PROPOSED KAPITI COAST DISTRICT PLAN 2012 S42a Report: Part B – Rural Zones -Rezoning Requests

PROPOSED KAPITI COAST DISTRICT PLAN 2012 s42A Report: Part B – Rural Zones -Rezoning Requests

Executive Summary:

1. This report considers submissions received by Kapiti Coast District Council (the Council) in relation to the relevant policies, rules and maps as they apply to rezoning land in the Rural zones in chapter 7.

2. The report outlines recommendations in response to the key issues that have emerged from these submissions.

3. There were 28 submissions and 63 further submissions received on these matters. Submissions sought a range of rezoning outcomes as set out below:

 Requests to rezone land in Otaihanga;

 Requests to rezone land in Otaki;

 Requests to rezone land in Paekakariki;

 Requests to rezone land in Paraparaumu;

 Requests to rezone land in Peka Peka;

 Requests to rezone land in Raumati South;

 Requests to rezone land in Te Horo; and

 Requests to rezone land in Waikanae.

4. Some changes to the Proposed District Plan (PDP) maps are recommended to address matters raised in submissions and are summarised below:

 Amend Map 19A for land in Paraparaumu

 Amend map 18A for land in Te Horo

 Amend map 07A for land in Waikanae

Table of Contents Executive Summary: ...... 2 Section 1: Introduction ...... 5 1.1 Purpose ...... 5 1.2 Author ...... 5 1.3 Content of the Officer’s Report ...... 6 1.4 Key issues in contention ...... 7 Section 2: Statutory Considerations ...... 8 2.1 Resource Management Act 1991 ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.3 National Policy Statements ...... 8 2.4 Regional Policy Statement ...... 8 2.5 Other Relevant National Instruments ...... 9 2.6 National Environmental Standards ...... 9 Section 3: Consideration of Submissions and Further Submissions ...... 10 3.1 Report Structure ...... 10 3.2 Format for Consideration of Submissions ...... 11 3.3 Rural land located at Otaihanga ...... 12 3.3.1 Matters Raised by Submitters ...... 12 3.3.3 Recommendations ...... 18 3.3.4 Recommended Amendments ...... 19 3.4 Rural land located at Otaki ...... 20 3.4.1 Matters Raised by Submitters ...... 20 3.4.2 Assessment ...... 21 3.4.3 Recommendations ...... 23 3.4.4 Recommended Amendments ...... 24 3.5 Rural land located at Paekakariki ...... 24 3.5.1 Matters Raised by Submitters ...... 24 3.5.2 Assessment ...... 24 3.5.3 Recommendations ...... 26 3.5.4 Recommended Amendments ...... 26 3.6 Rural land located at Paraparaumu ...... 26 3.6.1 Matters Raised by Submitters ...... 26 3.6.2 Assessment ...... 27 3.6.3 Recommendations ...... 33 3.6.4 Recommended Amendments ...... 34

3.7 Rural land located at Peka Peka ...... 34 3.7.1 Matters Raised by Submitters ...... 34 3.7.2 Assessment ...... 35 3.7.3 Recommendations ...... 42 3.7.4 Recommended Amendments ...... 42 3.8 Rural land located at Raumati South ...... 42 3.8.1 Matters Raised by Submitters ...... 42 3.8.2 Assessment ...... 44 3.8.3 Recommendations ...... 44 3.8.4 Recommended Amendments ...... 44 3.9 Rural land located at Te Horo ...... 44 3.9.1 Matters Raised by Submitters ...... 44 3.9.2 Assessment ...... 45 3.9.3 Recommendations ...... 51 3.9.4 Recommended Amendments ...... 51 3.10 Rural land located at Waikanae ...... 52 3.10.1 Matters Raised by Submitters ...... 52 3.10.2 Assessment ...... 52 3.10.3 Recommendations ...... 59 3.10.4 Recommended Amendments ...... 59 3.11 Conclusion on all topics in this chapter (same for all chapters/topics) ...... 60 Section 4: Recommended Amendments to Maps ...... 60 Section 5: Recommendations to Submissions and Further Submissions ...... 64

APPENDICES:

Appendix 1 Pre Hearing meeting minutes and Section 8AA Agreements

Section 1: Introduction

1.1 Purpose 1. This report is prepared under the provisions of section 42A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

2. This report has been commissioned by Kapiti Coast District Council in accordance with Section 42A of the RMA to consider all submissions and further submissions received following the public notification of the Proposed District Plan (PDP) and to make recommendations on those submissions.

3. This report:  Outlines the statutory provisions relevant to the district plan review process  Discusses general issues;  Discusses both the original and further submissions received following notification of the PDP;  Makes recommendations as to whether or not those submissions should be accepted or rejected; and  Concludes with a recommendation for changes to the PDP provisions or maps based on the preceding discussion in the report.

4. Some changes are recommended to the provisions as notified and these are contained in Section 4 of this report. A summary of all recommendations on submissions and further submissions is contained in Section 5 of this report.

5. This report addresses Rural Rezoning requests for the maps of the PDP.

6. This report is intended to be read in conjunction with Section 42A Report: Part A – Background and Process which contains factual background information, statutory context and administrative matters pertaining to the district plan review and PDP. Section 42A Report: Part A is common to all chapters of the PDP whereas Part B is specific to each chapter or topic and addresses the submissions and further submissions relevant to that particular aspect of the PDP.

1.2 Author 7. My name is Emily Thomson. I hold the following qualifications: Post Graduate Diploma in Resource and Environmental Planning, Bachelor of Landscape Architecture (hons) and Bachelor of Science. I am a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute. I have 11 years experience in District Planning including 9 years preparing district plan changes and reviews. I am employed by Kapiti Coast District Council and have held this position since 2004.

8. My experience includes my role as a Senior Policy Planner. My role in preparing this report is that of an expert policy planner.

9. Although this is a Council Hearing, I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Practice Note issued by the Environment Court December 2014. I have complied with that Code when preparing my written statement of evidence and I agree to comply with it when I give any oral evidence.

10. The scope of my evidence relates to policy planning in relation to requests to rezone land within the rural environment in the Kapiti Coast District. I confirm that the issues addressed in this statement of evidence are within my area of expertise as an expert policy planner.

11. Any data, information, facts, and assumptions I have considered in forming my opinions are set out in the part of the evidence in which I express my opinions. Where I have set out opinions in my evidence, I have given reasons for those opinions.

12. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed.

13. The literature or other material which I have used or relied upon in support of my opinions are as follows:

 The Resource Management Act 1991;  The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (and the attendant National Implementation Plan 2011);  The Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region 2013;  The Submitter Engagement Version of the PDP; and  The Operative Kapiti Coast Distrct Plan 1999.

14. In evaluating the information and making recommendations on submissions, I have relied on input from Te Ohu Taiao.

1.3 Content of the Officer’s Report

15. The purpose of this report is to bring to the attention of the Commissioners the relevant information and issues regarding requests to rezone land in the rural environment, along with recommendations on the submissions and further submissions. As submitters are entitled to speak and present evidence at the hearing, the recommendations contained within this report are preliminary only, relating only to the written submissions and any information accompanying that submission. I emphasise that the conclusions and recommendations made in this report are my own, based on the information to hand at the time of writing this report, and are not binding upon the Commissioners. It should not therefore be assumed that the Commissioners will reach the same conclusion as myself having considered all the evidence brought before the hearing.

16. A total of 28 submissions and 63 further submissions were received on rural rezoning requests. Submissions received sought a reasoning of land in a variety of locations and

zoning so. Many submissions also seek amendments to the content of the provisions within the PDP which are addressed in separate analyses. This report only relates to changes requested to maps..

17. This report is structured as follows: Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Statutory Considerations Section 3: Consideration of Submissions and Further Submissions Section 4: Recommended Amendments to Zone Maps Section 5: Recommendations to Submissions and Further Submissions

18. Appendices attached to this report include: Appendix One: Minutes from pre-hearing meetings and Section 8AA agreements

1.4 Key issues in contention

19. Without derogating from the details contained in the submissions, which are addressed throughout this report, I consider the following to be the key issues in contention in the chapter:

1. Rezoning rural land in Otaihanga

2. Rezoning rural land in Otaki

3. Rezoning rural land in Paekakariki

4. Rezoning rural land in Paraparaumu

5. Rezoning rural land in Peka Peka

6. Rezoning rural land in Raumati South

7. Rezoning rural land in Te Horo

8. Rezoning rural land in Waikanae

20. This Section 42A report is structured around each of the key issues.

Section 2: Statutory Considerations

21. There are a number of key statutory documents which must be noted as part of considering the PDP. These statutory documents are discussed more thoroughly in Section 42A Report: Part A – Background and Process, however there are some statutory considerations specific to rezoning of land in the rural environment which I discuss below.

2.3 National Policy Statements

22. There are no relevant national policy statements as this report relates only to land zoned rural in the Proposed District Plan when it was notified where submitters have suggested the land be rezoned. It does not relate to any requested changes to provisions in the plan unless the submission requests a new precinct or area with specific provisions as part of the rezoning request.

2.4 Regional Policy Statement

23. As at the date the PDP was notified, the Proposed Wellington Regional Policy Statement, 2009 was still the subject of appeals to the Environment Court. Accordingly, the PDP was required to give effect to the Operative Regional Policy Statement 1999 by Section 75(3)(c) of the RMA. The provisions of the Proposed Wellington Regional Policy were required to be given regard to by Section 74(2)(a)(i).

24. The Proposed Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington region was made operative on 24 April 2013. The PDP was notified before the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) was made operative and was therefore prepared on the basis of giving effect to the Operative RPS, with regard given to the Proposed RPS.

25. Any changes to the PDP recommended in this report are constrained to the scope provided by submissions. However where submissions enable PDP provisions to be aligned with the now Operative RPS, I have identified this opportunity in this report.

26. The Chapter 7 Rural Environment provisions section 42A report has addressed any relevant policies and the only additional relevant policies are Policy 55 – Managing development in Rural Areas

This policy states:

When considering an application for a resource consent or a change, variation or replacement to review of a district plan, in rural areas (as at March 2009), particular regard shall be given to whether: (a) the proposal will result in a loss of productivity of the rural area, including cumulative impacts that would reduce the potential for food and other primary production and reverse sensitivity issues for existing production activities; (b) the proposal will reduce aesthetic and open space values in rural areas between and around settlements;

(c) the proposals location, design or density will minimise demand for non- renewable energy resources; and (d) the proposal is consistent with the relevant city or district council growth and/or development framework or strategy that addresses future rural development; or (e) in the absence of such a framework or strategy, the proposal will increase pressure for public services and infrastructure beyond existing infrastructure capacity.

