Private Plan Change Request to Kapiti Coast District Plan

Home , Kapiti Coast District

PRIVATE PLAN CHANGE REQUEST TO KAPITI COAST DISTRICT PLAN

AIRPORT ZONE: PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES

Prepared for

KAPITI COAST AIRPORT HOLDINGS LIMITED

RUSSELL McVEAGH

February 2016

3015556

THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991

REQUEST FOR CHANGE TO THE KAPITI COAST DISTRICT PLAN BY KAPITI COAST AIRPORT HOLDINGS LIMITED

KAPITI COAST AIRPORT HOLDINGS LIMITED ("KCAHL"), has requested changes to the Operative Kapiti Coast District Plan under Clause 21 of Part 2 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act ("RMA" or "Act"), as set out below.

The subject of this application is the classification of certain prohibited activities in the Airport Zone of the Operative Kapiti Cost District Plan ("District Plan"). The changes sought to the District Plan are to remove prohibited activity status in relation to the specified activities as follows:

1. Amend Rule D.9.1.6(i) to provide that noise sensitive activities outside of the Air Noise Boundary not specifically provided for as a permitted activity are classified as a discretionary activity.

2. Amend Rule D.9.1.6(ii) to provide for one only Department Store to be classified as a non- complying activity.

3. Amend Rule D.9.1.6(iii) to provide for one only supermarket to be classified as a discretionary activity.

4. Amend Rule D.9.1.6(iv) to provide that more than one store of between 151m2 and 1,500m2 gross floor area that retails groceries or non-specified food lines to be classified as a discretionary activity.

5. Any consequential amendments to the District Plan that may be necessary to achieve the purpose of this private plan change request.

Information supporting this plan change request is contained in the following pages, including the amendments sought, a statutory assessment of the proposal, and section 32 analysis. The plan change request and supporting assessment (including consultant reports) was lodged with the Kapiti Coast District Council in June 2015. This consolidated report has been updated to include additional information (and attaches further consultant reports) supplied to the Council in November 2015 following receipt of a further information request.

3015556 i

STATUTORY ASSESSMENT REPORT REQUEST BY KAPITI COAST AIRPORT HOLDINGS LIMITED TO RE-CLASSIFY CERTAIN PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES TO NON-COMPLYING AND DISCRETIONARY ACTIVITIES

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Scope of report ...... 1 Other supporting material ...... 1 Executive summary ...... 1 2. PLAN CHANGE ...... 2 Background ...... 2 Purpose of the Plan Change ...... 3 Justification for re-classifying certain activities from prohibited to non-complying or discretionary ...... 3 3. EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IN THE AIRPORT ZONE ...... 4 4. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS ...... 4 5. ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT ...... 7 Actual or potential effects ...... 7 Conclusion on effects ...... 8 6. SECTION 32 ANALYSIS ...... 9 Benefits ...... 9 Costs of proposed changes ...... 9 Summary of costs and benefits ...... 10 Other reasonably practicable options for achieving the objectives of operative District Plan ...... 11 Consideration of objectives in the operative District Plan ...... 12 Conclusions on "most appropriate" test ...... 15 Summary of alternatives considered with respect to activity status...... 16 7. CONSULTATION ...... 18 8. CONCLUSION ...... 18 AMENDMENTS SOUGHT TO THE DISTRICT PLAN - MARK-UP ...... 19

3015556 1

STATUTORY ASSESSMENT REPORT

1. INTRODUCTION

Scope of report

1.1 Kapiti Coast Airport Holdings Limited ("KCAHL") is making this request to re-classify activities currently classified as prohibited in the Airport Zone. This report:

(a) explains the request for the plan change;

(b) outlines the existing development in the Airport Zone;

(d) contains information, assessment of effects and consideration of the relevant planning documents as required by the Act;

(e) reviews the plan change request in the context of the District Plan provisions; and

(f) presents a section 32 analysis and conclusion.

Other supporting material

1.2 This plan change request is supported by letters attached from the following experts, including in response to a further information request by the Council:

(a) Alistair White (Planning Focus Limited) - Planning;

(b) Fraser Colegrave (Insight Economics Limited) - Retail Impact;

(d) Laura McNeil (Marshall Day Acoustics Limited) - Noise.

Executive summary

1.3 The proposed re-classification of activity status for specified activities from prohibited to non-complying and discretionary satisfies all the requirements of the RMA, and in particular section 32:

(a) the proposed activity status is the most appropriate activity status for the respective activities, for achieving the relevant objectives of the Airport Zone and other zones;

(b) prohibited status was never appropriate for those activities but was adopted for pragmatic reasons at the relevant time (to resolve appeals);

(c) the cost of retaining prohibited status is significant - master planning of development of the Airport zone is unduly inhibited and KCAHL is unable to engage with the market as to how best to utilise the land and respond to the pending opening of the MacKays to Peka Peka expressway and the opportunity for this to catalyse further investment in the Kapiti District;

3015556 2

(d) the change in activity status will not cause any adverse effects on the environment - any effects will be robustly evaluated and considered later when any non-complying or discretionary consent is sought;

(e) the change in activity status will provide a rule framework that is more consistent with the approach taken in the District Plan to other zones (where prohibited status is used sparingly); and

(f) the change in activity status will allow for master planning of development of the land in an integrated way, and for all applications to be considered on their merits.

2. PLAN CHANGE

Background

2.1 KCAHL is the owner and operator of the Kapiti Coast Airport. This private plan change request intends to facilitate a master planning exercise for the development of land owned by KCAHL, in the interim period while the Proposed Kapiti Coast District Plan ("Proposed Plan") is being completed. At present, a comprehensive master planning process is unable to be undertaken, as the market will not engage on options for the land in respect of any activities that are currently prohibited activities under the operative District Plan.

2.2 The prohibited activities status came about in the context of Plan Change 73, to resolve concerns held by a trade competitor, Coastlands Shoppingtown Limited ("Coastlands"). At that time, there was no statutory prohibition against a trade competitor participating in a plan change (or resource consent process) and seeking to protect itself from trade competition. KCAHL’s (through its predecessor, Paraparaumu Airport Limited) maintained at the time that it did not consider prohibited activity status was warranted from a planning perspective and that a plan change seeking to change the status of any prohibited activity could be sought in the future. KCAHL agreed to the prohibited activity status in order to enable a full and final settlement of the process underway at that time with Coastlands, but recorded its reservations as to the appropriateness of that activity status.

2.3 The difficulties of having prohibited status became increasingly apparent to KCAHL, and, in 2013, KCAHL took the opportunity to make a submission and further submission on the Proposed Plan to remove prohibited activity status, as well as a range of other further amendments. (The relief sought in respect of the Proposed Plan goes well beyond that which is being sought in this plan change request.)

2.4 KCAHL had hoped that its submissions on the Proposed Plan would be heard and resolved swiftly. However, in response to public concern about certain other aspects of the Proposed Plan, the Council commissioned an independent review of it, and as result has adopted an extended process. This now sees the Council giving its decision on the Proposed Plan as late as 29 November 2017 (with hearings scheduled to occur in mid- 2016). Even if that timing is achieved, there is a very real prospect of appeals, and so the relevant provisions of the Proposed Plan may not become operative (and therefore replace the current prohibited activity status) for a considerable period of time.

2.5 KCAHL is continuing to engage constructively with the Council in relation to its submissions on the Proposed Plan. However, the processing delays and uncertainty have real and continuing impacts on KCAHL and its business operations as, unlike an activity status of discretionary or non-complying activity, KCAHL has no ability to seek consent for any activities prohibited under the District Plan.

3015556 3

Purpose of the Plan Change

2.6 The purpose of this plan change request is to remove prohibited activity status from certain activities so as to enable KCAHL to undertake master planning of the land currently owned in the Airport Zone, and so that resource consents can ultimately be sought in the future.

2.7 At present, there are four prohibited activities within the Airport Zone. These are:

(a) noise sensitive activities not specifically provided for as a permitted activity (whether or not within the Air Noise Boundary, Outer Control Boundary, or outside any of the noise contours);

(b) department stores;

(d) more than one store of between 151m2 and 1,500m2 gross floor area that retails groceries or non-specified food lines.

2.8 While these activities remain prohibited under the District Plan, no consents can be sought, and KCAHL cannot effectively engage with the market and develop a commercially grounded master plan.

Justification for re-classifying certain activities from prohibited to non-complying or discretionary

2.9 The test under section 32 of the RMA requires consideration of what activity status is "most appropriate". Where there are a small number of alternatives, the question can be asked as to which provision (in this case activity status) is "better" for achieving the purpose of the RMA (having regard to costs and benefits).

2.10 Prohibited status is not considered to be "most appropriate". As explained by the Court of Appeal, prohibited status simply means that no consent can be sought.1 In other words, the only way that a prohibited activity can proceed is to undertake a plan change first. That would then need to be followed by a resource consent application (unless the plan change were to make a prohibited activity permitted).

2.11 The Court of Appeal did find that if a local authority has sufficient information to undertake the evaluation of an activity, it is not an appropriate use of the prohibited activity classification to defer the undertaking of the evaluation (as required by the RMA) until a particular application to undertake the activity occurs. In this instance, the types of effects arising from the activities that are currently prohibited are well known. There is sufficient information available to adopt a planning status that allows an application to be lodged and there is nothing inherently incompatible within the zone or any significant risk that justifies prohibited activity status. That is no guarantee that consent will ultimately be forthcoming, but it allows an application to be tested on its merits.

2.12 KCAHL considers, for the reasons set out below, that discretionary activity status is the most appropriate classification for:

(a) supermarkets;

(b) noise sensitive activities outside the Air Noise Boundary; and

1 Coromandel Watchdog of Hauraki Inc v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Economic Development [2007] NZCA 473 at [37] and [45].

3015556 4

(c) any more than one store of between 151m2 and 1,500m2 gross floor area that retails groceries or non-specified food lines.

2.13 However, in relation to department stores, KCAHL considers that non-complying activity status is the most appropriate classification. KCAHL also accepts that prohibited status should remain as most appropriate for noise sensitive activities within the Air Noise Boundary.

2.14 The existing objectives and policies relating to the Airport Zone contained in the District Plan are considered appropriate and do not require alteration under this plan change request.

3. EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IN THE AIRPORT ZONE

3.1 Subsequent to Plan Change 73, KCAHL has significantly invested in the operation of the Airport, and those works were rewarded by the return of scheduled services by New Zealand's national airline, Air New Zealand.

3.2 KCAHL has also commenced the development of a business park at the Airport, the first stage of which is a retail complex fronting Kapiti Road. Revenue from non-aeronautical development remains critical to the sustainability of the Airport

4. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

4.1 The RMA requires a plan change request to contain certain information to enable a Council to determine whether or not such a request should be allowed. Central to this determination is section 32 which sets out the assessment and analysis requirements before any District Plan provision is adopted.

4.2 Section 32 states:

Requirements for preparing and publishing evaluation reports

(1) An evaluation report required under this Act must—

(a) examine the extent to which the objectives of the proposal being evaluated are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of this Act; and

(b) examine whether the provisions in the proposal are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives by—

(i) identifying other reasonably practicable options for achieving the objectives; and

(ii) assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of the provisions in achieving the objectives; and

(iii) summarising the reasons for deciding on the provisions; and

(c) contain a level of detail that corresponds to the scale and significance of the environmental, economic, social, and cultural effects that are anticipated from the implementation of the proposal.

(2) An assessment under subsection (1)(b)(ii) must—

3015556 5

(a) identify and assess the benefits and costs of the environmental, economic, social, and cultural effects that are anticipated from the implementation of the provisions, including the opportunities for—

(i) economic growth that are anticipated to be provided or reduced; and

(ii) employment that are anticipated to be provided or reduced; and

(b) if practicable, quantify the benefits and costs referred to in paragraph (a); and

(c) assess the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the provisions.

(3) If the proposal (an amending proposal) will amend a standard, statement, regulation, plan, or change that is already proposed or that already exists (an existing proposal), the examination under subsection (1)(b) must relate to—

(a) the provisions and objectives of the amending proposal; and

(b) the objectives of the existing proposal to the extent that those objectives—

(i) are relevant to the objectives of the amending proposal; and

(ii) would remain if the amending proposal were to take effect.

…

4.3 In the present case there is no requirement or request to alter the existing objectives or policies of the Airport Zone. The request simply addresses the re-categorisation of certain activities to a more appropriate activity status.

4.4 The purpose of the RMA is stated in Section 5 as follows:

5 Purpose

(1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

(2) In this Act, sustainable management means managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while –

(a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems; and

4.5 Section 5 (and Part 2) of the RMA is relevant in that it directs priority to "sustainable management" and informs all decisions under the RMA. In this manner it provides a benchmark against which all applications or requests are considered and determined.

