Agenda for Meeting No. SG16/3
SmartGrowth Implementation Committee
The SmartGrowth Implementation Committee will meet in the Tauranga City Council, Council Chambers 91 Willow Street, Tauranga on Wednesday, 18 May 2016 at 9.00am
G Poole Chief Executive Tauranga City Council – Administering Authority
1
SmartGrowth Implementation Committee
Independent Chairperson: Bill Wasley
Committee Members
Bay of Plenty Regional Council: Chair. Doug Leeder Cr Jane Nees Cr Paula Thompson Cr David Love
Tauranga City Council: Mayor Stuart Crosby Cr John Robson Cr Steve Morris Cr Matt Cowley
Western Bay of Plenty District Council: Mayor Ross Paterson Cr Gwenda Merriman Cr Garry Webber Cr John Scrimgeour
Tangata Whenua Representatives: Karora Smith Awanui Black Maru Tapsell Irene Walker
Quorum: 9
Meeting Frequency: At least bi-monthly
Role
Pursuant to Clause 30 Schedule 7 of Government Act 2002, a joint Committee of Tauranga City Council, Western Bay of Plenty District Council and Bay of Plenty Regional Council shall be retained to implement the SmartGrowth Strategy and Implementation Plan.
Membership
That representation be comprised of four elected member representatives as appointed by the contributing authorities, including the Mayors and Regional Council Chairperson, and four representatives at be nominated by tangata whenua. That an Independent Chairperson, to be appointed by the Committee, chairs the Committee; and the appointment of a Deputy Chair from the committee membership.
2
That the standing membership is limited to seventeen members, but with the power to co-opt up to a maximum of three additional non-voting members, where required, to ensure the effective implementation of any part, or parts, of the Strategy. That NZTA be represented through its Regional Director as an observer with speaking rights but in a non-voting capacity.
Purpose
That the joint SmartGrowth Implementation Committee be the delegated authority to implement the SmartGrowth Strategy and Implementation Plan in accordance with the following functions:
Implementation
Overseeing the implementation of the 2013 SmartGrowth Strategy updates, in particular the strategic actions. Ensuring organisation systems and resources support the strategy implementation. Taking responsibility for progress of those actions specifically allocated to the “SmartGrowth Implementation Committee” in the strategy, and making sure the implementation does occur. Monitoring and reporting progress against milestones and budget. Overviewing the management of the risks identified in implementation. Approving an annual implementation plan with a 3 year horizon.
Ongoing Tasks
Champion integration and implementation through partner strategies, programmes, plans and policy instruments (including the Regional Policy Statement, Regional and District Plans, Long Term Plans (LTP’s), Annual Plans, transport plans and triennial agreements), and through partnerships with other sectors such as health, education and business. Approving submissions to Local Authorities, Central Government, and other agencies on SmartGrowth related matters. Reviewing and recommending adjustments to the strategy if circumstances change. Identifying and resolving any consultation inconsistencies between the SmartGrowth strategies and subsequent public consultation processes of the partner councils.
Consultation / Partner Forums
Facilitating consultation with the community. Establishing and maintaining the SmartGrowth Partner Forums. Agreeing any memorandum of agreements between SGIC and any forums.
Committee Operations
Selecting and appointing an Independent Chairperson and a Deputy Chairperson. Implementing a Memorandum of Agreement, as adopted by the Committee for each triennial period, to provide and maintain partnerships and provide for the resolution of any conflict. Establish protocols to ensure that implementation, where necessary, is consistent, collaborative, and / or coordinated to achieve optimal outcomes
3
Agenda for Meeting No. SG16/3
SmartGrowth Implementation Committee
Wednesday, 18 May 2016
9.00am Tauranga City Council, Council Chambers
91 Willow Street, Tauranga
Conflicts of Interest
Apologies
Public Forum (if required):
Confirmation of Minutes:
1. Confirmation of the Minutes of the SmartGrowth Implementation Committee (SG16/2) dated 20 April 2016. Pgs 8-13
A copy of the minutes is attached.
Recommendation:
That the minutes of the SmartGrowth Implementation Committee Meeting (SG16/3) held on 20/04/2016 be confirmed as a true and correct record.
4
Business
1. Receipt of Partner Forum Minutes
Population Aging Technical Advisory Group 27th April 2016 Pgs 14-17 Social Sector Forum 28th April 2016 Pgs 18-22 Environment & Sustainability Forum 3rd May 2016 Pgs 23-28 Combined Tangata Whenua Forum 4TH May 2016 Pgs 29-34 Property Developers Forum 5th May 2016 Pgs 35-40 Strategic Partners Forum 10th May 2016 Pgs 41-44
Recommendation:
That the minutes of the partner forums be received, noting that the issues raised have been identified in the Monthly Report for discussion and resolution.
2. Monthly Report for SGIC dated 18 May 2016 Pgs 45-49
Recommendations:
a) Note the strategy action update
b) Note the improvements to SG resourcing
c) In relation to the Forums
Refer the Population Aging Technical Advisory Group gym request to the implementer for action Note the Social Sector Forum recommendations Refer the Property Development Forum Compact City paper to the Settlement Pattern Review team with a request that the issues raised be reported on in June when the Compact City update paper is being discussed Note the Combined Tangata Whenua Forum appointment process
3. Update on Settlement Pattern Review including the Western Corridor and Keenan Road reports Pgs 50-125
Recommendations Western Corridor Strategic Study:
1. That SGIC formally identify the western corridor for future urbanisation.
2. That SGIC identify the Tauriko West area as the priority area for the Councils and the NZTA to undertake detailed planning to advance re-zoning as the next urban growth area subject to agreed densities in Te Tumu and in the compact city SPR option.
3. That the sequence of urbanisation in the western corridor broadly proceeds as follows:
5
a) By 2017 initiate work towards plan changes and infrastructure provision to allow for urbanisation of Tauriko West including:
Undertake a cultural assessment and continue to engage further with iwi and hapu; Consult with land owners; Seek to identify and protect important sites and water quality of the Wairoa River; Investigate road access options to service Tauriko West that are compatible with the Tauriko Programme Business Case; Advance a structure plan and commence the preparation of plan changes to the Regional Policy Statement and District Plans.
b) At the same time, continue planning work for the urbanisation of the Keenan Road area that is already within Tauranga City.
c) Undertake an investigation of changes required, if any, to District Plans to avoid land fragmentation or land use change that would hinder the ability to deliver future Urban Growth Areas.
d) Within the next five years initiate a structure plan for the remaining Keenan Road area (possibly including Merrick Road extension).
4. Depending on uptake of the Tauriko Business Estate, undertake structure planning and rezoning for the Lower Belk Road industrial area.
5. Should growth demand continue strongly, after 2020 determine the next growth area(s) in the western corridor study area, potentially including Belk Road and/or Merrick/Joyce Road areas.
6. That the western corridor is generally more suitable for urban development than the southern corridor, with the possible exception of the Ohauiti South area which should be investigated further in the short term and reported back to SGIC for direction.
Recommendations for the Keenan Road Study:
SGIC agrees that:
1. The Keenan Road area is suitable for future urbanisation and should be retained as a future urban growth area. 2. That further planning and community engagement work is required before the area could be rezoned for urbanisation to address the issues identified in the report. 3. SmartGrowth partner staff undertake this work and report back to the Committee on a regular basis noting that as an initial estimate, it is expected to take 12-24 months to complete
6
4. A draft structure plan may need to be developed to inform further work. 5. This further work needs to be informed by direction on the potential future urbanisation of the Merrick Road and upper Joyce Road areas in the long-term. 6. It may be possible for a first stage of the Keenan Road area to be developed ahead of the wider growth area and that this will be considered. 7. The future timing of urbanisation requires further discussion and future agreement, including the concept of a staged approach. Timing should be informed by the potential to bring forward an alternative growth area in the Western Corridor ahead of the Keenan Road area, current and future growth rates and land take up, the wider strategy to urbanisation in the Western Corridor and the time it takes to address the issues identified in the Keenan Road area. 8. As a priority consideration should be given to advancing the urbanisation of an alternative growth area within the Western Corridor due to impending development capacity constraints and the unknown timeframe to ‘ready’ the Keenan Road area for urbanisation.
Recommendations for Community Consultation:
1. That the Committee express a preference for either partner Council approval post the 2016 elections followed by consultation outlined in Appendix 4 (special consultative procedure) noting that there are potential land supply impacts or alternatively. 2. The Committee agree that the SPR strategy be adopted in August 2016 and that community input be sought through the statutory implementation processes of the individual partners.
Recommendations for Committee Decisions:
That the Committee note the approach to decision making on the understanding that a comprehensive suite of consistent recommendations will be bought forward as part of the reporting in July and August.
4. Joint Agency Group Report Pgs 126-146
Recommendations:
a) That the paper be received b) That the SmartGrowth Implementation Committee endorses the JAG Strategic Plan (2015-2020) as the guiding document for JAG to continue to facilitate the development of Papakāinga in the western Bay of Plenty sub region.
7 Minutes of Meeting No. SG16/2 of the SmartGrowth Implementation Committee held on 20 April 2016 in the Council Chamber, 91 Willow Street, Tauranga commencing at 9.00am
Present Independent Chairperson W Wasley
Bay of Plenty Regional Council Councillors: J Nees, P Thompson, D Love
Tauranga City Council Mayor: S Crosby Councillors: J Robson, S Morris, M Cowley
Western Bay of Plenty District Council Mayor: R Paterson Councillors: G Merriman, G Webber, J Scrimgeour
Tauranga Whenua Representatives M Tapsell, I Walker
In Attendance SmartGrowth K Tremaine – Implementation Advisor K Summerhays – Wellbeing’s Officer A Hohneck – SmartGrowth Administrator
Bay of Plenty Regional Council
Tauranga City Council G Poole – Chief Executive C Jones – Deputy Chief Executive
Western Bay of Plenty District Council
SG16/2.1 APOLOGIES
Chair D Leeder, Awanui Black, Karora Smith
Moved Cr Nees / Seconded Cr Webber
That it be Resolved
That apologies for absence be received from Chairman D Leeder, A Black, and K Smith
CARRIED 8
SG16/2.2 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES – SMARTGROWTH IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE (SG16/3) – DATED 16 March 2016
The Committee considered the minutes of the SmartGrowth Implementation Committee (SG16/2) dated 16 March 2016 as circulated with the agenda.
Moved Cr Cowley / Seconded Mayor Crosby
That it be Resolved
That the minutes of the SmartGrowth Implementation Committee (SG16/2) dated 16 March 2016 be confirmed as a true and correct record provided the following amendment is made: Remove sentence ‘page 14 Bills recommendations’.
CARRIED
SG16/2.3 MONTHLY REPORT FOR SGIC DATED 20 APRIL 2016
9.12am Cr Robson entered the meeting.
Ken spoke to the Monthly Report and advised that the SmartGrowth Coordinator will commence on the 26th April and the applications for the SmartGrowth Implementation Advisor had closed.
Ken requested the committee to refer to the Settlement Pattern Review Completion Timetable 2016 on page 14 of the report. Ken highlighted major milestones and timeframes in the report of which a comprehensive presentation would be provided in the workshop. First draft of Settlement Pattern Report will be presented in July 2016.
Maru Tapsell asked how pre-consultation and post consultation was going to be arranged i.e. building block consultation.
Ken responded that SmartGrowth would concentrate on consulting with key groups by means of forums and work on what is operative and not start a whole new pattern. Concentrating on the areas where there could be change. This is for pre- consultation before a final recommendation is provided to the committee. Ken was interested in any feedback regarding this.
Cr Nees raised the need for a helicopter view of the city that we want going forward. There are interrelated items in the report such as the Wairoa green space, transport for the city and potential developments in the Northern corridor and suggested a wider regional picture rather than a focussed set of actions more appropriate for the greater good of the city.
Ken noted Cr Nees comments and acknowledged this as a “big picture urban forum” and suggested it be helpful at reporting time to record the big urban issues and provide context to consider each item.
9
Cr Webber raised the need to ensure that the Tangata Whenua is involved in the pre-consultation with the Western Corridor developments.
Ken commented and assured that there has been a long history of extensive consultation with Tangata Whenua which has been documented.
Moved Cr Thompson / Seconded Cr Webber
That it be Resolved
a) That the update on the SmartGrowth actions be noted. b) That the position on SmartGrowth resourcing be noted c) That the amended Settlement Pattern Review Completion timetable be discussed and agreed.
CARRIED
SG16/2.4 SMART INVENTORY REPORT FORM FOUR WELLBEING’S OFFICER
Ken provided PowerPoint presentation (A) and requested guidance and governance input on any issues or concerns on the overview report to be reviewed ready for discussion with the Chief Executives.
Ken acknowledged the Social Sector Forum, Karen Summerhays and the Social Sector Link whom have worked on the Smart Inventory Report.
Actions were adopted in 2013 on SG 13 Action 9A3 and SmartGrowth is looking at building on the existing mapping to inform future work on sustainable outcomes.
Ken highlighted key points in the PowerPoint presentation and informed the committee and that SmartGrowth would like to receive endorsement for the SmartGrowth Inventory – Social (SIS) project to continue to prototype (SG Action 9A3).
Cr Thompson was in support of the project however referenced S14 Local Government Act 2002, referring to the principle of sustainable development of growth which includes Social, Economic, Cultural and Environmental factors. There is a need to have a sustainable development approach and would like to ensure that SmartGrowth has a real understanding and commitment to this principle. Would like to put forward an amended recommendation to endorse progress on this project subject to the Chief Executive Advisory Group consideration on the matters raised today.
Cr Cowley asked if there would be a delay or potential risk in losing external funding based on the suggested amendment.
Ken responded there may be a risk of losing the external provider however he was hopeful that this is not the case.
Karen Summerhays indicated that the external provider is very keen to take this project further and through conversations with other central governments there is 10
the opportunity for the model to be replicated throughout the country. Karen advised that the report has not been dispersed to the Social Sector Forum (SSF) for analysis and comment yet and that amendments may be made at the (SSF) meeting next week.
Cr Webber believes the inventory report appropriate and correct however questioned the flexibility with organisations. Progress would need to be as practical as possible.
Maru Tapsell commented about evolutionally change in communities whereby punters need to find links to make those changes “provisions for change”.
Cr Nees indicated the need for the project however outlined two issues; the timing and process regarding the scope which should have been clearly defined and made available for the CEO’s to evaluate prior to the meeting. Secondly the need to have the right process in place to consider all factors in managing the IT scope, maintenance and all other associated costs and factors. Cr Nees asked that these items be addressed and who will own it.
Ken acknowledged Cr Nees comments around the risks and indicated that this is in part an IT project, however will be focussing on the provider and working through procurement policies and risk management accordingly.
Karen indicated that SmartGrowth has invested $45k to the project which will take a stocktake of the social sector. The data will be community owned and stored in a data warehouse which is owned by the national company responsible for updating the data.
Irene Walker supported and applauded the project
Cr Thompson, sought amendment of wording to endorse the project.
Mayor Stuart Crosby provided support towards the project however highlighted that unless we get full data and participation there is potential issue. We require full data that is truthful the social sector needs to see the benefits of providing it.
Karen noted that data collection is voluntary and will be resourced for 1,000 hours of ‘face to face interviews’ involving up to 500 organisations. The benefit to the organisations and social sector is that it provides them with a self-reflection enabling tool to identify potential funders.
Cr Love, agreed this be an emotive stage of the project to consider, however there is a real concern for funding and ongoing costs. Therefore Cr Love supported Councillor Thompson’s view that it would needs to go to the Chief Executive level before coming back to the forum.
Cr Robson, agreed the project subject to the data needs being sourced. However there is a genuine fear of the demands on the social sector and the issue of resourcing. There will be significant ongoing cost and will need to be resourced properly. Needs to go to Chief Executive’s for them to consider the resources to support this.
Cr Thompson, motion to support item 1, 2 & 3. 11
Cr Nees, requested assurance around project risk factors and to ensure that these have been addressed. With consideration for ongoing costs, maintenance and any other hidden costs to allow confidence in project to go ahead.
Cr Webber, also raised his concern around the risk of funding and agreed that the Chief Executives is the right forum for discussion, without compromising the project.
The Chair noted Cr Thompsons, Cr Nees and Cr Webbers comments and recapped on considerations and will report back as to whether to project will carry on or come back to the next committee meeting.
Cr Morris, responded that he is in favour of Cr Thomson’s motion, and wanted to point out that the $40k is well spent and is not a significant spend when compared to other day to day projects.
Cr Scrimgeour, commented that this is not a $40k decision or a question on this amount, it is about the time and energy in maintaining the ongoing process, relationships and promises made to the social sector. The right approach needs to be adopted so that the promise is kept.
Maru Tapsell, agreed that the tangible return is not very much, and that the project will in turn provide a service for the local community which is worth a lot more than $40k. Mr Tapsell believes this this is a good investment from a regional and national persective.
Cr Webber, requested clarity for the community on what SmartGrowth would like to achieve and what we are proposing so we don’t create unachievable expectations. Also being clear and understand what it is and what it isn’t.
Cr Cowley provided feedback from the social sector and while understanding the full cost implications that this is the best way forward. However we need to ensure that everyone is comfortable with the “how”.
Ken, provided clarification regarding the project budget and pointed out that the SmartGrowth contribution is $90k with $60k from the Crown. SmartGrowth as part of the monthly report will continue to keep the committee up to date with what is taking place. SmartGrowth appreciates the opportunity to present to the committee and will address any issues raised. Ken also explained that he was confident in the project and that it presented minimal risk.
The Chair, confirmed the items to be raised outlining the three matters to be resolved. Of the project and matters raised today Ken will report back at the next committee meeting on where the project is at and if there are significant issues.
Moved Cr Thompson / Seconded I Walker
That it be Resolved
That the SmartGrowth Implementation Committee:
1. Receives the report on Action 9A3. 2. Endorses the project in principle and notes progress to date.
12
3. Refers the project proposal to Chief Executive Advisory Group (CEAG), the Social Sector Forum (SSF) and Social link to address the issues raised in discussion on the basis that if there are any matters which cannot be resolved, these come back to the Committee for resolution. 4. Requests that the Implementation Advisor (acting) update the Committee on implementation progress. 5. Note that the SmartGrowth budget has sufficient funds at this time for the SmartGrowth share.
CARRIED
______
The meeting concluded at 10.08 a.m. ______
Confirmed as a true and correct record
______W Wasley Independent Chairperson
______Date
13
Population Aging Technical Advisory Group Meeting Wednesday, 27th April 2016: 1 – 3pm The School House, The Historic Village, 17th Avenue
Present Anne Pankhurst (Chair), Sarah Davey, Liz Davies, Lorraine Wilson, Mary Dillon, Annie Hill, Karen Summerhays, Liz Spellacy, Tony Lawson, Megan Rumble, Carole Gordon –SupaNZ (Guest, left meeting after presentation)
Apologies Anna Thurnell
Previous Meeting Minutes November minutes were included in error – requested that correct February minutes be circulated (actioned & Actions MR 27/04/2016) and they are attached below for completeness.
SupaNZ Relevant Update CG provided an update on the situation with the elder gym. information and The Concerns were raised around how wrong the installation had gone, and concern that there was no
Leading Edge Symposium consultation with anyone other than internal TCC resource. The group was disappointed regarding the installation of the gym and it was noted that it appears contrary to the intent of the gym and age friendly city strategy. It needs to be asked what consultation was undertaken around the appropriate installation of the gym given it was the first of its type and was envisaged to be a showcase for similar installations across the sub-region. What measures will be put in place e.g. educating staff, consulting communities etc. to enhance the intent of the age friendly city strategy. A point was raised that The Polytech students have been asked to monitor the gym – what kind of monitoring?
PATAG supports the recommendation to remove and reinstall the gym appropriately to enhance maximum use and optimum health and benefits. This needs to be fit for purpose placemaking wise - accessible with appropriate signage, shade, close to toilets and with rubber matting under foot – not woodchips.
SmartGrowth – PATAG meeting minutes 27th April 2016 14 | P a g e
CG provided an update on the SupaNZ Submission to the TCC annual plan. CG updated the Forum on The Leading Edge Symposium and extended an invitation to PATAG to present the PATAG story as a case study on the 12th August. CG updated the forum regarding SUPA-NZ undertaking a research project on the potential for innovation and growing the Silver economy in the Bay of Plenty. SmartGrowth is a Silver Economy Symposium partner and has funded the research. The report findings will be presented at the Silver Economy Symposium on August 11th 2016.
Action
Aging Well National Discussion KS and AH provided an update on the Aging Well National Science Challenge Proposal. Meetings have been Science Challenge held with Bev James and Kay Saville Proposal TL applauded that a case study of this kind has been carried out LS asked that the following be included: o Impact of retirement/lifestyle villages o The difficulty for rental accommodation to be modified o Inter-generational wealth transfer o Co-housing Clarification needs to be made regarding the area covered being the Western Bay of Plenty Sub region throughout the document. AP agreed with LD that this involves more than just council but Central Government and DHB also.
Recommendation was made that ’Tauranga case study’ needs to be amended to ‘Western Bay of Plenty Sub-region case study’. This recommendation was agreed to by the group.
SmartGrowth – PATAG meeting minutes 27th April 2016 15 | P a g e
PATAG agreed and supported KS and AP as members of the National Reference group.
Action KS - Provide above feedback to Aging Well Research team and change the recommendation as per agreement.
Social Infrastructure and KS provided an update advising that this is still at the information collection stage. The summary of findings Place-making Action List and any recommendations to the SG Partners will be completed once the SG office is fully staffed but intime to influence the SPR.
SmartGrowth Actions Discussion KS provided an update on each of the other forums to the group pointing out that it is important to join people up. A new forum – Social Infrastructure Providers – is being considered. This forum will be made up of Organisations that provide ‘hard’ social infrastructure (e.g Police, Ambulance, Councils, Education, Health, Churches, Fire, Property developers) with the initial intent to inform the spatial plan of Te Tumu
General Discussion The group discussed and came to a decision on who would present on behalf of PATAG at The Leading Edge Symposium – Sarah Davey and Anne Pankhurst were thought to be a good tag team to tell the PATAG story. SD is to give the DHB view and AP the PATAG view. All members are encouraged to attend SD updated the group on Universal design. Dani Jurgeleit is the new Community Development Partner at TCC. She has been tasked with working on the Age Friendly Strategy. The group discussed inviting Dani to the next PATAG meeting. SD updated the group on the DHB presentation to SGIC.
Action MR to invite Dani to the next PATAG meeting
SmartGrowth – PATAG meeting minutes 27th April 2016 16 | P a g e
Meeting Closed at 3:00pm Next Meeting at The School House Wednesday 22nd June 2016 at 1.00pm
Summary of Actions April SD/AP to present on behalf of PATAG at The Leading Edge Symposium on the 12th August. KS - Provide above feedback to Aging Well Research team and change the recommendation as per April agreement. April MR to invite Dani to the next PATAG meeting
SmartGrowth – PATAG meeting minutes 27th April 2016 17 | P a g e
SmartGrowth Social Sector Forum Meeting Thursday 28th April 2016 The School House, Historic Village, 17th Avenue
Present Carole Gordon(Chair), Karen Summerhays, Mary Dillon, Kathy Webb, Jo Gravit, Rebecca Culliford, Peter Malcolm, Beth Bowden, Theo Ursum, Michelle Adams, Karen Williams, Meagan Holmes, Philip King, Sharon Hanna, Lloyd Davies, Ewa Fenn
Apologies Irene Walker, Alan Neilson
Previous minutes and Discussion CG Welcomed Karen Williams from Imagine Better. Karen replaces Jenny Dawber from Local Area matters arising Coordination. Philip King (General Manager Community Services TCC) was also welcomed to the meeting.
KS introduced Megan Rumble, new to the SmartGrowth Coordinator role. Concerns were raised around the minutes – going forward minutes need to be a general summary of the discussions held and points raised as well as non-identifying. Previous minutes approved with 2 amendments to be made made - MR 03/05/16. PM apologised for not completing action from previous minutes –unaware of action. MH updated the forum on further developments regarding the community hub. Still on track for completion beginning July 2017. Land sale was approved beginning of March. No idea as yet when excavation is due to start. CG passed Symposium document around for the group to view.
