Royal Forest and Bird Protection
Society of New Zealand Inc.
Northern Regional Office:
34A Charlotte Street
PO Box 108 055, Symonds Street,
Auckland 1150, New Zealand
P: +64 9 302 0203
F: +64 9 303 4548
www.forestandbird.org.nz
TO:
FROM:
Auckland Unitary Plan Feedback Team,
Auckland Council,
Freepost 237170,
Private Bag 92300,
Auckland 1142
Royal Forest and Bird Protection
Society of New Zealand Inc.
Northern Regional Office:
34A Charlotte Street
PO Box 108 055, Symonds Street,
Auckland 1150, New Zealand
Attn: Dr Mark Bellingham
m.bellingham@forestandbird.org.nz
SUBMISSION ON THE DRAFT AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN
Forest & Bird was established 90 years ago and has contributed to regional and local planning, and nature conservation in Auckland for much of that time. The Society
represents 25,000 supporters in the region and owns a number of nature reserves that are open to the public.
The Society generally supports the provisions for nature conservation in the plan and the need to direct Auckland's growth so that it both provides for ecologically
sustainable growth while minimising on-going significant and permanent damage to the natural environment.
We find parts of the plan do not meet these ecologically sustainable growth tests;
 Particularly the poorly constructed policies and rules for the coastal environment.
 The failure to address the predicted sea level rise across the whole region (that is required by the NZ Coastal Policy Statement). The latter will add significant
costs to development in Auckland, on roads, sewers, stormwater and water supply infrastructure. But the wider spatial effects will be most profound in the 90%
of Auckland that in non-urban, where land areas of land have been reclaimed around the Kaipara and Manukau Harbours.
As is the New Zealand planning tradition, the plan fails to address how the objectives and policies in the plan will be monitored and the processes for this.
We have commented a narrow range of matters relating to the Society's core interests. We support the EDS submissions on other related matters.
The following pages outline the changes sought to the draft Unitary Plan.
2.4.3.4 BIODIVERSITY
2.4.3.4 Biodiversity
2.4.3.4
Objective1
2.4.3.4
Objective2
2.4.3.4
Objective3
Support
Oppose
This objective recognises the HGMPA
and WRHAA. However, the word
‘promoted’ is weak and fails to give
effect to the above legislation This
objective is not carried through into the
policies. It is unclear therefore how it will
be implemented.
2.4.3.4
P1
Support in part
2.4.3.4
P2
Support in part
The criteria for identifying significant
biodiversity are supported.
Forest & Bird suggests that regard should
be had to the pNPSIB which sets out five
categories which are regarded as
significant.
Forest & Bird supports the intention to
identify other areas that contribute to
biodiversity or ecosystem services.
2.4.3.4
P6
Support in part
Support
Forest & Bird supports the requirement
to avoid adverse effects on these areas.
However currently this policy – applying
to significant indigenous biodiversity – is
(in some respects) weaker than Policy 7
which applies to other biodiversity. This
The protection and restoration of
natural heritage features of the
Waitākere Ranges heritage area and
the Hauraki Gulf/Te Moana Nui o
Toi/Tīkapa Moana is promoted.
The insertion of specific policies and
methods implementing these pieces
of legislation.
Consider including the five categories
set out in the pNPSIB.
Address the incomplete utilisation of
policy 11 of the NZCPS.
Amend as set out in reasons.
2.4.3.4
P7
Support in part
2.4.3.4
P8
Support in part
2.4.3.4
P9
Support in part
2.4.3.4
P10
Support in part
2.4.3.4
P11
Support in part
is because policy 6(b) and (c) – allow
adverse effects to be mitigated or offset
– whereas policy 7 does not allow
remediation, mitigation or offsetting of
significant adverse effects.
This policy is also inconsistent with the
NZCPS: Paragraph (a)(ii) relates to policy
11(a)(vi) of the NZCPS which requires all
adverse effects to be avoided.
Forest & Bird supports the requirement
for significant adverse effects to be
avoided and other adverse effects to be
avoided, remedied, mitigated or offset.
Forest & Bird suggests that the ‘no net
loss’ concept must be applied to all
indigenous biodiversity (not just
significant indigenous biodiversity) to
enable the Council to achieve its
function of maintaining indigenous
biodiversity.
This policy lists a number of adverse
effects on indigenous biodiversity which
are “to be avoided”.
Forest & Bird considers that it needs to
be clearer that this relates to
maintaining existing activities.