3015556 6

4.6 Section 31 of the RMA sets out the functions of territorial authorities. Subsections (a) and (b) are relevant:

(a) The establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and methods to achieve the integrated management of the effects of the use, development, or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district:

(b) the control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land.

…

4.7 This function is linked to section 72 of the RMA which sets out the purpose of District Plans as:

The purpose of the preparation, implementation, and administration of district plans is to assist territorial authorities to carry out their functions in order to achieve the purpose of the Act.

4.8 Section 73 sets out the legal requirement for every district to have a district plan and the manner of its preparation and change. Of relevance is the following subsection –

(2) Any person may request a territorial authority to change a district plan, and the plan may be changed in the manner set out in Schedule 1.

4.9 The proposed plan change, the subject of this request, is therefore to be processed as set out in Schedule 1 of the RMA, specifically Part 2 of the Schedule. Clauses 21 and 22 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 provide as follows:

21 Requests

(1) Any person may request a change to a district plan …

22 Form of request

(1) A request made under clause 21 shall be made to the appropriate local authority in writing and shall explain the purpose of, and reasons for, the proposed plan or change to a policy statement or plan (and contain an evaluation under section 32 for any objectives, policies, rules, or other methods proposed).

(2) Where environmental effects are anticipated, the request shall describe those effect, taking into account the provisions of Schedule 4, in such detail as corresponds with the scale and significance of the actual or potential environmental effects anticipated from the implementation of the change.

...

4.10 Schedule 4 addresses those matters required to be considered in the preparation of an assessment of effects on the environment.

4.11 The above quoted sections are all inter-related when it comes to assessing a proposed plan change as required under section 32. However, because this proposed plan change does not seek to alter any of the objectives and policies, but only the activity status of four activities under the District Plan, the section 32 analysis contained in this report is appropriately brief.

3015556 7

5. ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT

5.1 Where any effects on the environment are anticipated, an assessment of the scale and significance of those effects from the implementation of a plan change request is required under clause 21 of the First Schedule of the RMA, and prepared in accordance with Schedule 4 of the RMA.

5.2 This plan change request seeks changes to the operative District Plan that removes the prohibited activity status in relation to the specified activities, and to re-classify the activities as follows:

(a) One Supermarket - Discretionary.

(b) More than one store of between 151m2 and 1,500m2 gross floor area that retails groceries or non-specified food lines - Discretionary.

(c) Noise sensitive activities outside the Air Noise Boundary not specifically provided for as a permitted activity - Discretionary.

(d) More than one Supermarket - Non-complying.

(e) Noise sensitive activities within the Airport Noise Boundary - Remain prohibited.

(f) One Department Store - Non-complying.

5.3 The expert planning report prepared by Mr Alistair White at Planning Focus Limited explains that, generally, prohibited activity status classification is used "very sparingly" in District Plans. Mr White considers the use of prohibited activity status within the Airport Zone (with the exemption of noise sensitive activities within the Air Noise Boundary) to be an anomaly that lack an effects based justification. Mr White also considers that the standard notification framework of the RMA provides sufficient scope for the Council to consider the effects of the specified activities and to assess applications for consent on their merits.

5.4 The expert retail impact/economics report prepared by Mr Fraser Colegrave at Insight Economics Limited states that there is no scope for unconstrained retail distribution effects to occur as a result of the proposed changes as any new supermarket or department store will still require a resource consent to operate in any event. Mr Colegrave emphasises that in the case of department stores, a further assessment is required under section 104D of the RMA. There are also likely to be tangible economic benefits to the proposed changes as the District will become self-sufficient to a greater degree with increased potential for retail development, employment opportunities, and a reduction in outward economic "leakage" to other districts.

5.5 Finally, the expert transportation impact report, prepared by Mr Tim Kelly at Tim Kelly Transportation Planning Limited states that, because the proposed changes do not include a permitted activity classification, the need for a Traffic Impact Assessment will be assessed on a case by case basis as part of each resource consent application subsequently submitted to the Council. Mr Kelly concludes that any development, and the effects of such development, will be assessed at the consent application level and as such there are no transportation impact effects resulting from this plan change request.

Actual or potential effects

5.6 This plan change request will not enable any activity to occur, it only seeks to re-classify the activity status of the specified activities so that consent can be sought for them in the future. Accordingly, there are no adverse environmental effects from this plan change request.

3015556 8

5.7 In contrast, if the proposed plan change sought to re-classify activities to a permitted (or controlled) activity status, then it would have caused various effects. (We include controlled activities in this analysis, as they cannot be declined, rather a consent authority must grant the consent, but may impose conditions.)

5.8 Discretionary activity status is often used to identify activities that may have a range of effects. Any application would need to consider all the section 104(1) matters. Ultimately, any discretionary consent will only be approved if it were to achieve sustainable management. Accordingly, the re-classification of the specified activities to discretionary does not in itself create an environmental effect.

5.9 A non-complying activity status has a further level of assessment, provided for by the "gateway" tests in section 104D of the RMA. The "gateway" tests are whether:2

(a) the adverse effects of the activity on the environment will be minor; or

(b) the application is for an activity that will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the relevant plan, or proposed plan.

5.10 This provides a level of further testing to ensure that such activities could only proceed if these tests are met (and then consent is granted on a wider judgment approach).

Conclusion on effects

5.11 As this proposed plan change does not seek to enable any activities to be undertaken as of right, or for which consent must be granted (but where conditions can be imposed), a discretionary or non-complying application for resource consent must be sought and granted for any of the specified activities to occur. As part of the resource consent application process, the actual and potential effects of the activity are required to and will be assessed at that juncture. It follows that the direct environmental effects resulting from this proposed plan change are nil.

5.12 In its request for further information the Council asked about the effects activities that may be able to be established, should resource consents be sought and granted under the amended plan provisions (in which case they would have been evaluated against the relevant considerations and have been found to achieve sustainable management). To assist in understanding this, KCAHL asked its relevant expert consultants to consider in broad terms the range of activities that could potentially occur in that case. Their various assessments and responses to specific questions are set out in the attached letters. However, in broad terms:

(a) Mr Colegrave has modelled potential development scenarios with and without the Plan Change, and used those results to assess the possible likely retail distribution effects associated with it. He concludes that the incremental impacts of the plan change will be well within the acceptable range, and that it is highly unlikely that they would cause any stores to close.

(b) Mr Kelly has used the scenarios generated by Mr Colegrave to model the traffic impacts. He concludes that while some increase in traffic generated would occur under the modelled scenarios, it is likely that there would be greater scrutiny of these effects given that (under the plan change scenario) the activities generating the traffic would require a more rigorous resource consent and effects assessment process.

(c) Ms McNeil has assessed the effects associated with noise sensitive development in her report enclosed with this letter.

2 Resource Management Act 1991, s 104D.

3015556 9

(d) In addition to reviewing the objectives and policies of the operative plan that would be relevant to any resource consent application for the activities in question, Mr White comments in general terms on the nature of the resource consent process and the ability for activities to be tested against such provisions and conditions imposed to address their potential effects.

5.13 On the basis of this further analysis KCAHL is fortified in its view that prohibited activity status is not appropriate, and any effects of the activities in question can be appropriately managed through conditions.

6. SECTION 32 ANALYSIS

6.1 It is necessary to assess and consider the benefits and costs of the plan change request, in determining whether it is the most appropriate way to achieve the RMA's objectives under s 32(1)(b).

6.2 The statutory requirements to be addressed under section 32 of the RMA have been quoted, to the extent relevant, in section 3 of this report.

6.3 The benefits and costs of this plan change request to amend the activity status of four activities in the District Plan are set out below.

Benefits

6.4 The principal benefit of re-classifying the specified activities'' activity status from prohibited to discretionary or non-complying is allowing a party to apply for resource consent. This in itself does not have any effects on the environment, as the application for resource consent will be thoroughly assessed as part of that process, but does provide an opportunity to apply for resource consent for activities that could have social and economic benefits, if granted.

6.5 It also enables KCAHL to undertake master planning in relation to the land it owns in the Airport Zone. This will include (among other things) engaging with the market, and seeking to develop those plans. This re-classification of prohibited activities to discretionary or non-complying will benefit the District as it will enable further developments in the area to be contemplated and potentially consented. Importantly, it will allow KCAHL to proactively respond to the changing environment in the District. The MacKays to Peka Peka expressway will impact on the areas catchment and is likely to bring greater investment to the Kapiti District than would otherwise be the case. The effects of this change cannot even be considered for the existing prohibited activities. In contrast, discretionary and non-complying activities can consider the expressway development and respond positively to it.

6.6 While these benefits are substantial, and should be recognised, given that there are no immediate effects on the environment of the plan change (as any relevant activities would still need to secure resource consent), it is not practicable to quantify the benefits. However, it is considered that these benefits would include the economic growth of the Airport, District and Region, as well as the opportunity for employment.

6.7 Any planned activities can later be tested and fully assessed through the resource consent process.

Costs of proposed changes

6.8 The only cost would come if an activity that is not in fact appropriate for the relevant location were to be granted consent. But it must be assumed that later decisions in

3015556 10

respect of resource consents will be made in a way that is consistent with the purpose of the RMA.

6.9 It is also for this reason that a separate Assessment of Environmental Effects has not been prepared as part of this plan change request.

6.10 Trade competition or the effects of trade competition cannot be considered under the RMA (nor can any trade competitor participate without direct environmental effects). Any alleged distributional effects can be considered at the time of future consent applications (although no effects are expected to extend beyond trade competition effects).

Summary of costs and benefits

6.11 In response to the further information request KCAHL has specifically considered the key costs and benefits of maintaining the status quo, waiting for the prohibited status to be addressed through the Proposed District Plan, and of this private plan change. That analysis is summarised in the following table:

Benefits Costs Efficiency Effectiveness Status quo The only real None of the Assuming the This option is very "effective" in benefit of this prohibited purpose of the the sense that no activity that is approach is activities could status quo is to precluded by the prohibited certainty, in that occur in Airport avoid adverse activity rules could possibly it is clear that the Zoned land, effects associated occur (however it is not efficient prohibited constraining with the prohibited or appropriate, because this activities cannot development and activities, this is not response is disproportionate occur and preventing an efficient and unnecessary). therefore any KCAHL from response because However, it is not effective in adverse effects engaging with it prevents all such achieving Objective 1.0 for the associated with the market to activity occurring, Airport Zone, which refers to them will be undertake and does not allow "supporting non-aviation avoided. master planning. for the effects to be business activities", while managed (and managing adverse effects. benefits of those (KCAHL considers that activities realised) preventing any application for through consent the non-aviation activities in conditions and the question being made does not resource consent achieve the objective of process. "supporting" them). Awaiting the Potentially could Greater delays Less efficient than KCAHL has serious concerns PDP deliver the same and uncertainty plan change - it is about the effectiveness of this outcome as than the Plan just a slower option, given that, even in a best sought through Change version. case scenario, decisions on the the plan change approach. PDP are unlikely to be released request, but can until sometime, potentially late, be expected to in 2016, and the removal of take longer. prohibited activity status (if that is the outcome of the PDP) process will not be effective until the PDP becomes operative (including resolution of any appeals, so, 2017 or beyond).3 Private PC Allows KCAHL Potential cost of Plan Change seeks This is the most effective option to engage with inappropriate to make targeted in terms or removing the the market and activity being changes to the prohibited activity status that undertake granted consent operative Plan to applies to the four activities in master planning (refer 6.8-6.10), remove prohibited question, but is acknowledged

3 As discussed in the meeting, it is perfectly valid for a party requesting a private plan change to do so even if there is a wider plan review on the horizon. This approach was supported by the Board of Inquiry in the NZ King Salmon case, in similar circumstances.

3015556 11

activity, and although the risk activity status that to be a partial solution in the potentially of this is currently applies to sense that that status also allows resource considered four specific needs to be removed from the consent to be minimal given the activities in this PDP which will ultimately sought. Refer ability to to zone. It does not supersede the operative plan. 6.4-6.7 of the decline consent seek any changes Plan Change or impose to other provisions request. conditions. (except any Removing prohibited activity status but providing for any consequential amendments that applications to be tested Also some cost may be required), through a discretionary or non- to KCAHL, and provides for complying consent process is Council and any the activities in effective in achieving objective submitters of question to be 1.0 above: ie it is "supporting" processing and subject to a full non-aviation business (allowing considering the assessment at the applications to be made) while Plan Change. resource consent still providing a robust process However this is stage. It therefore to consider and manage effects. not a compelling goes no further reason not to than is necessary initiate a plan to achieve its change process. objective.

