AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Head Office, Great South Road, Horotiu, Hamilton Private Bag 3301, Waikato Mail Centre Hamilton, New Zealand 3240 Telephone: 64-7-829 2888 Facsimile: 64-7-829 2808 17 April 2020
Environment Court Specialist Courts and Tribunals Unit Level 2, 41 Federal Street AUCKLAND 1010
Attention: Deputy Registrar By Email: [email protected]
AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED & HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL
We act for the Appellant AFFCO New Zealand Limited.
Please find enclosed for filing and by way of service on the respondents our Notice of Appeal against the decision of Hamilton City Council in respect of Te Awa Lakes Private Plan Change 2.
Under normal circumstances, the appellant would enclose a filing fee cheque ($600), however our accounts team cannot obviously process cheques at this time.
Please can you advise the Court’s suitable direction in regards to payment of the filing fee. We can arrange to make payment by electronic bank transfer if that is suitable to the Court.
Yours sincerely
AFFCO New Zealand Limited
MAC1Williams
Max Williams Company Lawyer | AFFCO New Zealand Ltd
Email: [email protected] | Tel: +64 7 829 2848 | Mob: 021 855 371 | Fax: +64 7 829 2808 Great South Road, Horotiu | Private Bag 3301 Waikato Mail Centre 3240
CC: Hamilton City Council (by email), Private Bag 3010, Hamilton 3240.
IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA I TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE No:
UNDER the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”)
IN THE MATTER of Clause 14(1) of Schedule 1 of the Act
BETWEEN AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Appellant
AND HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL
Respondent
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO ENVIRONMENT COURT AGAINST DECISION ON PLAN CHANGE 2
Next event date: Judicial officer:
______AFFCO New Zealand Limited Phone: 07 829 2848 Private Bag 3301 Fax: 07 829 2808 Waikato Mail Centre Solicitor: M Williams Hamilton 3241 Email: [email protected]
Notice of Appeal to Environment Court against decision on Plan Change 2
To: The Registrar of the Environment Court at Auckland
To: Hamilton City Council
Background and Decision Appealed Against
1. AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED appeals against a decision of Hamilton City Council granting an application by Perry Group Limited for a Private Plan Change in respect of the Te Awa Lakes development, north of Hamilton (“Plan Change 2”).
2. AFFCO made a submission on Plan Change 2.
3. AFFCO is not a trade competitor for the purposes of Section 308D of the Resource Management Act 1991.
4. AFFCO received notice of the decision on 13 March 2020.
5. The decision was made by the Hamilton City Council (“the Council”).
6. AFFCO is appealing against the Council’s decision to approve Plan Change 2 in accordance with Clause 10 of Schedule 1 of the RMA.
Reasons for Appeal
7. The reasons for the appeal are set out as follows.
8. The approval of Plan Change 2 is incompatible with existing and potential future industrial activities inside and adjacent to the Hamilton City boundary. A tourist and recreational area is inconsistent with the existing Industrial Zoning of the area and unnecessarily creates reverse sensitivity issues.
2
9. The decision would have a significant adverse effect on current industrial businesses in the area. AFFCO’s view is that the only practical means to avoid such an incompatibility is the retention of an adequate buffer of industrial land (Paragraphs [99] and [100] of the Council’s decision). This cannot be achieved by Plan Change 2.
10. The decision in respect of Plan Change 2 fails to reflect the long-held purpose of the original Industrial Zoning in the Te Rapa North area; being to minimise the risk of reverse sensitivity issues.
11. The decision in respect of Plan Change 2 fails to provide for the long term strategic provision of industrial land in the area, which is in relatively short supply.
12. In addition, Plan Change 2 understates the present level of demand for prime industrial space in Hamilton (In particular, at Paragraph [130] of the Decision).
13. Furthermore, Plan Change 2 is inconsistent with the Regional Policy Statement 2016, Council’s current strategic land use planning, the Waikato Regional Policy Statement (RPS), Future Proof, Hamilton Urban Growth Strategy (HUGS), and the Hamilton City Operative District Plant (see Paragraph [27] of the Section 42A Report “Special Housing Area Application – Te Awa Lakes” and Paragraph [53] of the Decision).
14. Plan Change 2 will require existing businesses, including AFFCO, to take into account the future increased risk of reverse sensitivity issues at its sites. This could impact AFFCO’s (and other business’) investment decisions, with potential adverse implications for the economic wellbeing of Hamilton residents, contractors and the overall city.
3
Relief
15. AFFCO seeks orders that the approval of Plan Change 2 to the Hamilton City Plan 2017 be overturned in its entirety
16. AFFCO seeks such further other orders, relief or consequential amendments as considered appropriate to address AFFCO’s concerns.
17. AFFCO seeks costs of and incidental to this Appeal.
Attachments
18. The following documents are attached to this application:
(a) A copy of AFFCO’s submission; and
(b) A copy of the Decision Appealed Against; and
(c) A list of names and addresses of persons to be served with a copy of this notice.
Date: 17 April 2020
Signature: MAC1Williams
Counsel for the Appellant
The Applicant’s/Appellant’s address for service is C/- Max Williams, AFFCO Holdings Limited, 6128 Great South Road, Horotiu, Waikato 3288. Documents for service on the Appellant/Applicant may be left at that address or may be:
(a) Posted to C/-Max Williams at Private Bag 3301, Hamilton; or (b) Transmitted to C/- Max Williams by facsimile on (07) 829 2889 or by email to [email protected] provided a valid confirmation of receipt is provided.
4
Advice to recipients of copy of notice of appeal How to become party to proceedings
You may be a party to the appeal if you made a submission or a further submission on the matter of this appeal.
To become a party to the appeal, you must,— within 15 working days after the period for lodging a notice of appeal ends, lodge a notice of your wish to be a party to the proceedings (in form 33) with the Environment Court and serve copies of your notice on the relevant local authority and the appellant; and
within 20 working days after the period for lodging a notice of appeal ends, serve copies of your notice on all other parties. Your right to be a party to the proceedings in the court may be limited by the trade competition provisions in section 274(1)and Part 11A of the Act. You may apply to the Environment Court under section 281 of the Act for a waiver of the above timing or service requirements (see form 38).
Advice
If you have any questions about this notice, contact the Environment Court in Auckland, Wellington, or Christchurch.
5 Submission 31 Proposed Plan Change 2-Te Awa Lakes Private Plan Change Submission by AFFCO New Zealand Limited 1
To: Submissions Proposed Plan Change 2- Te Awa Lakes Private Plan Change Economic Growth and Planning Unit Hamilton City Council Private Bag 3010 Hamilton 3240
Sent by email: [email protected]
Submission On: Hamilton City Operative District Plan October 2017 Proposed Plan Change 2-Te Awa Lakes Private Plan Change
Submitter: AFFCO New Zealand Limited
Address For Service: AFFCO New Zealand Limited C/- Garry Venus Argo Environmental Limited P O box 105 744 Auckland 1143 Email: [email protected] Phone: 021 741 410
AFFCO wishes to be heard in support of this submission.
If others make a similar submission AFFCO would be prepared to consider presenting a joint case with them at any hearing.
Dated: 2929 NovemberNovember 20172017
TonyTony Miles Operations Manager AFFCO NZ Limited
November 2017 Proposed Plan Change 2-Te Awa Lakes Private Plan Change Submission by AFFCO New Zealand Limited 2
1. Introduction 1.1. Perry Group Limited (the Applicant) has applied for a Plan Change to the (Operative) Hamilton City Council District Plan (“ODP”) to rezone land referred to as Te Awa Lakes, primarily to enable the range of activities associated with establishing a tourism and recreational destination for the region.
1.2. AFFCO opposes this application in total for the reasons set out in this submission and summarised as follows:
x The proposed change to a tourism and recreational destination is incompatible with existing and likely future industrial activities inside and adjacent to the city boundary; The only sensible means to avoid such incompatibilities is the retention of an adequate buffer of industrial land such as already exists.
x The original reasons for implementing the Te Rapa North Industrial Zone remain relevant.
x In particular, the Te Rapa North Industrial Zone was intended to minimise the risk of reverse sensitivity issues arising. These are the very issues that AFFCO is concerned about in regard to the Plan Change.
x The Application understates the present level of demand for prime industrial space in Hamilton.
x The proposed Plan Change is not consistent with the Regional Policy Statement.
1.3. The Applicant’s Plan Change Document1 states in respect of the proposal that:
The overriding purpose is to rezone the land to enable the range of activities associated with establishing a tourism and recreational destination for the region, supported by new residential and business uses.
1.4. AFFCO acknowledges the importance of providing for residential development within the Hamilton City, but considers that there is no compelling argument for establishing a tourism and recreational destination in this area at the cost of valuable industrial land on the periphery of the city, adjacent to existing industrial activities.
1.5. AFFCO does not make this submission lightly. We believe this is the first such submission made by AFFCO and reflects the importance of this matter to the Company.
1 Bloxam Burnett & Olliver 2017. Proposed Plan Change No 2 Te Awa Lakes: Report prepared by Bloxam Burnett & Olliver for Perry Group Limited.
November 2017 Proposed Plan Change 2-Te Awa Lakes Private Plan Change Submission by AFFCO New Zealand Limited 3
2. AFFCO NZ Horotiu Operations 2.1. AFFCO Horotiu is one of the largest employers in the Waikato, paying around $22 million per year in wages and salaries. The operation employs approximately 500 staff at peak, mainly from the local area. The site utilises local and regional contractors, with a significant annual contractor spend, most of which is spent locally. AFFCO Horotiu makes a direct annual contribution of more than $110 million to the Waikato regional economy.
2.2. Over recent years, AFFCO Horotiu has been extensively refurbished to maintain the company’s position in the meat export industry. In 2005 the plant was rebuilt at a cost of $18 million; it remains one of the most modern beef plants in the Southern Hemisphere, and is one of the largest beef slaughter and processing facilities in New Zealand. The present capital value of the AFFCO Horotiu facility is estimated in excess of $130 million.
2.3. AFFCO Horotiu, including waste treatment facilities on the northeast side of Great South Road, occupies a footprint of approximately 60 ha, with its boundary some 250 m from the Applicant’s “masterplan” area and 500 m from the application area.
2.4. AFFCO has operated the plant at Horotiu for over 100 years, and has recently renewed resource consents to authorise ongoing operations. The facility has been managed tightly to ensure compatibility with surrounding activities, which are principally industrial. AFFCO considers that it is important for the long term survival of industry in this area that adjacent industrial zonings should be retained to avoid reverse sensitivity effects associated with new incompatible land uses. AFFCO considers that the Applicant’s proposed change to zoning for a tourism and recreational destination is incompatible with existing and likely future industrial activities within and adjacent to the city boundary.
2.5. The application document states that “There is no evidence of current resident complaints about major industries in the area, such as Fonterra and Affco (sic), who appear to be managing their activities well in relation to their neighbours.” Respectfully, this statement is based on a naive understanding of the dynamics between industrial operations and sensitive land use activities. Even with the best management in the world there will be times when low intensity incompatibilities occur, and these can accumulate to give rise to a perception of broader land use conflicts with potentially significant operational and economic consequences for industrial operations. AFFCO considers that the only sensible means to avoid such incompatibilities is the retention of an adequate buffer of industrial land as already exists.
November 2017 Proposed Plan Change 2-Te Awa Lakes Private Plan Change Submission by AFFCO New Zealand Limited 4
2.6. As with many large businesses in Hamilton, AFFCO is continually considering future options for expansion and new development. AFFCO is concerned that future enhancements and expansion options at AFFCO Horotiu will be compromised by adjacent incompatible land use activities which would be facilitated by this Plan Change. However, unlike many large businesses in Hamilton, AFFCO operates facilities in nearby regions where adjacent land uses are more compatible with industrial meat processing than would be the case under the Plan Change. If the Plan Change is approved, AFFCO would need to take future reverse sensitivity issues at the present site into consideration in its investment decisions, with potential adverse implications for the economic wellbeing of Hamilton residents, contractors and the City itself.
3. Te Rapa North Industrial Zone 3.1. In essence the proposed Plan Change removes a significant area of future industrial land in the Te Rapa North Industrial Zone, replacing it with a Major Facilities Zone, Medium Density Residential Zone and a Business 6 Zone.
3.2. The history of the Te Rapa North Industrial Zone is described in the application, and further comment is not provided here, other than to note that whilst AFFCO was not a party to proceedings, the Company supported the agreed outcome that provision would be made for future industrial land in this area.
3.3. AFFCO considers that the original reasons for implementing the Te Rapa North Industrial Zone remain relevant, including2:
x its location to the City’s existing and already planned industrial areas.
x its close proximity to the Te Rapa section of the Waikato Expressway, the presence of the Fonterra Dairy Factory.
x its greenfield location.
x the opportunity afforded for new [industrial] development to provide a comparatively higher amenity environment.
x It establishes a framework for managing the development of the area from existing rural to industrial in a staged manner.
x It ensures an integrated, efficient and coordinated delivery of regionally important infrastructure is enabled.
2 From s32 Decision Version, Chapter 12 Te Rapa North Industrial Zone – Feb 2015; Hamilton City Council.
November 2017 Proposed Plan Change 2-Te Awa Lakes Private Plan Change Submission by AFFCO New Zealand Limited 5
x It creates a framework to assist with the management of potential adverse effects, in particular those effects on the existing and serviced industrial zoned areas of the City.
x Industrial land is a finite and valuable physical resource that needs to be used efficiently and effectively for employment purposes to provide for the social and economic wellbeing of the City.
x Industrial land should be retained for industrial uses, as those uses can generally not establish and operate in other parts of the City.
x Amenity values of industrial areas should be enhanced, with a greater focus on urban design matters.
x Development of this area should be sequentially managed through staging in order to sustainably – and strategically manage industrial growth and align the provision of infrastructure with the development.
x The industrial zone is a critical component in ensuring the efficiency of dairy manufacturing and export within the region.
x The overall industrial land base in the City provides a significant portion of the employment land within the City, and is a key economic driver for the regional economy. Industrial land represents a finite and valuable physical resource that needs to be recognised and protected. The Te Rapa North Industrial Zone provisions have been formulated to be enabling of specific industrial uses, but restrictive to the establishment of general industrial activities outside of specific triggers.
x The Te Rapa North Industrial Zone provisions ensure specifically identified industrial land for development is not occupied by uses not intended or that are non-industrial, unless they are either ancillary to industrial use, or support industrial uses. This reduces the potential for this industrial land to be ‘diluted’ by non- industrial uses, or development out of sequence with the other industrially zoned land in the City.
x Promoting the efficient use of the industrial land within Te Rapa North as a resource is also important to the growth of the Dairy industry and the success of the City’s economy.
x The limited range of land uses provided for within the Te Rapa North Industrial Area is specifically intended to reflect the existing Te Rapa Dairy Factory activity and the
November 2017 Proposed Plan Change 2-Te Awa Lakes Private Plan Change Submission by AFFCO New Zealand Limited 6
opportunity that opening the Te Rapa section of the Waikato Expressway provides for the travelling motorist. Avoiding non-industrial land uses establishing in industrial locations also reduces potential reverse sensitivity issues arising.
3.4. AFFCO considers the last-mentioned bullet point above to be particularly relevant. The Te Rapa North Industrial Zone was clearly intended to minimise the risk of reverse sensitivity issues arising. These are the very issues that AFFCO is concerned about in regard to the Plan Change.
3.5. AFFCO considers that the retention of industrial land on the City boundary is critical to the City’s economic progress. The Applicant on the other hand, considers that the loss of industrial land in this area is not of concern because “there is ample supply and even the potential for oversupply, meaning this 25 ha is not needed in the 10 year life of the ODP3”.
3.6. The Application places considerable weight on this conclusion, which is itself based on an interpretation of a 2016 Colliers property report where the word “oversupply” is not used. Reference to the 2017 Colliers property report4 indicates that “Prime vacant space is being absorbed almost as soon as it becomes available in Hamilton” which is not indicative of an oversupplied market.
3.7. AFFCO is frequently contacted by industrial operators seeking to buy and use industrial land in this area as a result of its unique proximity to the expressway and the North Island Main Truck Railway Line. There is no doubt that there is an ongoing demand for industrial land in this area.
3.8. The Te Rapa North Industrial Zone was designed to provide for release of industrial land through time in a planned and managed manner. Removing this land as proposed by the Applicant is contrary to that concept.
3.9. AFFCO strongly supports retaining provision for supply of future industrial land in the Te Rapa area, adjacent to existing industrial activities and transport infrastructure.
4. Waikato Regional Policy Statement (RPS) 4.1. The Proposed District Plan is required to have regard to the Waikato Regional Policy Statement (“RPS”).
4.2. The Application itself (Page 15) highlights an inconsistency between the proposed Plan Change and the RPS where the proposed replacement of future industrial land for a
3 Application para 4.8.14 4http://www.colliers.co.nz/find%20research/industrial/new%20zealand%20industrial%20research%20report%202017/
November 2017 Proposed Plan Change 2-Te Awa Lakes Private Plan Change Submission by AFFCO New Zealand Limited 7
tourism and recreational destination would potentially create a shortfall of industrial land with “consequent adverse economic effects”. The Application discounts this proposition based on the argument that industrial land is in oversupply in Hamilton. However, this argument is tenuous, based on AFFCO’s own experience and even the 2017 update to the Applicant’s source document indicating that there is significant ongoing demand for industrial property in the city (see paragraph 3.6).
4.3. The RPS emphasises the merits of the Future Proof strategy which is given scant consideration in the Application.
4.4. AFFCO considers in particular, that the Application is not consistent with the RPS in terms of the following policy matters:
RPS Section 6.14.3 (c) Ensuring sufficient infrastructural-related industrial land remains available into the future.
RPS Section 6A (h)) New developments should be directed away from (among other things) regionally significant industry and
RPS Section 6A (o) New developments should not result in incompatible adjacent land uses (including those that may result in reverse sensitivity effects), such as industry, rural activities and existing or planned infrastructure.
5. Conclusion 5.1. AFFCO considers that the Plan Change application should be rejected in total as it is inconsistent with critical elements of the Regional Policy Statement, it will bring about the loss of important future industrial land in the area, and it will potentially result in unacceptable reverse sensitivity issues. These factors will all contribute to a potential risk that companies such as AFFCO will look elsewhere for future expansion requirements, with associated long-term loss of employment and economic opportunities for the City.
November 2017 Decision following the hearing of a Private Plan Change [PPC2 - Te Awa Lakes] to the Hamilton City Plan 2017 under the Resource Management Act 1991
This decision is made pursuant to Clause 10 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.
Proposed Private Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes is APPROVED as set out below.