Forest & Bird support this policy which
recognises the impact of kauri die back
disease and gives effect to policy 12
NZCPS.
Forest & Bird supports the general
intent of the policy directing avoidance
of clearance or damage. Forest & Bird
Apply the no net loss concept in this
policy.
Amend to clarify what this policy
intends.
Amend as set out in reasons.
Add a new paragraph to apply to any
pests that may arise during the 10
year lifetime of the
Amend to encourage the use of
transferable development rights
where “loss is unavoidable to create
2.4.3.4
P12
2.4.3.4
P13
Support in part
2.4.3.4
P14
Support in part
2.4.3.4
P15
Support
2.4.3.4
P16
Support
2.4.3.4
P17
Oppose in part
2.4.3.4 Biodiversity Policies 18
Oppose in part
recognises the need to provide for
reasonable use of land where a site has
been created that has SEA.
Support
a single building platform per site”.
Enhancement is necessary to achieve
the identified objectives. However,
Forest & Bird considers that habitat
creation for all indigenous species
should be promoted where appropriate.
This policy is generally supported,
however there are some
inconsistencies. Forest & Bird contends
that all adverse effects which are more
than minor should be avoided.
Forest & Bird supports the specific
recognition of the need to avoid
cumulative effects.
Forest & Bird supports this policy which
recognises the very high values of SEAMarine 1.
Forest & Bird considers that “no
significant adverse effect” is too high a
bar. Forest & Bird also considers that
both the existing structure and the
extension or alteration must have
minimal adverse effects.
Livestock have no place in the CMA and
this activity is contrary to Policies
2.4.3.4.1, 2, 6, 7,.8,.
Provide for promotion of habitat
creation.
Amend to clarify that adverse effects
which are more than minor should
be avoided.
“the existing structure has no
significant adverse effect on the
values and ecological and physical
processes operating in the SEAMarine that is more than minor”
Avoid the following activities:
a. disturbance of the foreshore and
seabed and damage to vegetation
and habitat from livestock in the
CMA
2.4.3.4 Biodiversity Policies 19
Oppose in part
The descriptions in Appendix 6.1 are
vague in many cases and do not asign
what values are significant.
2.4.3.4 Biodiversity Policies 21
Oppose
The descriptions in Appendix 6.1 are
vague in many cases and do not asign
what values are significant.
Avoid mangrove removal within any
SEA-Marine 1 or 2 where it will
threaten the viability or significance
of the ecological values identified in
Appendix 6.1 for the SEA-Marine.
Provide for mangrove seedling
removal in SEA-Marine 1 areas that
do not have significant values
associated with mangroves recorded
in Appendix 6.1
2.7 COASTAL ENVIRONMENT
Sustainably managing our natural resources
Freshwater
5.21 Forest & Bird considers that this section is poorly structured and does not follow the NPSFM framework.
(a) There are aspects of the NPSFM which are not clearly covered by the RPS:
(b) protecting the quality of outstanding freshwater bodies (Objective A2),
(c) protecting the significant values of wetlands (Objective A2 and B4),
(d) improving the quality of freshwater in water bodies that have been degraded by human activities to the point of being over-allocated (Objective A2).
5.22 There is a strong focus on methods to avoid over-allocation, however, there is little mention of the need to first establish freshwater objectives and set freshwater
quality limits and environmental flows for all freshwater bodies. Forest & Bird requests amendments to address this.
Sustainably managing our coastal environment
5.23 This section protects the life supporting capacity of coastal ecosystems and the social, economic and cultural values of the coastal environment.
5.24 The section contains good principles relating to the management and protection of the Hauraki Gulf, in accordance with the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act.
However, whilst it is recognised that the Hauraki Gulf supports unique and important values to which the council must pay special attention, the Auckland region also
includes the west coast, which is also an iconic and valuable environment which should be protected. The draft does not currently include adequate provision for
management of the west coast. Many of the provisions in the draft which relate only to the protection of the Hauraki Gulf should apply to the west coast as well.
5.25 Forest & Bird is also concerned that objectives and policies in relation to the management of coastal water quality are too weak. It is recognised that in many cases
water quality issues are complex and expensive issues to resolve (for example in relation to the upgrading of the stormwater network). However, Policy 21 of the NZCPS
provides clear direction that councils should identify areas with poor water quality and prioritise improving those areas. Forest & Bird considers that the RPS should
provide clear direction that areas with poor water quality are to be identified and improved as a matter of priority.