6.12 With particular regard to the status quo option, KCAHL observes that:

(a) It is somewhat unusual to consider the costs and benefits of an option on the Council, as distinct from on the community it represents. Conceivably the benefit of this alternative for the Council is that it would not have to process the Plan Change Request. However, that is the Council's statutory role, and it is entitled to recover the costs of processing a private plan change.4

(b) There is no real benefit to the applicant of this option (other than avoiding the time and effort required to progress the plan change request), as the timing of the PDP (in terms of it becoming operative so that the current prohibited activity status is removed) is too distant and uncertain to give the applicant any real comfort. On the other hand, KCAHL would face the opportunity cost of having to wait before it can effectively engage with the market and begin its master planning exercise.

(c) KCAHL considers that there are unlikely to be material benefits/costs to the community either way (given participation in any hearing process would be entirely voluntary, and it is difficult to see how submissions on the plan change request - rather than on any subsequent resource consent application - would not be motivated by trade competition). However, a potential disadvantage to the community of the status quo (relative to the private plan change) is that any enabling or social and economic benefits that follow from the removal of prohibited activity status are likely to be realised sooner under the private plan change.

Other reasonably practicable options for achieving the objectives of operative District Plan

6.13 For the purposes of section 32(1)(b)(i) of the RMA, the key alternative that has been considered is the status quo of retaining the prohibited activity status. The cost of retaining prohibited activity status for those activities currently listed in the District Plan is that KCAHL is unable to consider those activities at all and the Airport Zone land is sterilised for those activities. This greatly reduces the prospect of a comprehensive and workable master plan being developed.

4 Section 36(1)(a) RMA.

3015556 12

6.14 KCAHL is conscious that the Council’s Proposed District Plan may not become operative, due to an extension in timeframes, until November 2017. In the meantime KCAHL is severely limited in its ability to undertake any master planning of its land in the Airport Zone, as the market will not engage while the relevant activities remain prohibited, and the master plan cannot be settled.

6.15 Other possible alternatives include changing the prohibited activities to some other activity status classification. As discussed above, a discretionary activity status classification for supermarkets, noise sensitive activities outside the Air Noise Boundary, and more than one grocery or non-specified food line store with a 151m2 to 1,500m2 gross floor area is considered to be most appropriate, while a non-complying classification for department stores is considered to be the most appropriate way of achieving the objectives of the District Plan.

6.16 In this regard, KCAHL is not seeking that any activities are amended to permitted (or controlled, or restricted discretionary, for that matter) activities. Any applications for the specified activities will still require a full assessment of all relevant matters before a resource consent could be granted.

6.17 As part of this plan change request, KCAHL is not seeking that the activity status for Noise Sensitive Activities within the Air Noise Boundary is re-classified away from prohibited. This is because the New Zealand Standard for Airport Noise Management and Land Use Planning (NZS 6805: 1992) recommends that Noise Sensitive Activities within an Air Noise Boundary are prohibited. This is generally followed by all airports in New Zealand. KCAHL accepts that it is not appropriate to undertake Noise Sensitive Activities within the Air Noise Boundary.

Consideration of objectives in the operative District Plan

6.18 Section 32(3) of the RMA requires an assessment of the objectives in the operative District Plan to the extent those objectives are relevant to the proposed plan change. KCAHL considers the following objectives are relevant to the amendments sought under this plan change request.

6.19 Objectives and policies in the operative District Plan are predominantly zone based with no overarching or activity based objectives.

Commercial and Retail Zone Objective 2.0, Policy 1

6.20 The operative District Plan contains the following objective and policy for the Commercial and Retail Zone that are relevant to the plan change. This objective and policy is as follows:

Objective 2.0

Retain and enhance the vitality and viability of the districts main centres at Paraparaumu, Waikanae and Otaki as part of an economically and socially strong community.

Policy 1: Consolidation

Ensure that Retail activities (other than small scale convenience shopping for day to day needs) is located within the District’s main centres and that the development of retail activities enhances the District as a place that is accessible, healthy and safe for pedestrians and cyclists.

6.21 The objective of the Commercial and Retail Zone seeks to maintain the viability of main centres through, in part, the consolidation of retail activities. The changes sought under

3015556 13

this plan change request are consistent with Objective 1.0 as the proposed activity status for the stated discretionary and non-complying retail activities would enable Council to consider the full scope of effects, including the vitality of existing centres, should an application for these activities be made.

6.22 The Council in its further information request asked KCAHL to consider the consistency of Policy 1 and its explanatory text with the private plan change. In terms of the relevant statutory provisions for evaluating the plan change request, it is necessary to recall that the test for a plan change is that the provisions are "most appropriate" for giving effect to the objectives (being in this case, the existing objectives in the operative plan, given the plan change would not add or remove any objectives: refer s 32(3). Strictly, it is not required that the rules be the most appropriate to give effect to the policies, and there is certainly no requirement for a proposed rule to "not be contrary to" the policies. Rather, in this case, it is an activity for a department store made pursuant to the plan change request (ie as a non-complying activity) that would need to demonstrate it is "not contrary to" objectives and policies of this kind.

6.23 Having said that, non-complying and discretionary activity status is not contrary to Policy 1, for the following reasons:

(a) Allowing retail outside of the centres does not prevent this policy being achieved. Retail is already allowed at the Airport under the operative plan up to a certain threshold (albeit for different activities) and the plan change does not seek to change this threshold.5

(b) Retail activities should not undermine the role and function of the Paraparaumu District centre – if a consent application for retail development at the Airport was to have this kind of environmental effect (ie extending beyond mere trade competition) so that this role/function was undermined, KCAHL would expect it to be declined.

(c) KCAHL is not seeking for residential activities to be permitted. Further, the Policy does not use directive language such as that residential activity should be "avoided" (and it is only a policy in any event, not something that has to be "given effect to").

Airport Zone Objectives 1.0 and 2.0

6.24 The operative District Plan contains two objectives for the Airport Zone (C.19.1). These objectives are:

Objective 1.0

To achieve significant sustainable aviation, business and employment opportunities by enabling the efficient utilisation of the land for aviation and associated activities and supporting non-aviation business activities, while avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects.

Objective 2.0

To protect the amenities of areas surrounding the airport from adverse environmental effects from airport use and development.

6.25 The changes sought under this plan change request are consistent with Objective 1.0. By enabling the opportunity to apply for resource consent to undertake any of the specified activities in this plan change, business and employment opportunities can be created, as well as supporting non-aviation business activities.

5 Refer D.9 - 14 of the Operative Plan.

3015556 14

6.26 The objective of avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects is also maintained, as there are no environmental effects flowing from this plan change request. As discussed above, these only arise in the context of a resource consent application, where the objectives and policies of the District Plan will be tested as part of the consent process.

6.27 In terms of Objective 2.0, it is recognised that some aircraft noise is unavoidable when in the vicinity of an airport. By requesting that noise sensitive activities outside the Air Noise Boundary are classified as discretionary, there is a both a protection, in requiring a resource consent to be sought in the first instance, as well as an opportunity to undertake such an activity provided the effects are minor, or less than minor, as would need to be determined during the consent application process.

6.28 Furthermore, any future development of supermarkets, grocery, or non-specified food line stores will not create any effects stemming from airport use and development.

6.29 Accordingly, the changes sought under this plan change request are consistent with Objective 2.0.

6.30 Although an assessment of the operative policies in an existing plan is not required by the RMA, KCAHL considers that this proposed plan change is also consistent with the current policies in the operative District Plan Airport Zone as well as the objectives.

Other existing plan provisions

6.31 The Council in its further information request enquired into the way in which existing provisions of the District Plan will assist in assessing or providing direction on how to mitigate the potential adverse effects from the proposed activities once resource consent applications are received.

6.32 These matters have been considered in the supplementary report prepared by Mr White (dated 30 October 2015). In summary, and based on this assessment, KCAHL considers that:

(a) There are a number of provisions that have a bearing on development proposals within this zone, which any resource application for the activities in question would need to be tested against under section 104(1)(b) (and in the case of an application for a non-complying activity, under section 104D(1)(b) as well).

(b) On the basis of these provisions, and the ability to impose conditions, KCAHL's expert advisors are satisfied that the consent authority will have sufficient guidance to mitigate the potential adverse effects from the proposed activities if resource consent applications are received.

(c) Further, the activities in question (ie noise sensitive activities, department stores, grocery stores and supermarkets) could not be described as novel, unusual (far from it), complex, or otherwise likely to require unique or technical conditions to be imposed. Expert consultants in the relevant disciplines will have considered dozens of similar applications around the country, and will be able to assist the consent authority in exercising its discretion to grant consent and impose conditions.

(d) In addition, as the Supreme Court held in Sustain Our Sounds v NZ King Salmon,6 "the law does not require in all circumstances comprehensive assessment criteria setting out when resource consent may be granted for

6 Sustain Our Sounds Inc v New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd [2014] NZSC 40; [2014] 1 NZLR 673 at [151].

3015556 15

discretionary activities." KCAHL suggests that this is particularly the case when the activities in question are not complex or technical.

(e) Finally, as a broader and general proposition, the Council in determining this plan change needs to have confidence that the consent authority (whether that is the Council itself, independent commissioners, or the Environment Court on direct referral) will only grant consent for a discretionary or non-complying activity if doing so would achieve the sustainable management purpose in the RMA. This is similar to the principle that a consent authority must proceed on the basis that an applicant will comply with the resource consent conditions imposed.

Conclusions on "most appropriate" test

6.33 Overall, it is considered that amending the activity status of certain activities as proposed is the most appropriate alternative. Retention of the current prohibited activity status will effectively remove any opportunity for master planning and development for future improvements on KCAHL land in the Airport Zone.

6.34 Any discretionary activity application requires an applicant to provide a full assessment of environmental effects addressing the matters set out in the Fourth Schedule of the RMA. There is the potential for notification, submissions, and a public hearing, and consent can be declined.

6.35 Discretionary activities are widely used to identify activities that may have a range of effects, and any application would need to establish that sustainable management would be achieved before consent could be granted, as well as a consideration of the RMA statutory provisions and any other relevant plans or policies. While it is more "enabling" than a non-complying classification, a discretionary classification still allows a full assessment of the possible effects. Therefore, discretionary activity status is most appropriate for the specified activities in plan change request.

Status of department stores

6.36 In preparing the plan change request, KCAHL was conscious that there was greater potential for adverse effects associated with department stores than with the other activities that are currently prohibited in the zone. Mr Colegrave's enclosed letter also indicates that retail impact associated with department stores could be greater than for other activities, but even the worst case scenario predicted would not result in significant effects.7

6.37 Case law8 has confirmed that non-complying activity status is an appropriate way for a council to signal that proposals for a particular activity or in a particular area will be subject to a greater degree of scrutiny, and indicates to the community where some activities are less likely to be appropriate.

6.38 Non-complying activity status also sets a 'high hurdle' for consent applications, which must demonstrate either that the effects of the proposal will be no more than minor or that the activity is not contrary to the objectives and policies of the plan. It is at this stage that objectives and policies such as those identified by Mr White will become highly relevant.

6.39 Accordingly, and given the Council may have some reservations in having department stores in the Airport Zone, a non-complying activity status will provide a level of further testing to ensure that such activities could only proceed if it met the additional "gateway

7 Bearing in mind also that retail effects would need to reach a certain level of significance before they became more than simply the effects of trade competition, which cannot be considered in preparing a district plan: s 74(3) RMA. 8 Eg Mighty River Power Ltd v Porirua CC [2012] NZEnvC 213 at [32] and [34].

3015556 16

tests" in section 104D of the RMA. Non-complying activity status is considered to be the most appropriate classification for department stores.

6.40 After an assessment of the objectives (and policies) of the operative District Plan, KCAHL considers that the proposed discretionary and non-complying activity status classifications are more appropriate than the current prohibited classification for achieving those objectives. This plan change request will enable further non-aviation business and employment opportunities to be applied for, and these will support the airside operation and development of the Airport.

Summary of alternatives considered with respect to activity status

6.41 The Council in its further information request asked KCAHL to further consider the possible alternatives that might be available with respect to each category of activity. That analysis can be summarised in the following table:

Noise sensitive Department store Supermarket (one 150-1500m2 gfa in activities9 (outside only) groceries/non of Air Noise specified food lines Boundary) Permitted It would not be Permitted activity status is not a sensible or realistic option for any of appropriate to these activities in this zone. Greater control over whether an provide for noise application is granted, and on what conditions, is required. sensitive activities to establish in this zone as of right, given the wider mix of activities likely to be present.10 Controlled Controlled activity Again, it is Same considerations Same considerations status would mean important that the apply as for the other apply as for the other that consent had to Council as consent activities. activities. be granted, which authority retains may be the ability to inappropriate.11 decline an application for a department store, (for example) if effects could not be appropriately managed through conditions. Restricted While this option A greater degree of control is considered appropriate for these Discretionary could potentially be activities, to allow the consent authority an unfettered discretion to adopted (eg with consider all relevant factors and planning instruments in determining discretion restricted whether to grant resource consent and on what conditions. to noise and reverse sensitivity matters) discretionary status is more appropriate given the range of activities that are

9 Noise Sensitive Activities are defined in the Operative Plan as residential accommodation of all types, hotels, motels, pre-schools, schools, educational facilities, libraries, child care centres, and hospitals. 10 Rule D.9.1.6 of the Operative Plan provides that Noise Sensitive Activities not specifically provided for as a Permitted Activity are Prohibited Activities. Rule D.1.1.1 (xix) - Airport Noise Within the Air Noise Boundary, and (xx) - Airport Noise Between the Air Noise Boundary and the Outer Control Boundary, provide two circumstances in which the intensification of existing noise sensitive activities are Permitted Activities.

