Jan 22: Last days to give Feedback on District Plan- Council proposing to increase height of buildings allowed in Raglan’s Bow Street area

We also ask that further consultation be done before the plan is published, especially as the phrase ‘under review‘ occurs over 150 times in the Plan, including Raglan Town Centre Character Statement, Buildings near the coast, Minimum site area and Rural area building height. The Plan is clearly missing large sections and, on the website, is very difficult to load, to read and to compare with the existing plan, even to the extent that staff struggled with it at the open days. No printed versions have been made available. Some of the posters at the open days were misleading; for example the policy on verandahs was said to be changed, yet the wording of 23.49.1 is virtually identical to the draft policy. Furthermore, the consultation has taken place over Raglan’s busiest period, when many have been too busy to consider it.

There seems no logic to support a ban in Tamahere, but not in Raglan (where Raglan Naturally in 2001 made clear community views), for –

• large format retail or warehousing

• drive-through services.

No attempt is made to address the problem of affordable housing in Raglan, which will only be worsened by having as permitted activity the creation of – “home stay that provides accommodation for no more than 4 temporary residents”.

Cycling is mentioned frequently in the Rangitahi section of the Plan, but hardly anywhere else. A consistent approach to cycling (and also to walking and public transport) is needed as part of a solution to the problems of parking, climate change and health. Ideally this would be part of a structure plan for each urban area. The Plan should also consider sites for micro hydro and other renewable energy, as well as expanding the renewable energy sections, applied to Rangitahi, to the rest of the Plan.

A definition and policies are needed, rather than the vague objective, “Subdivision, land use and development in Raglan should contribute to and enhance its character as a small coastal village including by: • being of a scale and intensity consistent with serving local economic needs.” As it stands, the Plan is unlikely to achieve this objective.

One such policy should regulate protection of views, as, for example, with Auckland’s protection of volcanic viewshafts. Sea and other views add many thousands of dollars to the value of properties. The protection of these property rights of existing ratepayers should take precedence over new rights of developers. Developers should need to get written agreement from neighbours that the development doesn’t concern them as regards lost views, unless it consists of native planting to protect land from erosion, hides unsightly development (such as Nihinihi Ave from Wainamu Beach), or it is apparent that views will not be affected significantly.

Ridgeline policy appears to be one of those under review. It should be strengthened.

The tree policy is also under review. Tree protection is clearly inadequate, as unauthorised removal of listed trees by council has shown. Trees are important for landscape, nature and carbon storage. Large trees should all be protected.

WED believes that the Residential and Reserve Zone Rules allowing that, “earthworks do not disturb more than 1,000m² within a site in a single calendar year” is too high.

The rules on permeable surfaces and water storage need to be considered as part of the stormwater plan. They too are ‘under review’.

J13 “Proposed SH23 realignment, Raglan Deviation near Four Brothers Scenic Reserve” appears to be outdated. It dates from 2002, but the current focus is on safety improvements.

If you’d like to see an easier to read version of WDC’s draft plan, look at the Google document WED’s created from it. It misses out most of the paragraph numbering, but has links to the main sections of relevance to Whaingaroa and can be searched much more readily than the version on WDC’s website.