Rural Indigenous Biodiversity Incentives

Share Draft Plan Change 1E – Rural Indigenous Biodiversity Incentives on Facebook Share Draft Plan Change 1E – Rural Indigenous Biodiversity Incentives on Twitter Share Draft Plan Change 1E – Rural Indigenous Biodiversity Incentives on Linkedin Email Draft Plan Change 1E – Rural Indigenous Biodiversity Incentives link

This draft plan change responds to a review of the current District Plan's “development incentives” provisions, and aims to refocus those provisions to provide incentives for the restoration, enhancement, and creation of areas of positive indigenous vegetation and in exchange for a limited number of bonus allotments in all rural zones (including General Rural, Rural Production and Rural Lifestyle zones).

Council wants your feedback on a new draft of this plan change.

Feedback closes at 5pm, Friday 14 February 2025.

If you have any questions about this draft plan change, email the District Planning team at district.planning@kapiticoast.govt.nz.

Note: a draft plan change is not Council policy, and does not have legal effect.

We’ve included maps showing Land Use Capability Classes 1, 2 and 3 from the 2022 draft consultation. They are still relevant to the new draft plan change, and are provided below.

You can provide feedback by:

Changes to draft

Council wants your feedback on a new draft of this plan change [PDF 1.36 MB].

The new draft includes changes to the earlier exposure draft based on:

  • feedback from consultation in September/October 2022; see the snapshot of the feedback and how it has been responded to in Feedback received and responses.
  • the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity 2023 (NPS-IB), where considered appropriate and within the scope of the draft plan change; note draft PC-1E does not and is not intended to cover all NPS-IB requirements.

Feedback is welcome on the new draft plan change up until 5pm, Friday 14 February 2025.

We’ve included maps showing Land Use Capability Classes 1, 2 and 3 from the 2022 draft consultation. They are still relevant to the new draft plan change, and are provided below.

Feedback received and responses

In September/October 2022, we asked for feedback on an earlier draft of this plan change. The Council then paused work on it to focus on processing the mandatory Intensification Planning Instrument (Plan Change 2).

You can request historical information, like the previous draft and related documents, by emailing district.planning@kapiticoast.govt.nz.

We have now reviewed all the feedback on the earlier draft. A high-level summary of the feedback and our initial planning responses are summarised below.

Feedback seeking to remove restrictions on subdivision of highly productive land

Initial planning response: These restrictions are considered to be necessary to give effect to the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land 2022, which requires including a direction for avoiding the subdivision of highly productive land.

Feedback seeking to allow waterways/wetlands to move naturally, stay vegetated, and not be used as or reduced to a drain and dump for stormwater etc

Initial planning response: These matters are outside Council’s jurisdiction. Greater Wellington manages stormwater discharges to freshwater through the Natural Resources Plan and the National Environmental Standards for Freshwater 2020.

Feedback that planting requirements are too onerous and costly

Initial planning response: The incentives are an optional subdivision consent route, to reward significant ecological improvements in the rural zones. Financial viability will vary based on the value of the additional rural bonus allotment(s).

Feedback seeking to apply provisions to urban zones

Initial planning response: Urban zones usually don’t have enough space for the required planting areas to boost biodiversity. We also note that the District Plan already supports subdivision in urban zones through Plan Change 2.

Typographical errors were found

Corrections have been made.

Feedback seeking to exclude existing ‘notices of intention’ that have been accepted by Council from the information requirements

Initial planning response: Where notices have been accepted, this means minimum planting area requirements don’t apply, but all other provisions under SUB-RUR-R53 do, to assess environmental impacts and positive biodiversity effects and to allow a full assessment of actual and potential effects on the environment.

Feedback querying why require more planting in the Rural Hills Precinct?

Initial planning response: The basis for this requirement is the NPS-IB, which requires Council to promote restoration of indigenous biodiversity in key areas. See clause 3.21 of the NPS-IB.

Feedback seeking to allow for natural regeneration of pastural or converted forestry land

Initial planning response: Regeneration of these areas is provided for if restoration and enhancement planting are included.