3015556 17

included in the definition of "noise sensitive activities". Discretionary Chosen option. Discretionary Chosen option. For these activities it is KCAHL's expert activity status was considered that discretionary status is advice is that noise a possible option appropriate. This allows the consent authority full sensitive activities for department discretion to consider all relevant factors in are adequately stores in this zone, determining whether to grant consent and on managed by the however on what conditions, however it is not considered that Plan's [air noise balance KCAHL the additional hurdles associated with non- boundaries], so considers that non- complying status are required. further controls at a complying activity zone level are not status was required. However, appropriate in discretionary status order to signal that would still allow full department stores consideration of any are an activity that effects (including may not always be reverse sensitivity appropriate in this effects) at the time Zone, so should be that consent was subject to a greater sought. degree of scrutiny than other activities. Consistent with this, the analysis carried out by Mr Colegrave indicates that department stores would be likely to have a more substantial retail distribution effects than other activities. As such, given the Plan provisions in regard to effects on the main centres, it is appropriate for this activity to be non-complying so that any application would have to either demonstrate it was not contrary to those provisions or that effects would be minor. Non- For the reasons Chosen option. As stated above, it is complying given above, non- While prohibited considered that complying activity activity status is discretionary status status is not required not required, non- provides ample scope for these activities, complying was to manage the as discretionary considered more environmental effects status provides for appropriate than of these activities more than enough discretionary (through the scrutiny. status for this imposition of activity, for the conditions, or decline) reasons given and the greater above. scrutiny associated with non-complying

3015556 18

activity status is not required. Prohibited Current activity status. This status is unnecessarily restrictive and means that no application for resource consent can be made or considered, regardless of its merits.

6.42 KCAHL did not consider it was necessary to provide different activity statuses or provisions for the different Precincts within the Airport Zone (ie "Airport Mixed Use", "Airport Buffer" and "Airport Core"). This is because it is proposed that the activities will be discretionary and non-complying, rather than (say) controlled and restricted discretionary. While conceivably some of the activities may be more or less appropriate in different precincts of the Zone, that is something that can be considered by the consent authority in the exercise of its discretion to grant consent and impose conditions and will necessarily be informed by the objectives and policies that refer to these Precincts and their function.

6.43 In this regard, the Policies of the Airport Zone already address the distinction between the different Airport Precincts. For example, Objective 1, Policy 1 states that only aviation related activities will be permitted in the Airport Core. Objective 1, Policies 2 and Objective 2, Polices 3 and 6 cover the other Precincts.

7. CONSULTATION

7.1 It is considered unlikely that the wider surrounding community will be affected by the change of activity status proposed by this plan change request. The Airport, having been long established in the location and an integral part of the District, the community has accepted the function of the airport. In any event, those communities will not be adversely affected by the alteration to the activity status of activities within the Airport Zone.

8. CONCLUSION

8.1 The private plan change request satisfies the relevant statutory requirements of section 32 of the RMA. The effects of re-classifying the activity status of the activities currently prohibited in the Airport Zone are either de minimis or positive by allowing the application of resource consents. Furthermore, the proposed changes are consistent with the current objectives of the District Plan.

3015556 19

AMENDMENTS SOUGHT TO THE DISTRICT PLAN - MARK-UP

The text shown in black strike through and underlined, are the amendments sought by KCAHL.

D.9.1.4 Discretionary Activities

The following are discretionary activities:

(i) The alteration or modification, which is not a minor work as defined in Part Q of this Plan, and the demolition or removal of any heritage feature or building recorded in the Heritage Register. In relation to historic buildings, "modification" includes any subdivision of land containing the historic building and its curtilage.

(ii) Activities within the "Aviation Heritage Precinct" not provided for as permitted activities and not defined as non-complying or prohibited.

(iii) The alteration or modification which is not a minor work as defined in Part Q of this Plan and the demolition or removal of the control tower, as a historic building. In relation to historic buildings, "modification" includes any subdivision of land containing the historic building and its curtilage (except where specified in this Plan to be a non-complying activity or prohibited activity).

(iv) Activities which do not comply with any restricted discretionary activity standards are discretionary activities.

(v) Noise sensitive activities outside the Air Noise Boundary not specifically provided for as a permitted activity.

(vi) One only supermarket within the zone.

(vii) More than one store of between 151m2 and 1,500m2 gross floor area that retails groceries or non-specified food lines.

D.9.1.5 Non-Complying Activities

The following are non-complying activities:

(i) Offensive trades.

(ii) The keeping of free flight birds.

(iii) Retail and commercial service activities, not being a prohibited activity, that are not listed as permitted activities in rule D.9.1.1 or do not comply with the permitted activity retail/commercial activity floorspace threshold standards in D.9.2.1.

(iv) Aircraft operations occurring between 10.30pm and 6am that are not exempt by the "Noise from Aircraft Operations" permitted activity noise standard.

(v) Any other activity not being a permitted, controlled, discretionary (restricted), discretionary or prohibited activity.

(vi) Any development in the Airport Zone, not being a prohibited activity, which results in the development in the Airport Zone exceeding 339,400m2 gross floor area.

(vii) Any above ground development, within the area defined on the Precinct Plan as Runway 12/30, which is inconsistent with the use of that area for imperative landings and other limited uses.

3015556 20

(viii) One only Department Store within the zone.

(ix) Supermarkets other than as provided for in rule D.9.1.4.

D.9.1.6 Prohibited Activities

The following are prohibited activities:

(i) Noise sensitive activities within the Airport Noise Boundary not specifically provided for as a permitted activity.

(ii) Department Stores other than as provided for in rule D.9.1.5.

(iii) Supermarkets.

(iv) More than one store of between 151m2 and 1,500m2 gross floor area that retails groceries or non-specified food lines.

C.19.1 Policy 2: Uses

The following amendment to the explanation text:

Explanation: The "Airport Mixed Use Precinct" permits aviation activity to grow beyond the "Airport Core Precinct". Non-aviation business and commercial activity and development is permitted to support the sustainability of the Airport Core Precinct activities. Certain specified activities are non- complying (i.e. residential activity, offensive trades, certain retail/commercial activities etc), discretionary (i.e. work associated with heritage buildings) or controlled activities (i.e. the external design, appearance and siting of buildings and associated development) to enable to the Council to manage potential adverse effects. Supermarkets, Department Stores and more than one small scale retail grocery outlet are prohibited activities. More than one Supermarket in the zone is a non-complying activity, and more than one department Store is a prohibited activity.

3015556 Attachments:

1. Transportation Impact Assessment, Tim Kelly, Transportation Planning Limited, 14 May 2015

2. Economic Assessment, Fraser Colegrave, Insight Economics, 29 June 2015

3. Planning Assessment, Alistair White, Planning Focus Limited, 15 June 2015

4. Response to further information request, Planning Assessment, Alistair White, Planning Focus Limited, 30 October 2015

5. Response to further information request, Economic Assessment, Fraser Colegrave, Insight Economics, 30 October 2015

6. Response to further information request, Noise Assessment, Laura McNeill, Marshall Day Acoustics, 5 November 2015

7. Response to further information request, Transportation Impact Assessment, Tim Kelly, Transportation Planning Limited, 30 October 2015 14 May 2015

Kapiti Coast Airport Holdings Ltd c/o Planning Focus Ltd PO Box 911-361 AUCKLAND 1142 tim kelly For the attention of: Alistair White transportation planning limited

Request for a Private Plan Change to the Kapiti Coast District Plan Transportation Impact Assessment

Context Kapiti Coast Airport Holdings Ltd (KCAHL) is seeking changes to rules in the Kapiti Coast District Plan (KCDP) which relate to the development of the airport area. Specifically, the changes sought to the KCDP are to remove ‘Prohibited Activity’ status for the following activities: a) noise sensitive activities outside of the Air Noise Boundary not specifically provided for as a permitted activity – proposed to be classified as a discretionary activity (rule D.9.1.6(i)); b) department stores – proposed to be classified as a non-complying activity (rule D.9.1.6(ii)); c) supermarkets – proposed to be classified as a discretionary activity (rule D.9.1.6(iii)); d) more than one store of between 151m2 and 1,500m2 gross floor area that retails groceries or non-specified food lines – proposed to be classified as a discretionary activity (rule D.9.1.6(iv)); e) any consequential amendments to the KCDP that may be necessary to achieve the purpose of this private plan change request. The purpose of this letter is to review the potential for effects upon the transportation network associated with the proposed plan change.

Potential Effects Upon Transportation Network The proposed plan change would modify the status of the activities above from ‘Prohibited’ to ‘Non-Complying’ or ‘Discretionary’. None of these activities would have ‘Permitted Activity’ status and in all cases, consents would be required. The need for each consent application to be supported by a Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) report would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. For smaller

tim kelly transportation planning limited m a il : p o box 58, mapua, nelson 7048 ph one : 027- 28 4- 03 32 e- m a il : [email protected] applications (possibly involving modifications or extensions of existing activities) it is possible that the preparation of a TIA would not be justified. Larger activities would generally justify a transportation assessment. Where a TIA is required, the Council (or commissioners if appointed on its behalf) would have regard to its findings when deciding whether consent should be granted. Accordingly, development (and hence the potential for associated effects) would only be enabled by the granting of consent. The proposed plan change would not in itself enable any additional development and so would have no effects upon the operation of the transportation network.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Kelly Tim Kelly Transportation Planning Limited (Phone : 027-284-0332, E-mail : [email protected])

2 INSIGHT ECONOMICS PO Box 106 303 Commerce Street Auckland 1143

Monday, June 29, 2015

Brigid Kelly Todd Property PO Box 106 249 Auckland 1010 New Zealand

Dear Brigid,

Re: Private Plan Change Request for Kapiti Coast Airport Holdings Limited (KCAHL)

Context and Purpose of this Letter KCAHL, who owns and operates the Kapiti Coast Airport, wishes to remove the prohibited activity status attached to certain land uses and enable a greater range of activities to occur on its land over time. The purpose of this letter is to briefly analyse the likely economic impacts of the proposed changes to determine the overall merits from a retail/economics perspective.

Clarification of the Changes Sought While KCAHL seek a number of changes, the most relevant from my perspective are:

 Providing for one supermarket as a discretionary activity;  Enabling one grocery store of 151m2 – 1,500m2 as a discretionary activity; and  Non-complying status for one department store.

Potential for Adverse (Retail Distribution) Effects To begin, I first discuss the potential for unfettered retail distribution effects to occur. In my view, these are minimal because any new supermarket or department store will still require resource consent, at which point any adverse effects will be examined. Furthermore, given the non- complying status proposed for department stores, developments of this type will be subject to even greater scrutiny via the “gateway tests” under section 104D of the RMA. Accordingly, I consider there to be no scope for unconstrained retail distribution effects to occur as a result of the proposed changes.

Economic Benefits of the Proposed Plan Change Next I consider the potential economic benefits. To that end, I submit that the proposed changes will generate a number of tangible economic benefits. First and foremost, they will enable the district to become more self-sufficient with respect to retail supply, which will help stem the significant outward leakage of retail expenditure by local residents1. In doing so, the proposed

1 For example, an analysis by Property Economics of electronic transaction data in 2011 showed that retail expenditure “leakage” was greater than 50% for several store types in Kapiti. changes will increase the size of the local “retail pie” for the benefit of all district retailers, not simply cause redistributions of the existing pie.

To the extent that the proposed changes do enable retail development that would not have occurred otherwise in the district, there will also be significant benefits to local shoppers in terms of reduced travel time and cost. The cumulative value of these benefits will be significant, particularly over the longer term, given the high degree of leakage mentioned above.

At the same time, increased retail development will create additional employment opportunities and therefore assist the district to improve its employment self-sufficiency. Moreover, it will foster healthy retail competition, which will generate even further benefits for local residents.

Finally, I note that the proposed changes will facilitate more-timely master planning of the KCAHL land and hence enable integrated development to occur sooner than it would have otherwise including responding to the development of the McKays to Peka Peka Expressway. This, in turn, will support Objective 1.0 of the Airport Zone, by enabling the efficient utilisation of the land.2

Justification for Proposed Activity Statuses As noted above, under the proposed plan change, one supermarket and more than one grocery store of 151m2 – 1,500m2 will be discretionary activities, whereas department stores will be non- complying.