Action
Progress on 9A3 Action Discussion SH provided an overview on the SociaLink report and Proposal. Currently at the data collection phase – Questionnaire is being developed. Will be face to face analysis. SociaLink Report and A point was raised around how the data will be kept up to date – will be able to be self-updated and can be Updated Proposal triggered through engagement with SociaLink and formally every 3 years. Smart Inventory - Social - Current costing is $62,000 covering the data collection. SGIC Report Points were raised around how will new agencies and agencies dropping out be captured? How will
SmartGrowth – Social Sector Forum meeting minutes 28th April 2016 18 | P a g e
progress be measured? Covered in the 3 yearly formal update Does there need to be a project manager to ensure kept appropriate? SH confirmed this will be her role as GM to ensure kept relevant. Yet to confirm Data Presentation Partner but will need to be able to deliver nationally as that is important to central government agencies. The data is to be held in community ownership ( via SociaLink) but the IP regarding the format and dashboards will be the property of the developer. KS provided an overview to the forum on the 9A3 Smart Inventory. PK advised that this is really important with what is happening in the city. He is fully behind the work of SmartGrowth. It is critical to understand how we (Philip and team) can add value and our role in this. CG agreed. KS went over funding process as requested by CG. Recommendation: SSF appoints two representatives to the reference group role in an advisory capacity. TU and KW to represent. BB moved, LD seconded. The Forum fully endorsed the work of 9A3 with no matters arising. Discussion was had regarding the current influences the social sector is operating in and the likely changes to take place in the near future
Action Think piece to be prepared by SociaLink around the environment in which the Social Sector operates.
Equity report – Beth Discussion BB Provided an update on the SSF Compacting the City Positioning Paper and acknowledged RC Bowden and Peter contribution. Malcolm CG thanks BB, PM and RC for this work.
Action BB to circulate paper for feedback from the forum. Feedback back to BB by 12th May 2016. Compacting the City paper to become positioning paper to inform SPR and be formally presented to SGIC.
SmartGrowth – Social Sector Forum meeting minutes 28th April 2016 19 | P a g e
KS to send headings. Executive summary needs to be included.
Building Community – Discussion The question was asked how the forum best sees the Compacting the City paper fitting into the Settlement Review timetable. Forum input to Settlement New philosophical approach to be made. Really important to say how we can engage. Look at timeframe. Pattern SSF forum want to take part in the whole process and be included in the scene setting phase as well KS: Discussion on current There is opportunity for implementation group. Opportunity for social infrastructure expert to look at the social issues housing, technical areas. social and economic Discussion was had around Te Tumu – it was noted that with new developments there was a need to inequality, population ensure everything is covered community wise e.g. Health, Education. Compact city huge amount of ageing and relativity to opportunity. SmartGrowth planning It was advised the forum has a role in educating the general public around intensification. processes Discussion was had around Socialink hosting a wider sector event with SmartGrowth providing resources Settlement Pattern and assisting in facilitating the event. Process Progress Summary
Social Infrastructure
and Place making input to Settlement Pattern process
Action MD, JG, KW and CG to work on Socialink event. SG to assist with resources.
SmartGrowth – Social Sector Forum meeting minutes 28th April 2016 20 | P a g e
Update from the other KS provided an update on each of the other forums to the group pointing out that it is important to join forums and SG actions people up. New forum – Social Infrastructure Providers – is being considered. This forum will be made up of Organisations that provide ‘hard’ social infrastructure (e.g. Police, Ambulance, Councils, Education, Health, Churches, Fire, Property developers) with the initial intent to inform the spatial plan of Te Tumu. Discussion was had around SSF place on Social Infrastructure forum.
General Business Discussion Think piece. Event with Socialink – wider sector.
Forum wants to engage in settlement pattern.
Closed 2.12pm
Next Meeting: Thursday 23rd June 2016, The School House, Historic Village, 11.30-2.00pm
SmartGrowth – Social Sector Forum meeting minutes 28th April 2016 21 | P a g e
OUTSTANDING ACTION POINTS
Social Sector Forum
Item No. Meeting Action
1 April Think piece to be prepared by SociaLink around the environment in which the Social Sector operates.
2 April BB to circulate Compacting the City paper for feedback from the forum. Feedback back to BB by 12th May 2016. Compacting the City paper to become positioning paper to inform SPR and be formally presented to SGIC. KS to send headings. Executive summary needs to be included.
3 April MD, JG, KW and CG to work on Socialink event. SG to assist with resources.
SmartGrowth – Social Sector Forum meeting minutes 28th April 2016 22 | P a g e
Environmental and Sustainability Forum Tuesday 3rd May 2016, 1.00-3.00pm The Café Function Room, Tauranga City Council, 91 Willow Street
Present Karen Summerhays (SmartGrowth - Acting Chair) Athole Herbert (Papamoa Ratepayers), Ross Hudson (TCC), Riki Nelson (Master Painters BOP), Ingrid Raath (Individual), Steph Macdonald (BOPRC), Jo Wills (Sustainability Options), Glen Crowther (Sustainable Business Network), Michelle Elborn (TCC), Mary Dillon (Envirohub), Marielle Haringa (Envirohub), Peter Mackay (Envirohub), Kate Akers (Waiariki BOP Polytechnic), Janine Schmalfuss (Tauranga Carbon Reduction Group), Paul Hickson (Surf Break Protection Society), Julian Fitter (Maketu Ongatoro Wetland Society), Eddie Orsulich (Forest and Bird), Kair Lippiatt (Forest and Bird), Lawrie Donald (Uretara Estuary Managers), Bryan Darragh (Individual), David Hursthouse (The Rock – Papamoa Community Garden), Colin Hewens (Friends of Puketoki), Steve Richardson (Friends of The Blade), Glenn Ayo (WBOPDC), Jim Pringle, Ian McLean (Green Party), Anna Larsen (Welcome Bay Community Centre), Philip King (TCC), Dean Webber (Individual), Cole Burmester (Tauranga Road Cycling Club), Ken Tremaine (SmartGrowth), Megan Rumble (SmartGrowth - Minutes)
Apologies Hans Pendergrast (Otanewainuku Kiwi Trust), Mark Anderson( DOC), Liza Schneider (ARRC), Gray Southon (Carbon Reduction Group)
Welcome – Karen KS Welcomed all to the meeting and introduced herself as SG Well-Beings Implementation Advisor covering Summerhays chair today until chair is appointed. KS also introduced Megan Rumble, SmartGrowth Coordinator. KS provided a summary of SmartGrowth – collaboration between the three councils, governance committee and Tangata Whenua. KS provided an overview of what this forum is about. o To help coordinate important actions o The Forum is here for tomorrows actions/problems o To create programmes and projects for the way forward o Keep to a high level. Each individual who is a member of the forum must represent an organisation. If anyone is here as a public observer today they must find a group to represent. SmartGrowth – Environmental & Sustainability Forum meeting 3rd May 2016 23 | P a g e
A question was asked around how the forum would effect change. It was noted that this is covered in the Forum’s Terms of Reference (TOR) KS updated on the funding of SmartGrowth. KS introduced Ken Tremaine - Implementation Advisor (Acting) - who had just joined the meeting.
Action MR to post out SmartGrowth Strategy Booklets.
What’s hot Updates from around the table, Water Quality, Air Quality, Transportation, Waste Management, Education, Getting our cycle ways off the roads and Kaimoana were all prominent topics.
Action
Analysis of environment Discussion The group discussed: chapter of SG13 gaps and ideas in the environment chapter. ( see attached table) What tools could be used? ( see attached table) Concerns were raised around the growth of the area. KS updated the group on tools the other SG forums are using e.g. PATAG – research project, SSF – stocktake of social sector. KS also suggested positioning paper to inform the Settlement Pattern Review and ongoing SG actions. Themes around sustainable use of land having cross over with Housing Affordability Forum.
Action KS present information captured for further discussion to next Forum meeting
Settlement Pattern Update KS provided an update to the forum on the SPR timetable. This is a diarised timeline for the settlement Review update pattern in progressing through the timeline. The forum will be asked for feedback on this.
Action KS to present a paper outlining existing partner actions that could inform and/or support the work of the Forum
SmartGrowth – Environmental & Sustainability Forum meeting 3rd May 2016 24 | P a g e
Updates from other Discussion KS provided an update on each of the other forums. forums A new forum – Social Infrastructure Providers – is being considered. This forum will be made up of Organisations that provide ‘hard’ social infrastructure (e.g. Police, Ambulance, Councils, Education, Health, Churches, Fire, Property developers) with the initial intent to inform the spatial plan of Te Tumu
General Business Discussion KS advised that any new members going forward will be approved by forum chair. PM pointed out that the Rural sector ought to be represented e.g. Federated Farmers, NZKGI It was also raised that NZTA should be represented. KS advised that Tangata Whenua invitation to join will be reiterated at tomorrow’s CTWF. Future meetings to be held at the new time of 1.30-3.30pm.
Action KS to approach rural sector organisations and NZTA to join Forum MR - Change meeting schedules to new time and resend appointments
Formal listing on Papamoa Ratepayers, Master Painters BOP, Sustainability Options, Sustainable Business Network, Envirohub, organisational Waiariki BOP Polytechnic, Tauranga Carbon Reduction Group, Surf Break Protection Society, Maketu Ongatoro representation on the Wetland Society, Forest and Bird, Uretara Estuary Managers, The Rock – Papamoa Community Garden, Forum Friends of Puketoki, Friends of the Blade, Green Party, Welcome Bay Community Centre, Tauranga Road Cycling Club, Otanewainuku Kiwi Trust, ARRC
Action KS update TOR with new information
Listing of agency Tauranga City Council, Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Western Bay of Plenty District Council, Department of representation on the Conservation Forum
Election of Chairperson Jo Wills was nominated by Mary Dillon Seconded Kate Akers. Julian Fitter was nominated by Paul Hickson Seconded Eddie Orsulich.
SmartGrowth – Environmental & Sustainability Forum meeting 3rd May 2016 25 | P a g e
Blind vote was carried out by all attendees representing an organisation. KS congratulated Jo Wills as elected chair.
Action KS to organise induction meeting with BW and any other process requirements.
Meeting Closed at 3:02pm
Summary of Actions May MR to post out SmartGrowth Strategy Booklets to those who would like one.
May KS present information gaps and tools information captured for further discussion to next Forum meeting
May KS to present a paper outlining existing partner actions that could inform and/or support the work of the Forum
May KS to approach rural sector organisations and NZTA to join Forum
May MR - Change meeting schedules to new time and resend appointments
May KS update TOR with new information
SmartGrowth – Environmental & Sustainability Forum meeting 3rd May 2016 26 | P a g e
May KS to organise induction meeting with BW and any other process requirements.
Next meeting Tuesday 5th July 1.30-3.30pm, The Village Hall, Historic Village, 17th Avenue.
SmartGrowth – Environmental & Sustainability Forum meeting 3rd May 2016 27 | P a g e
Possible gaps identified Tools that could be used
Transport Indicators Air Quality Chapters Regional Parks Quality of life surveys Emissions Reduction Pathways/Evidence Capability Building Collective Impact Process Liveable Resilient Communities Envirohub Organise living/Self sustainability Prioritisation Climate change adaption Strategy Freshwater Biodiversity Design (Conscious) Process Housing design/Urban design Growth: Value Agriculture Facilitate Community Action Horticulture Construction Industry Funding Possibilities Ecosystem Service Analysis Zero Waste Management Community Lead Approach Port Extensions Advocacy Renewable Energy Sector Mapping Coastal Recreation EC Value from Environment Chemical Pollution
Land use Next Harbour bridge Kaimai road/Rail tunnel Airports Housing
SmartGrowth – Environmental & Sustainability Forum meeting 3rd May 2016 28 | P a g e
“Kia Tu Pakari ai Tatou”
Minutes of SmartGrowth Combined Tangata Whenua Forum
Wednesday 4th May 2016 from 9.30am to 12:30pm in
Balcony Room, Historic Village, 17th Avenue
Present at the Hui were:
Puhirake Ihaka Tangata Whenua Collective Mita Rahiri Ngāti Kahu (Acting Chair) Chairperson
Shad Rolleston Tu Pakari Advisor (Governance) Pine McLeod Ngāti He
Whitiora McLeod Ngaiterangi Iwi Runanga Irene Walker Ngai Te Ahi
Maru Tapsell Waitaha Dean McLeod Ngāti Kaahu
Carlton Bidois Ngāti Ranginui Buddy Mikaere Ngāti Pukenga
Verna Ohia-Gate Roland Kingi Ngāti Makino
Maria Horne Ngāti Whakaue ki Maketū Wiremu Hiamoe Ngāti Tapu
Christine Grant Arianna Waaka
Stanley Walker Ngāti Ruahine Lance Waaka
Also in attendance:
Philip King General Manager Community Karen Summerhays SmartGrowth WellBeings Implementation Officer Services Tauranga City Council
Combined Tangata Whenua Forum meeting 4th May 2016 Page 29
Minuted by: Megan Rumble SmartGrowth Coordinator
Apologies: Sunny Ranapra
The Issue: Discussion of the Agenda Items:
Karakia and Whakatau Wiremu Hiamoe provided an opening karakia and welcomed all to the meeting.
Apologies Received Sonny Ranapia Moved: Whitiora McLeod Seconded: Pine McLeod
Previous Minutes No matters arising Moved: Irene Walker Seconded: Mita Rahiri Outstanding Actions: All actions either completed or on today’s agenda. Actions:
Resignation of CTWF Governance SR provided an overview on Paper B around the resignations of KS and CR. AB. Members and Election Process Members of the Tauranga City Council Tangata Whenua Collective confirmed that BM will replace KS as governance member to SGIC o Karora Smith o CR Awanui Black A Nomination came from the floor but the forum decided that more clarification was needed on the Terms of Reference so all appointments were put on hold until such time the TOR were updated. IW raised that she was impressed by the way BOPRC had prepared the info for Awa going into meetings. The new appointment really needs the assistance with regard to info going forward. Also to avoid anyone taking personal Appointment of Chairperson for angles as this is not what it is about. CTWF It was suggested, TCC and WBOPDC staff need to consider how they support CTWF governance members It was decided that the team of MT, BM, IW and SR would review the Terms of Reference and bring these back to the next CTWF for discussion and recommendations through to SGIC.
Combined Tangata Whenua Forum meeting 4th May 2016 Page 30
The Issue: Discussion of the Agenda Items:
IW raised the issue that CTW Forum meetings are bi monthly. SGIC meetings are monthly. PI Agreed and this is something we can clarify in the TOR review. Discussion was had around resourcing and support to the CTWF, governance members and Tu Pakari Advisor. PI confirmed all in favour of TOR revision Moved: Whitiora Mcleod Seconded: Dean Mcleod
Action MT, BM, IW in conjunction with SR to review the TOR, and to present a revised TOR back to the next Forum meeting; Discuss opportunities for TCC and WBOPDC staff to support the CTWF, governance members and Tu Pakari Advisor Settlement Pattern Review SR Provided an update to the group on the SPR. This shows timetabling for project completions. Update Questions were raised around where the Maori focus is. How does this account for Maori growth? Extended Marae zones. Tauriko Highway – how will it service Maori communities? Pa sites? PK introduced himself and advised that group that none of this community based work has been look at yet. So far the focus has been all high level land costings etc. But now is the right time to raise concerns. IW expressed concerns that we are behind the 8 ball. Concerns around rapid urbanisation impact for Tangata Whenua. There needs to be more support for Tangata Whenua to engage effectively. KS suggested CTWF develop a positioning paper to present to SGIC on SPR. Concerns were raised around affordable housing for Tangata Whenua. PK replied advising his is interested in all points, hoping to make changes in his new role. He is now sitting on IMG and attending all Partners Forums in order to hear the voices. Action SR to prepare a CTWF position paper on the SPR
Presentation of Social Sector KS presented on the Social Sector Inventory outlining key points for Maori. Inventory (9A3) Discussion was had around the presentation and questions asked. Data will be held by Socialink who are a charitable trust and this data will be a public asset. It will be held in the cloud. IW commended this project.
Combined Tangata Whenua Forum meeting 4th May 2016 Page 31
The Issue: Discussion of the Agenda Items:
KS advised that the hope is this information will assist in funding applications. Data collection will be face to face. Maori rep to go who understands Kaupapa to collect data. PK left the meeting at 11:43am Questions were asked around if everyone isn’t putting their data in will you have a false reading? KS advised from experience in Auckland it is better to be in than out. CG, DM, PM, WM left the meeting at 11:50am Report on Social Infrastructure Hui VO-G provided an update on the Hui that was held in April. Year 12 & 13 Students had been approached to attend and 25 attended form Tauranga Boys and Tauranga Girls. It was great to see Rangitahi participate. Great response from Teachers and Principals. Technical Infrastructure was coming through a lot. Recreation – nothing Maori in the park by the harbour. Other areas noted were Museum, Literacy and Numeracy, Language focussed programmes, Life Skills – Financial, Art Wall, Dance, Facilities for less fortunate, Sculptures, Jobs, Health, Free food, Free first aid courses, Free gym memberships, Free power, Free zoo, How to get Kaimoana, Transport, Parking, Walking spaces. KS acknowledged that the Marae format was fantastic – want to do it again. Information collected will be included in the social infrastructure action list. CB apologised for not attending the Hui and advised that he has submitted all of this to SmartGrowth previously. Where is it? Haven’t failed for lack of input and trying. There is a lack of output. KS agreed that this hasn’t resonated before she came on board. Between KS and SR really pushing for that placemaking. All of this should be within the positioning paper, it is a strong message. VO-G went on to advise that each attendee had also received a certificate. We are obligated to them. VO-G left the meeting at 12:12pm 9A4 update KS provided an update on the other forums pointing out how important it is to link the groups up. A new forum – Social Infrastructure Providers – is being considered. This forum will be made up of organisations that provide ‘hard’ social infrastructure (e.g. Police, Ambulance, Councils, Education, Health, Churches, Fire, Property developers) with the initial intent to inform the SPR. Potential for Maori Rep to sit on this forum – Marae?
Combined Tangata Whenua Forum meeting 4th May 2016 Page 32
The Issue: Discussion of the Agenda Items:
Update on action 11A4 SR provided an update on 11A4 – currently in the process of making meeting arrangements with Council staff, should be able to procvide feedback at the next CTWF meeting.
11C1 Maori Demographics SR provided an update – gaps were identified in the last report. Paper is the scope – Page 12. Anything missing? Members to email SR by next week if they think of anything. This is to go to IMG next month. Progress though in June/July. May not be completed until after election. Provide snapshot of where we are today. Provide good information to governance.
Action SR 11C1 Maori demographics supplementary report scope to go to IMG
Meeting Closed at: 12.42pm Puhirake Ihaka close the meeting with a Karakia from Wiremu Hiamoe
th Next Meeting Wednesday, 6 July 2016, Balcony room, Historic Village, Seventeenth Avenue
Combined Tangata Whenua Forum meeting 4th May 2016 Page 33
CTWF OUTSTANDING ACTIONS LIST
Action Meeting Description Action No
1. May MT, BM, IW in conjunction with SR to review the TOR, and to present a revised TOR back to the next MT, BM, IW, SR Forum meeting; 2. May Discuss opportunities for TCC and WBOPDC staff to support the CTWF, governance members and Tu MT, BM, IW, SR Pakari Advisor 3. May SR SR to prepare a CTWF position paper on the SPR
4. May SR SR 11C1 Maori demographics supplementary report scope to go to IMG
Combined Tangata Whenua Forum meeting 4th May 2016 Page 34
SmartGrowth Property Development Forum Café Function Room , TCC 5th May 2016 8:30 – 10:30am
Present Jeff Fletcher (Chair), Jeff Ford, Grant Downing, Peter Cooney, Karen Summerhays, Richard Coles, Jeff Hextall, Andrew Mead, Scott Hamilton, Simon, Scott Adams, David Needham, Colin Booth, Janine Speedy, Andrew Collins
Apologies Bill Miller, Aaron Colliers Previous minutes and Discussion Previous minutes received and accepted. matters arising
Update on SPR- Discussion Andy Mead gave an overview of SPR papers. Keenan road – not yet ready for development. Western Corridor – could be urbanised but should it? KT presentation to SGIC Alternative area being Tauriko West being brought forward. workshop - Paper B Keenan Road and Western Corridor reports to be presented to May SGIC Workshop. Keenan RD - A question was raised - Does their value of kiwifruit land effect the decision on Keenan road? Settlement Pattern review - AM advised yes this was taken into account. Paper C AM commented a challenge was multiple land owners, existing land form could provide 1800 lots, extensive land reformation was required to improve the yield . Difficult to get reformation projects across multiple Keenan Road and Western land owners. Corridor Strategic Study - Paper Western Corridor: AM referred to page 29 recommendations. Review Western BOP plan re fragmentation. D Timeframe: Tauriko west in about 5 years subject to process going smoothly. Discussion was had around vigorous land uptake may require more land needing to be released sooner. AM: Smiths farm coming on board. Bottom of Keenan a short term possibility. Ohauiti 70ha. NZTA re Tauriko: Reporting to the board likely not until November. AM: conversation with NZTA. AM has a range of actions to explore alternatives.
KS recirculate updated SPR completion timetable. AM to circulate Southern Pipeline Report. Southern Pipeline Funding: Discussion Southern Pipeline costs – submissions to AP on funding model. Update from Action from 10 Report pending to annual plan deliberations. Options:1. go back to original 2. Retain alternative model 3. December 2015 Meeting re post Wait another year when we have more confirmed information.
Property Development Forum meeting minutes 5th May 2016 Page 35
tender costs (Andy Mead) Proposed capital cost reduction $7m (2/3-1/3 split). Deliberations commence end of May. AM: Future flag. Further increases to charges are likely in some areas. If more than 10% likely to come back existing Development Contributions locked in so any increase will only affect future subdivisions. Still in working phase but will be able to give more clarity as work progresses. (AM left the meeting at 9:00am) JS: Wairakei Plan Change 2 was withdrawn. Project team to replace. Plan change 24 s/water to Committee - 17 May. Consultation 20 June. Work streams 1. Special housing area and remaining residential land – additional height. Wairakei own chapter. 2. Special housing area Papamoa East employment land to be rezoned to residential. Employment land to be reallocated into Te Tumu. Active reserve need to be big enough. School sites. Contact – Campbell Larking – Plan change. Karen Marjoribanks – Stormwater. Janine – Project Lead. 9th May reports to Council. 20th September seek to go to notification October. Action Compact City – Review of Discussion Discussion was had around the letter. Craig Batchelar letter re Letter to be seen as a PDF Position Paper on Compact City. Compact City recommendations and discuss adoption/agreement of by PDF Action KS Both attach to minutes and present separately. (Done)
SmartGrowth 11A4 – Combined Discussion Tangata Whenua Consultation KS: The SG Tu Pakari Advisor is to take the findings from previous workshops to the council’s regulation Policy: Update on Action from 10 teams for their consideration and response. At the time of writing no date has been confirmed. December 2015 Meeting
Action Social Infrastructure Providers Discussion KS provided an update on the Social Infrastructure providers meeting. Providers agreed to the formation of
Property Development Forum meeting minutes 5th May 2016 Page 36
Forum the SG Social Infrastructure Providers Forum. This will now go through the required process and the establishment of the Terms of Reference for approval by SGIC. In the meantime regular meetings will be held. The next set for 14th July. Andrew Collins asked to be added to the list of invitees Action KS to add Andrew Collins to SIP Forum list Update from the other Forums KS provided updates on current SG Strategy actions and news from the other Fora.
Action Request that NZTA provide an update. It was suggested that Kim be invited to attend the next meeting Any other business General discussion regarding the usefulness for future intensification of having end dates on covenants – (20-30 year duration).
Action Meeting Closed: Next Forum meeting: 8:30am – 10:30am on Thursday 7th July 2016. Priority One Boardroom
Property Development Forum meeting minutes 5th May 2016 Page 37
PROPERTY DEVELOPERS FORUM OUTSTANDING ACTIONS LIST
Action No: Meeting Description
1. MAY KS recirculate updated SPR completion timetable.
2. MAY AM to circulate Southern Pipeline Report.
3. MAY KS to add Andrew Collins to SIP Forum list
Property Development Forum meeting minutes 5th May 2016 Page 38
Property Developers Forum
23 March 2016
Andrew Mead
Tauranga City Council
Private Bag 12022
TAURANGA 3143
Dear Andrew
RE: Residential Intensification Review
The following comments are provided on behalf of the SmartGrowth Property Developers Forum (PDF) on the Residential Intensification Review - City Living Zone September 2015 prepared by Essential Consulting Group Limited.
The PDF accepts the analysis carried by Essential and strongly supports the recommendations made in the Intensification Work Program Review.
The analysis of infill and intensification opportunities under current controls makes sobering reading. The City Living Zone, intended to be the flagship zoning for promoting intensification, provides little real capacity for development. Similar conclusions are drawn for the Suburban Residential Zone. Clearly, if the Council is to make any significant inroads into providing for residential intensification, significant shifts in policy and practice are required.
The changes made to the Suburban Residential Zone through the last City Plan Review were a significant step backward in providing for residential intensification in the City and this is confirmed in the report. The decisions made on restricting development opportunities in the Suburban Residential Zone largely reflected a response to uninformed community feedback, as opposed to giving the required effect to strategic outcomes for the City that had been established in SmartGrowth and under the Regional Policy Statement.