27. I consider this policy is particularly relevant to considering the rezoning requests. The policy specifically refers to the “council’s growth and/or development framework or strategy” and I am of the opinion that the relevant strategy for the Kapiti Coast is the Council’s Development Management Strategy which was published in 2007.

2.5 Other Relevant National Instruments

28. There are no relevant national policy statements as this report relates only to land zoned rural in the Proposed District Plan when it was notified where submitters have suggested the land be rezoned. It does not relate to any requested changes to provisions in the plan unless the submission requests a new precinct or area with specific provisions as part of the rezoning request. The Chapter 7 Rural Environment provisions section 42A report has addressed any relevant national instruments.

2.6 National Environmental Standards

29. There are no relevant national environmental standards as this report relates only to land zoned rural in the Proposed District Plan when it was notified where submitters have suggested the land be rezoned. It does not relate to any requested changes to provisions in the plan unless the submission requests a new precinct or area with specific provisions as part of the rezoning request. The Chapter 7 Rural Environment provisions section 42A report has addressed any relevant national standards.

Section 3: Consideration of Submissions and Further Submissions

3.1 Report Structure

30. Submitters and further submitters submitting on rural rezoning requersts raised a number of issues which have been grouped into sub-topics within this report. These issues are addressed in the following sections of the report:

Table 1 - Overview of Submission Topics

Issue Topic Report Section Rezoning rural land in Otaihanga 3 Rezoning rural land in Otaki 4 Rezoning rural land in Paekakariki 5 Rezoning rural land in Paraparaumu 6 Rezoning rural land in Peka Peka 7 Rezoning rural land in Raumati 8 South Rezoning rural land in Te Horo 9 Rezoning rural land in Waikanae 10

31. The table in Section 5 should be used to locate the relevant sections where each submission is discussed. The submissions have been grouped into similar topics. Note that some submissions will be addressed under a number of topic headings based on the topics contained in the submission.

32. Section 3 discusses the issues raised in the submissions and further submissions, makes recommendations on whether those submissions / further submissions should be accepted or rejected, and gives reasons for such recommendations.

33. For efficiency and in accordance with Clause 10(3) of the First Schedule of the RMA, the following evaluation has been undertaken on both an issues and provisions-based approach, as opposed to a submission by submission approach. The evaluation has been organised in accordance with the chapters of the PDP as notified.

34. Due to the number of submission / further submission points, this discussion is generic only and may not contain specific recommendations on each submission point but instead discusses the issues. This approach is consistent with Clause 10(2)(a) of Schedule 1 to the RMA. Specific recommendations on each submission / further submission point are contained in Section 5.

35. The following evaluation should be read in conjunction with the summaries of submissions and the submissions themselves. Where I concur with the relief sought and rationale for that relief, I have noted my agreement and provided my recommendation in the summary of submission table in Section 5. Where I have undertaken further evaluation of the relief sought in a submission(s), my evaluation and recommendations are set out in this section of the report.

3.2 Format for Consideration of Submissions

36. The consideration of submissions follows the following structure: Section 3 of this Hearings Report considers the submissions and further submissions received. Each section comprises sub-sections entitled:  Matters Raised by Submitters – summarises the issues raised in the submissions and further submissions and the relief sought.  Assessment – consideration of the issues raised.  Recommendations – this outlines my recommendations to accept, accept in part or reject each point of submission and further submissions.  Recommended Amendments – outlines my recommended amendments to the PDP text in response to the points of submission and further submissions.

37. Where I recommend changes in response to submissions, these are shown as current and proposed maps.

38. A copy of the Zone maps (07A, 18A and 19A) as amended by my recommendations contained within this Hearings Report is included in Section 4 of this report.

3.3 Rural land located at Otaihanga

3.3.1 Matters Raised by Submitters

39. There were three submissions and 26 further submissions relating to land zoned rural residential and one request for land zoned rural (plains or dunes) located in Otaihanga. These will be addressed in this section.

40. Submitter 266.3 Alex Metcalfe seeks that rural residential land at 12 Otaihanga Road be rezoned to open space-conservation and scenic. He considers the land has critical functions within the district of providing: a buffer to the Waikanae River Mouth and Estuary; the sole remaining buffer between urban Paraparaumu and rural Otaihanga; the final component of the rural corridor from the eastern hills down to the Waikanae River. The rural residential land is low lying (between 1.5 and 2.5m AMSL) and includes the Mazengarb Stream. This was opposed by further submitter 128 Kotuku Park Ltd, and supported by the following further submissions:  4 R J Rothwell  12 Marian Tobin  17 Rachael Oldham  18 Michael Oldham  30 Ann Higgs  31 Menno van Eyk  36 Debbie Clark  37 M & W Roxburgh  47 Alex Metcalfe  50 Terry Creighton  80 Shane Murland  105 Deborah Griffiths  144 Anne Marie Moorhead  147 Rouen Beale  152 Christine Balloch  159 Kevin Symonds  160 Stanley Goodright  161 Lynn Anderson  162 Trudi McNamara  163 Pablo Wolinski  171 B Baggott  173 S Keast

41. Submitter 551.1 Shane Murland and Zaida Holdings seek that land zoned rural residential be rezoned to a special “otaihanga rural residential precinct” (the area from the residential zone in Paraparaumu to Otaihanga Road and Ratanui Road as outlined in Figure 1 in Section 3.3.2 below) with specific provisions to allow a minimum lot size for subdivision of 2500m2 and an average lot size of 4000m2. This was supported by further submissions 2 Faye Hiko / Paku, 44 Tony Thomson, and 112 Bryan McConkey. The submitter considers this is appropriate as the land is adjacent to the Paraparaumu urban area, does not contain productive soils and has no more than minor natural hazard

constraints. The submitter considers that there is a high demand for lots around 4000m2 and allowing this would provide for outdoor space while retaining character and amenity values, andthe proposed precinct is consistent with Policy 7.13.

42. Submission 56.5 Chris Stone seeks that land from Mazengarb Road to the Waikane River be zoned future residential land. The submitter considers that Paraparaumu is desperate for more residential land for future growth, more ratepayers to support the town centre and more jobs.

43. Submission 59.1 and 59.2 Bryan Davy seeks that land zoned rural plains and/or rural hills at the intersection of State Highway 1 and Otaihanga Road be rezoned to residential or future urban development. 3.3.2 Assessment

44. Submission 266.3 Alex Metcalfe request to rezone land from rural residential to open space conservation and scenic would result in private land being zoned as open space.

Figure 1: Area identified in submission 266 showing Proposed Plan zoning (Area outlined in red/brown, Rural Residential in light grey, Residential in yellow, Open Space (Recreation) in green and River Corridor in blue).

45. I consider this approach would unduly restrict the landowners use of the land. The PDP proposes the western part of the site is zoned residential, while the eastern part is zoned rural residential. The submission is seeking to impose controls on western part of the land prior to any subdivision or development taking place on this site. I do not consider it appropriate to require that land be set aside as a reserve contribution until a subdivision occurs and the Council’s Parks and Reserves Team determines whether it wants land for a reserve or would prefer to a financial contribution towards reserves elsewhere. The submission and further submissions in support are therefore recommended to be rejected in relation to this land.

46. There were pre hearing meetings with Mr Metcalfe, Mr Murland, and Rhys Phillips – representing Kotuku Parks Ltd in July 2013 where the zoning of 12 Otaihanga Road was discussed. There were no agreements reached in these meetings. Minutes of the meetings are provided in Appendix 1 of this report.

47. I agree with the further submission 128 Kotuku Parks Ltd, and I do not believe there is a need to rezone the land as sought by submission 266.3 Alex Metcalfe for the following reasons:  The current proposed zoning will provide a visual and physical buffer between the Paraparaumu Beach urban area and the Otaihanga Urban area;  The rural residential zoning is consistent with adjacent private properties; and  I consider it is not appropriate for private land to be zoned for open space unless the Council intends to acquire the land for reserves puposes as part of a subdivision or as a strategic acquisition.

48. Submitter 551.1 Shane Murland and Zaida Holdings seek that land proposed for rural residential zoning be rezoned to a special “otaihanga rural residential precinct” (see Figure 2 below). This is supported by further submissions 2 Faye Hiko / Paku, 44 Tony Thomson, and 112 Bryan McConkey. The land identified by the submitter includes a significant number of individual parcels with some large and others already subdivided to approximately 1ha. Some of the lots are shown to be significantly flood prone within the most up to date flood hazard maps, while others are flood free or have limited areas of flooding. The zoning request would result in lots which are smaller than any other rural residential area in the District. The average size proposed is currently the minimum size allowed for any rural residential lot in the District.

49. Pre hearing meetings were held with Mr Murland and Ms Hiko in July 2013 where this rezoning request was discussed. The option of a structure plan developed by the landowners in the area was suggested as the most appropriate way to progress the request. There was no agreement reached in these meeetings. Minutes of the meeting are attached in Appendix 1.

Figure 2: Area identified in submission 551 as an “otaihanga rural residential precinct” (area outlined in red)

Figure 3: Flood Hazard map for the area identified in Submission 551 as a potential “otaihanga rural residential precinct” (area shown in red with flood hazards shown in blue, yellow and pink)

50. If a group of landowners were to provide a structure plan for this land, with road links through the site, areas of intensive development for flood free areas and areas to provide a buffer between Paraparaumu and Otaihanga this could be considered by the Council at that time. A comprehensive structure planned development approach could then be pursued for the site as a future private plan change or subdivision consent. Alternatively under the current rural residential zoning the flood free or minimally constrained parts of the site could be developed more intensively than the flood prone parts of the site using the average lot sizes allowed in the PDP.

51. At this time I consider that it is inappropriate to rezone this area of land to enable intensive development without further discussion between landowners in the area and the development being appropriately planned across the multiple owners.

52. This area is not identified in the Council’s Development Management Strategy as an area for future urban growth due to flood hazards on the site (shown in Figure 2 below), which has two stream corridors passing through it, and large areas of ponding flood hazards in surrounding areas.. In addition the agglomeration of Paraparaumu with Otaihanga is specifically opposed in the Otaihanga Local Outcomes Statement which seeks to retain Otaihanga as a separate settlement.