I consider these activity statuses appropriate from a retail economics perspective, particularly the non-complying status for department stores. These tend to draw spend from a wider catchment, which elevates their role and function relative to other retail store types. While such an elevated role and function may well be appropriate within Airport Zone in the future, I consider it appropriate that they are subject to a greater level of scrutiny given the increased potential for adverse effects.

Conclusion and Recommendation This letter has briefly considered the proposed plan change from a retail/economic perspective and found that the risks will be negligible but the benefits will likely be significant and far reaching. Accordingly, I support the proposed plan change.

Sincerely,

Fraser Colegrave Managing Director Insight Economics Limited

2 While I acknowledge that the proposed plan change does not necessarily generate these benefits per se, the plan change is a critical step. Absent it, most of these benefits are unlikely to occur or will be significantly delayed.

MEMORANDUM

To: Brigid Kelly From: Alex van Son Date: May 28, 2015 RE: Kapiti Coast Airport

1. What activities are prohibited within the Airport Zone under the Operative Plan?

The following are noted as prohibited activities in the Airport Zone, Rule D.9.1.6 Prohibited Activities:

 Noise sensitive activities not specifically provided for as a permitted activity.  Department Stores  Supermarkets  More than one store of between 151m2 and 1,500m2 gross floor area that retails groceries or non-specified food lines.

Note that “Noise Sensitive Activities” means residential accommodation of all types, hotels, motels, pre-schools, schools, educational facilities, libraries, child care centres, and hospitals. The only noise sensitive activities permitted in the Airport Zone under Rule D.9.1.1 Permitted Activities:

 One hotel/motel  Residential accommodation for those whose employment requires residence within the Zone

2. What activities are prohibited in other sections of the Operative Plan?

Under the definitions of the Operative Plan, a prohibited activity is restricted to any activity listed in the rules as a prohibited activity.

Prohibited Activities in the Residential zone per Rule D.1.1.5:  Commercial panelbeating and spraypainting  The demolition of buildings/structures with a NZ Historic Places Trust Category I Classification.  Within the Air Noise Boundary: a. Any noise sensitive activity not achieving the noise insulation standards. b. The subdivision of land for the purpose of creating a vacant site for residential purposes.

Prohibited Activities in the Rural zone per Rule D.2.1.5:  The demolition of buildings/structures with a NZ Historic Places Trust Category I Classification.  New buildings/or relocated buildings on land within 100 metres (50 metres on Kapiti Island) of the seaward title boundary or the Esplanade Reserve or seaward toe of the foredune or vegetation line, where this is within the Esplanade Reserve, or title on new lots created after 1 September 1995.  Within the Air Noise Boundary: a. Any noise sensitive activity not achieving the noise insulation standards. b. The subdivision of land for the purpose of creating a vacant site for residential purposes.

Prohibited Activities in the Commercial zone per Rule D.3.1.5:  The demolition of buildings/structures with a NZ Historic Places Trust Category I Classification.

Prohibited Activities in the Paraparaumu Town Centre zone per Rule D.4.1.5:  The demolition of buildings/structures with a NZ Historic Places Trust Category I Classification.

Prohibited Activities in the Industrial/Service zone per Rule D.5.1.5:  The demolition of buildings/structures with a NZ Historic Places Trust Category I Classification.

Prohibited Activities in the Open Space zone per Rule D.6.1.5:  The demolition of buildings/structures with a NZ Historic Places Trust Category I Classification.

Prohibited Activities in the River Corridor per Rule D.7.1.5:  Damage or Destruction of flood mitigation structures or works - except for the maintenance, repair, replacement or reconstruction of a flood mitigation structure or

2 work any damage or destruction of any flood mitigation structure or work (including any planting) shown on the Flood Hazard Maps.  Landfills  The demolition of buildings/structures with a NZ Historic Places Trust Category I Classification.

Prohibited Activities in the Conservation zone per Rule D.8.1.5:  The demolition of buildings/structures with a NZ Historic Places Trust Category I Classification.

Prohibited Activities in the Waikanae North Development zone per Rule D.10.1.2(f):  Vehicle access to Awanui Drive is a prohibited activity in Precicnt 2 – Perimeter Residential Houses

3. How is a hierarchy of activities (discretionary, non-complying, and prohibited) employed generally in the Operative Plan?

The District Plan states that “in a few cases activities are specifically prohibited for effects based reasons” (Ref. A.8.1).

Activities that are not provided for as permitted, controlled, or discretionary default to non- complying activities, however, provisions relating to discretionary activities are generally broad and inclusive (i.e. “All activities which are not listed as non-complying or prohibited and all other activities which do not comply with one or more of the permitted activity or controlled activity standards”). Only a few specific activities are identified as discretionary activities.

Conversely, non-complying activities are generally provided as a specific list of activities, such as those set out in the Residential, Commercial and Airport Zones of the District Plan, see below.

Non-complying activities in the Residential zone per Rule D.1.1.4:  All activities which are not permitted, controlled, discretionary or prohibited.  Offensive trades.  Beekeeping.  Boarding or housing of animals for commercial gain

3  Signs (excluding approved traffic signs) which are: o Within the legal road except temporary signs that are not a traffic hazard. o Directional signs on motor vehicles, trucks, trailers, caravans or other devices placed within the road reserve or on property, including parking areas (other than that on which the activity takes place). Flashing or moving, or red or green colour forming the background to any traffic signals, or conflict with the colour or shape of traffic control signs. o Reflectorised and non-directional and are adjacent to State Highway 1. o Real estate flags or advertising device located on carriageways for more than one day (eight hours) in one week.  Car wrecking within enclosed buildings.  The keeping of goats, pigs, deer, roosters, or more than 12 pigeons or doves.  Places of Assembly.  The demolition of buildings/structures with a NZ Historic Places Trust Category II classification.  Permanent parking (i.e. more than two times in any one week) of any registered heavy trade vehicle on a residential site or within 40 metres of a dwelling.  Storage of wrecked or unroadworthy vehicles not within an enclosed building.  The parking or placing of any motor vehicle, boat, caravan or material for the purposes of sale or lease within road or Council reserve other than specified areas by resolution of Council.  The use of blimps, laser displays or trivision devices (holograms) for advertising purposes.  Non-school related activities on school grounds where they do not meet the permitted activity standards.  Subdivision below the minimum or average lot size inthe Lupin Road Low Density Area (as shown on the Districtwide and Urban Plan Zones Map).  Medium Density Housing that is located outside of the areas identified in the District Plan Districtwide and Urban Maps: Medium Density Overlay Area shall be a  Non Complying Activity.  Subdivision of lots below 800m2 and more than 62 residential lots in the Ferndale Area (as shown on Districtwide and Urban Plan Zone Maps 6 and 7).

4  Between the Air Noise Boundary and the Outer Control Boundary, any noise sensitive activity that fails to meet the permitted activity insulation standard entitled ‘Between the Air Noise Boundary and the Outer Control Boundary’.  The location of structures defined as Type 3 and 4 and any Type 1, 2a, 2b, 2c structure associated with a Type 3 and/or 4 structure or activity within the Fault Avoidance Zones (refer to the Risk Based Matrix and Building Importance Table in Policy 11 of C.15.1)  All new or relocated residential dwelling units unless they are provided with a rainwater storage tank complying with the Water Demand Management Permitted Activity Standard or the conditions of a resource consent which provided an alternative water demand management system to reduce demand for public potable water by at least 30% from the Household 2007 Summer Average Water Use and non-potable water for all outdoor uses.  Subdivision which does not comply with the minimum lot area requirements for controlled activities (D.1.2.2) in Otaki, excluding areas in close proximity to Otaki’s commercial/retail zone, shown on the Districtwide and Urban Maps (02 and 03) as “Otaki Subdivision / Development Infill Area”.  Retail trade premises with a retail floor area greater than 300m2.

Non-complying activities in the Commercial zone per Rule D.3.1.4:  All activities which are not permitted, controlled, discretionary or prohibited.  Offensive odours detected at the site boundary of the residential zone.  Offensive trades.  Signs (excluding approved traffic signs) which are: o Within the legal road, except temporary signs that are not a traffic hazard. o Directional signs on motor vehicles, trucks, trailers, caravans or other devices placed within the road o reserve or on property, including parking areas (other than that on which the activity takes place). o Flashing or moving, or red or green colour forming the background to any traffic signals, or conflict with the colour or shape of traffic control signs. o Reflectorised and are adjacent to State Highway 1. Real estate flags or advertising device located on carriageways for more than one day (eight hours) in one week.

5  Buildings which exceed 12 metres in height or are more than 3 storeys above the original ground level Places of Assembly.  The demolition of buildings/structures with a NZ Historic Places Trust Category II classification.  The parking or placing of any motor vehicle, boat, caravan or material for the purposes of sale or lease within road or Council reserve other than specified areas by resolution of Council.  The use of blimps, laser displays or trivision devices (holograms) for advertising purposes.  The following activities within the Meadows Precinct o Any building which does not comply with the Meadows Precinct Controlled Activity Standards. o Retail outlets exceeding a gross floor area of 200m², and any supermarkets, furniture stores, liquor stores and industrial activities. o The accommodation of more than 1,400m² gross floor area of Retail Activities and more than a total of 8,000m² of Commercial and Retail Activities within the Meadows Precinct.  Retail trade premises with greater than 500m2 of retail floor space located at Paraparaumu District Centre, Waikanae and Otaki Railway that do not meet the permitted and controlled activity standards.  Retail trade premises with greater than: o 500m2 of retail floor space per premise located at Raumati South or Paekakariki; o 1000m2 of retail floor space per premise located at Raumati Beach or Otaki Main Street; or o 2000m2 of retail floor space per premise located at Paraparaumu Beach.

Non-complying activities in the Airport zone per rule D.9.1.5:  Offensive trades.  The keeping of free flight birds.  Retail and commercial service activities, not being a prohibited activity, that are not listed as permitted activities in rule D.9.1.1 or do not comply with the permitted activity retail/commercial activity floorspace threshold standards in D.9.2.1.

6  Aircraft operations occurring between 10.30pm and 6am that are not exempt by the “Noise from Aircraft Operations” permitted activity noise standard.  Any other activity not being a permitted, controlled, discretionary (restricted), discretionary or prohibited activity.  Any development in the Airport Zone, not being a prohibited activity, which results in the development in the Airport Zone exceeding 339,400m2 gross floor area.  Any above ground development, within the area defined on the Precinct Plan as Runway 12/30, which is inconsistent with the use of that area for imperative landings and other limited uses.

list

30 October 2015

Brigid Kelly Todd Property PO Box 106 249 Auckland 1010

Private Plan Change - Kapiti Coast Airport - Further Information Request

Dear Brigid,

This letter addresses the questions raised by Kapiti Coast District Council ("Council") as part of the further information request issued to Kapiti Coast Airport Holdings Limited ("KCAHL") on 18 August 2015. The further information request raises similar issues as those discussed in our letter dated 15 June 2015, in relation to the use of prohibited activity status in the Kapiti Coast District Plan (“District Plan”) and the assessment of non-complying and discretionary applications. This letter addresses the specific questions raised by the Council, particularly in relation to whether and how the existing provisions of the District Plan will be adequate to properly assess any resource consent applications.

Existing provisions of the District Plan

The District Plan contains a number of objectives and policies that any resource consent application would need to be considered against. A number of these are identified below.

Airport Zone objectives 1.0 , Policy 2, and Policy 5

As relevant, Objective 1.0 is to "enable significant sustainable... business and employment opportunities by... supporting non-aviation business activities, while avoiding remedying or mitigating adverse effects." This objective specifically encourages non-aviation activities within the Airport Zone and ensures that consent applications will be assessed on their merits, with scope for appropriate conditions to be imposed in order to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effects of such activities. This is consistent with the commentary in the Introduction/Issues to Section B.5 of the Plan, which confirms that “The Airport Zone has been formulated to enable the enhancement of aviation activity and to facilitate sustainable business and employment activity…Non-aviation activities are needed to financially support aviation activities…"

Policy 2 states that "[i]t is desirable that specifically identified retail and commercial activities are permitted, subject to specified threshold standards, so that the nature and scale of such activities does not undermine the role and function of the Paraparaumu Town Centre and is linked to development within the Airport Mixed Use Precinct." The explanatory note to this policy recognises the utility of "big box" large scale buildings within the zone as they seldom "fit" within town centre environments. At the same time, it is recognised that there is a need to limit development so as to not diminish or undermine the sustainability of the town centre. It will be appropriate for this policy to be tested as part of any consent application.

Policy 5 concerns the timing of development and the implications of this for ensuring that traffic effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated. It will be relevant in the consideration of any application that is likely to result in increased traffic being generated, and will ensure that the consent authority gives appropriate consideration to the capacity of the roading network at that time and whether it is adequate to absorb additional traffic from the proposed development. It may also be influential in determining whether any application for a non-complying activity can be granted consent.