The report identifies the need for careful community engagement in moving forward with plans for increasing opportunities for residential intensification. There will be an inevitable pushback from some members of the community and it will be incumbent on the Council to show leadership if progress is to be made toward enabling greater intensification.
A sustained programme of developing community understanding of the issues and implications for long term city growth will be needed.
The report appropriately identifies non-regulatory opportunities for Council to enable intensification by becoming an active manager and champion. These non-regulatory initiatives can of course be implemented in the short term as they are not contingent on plan change processes being completed under the Resource Management Act.
Property Development Forum meeting minutes 5th May 2016 Page 39
There is strong support from the PDF for the recommendation to determine areas most suited for intensification and the interventions and investments that council might make in such areas to better enable and encourage the development community to then bring forward new development in such areas. Similarly, understanding infrastructure capacity across Tauranga, how intensification might consume that capacity, and how investment in infrastructure impacts on the capacity of the infrastructure to support desired intensification will be critical.
The report identifies potential areas of focus for infill and intensification including Matua, Otumoetai, Cherrywood and Tauranga South and the coastal frontage from Omanu through to Papamoa. Further refinement of these findings is needed and the PDF would welcome the opportunity to assist with this work.
The final recommendation, that monitoring of outcomes achieved through policy and updated on a regular basis, is also strongly supported. A suite of initiatives will be required to make real progress in this challenging area of urban planning. The efficacy of measures aimed at encouraging intensification need to be carefully monitored to ensure that they are effective, and if not, additional or alternative measures are put in place in a timely manner.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the report. We look forward to future involvement in this issue which is of critical importance to the future development of the city and sub-region.
Yours sincerely
Jeff Fletcher
Chairperson
SmartGrowth Property Developers Forum
Property Development Forum meeting minutes 5th May 2016 Page 40
SmartGrowth Strategic Partners Forum Meeting Tuesday, 10th May 8:00am – 10:00am The School House, Historic Village, 17th Avenue.
Present Bill Wasley (Chair), Mark Boyle (Te Puke Fast Forward), Paul Hickson (Te Puke EDG), Jacqui Knight (Katch Katikati), John Garwood (Fruit Growers Association), Mary Dillon (Envirohub), Fern Nielson (National Council for Women), Eddie Orsulich (Forest & Bird), Liz Davies (WBOPDC), Karen Summerhays (SmartGrowth), Carole Gordon (SSF) Christine Ralph (HAF) Phil Shoemack (Toi Te Ora – Public Health Service), Barry Roberts (Federated Farmers) Apologies Anne Pankhurst (PATAG), Stan Gregic (Chamber), Alistair Rhodes,(BayTrust) Annie Hill (Priority One), Christine Ralph (HAF), Jeff Fletcher (PDF), Philip King (TCC), Jennifer Pearson (Creative Tauranga)
Previous minutes and Discussion No matters arising from previous minutes. Minutes confirmed by the group. matters arising BW welcomed Barry Roberts representing Federated Farmers to the Forum meeting – Barry was a member of SPF in the early days 2000/2001. BW also introduced Megan Rumble permanent SmartGrowth Coordinator Action
Settlement Pattern Discussion KS provided an update on the SPR timetable advising that there have been some amendments around the Review update first part of 2017. It has been proposed by IMG not to have public consultation but instead stakeholder feedback via the forums. KS advised that SSF and CTWF are working on positioning papers to put forward to SGIC around the SPR. It was asked when officers will attend forums for consultation. Concerns were raised that the community has not been involved. Acknowledgments were made that this is difficult with council timelines however it is a real concern and needs to happen. BW advised that Philip King will be attending the forum and will also have a community development perspective given his role at TCC. KS advised that she has already asked Michael Tucker when it will be appropriate and to what level forums will get involved. Everything is currently at a high level i.e. Keenan vs Tauriko West vs Te Tumu. Concerns were raised that there has been no planning for community e.g. how many schools will be required to accommodate these communities, how many pools etc. MD advised there absolutely needs to be one consultation under LGA first. What is the big rush? We ought to hold onto what we have learnt and why SmartGrowth has been so successful. Get the community firmly
Strategic Partners Forum – 8th March 2016 41
behind what we are doing. CR: It is important to reach the community. Why is it considered appropriate to avoid that phase? KS advised that the thinking was that the SG forums are a representation of the community. LD: pre engagement is so important. Engage early on and less people feel the need to have their say – they feel they have had it. BW advised that wider consultation was proposed for 2017. July for targeted engagement forums and groups.
Recommendation:
The SmartGrowth Strategic Partners Forum recommends to SGIC that the public consultation process be undertaken as originally proposed to occur in the first half of 2017
BW to confirm with all forums, staff and implementation advisor when forum consultation on the SPR would Action take place and will follow up with Ken.
9A3 Discussion KS presented to the group on the Social Sector inventory project (9A3) – presentation attached below. The data is to be held in community ownership ( via SociaLink) but the IP regarding the format and dashboards will be the property of the developer. Any organisation who provides a service in the Western Bay can be involved. Group discussion was had around this project. Action
Updates from the other BW: SG Implementation Committee has had conversations with DHB. BW will follow up when back form forums leave around opportunities going forward around a greater collaboration. CR updated on HAF – heavily focussed on the strategy project at present. The point is to show best practice in affordable housing. Looking at 10-20 homes on up to 4000sqm site. Looking at different types of homes, duplex, terraced, condo etc. Innovative housing. CG commended CR and HAF for their continued work. CG provided up update of SSF – SSF raised their concerns around the lack of engagement in the Settlement Plan. A positioning paper is in the works. LD: 9A4 update. LD and KS are currently doing research around hearing the voices we don’t usually hear from i.e. ethnicity, children, young people and Maori who are not Tangata Whenua (It is difficult to identify Maori
Strategic Partners Forum – 8th March 2016 42
in the community who are not Tangata Whenua) How do we continue to engage with these groups. KS spoke about the multicultural festival she held a stall at in association with the research partners. The diversity was incredible and everyone wanted to tell their story. Really positive engagement. KS advised it is really helpful to give an update on the other forums to link everyone up o PATAG: currently carrying out research on older renters in the WB going forward. o E&S: the first forum was held on Tuesday 3rd May with 17 RSVP’s and 30 attending. Jo Wills was elected Chair. o CTWF: currently in the process of appointing a new chair and 2 new SGIC reps. CTW are reviewing their Terms of Reference which will give them a really good look at decision making. A very successful Hui was hosted at Maungatapu Marae. CTWF are in the process of writing a positioning statement for SPR. o A new forum – Social Infrastructure Providers – is being considered. This forum will be made up of Organisations that provide ‘hard’ social infrastructure (e.g Police, Ambulance, Councils, Education, Health, Churches, Fire, Property developers) with the initial intent to inform the spatial plan of Te Tumu. The initial meeting was very successful and it was encouraging to see Public Health Organisation there. Concerns were raised that BOPRC and TCC representation were missing on this forum. KS advised that Philip King has been attending all forums with the view to placing the right staff on each forum. BW advised that PK could represent TCC on this forum CR advised that we have also lost representation from the Tertiary Sector. Action KS/MR to extend invite to Surf Lifesaving to join Social Infrastructure Providers group. MR to compile a document with all forums and current members. BW to have a conversation with the Interim Polytechnic CE Neil Barns MR to include Philip King in Strategic Partner Forum group and invite him to meetings going forward. Next agenda item – Who is not at the table.
SmartGrowth update As noted MR has started as SmartGrowth Coordinator in a full time role. Three quality candidates were interviewed for the Implementation Advisor position on Friday 6th May. BW is away for two months from Wednesday 11th May and is keen to have an appointment made before then. Action
Strategic Partners Forum – 8th March 2016 43
Other Matters: BW on leave for two months from Wednesday 11th May. Ross Patterson will be chairing May and June SGIC. BW: Minister of Transport has announced the Northern Arterial funding and time frames. Now to move into design stage. Construction to start in two years’ time. Also discussing four laning out to Omokoroa. Tauriko Bypass – looking at decisions in November after this has been to NZTA board. EO asked if consideration has been made regarding on ramp from Greerton onto Takitimu Drive. BW noted that an entry onto Takitimu Drive from Fifteenth Ave was as part of the design considerations in respect of the Northern Arterial. It was mentioned that it would be an idea to invite a NZTA rep to the next Forum meeting to speak about roading. MD suggested also inviting Bay Brighter Futures to update the forum. Action Ken to extend invitation to next SPF meeting to NZTA rep.
MR to liaise with MD on inviting Bay Brighter Futures to the next Forum meeting.
Meeting ended at 10.06am. Next Meeting 12th July. Historic Village, Chapel 8.00am-10.00am
This Year’s SPF Calendar:
12th July 2016
13th September 2016
8th November 2016
21st December 2016 (New Council Introduction)
Strategic Partners Forum – 8th March 2016 44
Forum SmartGrowth Implementation Committee (SGIC)
Meeting Date 18th May 2016
Author (s) Ken Tremaine
Purpose Monthly Report for SGIC dated 18 May 2016
Purpose of report
To inform the SGIC on implementation activities, to convey recommendations from the SG Fora and to note other related matters Active SmartGrowth Strategy Actions
7A1 - SG Partner Forums Indicative funding FY15/16: $30k
PATAG: The research paper and legal advice regarding the land use regulations of retirement villages and their ability for future repurposing has been received.
PATAG/ SG are now part of a National Reference Group for a 4 year Aging Well Life Challenge research project being undertaken by Bev James (in association with Natalie Jackson). The research focuses on older people who are renting homes: What challenges they face that differ from an older person homeowner, what future demographic changes will mean for the rental housing stock and what are the levels of service received by renters compared with homeowners and those in retirement villages. An opportunity to undertake a yearlong case study focused on the western Bay of Plenty sub-region is being considered.
7C3 – Integration with DHB
DHB representatives attended and presented to the SGIC in April. Ongoing engagement has been agreed to and the details of how that happens will be canvassed in the near future.
SGIC SG Actions and Forum Update Report 180516 KS-KT Page 45
Indicative funding FY15/16: No funding identified/required
7I2 – Regular Reporting Indicative funding FY15/16: $7.5k
As discussed at the October SGIC 2015 the formal reporting will be undertaken in mid-2016. The nature of the reporting will be considered and discussed with governance in May 2016 to confirm the scope and presentation is fit for purpose. This work will commence once the Implementation Advisor is in place. The engagement of the forums to ‘ground truth’ the scorecard is seen as a key element to be retained from the 2012 scorecard.
8C2 - Environment and Sustainability Forum (E&SF)
The first E&S Forum was held on Tuesday 3 May with 33 attendees. Jo Wills from was elected chair of the forum. The TOR will be updated with the list of organisations who attended and indicated their willingness to be a member of the Forum. Any additional members will be invited to join at the discretion of the Chair.
9A2 - Communication with community
Indicative funding FY15/16: $31.5k communications +$15k website
The SG website is being redesigned and will be ready for testing mid-May with an anticipated launch early-july.
9A3 - Effectiveness of the Social Sector Indicative funding FY15/16: $40k
The Smart Inventory- Social project was endorsed to proceed at the SGIC April meeting, subject to the SG CEAG discussing and resolving the implementation detail. The matter is being progressed and once agreement is reached, staff will undertake the procurement process. Staff are also continuing to engage external funding partners as per the SG Strategy action outline.
In response to the Recommendation of SGIC (April) 3. Refers the project proposal to Chief Executive Advisory Group (CEAG), the Social Sector Forum (SSF) and Social link to address the issues raised in discussion on the basis that if there are any matters which cannot be resolved, these come back to the Committee for resolution. The Social Sector Forum has endorsed the renewed SociaLink proposal for the collection of the data and the Smart Inventory Proposal as presented to SGIC. SociaLink and the SSF raised
SGIC SG Actions and Forum Update Report 180516 KS-KT Page 46
no concerns with the proposal to proceed to prototype.
9A4 - Better understand the needs of western Bay Communities Indicative funding FY15/16: $18k
A consortium of social researchers has now been contracted to undertake the Giving Voices research with a project finish date of June 2016. The project is proceeding as planned with a report back session on the initial findings to the project team to occur late May. The final report will be presented to SGIC in July.
10E5 - Affordable Housing Pilot Indicative funding FY15/16: $7k
The HAF Model pilot project has received legal advice and has now progressed to starting the ROI process.
11A4 - Combined tāngata whenua consultation
Indicative funding FY15/16: No Funding identified/required
The SG Tu Pakari Advisor is to take the findings from previous workshops to the council’s regulation teams for their consideration and response. At the time of writing no date has been confirmed.
11C1 - Maori Demographics Indicative funding FY15/16: $9k
A new scope of work was presented by the Tu Pakari Advisor to the recent CTWF in relation to the parallel report discussed at the November SGIC.
Social Infrastructure (SI) and Placemaking
In response to an identified action from the SIPTT, to encourage SI providers to network and plan together, a meeting was held with a range of Social Infrastructure Providers on the 19th of April 2016 at the western BOP District Council. The meeting decided to meet regularly (quarterly) and to encourage other providers to attend. The development of a SI Providers Forum was suggested and is being investigated by SG staff. Next meeting is planned for the 14th July.
SI and Placemaking Action List (SIPAL): The collection of feedback is nearing completion and
SGIC SG Actions and Forum Update Report 180516 KS-KT Page 47
as staff resource becomes available the compilation of all the material into a manageable and useful format will begin. It is envisaged that this information will be provided to the SG partners for consideration in the SPR. It is worth noting that the Hui held for young Maori held at the Maungatapu Marae (refer to CTWF minutes) has received very positive feedback regarding both the content of the workshop and the place it was held.
SmartGrowth Resourcing
Megan Rumble the new full time coordinator started a couple of weeks ago and is already making an enormous difference given the current SG Forum cycle.
Interviews have been held for the SG Implementation Advisor position. An update will be provided at the meeting.
Highlights and recommendations from the SG Forums
PATAG
Recommendation to SGIC from the Forum: PATAG supports the recommendation to remove and reinstall the gym appropriately to enhance maximum use and optimum health and benefits. This needs to be fit for purpose placemaking wise - accessible with appropriate signage, shade, close to toilets and with rubber matting under foot – not woodchips.
Social Sector Forum
Recommendations to SGIC from the Forum: SSF appoints two representatives to the reference group role in an advisory capacity. Theo Ursum and Karen Williams to represent SSF.
The Forum fully endorsed the work of 9A3 with no matters arising.
Property Developers Forum:
Note the attached Position Paper on Compact City attached to the PDF minutes
Combined Tangata Whenua Forum:
The Forum has appointed a sub-group to review the Forum’s Terms of Reference to clarify the processes regarding the election of the CTWF Chairperson and SGIC representative positons. The sub
SGIC SG Actions and Forum Update Report 180516 KS-KT Page 48
group will present their recommendations to the Forum for discussion and refining and then any changes will be presented to SGIC for endorsement.
Note that Tangata Whenua representation on SGIC is presently only two members following the resignation of Awanui Black and Karora Smith from the Forum.
Strategic Partners Forum
The Forum has expressed concern at the truncated SPR settlement pattern review process. The matter is dealt with in a separate SPR update report.
Recommendations
1. Note the strategy action update
2. Note the improvements to SG resourcing
3. In relation to the Forums
Refer the Population Aging Technical Advisory Group gym request to the implementer for action Note the Social Sector Forum recommendations Refer the Property Development Forum Comact City paper to the Settlement Pattern Review team with a request that the issues raised be reported on in June when the Compact City update paper is being discussed Note the Combined Tangata Whenua Forum appointment process
SGIC SG Actions and Forum Update Report 180516 KS-KT Page 49
SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
Forum SmartGrowth Implementation Committee (SGIC) Meeting Date 18th May 2016 Author (s) Ken Tremaine Purpose Update on Settlement Pattern Review (SPR) Purpose of report
To respond to the matters raised by SGIC at the April workshop To present for discussion the Western Corridor Strategic Study and the Keenan Road Reports To present two timetable/task options in response to matters raised in the Strategic Partners Forum minutes To identify the scope of SGIC decisions between May and August The operating context of the SPR - response to matters raised by the Joint Committee at the April workshop
At the April meeting of the Committee there was a concern that:
by providing assessments of individual areas the overall options were not evident the rate of development and the changing nature of demand could be invalidating the current approaches to the settlement pattern review.
The project team has met to discuss these issues.
Responding to the options issue, the SPR is focussing on
what we can do now which has a logic behind it: i.e. options within the existing urban limits of the RPS with minimal change apart from timing, district plan structure planning and plan changes. For example Te Tumu, Keenan Road what can happen within the current policy framework i.e. the Compact City what is needed in the near future subject to both RPS, district plan changes (TCC/WBoPDC) parts of the western corridor at Pyes Pa west. What is longer term eg the balance f the Western Corridor apart from Pyes Pa West
All of these options are dependent on successfully managing impacts on the transport network.
The second issue relating to the rate of development and the changing nature of demand i.e potentially more families than retirees is not one which invalidates the current approaches to growth management. The wBoP has dealt with cyclic growth rates over many years.
Page 50 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
Attached as Appendix 1 is the TCC additional household demand between July 2004 and June 2016.
The cyclic nature of demand is very evident. Despite current high nett migration, upper NI growth pressures, low interest rates as well as the need to maintain at least 10 years of developable land supply, it is not anticipated that the current levels of activity will continue unabated. Also we are currently in the situation where there is only 8 years of land supply remaining.
Also from the demand and supply analysis presented at the April meeting without additional land in the western corridor the existing average demand cannot be met.
There is also a need to focus on what can be realistically achieved in the next 10 years taking care not to compromise any longer term potions. The Western Corridor and Keenan Road Reports
Attached as Appendix 2 is the Western Corridor Strategic report.
The project has been undertaken collaboratively across the councils and the NZTA.
The Committees attention is drawn to:
The executive summary which contains specific recommendations
In addition two critical transport related issues arose through this work:
All parties agreed that at the very least, there is a back-stop of at-grade access from SH29 into Tauriko West being available to service the area in the short-term. All parties agreed that a longer term solution will be workable and is subject to a range of available options being tested further through an IBC – this more enduring solution may be able to be brought forward to serve the development from day one depending on a range of factors.
A comprehensive presentation on this and the Keenan Road reports will be given at the committee meeting. An NZTA representative will address the transport links to the State Highway and the options available.
Attached as Appendix 3 is the Keenan Road Study
The Committees attention is drawn to:
The executive summary The recommendations The relationship between this work and the wider Western Corridor Strategic Study
Page 51 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
The SPR Strategic Review Timetable
Attached as Appendices 4 and 5 are two alternative timetables for completing the SPR. The first is the timetable presented to the Committee in April. The second is that subsequently adopted by the SG Implementation Management Group.
The timetable in Appendix 4 contains significantly more consultation than the amended timetable in Appendix 5. This is not favoured by the SPR team given the additional timeframes imposed in a situation where the available land supply is only 8 years.
The amended consultation approach is strongly opposed by the Strategic Partners Forum who wish to see the special consultative procedure reinstated.
The Committee will need to make a decision on this. Scope of decisions going forward
This is the first agenda containing specific recommendations relating to the SPR. These are necessary to enable the project to move ahead in an efficient manner. All of the decisions relating to specific parts of the SPR will be gathered together and represented in an integrated form when the draft final reports are bought forward in July and August, Recommendations for Committee Consideration: Western Corridor Strategic Study
Principal Recommendations
3. That SGIC formally identify the western corridor for future urbanisation.
4. That SGIC identify the Tauriko West area as the priority area for the Councils and the NZTA to undertake detailed planning to advance re-zoning as the next urban growth area subject to agreed densities in Te Tumu and in the compact city SPR option.
Recommendations for Short Term Sequencing
That the sequence of urbanisation in the western corridor broadly proceeds as follows:
5. By 2017 initiate work towards plan changes and infrastructure provision to allow for urbanisation of Tauriko West including: Undertake a cultural assessment and continue to engage further with iwi and hapu; Consult with land owners;
Page 52 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
Seek to identify and protect important sites and water quality of the Wairoa River; Investigate road access options to service Tauriko West that are compatible with the Tauriko Programme Business Case; Advance a structure plan and commence the preparation of plan changes to the Regional Policy Statement and District Plans.
6. At the same time, continue planning work for the urbanisation of the Keenan Road area that is already within Tauranga City. 7. Undertake an investigation of changes required, if any, to District Plans to avoid land fragmentation or land use change that would hinder the ability to deliver future Urban Growth Areas. 8. Within the next five years initiate a structure plan for the remaining Keenan Road area (possibly including Merrick Road extension).
Recommendations for Medium to Long Term Sequencing
9. Depending on uptake of the Tauriko Business Estate, undertake structure planning and rezoning for the Lower Belk Road industrial area. 10. Should growth demand continue strongly, after 2020 determine the next growth area(s) in the western corridor study area, potentially including Belk Road and/or Merrick/Joyce Road areas.
It is also recommended that SmartGrowth notes that the western corridor is generally more suitable for urban development than the southern corridor, with the possible exception of the Ohauiti South area which should be investigated further in the short term and reported back to the Committee for direction.
Recommendations for Committee Consideration: Keenan Road Study
SGIC agrees that:
9. The Keenan Road area is suitable for future urbanisation and should be retained as a future urban growth area. 10. That further planning and community engagement work is required before the area could be rezoned for urbanisation to address the issues identified in the report. 11. SmartGrowth partner staff undertake this work and report back to the Committee on a regular basis noting that as an initial estimate, it is expected to take 12-24 months to complete this work. 12. A draft structure plan may need to be developed to inform this further work. 13. This further work needs to be informed by direction on the potential future urbanisation of the Merrick Road and upper Joyce Road areas in the long-term. 14. It may be possible for a first stage of the Keenan Road area to be developed ahead of the wider growth area and that this will be considered.
Page 53 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
15. The future timing of urbanisation requires further discussion and future agreement, including the concept of a staged approach. Timing should be informed by the potential to bring forward an alternative growth area in the Western Corridor ahead of the Keenan Road area, current and future growth rates and land take up, the wider strategy to urbanisation in the Western Corridor and the time it takes to address the issues identified in the Keenan Road area. 16. As a priority consideration should be given to advancing the urbanisation of an alternative growth area within the Western Corridor due to impending development capacity constraints and the unknown timeframe to ‘ready’ the Keenan Road area for urbanisation.
Recommendations for Committee Consideration: Consultation
1) That the Committee express a preference for either partner Council approval post the 2016 elections followed by consultation outlined in Appendix 4 (special consultative procedure) noting that there are potential land supply impacts or alternatively, 2) The Committee agree that the SPR strategy be adopted in August 2016 and that community input be sought through the statutory implementation processes of the individual partners
Recommendations Committee Decisions
That the Committee note the approach to decision making on the understanding that a comprehensive suite of consistent recommendations will be bought forward as part of the reporting in July and August.
Page 54 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
Appendix 1.
Additional Dwellings, Tauranga City Dwelling Total % Period consents Dwellings Increase Issued Jul 04- Jun 05 44,692 Jul 05- Jun 06 1,005 45,697 2.2% Jul 06- Jun 07 1,088 46,785 2.4% Jul 07-Jun 08 773 47,558 1.7% Jul 08- Jun 09 476 48,034 1.0% Jul 09- Jun 10 452 48,486 0.9% Jul 10- Jun 11 403 48,889 0.8% Jul 11 - Jun 12 650 49,539 1.3% Jul 12 - Jun 13 720 50,259 1.5% Jul 13 - Jun 14 915 51,174 1.8% 1.6% Annual % Increase 1 July 2004 - 30 June 2014 Jul 14 - Jun 15 1,100 52,274 2.1% Jul 15- Jun 16* 1,471 53,745 2.8% 2.5% Annual % Increase 1 July 2014 - 30 June 2016
*(Note: 1,104 dwelling consents issued from 1 July 2015 to 31 March 2016 (pro rated to 30 June 2016)
Page 55 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
Appendix 2 The Western Corridor Strategic Study
The Western Corridor Strategic Study SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review
Page 56 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
Executive Summary The Western Corridor Strategic Study (the Study) seeks to identify the appropriateness of urban development within the western corridor study area beyond the current extent of urban zoning. The Study considers the potential need and provision for growth areas over the short, medium and long term. It is part of a broad SmartGrowth Settlement Pattern Review that is being undertaken in response to ongoing growth pressure in the Western Bay of Plenty sub-region.
Additional capacity is required to address a projected shortfall in capacity for greenfield residential land supply. It is anticipated that without the capacity provided by this Study and the other Option 3B projects, there would be no more residential greenfield land available by 2026. New greenfield areas need to be identified and planned well in advance of this date, to ensure demand can be met at the appropriate time. This Study represents a key part of this forward planning for future capacity.