Plan Change number: Plan Change 2 (PPC2) Type of Plan Change: Private – Perry Group Limited Hearing Panel: David Hill (Chairperson) Alan Watson Shane Solomon Appearances: For the Applicant – Perry Group Limited: Derek Nolan and Aidan Cameron - Counsel Simon Perry – Corporate Lale Ieremia – Corporate Jonathan Broekhuysen – Urban Design Rachel de Lambert – Landscape and Visual Norman Hill – Mana Whenua / Cultural John Polkinghorne – Economics Dr Douglas Fairgray – Development Economics John Olliver – Planning Kori Lentfer & Bernie Milne – Geotechnical engineering Andrew Millard – Quantity surveying Martin Udale – Industrial Development Viability Mark Apeldoorn – Traffic and Transportation Bronwyn Rhynd – Stormwater Neill Raynor – Three Waters Keith Hamill – Water quality James Bell-Booth – Acoustics Ray Mayor – Soil Contamination Dr Caroline Philips – Archaeology Chad Croft – Ecology Steven Pearce - Air Quality John Mckensey – Lighting Peter Russell – Biosecurity
For the submitters: Hamilton City Council Paula Rolfe – Planning Luke O’Dwyer – Planning
Ann Williams – Geotechnical engineering Future Proof (FP) Ken Tremaine – FP Implementation Committee Fonterra Limited (Fonterra) Daniel Minhinnick - Counsel Tom Atkins - Counsel Bridget Buckley - Corporate Michael Copeland - Economics Brad Coombs - Landscape and Visual Mark Chrisp - Planning David Smith - Traffic and Transportation Michael Martin - Development Feasibility New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) Natalie Amos - Counsel Catherine Heppelthwaite - Planning Robert Swears - Traffic and Transportation Ports of Auckland Limited (POAL) Daniel Minhinnick - Counsel Mark Arbuthnot - Planning David Smith - Traffic and Transportation
Waikato Regional Council (WRC) Jim Milne - Counsel Andrew Wilson - Traffic and Transportation Blair Keenan - Economics Darion Embling - Biosecurity.
Others Carolyn Hopa (Ngaati Wairere) and Wikitoria Tane (Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust) Daniel Forbes - Contact Energy Russell Alexander - Hobbiton Movie Set Sarah Ulmer - Te Awa River Ride & Brian Perry Charitable Trust Nic Greene - Habitat for Humanity Nick Andreef - Waitomo Adventures Darren Ward - Swimming Waikato Jason Dawson & Michael Bassett-Foss - Hamilton & Waikato Tourism.
For Hamilton City Council: Lachlan Muldowney - Counsel Grant Eccles - s42A RMA Reporting officer Steve Rice - Hearing administrator PPC2 Accepted by HCC: 21 September 2017
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 2
PPC2 Publicly Notified: 1 November 2017 Submissions closed: 29 November 2017 Summary of submissions: 15 December 2017 Further submissions closed: 2 February 2018 PPC2 suspended: 18 April 2018 PPC2 reactivated: 29 April 2019 PPC2 updated: 26 August 2019 Hearing commenced: Monday, 25 November 2019 Hearing continued: 25-28 November & 2-4 December 2019 Hearing adjourned: Wednesday, 4 December 2019 Commissioners’ site visit: Tuesday, 3 December 2019 Hearing Closed: Tuesday, 17 December 2019
INTRODUCTION
1. This decision is made on behalf of the Hamilton City Council (Council) by Independent Hearing Commissioners David Hill (Chair), Alan Watson and Shane Solomon appointed and acting under delegated authority under sections 34 and 34A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA).
2. The Commissioners have been given delegated authority by the Council to make a decision on Private Plan Change 2 (PPC2) to the operative Hamilton City District Plan (the ODP) after considering all the submissions and further submissions, the section 32 RMA evaluation, the reports prepared by the officers for the hearing, and legal submissions and evidence presented during and after the hearing of submissions.
3. PPC2 is a private plan change by Perry Group Limited (PGL or the applicant) that has been prepared following the standard RMA Schedule 1 process. It was accepted by Council on 21 September 2017, publicly notified on1 November 2017, with submissions and further submissions closing on 29 November 2017 and 2 February 2018 respectively.
4. Sixty-two submissions were received. Forty-eight were in support, four were neutral and ten were in opposition. The submissions were summarised and notified for further submissions. Five further submissions were received.
5. On 18 April 2018 the applicant requested that the processing of the plan change be suspended as the applicant had applied to Council for a Special Housing Area (SHA) under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (HASHAA).
6. On 28 June 2018 Council resolved to approve the SHA application and to recommend it to the Minister of Housing and Urban development for gazettal.
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 3
7. On 28 February 2019 the Minister of Housing and Urban Development advised Council that the SHA had been declined and recommended that the Te Awa Lakes proposal be advanced through the private plan change process.
8. On 29 April 2019 the applicant reactivated the plan change and agreed to provide an updated assessment taking into account policy and other relevant changes that had occurred in the meantime. That update (referred to hereinafter as the 2019 AEE) was provided on 26 August 2019.
9. We note that the Commissioners had issued a series of Minutes (10) and Directions (3) throughout the period confirming matters and generally keeping parties up-to-date – including as to revised dates for expert witness conferencing and evidence exchange.
10. Expert conferencing was conducted on the following topics between 13 September and 4 October 2019:
Development Feasibility; Transportation; Acoustics; Biosecurity; Strategic Issues / Economics; Geotechnical Engineering; Planning; Three Waters Infrastructure / Water Quality; Urban Design / Landscaping. Joint Witness Statements1 on each topic were prepared and submitted. Commissioners are grateful to the experts who participated in those conferences, which certainly assisted the hearing process, and to Mr Murray Kivell who acted as facilitator.
11. As PPC2 had not, in the opinion of the Commissioners, changed in any material way between lodgement and reactivation, we did not consider renotification necessary. In that decision we were assisted by the fact that PGL’s 2019 AEE helpfully and clearly identified the changes made to the notified text by various editorial devices (highlighting, redlining, and ink colour).
SUMMARY OF PLAN CHANGE
1 S42A Report, Appendix E - Joint Witness Statements.
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 4
12. The proposed plan change is described in detail in PGL’s 21 August 2019 Updated Request document (the 2019 AEE) and is summarised as follows:
The landholding is currently zoned partly for industrial uses and is partly Deferred Industrial within the (Operative) Hamilton City Council District Plan (ODP) This landholding is herein referred to as Te Awa Lakes and is approximately 62 hectares, bounded by the Waikato Expressway to the west and north, the Waikato River to the east, and Hutchinson Road to the south. The plan change has multiple purposes. The overriding purpose is to rezone the land to enable the range of activities associated with establishing a tourism and recreational destination for the region, supported by new residential and business uses. There are also a range of other purposes that underpin the plan change as follows:
To establish a new tourist and recreational attraction (an adventure park) for the city and region that utilises a strategic site with all the right attributes for such an attraction, adjacent to the Waikato Expressway and the Waikato River.
To implement an economically feasible set of alternative uses for a site that has been found to have significant geotechnical and physical constraints making its previously earmarked industrial use unviable for the foreseeable future.
To enhance employment opportunities through new businesses created within and around the new development.
To positively enhance the industrial and environmental constraints of the area through synergistic improvements and growing urbanisation.
To make a contribution to remedying the short to medium term shortfall in housing supply in Hamilton.
To efficiently utilise the applicant’s existing investment in infrastructure for the site.
To establish a development that is compatible with and enhances the Waikato River frontage of the site, both visually and through improved public access that is more compatible than the previous industrial use and zoning.
To be a catalyst for the better utilisation of the Waikato River itself.
To provide services that complement and support the existing business, education and residential community of Horotiu and to provide further housing choice in a location close to major industrial employment.
13. In summary, justification for the plan change is provided in the 2019 AEE, which notes:
The existing Industrial/Deferred Industrial zoning does not provide for the above mix of activities and in addition:
The zoning does not (and realistically could not) anticipate the opportunity to establish a regionally significant tourist attraction, including an adventure park that involves innovative reuse and repurposing of the worked out sand quarry.
The widely variable uncontrolled fill across about half of the site is not as well suited to large industrial buildings that are susceptible to more differential settlement than small, lightweight residential building footprints on raft foundations.
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 5
Hamilton City Council entered into a Housing Accord with the Government in December 2016, recognising that there is a shortfall of housing supply to meet demand in Hamilton. Housing supply targets have been established for the next 3 years. This has placed greater weight on the importance of serviced residential land, such as Te Awa Lakes.
Concurrently, as a result of Future Proof initiatives over recent years, there is now ample industrial land available, with some risk of oversupply. This is confirmed by 2017 Business Land Capacity studies that there is surplus capacity.
14. The plan change adopts as many of the existing ODP provisions as was considered possible, resulting in the addition only of 3 objectives and 3 associated policies relating to Chapter 3 – Structure Plans, and one objective and 4 associated policies relating to Chapter 4 - Residential Zone to provide for a Medium Density Residential Zone to enable 864 (+/- 10%) dwellings on the site.
15. Other changes proposed to the ODP in the 2019 AEE included:
Amended site zoning (and associated Planning Maps – 1A and 1B, 2A and 2B) from Te Rapa North Industrial, to: o Te Awa Lakes Major Facilities Zone inclusive of the Visitor Accommodation overlay; o Te Awa Lakes Medium Density Residential Zone inclusive of the River Interface overlay; o Te Awa Lakes Business 6 Zone; and o Various Open Space Zones within Te Awa Lakes.
Chapter 3 – Structure Plans - Addition of the Te Awa Lakes Structure Plan area inclusive of description, objectives, policies, rules and structure plan components.
Chapter 4 – Residential Zones – Addition of the Te Awa Lakes Medium Density Residential Zone inclusive of a new objective and policy, requirements for Land Development Plans (LDPs) to be prepared to facilitate development intent and new rules for bulk, location and density yield.
Chapter 6 – Business 1 to 7 Zones – Addition of the Te Awa Lakes Business Zone (Business Zone 6 – Neighbourhood Centre) in the rule framework.
Chapter 12 – Te Rapa North Industrial Zone – Removal of any reference to Stage 1B and associated consequential changes.
Chapter 17 – Major Facilities Zone – Addition of the Te Awa Lakes Aquatic Adventure Park inclusive of specific provisions for its development.
Chapter 23 – Subdivision – Addition of the Te Awa Lakes Medium Density Zone inclusive of a new subdivision standard for the River Interface Overlay and removal of references to Stage 1B of the Te Rapa North Industrial Zone.
Chapter 25.8 – Noise – Addition of noise requirements for Te Awa Lakes and removal of reference to Stage 1B of the Te Rapa North Industrial Zone.
Chapter 25.10 – Signs – Additional site-specific sign rules.
Chapter 2 – Section 1.2 – Information Requirements – Additional of information requirements for the Te Awa Lakes Medium Density Residential Zone.
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 6
Volume 2 – Section 1.3.2 – Controlled Activities – Matters of Control - Removal of reference to Stage 1B Te Rapa North Industrial Zone.
Appendix 2 – Structure Plans – Addition of the Te Awa Lakes Structure Plan in the locality guide and inclusion of the various Te Awa Lakes plans.
16. Further refinements to those provisions was made as a result of the hearing and are discussed later in this decision. The proposed land use and land development area / zoning plans are reproduced respectively in the two figures below:
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 7
17. The main issues emerging from the submissions and further submissions with respect to perceived adverse effects were the appropriateness of rezoning existing industrial or deferred industrial land for primarily residential use and its potential adverse effects on the Horotiu strategic industrial node; the potential for significant reverse sensitivity effects on Fonterra’s industrial operations; the adequacy of the transportation assessment and effects on the road network (including cyclist and pedestrian safety); and the potential for the spread of the designated regional weed pest - alligator weed. With respect to positive effects, submissions noted (among other matters) the beneficial increase to Hamilton’s housing stock, to tourism enterprises, to the Waikato cycle network via the Te Awa River Ride, and to Hamilton’s northern gateway.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS AND LATE SUBMISSIONS
RMA 2-Year Decision time limit
18. As PPC2 was not notified before the Cl10A First Schedule RMA “Application to Minister for extension of time” provision became operative on 18 October 2017, it is subject to that amendment – which removed the ability for consent authorities to use s37 RMA to extend time limits on plans and plan change decisions beyond 2 years from public notification.
19. At the time of hearing the application had exceeded that 2-year period – even though it had been suspended for a substantial part of that period while awaiting the Minister’s Special Housing Area decision. However, unlike a resource consent, “suspension” of time is not provided for under Schedule 1 RMA.
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 8
20. Commissioners note that the decision is issued outside of the two year timeframe prescribed by clause 10 of Schedule 1 to the RMA. However, a decision notified outside of this timeframe is not invalid, particularly in light of the fact that no party was or is prejudiced by the decision timing: A J Burr Ltd v Blenheim Borough Council [1980] 2 NZLR 1 at p 4 per Cooke J, and North Holdings Ltd v Rodney District Council HC Auckland CIV-2002-404-002402, 11 September 2003.
Late Submissions
21. One late submission was received by the Council. Pursuant to section 37 of the RMA, the time for receiving submissions was extended to accept the late submission #62 from Hobbiton Movie Set – that proposed decision was not opposed by PGL.
22. The submission is dated 26 November 2017 but was delayed in receipt, being received a few days after the closing date of 29 November 2017. The submission is in support of PPC2, submitting that tourism development will be good for the Waikato region. No objections to accepting the submission were made and no parties are obviously affected by the same. Accordingly, and having considered the matters required by s37A RMA, that late submission is accepted.
Fonterra Memorandum – Reply Statements
23. On the evening of 3 December 2019, prior to the final scheduled day of hearing, counsel for Fonterra tabled a memorandum of concern about perceived procedural unfairness relating to reply evidence given by PGL‘s witnesses and Mr Apeldoorn in particular.
24. Counsel for Fonterra did not appear on the day either to address that memorandum or to enable us to pursue the matter further under questioning.
25. Both Mr Muldowney and Mr Nolan addressed the memorandum in writing, submitting that there had been no procedural unfairness; that while the proceedings had progressed on a topic-by-topic basis as determined by us, the standard practice of evidence and reply had been followed with the applicant having the final “say”; that Mr Apeldoorn’s reply dealt specifically with points raised by Mr Smith as was proper; and that the Commissioners were sufficiently experienced that they would and should determine whether anything addressed in reply constituted new material evidence and should therefore be disregarded. We agree.
26. As counsel for Fonterra was not present we were unable to seek clarification on what precisely was considered “new” evidence. We have however, borne that matter in mind when reviewing the reply evidence.
RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND PLANS CONSIDERED
27. As set out in the sections 4.1 – 4.5 of the updated 2019 AEE, and as stated variously in legal submissions, the RMA sets out an extensive set of statutory requirements for the formulation of plans and changes to them – with which we agree. We confirm that we have considered PPC2 and the submissions made thereon in accordance with those statutory requirements. Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 9
28. We have also had regard to the National Policy Statements on Urban Development Capacity (2016) and Freshwater Management (2017) insofar as we must give effect to their relevant provisions.
29. It was common ground that the Waikato Regional Policy Statement (WRPS) provisions that are particularly relevant to a consideration of PPC2 (and which must also be given effect under s75(3) RMA) are:
(i) Section 2.0 –Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato (the Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River);
(ii) Section 4.0 – Integrated Management; and
(iii) Section 6.0 - Built Environment;
the specifics of which are discussed below – including key elements of the Future Proof Sub-regional Growth Strategy.
30. Finally, we must also be satisfied that PPC2 is not inconsistent overall with the operative Hamilton City Plan 2017.
31. Other planning documents (both statutory and non-statutory) referred to us by witnesses included the following:
Proposed Waikato District Plan 2018;
Waikato Regional Public Transport Plan 2018-2028;
Waikato Regional Land Transport Plan 2015-2045 (2018 update);
Hamilton Housing Accord 2016;
Hamilton City River Plan 2014;
Waikato Regional Pest Management Plan 2014-2024;
Waikato-Tainui Environmental Plan 2013; and
Hamilton Urban Growth Strategy 2010.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
32. The Council planning officer’s (Grant Eccles) s42A report and all expert evidence was circulated as directed prior to the hearing, pre-read by the Commissioners, and largely taken as read at the hearing. Witnesses typically provided a written summary and update at the hearing followed, in the applicant’s case, by a limited number of statements of rebuttal evidence.
33. As that evidence was extensive, we have decided, in the interest of brevity, to dispense with any summary, dealing with that evidence by way of issues where those have been found to be determinative of our overall decisions on submissions. Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 10
34. For the record we note that we received evidence from the following persons (as noted at the head of this decision):
Perry Group Limited Simon Perry – Corporate Lale Ieremia – Corporate Jonathan Broekhuysen – Urban Design Rachel de Lambert – Landscape and Visual Norman Hill – Mana Whenua / Cultural John Polkinghorne – Economics Dr Douglas Fairgray – Development Economics John Olliver – Planning Kori Lentfer & Bernie Milne – Geotechnical engineering Andrew Millard – Quantity surveying Martin Udale – Industrial Development Viability Mark Apeldoorn – Traffic and Transportation Bronwyn Rhynd – Stormwater Neill Raynor – Three Waters Keith Hamill – Water quality James Bell-Booth –Acoustics Ray Mayor – soil Contamination Dr Caroline Philips – Archaeology Chad Croft – Ecology Steven Pearce - Air Quality John Mckensey – Lighting Peter Russell – Biosecurity
Submitters Hamilton City Council Paula Rolfe – Planning Luke O’Dwyer – Planning Ann Williams – Geotechnical engineering Future Proof Ken Tremaine – FP Implementation Committee Fonterra Limited Bridget Buckley –– Corporate Michael Copeland – Economics Brad Coombs – Landscape and Visual Mark Chrisp – Planning David Smith – Traffic and Transportation Michael Martin – Development Feasibility New Zealand Transport Agency Catherine Heppelthwaite –– Planning Robert Swears - Traffic and Transportation Ports of Auckland Limited Mark Arbuthnot –– Planning Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 11
David Smith – Traffic and Transportation
Waikato Regional Council Andrew Wilson –- Traffic and Transportation Blair Keenan – Economics Darion Embling – Biosecurity.
35. In addition, the following other submitters provided written statements and/or made presentations: Carolyn Hopa (Ngaati Wairere) and Wikitoria Tane (Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust); Daniel Forbes – Contact Energy; Russell Alexander – Hobbiton Movie Set; Sarah Ulmer – Te Awa River Ride & Brian Perry Charitable Trust; Nic Greene – Habitat for Humanity; Nick Andreef – Waitomo Adventures; Darren Ward – Swimming Waikato; and Jason Dawson & Michael Bassett-Foss – Hamilton & Waikato Tourism.
36. We note that by the close of the hearing the initial submission position of a number of the parties had changed, including: Waikato Regional Council2 no longer opposed PPC2 (but did not actively support it); New Zealand Transport Agency3 no longer opposed PPC2 subject to some further amendments; Ports of Auckland Limited4 no longer opposed PPC2 and had reached agreement with PGL on amended provisions that addressed its concerns; Hamilton City Council’s overall recommendation5 was now to approve PPC2 subject to some further amendments.