Commercial and Retail Zone Objective 2.0, Policy 1, and Policy 3

Specifically, Objective 2.0 seeks to "enhance the vitality and viability of the District's main centres at Paraparaumu, Waikanae and Otaki as part of an economically and socially strong community". While it is not necessary for a resource consent application to demonstrate that the proposal will achieve or meet the Plan's objectives, objectives of this kind will ensure that due consideration is given to any implications of the proposal on the vitality and viability of the District's main centres.

Policy 1, as discussed by Council in its further information request is to ensure that retail activities are located within the District's main centres, as well as to encourage development of the District's main centres in order to (among other things) increase the range of activities, particularly business, entertainment and employment activities, and to increase the centre's effectiveness as a catalyst for economic growth. The Airport Zone is not a "main centre" and therefore, at the assessment stage it will be necessary to assess whether the class/kind of activity detracts from the retail activity in the main centres. However, Policy 1 does not direct that retail activity outside of main centres must be avoided. This Policy will provide a focus for the effects assessments in the application materials and any hearing, however, it is not relevant to assess in the context of a plan change.

Policy 3 will also be relevant at the consent application stage. This policy is to "ensure that large format retail, especially stores with over 500m2 ... are not developed at [other locations] (eg Paekakariki or Raumati South) where they could draw shoppers away from the main town centres." It is anticipated that any development in the Airport Zone may constitute an "other location". However, the class/kind of activities sought to be re-classified as part of the plan change request are not within the Commercial Zone, but if the activities in question are located in the Airport Zone they must not draw people away from the main centres. Policy 3 is also potentially in conflict with Policy 2 of the Airport Zone, which allows for specified retail activity, recognising the inconvenience and congestion that would otherwise exist for those people who are in the Airport Zone. These Policies will need to be considered in the effects, and objectives and policies, assessments in consent application materials and any hearing.

Residential Zone Objective 1.0 and Policy 1

Objective 1.0 and Policy 1 ensure that effects on amenity values in residential areas to be avoided, remedied, or mitigated, including effects relating to traffic generation (including additional traffic movements), excessive noise levels, and imposition of buildings/structures (or other visibly intrusive features).

Paraparaumu Town Centre Zone Objective 2.0

Objective 2.0 enables the development of the town centre to "proceed in a manner which ensures that it becomes an integral part of the wider central area, and in particular, that it is visually and physically linked to the retail core east of Rimu Road". Any development outside of the town centre will need to be tested against this objective as part of an assessment under section 104(1)(b), and, specifically in relation to non-complying activities, the second gateway test in section 104D(1)(b). That will provide a focus for the effects assessments in the application materials and any hearing.

Industrial/Service Zone Objective 1.0

The Industrial/Service Zone shares a number of similarities with the Airport Zone, in terms of the effects of any activities. For example, noise, vibration, and other amenity values are common to both zones. Objective 1.0 is as follows:

Sustain and enhance the character of the district’s centres of industrial service activity including the amenity values of these areas and efficient use of the transport and service infrastructure and ensuring the adverse effects on the natural environment and on the amenity of nearby residential areas are avoided.

As can be seen from this objective, there is a need to avoid effects on nearby residential areas. Although there is no such strong direction in the Airport Zone rules, and therefore not directly relevant to a consent application assessment in the Airport Zone, this objective provides a suitable example of rigorous assessment that a class/kind of activity would be tested against if consent were applied for in the Industrial/Service Zone.

Noise Objective 1.0 and Policy 2, and Objective 2.0, and Policies 1, 2, and 4

The noise objectives provide for the effects of noise on residential environments (and rural environments in the case of Objective 1.0) from non-residential activities and the effects of traffic (respectively) to be avoided, remedied, or mitigated.

The policies accompanying the noise objectives require an assessment against a threshold. For example, Objective 1.0 Policy 2 directs that noise in the environment generated from non-residential activities "does not reach a level injurious to the health of residents". This will provide a focus for the effects assessments in the application materials and any hearing

Transport Objective 1.0

Objective 1.0 is to achieve a "transport infrastructure that provides for efficient and safe movement of people and goods throughout the district and which avoids, remedies, or mitigates adverse effects of existing and new traffic routes".

It is possible that new traffic routes may form part of consent proposals. Objective 1.0 appears to have been drafted with this in mind, and therefore with the understanding that the effects of such routes are unable to be tested until an application is made. A number of policies are provided in order to implement this objective.

There are a number of general amenity provisions throughout the plan, including:

 Residential Zone Objective 1.0 and Policy 1, Objective 2.0 and Policies 1 and 2, and Objective 3.0;  Commercial/Retail Zone Objective 1.0 and Policies 1 and 2;  Paraparaumu Town Centre Zone Objective 1.0 and Objective 2.0 Policy 7;  Industrial/Service Zone Objective 1.0 and Policy 1;  Residential Subdivision and Development Objective 1.0;  Rural Subdivision and Development Objective 1.0;  Subdivision and Development Principles and Requirements Objective 1.0;  Open Space and Reserves Policy 1;  Signs Policy 1;  Noise Objective 1.0 and Objective 2.0;  Network Utilities Policy 4;  Management of Urban Densities Objective 1.0

The general tenor of these objectives and policies is to ensure, maintain, and wherever possible, enhance the amenity values of the district by avoiding, remedying, or mitigating the effects in a particular zone, from an activity.

As can be seen from the objectives and policies identified above, there are a number of provisions that must be had "regard to" by a consent authority when assessing whether or not to grant resource consent. These matters are especially relevant for non-complying activities (ie department stores, in terms of the plan change request), given the threshold test in section 104D(1)(b) of the Act.

We remain of the opinion that the standard notification test and assessment framework of the Resource Management Act 1991 provides Council with sufficient scope to consider any application for the particular activities requested to be re-classified within the Airport Zone. Resource consent applications will be always assessed on their merits. As with all other discretionary and non- complying activities, where the effects of the activities are too adverse, and do not reflect the sustainable management purpose of the Act, they may be declined by the consent authority.

Assessing resource consent applications

As a matter of process, resource consent applications will each be assessed on their merits, against the environment as it exists at the time of the application. As such, any cumulative effects resulting from a consent application can (and should) be considered if other activities have already been granted consent.

The key effects to be considered might include those associated with (for example) noise, traffic, and retail and it is likely that resource consent conditions would be proffered and/or imposed accordingly. If necessary, resource consent could be declined if the relevant environmental effects could not be adequately addressed through conditions or the proposal was contrary to the objectives and policies of the relevant plan(s).

Overall, having considered the potential effects of resource consent applications resulting from this plan change request, as well as the means available to manage them, we remain of the opinion that prohibited activity status is neither necessary nor appropriate. Prohibited activity status necessarily precludes applications being lodged and predetermines effects that may well be acceptable or, conceivably, the decline of consent. Prohibited status is rarely used and is perhaps only appropriate if there are known circumstances why a particular class/kind of activity should not even be considered for consent, and that is not the case in the relief sought by the requested change.

INSIGHT ECONOMICS PO Box 106 303 Commerce Street Auckland 1143

Friday, October 30, 2015

Brigid Kelly Todd Property PO Box 106 249 Auckland 1010

Dear Brigid,

Re: Response to Request for Further information regarding Private Plan Change Application

Context and Purpose of this Letter This letter responds to various economic issues raised in Council’s request for further information (dated 18 August, 2015). For ease of reference, the remainder of this letter is structured around the specific economic questions set out in the further information request.

Questions 5a and 5b – Potential Adverse Effects of the Plan Change In my previous letter (dated 29 May 2015) I noted that the plan change itself would not enable unconstrained retail distribution effects to occur because newly-enabled activities would require resource consent, at which time effects could be considered in detail. While I still maintain that position, I also respect the Council’s desire to understand the magnitude of any potential effects earlier, rather than later. To assist, I now provide an empirical analysis of potential retail distribution effects associated with the plan change.

Following are the key steps in the analysis, each of which I work through below.

1. Estimate the baseline turnovers of district retailers in 2015. 2. Identify a likely (worst-case) retail development scenario with the plan change. 3. Identify a likely scenario without the plan change. 4. Estimate the likely turnovers of district retailers under the two scenarios above. 5. Subtract baseline turnovers from the scenario turnovers above to yield trade impacts. 6. Assess significance and consider the possibility of adverse flow-on effects to occur. 7. Reach conclusions on retail distribution effects.

Baseline Turnovers in 2015 I used our Integrated Retail Model (IRM) for the Wellington region to estimate the turnovers of district retailers in 2015. This model incorporates real-world data from a range of sources – including detailed electronic transaction data – to enable timely and detailed spatial analyses of retail supply and demand.1

1 This model has been gradually developed over the last 5 years, and has been used to gain planning permission for a wide range of retail developments across the country. It has also been subject to rigorous internal and external peer review, including detailed scrutiny before various judiciaries. Further information is available on request. 2

Using the model, we estimated the following baseline turnovers for district retailers in 2015. Please note that these estimates include expenditure from all sources and cover all store types deemed “core retail” by Statistics New Zealand in its Retail Trade Survey, except for accommodation. As shown below, we estimate total district turnover of $540 million in 2015, with more than half of this generated by the town centre alone.

Table 1: Estimated Baseline Turnovers in 2015

Retail Centres Turnover $m Airport 17.3 Kapiti Road 24.9 Otaki Outlet 25.4 Otaki South 1.8 Otaki Town Centre 9.9 Paekakariki 3.5 Paraparaumu Beach 21.4 Paraparaumu Town Centre 276.0 Raumati 10.0 Waikanae Beach 63.0 Waikane East 5.3 Out of Centre 81.8 District Total 540.2

Likely Worst-Case Scenario under the Plan Change I reviewed a wide range of information to determine the likely composition of retail development at the airport under the plan change. My conclusion was that the retail mix is likely to reflect the type of retailers commonly found in mega centres or bulk retail parks. This is because:

 Hardware stores are common anchors at such centres, and Mitre 10 Mega is already an anchor tenant at the airport.  A mega centre retail mix would not compete as directly with the town centre as other retail mixes and is therefore more likely to be commercially viable. Prospective retailers will be aware of this, and self-select themselves to operate from the airport accordingly.  Significant leakage out of the district currently occurs across a number of bulky store types, which further improves viability, and  The design of the airport retail precinct closely resembles other mega centres, with stores dotted around the margin of an internal, at-grade car park.

Accordingly, the future retail mix is likely to reflect the mix at other mega/bulk retail centres. Having identified the likely mix in broad terms, I then drilled down to derive a specific mix for the nine core retail types in our IRM.

While there are a number of bulk/mega centres across the country, reliable data on GFA is available for only a handful. As a result, I set the retail mix under the plan change equal to the average of the seven mega/bulk retail centres for which data was readily available.2 Following is the resulting mix assuming that a further 20,000m2 of retail development occurs at the airport

2 Those centres were Bay Central, Capital Gateway, Tower Junction, Westgate Mega Centre, Waitakere Mega Centre, Apex Centre and Southgate.

under the plan change.3 Please note that some elements of this – particularly the 6,000m2 of department store retailing – are higher than suggested by the average mix, but have been set at higher levels to derive a worst-case scenario and hence make the analysis as conservative as possible.

Table 2: Assumed Future Retail Development under the Plan Change

Store Type GFA m2 Clothing, Footwear and Personal Accessories Retailing 1,000 Department Stores 6,000 Electrical and Electronic Goods Retailing 2,000 Food & Liquor Retailing 2,000 Food & Beverage Services (cafes/restaurants/bars) 1,500 Furniture, Floor Coverings, Houseware and Textile Goods Retailing 2,000 Hardware, Building and Garden Supplies Retailing 2,500 Pharmaceutical and Other Store-Based Retailing 1,000 Recreational Goods Retailing 2,000 Total 20,000

Likely Scenario without Plan Change Next I considered the likely mix of retail development absent the plan change. Again, this is likely to be geared towards bulky goods. In fact, absent the plan change, the overall retail mix is likely to be even more skewed in this direction because this type of retail best reflects the existing zoning and hence has the greatest chance of gaining approval.4 Bearing that in mind, the following table shows our assumed mix absent the plan change, with the plan change mix also included for comparison.

