ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

In reply, please quote reference 8 June 2016 ENV-2016-AKL-000082I

t-1 __________

David Saunders 49 Melanesia Road Kohimarama 20 2016 Auckland 1071 mes-orom ndel Di iE-M No-

Dear David Saunders & Mike Slater

Council

Saunders & Slater v Thames-Coromandel District Council

Topic(s): Thames-Coromandel Proposed District Plan - Master topic

I acknowledge receipt on 8 June 2016 of: - Appeal By Submitter On Proposed Policy Statement Or Plan pursuant to

Clause 14 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 one additional copy of the above

- filing fee of $511.11

The Court has accepted your application subject to the following: - Receipt of two hard copies of the relevant decision/parts of the decision

I look forward to receiving from you written notice to the Court of the name, address and date of service for each party served with the application. Please note that service of the application cannot be waived.

Please note that your notice of appeal does not contain the following advice note, as required by Form 7 of the Resource Management (Forms, Fees, and Procedure) Regulations 2003 (enclosed):

Advice to recipients of copy of notice of appeal How to become party to proceedings You may be a party to the appeal if you made a submission or a further submission on the matter of this appeal. To become a party to the appeal, you must,— within 15 working days after the period for lodging a notice of appeal

o ends, lodge a notice of your wish to be a party to the proceedings (inform 33) with the Environment Court and serve copies of your notice on the relevant local authority and the appellant; and

o within 20 working days after the period for lodging a notice of appeal ends, serve copies of your notice on all other parties.

Your right to be a party to the proceedings in the court may be limited by the trade competition provisions in section 274(1) and Part 1 1A of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Environment Court of New Zealand Level 2, 41 Federal Street, Auckland I Cxl 0086, P0 Box 7147, Auckland 1010 I New Zealand

Phone: (09) 9169091 Fax: (09) 916 9090

You may apply to the Environment Court under section 281 of the Resource Management Act 1991 for a waiver of the above timing or service requirements (see form 38).

*How to obtain copies of documents relating to appeal The copy of this notice served on you does not attach a copy of the appellant's submission and (or or) the decision (or part of the decision) appealed. These documents may be obtained, on request, from the appellant.

Advice If you have any questions about this notice, contact the Environment Court in Auckland, Wellington, or Christchurch.

Accordingly, you are required to provide those persons upon whom you must serve your notice of appeal with the above advice note so they are aware of how they may become a party to your appeal. Please provide me with a copy of your advice note.

These proceedings will not progress until you have attended to the above. After that the matter will be referred to an Environment Judge for their initial consideration.

Case Management The Environment Court operates a caseflow management system for all proceedings filed with it. The Court will supervise or manage the time and events involved in the life of this case, from the time it is filed, to the time it is disposed of. Initially a copy of this appeal will be referred to an Environment Judge shortly after its filing for assignment to a case track. What is a case track?

The Court specifically manages the flow of cases through a Case Tracking system, of which there are three distinct management tracks. They are:

Standard: This management track will include most s.120 appeals, non-urgent enforcement proceedings and other miscellaneous proceedings. The Court will typically issue standard directions to the parties, with an emphasis on avoiding unnecessary court appearances at the interlocutory stage and a hearing within six months of commencement. Priority: This track is for the more urgent cases, such as urgent enforcement proceedings; also appeals that the Court considers require priority resolution, or matters for which more intense case management is required. Parties On-Hold: Cases will be placed onto this track (unless the managing Judge otherwise directs) in circumstances where parties advise that they are not actively seeking a hearing to (for example) negotiate or mediate. Where your case has not already been assigned to a case track then the Managing Judge will allocate your case to a specific track and you will be notified of this by way of separate correspondence.

LIST OF PARTIES Lodgement: ENV-2016-AKL-000082 Saunders & Slater Thames-Coromandel

District Council Initiator Saunders, David David Saunders, 49 Melanesia Road, Kohimarama,

Auckland 1071 shadavegmail.com

Initiator Slater, Mike Mike Slater, 49 Melanesia Road, Kohimarama, Auckland 1071 shadave©gmail.com

Respondent Thames-Coromandel Andrew Green, Brookfields, P 0 Box 240 / DX District Council CP241 34, Shortland Street, Auckland 1140

green@brookfields.co.nz Respondent Thames-Coromandel Brenda Milo, Brookfields Lawyers - Auckland, P0 Box

District Council 240, Shortland Street, DX CP24134, Auckland 1010 milo@brookfields.co.nz

Respondent Thames-Coromandel Jen Vella, Berry Simons, P0 Box 3144, Auckland 1140 District Council jen@simonberry.co.nz

Respondent Thames-Coromandel Kate Storer, BerrySimons, P0 Box 3144, Auckland District Council 1140

Kate@berrysimons.co.nz Respondent Thames-Coromandel Lisa Madgwick, Thames-Coromandel District Council,

District Council Private Bag 1001, Thames lisa. madgwick©tcdc.govt. nz

Respondent Thames-Coromandel Mr Simon Berry, P0 Box 3144, Shortland Street, District Council AUCKLAND

simon©berrysimons.co. nz

ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND Information about the Environment Court and its procedures can be found on the Ministry of Justice web site (http://www.justice.govt.nz) and is also available from the Ministry for the Environment (hftp://www.mfe.govt.nz).