37. For completeness we note that Fonterra6 maintained its strong opposition to PPC2 throughout.
PRINCIPAL ISSUES IN CONTENTION
38. Having considered the submissions and further submissions received, the s42A hearing report, the legal submissions and evidence presented at the hearing, the Council officers’ responses and PGL’s responses and reply, we determined that the principal determinative issues in contention were:
2 Milne, Legal submissions, para 19 3 Amos, Opening legal submissions, para 22 4 Minhinnick, legal submissions, para 1.3 5 Rolfe, Statement of evidence, para 8 6 Minhinnick, legal submissions, paras 1.3 and 6.2 Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 12
(i) whether the proposal to rezone land from industrial to a mix of residential, commercial and open space is appropriate by reference to the relevant statutory and plan / policy criteria;
(ii) whether the reverse sensitivity concerns of Fonterra are sufficiently well made out and likely as to weigh against approval;
(iii) whether the transportation assessment(s) and proposed provisions satisfy the concerns stated about the wider road network, public transport implications, and the safety of the cycling/pedestrian communities;
(iv) whether the geotechnical concerns about the residual risk of piping erosion of the landform dam at the southern end of the linear lake adjacent the Waikato River can be resolved;
(v) whether lake water quality can be managed to meet a “swimmability” standard; and
(vi) whether the risk from the designated regional pest weed, alligator weed, can be sufficiently well-mitigated and managed.
39. These were not the only issues canvassed but they go to the heart of our decisions – the remainder either being a subset of those broader issues (such as, for example, air quality and noise which came into focus through the concerns about reverse sensitivity; or urban design that emerges either from the subsequent detailed planning consent rounds or through the transportation and traffic concerns about connectivity) or requiring some subtle amendments to the proposed provisions.
FINDINGS ON THE PRINCIPAL ISSUES IN CONTENTION
40. The principal issue to determine was whether the applicable policy instruments effectively prevented rezoning the land from industrial since, if that was the case, PPC2 must necessarily fail. And while some adverse effect matters are relevant to that consideration, they are, in a sense, subsidiary. We therefore deal with that issue first – as we did throughout the hearing by grouping the evidence into relatively discrete topic areas, starting with the strategic development topic.
Rezoning from Industrial
41. It was common ground that the land in question had been set aside under various planning instruments for industrial development (either live zoned or deferred) and that PPC2 sought to overturn that zoning in large measure. Furthermore, that that zoning had been reinforced at the regional level both through the Waikato Regional Policy Statement and through the co-operative inter-regional planning instrument known as Future Proof (the Waikato Sub-Regional Growth Strategy). It is trite to note that in changing a district plan, the higher order national and regional instruments (statements and standards) must be given effect under s75(3) RMA – and must not be inconsistent with, in this instance, the Waikato Regional Plan.
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 13
42. The background to that was comprehensively detailed in Mr Olliver’s7 and Mr Chrisp’s8 evidence and was not disputed. What was in dispute is the interpretation to be given the relevant policy directives. Are those provisions as categorical as Mr Chrisp asserts, or is there interpretative “flexibility” as the other expert planning witnesses variously held?
43. In that regard we note Mr Milne’s reminder9 regarding the Supreme Court’s comment in EDS v King Salmon:
[80] We have said that the “give effect to” requirement is a strong directive, particularly when viewed against the background that it replaced the previous “not inconsistent with” requirement. There is a caveat, however. The implementation of such a directive will be affected by what it relates to, that is, what must be given effect to. A requirement to give effect to a policy which is framed in a specific and unqualified way may, in a practical sense, be more prescriptive than a requirement to give effect to a policy which is worded at a higher level of abstraction.
44. That “caveat” along with the rejection of the “overall broad judgement” approach must inform our conclusion on the matter.
45. We have addressed this matter in three parts:
(i) Is a change of land use from industrial prevented by the higher order statements?
(ii) Is the change consistent with the WRPS’ Development Principles? and
(iii) Does PPC2 give effect to the other higher order statements?
The Change in principle
46. It was common ground that a key WRPS policy direction is Policy 6.14 Adopting Future Proof land use pattern, which we cite in full:
Within the Future Proof area: a) new urban development within Hamilton City, Cambridge, Te Awamutu/Kihikihi, Pirongia, Huntly, Ngaruawahia, Raglan, Te Kauwhata, Meremere, Taupiri, Horotiu, Matangi, Gordonton, Rukuhia, Te Kowhai and Whatawhata shall occur within the Urban Limits indicated on Map 6.2 (section 6C); b) new residential (including rural-residential) development shall be managed in accordance with the timing and population for growth areas in Table 6-1 (section 6D); c) new industrial development should predominantly be located in the strategic industrial nodes in Table 6-2 (section 6D) and in accordance with the indicative timings in that table except where alternative land release and timing is demonstrated to meet the criteria in Method 6.14.3;
7 Olliver, Statement of evidence, section 4. 8 Chrisp, Statement of evidence, section 4. 9 Milne, Legal submissions, para 5. Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 14
d) other industrial development should only occur within the Urban Limits indicated on Map 6.2 (section 6C), unless there is a need for the industry to locate in the rural area in close proximity to the primary product source. Industrial development in urban areas other than the strategic industrial nodes in Table 6-2 (section 6D) shall be provided for as appropriate in district plans; e) new industrial development outside the strategic industrial nodes or outside the allocation limits set out in Table 6-2 shall not be of a scale or location where the development undermines the role of any strategic industrial node as set out in Table 6-2; f) new industrial development outside the strategic industrial nodes must avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the arterial function of the road network, and on other infrastructure; g) where alternative industrial and residential land release patterns are promoted through district plan and structure plan processes, justification shall be provided to demonstrate consistency with the principles of the Future Proof land use pattern; and h) where land is required for activities that require direct access to Hamilton Airport runways and where these activities cannot be accommodated within the industrial land allocation in Table 6-2, such activities may be provided for within other land adjacent to the runways, providing adverse effects on the arterial road network and other infrastructure are avoided, remedied or mitigated.
47. Underscoring the priority of that policy, Implementation Method 6.14.1 District plan provisions states “The district plans shall ensure that urban development is located and managed in accordance with Policy 6.14.” but provides alternative criteria for an exception under implementation method 6.14.3 Criteria for alternative land release as follows:
District plans and structure plans can only consider an alternative residential or industrial land release, or an alternative timing of that land release, than that indicated in Tables 6-1 and 6-2 in section 6D provided that: a) to do so will maintain or enhance the safe and efficient function of existing or planned infrastructure when compared to the release provided for within Tables 6-1 and 6-2; b) the total allocation identified in Table 6-2 for any one strategic industrial node should generally not be exceeded or an alternative timing of industrial land release allowed, unless justified through robust and comprehensive evidence (including but not limited to, planning, economic and infrastructural/servicing evidence); c) sufficient zoned land within the greenfield area or industrial node is available or could be made available in a timely and affordable manner; and making the land available will maintain the benefits of regionally significant committed infrastructure investments made to support other greenfield areas or industrial nodes; and d) the effects of the change are consistent with the development principles set out in Section 6A.
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 15
48. In his evidence Mr Olliver concluded10 that “The provisions clearly envisage a situation where the exact land areas contained in Table 6-2 are varied.”
49. While Mr Eccles in his s42A report does not formally conclude on the point, his commentary against the WRPS in his Appendix H (and his overall conclusion) clearly indicates that he accepted that this policy did not constitute a roadblock to approval. Mr O’Dwyer supported Mr Eccles’ planning analysis.
50. Mr Tremaine, for Future Proof, also agreed11 noting that while, in his opinion, the WRPS is silent about whether a land use change can occur in an identified growth area, it makes provision under Policy 6.14(g) for alternative land release and PPC2 meets those stated criteria in Method 6.14.3.
51. Mr Tremaine told us about the 2017 update to the Future Proof Strategy, which places greater emphasis on settlement pattern flexibility and responsiveness12, and foreshadowed the forthcoming phase 2 update in 2020. While the 2016 WRPS does not currently reflect these changes, Mr Tremaine noted13 that a change to the RPS is scheduled to begin in 2020 and that would include those (and other strategic) updates.
52. Mr Chrisp noted14 that Method 6.14.3 was “tightly worded” and accepted that the alternative land release option is provided but argued that the 4 stated criteria all had to be met – which was not the case for criteria (a) and (d) in his opinion as Mr Smith’s evidence concluded that the safe and efficient function of Te Rapa Road would be compromised, and PPC2 was contrary to a number of the Development Principles ((a), (d), (e), (h), (i) and (o) for example).
Finding
53. We are satisfied that changing the identified industrial land use is not precluded by the WRPS, subject to satisfying the stated criteria. Furthermore, while the WRPS takes on board the pre-2017 Future Proof Strategy, we think it entirely appropriate that the policy is read to recognise the updated document rather than formalistically being tied to an outdated version – while still requiring the plan change to satisfy the relevant other provisions.
Is PPC2 consistent with the Development Principles?
54. The section 6A Development Principles of the WRPS are:
General development principles New development should: a) support existing urban areas in preference to creating new ones;
10 Olliver, Statement of evidence, para 11.5. 11 Tremaine, Statement of evidence, para 6.20. 12 Specifically, new section 7.5 A Responsive approach to Development, Future Proof Strategy, November 2017. 13 Tremaine, Statement of evidence, para 4.5. 14 Chrisp, Statement of evidence, paras 5.16 – 5.21. Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 16
b) occur in a manner that provides clear delineation between urban areas and rural areas; c) make use of opportunities for urban intensification and redevelopment to minimise the need for urban development in greenfield areas; d) not compromise the safe, efficient and effective operation and use of existing and planned infrastructure, including transport infrastructure, and should allow for future infrastructure needs, including maintenance and upgrading, where these can be anticipated; e) connect well with existing and planned development and infrastructure; f) identify water requirements necessary to support development and ensure the availability of the volumes required; g) be planned and designed to achieve the efficient use of water; h) be directed away from identified significant mineral resources and their access routes, natural hazard areas, energy and transmission corridors, locations identified as likely renewable energy generation sites and their associated energy resources, regionally significant industry, high class soils, and primary production activities on those high class soils; i) promote compact urban form, design and location to: i) minimise energy and carbon use; ii) minimise the need for private motor vehicle use; iii) maximise opportunities to support and take advantage of public transport in particular by encouraging employment activities in locations that are or can in the future be served efficiently by public transport; iv) encourage walking, cycling and multi-modal transport connections; and v) maximise opportunities for people to live, work and play within their local area; j) maintain or enhance landscape values and provide for the protection of historic and cultural heritage; k) promote positive indigenous biodiversity outcomes and protect significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna. Development which can enhance ecological integrity, such as by improving the maintenance, enhancement or development of ecological corridors, should be encouraged; l) maintain and enhance public access to and along the coastal marine area, lakes, and rivers; m) avoid as far as practicable adverse effects on natural hydrological characteristics and processes (including aquifer recharge and flooding patterns), soil stability, water quality and aquatic ecosystems including through methods such as low impact urban design and development (LIUDD); n) adopt sustainable design technologies, such as the incorporation of energy efficient (including passive solar) design, low-energy street lighting, rain gardens, renewable energy technologies, rainwater harvesting and grey water recycling techniques where appropriate; o) not result in incompatible adjacent land uses (including those that may result in reverse sensitivity effects), such as industry, rural activities and existing or planned infrastructure; Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 17
p) be appropriate with respect to projected effects of climate change and be designed to allow adaptation to these changes; q) consider effects on the unique tāngata whenua relationships, values, aspirations, roles and responsibilities with respect to an area. Where appropriate, opportunities to visually recognise tāngata whenua connections within an area should be considered; r) support the Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River in the Waikato River catchment; s) encourage waste minimisation and efficient use of resources (such as through resource- efficient design and construction methods); and t) recognise and maintain or enhance ecosystem services
55. As noted above, Mr Chrisp contended that PPC2 was contrary to principles (a), (d), (e), (h), (i) and (o) – at least – and which cumulatively therefore necessitated a refusal of approval. As this was the main thrust of the opposition from Fonterra, we review each of those six matters in the following sections.
56. However, before doing so we note that the imperative in the Development Principles is a muted one, not a categorical one – it states that new development “should”, not “shall”15. That suggests that new development is not required to be on point with each and every one of the 20 “principles” – reinforced by the terms of Method 6.14.3(d), which requires only that the effects be consistent with the Principles. We consider that the drafters of those provisions would have been very familiar with the RMA debates and caselaw around the terms “consistent with”, “inconsistent with” and “contrary to” and would, therefore, have used the term deliberately. In that regard we note Mr Olliver’s reference to two recent instances (Waipa [2018] and Waikato District [2016] Councils) where that “flexibility” has been endorsed by decision makers.16
57. The challenge, therefore, is to determine at what point (if any) failure to be entirely “consistent with” one or more of the principles tips the matter into a potential “decline” scenario.
58. (a) Support existing urban areas
59. Mr Eccles noted17 that the site is in an existing urban area and therefore this principle is effectively met. Mr Olliver agreed.
60. Insofar as Mr Chrisp disagreed, his argument, as we understood it because the matter was not addressed directly, was based more on the distance of TAL from the established town / urban / residential areas – i.e. an argument of “support” with reference to the central areas of Hamilton.
61. Ms Heppelthwaite agreed18 that the site is within an urban area but had reservations as to whether the evidence demonstrated that it “supports” an existing urban area.
15 Muldowney, Legal submissions, para 59. 16 Olliver, Statement of evidence, paras 7.32 - 7.33. 17 S42A Report, para 4.19. 18 Heppelthwaite, Statement of evidence, para 1.3 & 9.12. Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 18
Findings:
62. We agree that the area is technically an existing urban area as far as its zoning, albeit part deferred, is concerned. The degree to which it might be anticipated to support the town centre of Hamilton or other existing urban areas is arguably not strictly relevant as far as this principle is concerned. This is not a “new” urban area – as we interpret the principle. Having said that, and acknowledging Ms Heppelthwaite’s reservation, TAL would be unlikely to develop as a completely self-contained node without reference and support to, for example, its adjacent Te Rapa North industrial area or Horotiu and the southern area of Waikato District – let alone further afield into Hamilton. Accordingly, we find there to be sufficient consistency with this principle.
63. (d) Not compromise existing and planned infrastructure & (e) Connect well with existing and planned infrastructure
64. In effect principles (d) and (e) are two parts of the same issue – and the only infrastructure issue in contention related to the effects of the proposed development on the transportation network and its capacity to accommodate the vehicle movements that will be generated from the developed TAL site without foreclosing on the network’s capacity to accommodate vehicle movements from other developed, and yet to be developed, industrial land in Te Rapa North and the Horotiu Industrial Nodes.
65. In reporting on PPC2, Mr Eccles pointed out that transport improvements have been programmed into the PPC2 provisions along with relevant trigger levels for the provision of those improvements such that PPC2 will not compromise the safe, efficient and effective operation and use of existing infrastructure.19 As he also pointed out, the above issue needed to be resolved through the PPC2 process for PPC2 to be consistent with WRPS Policy 6.3 (Co-ordinating Growth and Infrastructure) and Implementation Method 6.14.3 (Criteria for Alternative Land Release). 66. We heard evidence from a range of traffic engineers and planners regarding the traffic and transportation matters that had been raised in the submissions. This was particularly in the submissions from the Council, NZTA, WRC, POAL and Fonterra. The matters included those in the following list, and which were addressed in the evidence we received, the Joint Witness Statement on Transportation, and in the on- going discussions between the submitters and the applicant before and during the hearing: A requirement for an urban standard shared use pathway along Te Rapa Road between Hutchison Road and existing shared use paths to the south.
Concerns regarding the accuracy of the Waikato Regional Transport model for trip generation purposes, that had been used by the applicant.
19 Section 42A report, para 4.22 Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 19
Peak hour trips, particularly the directional distribution of traffic movements should some of the peak hour trips be in the same direction as already congested traffic routes.
The need for a definition of “significant development” as that term is used in PPC2.
The use of a Broad Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) compared to a Simple ITA when assessing the balance 500 dwellings, that would follow the completion of the initial 500 dwellings.
The need for a road safety audit in relation to any transport related mitigation.
Screening of the Adventure Park from the Waikato Expressway and/or Te Rapa Road.
Safety of vulnerable road users in the vicinity of the Horotiu Interchange.
Delivery of the Regional Land Transport Plan outcomes due to the inability to service the plan change area cost efficiently and effectively with public transport.
A public transport route through the plan change area.
The Horotiu Interchange and the need for further assessment of it after the completion of the initial 500 dwellings.
Consultation and ITAs.
Roading and road intersection improvements.
Amendments to the PPC2 provisions.
67. These matters were addressed in the expert evidence for the submitters, with those experts also referring to on-going discussions on some of the points of concern. It was apparent, and referred to during the hearing, that discussions were on-going and, apart from Fonterra, that agreement had been reached on many of the points of concern to the extent that some submitters no longer opposed PPC2. For example, POAL’s legal counsel submitted, at the hearing, that agreement had been reached with the applicant on changes to PPC2 to address its concerns and, subject to those changes being included in PPC2 as agreed, it had no need to express a view on the overall merits of PPC2.
68. For the applicant, Mr Apeldoorn provided detailed traffic and transportation evidence in both his initial statement and statement of reply. He traversed the range of considerations raised from his analysis and by submitters, noting that his earlier recommendations had been adopted and included in the PPC2 provisions. Of significance was the further and on-going assessment of transport infrastructure required following the initial development of 500 of some 1,000 households on the
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 20
TAL site. Below that threshold, the effects of the traffic generated by PPC2 were expected to broadly equate to the effects of already consented and existing zoned demand, and therefore were neutral and acceptable. Above that point, further assessment was considered necessary.20 He had also recommended a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) approach to draw all the alternative transport modes together. These include pedestrians and cyclists, public transport and school buses. These are matters now provided for in the PPC2 provisions.21
69. The submissions focussed attention on all these matters and particularly the principal issue raised above. However, Mr Apeldoorn was able to conclude from his considerations that there is an increased level of confidence that PPC2 can be accommodated and that with the infrastructure proposed, there remained appropriate future transport network capacity. He stated:
“Based on the assessments I have made and described, in particular the modelling and also the multi-modal infrastructure recommendations, I have concluded the plan change proposal appropriately responds to the transport infrastructure impact it generates. Zoned and consented local area entitlements have been appropriately provided for in the assessments and there will remain an appropriate residual surplus capacity following full development of the plan change area at 2041. On this basis, I concur with the findings reached in the s42A report at Appendix A, Transport, paragraph 4”.22
70. In these respects too, and in his consideration of the submissions, Mr Apeldoorn concurred with the conclusion of Mr Gray “that the transportation mitigations proposed by the applicant and that have been included in the revised PPC2 provisions are sufficient to address the effects of the development”. 23
71. For completeness, we note that Mr Apeldoorn addressed in his evidence the range of statutory documents and provisions that are relevant considerations in concluding that PPC2 appropriately responds to, and is appropriately aligned with, the traffic and transportation outcomes anticipated.24
72. The concerns of the submitters were addressed in the evidence from Ms Heppelthwaite and from Messrs Wilson, Swears and Smith, and by planners Mr Arbuthnot and Ms Rolfe. They traversed the points of concern but concluded, with the exception of Mr Smith for Fonterra, that PPC2, with appropriate amendments / additions, could proceed without resulting in the effects of concern to them.