Table 3: Assumed Future Retail Development with and without the Plan Change (GFA m2)

Store Type Status Quo Plan Change Clothing, Footwear and Personal Accessories Retailing 0 1,000 Department Stores 0 6,000 Electrical and Electronic Goods Retailing 3,000 2,000 Food & Liquor Retailing 0 2,000 Food & Beverage Services (cafes/restaurants/bars) 2,000 1,500 Furniture, Floor Coverings, Houseware and Textile Goods Retailing 3,000 2,000 Hardware, Building and Garden Supplies Retailing 4,000 2,500 Pharmaceutical and Other Store-Based Retailing 0 1,000 Recreational Goods Retailing 3,000 2,000 Other (such as automotive and marine retail) 5,000 0 Total 20,000 20,000

Please note that we have assumed only 15,000m2 of “core retail” will be developed absent the plan change, with the remaining 5,000m2 used for other purposes, such as marine or automotive retail. This has the effect of systematically inflating the incremental impacts of the plan change,

3 This figure, in turn, reflects the capacity of buildings available for future retail development. 4 This is not to say that demand for other store types will not exist, simply that such store types will find it more difficult to gain approval and hence are less likely to appear absent the plan change (all other things being equal).

but is considered a reasonable assumption given the existing zoning (which precludes retail development across several key categories).

Impacts on Turnover of Other District Centres The two scenarios above were run through the model to determine their impacts on the turnovers of other district centres. Table 4 summarises the results.

Table 4: Estimated Trade Impacts in 2015

Estimated Turnovers in 2015 $m Impacts Relative to Baseline

Plan Status Plan Status Retail Areas Baseline Baseline Change Quo Change Quo Airport 17.3 89.9 70.2

Kapiti Road 24.9 23.0 22.3 0% -8% -10% Otaki Outlet 25.4 25.0 25.3 0% -2% 0% Otaki South 1.8 1.7 1.7 0% -2% -4% Otaki Town Centre 9.9 9.8 9.9 0% -2% 0% Paekakariki 3.5 3.4 3.4 0% -2% -2% Paraparaumu Beach 21.4 19.5 20.0 0% -9% -7% Paraparaumu Town Centre 276.0 252.6 262.7 0% -8% -5% Raumati 10.0 9.5 9.6 0% -5% -4% Waikanae Beach 63.0 61.1 62.5 0% -3% -1% Waikane East 5.3 5.1 5.0 0% -4% -6% Out of Centre 81.8 75.2 76.8 0% -8% -6% District Total 540.2 575.7 569.4 0% 7% 5%

The results above show that trade impacts will be spread across the district, but with the greatest effects naturally falling on the closest retail areas. E.g. the town centre, Kapiti Road and Paraparaumu beach.

Interestingly, the estimated trade impacts are higher for some centres under the status quo than under the plan change. For instance, the estimated impacts on Kapiti Road are 10% under the status quo but only 8% under the plan change. This is because the assumed retail mix without the plan change is more closely aligned to the mix at Kapiti Road than the assumed mix with the plan change, which leads to greater trade impacts.

While effects will clearly be diffuse, I understand that the Council is particularly concerned about potential impacts on the town centre. Accordingly, the following table drills down to show the incremental effects of the plan change on the town centre by store type.

Overall, the theoretical mix of activities that could be consented under the plan change is estimated to reduce the town centre’s core retail turnover by nearly 4% relative to the status quo. The biggest impact, as expected, is on department stores, which face a potential reduction of nearly 15%. While this may seem quite high, it is important to restate that a 6,000m2 department store represents a worst-case scenario and is unlikely to occur in practice. Further, it is important to note that these impacts ignore ongoing growth in demand which, over time, will restore turnovers to pre-entry levels. For example, a 2011 report by Property Economics5 for the Council

5 Kapiti Employment Areas Study, Property Economics and Planit, October 2011, p17

predicted district retail demand to increase by nearly 50% to 2031. Accordingly, even the worst case scenario prediction of 15% impact would not be significant.

In some cases, the plan change is expected to have positive impacts because it would reduce the degree of competition for some town centre retailers relative to the status quo. For example, town centre electrical and furniture retailers are expected to be better off under the plan change than without it, as are electrical retailers.

Table 5: Incremental Impacts on the Town Centre

Store Types Incremental Effect Clothing, Footwear and Personal Accessories Retailing -7.9% Department Stores -14.9% Electrical and Electronic Goods Retailing 7.4% Food & Liquor Retailing -6.1% Food & Beverage Services (cafes/restaurants/bars) 1.9% Furniture, Floor Coverings, Houseware and Textile Goods Retailing 7.6% Hardware, Building and Garden Supplies Retailing 3.9% Pharmaceutical and Other Store-Based Retailing -4.8% Recreational Goods Retailing 7.7% Town Centre Total -3.6%

Assess significance and consider the possibility of adverse flow-on effects Overall, I consider the incremental impacts above to be well within the acceptable range, and consider it highly unlikely that they would cause any stores to close. It therefore follows that, if there were any flow-on effects, they would be minor and short-lived.

One of the reasons that the estimated impacts appear so modest is because the proposed plan change would improve net leakage and hence increase the size of the district retail pie. In fact, according to Table 4, the plan change could increase total district turnover by 7% (from $540m to $576m). As a result, every additional dollar turned over at the airport would not represent a dollar lost from other district retailers, which directly reduces impacts on district retailers.

To add further context, the following table shows the estimated changes in leakage out of the district as a result of the plan change (relative to the baseline). As we can see, quite dramatic reductions in leakage are expected for certain store types, particularly department stores, electrical retailers, furniture retailers and recreational goods retailers.

Table 6: Estimated Changes in Leakage Out of the District

Store Types Baseline Plan Change Clothing, Footwear and Personal Accessories Retailing 47% 44% Department Stores 41% 35% Electrical and Electronic Goods Retailing 35% 28% Food & Liquor Retailing 18% 17% Food & Beverage Services (cafes/restaurants/bars) 48% 46% Furniture, Floor Coverings, Houseware and Textile Goods Retailing 45% 37% Hardware, Building and Garden Supplies Retailing 35% 33% Pharmaceutical and Other Store-Based Retailing 34% 33% Recreational Goods Retailing 38% 30%

Conclusion on Adverse Effects Based on the analysis above, I am confident that the plan change would not lead to significant adverse distribution effects, particularly when considered relative to the additional retail that could already occur under the status quo.

Question 5c – Impacts on self-sufficiency My earlier letter noted that the plan change would help improve district self-sufficiency, but did not quantify the extent of such effects. Presumably, the analysis above fills that gap to the Council’s satisfaction. Indeed, it showed that not only would the plan change improve district self-sufficiency, but that it could grow the size of the district retail pie by 7%. The status quo, conversely, was estimated to raise district turnover by only 5%. It therefore follows that the plan change will help improve district self-sufficiency, and hence will deliver a range of tangible benefits. These include greater scope for local employment, reduced vehicle dependence, reduced vehicle emissions, and reduced fuel consumption.

Question 5d – Enablement of development that may not have occurred otherwise Another point made in my earlier letter was that the plan change could enable development that may not have occurred otherwise, which the Council has queried.

While I agree that this statement may not necessarily hold, and that future development occurring at the airport may have occurred elsewhere, the same statement could also be made about any other district centre. For example, I could equally argue that future development in and around the town centre would have occurred elsewhere in the district anyway, and hence that it also delivers little (if any) net benefits. The logic is entirely symmetric, and very little retail development would ever occur if such a strict test had to be met.

Having said that, I do sincerely believe that the plan change could attract retailers that may not have come to the district otherwise, simply because it is the only location that meets their criteria. Indeed, retail location criteria are often strict with little room to move. As a result, some areas may meet a retailer's needs while others do not.

In the case of the airport, it is not difficult to conceive of particular retailers that might be attracted to this location but not to the town centre or anywhere else in the district. Take, for example, K-mart. In my experience, a discount department store like this would never consider establishing in the same centre as two other department stores, as would be the case if they located in the town centre. The degree of competition would be too strong and undermine viability.

Putting competitive concerns aside, retailers like K-mart may also not choose to locate in the town centre because land prices are too high. To the extent that they can secure cheaper land in other locations, like the airport, there is a strong possibility that the plan change will in fact attract retailers that may not otherwise have located in the district. Accordingly, my earlier point stands.

Question 5e – Enablement of additional retail employment The answer to this question closely resembles the answer to question 5d above. To summarise:

 In my view, requiring any future retail development to be truly additional to what would have occurred otherwise is an unreasonably strict criterion, and would preclude the majority of retail development across the country.

 Putting that key point aside, I reiterate that there could well be a number of retailers who are attracted to the district by the plan change simply because it is the only location that meets their needs. For example, if the plan change attracted a store like K-Mart, it would also create around 60 or 70 additional retail positions in the district.

Question 5f – Retail competition The next issue addresses the extent to which the plan change would foster healthy retail competition. Again, my response reflects the answers above. To be more specific:

 Yes, retail competition could also occur as a result of retail development in the town centre and this would also benefit local residents.

 However, as noted above, it is quite possible that the plan change will attract retailers that otherwise would not have established in the district. And, to the extent that this happens, my earlier comment holds.

 More generally, I note that the creation of a new retail node (such as the airport) is likely to increase the degree of district retail competition more than an expansion of the largest existing node.

 Indeed, as shown earlier, the town centre generates over half of total district turnover.

 Put somewhat bluntly, the most effective way to improve district retail competition is by fostering a credible competitor to the most dominant node – the town centre. Conversely, making the town centre bigger while constraining the growth of other potential retail nodes will only increase the dominance of the town centre, with obvious effects on district-wide retail competition.

 This is precisely why, for example, the Commerce Commission strongly enforces rules and regulations relating to the strengthening, and abuse, of dominant market positions.

 In short, enabling greater retail development at the airport appears the district’s best option for truly improving competition and reducing the excessive dominance of the town centre.

Question 5g – benefit delays The response to this question mirrors my responses to questions 5d-f above and is therefore not considered any further.

Sincerely,

Fraser Colegrave Managing Director Insight Economics Limited

list

30 October 2015

Brigid Kelly Todd Property PO Box 106 249 Auckland 1010

Private Plan Change - Kapiti Coast Airport - Further Information Request

Dear Brigid,

Existing provisions of the District Plan

The District Plan contains a number of objectives and policies that any resource consent application would need to be considered against. A number of these are identified below.

Airport Zone objectives 1.0 , Policy 2, and Policy 5

Commercial and Retail Zone Objective 2.0, Policy 1, and Policy 3

Residential Zone Objective 1.0 and Policy 1

Paraparaumu Town Centre Zone Objective 2.0

Industrial/Service Zone Objective 1.0

Noise Objective 1.0 and Policy 2, and Objective 2.0, and Policies 1, 2, and 4

Transport Objective 1.0

There are a number of general amenity provisions throughout the plan, including:

Assessing resource consent applications

CONSULTANT ADVICE

Project: Kapiti Coast Airport Plan Change Document No.: Ca 004 To: Kapiti Airport Holdings Limited Date: 5 November 2015 Attention: Brigid Kelly Cross Reference: Delivery: [email protected] Project No.: 2013046A From: Laura McNeill No. Pages: 3 Attachments: No CC: Ezekiel Hudspith James Gardner-Hopkins [email protected] [email protected] Subject Response to Council Questions - Noise

Marshall Day Acoustics (MDA) has been requested by Kapiti Airport Holdings Limited (KCHL) to respond to a further information request from Kapiti Coast District Council (KCDC) on a private plan change relating to activity status inside the Airport Zone. The specific request relating to noise issues is shown below: “Noise 6. The plan change would create the potential for noise sensitive development to occur within the Airport Zone (but outside the Air Noise Boundary) as a discretionary activity. Council requires the following information to fully assess the potential effects of potentially using Airport Zone land for noise sensitive uses, involving residential activity in close proximity to aviation activities in a manner not currently foreseen by the District Plan:

a) What levels of maximum aircraft noise, including taxiing (LAeq, LAFmax, etc) are expected to be received indoors and outdoors in dwellings the area should land in Airport Zone be consented for noise sensitive activities. What District Plan mitigation measures are possible for these receivers? b) Which District Plan standards or criteria should be used to (a) control and (b) assess mitigation of aircraft noise, including taxiing noise, on potential noise sensitive activities and why? c) Please analyse the benefits that could be provided by the “Airport Noise Management Plan” (prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Airport Zone) in the management and mitigation of noise effects associated with noise sensitive activities establishing within the Airport Zone? d) How technically appropriate (if at all) are the District Plan acoustic insulation standards to protect indoor spaces from adverse effects to the required levels, particularly considering peak levels received indoors from light aircraft manoeuvring nearby and the need to cater from extra sounds from aircraft taxiing as well as their take-off and landing operations?”

Each of these requests shall be addressed in turn below;

6a) Ldn is used in New Zealand and around the world as a parameter for defining noise boundaries. It provides a single averaged value over the day with a 10 decibel penalty for night-time events. This penalty recognises the increased annoyance, and also sleep disturbance at night-time. Under the proposed plan change if noise sensitive activities were able to establish in the Airport Zone (ie if resource consent were to be granted for this as a discretionary activity), outside the Air Noise

This document may not be reproduced in full or in part without the written consent of Marshall Day Acoustics Limited J:\JOBS\2013\2013046A\01 Documents Out\Mm 004 r03 2013046A 151022 lrm Response to Council.docx 1

Boundary the maximum level of aircraft noise they would be exposed to would be 64 dB Ldn (outdoors). Based on extensive investigations conducted in both old and new houses near Auckland International Airport, it was found that modern construction materials and house designs provide noise reductions of approximately 15 decibels or more with windows open meaning an internal noise level of 49 dB

Ldn.