53. In relation to submission 56.5 Chris Stone proposing the land discussed above and a larger area out to the Waikanae River to be “future urban development”. I consider that the issues discussed above are also relevant to this submission.

Figure 4: Area understood to be referred to in submission 56 (Rural Plains shown as light brown, Rural Residential shown as light grey, Open Spaces as green and green with dots, River Corridor as blue, Residential shown as dark yellow, Rural Hills as dark brown).

Figure 5: Constraints for intensive development of this area (area outlined in red/brown, flood hazards = blue, yellow and pink, Expressway designation = brown diamond hatch)

54. The Future Urban zone is in areas which have been identified as areas for urban growth in the Council’s Development Management Strategy. The Development Management Strategy sets out the Council’s direction for growth management in the District. The Strategy identifies areas for infill and greenfield growth across the district and these areas have been included in the Operative and Proposed District Plans to implement the Strategy.

55. This areas is not identified within the Strategy. In addition the land between Otaihanga Road and the Waikanae River has further significant flood hazard areas and the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway as constraints with the remaining land generally in smaller land parcels which would be difficult to develop as an urban area. The land has been zoned rural residential since 1999. The flood free land currently in larger lots in the vicinity is located away from existing roads and services and would be costly and inefficient to service. Therefore I consider the rural residential zoning is more appropriate for this land than the future urban zone.

56. Submission 59.1 and 59.2 Bryan Davy seeks that land at the intersection of State Highway 1 and Otaihanga Road be rezoned from Rural Plains and Rural Hills to Rural Residential and opposes moving the rural hills zone further west on the submitter’s property.. The submitter considers that the rural zoning is inappropriate as these properties have been rated as “urban” for the last 16 years and the owners were advised in 1997 that the state highway, being a limited access road, was the reason that they were zoned rural and that if this relocated they would be rezoned to urban and as a

temporary measure until the expressway is completed be zoned for future urban development.

Figure 6: Area identified in the submission (submitter’s property outlined in pink, with Rural Hills zoning in dark brown, Rural Plains in light brown, Rural Residential in light grey, rural Duens in yellow and Open Space in green with dots)

57. The land adjacent to the intersection is already subdivided into lots of 1.9 - 0.8 hectares with most of the lots being less than one hectare. This area is over 200m (by road from the nearest residential area and will still remain constrained by the main road it accesses onto even whan this ceases to be State Highway 1 as the road will still carry a high volume of traffic and is likely to retain the Limited Access Road status.

58. A pre hearing meeting was held on 4 July 2013 with Mr Davy where the zoning was discussed. Mr Davy advised that he would like to subdivide his 2ha lot in the future. The submitter’s land is however 1.9ha therefore if it was rezoned to rural residential it would still be non-complying to subdivide as a minimum of 2 hectares is required to meet the minimum average lot size. Therefore there is no reason to amend the zoning. It would be possible to amend the zoning on the site to include all of the submitters land and other small blocks in the area in the Rural Plains zone however this is considered to be out of the scope of the submission and would not enable further development of these lots. Therefore I recommend retaining the proposed zoning and for this reason reject this submission.

3.3.3 Recommendations

59. I recommend that Submission 266.3 Alex Metcalfe and the following further submissions seeking to rezone rural residential land to open space-conservation and scenic zone be rejected:  4 R J Rothwell  12 Marian Tobin  17 Rachael Oldham  18 Michael Oldham  30 Ann Higgs  31 Menno van Eyk  36 Debbie Clark  37 M & W Roxburgh  47 Alex Metcalfe  50 Terry Creighton  80 Shane Murland  105 Deborah Griffiths  144 Anne Marie Moorhead  147 Rouen Beale  152 Christine Balloch  159 Kevin Symonds  160 Stanley Goodright  161 Lynn Anderson  162 Trudi McNamara  163 Pablo Wolinski  171 B Baggott  173 S Keast

60. I recommend that further submission 128 Kotuku Parks Ltd seeking to retain the rural residential zoning for 12 Otaihanga Road be accepted.

61. I recommend that submission 551.1 Shane Murland and Zaida Holdings and the following further submissions supporting rezoning land to “otaihanga rural residential precinct” be rejected:  2 Faye Hiko / Paku  44 Tony Thomson  112 Bryan McConkey

62. I recommend that submission 56.5 Chris Stone seeking to rezone land from rural residential to future urban development be rejected.

63. I recommend that submission 59.1 Bryan Davy seeks that this at the intersection of State Highway 1 and Otaihanga Road be rejected.

3.3.4 Recommended Amendments

64. No changes are recommended to the PDP maps as a result of these submissions.

3.4 Rural land located at Otaki

3.4.1 Matters Raised by Submitters

65. There were two requests in submissions and 26 further submissions relating to land Zoned Rural Plains or Rural Hills located in Otaki. These will be addressed in this section.

66. Submission 775.1 Cabrach Holdings Ltd seeks to rezone approximately 68.3 hectares of land in the vicinity of Te Manuao Road and Waitohu Valley Road (being lots 1 and 2 DP 427946), from rural plains to rural residential with a specific structure planned precinct enabling clustered development with balance areas. The submitter considers that the land is suitable for more intensive development than what is allowed for in the Rural Plains Zone and would be consistent with the policy framework of the Proposed District Plan, particularly policy 7.13 in terms of the following factors:  The area is close to an urban area and can be efficiently serviced;  The proposed zone change would not result in an expansion to urban areas;  Re-zoning the area will lessen the potential for reverse sensitivity effects on the rural/residential.

67. There were no further submissions in support or opposition to the submission.

68. Submission 271.33 Lyndon Enterprises Limited seeks to rezone the following land in Otaki Gorge Road from Rural Hills to Rural Plains:  810 Otaki Gorge Rd (Lot 3, DP 52061)  906 Otaki Gorge Rd (Lot 2, DP 71721)  910 Otaki Gorge Rd (Part Lot 3, DP 71721). This request is supported by the following further submissions:  1 H Levak  9 Egon Guttke  10 Irena Guttke  33 Peter Kiernan  41 Ian Jensen  42 Ngatotara Farms Ltd and Rod Agar  54 Richard Swan  57A & A McEwan  58 Michael & Elizabeth Welch  59B, S & T Mansell  60 Tasman Lakes Estates Ltd  61 Cavallo Agistment Ltd  93 Lyndon Enterprises Ltd  102 USNZ Forestry Group Ltd  126 DF & AE Smith Partnership & Ratanui Farming Partnership  142 V Ballinger  167 Waa Rata Estate

 178 Land Matters Ltd  179 C D Bowie  180 Lutz Brothers  181 Bellcamp Trust Company Ltd  183 Kennott Company Trust and Kauri Trust  184 Kumototo Nominees & Patone Holdings  185 Millhaven Ltd  186 Mahaki Holdings Ltd  187 RNR Trust

69. The submitter seeks this change on the basis that the difference between the submitter's properties and neighbouring properties, which are zoned Rural Plains Zone, is not clear.

3.4.2 Assessment

70. Submission 775.1 Cabrach Holdings Ltd seeks to rezone land in the vicinity of Te Manuao Road and Waitohu Valley Road (being lots 1 and 2 DP 427946 – see Figure 6 below), from rural plains to rural residential, with a specific structure planned precinct enabling clustered development with balance areas. The site is in two lots with one accessed from Te Manauo Road (Lot 2) and the other (Lot 1) with access from Rahui Road and road frontage to Waitohu Valley Road, although the Waitohu Stream would make road access from this point difficult as the farm access is currently via a ford through the stream corridor which is approximately 100m wide at that point. There is Rural Residential zoned land on the opposite side (north) of Waitohu Valley Road.

71. If the entire area of 68ha was rezoned to rural residential it could result in 68 lots while the current Rural Plains zoning would only enable 11 lots on the site. 72. I consider that the lot with direct access to Te Manauo Road (Lot 2, DP427946) could be suitable for some smaller rural sections, and if a structure plan was provided for the appropriate areas within this site a rezoning to rural residential with a structure plan may be acceptable. If Lot 2 was rezoned in the future it could potentially result in 22 lots. 73. As there is no structure plan able to be assessed at this time, and further work would be required once a structure plan is developed to assess the suitability of the site for such a proposal I do not consider it appropriate to rezone the land at this time. A subsequent private plan change or subdivision on the basis of a specific proposal could be considered in the future once the details had been provided.

Figure 7: Area of land identified in the submission (area outlined in red)

Figure 8: Flood hazards on the subject site (flood hazards = pink, blue and yellow areas)

74. Submission 271.33 Lyndon Enterprises Limited seek to rezone land in Otaki Gorge Road from Rural Hills to Rural Plains (810 Otaki Gorge Rd (Lot 3, DP 52061), 906 Otaki Gorge Rd (Lot 2, DP 71721), 910 Otaki Gorge Rd (Part Lot 3, DP 7 172 I)).

75. The subject land is located in the Otaki Gorge itself, and the tographycould be described as relatively steep. For example 810 Otaki gorge has a change of 60m in elevation from the top to the bottom of the site, over a relatively short distance of 120m. The other two properties appear to be less steep with some flat areas, but these are smaller lots of less than 12 hectares which would be non-complying for subdivision in the Rural Plains zone as the proposed restricted discretionary subdivision rules require a 6ha minimum average lot size. Therefore rezoning these sites would not result in enabling any additional development on these smaller sites.

76. The zoning boundary between the rural hills and rural plains has been modified from the approach in the operative district plan to provide greater certainty and ease of administration by reducing the number of properties with dual zoning to large properties with a simple straight line through properties at boundary line change points with as many properties as possible being in a single zoning. As much as possible this zoning is similar to the existing zones in the Operative District Plan which was based on topography, and generally aligns with the most appropriate uses of the land as described by the PDP policies.

77. I consider the zoning of 810 Otaki Gorge Road is appropriate, due to the steepness of the site and that as 906 and 910 Otaki Gorge Road are both below 12 hectares therefore the requested zoning of the land will make no difference to these properties , due to the main difference between the zonings being the average lot size for subdivision. (The rural hills zone requires subdivision to have an average lot size of 20ha and the rural plains an average lot size of 6ha). Therefore I do not support the requested rezoning request.