73. While we acknowledge the concerns expressed by Mr Smith, we have come to the view that these matters are adequately addressed in the PPC2 provisions, and have been further refined as the process of the PC has proceeded. In this respect, we adopt much of the reply evidence from Mr Apeldoorn in which he comprehensively
20 Apeldoorn, Statement of evidence, para 54. 21 Ibid, para 57 22 Ibid, para 80 23 Ibd, para 82 24 Ibid, para 67 Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 21
addressed the concerns of submitters and gave detailed attention to the evidence from Mr Smith25. In particular, Mr Apeldoorn refers to the partial 4-laning of Te Rapa Road corridor in the modelling, for which he had received advice and confirmation that its inclusion is correct and intended. His conclusion was that the modelling and assessment of transport effects due to PPC2 have been properly undertaken.
74. We acknowledge the manner in which the applicant, submitters and the Council’s representatives met, before and during the hearing, in an endeavour to resolve different views. Whilst many points raised by the submitters were resolved during the hearing process, there remained the opposition by Fonterra and some other matters that included whether there was a need for a definition of “significant development” as it is used in PPC2.
Findings:
75. We find agreement with Messrs Apeldoorn and Olliver for the applicant who pointed out that the more subjective “significant development” term is appropriately deleted from the PPC2 provisions, with preference given to the more definitive use of a threshold of the number of vehicle movements, that being a more objective and useable measure (refer 3.8.3 of PPC2 provisions).
76. Other points we make findings on include:
Rather than upgrading Te Rapa Road between Hutchinson Road and existing shared paths to the south to a full urban standard to provide pedestrian and cycling facilities, as sought by Ms Rolfe for the Council, we agree with Messrs Apeldoorn and Olliver that focussing efforts on the Te Awa River Ride path as the key cycle/pedestrian connection is more appropriate, along with some improvements to Te Rapa Road.26 However, other relevant related works are included in PPC2 such as road cycle safety improvements between Hutchinson Road and Church Road; signalising of the Te Rapa Road/McKee Street intersection; and the need to assess the Te Rapa Road/Kapuni Street intersection at the time of the Te Rapa Road/McKee Street upgrade to ensure no adverse effects are transferred from that intersection upgrade. Ms Heppelthwaite referred to TAL not being consistent with Development Principle 6A(i) of the WRPS, which refers to compact urban form, design and location, because it will be highly car dependent, the road network design does not adequately provide for public transport accessibility, and there are limited employment opportunities resulting from PPC2. We note the concern but also, from the evidence of Messrs Apeldoorn and Olliver, that any new residential area is initially car dependent, with public transport following when there is
25 Noting our comment in paragraph 26 above. 26 Apeldoorn, Reply evidence, para 49. Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 22
sufficient demand and, further, there are also a number of large employers in proximity. Assessment and upgrading the Horotiu intersection if required, once a threshold of 500 vehicles movements in the peak hour is reached. In relation to staging rules for transport infrastructure improvements, we find that the proposed 500 residential units trigger for upgrading Hutchinson Road is an appropriate and readily understood measure for inclusion, also as the measure for use with respect to development of the Adventure Park in the Major Facilities zone. We have included an additional rule (Rule 3.8.5.3.3A), as was suggested by Ms Heppelthwaite, which addresses concerns raised about future provision for public transport. To address the matter of potential driver distraction from the Expressway and Te Rapa Road from activity at the Adventure Park, we have included an assessment criterion for use in the consideration of any development/activity in the Park, and which is provided for as a restricted discretionary activity. (Section 1.3.3, criterion K19).
77. The advice of Alasdair Gray, reporting for the Council, was that while the proposed development of the TAL site would consume some of the network capacity earlier than is otherwise programmed for under the planned industrial land release, it will not make a material difference to the overall level of service (LoS) that the network will eventually provide when all the available industrial land is developed. The transport mitigations proposed by the applicant are sufficient to address the effects of the development, noting that the ultimate solutions to congestion on the future network (that is, the Te Rapa Road 4-laning and Northern River Crossing) are significant capital projects under the control of the Council that are currently not programmed.27 As stated, the transport mitigations proposed have been supplemented in the final version of PPC2 by responses by the applicant to matters raised by the submitters.
78. Mr Eccles, after having expressed earlier reservations regarding PPC2, particularly in relation to residential development of the site28, was of the view that PPC2, with its proposed transport-related provisions, could now be accepted.29
79. The consideration of the submissions, and the amendments made to the PPC2 provisions, have all contributed to our finding that PPC2 is now consistent with the various provisions in the District Plan as they relate to traffic and transportation. We accept that the TAL development is not included in current strategies but from our close examination of it, and the benefit of the points of view provided by submitters,
27 Section 42A report, para 4.22. 28 Ibid, para 8.2. 29 Closing statement of section 42A reporting planner, section 3.
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 23
we conclude that it can proceed, being in sufficient accord with the District Plan and other strategy documents.
80. We find, from our considerations of all the evidence that was put before us, that PPC2 will not result in the magnitude of adverse effects on existing and planned infrastructure of initial concern to submitters, or indeed to persons moving to, from and about the PPC2 area. The provisions in PPC2 have been the subject of discussions, and in most cases agreement, between the applicant and the submitters. From our considerations regarding effects of PPC2, we find further, that PPC2 is consistent with the relevant provisions in the District Plan, noting that the RMA does not require total consistency, but that regard be given to a range of matters.
81. (h) Be directed away from regionally significant industry & (o) Not result in incompatible adjacent land uses (including reverse sensitivity effects)
82. Again, in this instance principles (h) and (o) reduce to the same essential matter – reverse sensitivity.
83. It was common ground that Fonterra’s Te Rapa Dairy Factory is a regionally significant industry under the WRPS and that these principles are therefore directly engaged.
84. The key issue under these principles, as agreed by the planning witnesses, concerned the potential for reverse sensitivity effects on the established industry arising from a residential neighbourhood in proximity, and which might reasonably be expected to result over time in the curtailment of current activity (including any reasonable permitted expansion) and/or additional costs to address matters raised.
85. The concept of reverse sensitivity is a well-established resource management matter for consideration when any new land use activities are proposed to be established in a location where they may potentially lead to effects upon existing and established land use activities in that location.
86. This matter of reverse sensitivity was raised in submissions, including that by Fonterra. The evidence on reverse sensitivity was focussed by its planner, Mr Chrisp, who described how the Horotiu / Te Rapa North area had been progressively planned and developed as an industrial area and identified as a strategic industrial zone in both the Future Proof Strategy and in the Waikato RPS. He stated that associated planning provisions have been included in the Waikato District and Hamilton City Plans which provide for the on-going development of industrial activities (including large-scale industrial activities) and which seek to avoid the establishment of incompatible land uses (including to avoid reverse sensitivity effects).
87. Mr Chrisp went on to say in evidence that, collectively, the planning provisions relating to the Horotiu/Te Rapa North area have provided a level of planning certainty which has provided the operators of the industrial activities and NZTA with the confidence to invest significantly in the area – a point reinforced by Ms Buckley with respect to Fonterra’s activities and future plans. He was of the view that the operators of large-
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 24
scale industrial activities in the Horotiu/Te Rapa North area, such as Fonterra, should be able to rely on the integrity of the planning regime that has been in place for many years. He stated that contrary to that planning regime, the TAL proposal involves the establishment of a large-scale urban residential neighbourhood in an isolated location, distant from existing communities and services. The location fundamentally conflicts, he said, with the settlement pattern defined through Future Proof and the WRPS.
88. For TAL, Mr Nolan provided us with what he referred to as the generally accepted definition of reverse sensitivity as being:
“The legal vulnerability of an established activity to complaint from a new land use. It arises when an established land use is causing adverse environmental impact to nearby land, and a new, benign activity is proposed for the land. The “sensitivity” is this:
If the new use is permitted, the established use may be required to restrict its operations or mitigate its effects so as not to adversely affect the new activity.” 30
89. Mr Nolan submitted that it was worth unpacking that quote into its constituent parts to identify the area of dispute between the TAL and Fonterra. In doing so, he concluded the dispute is whether, in the context of the existing environment, which includes expansion permitted by the Operative District Plan, the Te Rapa Dairy Factory is or would be likely to cause an “adverse environmental impact” on the TAL land. He was of the view that the evidence for TAL, including expert noise, odour and lighting evidence, establishes that the existing and likely environmental effects of Fonterra’s operations on the TAL land would be no more than minor – a point that mirrored Fonterra’s own view of its activities and consent compliance.
90. On behalf of Fonterra, Mr Chrisp pointed out in his evidence that he saw the TAL proposal as being contrary to the most applicable policy directives which included Objective 3.12(c), Objective 3.12(g), Policy 4.4, Implementation Method 6.1.2, Policy 6.14(g), Policy 6.16(f) and, Section 6A Development Principles (h) and (o). He provided details of those provisions and evidence in support of his views.
91. We have had careful regard to the relevant provisions in the WRPS, noting a focus on avoiding or minimising the potential for reverse sensitivity. In that respect, the Te Rapa Dairy Factory is identified in the WRPS as a regionally significant industry. Implementation Method 6.1.2 then provides a detailed planning direction for the control of reverse sensitivity. It refers to discouraging new sensitive activities near land uses that could create effects including the discharge of substances, odour, smoke, noise, light spill or dust which could affect health or amenity values.
92. We agree with Mr Olliver, who stated in evidence31 that these WRPS provisions provide clear direction that reverse sensitivity effects may be minimised but need not necessarily be avoided. He saw this as a realistic and practical approach in urban
30 Nolan, Opening legal submissions, para 6.15. 31 Olliver, Statement of evidence, paras 7.48 -7.49. Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 25
areas where there will always be interfaces between industrial and residential activities and noted that there are a range of well-tested planning methods available to address any such effects – separation distance being but one approach. In these respects he referred to the expert evidence of Messrs Mckensey, Bell-Booth and Pearce for TAL in concluding that any potential reverse sensitivity effects will be minimised and that Policy 4.4 of the WRPS would be given effect to.
93. We find that these considerations cover both the existing development on the Fonterra site and any future permitted expansion and, in addition, other activities in the locality that may have concerns for potential reverse sensitivity effects. We note the expert evidence from Ms Heppelthwaite on behalf of the POAL and WRC, which identified that close consideration had been given to this matter and that reverse sensitivity effects could be minimised by the inclusion of relevant plan provisions.32
94. We received evidence for TAL, from the three persons named above, that any potential reverse sensitivity effects generated as a result of the TAL development would be controlled by the separation distances, design controls, and acoustic treatment provisions included in PPC2. TAL recognised the potential for reverse sensitivity effects and prepared the PPC2 provisions accordingly. In particular, the layout of the area proposed for development provides for the more business-related activities closest to the Fonterra site, between the proposed future residential area and the Fonterra site. The technical evidence of these three experts was not contested in any meaningful manner by Fonterra.
95. Further, the planners involved in the process of PPC2, other than Mr Chrisp, were all agreed that reverse sensitivity effects can be appropriately minimised. In this respect we include the views, expressed in evidence, of Ms Heppelthwaite for WRC and NZTA, Mr Arbuthnot for POAL and its inland freight hub activity, Mr Eccles as the s42A reporting officer, and Mr O’Dwyer for Hamilton City Council. We agree with Mr O’Dwyer who stated in rebuttal evidence that “the mere existence of different land use zones does not automatically result in land use conflict or reverse sensitivity effects”. 33
96. The evidence from Mr Arbuthnot usefully described the initial concerns relating to reverse sensitivity effects, and some other matters, and the manner in which those concerns were subsequently further addressed in the PPC2 provisions following the receipt of submissions. He concluded that, subject to the amendments to the provisions that were identified in his evidence, the concerns that POAL had raised in respect of PPC2 were adequately addressed.34 We note, from the evidence, that the amendments sought by POAL were agreed with Mr Olliver for TAL, and we confirmed during the hearing that those amendments were all included in the final version of PPC2 presented by TAL. The amendments, importantly in our view, include additional
32 Heppelthwaite, Supplementary Evidence, para 3.7. 33 O’Dwyer, Rebuttal evidence, para 24. 34 Arbuthnot, Statement of evidence, para 9.1. Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 26
objectives and policies and matters of discretion that refer to reverse sensitivity, those being additional to earlier amendments TAL had made that refer only to specific rules.
97. We acknowledge the submission from Open Country Dairy Limited in which concern was expressed regarding reverse sensitivity effects, but we find that any potential for such effects, and the points raised in the submission and in evidence, are satisfied in the updated PPC2 provisions.
98. We conclude that while the potential for reverse sensitivity effects cannot be absolutely discounted, TAL has appropriately addressed that potential, and any effects can be managed through the separation distances provided from other activities in the area and in the design controls, the acoustic treatment provisions included in PPC2, and by the layout of the area sought to be rezoned.
Findings:
99. We find that any potential for reverse sensitivity effects is appropriately minimised by the PPC2 provisions as amended during the hearing process.
100. As we have concluded that the likelihood of any material reverse sensitivity effect is very low, acknowledging Ms Buckley’s argument that unsubstantiated perceived effects create work streams and costs that nevertheless affect the activity, we find that this principle is met and that the separation distances and provisions imposed are sufficient.
101. (i) Promote compact urban form, design and location
102. The landscape architects and urban designers agreed in their Joint Witness Statement that, internally, the proposed PPC2 development demonstrated consistency with this principle and would provide a more appropriate gateway then industrial development. However, Mr Coombs doubted35 that the fine-grained nature of the residential development proposed would add material physical presence to the sequence of existing and future large-scale landscape patterns and industrial development on either side of SH1.
103. Mr Coombs alone disagreed36 with the majority conclusion that the site is well located for the types of urban development proposed, on the grounds that TAL would be disconnected from other existing residential communities and was furthest from the Hamilton CBD. Furthermore, he expressed concern37 that this location’s isolation (14 kms from the nearest hospital and 4 km and 9.5 km from the closest primary and high schools respectively38) meant that it was less likely to be connected to the rest of Hamilton by public transport.
35 Coombs, Statement of evidence, para 5.20 36 Urban design and landscape JWL, page 4, para 15 & Statement of evidence, para 2.2 37 Coombs, Statement of evidence, para 5.7 38 Coombs, Statement of evidence, para 5.5 Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 27
104. Mr Broekhuysen disagreed, noting that the wider regional developments and initiatives - including the Hamilton to Auckland Corridor (H2A), Waikato District Council’s HT1 residential growth cell, and Hamilton City Council’s expanding urban edges of Ruakura, Peacockes, Rotokauri and Rototuna – were the more appropriate context for consideration. He concluded39 that TAL sat comfortably within that larger ambit from an urban design perspective.
Findings:
105. We agree that if PPC2 was fully developed at this time it would have the appearance of an isolated community, discontinuous with Hamilton and its various residential suburbs.
106. However, it is equally clear to us that such is not the medium term future for this area between Hamilton City and Waikato District – and that is the proper context for consideration. It is, rather, as Mr Broekhuysen (and Mr Tremaine and Mr O’Dwyer among others) indicated, a transitional future in which urban expansion (and especially residential) is more likely to reduce the currently perceived distances between centres and increase connectivity, and into which TAL will, in time, fit more appropriately.
107. We therefore find that PPC2, while not being entirely consistent with this principle at this time will, in due course and over a reasonable planning horizon, become fully consistent. There is, however, sufficient certainty of direction on the point to accept that it is sufficiently consistent with the principle in a planning horizon sense.
Does PPC2 give effect to the WRPS?
108. We are satisfied that, overall, PPC2 has no material or significant inconsistencies with the Part 6A Development Principles, and we accept Mr Tremaine’s evidence that it is consistent with the Future Proof Strategy as that moves forward recognising the changing planning landscape including the H2A initiative. In doing so we acknowledge Mr Milne’s submission, referred to earlier, regarding the extent to which “giving effect” weighs relative to generic versus specific policy directions.
109. However, before concluding on that matter we need to review the evidence received regarding the supply, development viability and feasibility of industrial land generally and TAL specifically – and the strong views of tangata whenua that industry is inappropriate adjacent to the Waikato River and, in their opinion, not consistent with the direction of Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato – the Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River, as that is now formally integrated into the WRPS through Objective 3.4:
The health and wellbeing of the Waikato River is restored and protected and Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato (the Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River) is achieved.
39 Broekhuysen, Statement of evidence, para 6.17 Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 28
110. Five submissions were received from Mana Whenua/Tangata Whenua (one submission being as an individual member of a Mana Whenua hapuu).40 Collectively they constituted the Tangata Whenua Working Group. The shared position of the submitters was in support of Proposed Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes Private Plan Change based on engagement with the applicant, the potential benefits of the development and contingent upon the twelve recommendations contained within the Cultural Impact Assessment Report being adopted and implemented by the applicant. This was reinforced by the Statements of Evidence and submissions in support presented at the Hearing.41 Mana Whenua/Tangata Whenua representatives attended pre-hearing expert witness caucusing42 to resolve and agree any points of differences.
111. The Cultural Impact Assessment Report recommendations have been agreed between the applicant, Mana Whenua/Tangata Whenua43, and Council.
112. On the question as to whether removing this land from the overall industrial land supply would have a deleterious effect, we heard economic evidence from Mr Polkinghorne who concluded that there was no evidence demonstrating that industrial demand (measured by resource consent applications) is out of line with the broad historical trend. He therefore adopted that trend line for industrial demand purposes of around 16-18 ha per annum (based on 8 ha per annum for Hamilton and 18 ha for the sub-region). Mr Polkinghorne noted44 that the WRPS provides for some 23 ha per annum in the strategic industrial nodes – much of which is already live zoned. He also noted45 that the subsequent Market Economics report on the NPS-UDC also concluded that feasible industrially zoned land is sufficient for future demand (confirmed in Dr Fairgray’s evidence).
113. Mr Polkinghorne also responded specifically46 to two matters of disagreement with Mr Copeland noted in the expert caucusing JWS - Economics:
The potential for adverse economic effects on nearby industrial land from residential activities; and
40 Turangawaewae Trust Board, Ngaati Haua Iwi Trust, Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust, Te Papaorotu Marae, Carolyn Hopa. 41 “Waikato-Tainui considers the early engagement method employed by PG throughout its consultation with TWWG…as exemplifying best practice iwi engagement…” “Waikato-Tainui and the TWWG collective agree that PG’s decision to develop the site as a mixed use zone; restores the mauri (life principle) to the awa, restores manawhenua connection to the awa and whenua…The plan creates opportunities for positive cultural, environmental, social and economic outcomes that enhances holistic well-being for mana whenua, in the short and long term.” Statement of Evidence of Waikato-Tainui. 42 Bio-security, Three Waters and Water Quality, Urban Design and Landscape and Economic and Strategic Issues. 43 “…all of those proposed recommendations have been agreed in principle by the Applicant, to be implemented throughout the plan change plan and thereafter. With those measures in place, it is my view that there are sufficient methods through PPC2 to avoid, remedy or mitigate cultural and other environmental effects of interest to mana whenua.” Statement of Evidence of Waikato-Tainui. This is supported and confirmed by the Applicants expert witnesses’ (Norman Hill) Statement of Evidence para 1.5 44 Polkinghorne, Statement of evidence, para 5.9 45 Polkinghorne, Statement of evidence, para 5.11 46 Polkinghorne, Statement of evidence, para 6.4 – 6.15 Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 29
Undersupply of heavy industrial capacity.