Please direct any correspondence or enquiries to myself as Case Manager for this matter and note the above Court reference.

Kind regards

Alice McIntosh Case Manager ENVIRONMENT COURT E-mail address: Alice. Mclntoshjustice.govt. nz

Environment Court of New Zealand Level 2, 41 Federal Street, Auckland I CX10086, P0 Box 7147, Auckland 1010 I New Zealand

Phone: (09) 9169091 1 Fax: (09) 916 9090

Form 7

Notice of appeal to Environment Court against decision on proposed policy

statement or plan or change or variation

Clause 14(1) of Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991

To the Registrar

Environment Court

Auckland

1. We, David Saunders and Mike Slater, appeal against parts of a decision of the Thames- Coromandel District Council on the following plan:

. Thames Coromandel District Plan

2. We made submissions on the Proposed Thames Coromandel District Plan. Our submission numbers are 56.1 and 12.1.

3. We are not a trade competitor for the purposes of section 308D of the Resource Management Act 1991.

4. The decisions of the Thames-Coromandel District Council were publically notified on 29 April 2016. We were not provided notice of these decisions, but became aware of the decisions from the Pauanui Community Office in May 2016.

5. The decision was made by the Thames-Coromandel District Council.

6. Those parts of the decision that we are appealing are:

(a) Section 28 Airfield Height and Noise Overlay that relate to: L Rule 28.3 Airfield Height; and

ii. Rule 28.4 Pauanui Airfield Amenity Yard

(b) Overlay Map 29M, Pauanui Airfield

(c) Any associated provisions

Notice of appeal by David Saunders and Mike Slater to the Thames Coromandel District Plan

7. The reasons for the appeal are as follows:

(a) Clause 28.1.2 'Pauanui Airfield amenity setbacks obstacle limitation surfaces' in

the Proposed Thames Coromandel District Plan sets out the purpose of Rule

28.3.1 (Table 1)1 and Rule 28.4 Pauanui Airfield Amenity Yard. The dual purpose of the two rules can summarised as:

I. to prevent obstacles impacting on aircraft; and

ii. to retain views and open space amenity for residents on the north side of

the Pauanui Airfield.

(b) The section 42A report2 and the Hearings Panel Recommended Decisions Report3

confirm that method(s) to achieve both purposes are required.

(C) Applying Rule 28.3.1 (Table 1) from the runway strip does not retain views and

open space amenity for residents on the north side of the Pauanui Airfield. If the

rule is to achieve this purpose, it must be applied from the boundary of the airfield

rather than the runway strip. This is consistent with the Operative District Plan,

where the equivalent rule is applied from the boundary of the airfield.

(d) Rule 28.4 'Pauanui Airfield Amenity Yard' specifically recognises and retains views

and open space amenity for residents on the north side of the Pauanui Airfield.

This rule applies to the residential properties and is a 12m yard measured from

the boundary with the airfield. Deleting this rule and the associated notation on Overlay Map 29M fails to provide for the views and open space amenity for

residents on the north side of the Pauanui Airfield.

(e) Contrary to the explanation provided in the decision 4, Rule 28.3.1 (Table 1) and

Rule 28.4 are not an equally appropriate method as they result in a different

outcome. The decision appears to overtook that Rule 28.3.1 (Table 1) is applied

from the runway strip. The difference in outcome is shown in the diagram included

in the section 42A report, and this diagram is reproduced below.

1 Transitional side surface gradient from the sides of the runway strip as it applies to Pauanui Airfield being 1:5 until the maximum building height standard of the underlying zone is reached 2 Section 28, Paragraphs 4 - 10

Paragraphs 5.5 and 5.6 Recommended decision report 22, paragraphs 5.5 and 5.6

Notice of appeal by David Saunders and Mike Slater to the Thames Coromandel District Plan

1:5 obstace rn:taUon surface from strip

Oera tvo P n 1:5 oostace 'aton

- surface from boundary

rare -

2 n ---

2m

Pnvate Property •

Pauanu: A:rf:ea

8. We seek the following relief:

(a) amend 28.3.1 (Table 1) Airfield Height for Pauanui Airfield to apply from the boundary of the airfield and not the runway strip; and/or

(b) reinstate Rule 28.4 Pauanui Airfield Amenity Yard and make consequential amendments to Overlay Map 29M, Pauanui Airfield; and/or

(c) any such other relief to address the reasons for my appeal.