Section No
2.7.1Objective1
Support/
Oppose
Support in part
2.7.1Objective2
Support in part
2.7.1P1
Support
Reasons
This objective recognises the
importance of protecting and enhancing
the life supporting capacity of
ecosystems but it does not include
other key matters set out in Objective 1
of the New Zealand Coastal Policy
Statement to which the council is
required to give effect. Notably, these
include maintaining or enhancing
natural biological and physical
processes, protecting representative or
significant natural ecosystems and sites
of biological importance and
maintaining the diversity of New
Zealand’s indigenous coastal flora and
fauna
This policy proves that the social,
economic and cultural values of the
coastal environment are protected by
maintaining, and where possible,
enhancing water quality.
This policy provides that the
intensification of use and
development should be avoided
where it will have a significant adverse
effect on areas identified as having
Decision Sought (or words to like
effect)
Amend to include these matters
Amend to include reference to
protecting ecosystem and habitat
values, delete ‘where possible’ and
add ‘where it is degraded’ at the end
of the sentence.
high biodiversity and ecological value.
2.7.1P2
Support
2.7.1P3
Support in part
2.7.3Objective5
Support in part
2.7.3P3
Support in part
2.7.3P6
Support in part
This policy provides that subdivision,
use and development in the coastal
environment should be provided for in
an integrated manner. Where these
activities are appropriate, Forest &
Bird supports this policy.
This policy provides for the
management of the discharge of
contaminants into the coastal
environment but the reference to
‘where practicable’ is not consistent
with the requirements of the NZCPS
which requires that adverse effects of
activities on the areas identified be
avoided.
The term ‘supported’ is far too vague
and should be replaced with provisions
which refer to the creation and good
management of marine protected areas.
It is appropriate that this provision
requires recognition of the
interconnectedness of the gulf and the
consequent need to assess applications
for use and development in this context.
It is important that an effective network
of conservation and protected areas
covering land and sea is created, but the
term ‘support’ is weak and unclear.
Remove the phrase ‘where
practicable’ from the
Replace term ‘supported’ with term
‘created’ and add additional
sentence “Marine protected areas
are managed to protect and enhance
the ecosystem values of those
areas.”
Insert ‘applications for’ after ‘require’
Replace ‘support’ with ‘provide’
PART 3 REGIONAL AND DISTRICT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
3.2.5 COASTAL ZONES
3.2.5.1 Coastal zones
 We support the inclusion of objectives and policies giving effect to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act and recognising the need to protect the Hauraki Gulf’s
unique values. However, we are concerned that this special attention should not be at the expense of the west coast, which also retains important natural
values. As currently drafted there are a number of objectives and policies in relation to the Hauraki Gulf (set out below) which should be extended to cover
Auckland’s entire marine area.

The objectives and policies in relation to certain activities in the coastal environment are unduly weighted in favour of economic development and arbitrary
clearance of mangroves, without reflecting on the failure of sediment management in catchments causing coastal deposition and shallowing of intertidal areas
(where mangroves can grow). The policy setting out the need for a precautionary approach to the coastal environment appropriately recognises the absence of
complete information about the effects of mangrove clearance and other activities like offshore mining, but appears to equate precaution with adaptive
management.

The poor protection of the CMA is a major step backwards, as stock grazing and stock access to the CMA is allowed and the plan provides for clearance of
significant wildlife habitat as a permitted activity, even within SEA Marine 2 areas. This is the provision for mangrove clearance across large parts of the region,
without any rationale, except that the marine SEAs fail to comprehensively address significant areas in the CMA and identify these areas.
Most of the Marine SEAs come from the 1985 Auckland Regional Planning Scheme, with minimal changes. Potential SEAs, such as the Kaipara seagrass beds
(identified by NIWA for ARC in 2004 fail to make the cut) yet these are the nursury areas for 98% of the west coast North Id snapper stock!