114. On those matters Mr Polkinghorne concluded47 that there will not be negative economic externality effects (neither adverse agglomeration nor retarded uptake effects), and the evidence over the 15 years to 2012 does not suggest any particular increase in heavy industry land demand.
115. Dr Fairgray provided evidence updating that 2012 BERL assessment and estimated likely demand for industrial land over the next three decades. He concluded48 overall that there is “considerable vacant capacity elsewhere” in the Hamilton - Future Proof area49 of interest regardless of the PPC2 land, and that there is nothing to suggest that any difference would otherwise be caused to the likely pattern of industrial development and growth.
116. Dr Fairgray noted50 that the 2017 NPS-UDC report had assessed the long-term (2017- 2047) demand for vacant industrial land across the Future Proof area at 881 ha, with some 1,190 ha of vacant industrial land capacity, and with 524 ha of that 881 ha (c.60%) projected to occur within Hamilton City.
117. Taking into account changes that are occurring in the industrial estate, the nature of industry, and floorspace per employee requirements, and applying two take-up scenarios, Dr Fairgray concluded51 that growth of between 1,800 and 3,700 employees could occur within the existing Hamilton City industrial estate. In other words, some 91% of anticipated growth would be likely to occur outside of the identified strategic industrial nodes.
118. Dr Fairgray’s revised52 long-term vacant industrial land demand under those two scenarios was between 574 ha and 727 ha across the Future Proof area overall, with 239 ha to 381 ha only within Hamilton City. Breaking that down further, Dr Fairgray’s modelled results53 indicated that under the no-PPC2 industrial land scenario, between 95 ha and 135 ha of vacant industrial capacity still remained in the Te Rapa North / Horotiu node following the long-term take-up of industrial land, with c.46% of that development share occurring within the Te Rapa North node.
119. Furthermore, Dr Fairgray cautioned that the modelling takes no account of the issue of industrial development feasibility, about which evidence was given by Mr Udale and which, if accepted over the planning horizon of 30 years, would mean that the actual situation would be similar under either a “with” or “without” PPC2 scenario.
47 Polkinghorne, Statement of evidence, paras 6.12 & 6.15 48 Fairgray, Statement of evidence, paras 1.4 – 1.5 49 That is, Hamilton City, Waikato and Waipa Districts. 50 Fairgray, Statement of evidence, paras 4.28 – 4.29. 51 Fairgray, Statement of evidence, paras 4.41 – 4.43. 52 Fairgray, Statement of evidence, para 4.46. 53 Fairgray, Statement of evidence, paras 4.52 – 4.53. Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 30
120. Mr Udale gave evidence about industrial development feasibility and commercial viability. Using what he referred to as a “standard development industry approach”54, he developed and costed a hypothetical industrial subdivision to an early stage feasibility level. That subdivision assumed that the most suitable and likely users were large format warehousing, logistics operators and similar light industry / assembly uses, with potential for showrooms to front the Waikato Expressway.
121. Taking into consideration typical development constraints for such activities, particularly topographical, soil and ground conditions, his analysis indicated55 that of the c.62 ha post development, 30% could achieve a Class A bearing capacity level (requiring minimal foundation work), 26% a Class B level (requiring specific foundation work), and the balance a Class C level (requiring significant foundation work or lightweight buildings only.
122. Assuming a developer’s standard 25% margin on cost, Mr Udale calculated56 an overall loss of $36 million or negative 29% return on cost – based on total revenue of $86,507,350 and total development costs of $122,226,298. Mr Udale ran a series of sensitivity analyses but none of those produced a positive commercial return over a 10-15 year period - (and possibly significantly longer, he added) 57. We note that Mr Udale relied upon the quantity survey evidence of Mr Millard in part for this analysis.
123. Mr Anderson’s peer review for Council took issue with a number of assumptions made by Mr Udale – addressed by the latter in evidence58. However, his conclusion agreed59 with Mr Udale (and his earlier Essentia report) stating:
… there would need to be a significant change in the land remediation cost or a very significant increase in land values to make industrial development of the Te Awa Lakes site viable. I also agree that over the short to medium term, land sale rates and construction costs do not materially diverge to the extent that a development such of (sic) this might become viable.
124. For Fonterra, Mr Martin, a civil and geotechnical engineer, criticised Mr Udale’s calculations on grounds including that he had not discounted the existing consent’s required quarry additional remediation costs of $10.5 million; that a more cost effective stormwater design could save a further $12.5 million and that a feasible alternative industrial use, such as a long-term cleanfill operation, could reduce construction costs by a further $10.63 million and potentially increase revenue by $7.5 million60. This
54 Udale, Statement of evidence, para 5.1 55 Udale, Statement of evidence, paras 5.9 and 5.13. 56 Udale, Statement of evidence, para 5.20 57 Udale, Statement of evidence, paras 5.25 – 5.26. 58 Udale, Statement of evidence, para 7.1. 59 Anderson (The Development Room), Industrial Viability Assessment Peer Review, page 14, section 6. 60 Martin, Statement of evidence, para 2.10. Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 31
provided an overall benefit of c.$43 million, which would make industrial development feasible and commercially viable61.
125. Mr Anderson addressed Mr Martin’s evidence in response. He noted, in particular, that evidence relied heavily on the cost assumption that quarry remediation and removal of the lakes was still required – which we were told by Mr Olliver is not the case (and that was not contradicted by any other planning witness). Furthermore, even when inputting Mr Martin’s cost and revenue assumptions into his version of the Essentia Feasibility model, Mr Anderson was unable to generate a commercially viable return (8% margin on cost), made worse if Mr Martin’s assumption about a 10-15 year alternative cleanfill operation preceded release for other industrial uses62.
126. With respect to the specific mix of proposed activity uses, including residential and commercial, we received very little evidence – other than indications of support (for the proposed tourism facilities or for increased housing stock, for example) or cautions about the extent to which commercial returns (for tourist ventures, for example) or how much additional housing at a sub-regional scale might actually eventuate.
127. We do, however, note that Dr Fairgray’s analysis concluded63 that this proposed development was more likely than some other identified nodes to cater for that segment of the housing market which demanded smaller, lower priced, medium density dwellings (as proposed) - and which the work on the NPS-UDC had identified as being in shortfall.
128. While the proof will, of course lie in the future (and we note Mr Copeland’s comment64 that residential development is more likely to be a reallocation rather than an addition to supply), we are satisfied that the overall concept has sufficient integrity for the purpose of a plan change – noting that the s32 RMA analyses undertaken were not challenged beyond the specific issues that we heard and have determined.
129. The respective urban design witnesses and/or landscape and visual architects generally expressed support for the overall concept and provisions, with Mr Coombs’ proviso as discussed above.
Findings:
130. We find that the weight of evidence supports the position that the removal of this quantum of land from the “planned” industrial land allocation will have little material adverse effect on the supply or demand for such land over the foreseeable horizon.
131. We also find that, in any event, it is highly likely that the land is unsuitable and uneconomic for industrial development in the medium term and that leaving it either as deferred industrial or live zoning it industrial would be unlikely to encourage its uptake for that purpose over that same period.
61 Martin, Statement of evidence, para 5.1. 62 Anderson, Response review, page 3. 63 Fairgray, Statement of evidence, para 4.16 64 Copeland, Statement of evidence. Para 4.2 Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 32
132. In conclusion, we are satisfied that there are no compelling resource management reasons for maintaining this land for planned industrial activity, and that the alternative zones etc proposed through PPC2 are appropriate.
Landform Dam – Geotechnical engineering
133. Ms Williams, for Hamilton City Council, had raised a concern65 regarding the potential geotechnical risks associated with zoning what she referred to as the landform dam (the narrow strip of land between the Waikato River and the linear lake - Areas Q and R) for residential development. Specifically, Ms Williams was concerned about the potential for piping erosion and scour to occur (this being in the vicinity of the linear lake outlet), which could result in wash-out and loss of the dam. This is due to the potential differential between the water level in the dammed linear lake and that in the Waikato River. She noted that the adopted 100-year flood level of RL 15.9m compared with the spill level of the dam of RL 14.5m meant an increased hydraulic gradient in such an event, which posed the risk.
134. Ms Williams’ solution was to provide two spillway outlets, one at each end of the linear lake at the same elevation of RL 14.5m. That would enable the lake water level to drop at or near to the same rate as the river, ensuring that the hydraulic gradient does not exceed 2% (identified for normal operating conditions).
135. Ms Williams also noted a residual scour and piping erosion risk issue if water from the linear lake found a preferential flow path toward the Waikato River. While she accepted that this risk was small, she considered it necessary that provisions require steps to be taken to minimise that potential.
136. PGL accepted Ms Williams concerns and, through caucusing, determined a suitable set of provisions with which Ms Williams and the respective planners agreed.
Findings:
137. We find that with the provisions now agreed, the risks identified by Ms Williams can be mitigated appropriately such that the proposed development in areas Q, R and X can only proceed once those risks have been addressed and resolved.
Swimmability of lake water
138. PGL proposed initially that the water quality goal (proposed Objective 3.8.1.3) for the linear lake should be “swimmability”. In the course of the hearing it became apparent (in response to Ms Rolfe’s concern66) that the water quality would not be able to meet such a goal at all times and that a target of swimmability was more appropriate67.
65 Williams, Statement of evidence, paras 8-21 66 Rolfe, Statement of evidence, para 11. 67 Hamill, Reply evidence, para 3.1. Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 33
139. Mr Hamill also gave his opinion that rather than a single value objective, his preference was for a more holistic one that encompassed recreational, amenity and ecological values.
140. On further caucusing an amended objective was agreed with Ms Rolfe.
141. We note that the “swimmable’ standard remains appropriate for the recreational contact waters of the cable ski lake and any other water bodies designed for swimming in the Adventure Park.
Findings:
142. We agree that setting a goal of swimmable water quality would prove problematic at times and accept the amended objective.
Alligator Weed
143. As Mr Eccles noted68, during the hearing the issue of alligator weed took on greater moment that had previously been considered.
144. The issue of alligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) was raised by Mr Embling, Team Leader, Biosecurity Pest Plants, Waikato Regional Council. He described69 this plant as “one of the world’s worst weeds, a “super weed””, noting that even once apparently eradicated it can survive and remain dormant in undisturbed soil for up to 10 years. As such it is classified under the Waikato Regional Pest Management Plan as a threat to both production and environmental values, and assigned a management category of “progressive containment”, with the aim of preventing its spread and distribution. It is known as occurring on the PPC2 site (first identified in 2004) and has resulted in a Restricted Place Notice being issued – which prohibits the movement of risk goods onto and off the property without a permit and contains conditions for management of the weed. As a result of events over the past decade, Mr Embling told us70 that alligator weed fragments are likely to have been dispersed throughout the soil profile to a depth of 9m. He was concerned that this site was one of the most significant sources of potential alligator weed spread into the Waikato River.
145. Mr Embling doubted the prospect of eradication from the site, and foresaw conflict between the management requirements for alligator weed and some of the ecological aspirations for the linear lake and open space areas – for example71, the use of a weed mat to suppress alligator weed meant that aquatic planting could not occur, which would impact lake water quality.
146. While Mr Russell generally agreed with Mr Embling he was not persuaded that the site posed the level of risk assumed, noting that the site has been well managed by WRC over the past 7-8 years. While not underestimating the significance of the task
68 Eccles, closing statement, para 2.12. 69 Embling, Statement of evidence, para 16. 70 Embling Statement of evidence, para 47. 71 Embling Statement of evidence, paras 62-64. Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 34
required, he was confident that the site could be developed as proposed with continued and continuous management. Mr Russell also noted proposed amendments to the stormwater management regime, undertaken in concert and with the agreement of Ms Rhynd, to further ensure that all water is entrained through the lake system as a further alligator weed treatment control option. Mr Russell accepted that specific treatment options were still under development and would be codified through the subsequent Alligator Weed Management Plan – which is to be required through the provisions of PPC2.
147. We note that by the end of the hearing Mr Embling agreed72 that the provision for a comprehensive Alligator Weed Management Plan and Weed Hygiene Plan was appropriate and that the drafts sighted were acceptable for the construction phase. He continued to express concern73 about the lack of detail as to how (and how effective) alligator weed would be managed post development.
Findings:
148. We share Mr Embling’s concerns about the prospect of complete eradication pre- development, and therefore the need for effective and efficient post-development management. However, we do not think that sufficient to decline PPC2, noting that WRC has avenues outside the RMA for management purposes (and we can also impose provisions that assist that matter). We accept Mr Russell’s comment that WRC has managed alligator weed on the site without apparent incident over the past few years, and we received no evidence indicating that had not been effective or that the situation has further deteriorated. We also note that the measures broadly agreed with Mr Embling for the construction phase ought to reduce that risk further.
Conclusions:
149. Overall, we find the rezonings proposed by PPC2 to be appropriate as:
(i) the rezonings do not result in any conflicts with the relevant statutory and plan/policy criteria for the consideration of plan changes and in particular, the evidence presented demonstrated the manner in which PPC2 gives effect to the WRPS, and is not inconsistent with the ODP for Hamilton;
(ii) the rezonings have due regard to the interests of mana whenua/tangata whenua who have collectively supported PPC2, noting the rezonings are not inconsistent with the direction of Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato and the recommendations in the Cultural Impact Assessment Report, which have been adopted by the applicant;
(iii) the rezonings will not result in any adverse effects on the environment that are not capable of being avoided or sufficiently mitigated by the provisions in the PPC2, with those provisions being further amended during the course of the
72 Embling, Summary of evidence, paras 5-6 & 13. 73 Embling, Summary of evidence, para 17. Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 35
hearing of it, those amendments addressing all relevant matters raised by submitters;
(iv) the rezonings will achieve the sustainable management purpose and the principles of the RMA; and
(v) concerns raised by submitters are specifically addressed by the PPC2 provisions and can, in most instances, be addressed at the detailed design and resource consent application stages.
SECTIONS 32 AND 32AA RMA EVALUATION
150. Section 32AA of the RMA requires us to include a further evaluation of any proposed changes to the plan change arising from submissions (to be undertaken in accordance with section 32AA).
151. We have not included a further analysis under section 32AA as we have decided to approve PPC2 as per the version provided in Reply without material change, and have adopted the conclusions reached by Mr Eccles with respect to the original section 32 analysis and his subsequent s32AA evaluation contained within the s42A Hearing Report74. In his Appendix D, Mr Eccles undertook a further s32AA evaluation on the newly introduced provisions that related particularly to water quality in the lakes, affordable housing, and Comprehensive Development Consents (with regards to the Major Facilities Zone). In his final response, Mr Eccles gave further consideration75 to the proposed geotechnical, subdivision and activity (Land Development Plan) provisions relating to areas Q, R and X, and was satisfied that those provisions were appropriate, effective and efficient and suitably reflective of a cautious approach to potential adverse effects.
152. We have reviewed those evaluations, agree with its analysis and conclusions, and adopt them accordingly.
DECISION ON SUBMISSIONS
153. Pursuant to Schedule 1, Clause 10 of the RMA we determine that PPC2 to the Hamilton City Plan is approved as per Appendix 1 (cleaned version); Appendix 2 (amended notified version); and Appendix 3 (Plans) attached.
154. Submissions on PPC2 are accepted and rejected in accordance with this decision and on the basis of the recommendations set out in the section 42A RMA report and as summarised in Appendix 4 attached.
155. In addition to the findings we have made above, the summary reasons for this decision are that Private Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes:
74 S42A Hearing report, Section 5. 75 Eccles, Closing statement, paras 2.8-2.11. Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 36
(i) will assist the Council in achieving its functions under s31 RMA and the Part 2 sustainable management purpose and principles of the RMA;
(ii) will give effect to the National Policy Statements on Urban Development Capacity (2016) and Freshwater Management (2017 amendment);
(iii) will give effect to the Waikato Regional Policy Statement 2016;
(iv) is supported by necessary evaluations in accordance with sections 32 and 32AA RMA; and
(v) is aligned with and will further assist with the effective implementation of the operative Hamilton City Plan 2017.
David Hill Chairperson (& for the Panel of Commissioners)
Dated: 10 March 2020
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 37
APPENDIX 1 – PPC2 Te Awa Lakes (Cleaned Decisions Version)
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 38
APPENDIX 2 – PPC2 Te Awa Lakes (Amended Notified Version)
In this plan version, bold double underlined text is a change made as a result of our decision, while single underlined text is an unaltered change as publicly notified.
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 39
APPENDIX 3 – Plans (Framework & Land Development Areas)
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 41
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 42
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 43
APPENDIX 4 – Summary Decisions on Submission Points
Decisions on Submissions and Further Submissions 76 General Support Sub. Name Sub. Point Sub. Type Summary Decision FS. Name FS. Point Brownie Investments - 1.00 Support Seeks good quality Accept Vanessa Gibson development with extra housing and recreational opportunities as industrial use not the best use of land. Dhiraj Koli 2.00 Support Supports plan change in Accept entirety. Mike McCleery 3.00 Support Supports proposed land Accept uses and better treatment for the Waikato River. Andrew Yeoman 4.00 Support Provide a gateway to Accept Hamilton and world class attraction whilst enabling the construction of additional
76 As noted in our Decision, by the end of the hearing the positions of WRC, HCC (as submitter), NZTA, and Ports of Auckland had changed to being no longer in opposition to PPC2. Accordingly, the decision tables that follow reflect the final position of the submission and further submission points from these submitters as Neutral. This explains the difference in the recorded positions from those submitters in the following tables from the equivalent tables in Mr Eccles’ 42A report.
