Coastal Subdivision Ruled Out

The recent decision of the Environment Court in Te Whakaruru Limited v Thames Coromandel District Council (W086/08) highlights emerging issues with coastal development and represents a significant watermark in the efforts of TCDC to control coastal development within its district.

The case involved a proposed 4 lot subdivision of a 13 Ha coastally zoned block at the northern end of Tairua, on the lower slopes of Pumpkin Hill.  The block had been previously subject to a conservation lot subdivision, and the proposal involved further conservation of native bush, as well as a significant amount of revegetation and animal and plant pest control.  The proposed subdivision was a non-complying activity.

The proposal was for 4 house sites largely running along a ridge, with one property aligned towards the south, and a further three aligned to the east.  The southern aligned site would be partially visible from Tairua, and the others would only be seen from the ocean.

The Court considered the relevant provisions of the proposed District Plan, and determined that the proposal was not inconsistent with the relevant objectives and policies.  While some of the provisions sought to restrict coastal subdivision outside of specifically identified areas, this was offset by other provisions designed to achieve biodiversity and environmental enhancement.

Accordingly, the matter came down to the simple question: were the environmental enhancements proposed sufficient to offset the visual impact of the proposed subdivision?  The Court concluded that the answer to that question, was "no", citing the following relevant considerations:

1. The position of proposed houses along the ridge would have the appearance of dominating the coastal landform as seen from the sea, and would "domesticate" the landscape.
2. The development would have the effect of "joining the dots" between Tairua and low density coastal subdivision to the north of the site.
3. The fact that the only a relatively small number of people (ie those in boats) would have views of the proposed development did not detract from the Court's concerns about amenity impacts.
4. The proposed environmental enhancements were overstated, in that it was unlikely that the land proposed to be covenanted would ever be cleared or grazed, and would continue to regenerate without specific legal protection, and the land itself was insufficiently large in area to merit a four lot subdivision.
5. While there were no specific "precedent effect" concerns, the Court did recognise that the District's coastline is under significant development pressure, and that granting consent would give rise to an increased public expectation that coastally zoned land can be subdivided well below the minimum lot size specified in the District Plan (20 Ha).

Broadly, the decision can be seen as one which strongly supports the Council's existing development controls, albeit identifying the need for those controls to be strengthened in the future by links to clear objectives and policies.

Click here for pdf copy of this article.

If you have any questions, please contact us.

Our Environment/Resource Management Partners are:

Last updated: 15 December 2008

This article is intended to be brief in nature and should be used for information only. It should not be relied on as legal advice.