The Marine SEAs also fail to recognise that with 100year sea level rise predictions (NZCPS policies 24 & 25) that most of the regions saltmarshes and much of the
mangroves will be under water, along with the habitat and refuge they provide for wildlife forced into this zone by habitat loss on the land e.g bittern, banded
rail, fernbird


The information relating section 3.2.5.1 Background is factually incorrect, Forest & Bird seek the following changes:
Mangroves are a valuable part of coastal ecosystems and perform an important role in trapping sediment and contaminants and in mitigating coastal
erosion. However, in some areas mangroves have been spreading and are having an adverse effect on other use and values of the coast. A key factor contributing
to their spread is the level of sediment entering the CMA from catchments, both from past and current land use, and cumulatively over time. Another factor is
mangroves spreading to recover their natural range after being reduced in extent by stock grazing. Mangroves have increased significantly in some areas with
poor catchment management. With increasing urbanisation and use of coastal areas this has resulted in demands for mangroves to be able to be removed back
to an extent that existed at a earlier point in time when the CMA was grazed and there was less shallow mangrove habitat in the CMA.
Mangroves can affect access, navigation, views, amenity values and the ongoing safe use and function of structures, infrastructure and drainage systems. In
some areas mangrove spread has resulted in mangroves dominating over other habitat types as they recover their natural range and reducing biodiversity.
Removal may be appropriate to address some limited issues. As the coast is predominantly public commons, mangrove removal should be for the purpose of
maintaining biodiversity or to provide for public use and benefit, rather than for private property gain or enhancement. In some areas plans have been developed
for the management of the land-sea interface. These include existing coastal compartment plans, comprehensive coastal management plans, area plans, reserve
management plans and integrated catchment management plans. Mangrove removal proposals, and initiatives to reduce sediment inputs, should take into
account the strategic direction provided by any plan adopted for the area. With increasing sea level rise mangrove extent over the region is likely to decrease.
Removal activities disturb and damage the foreshore and seabed and can have adverse effects on water quality from the release of sediment and contaminants.
Removal can also affect ecological values, including on native and migratory bird species, particularly during breeding and feeding times. At the same time
mangrove spread can have localised effects on wading bird feeding and roosting areas and removal may be appropriate where there are no alternative roost
sites. As areas have different use and values, and are subject to varying natural processes of wind, wave and tide, the effects of mangrove removal will differ
between locations. The most appropriate method of removal and disposal of removed mangroves will also differ between sites. Mangrove removal should must
be accompanied by initiatives to address the long-term issue of mangrove spread by reducing the amount of sediment entering the CMA, as sediment that settles
in upper estuaries and harbours creates an environment where mangrove habitat s can successfully establish and spread. The long-term maintenance of cleared
areas needs to be provided for if they are to remain free of mangroves in the long-term. Mangrove seedlings can quickly re-colonise areas if they are not removed
on an on-going basis. Sediment may also move from cleared areas over time and result in mangrove stumps needing to be cut back to the new seabed level to
maintain the safe use of cleared areas.
Section No
3.2.5.1.1 Objective 4
Support/
Oppose
Oppose
3.2.5.1.1 Policy 2
Oppose in part
Reasons
Decision Sought (or words to like effect)
Contrary to case law. Arbitrary
baselines for mangrove clearance have
been rejected by the Environment
Court (Mangawhai Harbour
Restoration Soc. vs NRC 2012)
An AEE should be required when
disturbance and clearance activities are
Delete Obj 4
Encourage Require an assessment of
sediment inputs in the area and
proposed, as this covers SEA areas also.
3.2.5.1.1 Policy 3
Oppose in part
This policy needs to apply to seedlings
only
3.2.5.1.1 Policy 4
Oppose
3.2.5.1.1 Policy 6
Oppose in part
Contrary to case law. Arbitrary
baselines for mangrove clearance have
been rejected by the Environment
Court (Mangawhai Harbour
Restoration Soc. vs NRC 2012)
Provides no clear guidance as to
outcomes and will result in more
significant CMA clearance as nonnotified activities.
promote catchment initiatives to
reduce sediment and nutrient inputs
when mangrove removal activities are
proposed.
Provide for mangrove and seedling
removal where mangroves have spread
and the proposed removal is necessary
to enable, maintain, restore or
enhance:
Delete Policy 4
Delete subclause (e)
6. Require mangrove removal to:
e. take an adaptive management
approach for mangrove removal and
disposal where a significant area of
removal is proposed and there is
uncertainty over the extent of adverse
effects
PART 4 RULES
4.3 6 Coastal Zone Rules
1.4 Activity Table Disturbance and extraction




The plan is excessively permissive in terms of allowing unnecessary damage and disturbance to the CMA.
Livestock need to be prohibited from the CMA, this is general standard practice for most regional councils as it recognises the long-term and cumulative damage
to coastal ecosystems from on-going livestock access to this public land.