3.4.3 Recommendations

78. I recommend that Submission 775.1 Cabrach Holdings Ltd seeking reasoning of land in the vicinity of Te Manuao Road and Waitohu Valley Road (being lots 1 and 2 DP 427946), be rejected.

79. I recommend that submission 271.33 Lyndon Enterprises Limited seeking rezoning of land in Otaki Gorge Road, and the following further submissions be rejected:  1H Levak  9Egon Guttke  10Irena Guttke  33Peter Kiernan  41Ian Jensen  42Ngatotara Farms Ltd and Rod Agar  54Richard Swan  57A & A McEwan

 58Michael & Elizabeth Welch  59 B, S & T Mansell  60 Tasman Lakes Estates Ltd  61 Cavallo Agistment Ltd  93 Lyndon Enterprises Ltd  102 USNZ Forestry Group Ltd  126 DF & AE Smith Partnership & Ratanui Farming Partnership  142 V Ballinger  167 Waa Rata Estate  178 Land Matters Ltd  179 C D Bowie  180 Lutz Brothers  181 Bellcamp Trust Company Ltd  183 Kennott Company Trust and Kauri Trust  184 Kumototo Nominees & Patone Holdings  185 Millhaven Ltd  186 Mahaki Holdings Ltd  187 RNR Trust

3.4.4 Recommended Amendments

80. There are no changes recommended to the maps as a result of these submissions.

3.5 Rural land located at Paekakariki

3.5.1 Matters Raised by Submitters

81. There was one submission and one further submission relating to land zoned Rural Dunes located in Paekakariki. These will be addressed in this section.

82. Submission 406.17 Paekakariki Community Board, seeks that zoning of land north east of Paekakariki on both sides of the railway line from Rural Dunes Zone to Rural Plains Zone.

3.5.2 Assessment

83. Submission 406.17 Paekakariki Community Board, seek that zoning of land north east of Paekakariki on both sides of the railway line from Rural Dunes Zone to Rural Plains Zone. Under the ODP the land referred to in the submission is Zoned Rural and is located in the Coastal area of the Rural Subdivision Maps. I consider that rezoning the land to Rural Plains Zone would severely affect the development rights of the owner(s) of the land and would not be fair or reasonable. The zoning of this land in the Proposed Plan is consistent with the zoning which has applyied to the land for many years. Any

significant natural features (e.g. wetlands) on the land affected by any subdivision would be protected by the rules in Chapter 3 Natural Environment.

84. The land is very close to the coast and while it is fairly flat, it is primarily dunes and inter dune wetlands. There is a small area of alluvial plain from the Wainui Stream, however this area is relatively small and in my opinion it does not warrant a special zoning for this property.

Figure 9: Area identified in the submission (area outlined in red/brown with Rural Dunes shown in light yellow, Rural Plains in brown, Rural Hills in dark brown, Open Space zones in green with spots, Residential in dark yellow and Beach Residential in yellow with spots)

Figure 10: Flood and earthquake hazards for this site (flood hazards= yellow, blue and pink area, earthquake = green and orange hatch)

3.5.3 Recommendations 85. I recommend that submission 406.17 Paekakariki Community Board seeking to rezone land to the north east of the Paekakariki residential area from Rural Dunes to Rural Plains is rejected.

3.5.4 Recommended Amendments

86. There are no changes recommended to the maps as a result of this submission.

3.6 Rural land located at Paraparaumu

3.6.1 Matters Raised by Submitters

87. There were four submissions and 14 further submissions relating to land zoned rural (plains or hills) located in Paraparaumu. These will be addressed in this section.

88. Submission 489.11 John and Brenda Cheese seeks to rezone land zoned Rural Plains to Outer Business Centre Zone and Paraparaumu North Gateway Precinct.

89. Submission 372.18, Michael & Elizabeth Welch, rezone the submitters land (located on the eastern side of State Highway 1 to the north of Paraparaumu) to all be included in the Paraparaumu North Rural Precinct or alternatively rezone the rural hills portion as rural plains. This submission is opposed by further submission 241 Lowell Manning, and is supported by the following further submissions:

 1 H Levak  16 Lorraine Upham  33 Peter Keiran  42 Ngatotara Farms Ltd and Rod Agar  54 Richard Swan  57 A & A McEwan  58 Michael & Elizabeth Welch  59 B, S & T Mansell  60 Tasman Lakes Estates Ltd  61 Cavallo Agistment Ltd  93 Lyndon Enterprises Ltd  102 USNZ Forestry Group Ltd  126 DF & AE Smith Parthnership & Ratanui Farming Partnership

90. Submission 355.1-355.4 Ivano Rutten seeks to rezone 276 Valley Road from a mix of Rural Hills and Rural Plains to rural residential or similar zoning to Nikau Valley.

91. Submission 116.2 Peter and Diane Kiernan seeks to increase the Rural Plains zone on MAP 19A by either including the whole of Lot17 DP 33688 (331 Valley Road) or at least including our flat paddocks in the Rural Plains zone.

3.6.2 Assessment

92. Submission 489.11 John and Brenda Cheese, seek to rezone land at 54 State Highway 1, Paraparaumu from Rural Plains to Outer Business Centre Zone and Paraparaumu North Gateway Precinct (see Figure 10 below).

93. The submitters land is adjacent to an area with the zoning requested. The submitters land is currently used as a dog boarding kennels and is adjacent to a concrete plant. The land and surrounding land is not used for rural activities and is unlikely to be suitable for rural production. The site is currently used for a large scale dog boarding kennels and a residential dwelling.

Figure 11: Area identified in the submission with zoning in the Proposed Plan ( site outlined in pink, showing the Rural Hills zone in dark brown, Rural Plains in mid brown, and Outer Business (Paraparaumu North Gateway Precinct) in red).

Figure 12: Flood hazard map (area in submission outlined in pink, flood hazards = blue and pink areas)

94. The Outer Business zone (Paraparaumu North Gateway Precinct) in this area has been applied to some of the land that is identified as being within the “Tourist Activity Precinct” in the Operative District Plan. It is acknowledged that the Expressway will change the traffic patterns in this area and the area will be less accessible to tourists, and therefore a more general zoning is more appropriate for this area which includes significant areas

of existing businesses and facilities. This Outer Business zoning has deliberately been reduced from the Tourist Activity Precinct area in recognition of the existing businesses and lots set up for business activities.

95. The subject site was not included in the Tourist Activity Precinct and the existing kennels was established in therural zone. I consider the further development of the existing dog boarding kennels would be more difficult under the Outer Business (Paraparaumu North Gateway Precinct) zoning. However other businesses would be enabled more easily.

96. I understand that the submitter no longer owns or operates the business on the property and I consider that the Rural Plains zoning to be appropriate for the current use of the site. I do not consider it is desirable to extend the Ouiter Business zone to the north to include the site requested. Therefore I recommend that submission 489.11 be rejected.

97. Submission 372.18, Michael & Elizabeth Welch, request to rezone the land identified in Figure 12 below to all be included in the Paraparaumu North Rural Precinct, or alternatively, to rezone the rural hills portion of the land to Rural Plains. I do not consider the requested rezoning to be appropriate for this highly visible coastal escarpment in Paraparaumu as the change would enable three times the density of development of the land which, in my opinion would not fit the rural character in this location. The remainder of the submitters land is located within the Paraparaumu North Gateway Precinct and is suitable for more intensive development than the rural hills portion of the site.

98. There was a series of pre-hearing meetings with submitter 372.18, Michael & Elizabeth Welch, which resulted in an agreement to amend the provisions of the “Paraparaumu North Rural Precinct”. The resulting agreement is attached in Appendix 1. The provisions of the Paraparaumu North Gateway Precinct agreed in the pre-hearing meeting with this submitter will enable the overall site to achieve an average lot size greater than previously allowed on this land which the submitter has agreed to. I consider the land is most appropriately zoned Rural Hills, and I therefore recommend the submission and further submissions supporting it are rejected.

Figure 13: Area identified in the submission showing proposed plan zoning (site outlined in red/ brown, Rural Plains zoning in mid brown, Rural Hills in dark drown, Rural Residential in light grey, Outer Business in red and Open Space (Conservation and Scenic) in green with black spots)

Figure 14: Aerial and contours ( site outlined in red/brown with 20m contours shown in tan with red numbers)

Figure 15: Natural features identified in the Proposed Plan on the site (site outlined in red/brown with orange lines = Outstanding Natural Landscape, green hatch = Ecological site)

99. Submitter 355.1- 355.4 Ivano Rutten seeks to rezone 276 Valley Road and surrounding land from a mix of Rural Hills and Rural Plains to rural residential or similar zoning to Nikau Valley. 276 Valley Road is a 6ha site which is zoned Rural Plains, which is consistent with the zoning of surrounding properties. The valley floor has been zoned rural (alluvial plains) and the valley sides as rural (hill country) in the Operative District Plan and there is no significant difference between the operative district plan zoning and thatproposed by the PDP.

100. Submitter 355.1- 355.4 Ivano Rutten considers that further Rural Residential zoned land (with lot sizes between 2 and 3 hectares) should be enabled close to Paraparaumu. I have considered this and identified 120 hectares of undeveloped rural residential land adjacent to the Paraparaumu urban area. I do not consider that it is desirable to increase this at this time, as rural residential style allotments can be created through the averaging of lot sizes without changing the overall density of development. The valley floor areas are potentially productive land which is capable of being used for a variety of agriculture or horticulture, while other areas within the district already zoned for residential activities (currently vacant) are located on poorer soils.

Figure 16: Proposed Plan Zones map for 276 Valley Road (site outlined in pink, Rural Hills shown in dark brown, Rural Plains in pale brown)

101. The zoning of this area is consistent with the zoning in the Operative District Plan with only minor changes to the zoning boundaries for the Rural (Hill Country) and (Alluvial Plains) to create the Rural Hills and Rural Plains zones. These changes were made primarily to straighten zone boundaries and to match them to property boundaries as much as possible. This changes was undertaken to create better administrative boundaries for the zones. This area was suggested for more intensive zoning in 1999 however this idea was strongly opposed by the residents of Valley Road. Valley Road is close to the urban area of Paraparaumu and the train station and may be a suitable location for more intensive development close the the urban area, however I consider such a change of zoning would need a comprehensive public engagement process to determine the most appropriate areas for rezoning, as well as the most appropriate zoning provisions to apply. I do not consider it appropriate to rezone this area at this time on the basis of a submission. The Council consulted residents of this area in the past about rezoning and received no support for a rezoning. I therefore recommend submission 355.1-355.4 Ivano Rutten be rejected.