The western corridor is attractive as a corridor for significant greenfield urbanisation due to the proximity of a large commercial centre, a significant proportion of the City’s available greenfield industrial zone, and surrounding residential growth areas that are experiencing high demand for housing. There is therefore an opportunity to provide an urban form that promotes the ‘live, learn, work and play’ pillar of the SmartGrowth Strategy. These features make the western corridor an attractive area to complement the significant greenfield land supply being planned in the Wairakei and Te Tumu areas in the eastern corridor. Capacity needs to be provided in both the east and west of the City to meet the projected demand for greenfield residential land beyond 2026.
This study has been undertaken in parallel with the NZ Transport Agency Tauriko Programme Business Case. This has been of benefit to both workstreams to determine an urban form integrated with the strategic transport network in the corridor. Three waters infrastructure provision has also been considered to serve potential new growth areas. No fatal flaws in terms of infrastructure provision were identified. Similarly, an analysis of potential planning constraints did not reveal any fatal flaws to urbanisation of the study area. Nonetheless, infrastructure sequencing considerations and planning/site constraints will influence the shape and yield of growth areas as they are planned in greater detail.
Given the known importance of the Wairoa River to Tangata Whenua, there is a commitment to engage with iwi and hapu whose rohe falls within the Wairoa River and immediate surrounds. Throughout March and April 2016, engagement with iwi and hapu was undertaken via a series of hui. Feedback received from each of these hui highlighted the importance of protecting and enhancing the values Tangata Whenua hold for the Wairoa River and surrounds. These values include: increasing biodiversity, restoration of ecosystems for flora and fauna, improving access and recreational opportunities for the Wairoa River and the protection of sites of archaeological and cultural significance.
The Tauriko West area presents itself as a strong contender for being the next growth area to be structure planned and rezoned. Key benefits of the Tauriko West area include that it is: Located on the periphery of the existing city; Relatively easy to service with infrastructure;
Page 57 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
Able to integrate access with programme options being considered by the Transport Agency for State Highway 29; Owned by a limited number of land owners (not fragmented into many titles), the majority of whom are keen to advance development; A high amenity location that faces north-west and slopes gently towards the Wairoa River. Provides a strong opportunity to develop high quality urban place making and community.
The Keenan Road area remains suitable for urbanisation in the future (as outlined in detail in the Keenan Road project report). This Study has noted there are a range of complexities to the development of the Keenan Road area that will take a number of years to resolve, principally the fragmented nature of land holdings. By comparison, the provision of transport connections in the near term and addressing cultural considerations present the biggest challenges for Tauriko West. However, neither of these are considered fatal flaws and are likely to be easier to surmount than resolving the land fragmentation issues for Keenan Road. Hence it is recommended that the urbanisation of the Tauriko West area occurs before that of Keenan Road.
A significant amount of additional work will be required to advance Tauriko West as an urban area. This will involve structure planning and in turn will require the Transport Agency to lead the preparation of an Indicative Business Case to determine the preferred option for providing access to Tauriko West. If Tauriko West is to progress in the near term, there will need to be practical access solutions agreed between the Councils and Transport Agency. This may require a staged approach, with some access provision to Tauriko West connecting to State Highway 29 at grade temporarily.
It is recommended that Tauriko West is prioritised for urbanisation prior to the Keenan Road area, which was previously signalled as the next growth area in the western corridor. On this basis structure planning and plan change processes to facilitate land use change should be advanced for Tauriko West. Preparatory work for structure planning the Keenan Road area, potentially extending to the Merrick Road area, should continue so that SmartGrowth is positioned to promote plan changes to the Regional Policy Statement and District Plans as required in the future.
Part of the Keenan Road catchment is currently within Tauranga City and also within the existing pre-2021 urban growth boundary in the Regional Policy Statement. This area is in a single ownership and adjoins The Lakes development. There may be an opportunity for this area to be developed more quickly as the first stage of a wider growth area. It is recommended that this opportunity is explored further.
Should growth demand continue strongly, the sequencing of further growth areas within the Western Corridor should be determined based on the best opportunities to deliver the ‘live, learn, work and play’ pillar of SmartGrowth. Accordingly, it is recommended that planning work is undertaken to avoid land fragmentation in the future urban growth areas.
By 2020, the following factors will allow for the potential future urban form of the western corridor to be better understood and therefore may influence further planning undertaken in the medium term:
Page 58 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
Further development will have occurred to take up the existing urban zoned land; Structure planning and rezoning for Tauriko West will be completed; Specific transport interventions to deliver the Tauriko Programme Business Case will be confirmed, and some of these potentially implemented.
In the long term, SmartGrowth should continue to monitor growth demand and advance land use and infrastructure planning and the subsequent release of additional areas within the western corridor as required. To protect the ability to deliver future growth areas the SmartGrowth partners should review District Plan provisions to ensure future urban areas are not subject to further fragmentation or land use change that could compromise their future potential for urbanisation.
The following recommendations are made to SmartGrowth:
1. By 2017 initiate work towards plan changes and infrastructure provision to allow for urbanisation of Tauriko West including: o Undertake a cultural assessment and continue to engage further with iwi and hapu; o Consult with land owners; o Investigate road access options to service Tauriko West that are compatible with the Tauriko Progamme Business Case; and o Advance a structure plan and commence the preparation of plan changes to the Regional Policy Statement and District Plans.
2. At the same time, continue planning work for the future urbanisation of the Keenan Road area including the option for urbanisation of the land already within Tauranga City as an initial stage.
3. Undertake an investigation of changes required, if any, to District Plans to avoid land fragmentation or land use change that would hinder the ability to deliver future Urban Growth Areas.
4. Within the next five years initiate a structure plan for the Keenan Road area (possibly including Merrick Road extension).
5. Depending on uptake of the Tauriko Business Estate, undertake structure planning and rezoning for the Lower Belk Road industrial area.
6. Should growth demand continue strongly, after 2020 determine the next growth area(s) in the western corridor study area, potentially Belk Road and/or Merrick/Joyce Road areas.
It is also recommended that SmartGrowth notes that the western corridor is generally more suitable for urban development than the southern corridor, with the possible exception of the Ohauiti South area which should be investigated further in the short term and reported back to the Committee for direction.
Page 59 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
7. CONTENTS
Executive Summary ...... 57
Purpose of the Western Corridor Strategic Study ...... 61
Background and Context ...... 62 Background Reports Considered ...... 64
Potential Extent of Urbanisation in the Western Corridor ...... 64
Land Use and Transport Integration ...... 67 Integration with the Transport Agency Programme Business Case for Tauriko ...... 69
Feasibility of Infrastructure Servicing ...... 73 Social Infrastructure ...... 73
Ecological Infrastructure ...... 74
Planning Constraints ...... 75 Cultural Importance of the Wairoa River ...... 76
Contaminated Land ...... 76
Flooding in Waimapu, Kopurererua and Wairoa Catchments ...... 76
Conclusions of Planning Constraints Study ...... 76
Engagement with Tangata Whenua ...... 77
Feasibility of Development...... 78
Comparison to Southern Corridor Growth Areas– Pukemapu, Neewood and Ohauiti South ...... 79
Potential Land Use and Sequencing ...... 80
Conclusion ...... 86
Recommendations ...... 87
Appendices ...... 88
FIGURES
Figure 1: SmartGrowth – The Planning Horizons
Figure 2: The Western Corridor Strategic Study Area Figure 3: Early thinking of possible road network for circulation and collection Figure 4: Parallel workstreams for the western corridor to deliver the SmartGrowth vision
Figure 5: Indicative sequencing diagram
TABLES
Page 60 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
Table 1: A general proposed land use outline for the western corridor Table 2: Tauranga travel mode share compared to other centres (2009 -2012 average) Table 3: Planning constraints considered Table 4: Keenan vs. Tauriko West – Comparative Matrix
Purpose of the Western Corridor Strategic Study The Western Corridor Strategic Study (this Study) seeks to identify the appropriateness of urban development within the western corridor study area for future growth beyond the existing extent of urban zoning. It is part of a broad SmartGrowth Settlement Pattern Review (SPR) that is being undertaken in response to ongoing growth pressure in the Western Bay of Plenty sub-region. In determining the feasibility of urbanisation, this Study also makes recommendations as to how SmartGrowth should plan for land use change in the western corridor through the short, medium and long term.
A Western Corridor Strategic Study project team was set up to undertake this Study. The project team are Michael Tucker, Andrew Mead, and Jon Fields (Tauranga City Council), James Low (Bay of Plenty Regional Council), Phillip Martelli (Western Bay of Plenty District Council), Doug Spittle and Ian Herbert (New Zealand Transport Authority) and Bruce Robinson (transport consultant). Representation from across the Councils and Transport Agency reinforced the collaborative approach required to undertake such a complex project.
Page 61 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
Background and Context
The SPR seeks to determine the temporal and spatial blueprint for allocating residential and industrial growth within the Western Bay of Plenty sub-region over the next 30 years, whilst retaining a 50 year strategic horizon. The SPR also signals work required in terms of structure planning and plan changes to ensure the provision of adequate land supply to a ten year horizon. These planning horizons are illustrated in the figure below as taken from the SPR project plan:
Figure 1 – SmartGrowth – The Planning Horizons
50 Year Strategic Horizon
30 Year Settlement Pattern and Infrastructure Strategy
Ten Year Plan Plan changes Structure Planning
The SPR was intended to be delivered as part of the 2013 SmartGrowth strategy update. However, following the postponement of the 2011 census, the SmartGrowth Implementation Committee delayed this review, but determined that some work is required to ensure adequate development capacity in the face of continued strong growth. The Option 3B projects, which includes this Study, are an accelerated work programme aimed to address the Western Bay of Plenty sub-region’s continuing growth pressure.
The Western Bay of Plenty sub-region and Tauranga in particular, is experiencing strong population growth and this growth trend is projected to continue. Population projections for Tauranga see it reaching 161,565 by 2033 (an increase of 38,814 from 2016). Recent monitoring of resource consent data to the end of December 2015 has signalled growth is currently tracking faster than projected, at approximately 18% above projections (over the period from mid-2013 to the end of 2015).
The Western Bay of Plenty District is growing at a slower rate. For the two years from the 2013 Census to June 2015 the District’s number of new dwellings was 32% lower than that
Page 62 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
projected in the SmartGrowth review. The average annual figure was 320 new dwellings against the SmartGrowth figure of 386. However, the growth rate has increased significantly in the current year equating to an annual figure of 426 new dwellings for the June 2016 year.
At 30 June 2015, there was capacity for approximately 10,500 additional residential dwellings in zoned urban growth areas within Tauranga City. In the Western Bay of Plenty District, there is capacity for an additional 2,735 residential dwellings within the zoned urban growth areas. This is a theoretical capacity and local shortages of available sections exist in Katikati and Te Puke in the short term.
According to SmartGrowth projections, Tauranga City will require an additional 47,900 dwellings between 2013 and 2063. As at 30 June 2013 there remained an estimated greenfield residential land supply for 13,200 dwellings in zoned greenfield areas; additional infill capacity of 5,150 dwellings; and potential for intensification to provide a further 2,100 dwellings. This provided a total supply capacity for 20,450 dwellings, which when deducted from the projected demand out to 2063 leaves a shortfall of 27,450 dwellings. This shortfall will need to be accommodated in future greenfield areas or intensification (beyond the 5% rate already assumed) of brownfield sites. As at 30 June 2015 greenfield land supply capacity was available for approximately 10,500 dwellings, which is estimated to provide for up to 10 years of residential greenfield growth.
The following timeframes for delivering additional greenfield land supply are considered reasonable based on the current process for rezoning further land. This assumes parallel Resource Management Act processes for the District Plans and the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement.
Complete Settlement Pattern review Option 3B Project 1 Year Preparation of Plan Changes (RPS, City/District Plans) 1 year + Notification of Plan Changes, including submissions/further submissions 1 year and hearings Appeals 1 year Contingency 1 year Total 5 years
Based on these estimated timelines, the current 10 year greenfield land supply is expected to diminish to 5 years of land supply before further land would be rezoned for residential development. It is anticipated that it may take a further 1 to 2 years to supply the necessary infrastructure to a new growth area that would enable development to actually commence (which may leave only 3 years of greenfield land supply).
It is anticipated that without delivering the additional capacity potentially signalled by this Study and the other Option 3B projects, there will be no more greenfield capacity available by 2026. New greenfield areas need to be identified and planned well in advance of this date, to ensure capacity can be taken up at the appropriate time.
The western corridor is attractive as a corridor for greenfield urbanisation at scale due to the established mix of a sub-regional commercial centre, a large proportion of the City’s available greenfield industrial zone and surrounding residential growth areas experiencing high demand for housing. There is therefore an opportunity to provide an urban form that
Page 63 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
promotes the ‘live, learn, work and play’ pillar of the SmartGrowth Strategy. These features make the western corridor an attractive area to complement the significant greenfield land supply being planned in the Wairakei and Te Tumu areas in the eastern corridor. Capacity needs to be provided in both the east and west of the City to meet the projected demand for greenfield residential land beyond 2026.
Background Reports Considered The Study considered reports undertaken previously in relation to the study area, to acknowledge existing work and knowledge. Reports considered include:
The Wairoa River Strategy 2013. SmartGrowth – Possible Urban Areas Assessment to establish and Urban Limits Line 2005. SmartGrowth Infrastructure Capacity Report: Addressing Generation 1-4 Development October 2012. Strategic Case - Strategic Assessment and Funding Application to proceed to Programme Development - Hamilton to Tauranga Corridor Improvements - NZTA 28 April 2015. Managing Travel Demands across the Tauriko Transport Network – NZTA Strategic Case Summary 23 June 2015 version 0.13. Smart Growth Residential Land Capacity and Suitability Study Post 2041 (Part A-D). Land Availability for Industrial Buildings with High Floor Loads in the Western Bay of Plenty Sub Region. Business Land Overview Report. Industrial Land Review. SmartGrowth Commercial Land Update.
Consideration of these reports provided underlying knowledge and context as the Study team undertook analysis of the potential for urban development in the study area. Previous analysis, work and consultation undertaken as part of these background reports, meant there was a good existing knowledge base to work from and base subsequent decisions. For instance, the previous work to develop the Wairoa River Strategy clearly articulated the importance of the Wairoa River to Tangata Whenua. This led to a separate work programme of engagement with iwi and hapu whose rohe fell within the Wairoa River and immediate surrounds. Similarly, SmartGrowth work to support the location of the urban limits in the Regional Policy Statement and infrastructure and travel demand analysis helped set the context for the Study team’s further analysis.
Potential Extent of Urbanisation in the Western Corridor The starting point for this study was to identify the extent of urbanisation that could occur in the western corridor, based on previous investigations of logical catchments and, based on the current rates of growth, what extent of land use change could feasibly be required to a 50 year time horizon. Table 1 and Figure 2 outline the areas considered for the purposes of
Page 64 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
this study; their potential dwelling and employment yields; and their approximate location within the study area.
Table 1: A general proposed land use outline for the western corridor
Area Name Land use Yield
Tauriko Business Estate Industrial (zoned) 255ha of industrial land
44,000m2 net leasable retail area. Tauranga Crossing Retail (zoned) 7ha Bulk retail 1
Pyes Pa West Residential (zoned) 3,000 total dwellings
Keenan Rd Residential (planning) 2,000 total dwellings
Tauriko West Residential (possible) 3,000 total dwellings
Lower Belk Road Industrial (future) 100ha developable
Upper Belk (Stage 1 and Residential (possible) 6,000 total dwellings Stage 2 Combined)
Merrick Road Residential (possible) 2,500 total dwellings
Upper Joyce Residential (possible) 2,000 total dwellings
This general outline provides for a residential and employment future for the area, consistent with the ‘live, learn, work, play’ pillar outlined in the SmartGrowth Strategy 2013. This in turn provides for people living in the area to meet their daily needs within their local community, notwithstanding an ability to travel elsewhere, the CBD for example, for work. While not the focus of this study, it also provides the basic building blocks for strong place-making and sense of place, which can be pursued at a later date should a decision be made to urbanise these areas.
The yields identified in Table 1 above, are generally based on an assumption of residential density of 15 dwelling units/hectare. These densities are typical for Tauranga in the current and likely near future housing market conditions. However, it is probable that higher residential densities can be realised in the future. In this case, less land area would be required to accommodate the anticipated growth. However, the impact of higher densities on infrastructure needs, including roads, have not been explicitly modelled at this stage, but would need to be considered as part of any future structure planning process.
1
Page 65 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
Figure 2: The Western Corridor Strategic Study Area
Page 66 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
Land Use and Transport Integration A critical component of this Study was to determine a preferred potential urban form, backed up by a feasible roading network. To achieve this, the Study set out to identify an urban form that responded to the growth imperative and provided for a local and regional transport network that served both the needs of future local residents and efficient freight access to and from the Port of Tauranga via State Highway 29 (SH29).
In terms of the development of a roading network, an appropriate local roading system and hierarchy is required for an integrated approach to land use and transport planning. This approach, consistent with the One Network Road Classification, would require appropriate local, collector and arterial roads to be constructed within each identified Urban Growth Area (UGA) with appropriate connections to the larger Tauranga City Council-controlled arterial road network, in turn supporting the state highway network. At the outset of this project the Transport Agency expressed their desire for:
Minimising the number of local connections to SH29 which is a nationally strategic highway to the Port of Tauranga. Specifically within the study area, a southern connection and northern connection only between SH29 and the local roading network is desirable;
A strong set of local east-west routes to distribute any traffic loads across the existing north-south arterial routes: SH29A; Cambridge Road, SH36, Cameron-Pyes Pa Road, Oropi Road–Fraser Street. The concern is that SH29A is currently the only road in the area serving that function and there are no other continuous east-west routes south of 15th Avenue-Turret Road. The effect is that SH29A junctions with the north-south arterials will effectively act as a barrier to north-south flow, and SH29A itself will reach capacity in the medium term (between SH36 and Barkes Corner, and between Oropi Road and Poike Road).
In turn, the alignment and connections to and across SH29 will be a major determinant of the urban form for this corridor long into the future. The project team identified that the first task required was to take a long term view of the corridor and determine the ‘best’ transport network to serve a full growth scenario. This would enable planning for both land use and transport to be led by a vision for the best urban form – supporting the full range of social and environmental well-beings. A report outlining this analysis is attached as Appendix 1 – h owever, the key observations include:
The severance created by the existing SH29 is closely aligned with the existing severance also created by the Tauriko escarpment.
Land take for a new alignment through the Tauriko Business Estate would remove a significant amount of viable industrial land supply from what is proving to be the fastest growing area in the City for new industrial developments.
A new alignment of SH29 connecting to SH36 would exacerbate severance within the Lakes/Business Estate area and would also limit future options for the form and function of SH36 as a major local arterial - as the form and function would instead need to align with the inter-regional freight role.
Page 67 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
A new alignment through the Tauriko West area would cause significant severance within any new urban growth area established there as well as significantly reducing development yield.
A number of road network options were initially suggested by the project team at the sketch modelling phase. Indicative future local roads (arterials /collectors) were marked in black as on the following map. The current state highway network is marked in blue and the current local road network is marked in green.
Figure 3: Early thinking of possible road network for circulation and collection
Page 68 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
The transport analysis evolved from an initial discussion of various land-use scenarios with supporting transport networks at a sketch planning level of detail, to specific modelling of a range of growth levels using the Tauranga Transport Model to confirm and size a robust set of supporting transport links and junctions. Appendix 2 provides a comprehensive outline of the results of that analysis. The key findings of modelling into the long term include the following:
An upgraded SH29 on or near the existing alignment, complemented with an enhanced local network, greater public transport share and effective travel demand management will cater for full growth in the corridor over the next 30 years. Other options are available longer term for a northern bypass north of the Wairoa River in the 50 year window or beyond the 50 year window.
Significant transport interventions need to be assumed for the network to function, including significant capacity improvements along links and grade separation of intersections.
An east/west connection from Belk Road through to Keenan Road/The Lakes/SH36 removes some of the pressure from local traffic from the SH29/SH36 roundabouts and this can be further complimented by a connection through to Oropi Road from SH36 to foster an alternative local connection to Fraser Street, the southern suburbs and the eastern corridor.
Integration with the Transport Agency Programme Business Case for Tauriko The Transport Agency is leading a transport network plan to provide transport interventions that will be included in a Programme Business Case (PBC). These interventions respond to the proposed settlement pattern growth projections in the western corridor. All of the SmartGrowth Council partners are involved in development of the PBC.
The PBC will recommend a preferred programme for the state highway network, local roading interventions, public transport and other transport interventions. Figure 3 conceptually illustrates how the Western Corridor Study and the PBC for the western corridor operate at a similar lens in our planning approach. Future structure plans and infrastructure projects will need to maintain line-of-sight to both these pieces of work – and in turn to the SmartGrowth vision for the sub-region.
Figure 4 – Parallel workstreams for the western corridor to deliver the SmartGrowth vision
Page 69 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
The Transport Agency PBC and the Western Corridor Study are complementary projects. It is because both work streams are operating at the same lens in our planning approach that a very high level of iteration has been required between the two work programmes – sometimes one project waiting for the other to catch up before progressing further. The completion of this study has closely aligned with the completion of the PBC and this has been out of necessity for both work streams. A detailed diagram showing how this iteration has been achieved is shown in Appendix 8.
The PBC adopts a similar approach to the SmartGrowth Strategy in terms of temporal planning horizons. That is, the focus is on planning for a 30 year time horizon – but also keeping an eye to the future beyond that, realising the uncertainty that is inherent in longer term projections. With this time horizon in mind, the transport programme options for the western corridor have been developed around the ‘most likely’ land use pattern out to 30 years. This ‘most likely’ future is based on estimates of growth trends and assumes that growth will occur contiguous and concentrically out from the existing urban zoned areas. The 30-year scenario has therefore been assumed to include the existing zoned areas as well as the potential growth areas of Keenan Road and Tauriko West.
This 30-year scenario is considered conservative, for example it is possible that within 30 years the Tauriko Business Estate may have extended to the Lower Belk Road area and residential growth exceeded supply in The Lakes, Keenan and Tauriko West areas. Sensitivity testing by the Transport Agency has been undertaken to ensure that if higher (or lower) growth rates occur in the western corridor then the programme options remain compatible. Likewise, analysis out to a 50-year horizon was undertaken to appreciate the demands on the network that may arise and the resilience of programme options in the face of those.
The Transport Agency developed a long list of transport programmes across various themes – largely delineated by the future alignment of SH29 and the respective level of intervention being delivered by the Transport Agency vs territorial authorities (Tauranga and Western Bay) vs Bay of Plenty Regional Council (public transport). Among the programme options, the long-list included potential new alignments of SH29 both to the north of the Wairoa River and south through the Tauriko Business Estate/Lakes area. The options also included programmes that maintain the existing SH29 alignment – give or take a few hundred metres to allow for ‘straightening’ or managing topographical and land use constraints.
Page 70 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
From the long-list of programme options, a short-list was chosen via a multi-criteria analysis process to determine which would best deliver the benefits sought for the western corridor. These benefits include both transport outcomes and enhancing the liveability for urban communities as growth occurs. This balance of outcomes sought by the PBC is best illustrated by the Investment Logic/Benefits Maps included as Appendix 7.
Three programmes from the long-list were short-listed through this process, two seeking to maintain the existing alignment of SH29 and one that looks to complement the network with a northern realignment of SH29 across the Wairoa River to connect to the Tauranga Northern Link. These are currently being investigated further to determine the most efficient option and ultimately confirm the final preferred programme later in 2016.
A universal theme across the short listed programmes is that a significant transformation needs to occur in the share of trips made via the private motor vehicle. This recognises that given the amount of growth potentially able to be provided for in the western corridor, the transport network would not be able to sustainably provide for the current travel mode profile of Tauranga’s residents (see Table 2). Transport Demand Management (i.e. reducing the need for travel or distance travelled) can achieve this end in part and is an approach that aligns closely with the ‘live, learn, work, play’ pillar of SmartGrowth. A transformation in the share of trips made via public transport modes will also be important. These factors emphasise the importance of place-making in the western corridor, especially provision for easy access to an attractive public transport service. To this end, the short-listed programmes indicate a significant public transport interchange at the Tauranga Crossing commercial centre.
Table 2 – Tauranga travel mode share compared to other centres (2009 -2012 average)
The Transport Agency aims to take the PBC to its Board for support in the second half of 2016. There is recognition from the Transport Agency that any decisions around sequencing of the new growth areas will impact the timing for which supporting transport interventions will need to be planned and provided for. For example, a decision to advance Tauriko West in the near term will present a more immediate need for a programme of works along SH29 compared with advancing Keenan Road – for which required interventions would be more directed to SH36.