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 44
housing. Brownie Investments-Colette 6.00 Support Seeks gateway to Hamilton Accept Brown as an attractive feature for tourists with good access to housing via the expressway. Turangawaewae Trust 7.00 Neutral Requests minimal impact on Accept Board Manga Harakiekie Pa Site and no extraction of water from Waikato River. Hamilton Central Rotary 8.00 Support Seeks an attractive entrance Accept to the city and water feature destination. Ian Schultz 9.00 Support Seeks economic growth to Accept the region and social and cultural benefits to the wider community. Waikato Chamber of 10.00 Support Supports plan change in Accept Commerce entirety Tainui Waka Tourism 11.00 Support Supports tourism Accept Incorporated opportunities. Carla Parry 12.00 Support Provide a tourism attraction Accept for the region and support for Te Awa River Ride. Te Awa River Ride 13.00 Support Provide a gateway to the Accept Charitable Trust region which complements the Te Awa River Ride and provides amenity for the community. Brian Perry Charitable Trust 14.00 Support Provide a gateway to the Accept region which complements the river ride and benefits the community. MH Builders 15.00 Support Provide a gateway to region, Accept improvements to transport
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 45
links and additional housing. Birch Holdings Ltd 16.00 Support Provide additional housing Accept by expressway, tourism and economic benefits. Ngaruawahia Community 18.00 Neutral Retain Ngaruawahia as a Accept Board strategic location for cultural tourism and future residential development. Waikato River Explorer 21.00 Support Provide connection to the Accept Waikato River, tourism and additional housing. Habitat for Humanity 22.00 Support Provide a gateway to city Accept and additional housing in close proximity to river and cycle trails. Peregrine Developments Ltd 24.00 Support Provide a gateway to the city Accept with a great living environment close to Waikato River. K'Aute Pasifika Trust- Kim 25.00 Support Provide a gateway to Accept Holt Hamilton with an increase in recreational activities and utilisation of the river. Ngati Haua Iwi Trust 26.00 Support Supports plan change in Accept entirety. Waitomo Adventures Ltd 27.00 Support Provide a unique gateway to Accept the region that complements Te Awa River Ride and Waikato River. Planning and Construction 28.00 Support Seeks employment and Accept Consulting Ltd revenue opportunities. Deloitte 29.00 Support Supports plan change in Accept entirety.
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 46
K'Aute Pasifika Trust- 30.00 Support Seeks an attractive gateway Accept Rachel Karalus to city to attract visitors and alleviate housing shortage. Rob Hamill 32.00 Support Provide residential use next Accept to Waikato River and tourism in region. Wel Networks 33.00 Neutral Seeks early engagement, Accept employment and remedy to housing shortage. Perry Outdoor Education 34.00 Support Provide facility to use as part Accept Trust of programme for students Karen Singers 35.00 Support Supports opportunity for Accept community Aflex Technology 36.00 Support Provide a gateway with Accept additional housing next to the river and a facility which provides an activity for community and encourages visitors from outside the region. SC & AJ Hodgkinson 37.01 Oppose Retain existing zoning due to Reject increased traffic congestion, noise and light emissions and construction effects. AFFCO FS4.26 Support Supports the submission Reject Open Country FS5.26 Support Supports the submission Reject Swimming Waikato 38.00 Support Seeks modern gateway to Accept city with inclusion of residential housing and water park with link to river ride. Hampton Downs Motorsport 39.00 Provide a gateway and Accept Park residential use which delivers on housing
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 47
shortage. Steven Gordon 40.00 Support Supports economic driver for Accept Hamilton and region. Swimming Waikato 42.00 Support Provide a vibrant gateway Accept which will enable hosting of open water swimming events and additional housing next to river. Waikato DHB 43.00 Neutral Seeks a health and well- Reject being impact assessment to provide evidence on impacts of proposal. Waikato Tainui 44.00 Support Seeks economic growth; Accept protection and enhancement of waterways and wetlands; and planting of native species. Supports subject to the recommendations in the Cultural Impact Assessment. New Zealand Transport 45.01 Oppose Reject the plan change due Reject Agency traffic, noise and reverse sensitivity effects. Waikato Regional Council FS2.03 Support Supports the submission. Reject Fonterra 46.00 Oppose Reject the plan change. Reject AFFCO FS4.38 Support Supports the submission Reject (supports all of Fonterra’s submission) Open Country FS5.38 Support Supports the submission Reject (supports all of Fonterra’s submission) Fonterra 46.02 Oppose Avoid, remedy or mitigate Accept traffic, economic, urban design, landscape and visual effects.
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 48
Fonterra 46.12 Support in part Supports the proposal for an Accept adventure park through a resource consent. Fonterra 46.13 Oppose Reject the plan change as it Reject will not promote the sustainable management of resources; meet the needs of future generations; enable social, economic and cultural wellbeing; is contrary to the purposes and principles and fails to comply with Section 75 of the RMA; and does not represent the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the District Plan, in terms of s32. Hamilton and Waikato 48.00 Support Provide a gateway to the Accept Tourism city, activation of the Waikato River and visitor expenditure with the establishment of a tourism and recreational destination. Peter O'Reagan 49.00 Support Provide tourism in Hamilton Accept and the region, additional houses, jobs and an attractive gateway to the city. Carolyn Hopa 50.00 Support Provide economic benefits, Accept employment and housing and support based on the recommendations in the Cultural Impact Assessment. Te Papaorotu Marae 53.00 Support Seeks employment and well- Accept being opportunities.
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 49
BTW Company 54.00 Support Provide a diverse mixture of Accept land uses; a gateway city can be proud of; provision of housing; tourism growth next to river and cycleway; protection, enhancement and access of Waikato river; and economic boost. Sport Waikato Education 55.00 Support Provide additional housing Accept Trust next to river and Te Awa River Ride and a gateway with efficient and unique use of land. Arthur Mellsop 56.00 Support Provide more houses, a Accept vibrant city, employment and leisure activity next to river. Kenneth Willamson 57.01 Support Provide a unique Accept environment, a gateway to Hamilton and destination for tourists and locals with an activity more appropriate by river. Kenneth Willamson 57.02 Support in Part Require planting on river Accept bank. Anne Edgecombe 58.00 Neutral Note: no reasons provided in Accept the submission. Marina McMahon-Ieremia 59.00 Support Provide additional housing Accept and a gateway with an efficient and distinctive use of land. Ariona Ieremia 60.00 Support Provide a gateway with an Accept efficient and unique use of land and residential use by river. Christine Corfe-Tan 61.00 Support in Part Provide a noise barrier and Reject
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 50
visual screen, controls on noise levels, social problems, fumes and wildlife habitat. Hobbiton Movie Set 62.00 Support Seeks tourism for region. Accept
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 51
Industrial Development Feasibility Sub. Name Sub. Point Sub. Type Summary Decision FS. Name FS. Point Waikato District Council 17.03 Neutral Requests evidence that the cost of remediating the site for Accept industrial use is uneconomic. Waikato Regional Council FS2.01 Neutral Supports the submission Accept
Fonterra FS3.04 Support Supports the submission Accept
AFFCO FS4.04 Support Supports the submission Accept
Open Country FS5.04 Support Supports the submission Accept
Open Country Dairy Limited 19.04 Oppose Reject the plan change as the level of demand for prime Reject industrial space in Hamilton is understated. AFFCO FS4.08 Support Supports the submission Reject
Future Proof 23.01 Support Provide evidence that it is not economic to develop the site Accept for industrial purposes. Waikato Regional Council FS2.02 Support Supports the submission Accept
Fonterra FS3.06 Support Supports the submission. Accept AFFCO FS4.24 Support Supports the submission Accept
Open Country FS5.05 Support Supports the submission Accept
AFFCO New Zealand Limited 31.03 Oppose Reject the plan change as the level of demand for prime Reject industrial space in Hamilton is understated. Open Country FS5.09 Support Supports the submission Reject
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 52
Contact Energy 51.03 Oppose Decline the plan change as it will have adverse economic Reject effects for Te Rapa North and the region. AFFCO FS4.40 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Contacts Reject submissions 51.00-51.07) Open Country FS5.40 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Contacts Reject submissions 51.00-51.07)
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 53
Strategic Land Use and Economics Sub. Name Sub. Point Sub. Type Summary Decision FS. Name FS. Point Waikato District Council 17.00 Neutral Requests evidence on whether there is an over or under Accept supply of industrial land, the effect on the Te Rapa North and Horotiu Industrial Nodes, precedent effects and if this is the best place for residential development. Waikato Regional Council FS2.01 Neutral Supports the submission Accept
Fonterra FS3.01 Support Supports the submission Accept
AFFCO FS4.01 Support Supports the submission and the ongoing availability of Accept industrial land Open Country FS5.01 Support Supports the submission and the ongoing availability of Accept industrial land Open Country Dairy Limited 19.01 Oppose Reject the plan change in its totality. Reject
Fonterra FS3.05 Support Supports the submission Reject
AFFCO FS4.05 Support Supports the submission Reject
Open Country Dairy Limited 19.05 Oppose Reject the plan change as there is no compelling argument Reject for establishing a tourism and recreational destination in this area at the cost of valuable industrial land. AFFCO FS4.09 Support Supports the submission Reject
Open Country Dairy Limited 19.07 Oppose Retain the industrial land in the Te Rapa area due to Reject location next to existing and planned industrial areas and its proximity to the Waikato Expressway. AFFCO FS4.11 Support Supports the submission Reject
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 54
Open Country Dairy Limited 19.08 Oppose Reject the plan change due to opportunity for new Reject industrial development to provide a comparatively higher amenity environment. AFFCO FS4.12 Support Supports the submission Reject
Open Country Dairy Limited 19.09 Oppose Reject the plan change as the existing zoning ensures an Reject integrated, efficient and coordinated delivery of regionally important infrastructure is enabled. AFFCO FS4.13 Support Supports the submission Reject
Open Country Dairy Limited 19.10 Oppose Reject the plan change as the existing zoning provides a Reject framework to assist with the management of potential adverse effects, in particular those effects on the existing and serviced industrial zoned areas of the city. AFFCO FS4.14 Support Supports the submission Reject
Open Country Dairy Limited 19.11 Oppose Reject the plan change as industrial land is a finite and Reject valuable resource that needs to be used efficiently and effectively for employment purposes and to provide social and economic wellbeing of the City. AFFCO FS4.15 Support Supports the submission Reject
Open Country Dairy Limited 19.12 Oppose Reject the plan change as industrial land should be Reject retained for industrial uses as those uses cannot establish in other parts of the city. AFFCO FS4.16 Support Supports the submission Reject
Open Country Dairy Limited 19.13 Oppose Reject the plan change as the existing zone is a critical Reject component in ensuring the efficiency of dairy manufacturing and export within the region. AFFCO FS4.17 Support Supports the submission Reject
Open Country Dairy Limited 19.14 Oppose Reject the plan change due to employment benefits of Reject industrial land and industrial land being a key economic
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 55
driver for the region. AFFCO FS4.18 Support Supports the submission Reject
Open Country Dairy Limited 19.15 Oppose Reject the plan change as the Te Rapa North Industrial Reject Zone ensures industrial land is not diluted by non-industrial activities, or developed out of sequence with other industrially zoned land in the City. AFFCO FS4.19 Support Supports the submission Reject
Open Country Dairy Limited 19.16 Oppose Reject the plan change as the limited range of land uses Reject provided for in the Te Rapa North Industrial area is specifically intended to reflect the existing Te Rapa Dairy Factory activity and the opportunity that opening the Waikato Expressway provides for travelling motorists. AFFCO FS4.20 Support Supports the submission Reject
Open Country Dairy Limited 19.17 Oppose Reject the plan change as the application is not consistent Reject with the RPS in ensuring industrial land remains available. AFFCO FS4.21 Support Supports the submission Reject
Open Country Dairy Limited 19.18 Oppose Reject the plan change as it is not consistent with the RPS Reject in limiting new industrial land rather than reducing available land. AFFCO FS4.22 Support Supports the submission Reject
Open Country Dairy Limited 19.19 Oppose Reject the plan change as it is not consistent with the RPS Reject as new developments should be directed away from regionally significant infrastructure and should not result in incompatible adjacent land uses. AFFCO FS4.23 Support Supports the submission Reject
Future Proof 23.02 Support Provide evidence to understand the loss of strategic Accept industrial land and impacts on other industrial nodes
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 56
Fonterra FS3.07 Support Supports the submission. Accept
AFFCO FS4.25 Support Supports the submission Accept
Open Country FS5.06 Support Supports the submission Accept
AFFCO New Zealand Limited 31.00 Oppose Reject the plan change in entirety. Reject Fonterra FS3.08 Support Supports the submission Reject
AFFCO New Zealand Limited 31.04 Oppose Reject the plan change as there is no compelling argument Reject for establishing a tourism and recreational destination in this area at the cost of valuable industrial land. Open Country FS5.10 Support Supports the submission Reject
AFFCO New Zealand Limited 31.06 Oppose Retain the industrial land in the Te Rapa area due to Reject location next to existing and planned industrial areas and its proximity to the Waikato Expressway. Open Country FS5.12 Support Supports the submission Reject
AFFCO New Zealand Limited 31.07 Oppose Reject the plan change due opportunity for new industrial Reject development to provide a comparatively higher amenity environment. Open Country FS5.13 Support Supports the submission Reject
AFFCO New Zealand Limited 31.08 Oppose Reject the plan change as the existing zoning ensures an Reject integrated, efficient and coordinated delivery of regionally important infrastructure is enabled. Open Country FS5.14 Support Supports the submission Reject
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 57
AFFCO New Zealand Limited 31.09 Oppose Reject the plan change as the existing zoning provides a Reject framework to assist with the management of potential adverse effects, in particular those effects on the existing and serviced industrial zoned areas of the city. Open Country FS5.15 Support Supports the submission Reject
AFFCO New Zealand Limited 31.10 Oppose Reject the plan change as industrial land is a finite and Reject valuable resource that needs to be used efficiently and effectively for employment purposes and to provide social and economic wellbeing of the City. Open Country FS5.16 Support Supports the submission Reject
AFFCO New Zealand Limited 31.11 Oppose Reject the plan change as industrial land should be Reject retained for industrial uses as those uses cannot establish in other parts of the city. Open Country FS5.17 Support Supports the submission Reject
AFFCO New Zealand Limited 31.12 Oppose Reject the plan change as the existing zone is a critical Reject component in ensuring the efficiency of dairy manufacturing and export within the region. Open Country FS5.18 Support Supports the submission Reject
AFFCO New Zealand Limited 31.13 Oppose Reject the plan change due to employment benefits of Reject industrial land and industrial land being a key economic driver for the region. Open Country FS5.19 Support Supports the submission Reject
AFFCO New Zealand Limited 31.14 Oppose Reject the plan change as the Te Rapa North Industrial Reject Zone ensures industrial land is not diluted by non-industrial activities, or developed out of sequence with other industrially zoned land in the City. Open Country FS5.20 Support Supports the submission Reject
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 58
AFFCO New Zealand Limited 31.16 Oppose Reject the plan change as the limited range of land uses Reject provided for in the Te Rapa North Industrial area is specifically intended to reflect the existing Te Rapa Dairy Factory activity and the opportunity that opening the Waikato Expressway provides for travelling motorists. Open Country FS5.22 Support Supports the submission Reject
AFFCO New Zealand Limited 31.17 Oppose Reject the plan change as the application is not consistent Reject with the RPS in ensuring industrial land remains available. Open Country FS5.23 Support Supports the submission Reject
AFFCO New Zealand Limited 31.18 Oppose Reject the plan change as it is not consistent with the RPS Reject in limiting new industrial land rather than reducing available land. Open Country FS5.24 Support Supports the submission Reject
AFFCO New Zealand Limited 31.19 Oppose Reject the plan change as it is not consistent with the RPS Reject as new developments should be directed away from regionally significant infrastructure and should not result in incompatible adjacent land uses. Open Country FS5.25 Support Supports the submission Reject
SC & AJ Hodgkinson 37.02 Oppose Retain existing zoning due to isolated pocket of residential Reject land with lack of infrastructure including capacity in local schools, water, electricity and broadband. Fonterra FS3.09 Support Supports the submission and considers an isolated enclave Reject of residential land adjoining strategically important heavy industrial land inappropriate and unsustainable. AFFCO FS4.27 Support Supports the submission Reject
Open Country FS5.27 Support Supports the submission Reject
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 59
Waikato Regional Council 41.00 Neutral Seeks robust and comprehensive evidence on whether the Accept plan change gives effect to the policies in the RPS, particularly those in Section 6 Built Environment (RPS 6.1, 6.3, 6C, 6D and 6.16). These provisions promote a compact urban form which can accommodate Future Proof area's growth and establish a settlement pattern that provides certainty about timely and efficient provision of infrastructure. Fonterra FS3.10 Support Supports the submission and considers evidence should Accept also address the matters in Policy 4.4 of the RPS as the development could compromise the continued operation and expansion of regionally significant industry. AFFCO FS4.31 Support Supports the submission. The appropriate use for the site Reject is industrial. Open Country FS5.31 Support Supports the submission. The appropriate use for the site Reject is industrial. Waikato Regional Council 41.01 Neutral Reject the plan change unless there is economic evidence Accept in part to address the loss of industrial land, the current demand for residential and industrial land, the wider implications of residential activities, comparative costs and benefits given geotechnical constraints; and the impact of commercial aspects on other commercial centres. Fonterra FS3.11 Support Supports the submission and considers evidence should Accept in part also address the effects on the continued operation and expansion of Te Rapa Dairy Factory and future development of industrial activities within the balance of the Te Rapa Strategic Industrial Node. AFFCO FS4.32 Support Supports the submission Accept in part
Open Country FS5.32 Support Supports the submission Accept in part
Waikato Regional Council 41.02 Neutral Oppose the plan change as it proposes an alteration to the Reject agreed land use pattern in a strategic industrial node. This challenges the agreed Future Proof land use pattern and provides uncertainty about the efficient and effective
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 60
provision of infrastructure. If approved it could set a precedent for further challenges to the sub-regions agreed strategic direction. Fonterra FS3.12 Support Supports the submission and considers that the proposal Reject has inadequately assessed the effects on Te Rapa Dairy Factory as regionally significant industry and establishes a precedent in terms of the approach that is adopted towards the protection of such activities. AFFCO FS4.33 Support Supports the submission due to inadequate consideration Reject to effects on industrial activities. Open Country FS5.33 Support Supports the submission due to inadequate consideration Reject to effects on industrial activities. Waikato Regional Council 41.03 Neutral Requires evidence that includes information from the NPS- Accept in part UDC. Fonterra FS3.13 Support Supports the submission Accept in part?
AFFCO FS4.34 Support Supports the submission Accept in part?