102. Submission 116.2 Peter and Diane Kiernan seeks to increase the Rural Plains zone on MAP 19A by either including the whole of Lot17 DP 33688 (331 Valley Road) or at least including our flat paddocks in the Rural Plains zone. This is supported by further submission 6 Terry and Irene Parminter .

103. I agree with the submitters that the boundary between the zones on this site does not best reflect the topography of the site. The submitters were involved in pre-hearing meetings in 2013 (meeting record attached in Appendix 1). This meeting took place on site on 5 July 2013 and the discussion focused on the appropriate location of the

boundary between the Rural Hills and Rural Plains zones on the site. A proposed increased area of rural plains was agreed in principle between the submitters and myself although no formal agreement was signed.

104. I recommend the rezoning of the flatter parts of this site to Rural Plains as shown in Figure 16 below as identified in the pre hearing meeting notes. The proposed boundary within the site is a practical boundary for administrative purposes and better reflects the land uses and potential on this site than the notified boundary between the rural Hills and Rural Plaions zones. The amendment to the zone boundaries willenable one additional lot to be subdivided from the site when compared with the notified zoning.

Figure 17: Recommended zoning for 133 Valley Road (Rural Hills shown in dark brown and Rural Plains in light brown)

3.6.3 Recommendations

105. I recommend that Submission 372.18, Michael & Elizabeth Welch, seeking to rezone land from Rural Hills to Rural Plains, and the following further submissions are rejected:  1 H Levak  16 Lorraine Upham  33 Peter Keiran  42 Ngatotara Farms Ltd and Rod Agar

 54 Richard Swan  57 A & A McEwan  58 Michael & Elizabeth Welch  59 B, S & T Mansell  60 Tasman Lakes Estates Ltd  61 Cavallo Agistment Ltd  93 Lyndon Enterprises Ltd  102 USNZ Forestry Group Ltd  126 DF & AE Smith Parthnership & Ratanui Farming Partnership

106. I recommend further submission 241 Lowell Manning, which opposes submission 372.18 Michael & Elizabeth Welch be accepted.

107. I recommend that submission 355, Ivano Rutten seeking rezoning of land in Valley Road be rejected.

108. I recommend that submission 116.2 Peter and Diana Kiernan be accepted.

3.6.4 Recommended Amendments

109. Amend map 19A as shown in Figure 16 above.

3.7 Rural land located at Peka Peka

3.7.1 Matters Raised by Submitters

110. There were two submissions relating to land zoned Rural Hills, and submissions relating to land zoned Rural Dunes located in Peka Peka. These will be addressed in this section.

111. Submission 236.4 Kensington Farm Park Limited requests that land zoned Rural Dunes Kensington Drive be rezoned to Rural Residential. The submitter opposes PDP Maps 5A, 7A and 18A, as the submitter considers the Rural Dunes Zone inappropriate for properties accessed off Kensington Drive. The submitter seeks rezoning of properties off Kensington Drive to Rural Residential Zone (or similar).

112. Submission 247.2 The Paetawa Tust seeks that land to the west of the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway be rezoned from Rural Eco-Hamlet to Rural residential.

113. Submission 247.4 The Paetawa Tust land zoned Rural Dunes between State Highway 1 and the proposed expressway south of Peka Peka Road be rezoned to Rural Residential.

114. Submissions 257.5 and 257.6 Geoffrey Thompson, Julie Darke, Geoffrey Alexander, MC2 Group Ltd, and 556 Rob Noble-Beasley that land in the Hadfield Road area, accessed via Hadfield Road, be rezoned from Rural Hills Zone to Rural Residential Zone to reflect the current use and future potential of the land.

3.7.2 Assessment

115. Submission 236.4 Kensington Farm Park Limited requests that land zoned Rural Dunes Kensington Drive be rezoned to Rural Residential (see Figure 16 below). The submitter opposes Maps 5A, 7A and 18A as the submitter considers the Rural Dunes Zone inappropriate for properties accessed off Kensington Drive.

116. Kensington Drive was developed since 2000 under the “hamlet” provisions of the Operative District Plan, which enabled small rural residential style lots to be offset by the provision of large (greater than 10 hectare) balance lots which were intended to be retained in single ownership to create a clustered development with the most productive land (generally inter dune hollows and flats retained in large rural lots. A variety of lots have been provided along Kensington Drive with two of these balance lots having access to this road. The large lots were, until the expressway construction started, actively farmed by Kensington Farms. This is a different situation from the Rural Residential zone at Peka Peka which is a legacy from development in the late 1960’s to create lots between 1 and 2ha along both sides of Peka Peka Road. This area has been long established with these smaller lots without balance lots and it is limited to properties accessed from Pek Peka, Raukawa and Paetawa Roads.

Figure 18: Zone map for Kensington Drive with rezoning (area identified in the submission outlined in red/brown, Rural Dunes shown in pale yellow with Rural Eco-

Hamlet in blue with dots, Rural Hills in dark brown and Open Space (conservation and scenic) in green with dots)

Figure 19: Kensington Drive Area showing expressway, High voltage transmission lines and flood hazard constraints (expressway = brown diamond hatching, flood hazards = orange and blue and high voltage lines = red).

117. The land holdings that will remain once the expressway has been completed will be smaller and may be less attractive for agriculture. The land is however subject to flood hazards which make it undesirable to develop intensively as this will potentially place additional properties at risk from natural hazards and increase runoff from the land during storm event worsening flooding on other properties in the same catchment. I am of the opinion that the Rural Dunes provisions, allowing subdivision to an average lot size of 4 hectares is still appropriate for this land and other lots greater than 2 hectares in Kensington drive. I am of the opinion the character that has developed over the last 16 years in this area would be significantly altered by rezoning to enable four times as many lots to be developed in the area.

118. Submission 247.2 The Paetawa Trust, seeks that land to the west of the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway be rezoned from Rural Eco-Hamlet to Rural Residential, and land zoned rural dunes between State Highway 1 and the proposed expressway south of Peka Peka Road.

119. The Rural Eco-Hamlet land to the west of the expressway is generally already subdivided into lots of 1-4ha, and has an established character which I consider would be altered by rezoning to Rural Residential as this would allow lots with an average of

1ha and a minimum of 4000m2. The larger lots in this area have development constraints relating to outstanding natural landscapes, high voltage transmission lines and natural hazards as shown in Figure 20 below.

120. Eco hamlet zoning is only applied to land that has been identified as non-complying for subdivision for a long time to provide for future urban growth (see operative district plan). The Development Management Strategy in 2007 reduced the area for urban growth, and subsequent plan changes (2008 to 2010) enabled urban development south of the Kakariki Stream with the land to the north of the urban edge being the “Eco-Hamlet Area” in the Operative District Plan. This refined approach has been carried through to the Proposed Plan. The Eco-Hamlet Zone provisions have been amended as a result of submissions to enable a greater level of development in this area. I consider the Eco- Hamlet zoning is appropriate to the land to the west of the Expressway corridor and therefore I do not agree with the submitter that the land should be rezoned to Rural Residential.

Figure 20: Aerial photo of area identified in the submission showing the existing subdivision pattern (identified area outlined in red/brown with lot boundaries shown by white lines)

Figure 21: Constraints from natural hazards, outstanding landscapes and high voltage transmission lines on this area (area outlined in red/brown, outstanding landscapes= orange stripe hatch, flood hazards = blue, orange and pink and high voltage transmission lines = red lines).

121. Submission 247.4 The Paetawa Trust, seeks that land zoned Rural Dunes between State Highway 1 and the proposed expressway south of Peka Peka Road to Greenhill Road be rezoned to Rural Residential.

122. This land has been zoned rural (coastal dune policy area) for a long time, which allowed subdivision to an average of 4ha. This area is changing as a result of the expressway and the revocation of the state highway. The land has areas of significant flood hazards and I do not consider it is appropriate to rezone the land to enable more intensive development at this time. There are large areas of rural residential zoned land in the district which are yet to be developed and there is the ability to use the averaging for lot sizes to create some small lots on this land. I therefore recommend submission 247 The Paetawa Trust is rejected.

Figure 22: Area identified in the submission ( area outlined in red/brown, expressway designation shown in red/brown diamond hatch).

Figure 23: Constraints on land between State Highway 1 and expressway (area outlined in red/brown, flood hazards shown in blue, orange and pink and ecological sites in green hatch)

123. Submitter 257.3 Julie Darke, Geoffrey Alexander, & MC2 Group Ltd seek to rezone land accessed from Hadfield Road. The submitters consider the land is not suited to being zoned Rural Hills. It is also not particularly well suited to being zoned either Rural Plains or Rural Dunes. The submitters consider the more realistic zoning would provide some kind of transitional zone that reflects the current use and future potential of the land.

124. Submissions 448.3, Geoffrey Thompson, and 556.6 Patrick and Patricia Noble-Beasley with further submission 1 in support respectively seek that land in the Hadfield Road area be rezoned from Rural Hills Zone to Rural Residential Zone.

125. These submissions (257.5 , 448.3 and 556.6 and further submission 1) relate to the same area of land identified in figure 22 below and seek a similar outcome.

126. This land is sloping land at the base of the hills to the north of Waikanae. It is accessed via Hadfield road only and access requires crossing the main trunk railway line via an uncontrolled crossing. Hadfield Road is relatively narrow and steep.

Figure 24: Area of land identified in Submission 257 (area outlined in red/brown)

Figure 25: Hadfield Road Precinct constraints (area outlined in red/brown, ecological sites = green hatch, railway line = black line in yellow area, high voltage transmission lines = red parallel lines and expressway designation = brown diamond hatch)

Figure 26: Hadfield road area contours and aerial photo (area outlined in red/brown, contours = tan lines with red numbers)

127. The average lot size is 3 hectares across the 31 lots in the precinct identified in the submission. There are a range of lot sizes from on the many existing lots of 3-5 hectares some larger e.g. 18 hectares. I do not consider the rural residential zone would be appropriate to apply to this land due to the significant safety risk posed by the uncontrolled railway line crossing which is the only access to this area. I consider that a Rural Plains zoning consistent with land directly to the North could be considered for this site, however I consider this is out of the scope of submissions 448.3 and 556.6 as they identify the Rural Plains zoning as being inappropriate for this area. I therefore recommend submissions 448.3 Geoffrey Thompson, and 556.6 Patrick and Patricia Noble-Beasley be rejected.