The Transport Agency will incorporate any recommendations from this Study that are confirmed by SmartGrowth into the final version of the PBC taken to the Board. This will then
Page 71 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
determine the work programme and timings required to respond to the growth occurring in the western corridor for both the state highway and local roading networks.
Page 72 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
Feasibility of Infrastructure Servicing Infrastructure, such as water supply, wastewater and stormwater are equally as important as transport for servicing future growth. Therefore, following the transport/land use integration work, analysis was undertaken (see Appendix 4) to determine the feasibility of whether these infrastructure services will be able to provide for growth in the study area.
In short, the study identified that servicing potential growth areas in the corridor for three waters infrastructure is not considered a fatal flaw in the western corridor. For water and wastewater servicing especially it should be noted that reticulation would link to existing services within the Tauranga City boundary or under Tauranga Council’s ownership and governance.
The Southern Pipeline wastewater system has the capacity to take the increased flow associated with urban growth in this area, provided flows are managed. However, it is noted that significant further development in the Welcome Bay area or outside the areas assessed in this Study could require consideration of additional management approaches as the reticulation reaches capacity in the future.
Modelling indicates the existing waste water infrastructure between development at The Lakes and the gravity section of the Southern Pipeline will require upgrading. The next development area in the western corridor would trigger this upgrade requirement.
Stormwater is not considered a fatal flaw either. Stormwater is largely dependent on development design and consent conditions developed in the structure planning process. It is anticipated that any adverse effects associated with stormwater can be adequately managed through this process, once a decision has been made about future urbanisation.
Water supply will require modelling and planning. Many of the growth areas will need reservoirs, pumping and water main upgrades. The proposed Waiari water supply will be needed to supply the area in combination with the existing water treatment plants.
The final roading pattern will have an effect on the sequencing and alignment of the final growth areas and, importantly, the location and cost of infrastructure servicing.
Financial assessment to service each growth cell has not been determined or integrated into the Councils’ Long Term Plans. This level of assessment can be progressed at structure planning stage, when settlement and road planning has been more fully developed. As development occurs further away from the core city infrastructure and into areas of challenging topography, the costs of providing services increase.
Social Infrastructure The provision of social infrastructure is a strong contributor to successful urban form. Outcome 9.1 of the SmartGrowth Strategy identifies that “We work proactively and in partnership with the community to make Western Bay active, vibrant, connected, caring, healthy and safe” and there are a range of principles and actions that seek to ensure the provision of infrastructure to support communities.
Page 73 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
Social infrastructure helps to drive a sense of place, differentiating one urban area from another, and responding to specific local needs and desires. Accordingly, it is important that the need for appropriate social infrastructure is considered well in advance and that discussion with social infrastructure providers occurs in the early planning stages.
It is proposed that once SmartGrowth makes a recommendation on the future urbanisation of the Western Corridor study area, the planning for social infrastructure can be undertaken in concert with structure planning. This will marry the needs for social infrastructure with the eventual spatial form, hard infrastructure provision and sequencing of urban development. It will also provide the opportunity to optimise the ‘live, learn, work and play’ pillar of the SmartGrowth strategy.
Ecological Infrastructure There will be areas within and spanning the potential growth areas that include features that form ecological nodes and corridors. These will contribute to the ecosystem and water quality values in the western corridor. These could also potentially enhance amenity and recreational opportunities and recognise areas of cultural importance. ‘Ecological infrastructure’ may combine with reserves, walking/cycling or stormwater networks that will be provided for at structure planning stages. It should be noted that the location and form of the natural gullies and streams network between the Merrick and Upper Belk Road areas are likely to create a significant severance between those urban communities.
Page 74 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
Planning Constraints In an effort to identify potential constraints that may undermine or prevent urban development, a Western Corridor Planning Constraints Study was undertaken (Appendix 3). Largely a desktop study that used existing information and databases, it sought to identify whether any planning constraints exist in the study area that might either prevent future urban development in the study area, or determine its shape and size. The following table summarises the planning constraints investigated and the specific issues that arise within those.
Table 3: Planning Constraints Considered
Planning Constraint Specific Issues Landscape and Outstanding natural features and landscapes amenity Important amenity Natural character areas Environmental Special ecological areas Wairoa River and surrounds Water issues Recreation Passive Active Reserves Cultural and Historical Areas of significance to Tangata Whenua (waahi tapu, urupa, puna wai tapu, pa sites, etc.) Iwi/hapu management plans Archaeological sites and areas Historical sites and areas Geophysical Geotechnical and land stability Erosion Contaminated land Topography Versatile soils Land use
Councils that have statutory responsibilities in the Western Corridor study area assessed the relevant planning constraints. Through this assessment, a number of issues were identified that would need to be addressed if urban development was to occur in the future. With the possible exception of cultural issues in the Tauriko West area, none of these presented such a significant constraint as to prevent future urban development in the area. However, it was identified that in seeking to mitigate these issues, the final shape and form of the final urban area may be affected. It was also noted that in addressing constraints, opportunities exist to better provide for assets such as cultural sites, ecological areas and water quality.
The planning constraints that may have an impact are outlined below.
Page 75 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
Cultural Importance of the Wairoa River The most critical planning constraint identified was the cultural importance of the Wairoa River and to a lesser degree its importance as a recreation resource and role for flood management. The Wairoa River and its surrounds are of enormous importance to Tangata Whenua. Iwi and hapu have very strong historical and contemporary ties to the river and this is clearly articulated in the Wairoa River Strategy, Iwi and Hapu Management Plans, and the Ngati Hangarau, Ngati Kahu, and Ngati Ranganui Hapu protocols with Tauranga City Council. It is notable, for instance, that the Ngati Kahu Hapu Management Plan specifically seeks the protection and enhancement of the Wairoa River and protection of its mauri.
Given this conclusion, formal consultation is being undertaken with relevant iwi and hapu before a final decision is made about potential urbanisation in the western corridor, particularly the Tauriko West area. This process is outlined in further detail in the following section.
Contaminated Land Approximately 240 sites within the study have been identified by the Bay of Plenty Regional Council as contaminated sites. This is predominantly due to past and current orchards applying agri-chemicals. It is unknown what proportion of these sites exceed the thresholds for residential use. It is anticipated in the worst-case scenario that contaminated soils would need to be removed to remediate sites for development. This is not considered a fatal flaw, although may impact on the economics of development for affected sites.
Flooding in Waimapu, Kopurererua and Wairoa Catchments The three river and stream catchments within the western corridor study area all have some propensity to flood. While flooding activity can be exacerbated as a result of urbanisation, this can be addressed through adequate mitigation measures. Accordingly, this issue should not prevent future urbanisation, however further work is recommended to model the flood potential of the catchments and to ascertain the level of mitigation required to prevent floods.
Conclusions of Planning Constraints Study The Planning Constraints Study concludes that the only planning constraint that could prevent future urbanisation within the study area is related to the cultural importance of the Wairoa River. Accordingly, consultation with relevant iwi and hapu is underway. It also concludes that the other identified planning constraints can be adequately managed and mitigated and this should be addressed at structure planning stage, should a decision be made to advance urbanisation in this area.
Page 76 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
Engagement with Tangata Whenua Given the known importance of the Wairoa River to Tangata Whenua and the conclusions of the Planning Constraints Study, a commitment was made to engage with iwi and hapu whose rohe fell within the Wairoa River and immediate surrounds. The purpose of this engagement was to:
Establish a working relationship with affected Tangata Whenua. Inform Tangata Whenua of the Western Corridor Strategic Study and its purpose of determining the feasibility of urban development. Confirm the area’s values to Tangata Whenua and discuss any concerns about urban development impacting on these values. Discuss whether urban development may be acceptable to them. Seek feedback on potential urbanisation and opportunities to address iwi issues To provide information about how the study will proceed and commit to ongoing engagement and consultation.
Throughout March and April 2016, engagement with iwi and hapu was undertaken via a series of hui. The following iwi and hapu were consulted: Ngati Kahu, Ngati Pango, Ngati Rangi, Pirirakau, Ngati Hangarau, Ngati Ranginui
Feedback was received from each of these hui and is included in Appendix 6. A range of concerns, issues and opportunities were raised during engagement with Tangata Whenua. These can be summarised as follows: No fatal flaws were identified for the potential urbanisation of the Tauriko West area. There is a strong desire for enhancement of the water quality in the Wairoa River. There is an expectation that at the very least bathing water quality is achieved, but preferably drinking water quality. There is a clear desire for local biodiversity to be improved. There is a preference for some restoration of the Wairoa River with the hope of improving ecosystem for flora and fauna. It is critically important that should urbanisation occur, the protection of sites of significance to Tangata Whenua is built into structure planning and development and that these are publicly recognised. Enhanced access to the Wairoa river as a recreation resource. There is a preference for non-motorised use of the Wairoa River. Ongoing engagement and liaison with relevant iwi and hapu occurs. Archaeological and/or cultural assessment of the area is undertaken prior to development and identified sites protected.
Page 77 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
Feasibility of Development The study has not considered the commercial feasibility of urban development in each of the potential growth areas in the study area. However, the commercial feasibility of development has been considered in some detail for the Keenan Road area within the study area as part of the separate Keenan Road project. Similar work has been undertaken for parts of the Tauriko West area by consultants engaged by the landowners, in anticipation of potential urbanisation. Some general, high level conclusions about commercial feasibility can be drawn from this work, as summarised below (refer to the project report for Keenan Road for further detail): Sections prices would need to be in the low to mid $200,000’s (including GST) for development to be commercially feasible. This price level is consistent with recent sales in the adjoining Lakes development but it is unclear whether these prices are sustainable long-term. Development costs are relatively high due to significant earthworks, infrastructure requirements and likely land prices (especially for kiwifruit blocks). In addition, a 10% project contingency was allowed due to the preliminary stage of planning investigations for the growth area and the range of uncertainties and risks that still exist. A major risk for the Keenan Road area is coordinating the development across fragmented land ownership. This issue is pronounced due to the level of sequencing and coordination required across multiple ownerships to undertake large-scale earthworks and infrastructure provision that would allow key parts of the area to be urbanised. In respect of the other areas considered within the Western Corridor Study it would be fair to conclude the following: Market prices for sections are likely to be similar to the Keenan Rd area although potentially higher in some areas with greater amenity such as proximity to the Wairoa River or significant views toward the coast. Earthworks costs are likely to be significantly lower in the potential western corridor growth areas of Upper Belk, Merrick and Joyce due to relatively flat topography compared to the Keenan Road area. Earthworks costs in the Lower Belk Road and Tauriko West areas are likely to be significant and potentially comparable to the Keenan Road area. There is potential for infrastructure costs within the other potential growth areas to be similar or greater to Keenan Road for factors like the significant distance over which reticulated services have to be laid (water/wastewater) and the necessary local and state highway transportation works that would be required to enable urban growth. Much of the land within the western corridor suitable for urban development consists of relatively small kiwifruit blocks, hence land acquisition costs are likely to be significant and comparable with the kiwifruit blocks within Keenan Road. The issue of land fragmentation is largely absent from the Tauriko West area as there are a limited number of land owners, the majority of whom are keen to advance development.
Overall, for the purpose of this study it would be reasonable to assume that the commercial feasibility of development across the whole of the western corridor would be similar to that of
Page 78 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
the Keenan Road area. That is, development is likely to be commercially feasible if relatively high section price points can be sustained. It should be noted that the commercial feasibility of development can change significantly over time, both positively and negatively.
Comparison to Southern Corridor Growth Areas– Pukemapu, Neewood and Ohauiti South As part of the wider Settlement Pattern Review, the areas of Pukemapu, Neewood and Ohauiti South in the southern corridor (south of State Highway 29A) have been identified as possible future growth areas. These areas are included in the post-2021 urban limits within the Regional Policy Statement. The Pukemapu and Neewood areas are currently wholly located in the Western Bay of Plenty District. Whilst not part of the western corridor study area, as part of assessing the value of urbanisation in the western corridor it was considered necessary to also consider the relative benefits of urbanisation in Pukemapu, Neewood and Ohauiti South. Accordingly a sub-set of the Study team, undertook a high level workshop to assess the feasibility and relative merits of urbanising these areas in the southern corridor. These were assessed against some core criteria, and compared against Tauriko West, Keenan Road and the wider western corridor. The full assessment matrix is contained in Appendix 5.
The conclusion of this assessment was that both Pukemapu and Neewood areas scored relatively poorly compared to the western corridor and in particular Tauriko West. The criteria in which they scored particularly poorly were:
Topography (extensive escarpments and requirement for significant earthworks). Transportation infrastructure difficult and expensive to resolve (widening Ohauiti and Oropi roads, Pukemapu Bridge rebuild, state highway connections and capacity). Wastewater infrastructure (poor connectivity and high costs to resolve). Distance from existing and new employment areas and inability to develop significant local employment opportunities. Fragmented land titles. Little scope for urban density and lack of critical mass/scale.
Questionable attractiveness of location from a market perspective.
The feasibility of urban development in the Western Corridor was reinforced by the poor scoring of urbanisation for Pukemapu and Neewood. While a more in-depth analysis of Pukemapu and Neewood is needed, before any final decisions are made about the urbanisation potential of these areas long-term, for the purposes of the Western Corridor Strategic Study, a clear conclusion is that the western corridor is more feasible and attractive for urban development.
Ohauiti South is different to the Pukemapu and Neewood area for the following reasons:
It is located within Tauranga City. It adjoins the urban boundary of the City at the top of the existing Ohauiti urban growth area.
Page 79 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
It is relatively flat and much of it has a significant coastal outlook.
Accordingly, there is significantly greater potential that this area is urbanised and it is recommended that this is further explored in the short-term.
Potential Land Use and Sequencing This section considers a possible sequencing of planning and development to guide future work. The analysis in this Study indicates that there are no fatal flaws to future urbanisation of the western corridor study area into the long term. This will inform the SPR as to the potential for urbanisation of the western corridor. Recalling the 10/30/50+ year planning horizons of the SPR this Study addresses the need to structure planning/plan change work that will be required within the next 10 years.
The logical pattern for further land use change beyond currently zoned areas is for the City to expand in a manner contiguous with the current urban area. This provides both for connected communities and also the rational roll-out of supporting infrastructure. A comparative analysis between the Keenan Road and Tauriko West areas was therefore undertaken, these being potential growth areas both contiguous with the current zoned urban area.
Table 4 - Keenan vs. Tauriko West Very Very Poor Average Good – Comparative Matrix Poor Good
Keenan Road Tauriko West Topic Rating Rating
Land fragmentation Poor Very Good
Developer Interest Average Very Good
Versatile Soils/Rural Productivity Poor Good
Environmental impact Average Average
Topography Average Good
Public Transport Average Average
Proximity to employment areas Good Good
Hazards Good Good
Infrastructure Funding/Delivery Poor Good
Iwi Good Average
Transportation Average Average
Three Waters Average Average
Certainty of catchment Poor Very Good
Page 80 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
Timeframe for delivery Average Good
Reserves, Social Infrastructure. Average Good
Urban Form Average Good
Scale Good Good
This Study concludes that the Tauriko West area presents itself as a strong contender for being the next growth area to be structure planned and rezoned. A summary matrix outlining the comparative strengths between Keenan Road and Tauriko West for urbanisation, in the short term, is shown above in Table 4. Note that a comprehensive matrix with analysis is attached as Appendix 5. To summarise, key relative benefits of the Tauriko West area include that it is:
Located on the periphery of the existing city; Relatively easy to service with infrastructure; Able to integrate access with programme options being considered by the Transport Agency for State Highway 29; Owned by a limited number of land owners (not fragmented into many titles), the majority of whom are keen to advance development; A high amenity location that faces north-west and slopes gently towards the Wairoa River. Provides a strong opportunity to develop high quality urban place making and community.
A significant amount of additional work will be required to advance Tauriko West as an urban area. This will involve structure planning and in turn will require the Transport Agency to lead the preparation of an Indicative Business Case to determine the preferred option for providing access to Tauriko West. If Tauriko West is to progress in the near term, there will need to be practical access solutions agreed between the Councils and Transport Agency. This may require a staged approach, with some access provision to Tauriko West connecting to State Highway 29 at grade temporarily.
The Keenan Road area remains suitable for urbanisation in the future (as outlined in detail in the Keenan Road project report). This Study has noted there are a range of complexities to the development of the Keenan Road area that will take a number of years to work through, principally the fragmented nature of land holdings. By comparison, the provision of transport connections in the short term and addressing cultural values present the biggest challenges for Tauriko West, however, neither of these are considered fatal flaws and are likely to be easier to surmount than resolving the land fragmentation issues facing Keenan Road. Hence it is recommended that the urbanisation of the Tauriko West area occurs before that of Keenan Road.
To avoid doubt, it is recommended that Tauriko West is prioritised for urbanisation prior to the Keenan Road area that was previously signalled as the next growth area in the western corridor. Therefore structure planning and plan change processes to facilitate land use change should be advanced for Tauriko West. Preparatory work for structure planning the
Page 81 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
Keenan Road area should continue so that SmartGrowth is positioned to promote plan changes to the Regional Policy Statement and District Plans as required in the future.
It is noted that infrastructure servicing analysis indicates that it would be logical to develop the Merrick Road area following the Keenan Road area. Structure planning for Keenan Road would have to make provision for the future development of the Merrick Road area if this was going to occur in the future in order to secure sufficient infrastructure capacity and appropriate infrastructure servicing corridors.
Part of the Keenan Road catchment is currently within Tauranga City and also within the existing pre-2021 urban growth boundary in the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement. This area is in a single ownership and adjoins The Lakes development. There may be an opportunity for this area to be developed more quickly as the first stage of a wider growth area. It is recommended that this opportunity is explored further in the short term.
Areas further south, such as the Belk, Merrick and Upper Joyce Road areas, are also possible locations for future urbanisation. These areas are significantly further away from the existing urban area and currently do not adjoin the urban footprint of the city. Therefore, their potential urbanisation represents extensive expansion and associated implications for urban sprawl. However, this study identified that should the need arise; these areas remain potentially feasible for urban growth and should remain on the growth agenda for subsequent decades should growth demand continue. No fatal flaws exist to undermine their development potential.
The following sequencing is dependent on a formal SmartGrowth go-ahead for the urbanisation of the study area. Nonetheless, for the purposes of this Study the following summary of sequencing new growth areas gives a picture of how growth planning work could occur.
In the Immediate Future (within next 3 Years):
Continuation of development in The Lakes, Tauranga Crossing and Tauriko Business Estate. Explore options for the planning and future development of the ‘Dunstan block’ at the northern end of Keenan Road. Continuation of discussion and engagement with the Keenan Road area landowners about its future urbanisation. Continuation of engagement with iwi and hapu in and around the Wairoa River. Undertake detailed feasibility analysis for Tauriko West Initiate structure planning for Tauriko West to define the extent, content, infrastructure requirements and details of future urban form. Investigate road access options to service Tauriko West that are compatible with the Tauriko Programme Business Case.
Initiate work to add the urban growth boundary for Tauriko West into the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement with a change to the City/District Plans for Tauriko West introduced by 2018.
Page 82 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
Undertake work to investigate levels of public transport services to support future urbanisation in the Western Corridor.
In the Medium Term Future (4 -10 years):
Commencement of development in Tauriko West. Substantial completion of development in The Lakes, Tauriko Business Estate and Tauranga Crossing. Complete structure planning for the Keenan Road area to define the extent, content, infrastructure requirements and details of future urban form (including decision on whether to include Merrick/Joyce catchments to inform Keenan structure plan). Continue to monitor growth and demand.
Determine next growth area(s) and sequencing in the western corridor study area, potentially including Belk Road and/or Merrick/Joyce Road areas. Undertake structure planning for the Lower Belk Road industrial area and potential plan change depending on uptake and growth of Tauriko Business Estate. Long term Future (10 – 50 years +):
Initiate structure planning/plan changes for remaining growth areas as required.
Page 83 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
Figure 5: Indicative sequencing diagram
Page 84 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
If the above sequence is advanced the completion of the The Lakes, Tauriko West and Keenan Road urban growth areas, along with the continued growth of the Tauriko commercial and industrial areas, will cater for only a conservative projection of demand for the next 30 years of growth in this corridor. It is likely that greater demand will occur – such as the Belk Road South extension to the Tauriko Business Estate and further residential growth in the Merrick/Joyce or Belk Road areas. These sensitivities need to be considered, along with the monitoring of growth demand, for future planning.
Should growth demand continue strongly, the sequencing of further growth areas should be determined based on the best opportunities to deliver the ‘live, learn, work and play’ pillar of SmartGrowth. By 2020, the following factors will allow for the potential future urban form of the western corridor to be better understood and therefore may influence further planning undertaken in the medium term:
Further development will have occurred to take up the existing urban zoned land; Structure planning and rezoning for Tauriko West will be completed; Specific transport interventions to deliver the Tauriko Programme Business Case will be confirmed, and some of these potentially implemented.
Page 85 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
Conclusion It is the conclusion of the Western Corridor Strategic Study project team that there are no fatal flaws to prevent the future urbanisation of the western corridor study area. There is the potential for the development of a future urban form that can be supported by an enhanced State Highway 29 and new local roading network. Infrastructure can be provided to support urban growth and strong opportunities exist for high quality place-making. It also provides a significant amount of new greenfield land that can respond to future growth demands. Growth should occur in a logical progression contiguous with the established urban extent.
In terms of the next growth areas for residential land supply to follow the The Lakes, this Study has looked out to a 10 year horizon to determine structure planning and plan changes that will be required. Effectively, this has required a comparison of the Keenan Road and Tauriko West areas as to their respective merits for urbanisation. As outlined in the separate Keenan Road project, the Keenan Road area, whilst remaining feasible for future development, faces a significant challenge in terms of delivering ‘ready-to-go’ land supply in the near-term given the fragmentation of land ownership. The Tauriko West area does not face such significant land fragmentation issues, however there will be transport challenges to provide access to Tauriko West in the short term, and the need to address high cultural values associated with the Wairoa River and surrounds. On balance, the advancement of Tauriko West is preferred as it is the most likely to be able to provide ‘ready-to-go’ land supply following completion of The Lakes.
Areas further south, such as Upper Belk, Merrick and Upper Joyce Road areas, are also possible locations for future urbanisation. These areas are significantly further away from the existing urban area and currently do not adjoin the urban footprint of the city. However, this study identified that should growth demand continue, these areas remain potentially feasible for urban growth. Therefore, they can remain on the growth agenda for subsequent decades should growth demand continue.
Accordingly, this report signals that the western corridor is appropriate for future urban development. Tauriko West is the most appropriate area within the study area for urbanisation in the immediate term. Engagement with Tangata Whenua has highlighted the cultural importance of the Wairoa River area. This does not prevent future urbanisation, but it does require a collaborative approach to determine the extent, form and timing for urbanisation, including avoidance and mitigation measures to recognise and provide for Tangata Whenua values. Another priority for advancing the Tauriko West is to identify transport interventions required to serve the area. The Transport Agency will need to lead this work given the role of State Highway 29 and the findings to date from the Tauriko Programme Business Case.
The rezoning of the Tauriko West area is anticipated to delay the need to rezone the Keenan Road area by approximately 5 years. Therefore there is still a need to continue preparatory work for structure planning and rezoning of Keenan Road following Tauriko West and ongoing engagement with landowners and the community regarding urbanisation of the Keenan Road areas should continue. Expansion of the Tauriko Business Estate into the Lower Belk Road area will be contingent on the rate of uptake of industrial growth in the corridor. Further urban expansion south into the Belk, Merrick and Joyce Road areas could occur in subsequent decades should demand continue unabated.
Page 86 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to identify the appropriateness of urban development within the Western Corridor study area. In determining that outcome, the analysis has also signalled a clear sequencing and prioritisation for future urbanisation. Accordingly, the recommendations below include an overall recommendation, followed by short term and long term recommendations.
Principle Recommendations
11. It is the recommendation of this report that SmartGrowth formally identify the western corridor for future urbanisation. 12. It is further recommended that SmartGrowth identify the Tauriko West area as the priority area for the Councils and Transport Agency to undertake detailed planning to advance re-zoning as the next urban growth area.
Recommendations for Short Term Sequencing
It is recommended that the sequence of urbanisation in the western corridor broadly proceeds as follows:
13. By 2017 initiate work towards plan changes and infrastructure provision to allow for urbanisation of Tauriko West including: Undertake a cultural assessment and continue to engage further with iwi and hapu; Consult with land owners; Seek to identify and protect important sites and water quality of the Wairoa River; Investigate road access options to service Tauriko West that are compatible with the Tauriko Programme Business Case; Advance a structure plan and commence the preparation of plan changes to the Regional Policy Statement and District Plans.