There is no particular rationale for allowing disturbance of SEAs to clear mangroves (except for some irrational hatred of indigenous vegetation and natural
processes occurring in SEAs).
The areas for mangrove control are excessive as current practice has not required any ecological assessment of the need to remove mangroves, as these are
processeda s non-notified applications even when the effects are significant and contrary to the plan policies.
Forest & Bird seeks the following changes to the activity status of the following below:
Activity table – General Coastal Marine zone, SEA-M and ONF overlays
General
Coastal
Marine
Zone
SEA-M1
SEA-M2
ONF -Type
A1 and A
ONF Type V1,
V2, B, C,
D, E, F
Pr
Pr
Pr
Pr
Pr
Pr
Pr
Pr
Pr
Pr
C
D
D
D
D
Disturbance and extraction (s. 12(1) and 12(2(b)) RMA)
Livestock access to the CMA not otherwise provided for
Livestock access to the CMA (other than for droving and horse riding)
adjacent to intensively grazed production land after (date five years
post-notification)
Mangrove and seedling removal

not in a marine reserve

in SEA-M1 only in areas listed in Appendix 6.5 or Appendix 6.6
Activity table – General Coastal Marine zone, SEA-M and ONF overlays
General
Coastal
Marine
Zone
SEA-M1
SEA-M2
ONF -Type
A1 and A
ONF Type V1,
V2, B, C,
D, E, F
Pr
Pr
Pr
Pr
Pr
Pr
Pr
Pr
Pr
Pr
P
D
C
C
C
Disturbance and extraction (s. 12(1) and 12(2(b)) RMA)
Mangrove removal (other than seedlings) from an area that was free
of mangroves in 1996

not in a marine reserve

in SEA-M only in areas listed in Appendix 6.5
Mangrove removal in significant wading bird areas listed in Appendix
6.6
Mangrove removal to enable the operation, maintenance, use and
functioning of existing lawful structures, infrastructure and drainage
systems, or to ensure public health and safety in the use or operation
of infrastructure

Maximum of 30m2 in GCM zone, SEA-M2', SEA-M1 and ONFs
4.3.6. 1.2 Assessment criteria
Forest & Bird seeks the following changes below:
4.3.6.1.2
2.8 Livestock access to the CMA
1. Droving or grazing livestock (apart from horses) in the CMA is Prohibited.
2. Livestock access to the CMA is limited to droving of stock or horse riding and must ensure:
a. it does not occur in estuarine areas or areas of salt marsh or mangroves and no grazing of intertidal vegetation shall be allowed to occur
b. the stock must be moved along at all times and not left unattended
c. horses must be kept under control at all times
d. horses must not graze on intertidal vegetation
e. horses must not be ridden or taken into bird breeding areas.
3. Adjacent to intensively grazed production land, livestock exclusion can be provided by way of permanent fencing, dense vegetation or natural barriers.
4. Any livestock exclusion measures must be permanent and effective.
Controls for livestock access are also provided in clause 4.3.7.3.1.1 and Part 4.2.3.8 - Lakes, rivers and wetland management.
2.9 Mangrove removal
1. Mangrove removal, including seedlings, mangrove removal from an area that was free of mangroves in 1996, and mangrove removal in significant wading bird areas.
a. Removed vegetation is disposed of outside the CMA.
b. The removal does not involve any discharge of chemical herbicides in the CMA other than as provided for in an approved pest management strategy
c. Any visible disturbance to the substrate of the CMA must be remedied or recontoured within seven days of completion of the works.
d. Removal is done by hand or by hand-held tools.
e. Removal is not in areas where mangroves are serving to mitigate coastal erosion from wave action.
f. Removal will not damage or disturb areas of salt marsh or seagrass.
g. Written advice is given to the council at least 10 working days prior to removal, other than for the removal of 30m2 or less of seedlings. The advice will include the
location and extent of the mangroves to be removed, the timing and methods of removal, and sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the area was free of mangroves
in 1996.
h. In a significant wading bird area, removal is timed to avoid bird roosting and nesting seasons.