3.7.3 Recommendations

128. I recommend that submissions 257.5 Julie Darke, Geoffrey Alexander, & MC2 Group Ltd, 448.3 Geoffery Thompson and 556.6 Patrick and Patricia Noble-Beasley seeking changes to zoning be rejected.

129. I recommend that the further submission 1 H Levak supporting these submissions be rejected.

3.7.4 Recommended Amendments

130. There are no amendments recommended as a result of these submissions.

3.8 Rural land located at Raumati South

3.8.1 Matters Raised by Submitters

131. Submission 18.1 Grant Birkenshaw on behalf of Brent Mckay and Tordis Flath seeks that the zoning of the land bordered by Leinster Avenue and State Highway 1 in Raumati South be rezoned from the "Rural (Dunes) Zone" to "Residential Zone" (see Figure 25 below). The submission states: “The Leinster area is in no way an area which reflects a true Rural - Coastal area. The enclave between Leinster Avenue and State Highway 1, is 71% Residential and the balance 29% is of mixed use. There is only a small portion used for quasi- rural purposes such as a Garden Centre and small Native Tree Nursery. We request that the area is re-zoned Residential to reflect the true nature of the area, how it is at present and how it should develop in the future.”

132. There are no further submissions in relation to this submission.

Figure 27: Area identified in the submission (area outlined in red/brown, Rural Dunes shown in pale yellow, Residential in darker yellow, Open Space zones in green with spots and Rural Hills in dark brown).

Figure 28: Site constraints (area outlined in red/brown, Expressway designation in brown diamond hatch)

3.8.2 Assessment

133. Submission 18.1 Grant Birkenshaw on behalf of Brent Mckay and Tordis Flath seeks that the zoning of the land bordered by Leinster Avenue and State Highway 1 be rezoned from the "Rural (Dunes) Zone" to "Residential Zone".

134. A pre hearing meeting was held in july 2013 with the submitter where rezoning was discussed in relation to a subdivision proposal made in 2013 for some of the land and the desire to change zoning to residential. The meeting notes (attached in Appendix 1 note that the land is low lying and containing peat soils as well as being affected by the expressway corridor and construction. There was no agreement reached in relation to this submission point.

135. I do not consider it is appropriate to consider rezoning land at this location at the current time. The land is substantially affected by the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway designation and the final configuration of the land and access patterns in this area are no clear at this time. There are also flood hazards in this area which have not been modelled and therefore the suitability of all the land for more intensive development has not been determined. I therefore consider it appropriate to retain the rual zoning, and to re-evaluate the zoning of the wider area once the Expressway is operational and the designation has been reduced to the operational area and flood hazards affecting the land has been determined. This could be done as a comprehensive plan change for all land adjacent to the expressway corridors. I therefore recommend Submission 18.1 Grant Birkenshaw on behalf of Brent Mckay and Tordis Flath be rejected.

3.8.3 Recommendations

136. I recommend that submission 18.1 Grant Birkenshaw on behalf of Brent Mckay and Tordis Flath seeking rezoning of land at Leinster Avenue be rejected.

3.8.4 Recommended Amendments

137. No changes recommended as a result of this submission.

3.9 Rural land located at Te Horo

3.9.1 Matters Raised by Submitters

138. Submission 92.161, Winstone Aggregates seek that the extent of Rural Dunes Zone on the southern side of Riverbank Road (Otaki) be reviewed where this land is located outside of the identified coastal environment and create consistency with the extent of zoning identified on the southern bank of the Otaki River.

139. Submission 155.1 Andrew Faith seeks that land at 877 State Highway 1, Te Horo, not be rezoned from “Rural Sands” to “Rural Plains”.

140. Submissions 481.6 Kylee Martin, 504.5 Christopher Stevens, 505.6 Wayne Stevens, 506.6 Kyle Martin and 507.6 Marilyn Stevens seek to rezone 1070 State Highway 1 from Rural Plains to Rural Residential. These submissions are supported by further submissions 132 Marilyn Stevens and 133 Wayne Stevens.

141. Submission 161.4 and 161.5 Suzanne Branch seeks that 117 Arcus Rd be rezoned from Rural Plains to Rural Residential, and opposes blanket rural zoning. This is supported by further submissions 132 Marilyn Stevens and 133 Wayne Stevens.

3.9.2 Assessment

142. Submission 92.161 Winstone Aggregates seek that the extent of Rural Dunes Zone on the southern side of Riverbank Road (Otaki) be reviewed where this land is located outside of the identified coastal environment and create consistency with the extent of zoning identified on the southern bank of the Otaki River.

143. The “extent of the coastal environment” is not consistent with the zoning change between Rural Dunes and Rural Plains or Rural Hills throughout the District. This is deliberate as the zone boundary is an administrative boundary, and needs to be easily administered and understood on the ground. The Coastal Environment Extent was determined by Landscape Architects in accordance with the criteria in Policy 4 of the Wellington Regional Policy Statement. The extent of the coastal environment has also had submissions and may change as a result of those submissions when Chapters 3 and 4 are considered.

144. I note that the proposed zoning is consistent with the zoning in the ODP.

Figure 29: Approximate area identified in the submission (area outlined in red/brown with Rural Dunes zone in pale yellow, Industrial Zone in purple, River Corridor zone in blue and Rural Plains zone in brown)

Figure 30: Constraints map (Designations =red dot hatch)

145. The area identified includes designations for the Councils waste water treatment plant and landfill for Otaki. I consider that none of the lots outside the designations are large enough to subdivide under either zoning so no there is benefit to changing the zoning. The Rural Dunes zone is least restrictive and therefore should remain. Therefore I recommend that Submission 92.161 Winstone Aggregates is rejected.

146. Submission 155.1 Andrew Faith seeks that land located at 877 State Highway 1, Te Horo zoned Rural Plains be rezoned to Rural Dunes the change in zoning significantly reduces the landowner’s subdivision and development rights.

147. The rural zoning has been altered, across the District from the Operative Plan to follow property boundaries as much as practical. The zone boundaries between the Rural Dunes and Rural Plains are to some degree arbitrary and there are no issues with amending the boundary as a result of this submission.

148. The area of land that would become rural dunes is 34ha and this would allow for three more lots to potentially be created if the land was subdivided. This is also greater than under the Operative Plan where 5 lots could be created from the lot due to the mixed zoning with 11 hectares of the land in Rural (Coastal Dune Policy Area) and the remaining 33 hectares in Rural (Alluvial Plains) zone.

Figure 31: Operative Plan rural subdivision areas for State Highway 1, Te Horo (area outlined in red/brown, Rural (Alluvial plains) in blue and (coastal dunes) in ochre)

Figure 32: Area understood to be referred to in the submission ( area outlined in red/brown , Rural Plains shown as brown, Industrial as purple and Rural Dunes as pale yellow)

Figure 33: Recommended zoning

149. Overall I consider it appropriate to amend the boundary between the zones to include this lot in the Rural Dunes Zone as set out in figure 33 above.

150. Submissions 481.6 Kylee Martin, 504.5 Christopher Stevens, 505.6 Wayne Stevens, 506.6 Kyle Martin and 507.6 Marilyn Stevens seek to rezone 1070 State Highway 1 from Rural Plains to Rural Residential. These submissions are supported by further submissions 132 Marilyn Stevens and 133 Wayne Stevens.

Figure 34: Proposed Plan zoning (area outlined in red/brown with Rural Plains zone in Brown and Open Space zone in green with spots)

Figure 35: Site constraints map(area outlined in red/brown, ecological site = green hatch, flood hazards = yellow and blue areas, earthquake fault trace = purple and red hatch)

151. I consider that the requested change is not appropriate as the surrounding land has the same Rural Plains zoning consistent with its character and land use. Part of the site contains high quality soils while part of the site, some of which is proposed to be utilised for the Peka Peka to Otaki Expressway, is less productive.

152. The land is not closely subdivided or located close to urban areas, shops or other amenities and therefore a Rural Residential zoning is not consistent with the other areas of Rural Residential zones in the district. I consider it would not be appropriate to rezone one parcel of land in isolation of surrounding land. For these reasons I consider that rezoning the land as requested would not be consistent with Policy 7.13 – Rural Residential Zone.

153. The submitters attended a pre hearing meeting in July 2013 and the land was discussed however the notes of the meeting do not include any reference to rezoning of the site. the meeting notes are attached in Appendix 1.

154. Submission 161.4 and 161.5 Suzanne Branch seeks that 117 Arcus Rd be rezoned from Rural Plains to Rural Residential. This land is identified as being highly productive in an area with a mix of lots sizes which are generally larger than the rural residential (typically 4ha). There is already a rural residential area in Te Horo along School Road, (which is Zoned Rural Plains) which is not contiguous with 117 Arcus Road. I consider it would be inappropriate to rezone one property differently from the neighbouring properties which have similar characteristics. I consider rezoning the land as requested would not be consistent with Policy 7.13 – Rural Residential Zone.

Figure 36: Land understood to be referred to in submission 161. (Area outlined in red/brown, rural plains zone shown in brown)

Figure 37: Constraints map for Arcus Road (flood hazards= blue, yellow and pink areas, Earthquake hazards = orange hatch, ecological site = green hatch)

3.9.3 Recommendations

155. I recommend that submission 92.161 Winstone Aggregates in relation to land adjacent to the Otaki River zoned Rural Dunes be rejected.

156. I recommend that submission 155 Andrew Faith seeking rezoning of land adjacent to the western side of State highway 1 in Te Horo to be rezoned to Rural Dunes be accepted.

157. Submission 481.6 Kylee Martin, 504.5 Christopher Stevens, 505.6 Wayne Stevens, 506.6 Kyle Martin and 507.6 Marilyn Stevens to rezone 1070 State Highway 1 from Rural Plains to Rural Residential are rejected.

158. I recommend that further submissions 132 Marilyn Stevens and 133 Wayne Stevens relating to zoning of 1070 State Highway 1 be rejected.