14. At the same time, continue planning work for the urbanisation of the Keenan Road area that is already within Tauranga City. 15. Undertake an investigation of changes required, if any, to District Plans to avoid land fragmentation or land use change that would hinder the ability to deliver future Urban Growth Areas. 16. Within the next five years initiate a structure plan for the remaining Keenan Road area (possibly including Merrick Road extension).
Recommendations for Medium to Long Term Sequencing
17. Depending on uptake of the Tauriko Business Estate, undertake structure planning and rezoning for the Lower Belk Road industrial area. 18. Should growth demand continue strongly, after 2020 determine the next growth area(s) in the western corridor study area, potentially including Belk Road and/or Merrick/Joyce Road areas.
Page 87 SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review – Western Corridor Strategic Study
It is also recommended that SmartGrowth notes that the western corridor is generally more suitable for urban development than the southern corridor, with the possible exception of the Ohauiti South area which should be investigated further in the short term and reported back to the Committee for direction.
Appendices NOTE these are available on the SG website
Appendix 1: Western Corridor Land Use Scenario Report
Appendix 2: Land use and Transport Modelling Report
Appendix 3: Planning Constraints Study
Appendix 4: Western Corridor Three Waters Assessment
Appendix 5: Matrix of Keenan/Tauriko West/Pukemapu/Neewood Assessment
Appendix 6: Record of Iwi and Hapu Engagement
Appendix 7: NZTA Tauriko Programme Business Case Investment Logic Map
Appendix 8: Key Dependencies Between Western Corridor Workstreams
Page 88
Appendix 3 Keenan Road
Keenan Road Growth Area Planning Study SmartGrowth Option 3B Settlement Pattern Review
FINAL DRAFT VERSION
Page 89
Executive Summary
The Keenan Road area adjoins The Lakes development and could be thought of as a contiguous southern extension to that development.
The rezoning of the proposed Keenan Road growth area for urbanisation was prioritised by SmartGrowth as part of the suite of Option 3B Settlement Pattern projects in response to concerns about maintaining sufficient greenfield development capacity in the short-term (within the next 10 years).
Early in the project it became evident that further analysis was warranted to ensure urbanisation was commercially feasible and generally desirable in this location despite the area already being within the existing SmartGrowth Settlement Pattern and the urban limits. Questions around urbanisation potential centred on the implications of steep gullies, low lying river plains, likely yield, land fragmentation, infrastructure servicing and commercial development viability. These concerns lead to a purpose and content of the project changing significantly from one of ‘fast- tracking’ urbanisation to one of determining whether urbanisation was achievable.
This report explores all of these matters and has reached the conclusion that the area is appropriate and commercially viable for urbanisation in the future. Having said this, the area is not currently ready for urbanisation as there are a range of issues that need to be resolved. These issues primarily relate to the issue of fragmented land ownership and the further issues that stem from this in relation to cooperation between landowners, earthworks, infrastructure servicing and development yield.
Fundamentally there are two ways in which is the area could be developed. The first is to work with the current landform. This option would result in a lower development yield but it would significantly simplify infrastructure servicing and reduce to need for landowner cooperation.
The second option would be to undertake large scale earthworks to create additional development yield. This option is possible from an engineering perspective however it would require cooperation across a significant number of landowners and therefore may be difficult to implement. However if achieved it would result in a substantial increase in development yield and arguably therefore more efficient use of land.
Page 90
These issues require further assessment including engagement with the local community. The rezoning of the area for urbanisation should be deferred until these issues have been satisfactorily resolved. It is estimated that this further work would take 12-24 months.
This would mean that the Keenan Road area would not provide additional development capacity within the timeframes envisaged when the SmartGrowth 3B projects were approved. As such, consideration should be given to whether there are any other areas within the Western Corridor that could potentially be prioritised for urbanisation in advance of the Keenan Road area.
Page 91
Purpose of the Keenan Road Growth Area Planning Study
The rezoning of the proposed Keenan Road growth area for urbanisation was prioritised by SmartGrowth as part of the suite of Option 3B Settlement Pattern projects in response to concerns about maintaining sufficient greenfield development capacity in the short-term (within the next 10 years).
As the SmartGrowth’s agreed project plan, the purpose of the Keenan Road Project was initially to review and confirm the boundaries of the growth area to then enable: Engagement with the affected community The consideration of a boundary change process to transfer the land into the TCC District The preparation of a structure plan to guide the area’s development and determine infrastructure servicing requirements The preparation of a plan change to rezone the land for residential development Any necessary changes to the urban limit boundaries within the Regional Policy Statement.
Based on the original project plan (Appendix 1) it was envisaged that the project would now be well into the structure planning phase however the project has not progressed to that stage. Following a number of site visits it became evident that further analysis was warranted to ensure urbanisation was commercially feasible and generally desirable in this location despite the area already being within the existing SmartGrowth Settlement Pattern and the urban limit boundaries within the operative Regional Policy Statement. Questions around urbanisation potential centred on the implications of steep gullies, low lying river plains, likely yield, land fragmentation, infrastructure servicing and commercial development viability.
The purpose of this Study was revised to provide a comprehensive analysis of the feasibility and appropriateness of future urban development within the Keenan Road area and make recommendations about future urbanisation potential. As such the following workstreams in the original project plan have not progressed: Agreement to an urban growth area boundary for this catchment Structure planning Cross boundary arrangement for urbanisation/consideration of a boundary change RMA planning processes.
Page 92
The project team primarily consisted of Michael Tucker, Andrew Mead, Clare Cassidy and Jon Fields (Tauranga City Council), Phillip Martelli (Western Bay of Plenty District Council) and Doug Spittle (New Zealand Transport Agency). Due to the close links and interdependencies with the wider Western Corridor Strategic Study the project team for that project was regularly appraised of progress on the Keenan Road project and provided input as required.
Page 93
Background and Context
SmartGrowth Settlement Pattern The SmartGrowth Settlement Pattern Review (SPR) seeks to determine the temporal and spatial blueprint for allocating residential and industrial growth within the Western Bay of Plenty sub-region over the next 30 years, whilst retaining a 50 year strategic horizon. The SPR also signals work required in terms of structure planning and plan changes to ensure adequate land supply out to a 10 year horizon. These planning horizons are illustrated in the figure below as taken from the SPR project plan:
Figure 1 – SmartGrowth – The Planning Horizons
50 Year Strategic Horizon
30 Year Settlement Pattern and Infrastructure Strategy
Ten Year Plan Plan changes Structure Planning
The SPR was intended to be delivered as part of the 2013 SmartGrowth Strategy update. However, following the postponement of the 2011 census, the SmartGrowth Implementation Committee delayed this review, but determined that some work would be required to ensure adequate development capacity in the face of strong growth. The Option 3B projects, which includes the Keenan Road Growth Area Planning Study, are an accelerated work programme aimed to address the Western Bay of Plenty sub-region’s continuing growth pressure.
The Western Bay of Plenty sub-region and Tauranga in particular, continues to experience strong population growth and this growth trend is projected to continue. Population projections for Tauranga see it reaching 161,565 by 2033 (an increase of 38,814 from 2016). Recent monitoring of resource consent data to the end of December 2015 has signalled growth is currently tracking faster
Page 94
than projected, at approximately 18% percent above projections (over the period from mid-2013 to the end of 2015).
The Western Bay of Plenty District is growing at a slower rate. For the two years from the 2013 Census to June 2015 the District’s number of new dwellings was 32% lower than that projected in the SmartGrowth review. The average annual figure was 320 new dwellings against the SmartGrowth figure of 386. However, the growth rate has increased significantly in the current year equating to an annual figure of 426 new dwellings for the June 2016 year.
At 30 June 2015, there was capacity for approximately 10,500 additional residential dwellings in zoned urban growth areas within Tauranga City. In the Western Bay of Plenty District, there is capacity for an additional 2,735 residential dwellings within the zoned urban growth areas. This is a theoretical capacity and local shortages of available sections exist in Katikati and Te Puke in the short term.
According to SmartGrowth projections, Tauranga City will require an additional 47,900 dwellings between 2013 and 2063. As at 30 June 2013 there remained an estimated greenfield residential land supply for 13,200 dwellings in zoned greenfield areas; additional infill capacity of 5,150 dwellings; and potential for intensification to provide a further 2,100 dwellings. This provided a total supply capacity as at 30 June 2013 for 20,450 dwellings, which when deducted from the projected demand out to 2063 leaves a shortfall of 27,450 total dwellings. This shortfall would need to be accommodated in future greenfield areas or intensification (beyond the 5% rate already assumed) of brownfield sites. As at 30 June 2015 greenfield land supply capacity was available for approximately 10,500 dwellings, which is estimated to provide for up to 10 years of residential greenfield growth.
The following timeframes for delivering additional greenfield land supply are thought to be reasonable based on the current process for rezoning further land, assuming parallel Resource Management Act processes for the District Plans and the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement.
Complete Settlement Pattern review Option 3B Project 1 Year Preparation of Plan Changes (RPS, City/District Plans, including structure planning) 1 year + Notification of Plan Changes, including submissions/further submissions 1 year and hearings Appeals 1 year Contingency 1 year Total 5 years
Based on the current timelines for the SPR and subsequent Resource Management Act processes, the current 10 year greenfield land supply is expected to diminish to only 5 years of land supply before further land would be rezoned for residential development. It is anticipated that it may take a further 1 to 2 years to supply the necessary infrastructure to a new growth area that would enable development to actually commence (which may leave only 3 years of greenfield land supply).
Additional capacity is therefore required to address the projected shortfall in capacity. It is anticipated that without delivering the additional capacity provided by the proposed Keenan Road Growth Area and the other Option 3B projects, there will be no more greenfield capacity available by
Page 95
2026. New greenfield areas need to be identified and planned well in advance of this date, to ensure capacity can be taken up at the appropriate time.
Proposed Keenan Road Growth Area The Keenan Road area is a future residential urban growth area that is currently included in both the SmartGrowth Settlement Pattern and the Regional Policy Statement urban limits. It is scheduled for development post 2021 although a small portion of the area located within the TCC District is in the pre-2021 urban limits.
The area adjoins The Lakes development and could be thought of as a contiguous southern extension to that development. The following maps outline the location of the proposed growth area (Figures 1 and 2).
The vast majority of the land within the potential growth area is currently located within the WBOP District however a small amount is also located within the TCC District.
There are approximately 80 land parcels within the proposed growth area which demonstrates the significant land fragmentation that has occurred through past subdivision for kiwifruit and lifestyle purposes. Within the TCC District the land within the proposed growth area (approximately 70 hectares) is held in multiple titles by a single owner.
The proposed growth area is currently zoned rural within both Districts and contains horticultural (mainly kiwifruit) and farming activities as well as a small number of lifestyle properties, the ACG School and a small number of other businesses.
Figure 3 contains a contour map of the proposed growth area. It highlights the current topography of the area which is made up of a number of significant gullies running north/south (where the yellow contour lines are close together). Between the gullies there are flatter areas of readily developable land.
Page 96
Figure 1: Existing and Potential Growth Areas in the Western Corridor
Page 97
Figure 2: Aerial Photo of the Keenan Road Growth Area
Page 98
Figure 3: Keenan Road Growth Area 2m Contour Plan
Page 99
Methodology
The approach taken to understanding the urbanisation potential of the proposed growth area was focused initially around understanding development yield. This involved considering the existing topography and likely earthworks that could be undertaken by developers to modify this topography. This aspect of the project was delivered by Harrison Grierson.
Consideration was also given to infrastructure servicing in the form of transportation, water supply, wastewater and stormwater. Furthermore, planning constraints were assessed. This exercise was informed by the broader assessment of planning constraints that formed part of the Western Corridor Strategic Study as well as some specific assessment for this proposed growth area.
Information on yield, infrastructure servicing and planning constraints enabled an assessment of commercial development feasibility to be completed by Martin Udale of Essentia Consulting. As a final step, peer review of the key technical reports associated with this project was undertaken by a number of members of the SmartGrowth Property Developers Forum.
Page 100
Outcomes: Assessment of Topography and Yield
Harrison Grierson was engaged to assess the likely development yield from an engineering and earthworks cost perspective. Their conclusion was that a yield of up to 2,400 lots could be achieved at 15 dwellings/ha as per the table below. The areas shown in the Table below relate to Figure 6.
Figure 4: Residential Yield Assessment
Source: Harrison Grierson, 2016.
Page 101
This can be further summarised as follows:
Figure 5: Summary of Residential Yield Assessment Area Yield (number of lots)
Potential yield within existing urban limits (TCC District)2 468
Potential yield within post 2021 urban limits (WBOP District)3 1,260
Potential yield within expansion of urban limits (WBOP District)4 663
Total 2,391
2 Areas C1, D and E1 from Figure 6.
3 Areas A1, A2, B1, B2, C2 and C6 from Figure 6.
4 Areas A3, B3, C3, C4, C5, C7, C8, C9, C10 and E2 from Figure 6.
Page 102
Figure 6: Keenan Road Growth Area Yield Areas and Estimates
Page 103
There are however challenges to achieving a yield in the order of 2,400 lots such as: Significant and costly earthworks to reduce the steepness of gullies or to fill low lying areas in order to create additional developable land in some locations (mainly in Areas A3, B1, B2 and B3, C10 as per Figure 6). An approach to earthworks that, in a number of locations, would require multiple owners to work together or for one party to acquire multiple properties (same Areas as above). Risks around geotechnical conditions in some locations that require further investigation (especially areas B1, B2, B3, D, E1 and E2). The feasibility of filling of a small part of the Kopurererua flood plain for 250 lots from a stormwater management perspective (Areas D, E1 and E2). The existence of the ACG School which would reduce yield by approximately 100 houses (part of Area A1).
A more conservative yield estimate might be around 1,800 to 2,000 dwellings. This would be approximately the same size as The Lakes subdivision will be when complete.
104
Outcomes: Feasibility of Infrastructure Servicing
Transportation Harrison Grierson also considered road access options. There are a number of access options that are available to ensure appropriate connectivity into the neighbouring growth areas and to the wider transport network.
The nature and extent of connections will be partly determined by whether allowance is made for further urbanisation to the south in the Merrick Road area as well as the extent of growth that is planned for in the Western Corridor long-term.
The most logical road access points to enable development to commence would be Keenan Road which would require upgrade to urban standard and improvement works at the State Highway 36 intersection, as well as the extension of the collector road through Stage 3 of The Lakes subdivision.
Figure 7 shows a range of potential roading layouts that were identified by Harrison Grierson with the preferred road layout shown in black and alternative roads shown in red.
Further work would be required through the structure planning process to further develop the road pattern and ensure that it is efficient and cost effective. This would include further investigation of the potential of a connection to the Pyes Pa Bypass at the underpass in Stage 3 of The Lakes as suggested by member of the SmartGrowth Property Developers Forum. In addition, consideration of walking, cycling and public transport connections would be required.
105
Figure 7: Keenan Road Growth Area Road Layout Options
106
Wastewater Wastewater modelling has been undertaken. The model results indicate that a new trunk main would be required to service the Keenan block (two distinct catchments). This would feed into the TCC system at The Lakes. From there the existing system is constrained by pipe size and grade. The construction of the new trunk main and Keenan reticulation would be challenging due to land form (swamp, slope etc.). The estimate to install the new trunk main to service the area is $4.5m. Upgrades to the Lakes pump station and downstream to Maleame St are estimated at $3m. It is noted that costs for this portion of the mains upgrade may be proportioned over other areas that would also be serviced by this upgrade. This level of cost is thought to be reasonable for a project of this scale and would be comparable to costs experienced within existing growth areas.
Appendix 3 contains a more in depth assessment of wastewater servicing as well as water supply and stormwater.
Water supply TCC have scoped the long-term future water supply needs for the city. Holistically with the implementation of the Waiari supply and retention of the current supplies, TCC believe they will be able to provide for proposed future growth areas including Keenan Road. The design and provision of water to a single growth cell is not a good approach, the system should be designed holistically, city wide.
Approximately half of Keenan Road can be serviced from the existing system. The higher areas above 70m RL will need pressure augmentation as they are above the pressure system available. The existing line feeding into The Lakes area is high risk as a single feed supply. Investment in an alternative feed is proposed. The logical extension of Keenan long-term into the Merrick Road Area would necessitate new reservoirs and pumps.
The cost of providing water supply to the catchment is provisionally estimated at $7.7m. This includes a range of projects like a new reservoir that would be funded from city-wide development contributions rather than from the growth area itself. Overall costs appear to be manageable and are within the expected range compared to existing growth areas. It should also be noted that the major cost being the reservoir could be located such that it also serviced future long-term growth potential in other areas (Merrick, Joyce).
107 A266446 8
Stormwater
A stormwater solution for the Keenan Road Area can be delivered however it will need greater consideration than the adjacent Pyes Pa West Area due to implementation issues that have arisen in that area. The management of stormwater in the Keenan growth area is complicated and dependant on the road form, consents and the scale of earthworks undertaken. Recent TCC experience in similar challenging catchments (e.g. the Hastings Road area in Pyes Pa West) indicates that without detailed design, ‘master planning’ and possibly amalgamation of blocks, the implementation of a stormwater solution for Keenan Road Area would be fraught with risk and additional cost to the Council.
It is not practical to expect individual developers to liaise and negotiate with adjacent landowners to deliver a stormwater system. By default the Council would be tasked with achieving the aspiration of the structure plan and consents and utilising development contributions for funding.
The current rule for discharge in the lower catchment is flow restricted to 50% of pre development flow. This design parameter is restrictive and necessitates large storm water mitigation devices often located in marginal land forms or taking valuable house sites. Alternatively a significant area of Keenan is not currently covered by the City Plan or TCC comprehensive discharge consent. There is a possibility of reassessing the mitigation and discharge for new storm water consents to 100% of pre development flow which is a more standard approach. Stormwater modelling continues in the two main catchments that may assist with an alternative approach.
At this time and without design it is not possible to estimate a cost for stormwater management accurately. However because stormwater would be addressed within the catchment, avoiding the cost of lengthy reticulation, these costs are anticipated to be similar to the costs incurred in the neighbouring Pyes Pa West (The Lakes) area which do not place an excessive burden on developers or the Council.
Provision of Social Infrastructure The provision of social infrastructure is an equally important component of future urban form. Outcome 9.1 of the SmartGrowth Strategy is that “We work proactively and in partnership with the community to make Western Bay active, vibrant, connected, caring, healthy and safe” and there are a range of principles and actions that seek to ensure the provision of infrastructure to support communities, improve social cohesion, respond to the ageing population, promote arts, culture and education, etc.
Social infrastructure helps to drive a sense of place, differentiating one urban area from another, and responding to specific local needs and desires. Accordingly, it is important that the need for appropriate 108 A266446 8 social infrastructure is considered well in advance and that discussion with social infrastructure providers occurs in the early planning stages.
It is proposed that once SmartGrowth makes a recommendation on the future urbanisation of the Keenan Road study area, the planning for social infrastructure can be undertaken in concert with structure planning. This will marry the needs for social infrastructure with the eventual spatial form, hard infrastructure provision and sequencing of urban development. It will also provide the opportunity to optimise the ‘live, learn, work and play’ pillar of the SmartGrowth Strategy.
There is a range of social infrastructure and other community amenities and facilities within or close to the Keenan Road area already (or planned) as listed below:
Aquinas, ACG and Pyes Pa schools Proposed Kennedy Road primary school (opening 2018) Early childhood facilities within The Lakes and Pyes Pa Proposed Baptist Church in The Lakes Neighbourhood shopping centres in Pyes Pa and under construction at The Lakes Proposed swim school in at the Pyes Pa shopping centre Medical facilities at the Pyes Pa shopping centre (doctor, dentist, physio, chemist) Sub regional shopping centre at Tauriko (stage 1 under construction) Employment at Tauriko Business Estate and Greerton Network of stormwater reserves and open space in The Lakes.
Linkages with possible future growth areas It is evident that infrastructure planning for the Keenan Road Area needs to be informed and influenced by the likelihood of future urbanisation in the Merrick and Joyce Road Areas to the south. This will affect the strategy for urbanisation in ways such as the location and capacity of infrastructure and the need to future proof. This was not done particularly well in respect of the Pyes Pa West catchment and is one of the reasons why infrastructure planning for the Keenan Road Area is complex. Improvements need to be made in this respect going forward.
109 A266446 8
Outcomes: Planning Constraints In an effort to identify potential constraints that may influence, undermine or prevent urban development, a Western Corridor Planning Constraints Study was undertaken (Appendix 2). This study covered the Keenan Road Area amongst others. Largely a desktop study that used existing information and databases, it sought to identify whether any planning constraints existed in the study area that might either prevent the future urban development in the study area, or determine its shape and size. The following table summarises the planning constraints investigated and the specific issues that arise within those. Table 2: Planning Constraints Considered Planning Constraint Specific Issues
Landscape and amenity Outstanding natural features and landscapes
Important amenity
Natural character areas
Environmental Special ecological areas
Wairoa River and surrounds
Water issues
Recreation Passive
Active
Reserves
Cultural and Historical Areas of significance to Tangata Whenua (waahi tapu, urupa, puna wai tapu, pa sites, etc)
Iwi management plans
Archaeological sites and areas
Historical sites and areas
Geophysical Geotechnical and land stability
Erosion
110 A266446 8
Contaminated land
Topography
Versatile soils
Land use
Land fragmentation
Each of the councils that have statutory responsibilities in the area assessed the relevant planning constraints. Through this assessment, a number of issues were identified that would need to be addressed if urban development was to occur in the future. With the possible exception of cultural issues in the wider Wairoa area (away from the Keenan Road Area), none of these presented such a significant constraint as to prevent future urban development in the area. However, it was identified that in seeking to mitigate these issues, the final shape and form of the final urban area may be affected. The planning constraints that may have an impact in this regard in the Keenan Road Area are outlined below.
Contaminated Land There are a significant number of sites within the study that have been identified by the Bay of Plenty Regional Council as contaminated sites. This is predominantly due to past and current orchards applying agri-chemicals. It is unclear what proportion of these sites exceeds standards for residential uses. In a worst case scenario contaminated soils would have to be removed to approved landfills to enable urbanisation of some sites.
Flooding in the Kopurererua Catchment This catchment has some propensity to flood. While flooding activity can heighten as a result of urbanisation, this can be addressed through adequate mitigation measures. Accordingly, this issue should not prevent future urbanisation, however further work is required to model the flood potential of the catchment and to ascertain the level of mitigation required to mitigate the effects of urbanisation.
Three of the potential development sub-catchments (Areas D, E1 and E2 – 250 lots) are located within an area that is modelled to flood during a 100yr rainfall event as per modelling recently undertaken by TCC for the catchment. In order for these areas to be developed the land would have to be raised significantly and solutions found to ensure this did not increase flood risk to other properties upstream and downstream.
111 A266446 8
There is significant risk that these Areas will not be developable because of the flooding risk and the practicality and cost of mitigating this. Nonetheless this matter would need to be explored in further detail.
Geotechnical and land stability This is a significant issue which has already been traversed in detail in the yield assessment earlier in this report and the associated Harrison Grierson report appended. Geotechnical and land stability issues would not prevent the urbanisation of the Area but constrain how much land can be development and the yield that could be achieved.
Topography This matter has also been traversed in some detail in the yield assessment and supporting Harrison Grierson report. Again, this issue would not prevent the urbanisation of the Area but constrain how much land can be developed and the yield that could be achieved. The gullies located in the area are a challenge to creating a walkable and connected community. However on the other hand they would logically play an important role as stormwater and wastewater infrastructure corridors as well as a green corridor to provide visual amenity.
Versatile soils and land use The majority of the developable land within the Area is made up of versatile soils utilised for kiwifruit production. This is true of most of the areas on the periphery of Tauranga that would be suitable for urbanisation in the future with most of Tauriko West the only notable exception.
Land fragmentation Due to kiwifruit orcharding and some limited lifestyle subdivision of the Area, there is significant land fragmentation into smaller blocks. This is a challenge to urbanisation as it requires adjoining owners to work together or for sites to be amalgamated.
It is not necessary for every single landowner to work together however landowner cooperation is required in certain areas (sub-catchments). The extent of earthworks to create additional developable land will also dictate the extent to which adjoining landowners are required to work together. This is especially true in Area B1 where Harrison Grierson suggest that large scale earthworks could be feasible to ‘win’ significant additional land for development by filling one of the gullies. In that area there are at least six different owners that would be required to co-operate for this to be achievable.
112 A266446 8
It should be noted that Area B1 is of critical importance to the delivery of the Keenan Road Area as it is where services and road access would be brought through from The Lakes to enable wider development in the proposed growth area. If a more modest yield was acceptable from the B1 Area earthworks would be a lot simpler and there would be far less need for adjoining owners to cooperate. This matter needs to be further explored.