2. Mangrove removal to enable the operation, maintenance, use and functioning of existing lawful structures, infrastructure and drainage system, or to ensure public
health and safety in the use or operation of infrastructure to a maximum of 200m2.
a. Removed vegetation is disposed of outside the CMA.
b. The removal does not involve any discharge of chemical herbicides in the CMA, other than as provided for in an approved pest management strategy.
c. Any visible disturbance to the substrate of the CMA must be remedied or recontoured within seven days of the completion of the works.
d. The removal must be immediately adjacent to the structure or infrastructure, or any drainage system
3. Effects on coastal processes, ecological values, water quality and natural character
Disturbance - mangrove removal
g. Removal of mangroves, including seedlings, should be avoided from areas:
i. identified as having significant ecological or natural character values, or where mangroves provide important ecological values
ii. of active coastal erosion where mangroves provide a buffer against coastal processes causing erosion
iii. where the sediments contain high levels of contaminants at risk of being re-suspended.
h. Proposals to remove mangroves should include will require an assessment ecological values, sediment inputs in the area, and identification of catchment initiatives to
reduce sediment and nutrient inputs that need to be implemented prior to any clearance being approved.
i. Mangrove removal should:needs to:
i. minimise the disturbance of the foreshore and seabed, and sediment and contaminant discharges
ii. where practical, dispose of removed mangroves outside the CMA using an appropriate method
iii. provide evidence that the disposal method will not result in significant adverse effects on the CMA where landward disposal is not proposed
iv. take an adaptive management approach where a significant area of removal is proposed and there is uncertainty over the extent of adverse effects
vi. provide for the long-term maintenance of cleared areas
v. avoid burning removed mangroves as the method of disposal in the CMA.
6. Effects on existing uses and activities
Disturbance - mangrove removal
g. Mangrove removal should be enabled may be considered where mangroves have spread and the proposed removal is necessary to enable, maintain or restore or
enhance:
i. essential public access to, or along, the CMA and
ii. essential connections with reserves or publicly owned land and the sea
iii. public use and amenity values
iv. essential water access and navigation, including waka portage routes
v. Necessary public health and safety, including sightlines and traffic safety
vi. Necessary access to the coast from marae, or to areas of traditional use
vii. ecological values, including significant wading bird feeding or roosting areas
viii. cultural or historic heritage or natural features.
h. Mangrove removal should be enabled may be considered where there is no practicable alternative, and removal is necessary to allow for:
i. the operation, maintenance and use of existing lawful structures, or infrastructure including drainage
ii. the provision of infrastructure, including drainage systems that cannot practically be located in an alternative area, that would avoid the need for mangrove removal
iii. removal of areas identified for clearance in a reserve management, comprehensive coastal management or similar statutory plan that has been subject to a statutory
consultation process where the potential adverse effects have been considered.
4.4.8.3.1 Controlled activities
Section No
4.4.8.3.1 Controlled activities
3.1.1 Matters of control
3. Mangrove removal
Support/
Oppose
Oppose
Reasons
Decision Sought (or words to like effect)
There are no appendices Ax or Bx and
no particular reason that conforms
with the NZCPS or the policies in the
plan to justify why 30 ha of habitat
clearance is is appropriate
Delete (b) and insert remainder as a
discretionary matter in 3.3.1
4.4 OVERLAY RULES
Forest & Bird seeks the following changes below:
SEA Development controls
2.1 Dwelling
1. One dwelling per site where there is no practicable alternative location on the site outside the SEA overlay:
a. the total cleared area is 300m2, including any area cleared for additional buildings or access.
MAPS
Forest & Bird seeks the following changes below where we have identified errors in the maps.
SEA MARINE OVERLAY MAPS
Forest & Bird seeks the following changes noted above. The maps are grossly deficient and need to include existing information AND have clauses in appropriate places
identifying the significant ecological values in coastal and marine areas may not have been surveyed and identified. This will require a precautionary approach to all
applications and most activities in the CMA.
SEA TERRESTRIAL MAPS
Natural Environment
1360 Alfriston Road, Ardmore: PT LOT2 DP 156737 – SUBJ TO LAND COVENANTS BLKS XII XV OTAHUHU SD: covenants should be identified as ‘Natural Environment:
Significant Ecological Areas’.
Waitakere Ranges - 40-42 Paturoa Rd
The road reserve adjacent to these properties has the most significant area of kauri forest in the locality. It is identified in the operative Waitakere Plan maps, but has
been deleted in the Unitary Plan maps.
HERITAGE MAPS
188 Ranfurly Road, Alfriston: Historic Heritage Place – 1454, the Chapman-Taylor house is located in the wrong place. The historic house on our Olive Davies Reserve is
about 100m to the south.