159. I recommend that submission 161.4 and 161.5 Suzanne Branch relating to zoning of 117 Arcus Road be rejected.

3.9.4 Recommended Amendments

160. Map 18A as shown in figure 32 above.

3.10 Rural land located at Waikanae

3.10.1 Matters Raised by Submitters

161. There were three submissions relating to the zoning of land in Waikanae zoned Rural Hills, Rural Plains and one relating to land zoned Rural Dunes. These are assessed in this section.

162. Submission 464.1 J & J Taylor seeks that the zoning of 124 Huia Street be changed from “hill country” to Rural Residential or that the property be “scheduled to permit a subdivision as per the attached plan” (reproduced in figure 35 below). This request is supported by further submission 111 Cuttriss Consultants Ltd.

163. Submission 550.44 Cuttriss Consultants Limited, Seek to rezone properties between 70- 124 Huia St, Waikanae from Rural Hills to Rural Residential. This request is supported by further submissions 1 H Levak, 9 Egon Guttke, and 142 Valerie Ballinger.

164. Submission 337.1 Richard Goodman seeks that land in Aston Road (owned by the submitter) and surrounding land is rezoned from Rural Hills Zone to Rural Residential Zone. There are no further submissions related to this submission.

165. Submission 92.153 Winstone Aggregates seek that Reikorangi Road outside the limits of urban Waikanae be rezoned so that its underlying zone is Rural Hills. There are no further submissions related to this submission.

166. Submitter 407.3 Nga Manu Trust seek to rezone the submitters land, known as the Nga Manu Nature Reserve, to recognise that it is not used for rural purposes. An open space zoning is sought. There are no further submissions with respect to this submission.

3.10.2 Assessment

167. Submission 464.1 J & J Taylor, seeks that the zoning of 124 Huia Street be changed from hill country to Rural Residential or that the property be “scheduled to permit a subdivision as par the attached plan” (reproduced below). This is supported by further submission 111 Cuttriss Consultants Ltd.

Figure 38: Subdivision plan reproduced from Submission 464.

168. The submitter considers that properties to the north of them have been or can be subdivided and that 124 Huia has good road frontage with no native forest and is close to urban settlement and a 1ha lot size would give the submitter the lifestyle and rural aspect to spend retirement years in.

169. Submission 550.44, Cuttriss Consultants Limited, supported by further submissions 1 H Levak, 9 Egon Guttke, and 142 Valerie Ballinger seeks to rezone properties between 70- 124 Huia Street, Waikanae from Rural Hills to Rural Residential.

170. I consider that the rezoning of the land to Rural Residential may be consistent with Policy 7.13, given the isolated nature of the subject area of land located between the Residential Zone in Waikanae (to the south) and the Rural Residential Zone adjoining the area to the north.

Figure 39: Area identified in the submissions (area outlined in red/brown with Rural Hills zoning in dark brown, Rural Residential in light grey, Residential in yellow, Eco-Hamlet in pale Blue with spots, Open Space in green with spots and Waikanae North Development zone in blue)

Figure 40: Constraints map for 70 - 124 Huia Street (flood hazards = blue, yellow and pink areas, Earthquake hazards = orange hatch, ecological site = green hatch)

171. I agree with submissions 550.44 Cuttriss Consultants Ltd and 464.1 J & J Taylor, and further submissions 1 H Levak, 9 Egon Guttke, 142 Valerie Ballinger, and 111 Cuttriss Consultants Ltd that Rural Residential zoning is sensible for 70 to 124 Huia Street ,and it is more appropriate for these sites than the current Rural Hills zoning.

172. The land is not significantly constrained by natural hazards, is adjacent to the urban area of Waikanae and has good road access. There are some areas of protected vegetation on four of these sites and some flood hazards on others, however there is sufficient space to potentially subdivide these lots to a rural residential density while protecting the bush areas and avoiding the natural hazards. Therefore I recommend rezoning of the land as requested in the submission.

Figure 41: New zoning recommended for 70-124 Huia Street (Rural Residential zone shown as light grey on these properties)

173. Submission 337.1 Richard Goodman seeks that land in Aston Road (owned by the submitter), be rezoned from Rural Hills Zone to Rural Residential Zone.

Figure 42: Area understood to be referred to in submission 337.1 (area outlined in red/brown, Rural Hills shown as dark brown, Rural Plains as brown, River Corridor as blue and Open Space as green with spots)

Figure 43: Constraints map for the area (area outlined in red/brown, High Voltage Transmission lines = red lines, ecological sites = green hatch and earthquake fault rupture hazards = orange and purple hatch)

174. This area is relatively steep hills, with a small ridge located between Aston Road and State Highway 1. Aston Road closely aligns with the High Voltage Transmission lines through the area. The land has been subdivided into 35 lots between 1 and 4 hectares along Aston Road with larger farms retained further out into the hills, towards the State Highway and towards the Waikanae River. This subdivision pattern has established an existing character of intensity surrounded by large lots. The Aston Road area is generally set up so that few houses are visible from State Highway 1.

175. There are no significant development constraints identified on the District Plan Maps however further intensification of this area, as an inevitable result of a rezoning to Rural Residential, would change the character of this area and result in many more dwellings being visible in this area. If all lots within the area were subdivided to 1ha average an additional 26 lots could be created in this area.

176. The existing Rural Hills zoning will retain the existing character as intended by the original consent authorising the subdivision and development of the area. Therefore I recommend this submission be rejected.

177. Submission 92.153, Winstone Aggregates seek that Reikorangi Road outside the limits of urban Waikanae be rezoned so that its underlying zone is Rural Hills.

Figure 44: Reikorangi Road as identified in the submission (area identified in the submission outlined in red/brown, Rural Hills zone shown in dark brown, Rural Plains in brown, residential in dark yellow, River Corridor in blue and Open Space zones in green and green with spots)

178. This piece of road has Rural Hills on the east side of the road with Rural Plains and Open Space zones to the west. All roads in the District have an underlying zone however most activities on roads, including maintenance and widening occur under a district wide designation for roads. The only difference between the rules for the Rural Hills zone and

the Rural Plains zone relate to the subdivision of land. It is highly unlikely that this road will be subdivided at any time in the future. The zoning could be changed as requested however the change would not alter the relevant rules applicable to either the road or surrounding land. Therefore I do not consider it appropriate to change the zoning as a result of this submission and recommend that the submission be rejected.

179. Submission 407.3 Nga Manu Trust seek to rezone the submitters land, known as the Nga Manu Nature Reserve, to recognise that it is not used for rural purposes. There are no further submissions relating to the rezoning request. An Open Space zoning is sought.

Figure 45: Nga Manu Nature Reserve and current proposed zoning (Nga Mana site outlined in red/brown with Ngarara Zone in mint green, Future Urban zone in white, Rural Dunes zone in pale yellow, Eco-Hamlet zone in blue with spots, Waikanae North Development Zone in blue and Open Space (Conservation and scenic) zone in green with spots)

180. I agree with the request to rezone this land to an Open Space zone (Private Recreation and Leisure). I consider that this is an appropriate zone for the land as this is consistent with other private recreation facilities including golf courses and bowling clubs that choose to be in an open space zone so that neighbours are aware of the recreation and leisure activities and as these sites are not residential or rural sites.

181. Nga Manu is a nature sanctuary involved in environmental education and breeding of threatened species. The land is not used for agriculture or horticulture and this zoning will enable leisure related buildings to be built on the site more readily than the rural dunes zone. Therefore I recommend rezoning the land as shown in Figure 46 below.

Figure 46: Recommended new zoning recommended for Nga Manu (Open Space (Private Recreation and Leisure) shown in light green with spots)

3.10.3 Recommendations

182. I recommend that submission 92.153 Winstone Aggregates in relation to zoning in Reikorangi Road be rejected.

183. I recommend that submission 337.1 relating to zoning in Aston Road be rejected.

184. I recommend that submissions 550.44 Cuttriss Consultants Ltd and 464.1 J & J Taylor, and further submissions 1 H Levak, 9 Egon Guttke, 142 Valerie Ballinger, and 111 Cuttriss Consultants Ltd in relation to 70 to 124 Huia Street be accepted.

185. I recommend that submission 407.3 Nga Manu Trust in relation to zoning of the Nga Manu Nature Reserve be accepted.

3.10.4 Recommended Amendments

186. Amend map 07A as set out in figure 41 and 46 above.

3.11 Conclusion on all topics in this chapter (same for all chapters/topics)

187. In conclusion I consider that the submissions on these rural rezoning requests should be accepted, accepted in part or rejected as set out in Section 4 below for the reasons set out in Sections 3.2-3.10 above. I recommend that provisions in Maps 07A, 18A, and 19A be amended as set out in section 5 below for the reasons set out in Section 3.2-3.10 above.

188. I consider that the amended provisions will be efficient and effective in achieving the purpose of the RMA (especially for changes to objectives), the relevant objectives of this plan and other relevant statutory documents for the reasons set out in the Section 32 Analysis undertaken and included in Section 3 of this report.

Section 4: Recommended Amendments to Maps

Where I recommend changes in response to submissions, these are shown as:

 Notified zone maps with corresponding new maps showing the recommended zoning.

Figure 47: Notified Map 07A

Figure 48: Recommended Map 07A

Figure 48: Notified Map 18A

Figure 49: Recommended Map 18A

Figure 50: Notified Map 19A

Figure 51: Recommended Map 19A

Section 5: Recommendations to Submissions and Further Submissions

Rezoning Requests

Sub Submitter Sectio Decision sought Officer’s Officers reasons/comments Recommended No. Name n of Recommendation amendments to this PDP? report 92.161 Winstone 3.4 Review the extent of Rural Dunes Zone on Reject Zoning is not related to extent of No Aggregates the southern side of Riverbank Road (Otaki) the Coastal Environment where this land is located outside of the identified coastal environment and create Areas affected by Designations consistency with the extent of zoning identified on the southern bank of the Otaki River.

236.4 Kensington 3.7 Oppose Maps 5A, 7A and 18A as consider Reject Significant site constraints and No Farm Park the Rural Dunes Zone inappropriate for existing established character of Limited properties accessed off Kensington Drive. the area make intensification Seeks rezoning of properties off Kensington inappropriate Drive to Rural Residential Zone (or similar).

2472, The 3.7 247-2 Submission seeks the land to the west Reject Eco-Hamlet zone most No Paetawa of the proposed expressway to be rezoned appropriate for the area due to Trust from Rural Eco-Hamlet to Rural Residential constraints and that the rules for the Peka Peka Rural Residential Zone to apply.