Waikato Regional Council 41.05 Neutral Reject unless information can be provided to demonstrate Accept that the plan change gives effect to Policy 6.3 of the RPS as the residential component could result in the Waikato Expressway investment not being realised. Fonterra FS3.15 Support Supports the submission and considers that such Accept in part information should also demonstrate how the proposal gives effects to Policy 4.4 of the RPS as the development could compromise the continued operation and expansion of regionally significant industry. AFFCO FS4.36 Support Supports the submission. The appropriate use for the site Reject is industrial purposes. The expressway supports industrial activities. The applicant should also demonstrate how the proposal gives effect to Policy 4.4 of the RPS in regard to compromising the continued operation and expansion of regionally significant infrastructure. Open Country FS5.36 Support Supports the submission. The appropriate use for the site Reject is industrial purposes. The expressway supports industrial
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 61
activities. The applicant should also demonstrate how the proposal gives effect to Policy 4.4 of the RPS in regard to compromising the continued operation and expansion of regionally significant infrastructure. New Zealand Transport 45.00 Neutral Reject the plan change as it is counter to the principles and Reject Agency objectives of the WRPS, Future Proof Growth Strategy, Hamilton Urban Growth Strategy and proposed Access Hamilton Strategy, in relation to the strategic integration of land use planning and infrastructure investment. Waikato Regional Council FS2.03 Neutral Supports the submission Reject
Fonterra FS3.18 Support Supports the submission Reject
AFFCO FS4.37 Support Supports the submission. The provision of road Reject infrastructure is an important element of contributing to the value of the land for industrial activities. (supports all NZTA submissions) Open Country FS5.37 Support Supports the submission. The provision of road Reject infrastructure is an important element of contributing to the value of the land for industrial activities. (supports all NZTA submissions) New Zealand Transport 45.02 Neutral Seeks to maintain the long term benefits and investment of Accept Agency the Waikato Expressway, Hamilton Ring Road and Southern Links. Waikato Regional Council FS2.03 Neutral Supports the submission Accept
New Zealand Transport 45.03 Neutral Seeks consistency with Future Proof and the Waikato Accept Agency Regional Policy Statement. The future proof strategy provides confidence for the Agency to invest in the sub- region and maintains the long term benefits of investments. Waikato Regional Council FS2.03 Neutral Supports the submission Accept
New Zealand Transport 45.04 Neutral Seeks consistency with HUGS in achieving a compact city. Accept Agency Any departure from this needs to be carefully considered in terms of the existing and proposed infrastructure.
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 62
Waikato Regional Council FS2.03 Support Supports the submission Accept
New Zealand Transport 45.05 Neutral Reject the plan change as it is not consistent with Access Reject Agency Hamilton in ensuring an efficient integration of land use with the transport network, multi modal access, a viable bus route and safe and efficient road network. The development is likely to adversely impact congested areas including Wairere Drive and Te Rapa Road intersections. Waikato Regional Council FS2.03 Neutral Supports the submission Reject
New Zealand Transport 45.06 Neutral Requests the change to the strategic framework be Accept in part Agency rejected unless it is justified by robust evidence including: * the need to advance residential and commercial land use when sufficient urban development capacity exists * the need for change from the existing strategic framework * consistency with the principles of the strategic framework * impact on the broader strategic framework Waikato Regional Council FS2.03 Neutral Supports the submission Accept in part New Zealand Transport 45.07 Neutral Opposes the plan change as the area is in close proximity Reject Agency to the Waikato Expressway and investments have been made in the Expressway to provide for a level of service to facilitate ongoing development of strategic industrial activities. Waikato Regional Council FS2.03 Neutral Supports the submission Reject
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 63
New Zealand Transport 45.08 Neutral Oppose the plan change as a Memorandum of Reject Agency Understanding for the Northern Growth Corridor was signed in 2010 between Hamilton City Council, Waikato District Council and the Transport Agency which captures co-ordination of land use and large scale infrastructure investments required to enable strategic industrial activities and supporting residential development to operate effectively. The infrastructure partnership aims to provide co-location benefits particularly provided by a strategic industrial node. These benefits will be difficult to realise in other locations and costly to replicate. Waikato Regional Council FS2.03 Neutral Supports the submission Reject
New Zealand Transport 45.09 Neutral Oppose the plan change as there is a difference between Reject Agency industrial land and strategic industrial nodes where substantial partnership investment has occurred. If the strategic industrial node is eroded, the Agency may come under pressure to provide a similar level of service in another location. This financial impact is a concern to the Agency. Waikato Regional Council FS2.03 Neutral Supports the submission Reject
New Zealand Transport 45.10 Neutral Oppose the plan change as there is sufficient residential Reject Agency land to satisfy the requirements of the NPS Urban Development Capacity. Waikato Regional Council FS2.03 Neutral Supports the submission Reject
New Zealand Transport 45.11 Neutral Oppose the plan change as the One Network charter Reject Agency signed by the Transport Agency, HCC and WRC in 2013 commits to making the best use of the existing transport network, before expanding it. The proposed development will result in more private vehicle movements occurring on an already congested part of the network. Waikato Regional Council FS2.03 Neutral Supports the submission Reject
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 64
New Zealand Transport 45.14 Neutral Oppose the plan change as the development is Reject Agency inconsistent with agreed staging and timing for urban development in North Hamilton. Waikato Regional Council FS2.03 Neutral Supports the submission Reject
Fonterra 46.03 Oppose Provide development that does not compromise the long Accept in part term strategic planning framework for Hamilton City and the Region including the Waikato Regional Policy Statement and Future Proof; and altering the agreed land use pattern under the RPS and the strategic industrial node. Fonterra 46.04 Oppose Reject the plan change as it is inconsistent with the Reject planning framework for Hamilton City and the Waikato Region. All of Council's key strategic planning documents identify Te Rapa as an exclusively industrial area including the RPS, Future Proof and the District Plan. Fonterra 46.05 Oppose Reject the plan change for an isolated residential area in Reject the Te Rapa North Strategic Industrial Node as it will undermine the integrity of the Council's strategic land use planning as well as for the wider Waikato Region. Fonterra 46.06 Oppose Reject the plan change as it is not consistent with the RPS Reject as it proposes to fundamentally alter the agreed land use pattern. Fonterra 46.07 Oppose Reject the plan change as it mischaracterises the Perry Reject Site as a greenfield area under Future Proof. Fonterra 46.08 Oppose Retain the existing zoning as the site is identified as future Reject employment land under HUGS and it provides for growth and expansion of the Te Rapa site as a significant regional employer. Fonterra 46.09 Oppose Provide for growth that does not allow incompatible Accept in part activities to be located in close proximity to one another. Fonterra 46.10 Oppose Provide for development that does not compromise existing Accept in part and planned investment in road, rail and three-waters infrastructure.
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 65
Fonterra 46.11 Oppose Seeks growth that does not compromise Fonterra's current Accept in part and future operations and Contact Energy's co-generation plant. Fonterra 46.14 Oppose Reject the plan change is it is not consistent with the NPS- Reject UDC which seeks to ensure there is development capacity for both residential and business land. Fonterra 46.17 Oppose Reject the plan change as it is not consistent with Access Reject Hamilton and HUGS which require a compact city. Fonterra 46.19 Oppose Reject the plan change as it could lead to the under Reject utilisation of existing infrastructure with capacity to service already planned new residential development and increased costs for the district and reduced housing affordability. Fonterra 46.20 Oppose Reject the plan change as it will not deliver a signature Reject gateway to Hamilton North. Fonterra 46.21 Oppose Reject the plan change as an isolated island suburb as it is Reject poor urban design. Hamilton City Council 47.01 Neutral Seeks to ensure a strategic industrial node is not lost to, or Accept compromised by, residential development, unless consistent with the NPS-UDC and an amended Regional Policy Statement. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission Accept
Fonterra FS3.19 Support Supports the submission and agrees that the proposal is Reject premature in advance of supporting evidence provided through the NPS-UDC and amended RPS framework which ensures that an amended settlement pattern will not compromise the continued operation and expansion of regionally significant industry. AFFCO FS4.39 Support Supports the submission. The proposal is based on Reject inadequate supporting evidence including NPS-UDC and amended RPS framework and presents a risk of compromising ongoing regionally significant infrastructure (HCC 47.02-47.12)
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 66
Open Country FS5.39 Support Supports the submission. The proposal is based on Reject inadequate supporting evidence including NPS-UDC and amended RPS framework and presents a risk of compromising ongoing regionally significant infrastructure (HCC 47.02-47.12) Hamilton City Council 47.02 Neutral Seeks evidence that there is a need for additional Accept residential zoned land within the City. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission Accept
Fonterra FS3.20 Support Supports the submission and requires analysis of the Accept in part available residential land supply including opportunities within land adjoining the City that has been identified for residential expansion. Hamilton City Council 47.04 Neutral Seeks a s32 which includes a full assessment of the costs, Accept benefits and alternatives including the following: * The costs, benefits and alternatives to the land use pattern set out in the Regional Policy Statement * Information on the effect on Te Rapa North and Horotiu as strategic industrial nodes * Information on consistency with the NPS-UDC * Information on whether the residential use undermines residential areas in Rototuna, Ruakura, Rotokauri and Peacocks and whether there is enough residential capacity to meet the NPS-UDC * Costs and benefits of developing the land for industrial use compared to residential * Alternatives to industrial uses * Costs and benefits of leaving the land undeveloped * Costs of residential development on the site compared with other residential areas * Compare for industrial and residential the risks and effects of liquefaction and costs of managing those effects * Effects, costs and benefits of a hotel in the visitor accommodation overlay * The costs and benefits of the neighbourhood centre being
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 67
of a suburban centre scale Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Support Supports the submission Accept Hamilton City Council 47.08 Neutral Requests alignment of zoning with SHA application. Accept Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission Accept Contact Energy 51.00 Oppose Decline the plan change. Reject Fonterra FS3.27 Support Support the submission Reject
AFFCO FS4.40 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Contact’s Reject submissions 51.00-51.07) Open Country FS5.40 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Contact’s Reject submissions 51.00-51.07) Contact Energy 51.01 Oppose Decline the plan change as it undermines WRPS and the Reject strategic industrial node. The land is strategically set aside for locating new and existing industrial activities and it is cut off from other residential areas. AFFCO FS4.40 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Contact’s Reject submissions 51.00-51.07) Open Country FS5.40 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Contact’s Reject submissions 51.00-51.07) Contact Energy 51.02 Oppose Decline the plan change as it will undermine long standing Reject planning strategies and allow strategic industrial land to be used in an ad hoc, unplanned way. AFFCO FS4.40 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Contact’s Reject submissions 51.00-51.07) Open Country FS5.40 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Contact’s Reject submissions 51.00-51.07) Ports of Auckland 52.00 Neutral Decline the plan change. Reject
Fonterra FS3.28 Support Supports the submission. Reject
AFFCO FS4.41 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Ports of Reject Auckland’s submissions 52-52.08)
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 68
Open Country FS5.41 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Ports of Reject Auckland’s submissions 52-52.08) Ports of Auckland 52.01 Neutral Decline plan change as it does not give effect to the Reject Waikato Regional Policy Statement and specifically the policies contained in Section 6, the development principles in Section 6A and Future Proof land allocation and staging in section 6D of the WRPS. AFFCO FS4.41 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Ports of Reject Auckland’s submissions 52-52.08) Open Country FS5.41 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Ports of Reject Auckland’s submissions 52-52.08) Ports of Auckland 52.02 Neutral Decline the plan change as there is sufficient capacity for Reject infill/intensification in Rototuna, Peacocke, Rotokauri and Ruakura where development is prioritised under Hamilton Urban Growth Strategy (HUGS). AFFCO FS4.41 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Ports of Reject Auckland’s submissions 52-52.08) Open Country FS5.41 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Ports of Reject Auckland’s submissions 52-52.08) Ports of Auckland 52.03 Neutral Decline plan change due to the lack of connectivity Reject between plan change area and existing residential development and infrastructure and inconsistency with HUGS. AFFCO FS4.41 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Ports of Reject Auckland’s submissions 52-52.08) Open Country FS5.41 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Ports of Reject Auckland’s submissions 52-52.08) Ports of Auckland 52.04 Neutral Decline the plan change as it is not identified within the Reject strategic industrial planning documents as forming part of the existing or future residential land resource. AFFCO FS4.41 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Ports of Reject Auckland’s submissions 52-52.08)
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 69
Open Country FS5.41 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Ports of Reject Auckland’s submissions 52-52.08) Ports of Auckland 52.05 Neutral Decline the plan change due to the loss of industrial land in Reject strategic industrial node and proper consideration not being given to the long-term land use requirements for industrial development in the region; and the locational attributes of the Te Rapa North Area including proximity to the State Highway and rail networks as well as benefits that will occur from agglomeration of industrial activity with the Horotiu Industrial Park. AFFCO FS4.41 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Ports of Reject Auckland’s submissions 52-52.08) Open Country FS5.41 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Ports of Reject Auckland’s submissions 52-52.08)
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 70
Reverse Sensitivity Sub. Name Sub. Point Sub. Type Summary Decision FS. Name FS. Point Waikato District Council 17.01 Neutral Seeks provisions to address reverse sensitivity, visual Accept amenity, traffic and noise effects on neighbours. Waikato Regional Council FS2.01 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept Fonterra FS3.02 Support in Supports the submission in part. Concerned whether Accept in part part issues relating to reverse sensitivity, traffic and noise matters will be appropriately addressed. AFFCO FS4.02 Support Supports the submission and has concerns around the Reject scant regard given to reverse sensitivity. Open Country FS5.02 Support Supports the submission and has concerns around the Reject scant regard given to reverse sensitivity. Open Country Dairy Limited 19.02 Oppose Reject the plan change due to being incompatible with Reject existing industrial activities. The retention of an adequate buffer is needed. AFFCO FS4.06 Support Supports the submission. Reject
Open Country Dairy Limited 19.03 Oppose Reject the plan change due to the risk of reverse sensitivity Reject effects. Te Rapa North Industrial Zone was intended to minimise the risk of reverse sensitivity issues. AFFCO FS4.07 Support Supports the submission. Reject
Open Country Dairy Limited 19.06 Oppose Reject the plan change due to concern that future projects Reject in Horotiu will be compromised by adjacent incompatible land uses. AFFCO FS4.10 Support Supports the submission. Reject
AFFCO New Zealand Limited 31.01 Oppose Reject the plan change due to being incompatible with Reject existing industrial activities. The retention of an adequate buffer is needed.
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 71
Open Country FS5.07 Support Supports the submission. Reject
AFFCO New Zealand Limited 31.02 Oppose Reject the plan change due to the risk of reverse sensitivity Reject effects. Te Rapa North Industrial Zone was intended to minimise the risk of reverse sensitivity issues. Open Country FS5.08 Support Supports the submission. Reject
AFFCO New Zealand Limited 31.05 Oppose Reject the plan change due to concern that future projects Reject in Horotiu will be compromised by adjacent incompatible land uses. Open Country FS5.11 Support Supports the submission. Reject Waikato Regional Council 41.04 Neutral Include provisions to address reverse sensitivity. Accept Fonterra FS3.14 Support Supports the submission Accept
AFFCO FS4.35 Support Supports the submission Accept
Open Country FS5.35 Support Supports the submission Accept
Fonterra 46.01 Oppose Avoid reverse sensitivity effects from a significant number Reject of residential dwellings. Reverse sensitivity effects can effect economic viability or investment decision making for existing activities. Contact Energy 51.04 Oppose Decline the plan change as the introduction of an Reject incompatible use may impact on long standing activities and flexibility to operate. AFFCO FS4.40 Support Supports the submission (supports all of contacts Reject submissions 51.00-51.07) Open Country FS5.40 Support Supports the submission (supports all of contacts Reject submissions 51.00-51.07) Contact Energy 51.05 Oppose Requests that the applicant prove that the amenity Accept in part experienced in the new zone will be comfortable and appropriate to avoid, remedy or mitigate actual and potential effects or the existing zoning should be retained.
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 72
AFFCO FS4.40 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Contact’s Accept in part submissions 51.00-51.07) Open Country FS5.40 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Contact’s Accept in part submissions 51.00-51.07) Contact Energy 51.06 Oppose Requests provisions to address reverse sensitivity effects Accept in part including policy to signal amenity expectations from living adjacent to existing and new industrial activities, inclusion of effective buffers, setbacks, screening and bunding requirements in structure plan and requests realistic noise levels at boundaries, no complaints covenants and residential design to manage noise. AFFCO FS4.40 Support Supports the submission (supports all of contacts Accept in part submissions 51.00-51.07) Open Country FS5.40 Support Supports the submission (supports all of contacts Accept in part submissions 51.00-51.07) Ports of Auckland 52.06 Neutral Decline plan change due to its proximity to regionally Reject significant industrial development which will cause reverse sensitivity effects. AFFCO FS4.41 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Ports of Reject Auckland’s submissions 52-52.08) Open Country FS5.41 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Ports of Reject Auckland’s submissions 52-52.08)
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 73
Geotechnical and Natural Hazards Sub. Name Sub. Point Sub. Type Summary Decision FS. Name FS. Point Waikato Regional Council 41.10 Neutral Retain existing Natural Hazard Overlays and clarify why Accept the western most 'Waikato River and Gully Hazard Area' on Planning Map 1b is proposed to be removed. Waikato Regional Council 41.11 Neutral Amend to ensure that Natural Hazards are addressed at Accept the time of, or prior to, subdivision and development of the site. Fonterra 46.18 Oppose Reject the plan change as it is unreasonable for Perry to Reject seek residential enablement due to geotechnical issues caused by its own activities. Hamilton City Council 47.05 Oppose Seeks evidence on how effects of multiple hazards will be Accept in part managed including the large dams and liquefaction, and its implications for density and foundation design Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept Hamilton City Council 47.42 Oppose in Ensure the zoning, its associated rules and other plan Accept in part Part requirements will not allow any activities on any areas of the land between the main linear lake and the Waikato River where the formation of this lake would elevate above acceptable levels the risks to people undertaking those activities on that land. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept Hamilton City Council 47.43 Neutral Requests information on the potential for cyclic softening of Accept soils, the assessed slope stability under SLS (Serviceability Limit State) and ULS (Ultimate Limit State) conditions accounting for cyclic softening; and the implications of this information for the need to include any additional provisions in the District Plan to manage these natural hazards. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 74
Hamilton City Council 47.44 Oppose in Requests information regarding the implications of the Accept Part Waikato River and Gully Hazard Area and the Waikato River Bank Stability Area. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept Hamilton City Council 47.45 Neutral Amend to add "The cable ski lake and adjoining aqua park Accept will be privately owned" Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept Hamilton City Council 47.46 Neutral Amend to state that the linear lake is privately owned but Accept accessible to the public and at a swimmable standard. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept Hamilton City Council 47.47 Neutral Include reference to the main linear lake in 4.5.6a)iv Accept Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 75
Transport Sub. Name Sub. Point Sub. Type Summary Decision FS. Name FS. Point Waikato Regional Council 41.06 Neutral Reject due to limited opportunities to utilise Reject pedestrian/cycle connections to more established parts of city. Fonterra FS3.16 Support Supports the submission. Reject Waikato Regional Council 41.07 Neutral Reject due to difficulty in providing passenger transport Reject facilities and multi modal transport network. Development should be compact to minimise need for motor vehicles. Fonterra FS3.17 Support Supports the submission. Reject New Zealand Transport 45.05 Neutral Reject the plan change as it is not consistent with Access Reject Agency Hamilton in ensuring an efficient integration of land use with the transport network, multi modal access, a viable bus route and safe and efficient road network. The development is likely to adversely impact congested areas including Wairere Drive and Te Rapa Road intersections. Waikato Regional Council FS2.03 Neutral Supports the submission Reject New Zealand Transport 45.12 Neutral Revise the trip generation rates in the Integrated Traffic Accept Agency Assessment for the mixed use/service centre as this is low. Waikato Regional Council FS2.03 Neutral Supports the submission Accept New Zealand Transport 45.13 Neutral Confirm whether modelling incorporated into the ITA has Accept Agency included trip generation for land opposite Fonterra site. If not this needs to be done. Waikato Regional Council FS2.03 Neutral Supports the submission Accept New Zealand Transport 45.16 Neutral Seeks development of phase 1 only subject to a maximum Accept in part Agency trip generation on Hutchinson Road and development of phase 2 not preceding the four-laning of Te Rapa Road and improvements to the Te Rapa/Hutchinson Road and Te Rapa Road/McKee Street intersections. Waikato Regional Council FS2.03 Neutral Supports the submission Accept
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 76
Fonterra 46.15 Oppose Reject due to high cost of roading upgrades that are not Reject planned or programmed by Council. Fonterra 46.16 Oppose Reject the plan change as it may result in under-utilisation Reject of transport infrastructure and the strategic purpose it was intended for. Potential constraints on North Island Main Trunk Line should be avoided, as that may lead to underutilisation of the land served by the strategic rail asset. Hamilton City Council 47.60 Oppose in Amend 3.8.3 to recognise need for urban standard shared Accept in part Part use path, appropriate facilities for passenger transport and upgrading of Kapuni/ Te Rapa Road and Ruffell Road/Te Rapa Road intersections. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Fonterra FS3.22 Support Supports the submission as it is important that costs of Accept improvements do not fall on future development within the Te Rapa North Strategic Industrial Node. Hamilton City Council 47.61 Neutral Resolve traffic safety concerns at Hutchinson Road/ Te Accept Rapa Road roundabout Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Fonterra FS3.23 Support Supports the submission as it is important that costs of Accept improvements do not fall on future development within the Te Rapa North Strategic Industrial Node. Hamilton City Council 47.62 Neutral Amend 3.8.3 to delete the trigger for road upgrades and Accept replace with improvements when required. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Fonterra FS3.24 Support Supports the submission as it is important that costs of Accept improvements do not fall on future development within the Te Rapa North Strategic Industrial Node. Hamilton City Council 47.63 Oppose in Amend to provide consistency with numbering and require Accept in part Part the addition of staging rules for the development of the structure plan and transportation infrastructure
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 77
improvements. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Fonterra FS3.25 Support Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.64 Neutral Requests written evidence that the NZTA proposes to uplift Accept that part of its designation (E81a) that the TAL Structure Plan overlies. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept Hamilton City Council 47.65 Neutral Update of traffic modelling to ensure most up to date Accept information is used. Fonterra FS3.26 Support Supports the submission. Accept
Contact Energy 51.07 Neutral Seeks safe and efficient traffic movements. Accept
AFFCO FS4.40 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Contact’s Accept submissions 51.00-51.07) Open Country FS5.40 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Contact’s Accept submissions 51.00-51.07) Ports of Auckland 52.08 Neutral Require improvements to the transport network be Accept incorporated as prerequisites for the development of land. AFFCO FS4.41 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Ports of Accept Auckland’s submissions 52-52.08) Open Country FS5.41 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Ports of Accept Auckland’s submissions 52-52.08)
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 78
Biosecurity Sub. Name Sub. Point Sub. Type Summary Decision FS. Name FS. Point Waikato Regional Council 41.09 Neutral Include controls to stop the spread of Alligator weed, listed Accept as a progressive containment pest plant.