Feedback seeking to reduce minimum planting areas to make subdivision economically viable

Initial planning response: The plan change aims to reward significant indigenous biodiversity gains in rural zones with potential subdivisions that may not meet average allotment size requirements. Economic viability will vary by site.

Feedback seeking to allow three additional allotments with no minimum size

Initial planning response: This isn’t appropriate as it would enable the creation of urban-sized allotments in rural areas, affecting rural character, and the ability of the additional allotments to support primary production activities, which goes against rural zone objectives.

Feedback expressing support for the plan change intent

Initial planning response: Support noted.

Feedback seeking to add new indigenous planting on erosion-prone land and along waterbodies

Initial planning response: Amendments have been made to include these activities.

Feedback opposing the need for legal and physical protection of ecological sites, as they’re already protected through the RMA and the District Plan

Initial planning response: The District Plan only protects ecological sites from modification, it does not require the legal and physical protection of ecological sites, or their ongoing management to ensure they survive long term.

Feedback seeking to exclude public and limited notification under the subdivision rule

Initial planning response: Despite restoration and enhancement planting, proposed subdivisions may still have significant environmental effects or affect certain people. These effects might include reverse sensitivity effects, traffic and transportation effects, or effects on rural character. Applications could still be refused because of unacceptable adverse effects.

Feedback seeking to clarify ‘edge to area ratio’

Initial planning response: A definition has been added for clarity.

Feedback seeking to protect and enhance sites and areas of significance to Māori during subdivision

Initial planning response: If a site includes an identified site or area of significance to Māori, specific subdivision rules within the District-wide section of the District Plan apply. The draft plan change doesn’t aim to duplicate these rules.

This draft plan change responds to a review of the current District Plan's “development incentives” provisions, and aims to refocus those provisions to provide incentives for the restoration, enhancement, and creation of areas of positive indigenous vegetation and in exchange for a limited number of bonus allotments in all rural zones (including General Rural, Rural Production and Rural Lifestyle zones).

Council wants your feedback on a new draft of this plan change.

Feedback closes at 5pm, Friday 14 February 2025.

If you have any questions about this draft plan change, email the District Planning team at district.planning@kapiticoast.govt.nz.

Note: a draft plan change is not Council policy, and does not have legal effect.

We’ve included maps showing Land Use Capability Classes 1, 2 and 3 from the 2022 draft consultation. They are still relevant to the new draft plan change, and are provided below.

You can provide feedback by:

Changes to draft

Council wants your feedback on a new draft of this plan change [PDF 1.36 MB].

The new draft includes changes to the earlier exposure draft based on:

  • feedback from consultation in September/October 2022; see the snapshot of the feedback and how it has been responded to in Feedback received and responses.
  • the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity 2023 (NPS-IB), where considered appropriate and within the scope of the draft plan change; note draft PC-1E does not and is not intended to cover all NPS-IB requirements.

Feedback is welcome on the new draft plan change up until 5pm, Friday 14 February 2025.

We’ve included maps showing Land Use Capability Classes 1, 2 and 3 from the 2022 draft consultation. They are still relevant to the new draft plan change, and are provided below.

Feedback received and responses

In September/October 2022, we asked for feedback on an earlier draft of this plan change. The Council then paused work on it to focus on processing the mandatory Intensification Planning Instrument (Plan Change 2).

You can request historical information, like the previous draft and related documents, by emailing district.planning@kapiticoast.govt.nz.

We have now reviewed all the feedback on the earlier draft. A high-level summary of the feedback and our initial planning responses are summarised below.

Feedback seeking to remove restrictions on subdivision of highly productive land

Initial planning response: These restrictions are considered to be necessary to give effect to the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land 2022, which requires including a direction for avoiding the subdivision of highly productive land.