With respect to land fragmentation it should be noted that this is a feature that exists in many of the areas being considered for future urban expansion, not just Keenan Road. The level of fragmentation that exists is not a fatal flaw and areas like Bethlehem and Pyes Pa East had similar level of fragmentation before they were urbanised in the 1990’s and 2000’s.
Cultural and archaeological issues There are no known cultural or archaeological sites that would have a material bearing on the urbanisation of this Area. Staff from WBOPDC and TCC have had some initial discussion with the relevant iwi and hapu to confirm this as well as Heritage New Zealand. It is acknowledged that further cultural and archaeological assessment would be required as part of any future statutory planning process to urbanise this area as well as further engagement with tangata whenua.
Conclusions of Planning Constraints Study In conclusion there are no planning constraints that would prevent future urbanisation within the study area. The identified planning constraints can be adequately managed and mitigated and this would be addressed at structure planning stage, should a decision be made to advance urbanisation in this area.
113 A266446 8
Outcomes: Commercial Feasibility of Development
The financial viability aspect of the project aims to address whether land development is commercially viable in the Keenan Road area. It considers all the costs of development and compares these to sales revenues and profit margins.
A draft financial viability assessment was prepared by TCC staff in consultation with some local developers to ascertain reasonable cost and revenue assumptions for land development. This was then peer reviewed and refined by Martin Udale of Essentia Consulting.
Due to the Keenan Road area being in the early phase of planning investigations a conservative approach to the assessment of cost and revenue assumptions and contingencies has been adopted in accordance with general industry practice.
The outcomes of this work indicate that development would be viable with section prices in the range of $230,000-$250,000. This equates to new house prices from around $550,000 upwards.
Development costs are relatively high due to significant earthworks, infrastructure requirements, development contributions, holding costs and likely land prices (especially for kiwifruit blocks). In addition, a 10% project contingency was allowed due to the preliminary stage of planning investigations for the growth area.
$230,000-$250,000 average section price is consistent with or below current section pricing in the adjoining Lakes development following significant section price appreciation over the last 12-18 months. It is unclear whether these price levels are sustainable in the long-term.
The development feasibility modelling outputs were reviewed by a sub group of the Property Developers Forum and their views are set out in the following section.
114 A266446 8
Property Developers Forum Peer Review
The peer review from a sub group of the SmartGrowth Property Developers Forum is set out in full on the following page. Their brief was to review the Harrison Grierson report and the commercial viability assessment as well as to provide wider commentary on the potential urbanisation of the Keenan Road area.
The project team generally agree with the conclusions reached by the Property Developers Forum. In some cases the project team have made comments in response to the Property Developers Forum review and these are included as footnotes.
115 A266446 8
Keenan Road Urban Growth Assessment Review of Reports Prepared for SmartGrowth By SmartGrowth Property Developers Forum Sub-Group
Executive Summary 1. The proposed Keenan Road Urban Growth Area is financially viable. 2. The extensive fragmented land ownership is a major issue / challenge. 3. Due to the fragmented land ownership maintaining viable land costs will be an issue / challenge. 4. There are some additional developments costs that need to be included in the financial model.5 5. The proposed roading layout is inefficient and expensive; this is in part due to the fragmented land ownership6.
Key Assessment Outcomes
While the Keenan Road numbers ‘stack-up’ when viewed in isolation of a risk assessment, the following factors adversely impact its potential and viability:
1. Fragmented Land Ownership This is the primary risk for the area and flows through to the other primary risk areas. It is a significant hurdle to getting market confidence to urbanise the area. Without having the vast majority of landowners on ‘the same page’ it will be extremely difficult to establish an efficient and coordinated outcome to urbanise this area.
2. Land Costs With large parts of the area being in kiwifruit orchard, the strong returns from kiwifruit (assuming these continue) will either: a) Lead to inflated land prices, in excess of those used in the assessment; b) Make the urbanisation opportunity less attractive to landowners; and c) Will potentially lead to some landowners ‘holding out’ for above market returns.
3. Infrastructure Efficiencies, Coordination and Management
5 SmartGrowth staff response: We agree with this conclusion and have considered the likely extent of these additional costs. The additional costs are not significant enough to materially alter the outcomes of the commercial viability assessment. However land values in respect of kiwifruit orchards are a risk.
6 SmartGrowth staff response: There is some merit to this comment however it should be noted that the not all of the roads identified would be required and some potential roads relate to wider growth potential in the Western Corridor rather than specifically to the Keenan Road area.
116 A266446 8
Without a coordinated approach to the urbanisation of the area and having the vast majority of landowners on ‘the same page’ there will be significant inefficiencies in servicing the area particularly with regard to earthworks, roading and stormwater. These inefficiencies have the potential to significantly increase both the infrastructure cost allowances used in the assessments to date and the consenting risks.
Assessment Commentary
1. Residential Yield The yield doesn’t seem to reflect the challenging topography and is likely to be less than the 2400 lots proposed. This is due to waste land due to contour and the cost to earthwork and service some areas unlikely to be viable eg Areas E1 & E2. The topography, combined with the fragmented land ownership will make achieving the target 15du/ha yield as an average across the whole growth area very challenging. Additional costs will be incurred in order to achieve smaller lots due to retaining wall requirements, which will also take up additional land.
2. Development Costs There is no allowance for: NES (Contaminated Land Management) assessments; these can be costly. Land clearance. Plan Change and consenting costs7. The earthworks compaction factor of 1.25 is low for the soils in the area; it should be 1.50 for the purposes of any assessment; this will increase the fill volumes required8. The earthworks are expensive due to the contour of the area. Cut to fill balancing will be difficult due to the fragmented land ownership. Importing fill is very expensive. There is no earthworks allowance for ‘undercuts’ to remove unsuitable materials prior to filling.
3. Roading Proposed roading layout is inefficient and expensive. Road No2; the purpose of this with regard to Keenan Road is unclear and it is questionable why this road should be funded by Keenan Road9.
7 SmartGrowth staff comment: Plan change costs are likely to be borne by the relevant council. Consenting costs have been allowed for at $1,000/lot.
8 SmartGrowth staff comment: A reassessment of earthworks costs has been undertaken by Harrison Grierson following these comments. The effects are quite different over the different areas within Keenan Road if the revised earthworks compaction factor was adopted (refer Appendix 5). Some areas see cost increases whilst others increase (some significantly). Overall earthwork costs would increase approximately $2,000/lot across the whole growth area. This reassessment supports the conclusions in this report that the final yield within Keenan Road could be less than 2,400 lots.
9 SmartGrowth staff comment: Road 2 would support the wider urbanisation of the Western Corridor and is unlikely to be required by the urbanisation of Keenan Road in isolation. 117 A266446 8
The requirement for Road 3 is questionable in that it primarily services Areas E1 & E2, which are unlikely to be viable. There will be challenges in getting approval for the Road No1 intersection to Takitimu Drive if NZTA are not supportive and the contour in this area will make it very expensive. It is felt that a primary access intersection arrangement at the Road No4 access location would be better10.
4. Stormwater Management Due to the contour a coordinated approach to stormwater management is essential to enable the Keenan Road area to urbanise. Coordinating stormwater management will be very challenging due to the fragmented landownership and managing equity outcomes between landowners and their land value expectations. This could possibly be managed through a development contributions regime in which the council purchased land for stormwater ponds, swales, channels, floodways and pipes and took financial responsibility to construct these.
Suggestions
1. The Joyce Road area could be an alternative looked at in conjunction with Keenan Road. The area potentially has easier earthworks and stormwater management. It may assist in alleviating land cost pressures11. 2. To provide market confidence for urbanising Keenan Road, a ‘Development Agency’ type approach may be required12. This will however take quite a lot of time, will require a joint agency approach, land acquisition abilities and some capitalisation. Alternatively, the key landowners could agree to work together, with the council and developers to structure plan and masterplan the area and to implement an agreed development plan.
Conclusions
10 SmartGrowth staff comment: This suggestion will be explored.
11 SmartGrowth staff comment: It is unlikely that the Joyce Road area could be urbanised in a logical manner prior/currently to the Keenan (and Merrick) areas because the vast majority of developable land in the Joyce Road area is at the upper end close to Merrick Road which is 3km from the city’s current urban boundary at the corner of Joyce and Pyes Pa Roads.
12 SmartGrowth staff comment: The current legislative framework would constrain the power of a development agency, for example it would not have compulsory land acquisition powers. Unless this was changed, this could hinder the effectiveness of a development agency. A collaborative approach involving Council, landowners, developers and other stakeholders is preferable and more realistic.
118 A266446 8
The first conclusion that the project team has reached is that the Keenan Road area is appropriate and commercially viable for urbanisation in the future. Having said this, the project team has also concluded that the area is not currently ready for urbanisation as there are a range of issues that need to be resolved. These issues primarily relate to the issue of fragmented land ownership and the further issues that stem from this in relation to cooperation between landowners, earthworks, infrastructure servicing and development yield.
These issues require further assessment including engagement with the local community. The rezoning of the area for urbanisation should be deferred until these issues have been satisfactorily resolved. This would mean that the Keenan Road area would not provide additional development capacity within the timeframes envisaged when the SmartGrowth 3B projects were approved. As such, consideration should be given to whether there are any other areas within the Western Corridor that could potentially be prioritised for urbanisation in advance of the Keenan Road area.
The project team’s view is that if there is to be a change in sequencing of growth areas, decisions should be made quickly given the significant length of time that it takes to rezone land for development. If not, development capacity is likely to be significantly constrained, especially in greenfield areas on the city centre side of the harbour due to areas like Bethlehem and The Lakes becoming full and new opportunities not being available.
Due to the fragmented land ownership there is likely to be limited opportunity for developer delivery/funding of key infrastructure within the Keenan Road area therefore reliance will be placed on Council funding through development contributions. This may be some implications for council debt levels where lead infrastructure is required in advance of development contribution revenue.
With this in mind, there may be opportunities for a first stage of development in the Keenan Road area to be delivered on the back of surplus infrastructure capacity within adjoining areas. If so, this could be done at low cost to the Council, effectively de-risking the delivery of the wider growth area. The project team has concluded that this option should be explored. From an urban limits and Council jurisdictional perspective the land within the TCC District could be a logical first stage. However this would be more complicated from an access and servicing perspective to the land within the WBOP District that adjoins Stage 3 of The Lakes subdivision.
119 A266446 8
The Western Corridor Strategic Study is considering the Merrick Road area directly south of the Keenan Rd area as well as the upper Joyce Road area adjacent to Merrick Road. Both of these areas feature large flat areas suitable for urban development. They are however significant kiwifruit growing areas. The project team has concluded that clarity is required on whether the Merrick and Joyce areas would be urbanised in the future to enable structure planning of the Keenan Road area for reasons such as setting aside appropriate road and servicing corridors and determining the appropriate amount of infrastructure capacity13.
13 For example a potential north-south spine road through the Keenan Road area may require a 4 lane section as well as a multilane roundabout with SH36 (Pyes Pa Bypass) if the Merrick Road area was to proceed.
120 A266446 8
Recommendations
The project team makes the following recommendations:
Urbanisation potential 17. The Keenan Road area is suitable for future urbanisation and should be retained as a future urban growth area.
Implementation 18. Further planning and community engagement work is required before the area could be rezoned for urbanisation to address the issues identified in this report. 19. SmartGrowth partner staff intend to undertake this work and to report back to the Committee on a regular basis. 20. As an initial estimate, it is expected to take 12-24 months to complete this work. 21. A draft structure plan may need to be developed to inform this further work. 22. This further work needs to be informed by direction on the potential future urbanisation of the Merrick Road and upper Joyce Road areas in the long-term. 23. It may be possible for a first stage of the Keenan Road area to be developed ahead of the wider growth area and this will be considered. 24. The future timing of urbanisation requires further discussion and future agreement, including the concept of a staged approach. Timing should be informed by the potential to bring forward an alternative growth area in the Western Corridor ahead of the Keenan Road area, current and future growth rates and land take up, the wider strategy to urbanisation in the Western Corridor and the time it takes to address the issues identified in the Keenan Road area.
Wider implications 25. As a priority consideration should be given to advancing the urbanisation of an alternative growth area within the Western Corridor due to impending development capacity constraints and the unknown timeframe to ‘ready’ the Keenan Road area for urbanisation.
121 A266446 8
Appendices: NOTE all appendices are available on the SG website
Appendix 1: Original Project Plan Appendix 2: Keenan Road Urban Growth Sensibility Assessment Concept Report, Harrison Grierson Appendix 3: Draft three waters servicing assessment Appendix 4: Commercial feasibility assessment Appendix 5: Reassessment of earthworks costs
122 A266446 8
Appendix 4 SPR timetable agreed by SGIC April 2016
Settlement Pattern Review – Completion Timetable – 2016 End of March . Demand / supply model components identified . Preliminary allocation of anticipated growth across options . Preliminary assessment / testing on a 3 Scenario high/medium/low demand basis . Expert Review Panel established . Technical team gap analysis / issues workshop held and outcomes written up
April . Demand / supply model developed to the stage where it can be workshopped with SGIC 20 April . Ongoing assessment / testing on a 3 Scenario high/medium/low demand basis
May . Western Corridor (including Kenan Road) draft strategy report workshopped with SGIC 18 May . Ongoing assessment / testing on a 3 Scenario high/medium/low demand basis . Completion of a comms strategy
June . Te Tumu draft report workshop with SGIC 15 June . Compact City draft report on possible future approaches workshop with SGIC 15 June . SGIC workshop discussion on potential scope of SPR draft report . Sharing of expert panel input with SGIC . Testing of directions with SG For a (one all in forum) . Targeted public consultation . Ongoing assessment / testing on a 3 Scenario high/medium/low demand basis
July . First draft Settlement Pattern Report for SGIC workshop discussion 20 July . Use of SG interactive website for peoples panel . Feedback from forums and website . Revision of report . Panel Peer Review
August . Adoption by SGIC of final SPR report for recommendation to partner Councils (supported by peer review panel input
First part of 2017 . Strategy referred from Joint Committee to partner councils for discussion and adoption 123 A266446 8
. Public consultation using special consultative procedure . Social infrastructure placemaking input into structure planning . Hearing of submissions and recommendation to partners for adoption.
Appendix 5 Amended SPR timetable agreed by SG Implementation Management Group May 2016 Settlement Pattern Review – Completion Timetable – 2016 -17 End of March . Demand / supply model components identified . Preliminary allocation of anticipated growth across options . Preliminary assessment / testing on a 3 Scenario high/medium/low demand basis . Expert Review Panel established . Technical team gap analysis / issues workshop held and outcomes written up
April . Demand / supply model developed to the stage where it can be workshopped with SGIC 20 April . Ongoing assessment / testing on a 3 Scenario high/medium/low demand basis
May . Overall growth drivers report to SGIC including scope of resolutions needed from the Committee in August, eg 10 year emphasis, ongoing structure planning, RPS/DP changes . Western Corridor (including Kenan Road) draft strategy report workshopped with SGIC 18 May . Ongoing assessment / testing on a 3 Scenario high/medium/low demand basis . Completion of a comms strategy
June . Te Tumu draft report workshop with SGIC 15 June . Compact City draft report on possible future approaches workshop with SGIC 15 June . SGIC workshop discussion on potential scope of SPR draft report . Sharing of expert panel input with SGIC . Consideration of input from Social Sector Forum . Targeted stakeholder communication eg SG fora
124 A266446 8
. Ongoing assessment / testing on a 3 Scenario high/medium/low demand basis
July . First draft Settlement Pattern Report for SGIC workshop discussion 20 July . Use of SG interactive website for peoples panel . Feedback from forums and website . Revision of report . Panel Peer Review
August . Adoption by SGIC of final SPR report for recommendation to partner Councils (supported by peer review panel input . Strategy divided into short term (10 years) and longer term 30-50 years
Post August . Socialise adopted strategy for community feedback noting that formal feedback will be part of the RPS/DP change process
First part of 2017
. Ongoing key infrastructure transport component planning in the Eastern Corridor . Structure planning for Te Tumu and Tauriko west (Clarkson, Hopping) . Social infrastructure placemaking input into structure planning
125 A266446 8
Committee Name SmartGrowth Implementation Committee Meeting Date 18 May 2016 Author(s) Rachael Davie, Group Manager: Policy, Planning and Regulatory Services, (WBOPDC) and Current Chair of the Joint Agency Group
Karen Marjoribanks, Policy Planner, City Planning and Growth, (TCC) Purpose To present the JAG Strategic Plan to the Committee for endorsement.
Executive Summary
1. At its meeting of 25 November 2014 SGIC:
• received a presentation from the Joint Agency Group (JAG) on the successful approach to facilitating the development of papakāinga in the Western Bay of Plenty through the annual papakāinga workshop programme and the post workshop papakāinga facilitator role; • recommended that the three councils continue their funding support for progressing Action 11B.1 of the SmartGrowth Strategy (being the delivery of post workshop advice and support through a facilitator) with an indicative funding stream through to 2018.
2. As part of that paper it was signaled that JAG was progressing the development of a JAG Strategic Plan to guide the JAG programme for the next five years (2015-2020) and that this would be presented when finalised. Endorsement of the JAG Strategic Plan by SGIC is a precondition for Tauranga City Council before releasing its investment contribution.
3. The JAG Strategic Plan 2015-2020 is included as Attachment A to this report.
Recommendations
1. That the paper be received.
2. That the SmartGrowth Implementation Committee endorses the JAG Strategic Plan (2015- 2020) as the guiding document for JAG to continue to facilitate the development of Papakāinga in the western Bay of Plenty sub region.
A2664468 1 126
Matters for Consideration
At its meeting of 25 November 2014 SGIC received a presentation from JAG on the achievements of the Joint Agency Group approach to facilitating the development of papakāinga in the western Bay of Plenty. At the same meeting SGIC also recommended that each of the partner Councils continue their funding support for progressing Action 11B.1 (being the delivery of post workshop advice and support through a facilitator. Accordingly, each Council through its Long Term Plan duly provided an annual funding contribution of $26,667 through to and including 2017/18.
One element that influenced this investment decision was that a JAG Strategic Plan was being prepared to guide and progress on-going action in the papakāinga space.
The JAG Strategic Plan aligns with the wider strategic objectives of the JAG agencies, documents successes to date, goals for JAG going forward and actions to achieve these goals. The Plan also documents the Te Keteparaha Mo Nga Papakāinga Development Process. The Strategic Plan also informs the specific deliverables of the JAG Facilitator Contract.
As part of the November 2014 paper it was noted that the finalised JAG Strategic Plan would be presented to the SGIC once the outcome of the social housing policy reforms being progressed by central government at that time were fully implemented and the strategic implications / opportunities known. The approval of the JAG Strategic Plan by SGIC also formed part of the resolution by TCC in terms of their subsequent funding stream decision.
The JAG Strategic Plan is included as Attachment A to this report.
Progress since the last update
Since the last substantive report to SGIC in November 2014 the JAG is delighted to report that to date 12 whare have been built within the Ngati Kahu papakāinga project.
SGIC members will also be provided at the meeting with a portfolio of case studies that showcase the success of Te Keteparaha Mo Nga Papakāinga (the Papākainga Toolkit) including a description of land tenure and administration arrangements, funding/finance arrangements, regulatory requirements, lessons learned as well as a description of what worked well. These case studies are proving to be a useful resource for land trusts considering their papakāinga development.
The Papakāinga Toolkit workshop series for 2016 (funded by Te Puni Kokiri) began in February with five of the eight workshops delivered to date. Interest in this year’s workshop series was tremendous and spaces were oversubscribed. It is pleasing to note that 16 land trusts from across the western Bay rohe are participating in the workshops. Staff from the partner Councils provide close technical support to each of the trusts to enable their development aspirations to take shape. At least two of these land trusts will be selected to work with Council staff and the JAG Facilitator to progress their papakāinga projects which will include funding, design and build requirements and obtaining all necessary local government authorisations.
A2664468 2 127 Joint Agency Group Strategic Plan 2015-2020
Building our futures together
128 Join Agency Group Strategic Plan | 2015-2020 1
Contents
3 Overview
4 Background
5 Key Issues
7 Our Vision and Goals
8 Strategic Fit
10 Where We Are Now
11 What We Have Achieved
14 Where Do We Want To Be?
15 How We’ll Get There
17 Current Relationships
18 Te Keteparaha Mo Nga Papakāinga Development Process
19 Signatories
129
Overview
The facilitation of Papakāinga development on multiple owned Māori land in the western Bay of Plenty sub-region has been, and continues to be an action, in the SmartGrowth Strategy. Papakāinga are developed by tangata whenua to address demand for affordable housing for tangata whenua within the subregion. Papakāinga not only provide a place to live, but also provide for social, cultural, economic, conservation and recreation needs.
The Joint Agency Group (JAG) has workshops through the funding and the lead role, under SmartGrowth, for build stage of their developments. ongoing actions relating to Papakāinga This process approach has been development in the sub-region and successful over two consecutive years supporting the development of business with 2 Papakāinga projects being cases, operational plans and their completed and houses occupied and implementation for quality affordable three other projects in the building residential development on post phase in the 2014/2015 year. A key Treaty of Waitangi Settlement land or issue that has arisen as a result of these undeveloped land. successes to date is how to continue this successful process and resource Key to the success to date of base into the future. Papakāinga development within the sub-region has been the development This Strategic Plan has been of Te Keteparaha Mo Nga Papakāinga developed to guide and progress action (Papakāinga Toolkit); interactive by the JAG to continue to facilitate collaborative workshops between the the development of Papakāinga over JAG agencies and interested Māori Land the next 5 years. This will also allow Trusts based on the Toolkit and the alignment with the JAG agencies’ long provision of a JAG facilitator to assist term plans and strategies. the Māori Land Trusts completing the 130 Join Agency Group Strategic Plan | 2015-2020 3 Background
The SmartGrowth Strategy 2004 (reviewed 2013) and the report Development of Housing on Multiple Owned Māori Land in the western Bay of Plenty sub-region (Western Bay of Plenty District Council Māori Forum 2005) clearly identified the need for housing opportunities on multiple owned land to be realised.
In March of 2006, Western Bay of Plenty District Council, Tauranga toolkit and to seek central and regional government funding for City Council, Te Puni Kokiri, the Māori Land Courts of Waiariki the development of Papakāinga in the western Bay of Plenty and Waikato Maniapoto Districts, and Housing New Zealand sub-region. These workshops were supported by the members (original member) signed a Memorandum of Understanding whose of the JAG who provided expertise and advice in relation to those objective was to “establish principles for key agencies to plan for parts of the development process in which they had planning or and facilitate housing opportunities on multiple owned Māori land service delivery responsibilities. in the western Bay of Plenty sub-region.” A further initiative which has evolved out of the workshops The parties agreed to support the outcomes of Stage 1 of the is the development of a JAG facilitator role to assist the Trusts, Housing on Multiple Owned Māori Land Report and the desire to who have completed the workshops and have developed a final establish a successful model for the Bay of Plenty; to recognise concept plan and project costings, with the fund and build and support the co-operative and co-ordinated approach stage of their development including funding applications to underlying the initiatives and recognise and accept that members central government. need to work creatively and innovatively to bring about affordable housing solutions and use their best endeavours to secure full Of the original 2011 participant Trusts, two have built part agency support and to commit to agreed implementation actions of their anticipated developments (5 houses) with further including funding and resourcing. development stages planned. In 2013 three trusts received central government funding for constructing an additional 30 The Joint Agency Group (JAG) evolved from this memorandum houses in 2015 and a further 20 from 2016. (with over time additional partners being added to the JAG such as the Bay of Plenty Regional Council). In response to In reviewing the SmartGrowth Strategy in 2013 the significant this agreement the Group developed Te Keteparaha Mo Nga progress made on the issue of developing Māori land for Papakāinga (Māori Housing Toolkit) to assist Māori to develop Māori housing was acknowledged. It was however recognised Papakāinga proposals (development plans) on multiple owned that further work remains to be done. It was recognised that Māori land. The development of the toolkit was part of a catalyst SmartGrowth “also needs to be cognisant of the changing for Māori Land Trusts, through the Western Bay of Plenty Māori landscape in terms of iwi lands and resources post Treaty Housing Forum (WBOPMHF), to run workshops based on the Settlements”. (SmartGrowth 2013, 31). 131 Join Agency Group Strategic Plan | 2015-2020 4 Key Issues
The following is a brief summary of the issues which relate to the development of Papakāinga and which the Toolkit and Workshop Process have been developed to address.