Development Controls Sub. Name Sub. Point Sub. Type Summary Decision FS. Name FS. Point Geoff Wilson 5.00 Support in Reduce maximum height of buildings in River Interface Reject Part Overlay area to 7.5m. SC & AJ Hodgkinson 37.03 Oppose Seeks assessment for major events including days per Reject year, time of day, type of usage, noise outputs, attendees and impacts on new residents. AFFCO FS4.28 Support Supports the submission Reject
Open Country FS5.28 Support Supports the submission Reject
SC & AJ Hodgkinson 37.04 Oppose in Requests replacing pine trees with native planting. Accept in part Part SC & AJ Hodgkinson 37.05 Oppose Retain green outlook along river. Remove buildings on Reject west bank due to effect on character and amenity, impacts on Waikato River and quality of native ecosystem. AFFCO FS4.29 Support Supports the submission Reject
Open Country FS5.29 Support Supports the submission Reject
Waikato Regional Council 41.08 Neutral Include objectives, policies and assessment criteria against Accept which the Ecological Rehabilitation Plan can be assessed.
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 79
New Zealand Transport 45.15 Neutral Identify when stages will be implemented. Staging has a Accept Agency significant bearing on the extent to which the transport network will be affected and what works will be required. Waikato Regional Council FS2.03 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept New Zealand Transport 45.18 Neutral Amend to include reference to designation E99a Accept Agency Waikato Regional Council FS2.03 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept New Zealand Transport 45.19 Neutral Provide screening of water features at the site with Reject Agency landscaping and setbacks included within the interface between the site, the Waikato Expressway and Te Rapa Road due to visual distraction for highway traffic. Waikato Regional Council FS2.03 Neutral Supports the submission. Reject Hamilton City Council 47.03 Oppose in Add provisions to ensure the developer provides the full Reject Part cost of the infrastructure needed to service the development. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Reject
Fonterra FS3.21 Support Supports the submission as it is important that costs of Reject improvements do not fall on future development within the Te Rapa North Strategic Industrial Node. Hamilton City Council 47.09 Neutral Amend Objective 3.8.1.1 "to develop' rather than enable a Accept tourist and recreational attraction. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.10 Neutral Add a staging policy to ensure tourist and recreational Accept attraction is established. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.11 Neutral Delete Objective 3.8.1.3 Accept
Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 80
Hamilton City Council 47.12 Neutral Delete Policy 3.8.1.3a Accept
Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.13 Neutral Include Policy 3.8.1.3b under objective 3.8.1.2 Accept
Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.16 Neutral Add new policy 3.8.1.2f as follows: "Staging and Accept sequencing will ensure all residents of Te Awa Lakes Structure Plan area will always have access to the Main Linear Lake." Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.17 Neutral Add Rule 3.8.5.5 to elevate activity status to discretionary if Accept staging rules are not met. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.18 Neutral Add new assessment criteria to Appendix 1.3.3N to include Accept Te Awa Lakes Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.19 Neutral Amend to change "---The Adventure Park Visitor Accept Accommodation precinct Overlay is also located ----" Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.20 Neutral Clarify meaning of " Vehicular traffic will be encouraged to Accept utilise the existing service centre and the mixed use block will serve the Te Awa Lakes community's needs" Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 81
Hamilton City Council 47.21 Neutral Reword to identify when non-notification doesn’t occur Accept rather than rely on sections of the RMA which have recently changed. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.22 Neutral Amend table title for clarity. Accept
Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.23 Neutral Amend heading in left hand column of title to refer to Figure Accept 2-20. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.24 Neutral Amend to make it clear which general rules in 4.8 do not Accept apply to this overlay. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.25 Neutral Amend restricted discretionary activities: matters of Accept discretion and amend assessment criteria N to include Te Awa Lakes for "Land Development Activities". Include matters of discretion for duplex dwellings and papakainga Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.26 Neutral Include retail between 150m² and 399m² in Te Awa Lakes Accept Business Zone as a non-complying activity. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.27 Neutral Seeks a maximum of 1,500m2 of retail, rather than the Accept 2,500m2 as proposed. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.28 Neutral Identify that drive-through services are a permitted activity Accept only for those activities that are existing in the Te Awa
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 82
Lakes Business Zone. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.29 Neutral Add assessment criteria for 'Commercial Places of Accept Assembly' for the Te Awa Lakes Business 6 Zone Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.30 Neutral Renumber and reword to provide consistency Accept
Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.31 Neutral Reword to remove reference to '2B' Accept
Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.32 Neutral Reword to remove references to staging that are removed Accept under the Proposed Plan Change. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.33 Neutral Add assessment criteria for motorised activities in the Accept Major Facilities Zone Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.34 Neutral Add matters of discretion (Design and layout; and Accept Character and Amenity) for visitor accommodation within the Visitor Accommodation Overlay. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.35 Neutral Amend numbering to provide consistency throughout the Accept private plan change. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 83
Hamilton City Council 47.36 Neutral Include "Te Awa Lakes" within the heading of the Medium Accept Density Residential Zone. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.37 Neutral Amend the table heading to read: “Limit LAeq [15 min]” Accept
Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.38 Neutral Amend by removing standard that relates to noise levels Accept between units as standards under 25.8.3.10 are sufficient. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.39 Neutral Amend to provide consistency and clarity. Accept
Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.40 Neutral Provide for signage not facing the residential zone and Accept provide signage on buildings where they are directed primarily at patrons. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.41 Neutral Delete Rule 25.10.5.4 f) ii due to duplication of Rule Accept 25.10.4 Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.58 Neutral Amend 3.8.4 to recognise the limited capacity in the current Accept water supply. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.59 Neutral Amend 3.8.4 to identify rising wastewater mains to connect Accept directly to far western interceptor. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 84
Hamilton City Council 47.66 Support Amend Policy 3.8.1.2b to include multiple functions of the Accept open space network and provide access to the River Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.67 Neutral Include Open Space Network in 3.8.2.8 and identify a Accept description of the main components of open space and their functions to enable assessment of Land Development Plans Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.68 Neutral Include Open Space Network rules to ensure open space Accept functions as intended. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.69 Neutral Amend 1.2.2.28f to ensure the main linear lake and various Accept components of the open space network are provided. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.70 Neutral Amend title of 4.5.6 to include open space network. Accept
Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.71 Neutral Retain the indicative open space network, except as Accept modified by other submission points below. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.72 Neutral Identify on Figure 2-19 indicative stormwater management Accept areas as shown in CKL drawing U3454-480-00 Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.73 Neutral Remove from Figure 2-19 the dashed line indicating a Accept 500m radial catchment.
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 85
Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.74 Neutral Remove from Figure 2-19 the narrow strip of “indicative Accept open space network” along the eastern side of the main linear lake connecting between the “indicative collector road” in the north and the “Indicative primary collector road to the south”. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.75 Neutral Add to 3.8.2.8 Open Space Network a description of the Accept Indicative River Access Locations, including their purpose and function. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.76 Neutral Integrate the requirements of s.1.2.2.25 and s.1.2.2.28 Accept (Volume 2, Appendix 1) to improve the Plan’s readability and efficiency. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission. Accept Ports of Auckland 52.07 Neutral Seeks minimum acoustic insulation and ventilation Reject standards for sensitive activities. AFFCO FS4.41 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Ports of Reject Auckland’s submissions 52-52.08) Open Country FS5.41 Support Supports the submission (supports all of Ports of Reject Auckland’s submissions 52-52.08)
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 86
Water Quality Sub. Name Sub. Point Sub. Type Summary Decision FS. Name FS. Point Waikato District Council 17.02 Neutral Seeks clarification on stormwater and meeting the vision Accept and strategy objectives about discharges to Waikato River. Waikato Regional Council FS2.01 Neutral Supports the submission Accept
Fonterra FS3.03 Support Supports the submission. Fonterra’s discharge consents Accept may be affected by discharges from the plan change area. AFFCO FS4.03 Support Supports the submission as AFFCO has committed Accept extensive expenditure to plant upgrades in recognition of the Vision and Strategy and relies on the Waikato River for its water supply which needs to be high quality. Open Country FS5.03 Support Supports the submission as OCD has committed extensive Accept expenditure to plant upgrades in recognition of the Vision and Strategy and relies on the Waikato River for its water supply which needs to be high quality. SC & AJ Hodgkinson 37.06 Oppose Retain river quality. Accept in part
AFFCO FS4.30 Support Supports the submission as AFFCO has committed Accept in part extensive expenditure to plant upgrades in recognition of the Vision and Strategy and relies on the Waikato River for its water supply. Open Country FS5.30 Support Supports the submission as OCD has committed extensive Accept in part expenditure to plant upgrades in recognition of the Vision and Strategy and relies on the Waikato River for its water supply. New Zealand Transport 45.17 Neutral Provide part of the designation for stormwater Reject Agency management. Waikato Regional Council FS2.03 Neutral Supports the submission. Reject Hamilton City Council 47.06 Neutral Seeks robust technical evidence to support feasibility of Accept swimmable water and how ownership and maintenance
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 87
issues will be resolved. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.07 Neutral Seeks issues regarding the ownership and type of Accept wastewater system to be used. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.14 Neutral Add new objective 3.8.1.3 to maintain lakes at swimmable Accept in part standard. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission Accept in part
Hamilton City Council 47.15 Neutral Add new policy 3.8.1.3a to require implementation of Accept management plan for the lakes. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.48 Neutral Add a definition for 'swimmable standard'. Accept
Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.49 Neutral Add a rule requiring maintenance of lake water quality at a Accept in part swimmable standard Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission Accept in part
Hamilton City Council 47.50 Neutral Reserve discretion over the management plan for the main Accept linear lake. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.51 Neutral Include assessment criteria in N12 for ensuring lake at Accept in part swimmable standard. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission Accept in part
Hamilton City Council 47.52 Neutral Amend 1.2.2.28 to provide consistency and require details Accept of those responsible for monitoring.
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 88
Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission Hamilton City Council 47.53 Neutral Amend Figure 2-20 to include the main linear lake and the Accept Northern Wetland within a single LDP Area separate from other LDP Areas; and include the Southern Wetland entirely within LDP Area A. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission Accept Hamilton City Council 47.54 Neutral Add "17.6.8.2 The water quality in the cable ski lake and Accept aqua park lakes shall be maintained to a swimmable standard." Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission Accept 47.55 Neutral Requests a management plan to be provided as part of the Accept information requirements to ensure cable ski lake and aqua park are swimmable. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.56 Neutral Add a matter of discretion and assessment criteria K16 to Accept maintain the water quality in the cable ski lake and aqua park at a swimmable standard. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission Accept
Hamilton City Council 47.57 Neutral Amend 1.2.2.28h to require sub-catchment ICMP or an Accept approved ICMP. Waikato Regional Council FS2.04 Neutral Supports the submission Accept
Plan Change 2 – Te Awa Lakes 89
APPENDIX C – LIST OF NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF PERSONS TO BE SERVED
Submitter Name Address Perry Group Limited Perry House, 360 Tristram Street, Hamilton. Hamilton City Council 260 Anglesea Street Council Building, Garden Place, Hamilton. Future Proof C/- Waikato District Council, Private Bag 3038, Waikato Mail Centre, Hamilton. Fonterra Limited 109 Fanshawe Street, Auckland Central, Auckland. New Zealand Transport Agency Private Bag 6995, Marion Square, Wellington. Ports of Auckland Limited Ports Of Auckland Building, Sunderland Street, Mechanics Bay, Auckland. Waikato Regional Council 401 Grey Street, Private Bag 3038, Waikato Mail Centre, Hamilton. Brownie Investments - Vanessa Gibson PO Box 140, Oban, Stewart Island. Dhiraj Koli 14 Allgood Place, Rototuna North, Hamilton. Mike McCleery 4 Grassy Downs Place, Saint Andrews, Hamilton. Andrew Yeoman PO Box 21239, Rototuna, Hamilton. Turangawaewae Trust Board PO Box 132, Ngaruawahia. Hamilton Central Rotary PO Box 694, Hamilton. Ian Schultz 184 Totara Drive, Pukete, Hamilton. Waikato Chamber of Commerce Business Floor, Wintec House, Corner Nisbet and, Anglesea Street, Hamilton. Tainui Waka Tourism Incorporated 23 King St, Te Kuiti. Carla Parry 52 Vercoe Road, Beerescourt, Hamilton. Te Awa River Ride Charitable Trust 360 Tristram Street, Hamilton. Brian Perry Charitable Trust 360 Tristram Street, Hamilton. MH Builders 452 Tauwhare RD, Tamahere, Hamilton. Birch Holdings Ltd 16 Arran Road, Chartwell, Hamilton. Ngaruawahia Community Board C/- James Whetu, 4 Caleb Close, Ngaruawahia. Waikato River Explorer Hamilton Gardens, Hungerford Crescent, Hamilton. Habitat for Humanity 29 Bryant Road, Te Rapa, Hamilton. Peregrine Developments Ltd 201A Airport Road, RD2, Hamilton. K'Aute Pasifika Trust- Kim Holt Level 1 Citisite House, 960 Victoria Street, Hamilton. Ngati Haua Iwi Trust 153 Hakiaha Street Taumarunui. Waitomo Adventures Ltd KPMG Chartered Accountants, 247 Cameron Road, Tauranga. Planning and Construction Consulting 3 Cattanach Street, Saint Andrews, Ltd Hamilton. Deloitte Deloitte House, 24 Anzac Parade, Hamilton. K'Aute Pasifika Trust- Rachel Karalus Level 1 Citisite House, 960 Victoria Street, Hamilton. Rob Hamill 1020 Limeworks Loop Road, RD 5, Hamilton. Wel Networks 114 Maui Street, Te Rapa Hamilton. Perry Outdoor Education Trust 360 Tristram Street, Hamilton. Karen Singers 87A Fuchsia Lane, RD 4, Hamilton. Aflex Technology 222 High Street, Motueka. SC & AJ Hodgkinson 2171A River Road, RD 1, Hamilton. Open Country Dairy Limited Building A, Ground Floor, 52 Highbrook Drive East Tamaki, Auckland. Swimming Waikato 360 Tristram Street, Hamilton. Hampton Downs Motorsport Park State Highway One, RD 2, Te Kauwhata. Steven Gordon 28 Kelvin Place, Hamilton. Waikato DHB Pembroke Street, Hamilton West, Hamilton. Waikato Tainui 4 Bryce Street, PO Box 648, Hamilton. Hamilton and Waikato Tourism C/- Hamilton Airport, Airport Road, RD2, Hamilton. Peter O'Reagan 12 Tamihana Avenue, Fairfield, Hamilton. Carolyn Hopa 1308 Tauhei Road, RD5, Morrinsville. Te Papaorotu Marae 145 Maori Point Road, Whatawhata 3285. BTW Company PO Box 1229, Hamilton. Sport Waikato Education Trust C/- Sport Waikato, 51 Akoranga Road Hamilton, Hamilton. Arthur Mellsop 64 Palliser Drive, Huntington, Hamilton. Kenneth Williamson PO Box 1395, Hamilton. Anne Edgecombe 46 Tupelo Street, Pukete, Hamilton. Marina McMahon-Ieremia 45 Casey Avenue, Fairfield, Hamilton. Ariona Ieremia 45 Casey Avenue, Fairfield, Hamilton. Christine Corfe-Tan TBC – Address redacted from Submission Hobbiton Movie Set 501 Buckland Road, RD 2, Matamata. Contact Energy PO Box 10742, Wellington. Geoff Wilson 2247 River Road, RD 1, Hamilton.