Resource Consent Applications for Te Ara o Hei (Coromandel Walks) Project

Transcription

1 Memo Information 1 Resource Consent Applications for Te Ara o Hei (Coromandel Walks) Project TO FROM DATE 24 August 2017 SUBJECT Thames-Coromandel District Council Sam Napia, Director Strategic Relationships and Projects Resource Consent Applications for Te Ara o Hei (Coromandel Walks) Project 1 Purpose of Report This report seeks Council approval to apply for resource consents for Te Ara o Hei (Coromandel Walks) Project. 2 Background Te Ara o Hei (Coromandel Walks) Project, formerly known as the Coromandel Great Walks anchor project, is part of TCDC s wider strategy for connecting walking tracks across the Coromandel Peninsula. Associated with the project is proposed parking infrastructure and roading improvements at Lees Road, which provides additional parking outside of the Hahei Village. The current structure of the project is separated into four stages (see the attached map): Stage 1A, track existing village entrance car park at Pa Road in Hahei Village to the Blow Hole; The Lees Road car park, kiosk and associated works, including the central track; Stage 1B, the western (Carter) track and the walking track along Lees Road through to Stella Evered reserve to the Purangi estuary; and, Stage 1(C), track from Purangi to Ferry Landing. Following a request from Council, consultation with visitors and residents was undertaken commencing in September last year and progressing over the summer period of Subsequently, the Te Ara o Hei governance advisory board (comprising Mayor Goudie and representatives of Ngāti Hei and the Department of Conservation) reviewed the results of the consultation. The board also considered the next steps, including lodgement of resource consent applications. In doing so, the board indicated to the project team a preference to split the various applications so that less complex applications such as that relating to the walkway to the blowhole (Stage 1A) can be processed separately potentially enabling completion of that part of the walkway without being held up by, for example, the more complex Lees Rd cark park and consenting process. 3 Issue The project team requires a formal Council mandate to apply for resource consents for Te Ara o Hei (Coromandel Walks) Project. 4 Discussion Four scenarios or options have been identified for making applications for resource consents. For all scenarios, there would be multiple consents rather than a single consent as some

2 activities relate to short-term aspects of the project (such as construction activities) and others are long-term on-going activities such as the operation of the Lees Road car park and the kiosk; bridges; toilets; and so forth. There are also regional council consent requirements; thus, there would be a suite of consents for the project and separation and bundling would allow for different activity statuses for different activities. In the process of bundling consents, we are looking for the option that allows us to progress and complete the project by stages. The reason for this is well illustrated with reference to Stage 1A. With regard to separation of resource consent applications, it should be noted that the final decision on how applications are processed lie with the Consent Authority. This means that lodgement of multiple resource consent applications that form one overall project may be considered together in order to understand the full extent of the effects of the project as a whole. Therefore, there is a potential risk that the Consent Authority would consider the multiple applications as one. In terms of bundling, a resource consent application can outline what activities it considers can be bundled but again the decision on how to assess and group the activities lies with the Consent Authority. Obtaining consents for Stage 1A is not as complex as is the case for the Lees Road car park and kiosk, comparatively speaking. Furthermore, Stage 1A represents a discrete package, being a walkway from Hahei to the Blow Hole; which, on its own, would result in a useable and desirable product. Additionally, parking infrastructure at the village entrance car park is already in place, and additional parking restrictions along Pa Road are proposed. Therefore, it makes sense to conclude consenting for Stage 1A and complete that stage independently of the Lees Road works or other stages of the project. Additionally, this approach also best addresses our Lotteries grant funding commitment to complete 14.2 km of track. This approach would also accord with the directions of the governance advisory board. The four scenarios are described and analysed in the following table. 2 Scenario 1 A single application consents covering the whole project; that is, 14.2km of walkways from Whitianga to the Blow Hole including the Lees Road Car park and associated works. As the application would be formed as a single package, public notification would be requested at the time of lodgement to speed up the process. This would allow parties to submit on any aspect of the project. All stages of the project would be subject to the processing of this single application. An important consequence of this scenario is that no stages can commence towards completion before a decision on the whole single application. This is not desirable because we want to retain the option to progress the project by stages.

3 3 Scenario 2 Two applications consents, bundled by activity status, same time, assuming that the Lees Rd works comprise a discretionary activity. One application would be Stage 1A for a non-complying activity. This application would likely be limited notified. The remainder of the project would form the second application, comprising a discretionary activity. This is on the basis that the consent authority will deem the Lees Rd works as ancillary to the walkways and therefore not a commercial activity in the rural zone. This would likely result in a consenting decision for Stage 1A ahead of a decision for the remainder of the project, and would allow us to progress Stage 1A ahead of the remainder of the project. However, this may also result in the decision timing for the comparatively simple Stages 1B and 1C to be longer along with the Lees Rd works. Scenario 3 Two applications consents, bundled by activity status same time, assuming that the Lees Rd works comprise a noncomplying activity. One application would be Stages 1A and Lees Road car park, kiosk and central walkway as a non-complying activity on the basis that the car park and kiosk comprise a commercial activity in the rural zone. This application would be publicly notified. The other application is for Stages 1B and 1C as a discretionary activity. This application could be non-notified if written approvals can be provided from affected parties; otherwise the application will likely be limited notified. The application for Stage 1A would be publicly notified because it is bundled with the Lees Road car park and associated works, whereas it would otherwise likely be limited notified. This would mean that a decision on Stage 1A (Blow Hole walkway), would be linked with the process for the Lees Road works and would be notified. It may be possible to separate the Blow Hole walkway from Lees Road during the public notification process; however, it would not be as enabling to progress Stage 1A ahead of Lees Road car park.

4 4 Scenario 4 Multiple applications same time, bundled by stages. These are four separate applications for the four stages of the project. Stage 1A this is an application relating to a non-complying activity; potentially this application will be limited notified. Lees Road car park, kiosk and central walkway given the interest in this stage, it is proposed that this application for consent be publicly notified. If it is accepted by the consent authority that the car park and kiosk are accessory to the walkways, this will be for a discretionary activity; otherwise, a non-complying activity. Stage 1B this is an application relating to a discretionary activity; potentially the application for this consent will be limited notified. Stage 1C this is a consent for a discretionary activity; potentially the application for this consent will be non-notified. Of all the options, this most fully allows for progression of the project by stages, and, independent progression of easier parts of the project, such as Stage 1A. If consenting for other stages (for example, the Lees Road works) becomes problematic, completion of Stage 1A can be progressed independently. We can compare estimated consenting costs for each scenario. The estimated consenting cost for Scenario 1 is $246,000; for Scenarios 2 and 3, $253,700; For Scenario 4, $263,100. The cost of any of these options can be met within the project budget. On the above analysis, the preferred option is Scenario 4, the lodgement of four separate applications for consents required for the four stages of the project. 5 Recommendation(s) That the Thames-Coromandel District Council: 1. Receives the 'Resource Consent Applications for Te Ara o Hei (Coromandel Walks) Project' report, dated 24 August Approves the lodgement of four separate applications for consents required for the four stages of Te Ara o Hei (Coromandel Walks) project. References-Tabled/Agenda Attachments Attachment A: Map illustrating project stages - Te Ara o Hei.

5 Attachment A Te Ara o Hei (Coromandel Walks) Project - Map August