9. We attach the following documents to this notice:

(a) a copy of our submissions (Attachment A) (b) a list of names and addresses of persons to be served with a copy of this notice

(Attachment B).

David aunders

person authorised to sign on behalf of the appellants

- Date

3 Notice of appeal by David Saunders and Mike Slater to the Thames Coromandel District Plan

Address

David S

49 Melar

Kohimar

Aucklan

Teephoi

027 72&

Email:

shadave

4

Attachmi

Copies

5 Plan

Proposed District Plan from Saunders, David Submission 56

otroduction

are in eaten a a n : Prooued

2 . 5 P o ' ; EnS

a P r o p o s e c c : ° e - e . . :r::

n i ' SuormrtHq DO E f l t S a

Prvacy Statement

Far ait -eoc,:as:te

Subrnnter Details a David

N z , — Saadera

an 49 M & a r a a e Road Kohimararna

C aw Zealand P - : a 1071

- 027 72858 027 723415t

shadavefme,com

C

roSo•ne C

C

File

District plan submission

Page 151

DISTRICT PLAN SUBMISSION

Referring to Section 28. 1.1 and 28.1.1 of the Proposed District Plan

Historically all residents on the Northern Boundary of the Pauanui Airfield have had to comply with a 1:5 height restriction, measured from the Airfield side Boundary ie boundary fence, and extending back 45m. This was for the dual purpose of protecting the Airfield for future night operations and, more importantly, to ensure existing property amenity levels.

Due to Council errors or oversights on 3 occasions in Ocean Air Drive, this rule has been overlooked causing already 3 infringments to the "Existing Amenity Levels," which has had a negative effect on all of us residents adjoining the Airfied to the North.

Therefore Due to: 1. The potential development of the 3 remaining properties on Ocean Air Drive 21 , 27. 29 to build two storey /8m high houses, only 12m from the Airfield Boundary. and 2. Existing home owners to lift their homes to two stories

The District Plan should retain the current 1:5 height rule for 45m to truly protect the "Existing Amenity Levels," currently enjoyed by the existing ratepayers, who have built with a reasonable expectation, that this rule would remain enforced.

This also effects the properties on the Northern side of Braddock Drive which have already been built two stories .this being high enough to enjoy ocean views down the runway. Their views would be adversely affected as well as their rateable value by a change in the height restriction. Allowing 2 story (8m) houses in the runway properties.

Submission 56

Page 162

District Plan from Slater, Mike

Submission 12 t r o d ocdon

P r o p o s e d Dstrt

P r o p o s e d D s o c t -

CS S u p o r t d o . o c u m o n t s H -

-

M y C o n s u l t a t i o n P o i n t s s d c s s - - - o r , --

P r i v e c v Statement

S u b m t t e r Cetais -10 Mike

Sister /6 Taranaki Road

S (ohirnerame C okiand

New Zealand 107

021747310 021747310

mikee la te rda ,o hotmaUcom

( ; e C

c :oe:

C

File

District plan submission

DISTRICT PLAN SUBMISSION

Referring to Section 28. 1.1 and 28. 1.1 of the Proposed District Plan

Historically all residents on the Northern Boundary of the Pauanui Airfield have had to comply with a 1:5 height restriction, measured from the Airfield side Boundary ie boundary fence, and extending back 45m. This was for the duel purpose of protecting the Airfield for future night operations and more importantly to ensure existing property amenity levels. (1 have this in writing from the Pauanui/Tirua Area Manager.) Due to Council errors or oversights on 3 occasions in Ocean Air Drive this rule has been overlooked causing already 3 iafringments on the "Existing Amenity Levels," which has had a negative effect on all of us.

Therefore Due to: 1. The potential development of the 3 remaining properties on Ocean Air Drive 21 , 27 29 to build two storey /8m high houses, only 12m from the Airfield Boundary. and 2. Existing home owners to lift their homes to two stories

The District Plan should retain the current 1:5 height rule for 45m to truly protect the "Existing Amenity Levels," currently enjoyed by the existing ratepayers, who have built with a reasonable expectation, that this rule would remain enforced.

This also effects the properties on the Northern side of Braddock Drive which have already been built two stories ,this being high enough to enjoy ocean views down the runway. Their views would be adversely affected as well as their rateable value by a change in the height restriction. Allowing 2 story (8m) houses in the runway properties.

Submission 12

Page 33

Attachment B

List of names and addresses5 of persons to be served with a copy of this notice

Name Address

Thames-Coromandel District Council Private Bag 1001 Thames 3540

Mike and Sandra Morrison RD Hikuai 3579

Pauanui Community Office P0 Box 89 Pauanui Beach

Tairua-Pauanui Community Board Private Bag Thames

LD and S Morris Family Trust 3 Scott Road HobsonviUe 0618 -

As detailed in each o f the submissions

Notice of appeal by David Saunders and Mike Slater to the Thames Coromandel District Plan