Feedback seeking to allow waterways/wetlands to move naturally, stay vegetated, and not be used as or reduced to a drain and dump for stormwater etc

Initial planning response: These matters are outside Council’s jurisdiction. Greater Wellington manages stormwater discharges to freshwater through the Natural Resources Plan and the National Environmental Standards for Freshwater 2020.

Feedback that planting requirements are too onerous and costly

Initial planning response: The incentives are an optional subdivision consent route, to reward significant ecological improvements in the rural zones. Financial viability will vary based on the value of the additional rural bonus allotment(s).

Feedback seeking to apply provisions to urban zones

Initial planning response: Urban zones usually don’t have enough space for the required planting areas to boost biodiversity. We also note that the District Plan already supports subdivision in urban zones through Plan Change 2.

Typographical errors were found

Corrections have been made.

Feedback seeking to exclude existing ‘notices of intention’ that have been accepted by Council from the information requirements

Initial planning response: Where notices have been accepted, this means minimum planting area requirements don’t apply, but all other provisions under SUB-RUR-R53 do, to assess environmental impacts and positive biodiversity effects and to allow a full assessment of actual and potential effects on the environment.

Feedback querying why require more planting in the Rural Hills Precinct?

Initial planning response: The basis for this requirement is the NPS-IB, which requires Council to promote restoration of indigenous biodiversity in key areas. See clause 3.21 of the NPS-IB.

Feedback seeking to allow for natural regeneration of pastural or converted forestry land

Initial planning response: Regeneration of these areas is provided for if restoration and enhancement planting are included.

Feedback seeking to reduce minimum planting areas to make subdivision economically viable

Initial planning response: The plan change aims to reward significant indigenous biodiversity gains in rural zones with potential subdivisions that may not meet average allotment size requirements. Economic viability will vary by site.

Feedback seeking to allow three additional allotments with no minimum size

Initial planning response: This isn’t appropriate as it would enable the creation of urban-sized allotments in rural areas, affecting rural character, and the ability of the additional allotments to support primary production activities, which goes against rural zone objectives.

Feedback expressing support for the plan change intent

Initial planning response: Support noted.

Feedback seeking to add new indigenous planting on erosion-prone land and along waterbodies

Initial planning response: Amendments have been made to include these activities.

Feedback opposing the need for legal and physical protection of ecological sites, as they’re already protected through the RMA and the District Plan

Initial planning response: The District Plan only protects ecological sites from modification, it does not require the legal and physical protection of ecological sites, or their ongoing management to ensure they survive long term.

Feedback seeking to exclude public and limited notification under the subdivision rule

Initial planning response: Despite restoration and enhancement planting, proposed subdivisions may still have significant environmental effects or affect certain people. These effects might include reverse sensitivity effects, traffic and transportation effects, or effects on rural character. Applications could still be refused because of unacceptable adverse effects.

Feedback seeking to clarify ‘edge to area ratio’

Initial planning response: A definition has been added for clarity.

Feedback seeking to protect and enhance sites and areas of significance to Māori during subdivision

Initial planning response: If a site includes an identified site or area of significance to Māori, specific subdivision rules within the District-wide section of the District Plan apply. The draft plan change doesn’t aim to duplicate these rules.

  • Tell us what you think of the new draft of the plan change

    The new draft includes changes to the earlier exposure draft based on:

    • feedback from consultation in September/October 2022; see the snapshot of the feedback and how it has been responded to in Feedback received and responses.
    • the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity 2023 (NPS-IB), where considered appropriate and within the scope of the draft plan change; note draft PC-1E does not and is not intended to cover all NPS-IB requirements.
    Complete Form
    Share Tell us what you think of the new draft of the plan change on Facebook Share Tell us what you think of the new draft of the plan change on Twitter Share Tell us what you think of the new draft of the plan change on Linkedin Email Tell us what you think of the new draft of the plan change link
  • CLOSED: This survey has concluded.

    Tell us what you think

    Share Tell us what you think on Facebook Share Tell us what you think on Twitter Share Tell us what you think on Linkedin Email Tell us what you think link
Page last updated: 18 Dec 2024, 08:31 AM