Complexities of development of Māori land children under the age of 19 are Māori. (SmartGrowth, 2013) Unlike general freehold titles the development of multiple This will further increase demand for a range of affordable owned Māori land generally involves obtaining the agreement housing from kaumatua housing to large family homes among of a number of shareholders, is subject to the provisions of the Māori community. trust orders and in some cases Māori Land Court hearings. This adds extra processes and timeframes that do not Providing healthy sustainable housing generally apply to developing general freehold land. Households facing insufficient disposable incomes may move into inadequate housing that is overcrowded or substandard. Housing affordability There is a clear association between overcrowding and The accepted international benchmark for housing affordability substandard living conditions and a range of adverse health, is to spend no more than one third of weekly income on education and social outcomes. household costs (rent or mortgage). Recent research confirms that Māori are experiencing poorer housing conditions Funding issues compared to the rest of the population and are experiencing While Māori Land Trusts may own land they often lack capital critical housing stress spending 34% to 56% of weekly income and need to seek central and regional funding for the building on household costs of rent or mortgage (Western Bay of and servicing of developments. Plenty Māori Housing Forum, Regional Infrastructure Fund Application 2013, 3)Addressing housing affordability is a key The provision of suitable infrastructure is a key cost in the focus of central government policy. development of Papakāinga, particularly given the rural (and therefore often un-serviced) zoning of much of the Māori land Population demographics in the sub-region. The Bay of Plenty is currently the third “oldest region” in New Zealand, and this is a significant ‘age driven growth The development/financial contributions payable on region’. Over the next 20 years, 90% of the growth projected developments as a proportion of development costs and the for the Bay of Plenty Region will be in the 65 plus age group. timing of these payments in relation to when central government 25% of the population is Māori and approximately 1/3 of all funding is drawn down also contributes to funding issues. 132 Join Agency Group Strategic Plan | 2015-2020 5
The funding available from central government has been the provide further opportunities for the development of affordable subject of continuing change in the types of funding provided housing either as Papakāinga or quality affordable residential and the government agencies who have funding. development.
It is difficult to secure mortgages from private financial For example, treaty settlement tribes may be returned general institutions in relation to dwellings on Māori land. Requirements land under settlement and may have through its Settlement such as restrictions on type of homes that may be built etc. Entity aspirations to develop such land for the real estate provide a barrier to some Papakāinga developments. market; quality affordable residential development; social housing in conjunction with central government or Papakāinga Central government has budgeted $24 million for 2015-2018 to housing administered by itself with- in the development. assist with housing for Māori and it is anticipated that funding will be available for capital development to build housing on It is important to clarify that Treaty tribes seldom own Māori Māori land. land. Māori land is usually held by Māori land trusts.
Priorities for expenditure have not yet been confirmed although Therefore the impact of Treaty Settlements may be limited in it is expected that these priorities will align with the 6 strategic terms of opportunities for investment from Treaty tribes as the directions set out in the National Māori Housing Strategy two types of organisations, Māori Land Trusts and Settlement 2014. It is noted that strategies in this plan align with central Entities, are completely different, unrelated and governed by government strategies. different legislation and regulatory schemes all of which impact on developability of assets owned by each organisation. It is also noted that housing funded by central government is social not real estate market housing. Funding contracts Statutory and regulatory requirements require the houses to be owned by a Trust and administered The process of developing Māori land is subject to both the as affordable housing for 50 years from the date of the funding Te Ture Whenua Māori Act and the Resource Management contract. This means Trusts must rent the houses out at no Act. Each Act has its own specific statutory and regulatory more than 30% of a household income and must maintain and requirements and the interaction between the two Acts can be repair them for 50 years. confusing for would be applicants.
Treaty settlements and utilisation of Treaty Settlement Land There is currently a range of local iwi Treaty of Waitangi claims which have either been settled or are close to settlement. The transfer of crown lands and/or financial resources may
133 Join Agency Group Strategic Plan | 2015-2020 6
Our Vision and Goals
Our Vision
To increase affordable, sustainable, healthy and suitable Papakāinga housing on Māori land (including post- settlement land).
To increase provision of quality affordable residential development on post Treaty of Waitangi Settlement Land.
Our Goals
1. Economic and 3. Advocacy social benefits • Lobby central government and other • Increased feeling of cultural funding providers to assist delivery identity for Papakāinga residents of affordable Papakāinga housing on • Increased feeling of housing Māori Land and/or quality affordable security for Papakāinga residents residential development on post • Increased health for Treaty of Waitangi Settlement Land. Papakāinga residents • Increased employment 4. Education and opportunities and other economic increased understanding benefits to the sub-region as a • Increase knowledgebase and result of Papakāinga/quality expertise of: affordable residential projects. 1. Māori Land Trusts 2. JAG agencies staff 2. Effective collaboration 3. Central government in relation to and efficient development of multiple owned collective action Māori land and/or post Treaty of • Agencies working together to facilitate Waitangi Settlement Land. Papakāinga housing and reduce barriers to development • Input from agencies into business cases, plans and implementation on land for housing on Māori owned land. 134 Join Agency Group Strategic Plan | 2015-2020 7 Strategic Fit
This Strategic Plan aligns with wider strategic objectives of the JAG agencies as described below.
The key drivers for the development of this Strategic Plan are the issues outlined above and the following strategic objectives of the JAG agencies.
SmartGrowth a) 10E. Improve housing affordability SmartGrowth is collaboration between Tauranga City Council, 10E.2 Development of Treaty Settlement Land Western Bay of Plenty District Council, Bay of Plenty Regional • Support the development of business cases, operational Council and tangata whenua, working in partnership with plans and their implementation to develop post Treaty of central Government, businesses, education groups, industry Waitangi Settlement Land or undeveloped land for the and the community. purpose of quality affordable residential development.
The SmartGrowth Strategy (2013) is a comprehensive, long b) 11B. Provide for the use of term strategy which sets the strategic vision and direction tangata whenua lands and waters for the growth and development of the western Bay on key 11B.1. Facilitate Papakāinga Development issues across the spectrum of social, economic, environmental • Provide on-going recognition and support (which may and cultural matters. The strategy is supported by a detailed include direct funding) to the Joint Agency Group implementation plan. • Enabling low impact urban design requirements that are suitable to Papakāinga developments In reviewing the SmartGrowth Strategy in 2013 the significant • Provide assistance with relationship building and progress made on the issue of developing Māori land for approaches to funding providers Māori housing was acknowledged. It was however recognised • Enable Papakāinga settlements to include some that further work remains to be done. It was recognised that small scale commercial/retail activity and other SmartGrowth “also needs to be cognisant of the changing community facilities. landscape in terms of iwi lands and resources post Treaty Settlements”. (SmartGrowth 2013, 31). JAG is also identified as a support agency for other SmartGrowth actions relating to Housing Affordability (10E) in The JAG is the lead agency1 for the following actions in the relation to availability of land for housing affordability projects, SmartGrowth implementation plan: the housing affordability pilot project and advocating for housing affordability. 1 The lead agency is the organisation responsible for initiating and leading the delivery of the action. 135 Join Agency Group Strategic Plan | 2015-2020 8
Western Bay of Plenty Māori Housing Forum • Direction Three: Support Māori and their whanau to (WBOPMHF) transition to preferred housing choices. The WBOPMHF was established in September 2009 after • Direction Four: Increase the amount of social housing receiving 62 registrations of interest from Māori land trusts provided by Māori organisations. across the western Bay of Plenty sub-region to work • Direction Five: Increase housing on Māori-owned land. collaboratively on common issues and develop local solutions. • Direction Six: Increase large-scale housing developments The Forum is committed to working with local and central involving Māori organisations. government agencies for the purpose of developing quality affordable housing solutions on Māori Land blocks across the The Social Housing Reform Programme western Bay of Plenty sub-region. (SHRP) The Social Housing Reform Programme (SHRP) was The WBOPMHF has a seven year objective (already in established in 2010 to improve the delivery of social housing Year Three) to build 252 houses on 10 Māori Land Blocks in New Zealand. The Government is proposing to transfer (identifying 10 original Trusts: Mangatawa Papamoa Blocks housing stock (1256 properties) from Housing New Zealand Inc, Tampahore Marae; Reweti and Te Pere Whanau Trust, Limited (HNZL), a Housing New Zealand Corporation Stephens Place; Kaitemako Waipapa A Trust, Kaitemako Road; subsidiary (HNZC), to third parties in Tauranga for continued Pukekohatu Trust, Welcome Bay; Ngati Kahu & Te Pura Trust, use in social housing. Carmichaels Road; Matapihi 3A2B2F Trust, Wakari Road; Oikimoke Land Trusts (4), Oikimoke Peninsula, Te Puna). The Crown has five key objectives: 1. Encourage and develop a more diverse ownership of The objective is not necessarily locked into supporting social housing, with more innovation and responsiveness only those initial land trusts, the main objective being to to tenants and communities. build up to 252 homes across Māori land in the western Bay 2. Ensure that people who need housing support can access of Plenty sub-region. it and receive social services that meets their needs. 3. Ensure that social housing is of the right size and Central Government configuration, and in the right areas, for those households Central government recently released its strategy for Māori which need it. housing, He Whare Ahuru He Oranga Tangata. The strategy 4. Help social housing tenants to independence, has a timeframe, from 2014 to 2025 and has six directions to as appropriate. improve the way Māori whanau are housed as follows: 5. Help increase the supply of affordable housing, especially • Direction One: Ensure the most vulnerable Māori have in Auckland. secure tenure, and access to safe, quality housing with integrated support services. • Direction Two: Improve the quality of housing for Māori communities.
136 Join Agency Group Strategic Plan | 2015-2020 9 Where We Are Now
Papakāinga development build stage with the assistance of the process JAG Facilitator. This assistance does A successful development process for not equal direct project management for achieving Papakāinga development Trusts, who are required to have their has been built around the relationships own project manager, but is focused on between the JAG agencies and the other ongoing expertise and support for these parties involved in the development of trust project managers and the trusts in multiple owned Māori land including developing their project management Māori Land Trusts themselves organisation and business cases for and central government agencies funding applications. (including funding agencies). (See Fig 1: Relationships, page 17.) The Papakāinga Other Māori land trusts may approach Toolkit has been very successful as a the JAG for JAG facilitation assistance support tool. (See Fig 2: Te Keteparaha with their development projects for the Mo Nga Papakāinga Development fund and build stage without having Process, page 18.) gone through the Toolkit Workshops. Their intended projects would be The first stage of the Papakāinga Toolkit assessed by JAG against a checklist based development process is Māori drawn from the Toolkit Steps to assess Land Trusts committing to the workshop whether their projects would be provided programme for a year. The workshops with this assistance. work through the five steps of the Toolkit from original vision/idea through Māori Advocacy and lobbying - Land Court/Council requirements; Local/Central Government technical work on consents/costings to JAG also has a role in advocating a final concept plan and project cost. changes to policy at local and central government level to further facilitate The final concept plan and project Papakāinga development. The JAG costings for each Māori Land Trust facilitator provides specialist expertise (completing the workshops) forms the and advice in relation to Papakāinga basis for the ongoing objective of the development to the JAG itself as well as WBOPMHF and identifies the Trusts developing and maintaining relationships who are ready to move into the fund and with policy and funding providers. 137 Join Agency Group Strategic Plan | 2015-2020 10 What We Have Achieved
The Papakāinga success table below illustrates the housing that has been achieved in the Western Bay of Plenty sub-region from 2010 to 2014. In total 51 homes have been built averaging approximately 12 homes per annum. Prior to 2010 the average was 1 house per annum built on Māori Freehold Land.
The Papakāinga workshops commenced in 2011 and forty of the homes built were assisted with Social Housing Unit (SHU) funding and directly supported by the JAG.
AFFORDABLE VALUE OF CAPITAL INJECTION YEAR TRUST COUNCIL HOUSES LAND DONATED TO WBOP
2010 Horaparaikete TCC 6 homes $1.2 mil $1.2 mil
2011 Mangatawa Trust TCC 10 homes $2.5 mil $2.2 mil
2012 Tauwhao Te Ngare Trust WBOPDC 5 homes $1.2 mil $2.6 mil
2013 Pukekohahu WBOPDC 3 homes $850,000 $510,000
2013 Mangatawa Trust TCC 2 homes $750,000 $475,000
2014 Nga Potiki & Pirihama Trust TCC 6 homes $750,000 $950,000
2014 Ngati Kahu Trust TCC 12 homes $2.5 mil $3.6 mil
2014 Mangatawa Trust TCC 12 homes $2.2 mil $2.6 mil
TOTALS 56 HOUSES $11.95 MIL $14.135 MIL
138 Join Agency Group Strategic Plan | 2015-2020 11
Allocation of Maori housing capital grants by region
W. Bay of Plenty | $8.97m | 40 Units Te Tai Rawhiti | $2.65m | 19 Units
Whanganui | $0.57m | 3 Units Te Tai Tokerau | $0.90m | 7 Units
Auckland | $0.53m | 3 Units Waikato | $1.09m | 9 Units
Hawke’s Bay | $3.55m | 22 Units
Total Grants: $18.26 m | Total No. Units: 103 | Total No. Bedrooms: 304
The pie chart above provided by the Social Housing Unit Western Bay of Plenty Māori Housing Forum (MBIE) illustrates the total number of houses built nationally (WBOPMHF) Objective from the Māori Putea Fund. Clearly western Bay of Plenty As noted above the WBOPMHF has an objective to build sub-region secured the bulk of this funding. This success 252 houses across Māori land in the western Bay of Plenty is attributed to the collective strategies engaged across the sub-region. WBOPMHF (the informal collective of Māori land trusts) and JAG. Of the initial 10 Trusts identified three of the Trusts have completed or are in the process to complete their Papakāinga A Memorandum of Understanding was signed between developments. It is important to note that the objective of the WBOPMHF and the Social Housing Unit of central the WBOPMHF is not necessarily locked into supporting government in 2012. The MOU provides a direct relationship only those land trusts originally assessed in 2012. The main with the funder and is the only MOU that SHU entered into objective is to build up to 252 homes across Māori land in the with Māori land trusts. western Bay of Plenty sub-region.
Papakāinga Toolkit Workshop participation Application to the Regional rates and successes Infrastructure Fund In 2013 the WBOPMHF in collaboration with the Western Bay Between 2011 and 2013 more than 30 Māori land trusts of Plenty District Council applied to the Bay of Plenty Regional in the western Bay of Plenty sub-region participated in the Council Infrastructure Fund for funding for the infrastructure Papakāinga Toolkit workshops. They have been from areas for the Papakāinga developments initially identified by the such as Matapihi, Kaitemako, Mangatawa, Welcome Bay, WBOPMHF. The application included economic analysis Hairini, Te Puna and Bethlehem. that indicated that the project would see a spend of $64.9 million, generate $53.1million additional GDP and support Of the original 2012 Trust participants’ two trusts have built 1,128 full time jobs. This application was unsuccessful in part of their anticipated developments (5 houses) with further obtaining the funding. development stages planned. It is a strategic intention of WBOPMHF to continue to In 2013 three of the trusts received central government funding lobby local and regional government support to assist with for their developments for a further 30 houses in 2015 and infrastructure to these land blocks as lack of infrastructure further 20 from 2016. Infrastructure for an additional 20 house can be a major barrier to housing development. Infrastructure sites has also been funded in these three projects to assist connection accounts for more than 30% of the usual project with planning for home ownership homes to be built into these cost. Most Māori land blocks are not connected to services. developments in 2015. 139 Join Agency Group Strategic Plan | 2015-2020 12
Central Government recognition in each organisation with an understanding of the processes of programme involved and thus increased efficiencies. The success of the JAG and WBOPMHF model is illustrated by the success in securing central government Social and economic benefits funding as illustrated in the pie chart above. Te Puni Kokiri In 2013 Te Puni Kokiri and WBOPMHF commissioned a report SHAZ programme (a small fund available to assist with on “The Economic Impact of Papakāinga Housing in the Bay planning for housing on Māori land) has recognised the of Plenty” (Berl, 2013). In summary that report found that the success of the model by asking other regions to follow the objective of the WBOPMHF to build 252 houses would result JAG model. JAG’s approach has been to share this work with in a spend of $64.9 million, generate $53.1 million in additional other groups outside of the sub-region with similar aspirations GDP, support 1, 128 full-time jobs; potentially attract 25 new to assist with housing on Māori land. JAG has assisted other families to the region that will spend $1.13 million annually, Regions by sharing the Toolkit and Workshop programme generate $1.08 million in additional GDP and support 19 and allowing them to attend Papakāinga Workshops. Ngati full-time jobs. It was also reported that the proposed Porou Runanga (East Coast); Ngati Whatua ki Kaipara (Central development means 252 families will be healthier, wealthier, Northland) and the Raglan/ Waikato collective have carried more productive and happier. out Papakāinga Workshops based on JAG’s collective model following such discussions. There are also cultural benefits to individuals and the wider tangata whenua community that arise from Papakāinga The recent central government Māori Housing Strategy also housing and communities within the Papakāinga. Papakāinga show cases the JAG model as a key strategy to develop housing provides quality affordable housing for a demographic housing on Māori land and uses examples of JAG projects in that is proven to be most in need. Over 30% of Housing NZ the case study. Central government agencies and Ministers tenants are Māori; it costs 9 times the average annual salary of are well aware of the JAG model and its success. JAG’s a Māori household to purchase a modest home in Tauranga; strategic objective will be to maintain this profile with relevant Māori home ownership has dropped from 75% in the 1920s to stakeholders and funding providers going forward. under 40% in 2014.
More efficient, effective interaction Government acknowledges the direct relationship between between JAG parties poor housing and poor health. Māori and Pasifika are over The development of the toolkit and the toolkit workshops represented in health statistics related to rheumatic fever and has increased the interaction between the local and central asthma – both illnesses are attributable to quality of housing. government staff with responsibilities in the development Overcrowding is common and exacerbates health and social of Papakāinga on multiple owned Māori Land particularly issues. The ability to live on Māori land provides direct between the Māori Land Court and the Councils. Greater management of land blocks and better utilisation; provides a understanding of the processes under the Resource sense of place; provides access to relevant cultural support Management Act and the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act has systems like the Marae or extended whanau. meant that staff are able to direct potential applicants to staff
140 Join Agency Group Strategic Plan | 2015-2020 13
Where Do We Want To Be?
Maintaining momentum of general land under settlement and Papakāinga development may have through its Settlement Entity Positive and nationally recognised aspirations to develop such land for the momentum has been built up from the real estate market; quality affordable successes to date. Maintaining this residential development; social housing momentum into the future is a key task in conjunction with central government for JAG. This includes the continuation or Papakāinga housing administered by of the Papakāinga Toolkit Workshops itself within the development. and the JAG facilitator role and the continued participation of the JAG It is important to clarify that Treaty tribes agencies providing services in kind or seldom own Māori land. Māori land is direct funding. usually held by Māori land trusts.
Part of maintaining the momentum built Therefore the impact of Treaty is to continue to update and maintain the Settlements may be limited in terms of Papakāinga Toolkit to reflect ongoing opportunities for investment from Treaty learnings and where necessary changes tribes as the two types of organisations, to processes or funding options of local Māori Land Trusts and Settlement and central government. Entities are completely different, unrelated and governed by different Development of Post Treaty legislation and regulatory schemes all of Settlement land which impact on developability of assets There is currently a range of local owned by each organisation. iwi Treaty of Waitangi claims which have either been settled or are close Where iwi or hapu wish to progress to settlement. The transfer of crown the development of quality affordable lands and/or financial resources may housing on settlement/general land provide further opportunities for the the JAG will provide in kind support development of affordable housing either particularly with respect to the as Papakāinga or quality affordable preparation of business cases. This in residential development. For example, kind support will address SmartGrowth treaty settlement tribes may be returned Action 10E.2. 141 Join Agency Group Strategic Plan | 2015-2020 14 How We’ll Get There
Goal - Effective collaboration and efficient collective action
Action: Change We’re Seeking: 1. Delivering annual Papakāinga Toolkit workshop series to Māori land trusts Measure: 2. Maintaining relationships, monitoring and supporting trust • Annual workshop programme is run progress post workshops • Two trusts per annum have progressed to funding stage 3. Supporting trusts to complete a development proposal including resolving funding options Action By: 4. Co-ordination between agencies and trusts, and between • JAG Agencies - staff time and in kind services trusts and funding providers • JAG Facilitator 5. Providing trusts with appropriate agency support for technical site assessments, construction and any agency When: services related to the development • Annually and ongoing 6. Monitoring and reporting on progress in meeting strategic goals to SmartGrowth/SGIC, Combined Tangata Whenua Budget: Forum, partner Councils, WBOPMHF • $100,000 approximate per annum for workshops (funding 7. Maintaining and updating JAG Strategic Plan source does not include councils) 8. Monitoring and reporting on progress in meeting JAG • Also part of Facilitator budget of $80,000 per annum Strategic Goals (funded by Councils). 9. Agency input into business cases, plans and implementation of post Treaty settlement land (where required).
142 Join Agency Group Strategic Plan | 2015-2020 15
Goal - Economic and Social Benefits
Action: Action By 1. Increase the number of affordable, sustainable, healthy • JAG Facilitator - written report to JAG meeting and suitable dwellings in papakāinga by 50 dwellings every three years. When • Perception Survey one year on from residents Change We’re Seeking: occupying home • Increased sense of cultural identity • Annually and ongoing • Increased feeling of housing security • Comparison with BERL report every 5 years • Better health outcomes for residents • Demonstrable Budget • Part of Facilitator budget of $80,000 per annum Measure: (funded by Councils). • Perception survey of residents 1 year after home occupied • Quantum of central government funding brought into the western Bay of Plenty sub-region to progress Papakāinga • Case studies, including before and after photos • Comparison with the targets set out in the BERL Report on a five year basis.
Goal - Advocacy
Action: Action By 1. Advocating to central government, funding providers and • JAG Agencies individual agencies (includes advocating support of the • JAG Facilitator WBOPMHF). When Change We’re Seeking: • Annually • Central Government and funding packages are “best fit” with actual need and resources of applicants. A Budget collaborative regional best practice approach is applied • JAG Agencies - staff time and in kind services with Central Government. • Part of Facilitator budget of $80,000 per annum (funded by Councils). Measure: • Annual report pre- pared by JAG with findings reported to SmartGrowth IMG, CTWF, partner Councils, WBOPMHF
143 Join Agency Group Strategic Plan | 2015-2020 16
Goal - Education and Increased Understanding
Action: • JAG Facilitator reports in relation to interaction with 1. Maintain and update the Papakāinga Toolkit central government (findings to be included in Annual 2. Ensure JAG is informed of policy changes and submission Report to SmartGrowth IMG, CTWF, partner processes that relate to the business of JAG. Councils, WBOPMHF).
Change We’re Seeking: Action By • Increased knowledgebase and expertise of JAG • JAG Agencies agencies’ staff in relation to development of multiple • External delivery by Facilitator owned Māori land. • Increased knowledgebase and expertise of potential When applicants in relation to the development of Māori • Annually land trusts. • Increased knowledgebase and expertise of central Budget government staff in relation to the development of • Discretionary operational funding Māori land. • $7,500 for the Toolkit update • JAG Agencies - staff time and in kind services. Measure: • Part of Facilitator budget of $80,000 per annum • Internal staff interviews (funded by Councils). • Survey of Māori land trust participants at the conclusion of Papakāinga Toolkit workshops
Fig. 1. Current Relationships
Trusts Individual Funding Agreements Funding Agencies
Toolkit Post-Toolkit Respresents
Western Bay of Joint Agency Plenty Maori Group Technical Support Housing Forum
144 Join Agency Group Strategic Plan | 2015-2020 17
Fig. 2. Te Keteparaha Mo Nga Papakāinga Development Process
Toolkit Workshop Trusts at aligned to Toolkit Stages various • TPK have funded presenters Trust start workshops stages of logistics progress • JAG members in kind staff support
OR
Individual Trust outside of workshop JAG assesses project process, approaches against checklist drawn If accepted by JAG JAG for Facilitator from Papakāinga Toolkit assistance
Trust appoint their own Project Managers
Funding approved and Trust individually Business case Funding application project management group progressing to business development to funding providers established by individual case through Steps 1-5 trusts to implement and build
• TPK, SHAZ and NDOE funding • JAG Facilitator supports • JAG Facilitator supports • JAG Facilitator supports and • JAG members in kind support individual trusts to progress individual trusts to progress coordinated individual trusts. • JAG Facilitator supports and coordinates trust/ and coordinates trust/ individual trusts to progress JAG action. JAG action. and coordinates trust/ JAG action.
Funding packages negotiated or influenced
• JAG Facilitator represents JAG with Government departments or funding providers.
145 Join Agency Group Strategic Plan | 2015-2020 18
Signatories
For and on behalf of:
Bay of Plenty Regional Council Maori Land Court
Tauranga City Council Te Puni Kōkiri
Western Bay of Plenty District Council
146 Join Agency Group Strategic Plan | 2015-2020 19