The internationally accepted internal noise criterion is typically 40 dB Ldn thus mitigation would need to be provided to reduce noise levels by at least 9 decibels to meet this criterion. This could be achieved by installing a ventilation system to enable windows to be closed. Previous measurements show that the noise reduction from outside to inside is generally 25 decibels with windows closed

meaning an internal noise level of 39 dB Ldn could be achieved.

6b) The current rules relating to aircraft noise management are based on the provisions of NZS 6805:1992 “Airport Noise Management and Land Use Planning” (NZS 6805). This standard provides a recommended approach for territorial authorities dealing with airports and land affected by airport noise which also includes noise from taxiing). The process aims to manage the adverse effects of airport noise by controlling the use of land around airports, and by ensuring the airport does not exceed the future noise contours used for the planning process. The rules have been developed through the Plan Change 73 process, and have largely been adopted during the recent District Plan Review. The rules are such that land outside the airport noise

boundaries (below 55 dB Ldn) would not require any specific mitigation, nor additional land use controls.

For land inside the 55 dB Ldn contours the standard recommends that “there shall be no new incompatible land uses”. However, in some cases, it may not be practicable to prohibit new residential development as there are large numbers of existing houses inside the noise boundaries or because there is an expectation, or recognition of a need, for residential development. For the residential zones outside the airport zone this is true and is reflected in the land use planning rules within the Outer Control Boundary which allow residential development (as a restricted discretionary activity, for new noise sensitive activities) subject to appropriate sound insulation. We understand that for the airport zone there is no such residential development currently present. If noise sensitive activities become a discretionary activity within the Airport Zone outside of the Air Noise Boundary, then a range of considerations will be relevant in assessing any application, including (but not necessarily limited to) noise effects on residents. Particular standards in the Plan (regarding insulation) are discussed in the response to question 6(d) below.

6c) The airport noise management plan is specifically developed for the management of aircraft activity and its effects on the surrounding area. For activities establishing outside the airport noise boundaries (but still within the Airport Zone) noise levels are sufficiently low so no additional noise management measures are required.

6d) The District Plan acoustic insulation standards have been developed to ensure noise sensitive activity is adequately insulated from aircraft noise. There are two distinct methods of achieving this outcome. These are by implementing either a required internal noise level to be achieved or by the specification a façade performance criterion. In the case of Kapiti a façade performance is required. For activities establishing in the airport zone but outside the noise contours, because of the low level of aircraft noise exposure anticipated, no additional sound insulation requirements are needed to

adequately insulate dwellings from aircraft noise. It is noted that even with windows ajar for comfort cooling noise levels inside new noise sensitive activities in the Airport Zone would still be acceptable, as long as they are constructed outside all of the airport noise control boundaries (ie outside the OCB). Currently residential activities are prohibited throughout the zone except where employment requires residence within the zone - the Plan Change request would make such noise sensitive activities a discretionary activity in the zone provided they are outside of the Air Noise Boundary. However, should activities be allowed to establish in the airport zone and also between the OCB and ANB the noise levels are sufficient to warrant sound insulation in the form of a ventilation system to

keep windows closed. The current sound insulation rules in the plan for the Airport Zone are DnT,w + Ctr > 30 dBA. In simple terms this specifies a noise reduction that must be achieved by the façade. It is our opinion that this criterion would achieve an acceptable internal noise environment for houses

exposed to levels of up to 64 dB Ldn. We trust this information is satisfactory. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us.

Todd Property PO Box 106-249 AUCKLAND 1010

For the attention of: Brigid Kelly tim kelly transportation planning limited

Request for a Private Plan Change to the Kapiti Coast District Plan Response to Further Information Request

Context Kapiti Coast Airport Holdings Ltd (KCAHL) is seeking changes to rules in the Kapiti Coast District Plan (KCDP) which relate to the development of the airport area. Specifically, the changes sought to the KCDP are to remove ‘Prohibited Activity’ status for the following activities: a) noise sensitive activities outside of the Air Noise Boundary not specifically provided for as a permitted activity – proposed to be classified as a discretionary activity (rule D.9.1.6(i)); b) department stores – proposed to be classified as a non-complying activity (rule D.9.1.6(ii)); c) supermarkets – proposed to be classified as a discretionary activity (rule D.9.1.6(iii)); d) more than one store of between 151m2 and 1,500m2 gross floor area that retails groceries or non-specified food lines – proposed to be classified as a discretionary activity (rule D.9.1.6(iv)); e) any consequential amendments to the KCDP that may be necessary to achieve the purpose of this private plan change request. A Private Plan Change (PPC) request was lodged with Kapiti Coast District Council (KCDC) in July 2015. KCDC has responded with a Further Information Request (FIR), dated 18 August 2015. The purpose of this letter is to respond to the specific transportation issues raised by the FIR.

Specific Transportation Issues Raised by KCDC The information request from KCDC is reproduced below (from point 7 of the FIR letter): ‘In its current form, the private plan change generates uncertainty about the nature and mix of development on the site, creating difficulties in planning infrastructure for the network surrounding the Airport as well as with potential

tim kelly transportation planning limited m a il : p o box 58, mapua, nelson 7048 ph one : 027- 28 4- 03 32 e- m a il : [email protected]

impacts on infrastructure planning in Paraparaumu Town Centre, due to the development of new activities, the relocation of existing activities and/or the non- implementation of planned activities. No information of any substance on these topics has been included in the private plan change request material. The following additional information is required: a) technical assessment of potential development effects on the local road network (post expressway) with and without the private plan change provisions, based on a number of scenarios involving mixes of the proposed activities, including a ‘worst-case’ scenario. b) information on the supporting transport infrastructure, and its capacity to accommodate retail and other activities of the nature envisaged by the plan change, with and without the sought private plan change provisions.’

Response to FIR Change in Activity Status The proposed plan change would modify the status of the activities above from ‘Prohibited’ to ‘Non-Complying’ or ‘Discretionary’. As such, the proposed plan change would not in itself enable any additional development and so would not directly give rise to effects upon the operation of the transportation network. The need for each consent application to be supported by an Integrated Transportation Assessment (ITA) would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. For smaller applications (possibly involving modifications or extensions of existing activities) it is possible that the preparation of a ITA would not be justified. Larger activities would generally justify a transportation assessment. Where an ITA is required, the Council (or commissioners if appointed on its behalf) would have regard to its findings when deciding whether consent should be granted. This provides certainty that any effects upon the operation of the transportation network associated with development will be fully addressed in light of full information regarding the specific development proposal and the status of the transportation network at the time of the application. Uncertainty The development process is inherently uncertain, being subject to a wide range of external economic influences. Similarly, future patterns of transportation demand are subject to uncertainty, even without the effects of development. The original Plan Change 73 (PC73) application preceded and could not have anticipated the Global Financial Crisis and the decision of the Government to replace the Western Link Road proposal with the Expressway. Nonetheless, the PC73 application acknowledged such uncertainty with a set of proposed development thresholds. These carefully balanced the need to provide some certainty to facilitate development with a requirement for more detailed assessments to support the longer term components of the development. Extensive traffic modelling was used to identify a range of development thresholds and upgrades to the road network. Most significantly, development is capped at 62,500m2 GFA in the Airport Mixed Use Precinct (AMUP) until the Ihakara Street connection has been constructed, a measure which the modelling demonstrated will provide significant relief to Kapiti Road. Any development beyond 102,900m2 GFA has Restricted Discretionary activity status,

2 requiring a detailed review of the operation of the road network and the impacts of the additional development proposed. As indicated above, the requirement for detailed assessments at this time (rather than at an earlier point in time) means that they can be properly informed with up to date information regarding background traffic demands as well as more specific information regarding the development(s) proposed. Assessment Notwithstanding the comments above, it is acknowledged that KCDC requires some indication of the potential impacts of the change in land-use activities which could result from the proposed plan change becoming operative. With the detail of these activities (tenant/operator, exact nature of goods sold, catchment area, hours of operation, staffing levels, etc) being unknown at this stage and also subject to the outcome of a consent process, such an indication can only be of an indicative nature. The purpose of the consent process is to enable more detailed assessments to be undertaken in due course with the benefit of the details identified above and current information regarding the road network. Insight Economics has prepared an indicative assessment of the possible change in land-use outcomes with the plan change, summarised by Table 1. Estimated GFA (m2) Activity Type Without PC With PC Clothing, Footwear and Personal Accessories Retailing 0 1,000 Department Stores 0 6,000 Electrical and Electronic Goods Retailing 3,000 2,000 Food & Liquor Retailing 0 2,000 Food & Beverage Services (cafes/restaurants/bars) 2,000 1,500 Furniture, Floor Coverings, Houseware and Textile Goods 3,000 2,000 Retailing Hardware, Building and Garden Supplies Retailing 4,000 2,500 Pharmaceutical and Other Store-Based Retailing 0 1,000 Recreational Goods Retailing 3,000 2,000 Other 5,000 0 TOTAL 20,000 20,000 TABLE 1: Estimated Development Floor Areas Without & With Proposed Plan Change (Source: Insight Economics) Assessments for the original PC73 application utilised trip generation rates and adjustment factors for trips by other modes, pass-by trips and trip-chaining. These were confirmed by peer review, accepted by KCDC and have been applied for subsequent assessments. These rates and factors have been applied to the floor-areas above to estimate the number of associated vehicle movements in the critical weekday PM peak period. The results of this assessment are summarised by Table 2. This indicates an increase in vehicular activity from 310 to 672 movements/hour.

3 Estimated GFA (m2) Activity Type Without PC With PC Clothing, Footwear and Personal Accessories Retailing 0 50 Department Stores 0 300 Electrical and Electronic Goods Retailing 72 48 Food & Liquor Retailing 0 100 Food & Beverage Services (cafes/restaurants/bars) 21 16 Furniture, Floor Coverings, Houseware and Textile Goods 72 48 Retailing Hardware, Building and Garden Supplies Retailing 19 12 Pharmaceutical and Other Store-Based Retailing 0 50 Recreational Goods Retailing 72 48 Other (e.g. marine / automotive retail) 53 0 TOTAL 310 672 TABLE 2: Estimated Traffic Generation Without & With Proposed Plan Change (Vehicle Movements/Hour, Weekday PM Peak Period) Based upon the original trip distribution, approximately 60% of these vehicle movements would use Kapiti Road to the east, with the remaining 40% to the west. Accordingly, the increase in vehicular activity would be:  Kapiti Road (west): 145 movements/hour; and  Kapiti Road (east): 217 movements/hour. These figures assume that the Expressway is operational. If this development were to occur after the completion of the Ihakara Street connection, then impacts on Kapiti Road (east) would be significantly reduced. Potential Effects & Controls On its own, the traffic increases identified above could adversely affect conditions on Kapiti Road, especially between the Airport and the town centre area. But the possibility of any significant adverse effects is precluded by the requirement for consents to be obtained for the changes in activities described above, with an associated assessment of transportation impacts. Without the PPC, development within the AMUP can take place up to a threshold of 102,900m2 GFA as a Controlled Activity. Based upon the original PC73 assessments, up to 1,600 vehicle movements/hour would be associated with this level of development in the weekday PM peak period. With the PPC, some 20,000m2 GFA of this development would become subject to a consent requirement. By triggering a requirement for a detailed transportation assessment, the PCC will introduce an additional opportunity to review overall traffic generation associated with the AMUP, the effects of the Expressway (once operational) and other changes (such as the Ihakara Street extension). Logically, this assessment would also review the appropriateness of the development thresholds on the basis that it is the volume of generated traffic movements which gives rise to effects rather than the total developed floor area (which could comprise more or less intensive activities than originally anticipated).

4 Conclusions This assessment concludes that:  the level of detailed assessment and certainty requested by KCDC cannot be provided at this stage – an attempt to undertake such an assessment without the necessary information would be reliant on a range of assumptions and would not be sufficiently robust to inform decision-making;  the PPC could result in a more intensive pattern of development with a higher level of vehicular activity on the local road network;  the possibility of adverse effects associated with this change would be precluded by a requirement for consents and supporting detailed assessments of the ability of the road network to accommodate additional traffic activity; and  as the activities anticipated by the PPC would displace other activities which are only subject to Controlled activity status, the PPC will introduce an opportunity for assessments to be undertaken of the ability of the road network to accommodate the additional traffic activity – such assessments will be detailed and fully informed with up-to-date information on background conditions and the characteristics of the specific development(s) available at the time.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Kelly Tim Kelly Transportation Planning Limited (Phone : 027-284-0332, E-mail : [email protected])