247.4 The 3.7 247-4 Submission seeks that the area of land Reject Significant site constraints make No Paetawa bounded by existing State Highway One, the intensification inappropriate Trust proposed expressway and the Greenhill Road area be rezoned to Rural Residential.

355.1, Ivano 3.6 355-1 Oppose change in zoning of property Reject Zoning broadly consistent with No

Sub Submitter Sectio Decision sought Officer’s Officers reasons/comments Recommended No. Name n of Recommendation amendments to this PDP? report 355.2, Rutten from Rural zone to Rural Hills and Rural Operative Plan zoning 355.3, Plains zones. Community has residted 355.4 rezoning this area and rezoning 355-2 Request change in zoning to Rural the Valley would lead to Residential or similar. significant changes in character and los of productive capacity. 355-3 Oppose change in zoning of the submitter's property from Rural zone to Rural Hills and Rural Plains zones.

355-4 Request change in zoning of the submitter's property to Rural Residential or similar.

266.3 Alex 3.3 Amend so that the area of the section Reject Inappropriate to rezone private No Metcalfe proposed to be re-zoned as Rural Residential land to Open space unles should be: Council or another public a) transferred into Council ownership as part agency intends ot acquire the of the financial contribution for constructing land, which is not the case at the subdivision; this time. b) re-zoned Open Space (Conservation & Scenic); c) included in the adjoining Waikanae River Mouth Ecological Site and Waikanae Estuary Outstanding Natural Landscape; and d) intensively planted with local indigenous flora that, over time, will enhance the function of the section as a buffer to the Waikanae River Mouth Ecological Site and will screen the subdivision and the existing Kotuku Park development.

Further submitters 4, 12, 17, 18, Support Reject No

Sub Submitter Sectio Decision sought Officer’s Officers reasons/comments Recommended No. Name n of Recommendation amendments to this PDP? report 30, 31, 36, 37, 47, 50, 80, 105, 144, 147, 149, 151, 152, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 171, 173

Further submitter 128 Oppose Accept No

155.1 Andrew 3.9 Oppose the rezoning of property on State Accept Zone boundary can be amended Yes Faith Highway One, Te Horo from Rural (coastal to accommodate this request Amend Map Dunes) to Rural Plains. 18A

59.1, Bryan Davy 3.3 59-1 Rezone properties in the Reject Area already closely subdivided No 59.2 SH1/Otaihanga Road intersection region as and constrained by State residential or future urban development. Highway location (even once Expressway is opened) 59-2 Oppose moving Rural Hills Zone further west on the submitter's property.

775.1 Cabrach 3.4 Rezone land at Te Manuao Road and Reject Inappropriate to rezone without No Holdings Waitohu Valley Road (being lots 1 and 2 DP a detailed structure plan. Some Ltd 427946), Otaki rezoning may be appropriate in from Rural Plains Zone to Rural Residential the future Zone as it is more suitable for intensive development than what is allowed for in the Rural Plains Zone and would be consistent with the policy framework of the Proposed District Plan, particularly policy 7.13 in terms of the following factors: - The area is close to an urban area and can be efficiently serviced; - The proposed zone change would not result in an expansion to urban areas; - Re-zoning the area will lessen the potential

Sub Submitter Sectio Decision sought Officer’s Officers reasons/comments Recommended No. Name n of Recommendation amendments to this PDP? report for reverse sensitivity effects on the rural/residential Boundary; - Rural Residential zoning and density in this area would be consistent with the landscape character for the area in schedule 3.6; and - The scale of subdivision which would occur if the land were re-zoned would be consistent with landscape values of the area, with clustering of Rural/Residential properties in appropriate locations and with substantial balance areas retaining in open space and productive use.

56.5 Chris Stone 3.3 Rezone the rural land from Mazengarb Road Reject A large area of Rural Residential No to the Waikanae River to future residential land which is not on the land. Make consequential changes to other Council’s growth path for urban parts of the Plan to enable the development. Contrary to Policy implementation of the above. 55 of the Regional Policy Statement. 504.5, Christopher 3.9 Rezone the submitter's land (on State Reject Site specific rezoning not No 506.6, Stevens, Highway 1) from Rural Plains Zone to considered appropriate as it isits 481.6, Wayne Rural/Residential within a large area of Rural 505.6, Stevens, Zone. Plains zoning and does not meet 507.6 Marilyn Rural Residential zone policy Stevens, 7.13 criteria Kyle Martin, Kylee Martin

Further Submissions 132, 133 Support Reject No

550.44 Cuttriss 3.10 Rezone properties at Huia Street (between Accept Land has only mild constraints Yes

Sub Submitter Sectio Decision sought Officer’s Officers reasons/comments Recommended No. Name n of Recommendation amendments to this PDP? report Consultants 70 and 124 Huia Street), Waikanae from and meets criteria in policy 7.13 Amend Map Ltd Rural Hills 07A Zone to Rural Residential Zone Further submitters 9, 10 Support Accept Yes

448-3, Geoffrey 3.7 Rezone the Hadfield Road area from Rural Reject Land constrained by at grade No 257.5, Thompson, Hills Zone to Rural Residential zone. Railway Crossing raising safety 257.6, Julie Darke, concerns if density intensified 556.6 Geoffrey Alexander, MC2 Group Ltd

Further submitter 1 Support Reject No

18.1 Grant 3.8 Amend the zoning of the land bordered by Reject Area undergoing change due to No Birkenshaw Leinster Avenue and State Highway 1 from expressway. May be suitable to the "Rural (Dunes) Zone" to "Residential reconsider rezoning once Zone". Expressway is operational and new patterns are established with other similar areas

489.11, John and 3.6 Rezone submitter’s land from Rural Plains Reject Outer Business zone very No 489.12 Brenda Zone to Outer Business Centre Zone and specific and related to existing Cheese Paraparaumu North Gateway Precinct. Tourist Activity Precinct. Land could be rezoned but this may conflict with developing the existing activity on the site.

Note submitter is no longer the owner or operator.

464.1 John and 3.10 Amend zoning of submitter’s property (map Accept in part Accept the rezoning request to Yes

Sub Submitter Sectio Decision sought Officer’s Officers reasons/comments Recommended No. Name n of Recommendation amendments to this PDP? report Janette 07A) from Hill Country to Rural Residential Rural Residential. Amend Map Taylor and permit subdivision as per plans attached 07A to submission. Unable to approve a subdivision as part of the Proposed Plan process. A subdivision application will need to be made separately.

Further submitter 111 Support Accept Yes Amend Map 07A 271.33 Lyndon 3.4 Consider rezoning land in Otaki Gorge Road Reject Land is steeper than typical No Enterprises in the vicinity of the submitter's land from plains land for the larger lot and Ltd Rural Hills Zone as the difference between as the only rule difference is submitter's properties and neighbours which related to subdivision the zone are zoned Rural Plains zone is not clear. for the smaller lots will not alter development rights.

Further submitters 1, 9, 10, 33, Support Reject No 41, 42, 54, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 93, 102, 126, 142, 167, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187

406.17 Paekakariki 3.5 Amend the zoning of land north east of Reject Rezoning would reduce No Community Paekakariki on both sides of the railway line development rights for owner Board from Rural Dunes Zone to Rural Plains Zone. when compared with the Operative and Notified zoning Further submitter 229 Support Reject No

337.1 Richard 3.10 Amend proposed zoning of submitter's Reject Increased density would have No Goodman property on Aston Road, Waikanae from adverse impacts on the Rural Hills Zone to Rural Residential Zone. character of the area and result

Sub Submitter Sectio Decision sought Officer’s Officers reasons/comments Recommended No. Name n of Recommendation amendments to this PDP? report in development which is visually prominent 161.4 Susanne 3.9 Rezone 117 Arcus Road, Te Horo from Rural Reject Zoning of the site is consistent No Branch Plains zone to Rural Residential zone. with surrounding area and a variety of lot sizes are available wiothout rezoning Further submitter 132, 133 Support Reject No

372.18 Michael # The Planning Maps should be amended to Reject Consider the primary concern No and In extend the Paraparaumu North Rural has been addressed through the Elizabeth suppor Precinct to all of the submitter’s land (not 8AA agreement. Welch t dissect it). Alternatively the Rural Hills Zone could be removed from the submitter’s land Rural hills zone appropriate as #241 and replaced with Rural Plains Zoning. site is a prominent landscape In feature of the area opposi tion Further submitters 1, 16, 33, 42, Support Reject No 54, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 93, 102, 126 Further submitter 241 Oppose Accept No 407.3 Nga Manu 3.10 Amend the zoning of Nga Manu Nature Accept Private recreation zoning Yes Trust reserve to recognise that it is not used for appropriate as this site cannot Amend Map rural purposes and may become a DOC and is not used for rural 07A scientific reserve in the near future. activities. 92.153 Winstone 3.10 Rezone Reikorangi Road outside the limits of Reject No benefit to rezoning as it is a No Aggregates urban Waikanae so that its underlying zone is road Rural Hills 551.1 Zaida all in Add a precinct within the Rural Residential Reject Area is large and would be able No Holdings suppor Zone called the "Otaihanga Rural Residential to be developed via a structure t Precinct" in the area set out in the plan in the future. It is not submission. appropriate to rezone without a comprehensive development

Sub Submitter Sectio Decision sought Officer’s Officers reasons/comments Recommended No. Name n of Recommendation amendments to this PDP? report plan Further submitters 2, 44, and Support Reject No 112 257.5 Julie Darke, 3.7 Amend zoning of land access from Hadfield Reject Land constrained by at grade No Geoffrey Road to a Rural Residential zone or any Railway Crossing raising safety Alexander other decision that would satisfy the concerns if density intensified and MC2 submitter's concerns so that the zone that Group Ltd reflects the current use and future potential of the land. 116.2 Peter and 3.6 Amend Map 19A to include all of 331 Valley Accept Amendment to include flat land Yes Diana Road (or at least flat portion of submitter's is appropriate Amend Map KLiernan site as identified in 19A submission) in the Rural Plains Zone. Further submitter 331 Support Accept Yes Amend Map 19A

APPENDIX 1: MINUTES OF PRE HEARING MEETINGS AND SECTION 8AA AGREEMENTS