BEFORE THE HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL HEARINGS COMMITTEE

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991

AND

IN THE MATTER the Proposed Hamilton District Plan

Hearing on Industrial Zone and Te Rapa North Industrial Zone

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF KENNETH JOHN TREMAINE

On behalf of the Future Proof Implementation Committee (Submitter No. 608)

1

1. INTRODUCTION

A. Qualifications and Experience

1.1 My full name is Kenneth John Tremaine. I am the director of Ken Tremaine Consulting Limited, which I founded in in 2000. Prior to this time I was the Director of the Local Government and Resource Management Unit of KPMG Management Consulting (Auckland) from 1993 to 2000. Before then I was Director of Planning at City Council from 1976 to 1993.

1.2 My academic qualifications include a Bachelor of Arts and a Postgraduate Diploma (Credit) in Urban Geography and Political Science from the University of Otago, and a Masters of Town Planning from the University of Auckland. I am also a full member of the Royal Town Planning Institute (United Kingdom), the Planning Institute, and the Resource Management Law Association of New Zealand.

1.3 I have more than 39 years of professional experience in senior roles in local government, central government, and the private sector, spanning the following areas:

. Planning and resource management, including the development and implementation of regional policy statements and plans, and district/city plans under the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA 1991” or “the Act”); . Development planning and growth management, including the integration of land use1, infrastructure, transportation, and funding under the RMA 1991, the Local Government Act 2002 (“LGA 2002”), and the Land Transport Management Act 2003 (“LTMA 2003”); . Central Government policy, and statutory and regulatory reform; and . Management consulting, including regulatory efficiency and compliance cost reduction.

1.4 I was the sole representative of the planning profession appointed to the Upton Review Group in 1990 which completed the drafting of the RMA 1991 in its final

1 I will use the term “land use” as an equivalent to the RMA 1991 term “activity”. 2

form. I have continued to be involved in Central Government policy and regulatory development since that time.

1.5 I have extensive experience in growth management strategy development and implementation at the regional and district levels, particularly through regional policy statements and district plans. My growth management experience includes:

. the western Bay of Plenty sub-region (being the territorial administrative areas of City Council and the Western Bay of Plenty District Council), as well as the Bay of Plenty region with the SmartGrowth Strategy; . the Greater sub-region (being the territorial administrative areas of Christchurch City Council, Council and Council) as well as the Canterbury region with the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy; . the with their growth strategy - Taupo District 2050; . with their growth strategy - Sustainable Futures 30/50; . Napier City, and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council with the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy.

B. Region and Hamilton City Experience

1.6 Currently I hold the position of Implementation Advisor for the Future Proof Strategy ("Future Proof" or “Strategy”); the growth management strategy for the ‘Future Proof sub-region’ (“sub-region”). The Future Proof sub-region refers to the territorial areas of the Council (“Waikato DC”), the (“Waipa DC”), and the Hamilton City Council (“HCC”). It is an area with ongoing population growth as well as significant levels of development. The Strategy was developed by these territorial authorities in the broad context of the LGA 2002 alongside Strategy partners the Waikato Regional Council (“Waikato RC” or “Regional Council”) and Tāngata Whenua (Tainui Waka Alliance) to look at how the Future Proof sub-region should develop sustainably into the future. The New Zealand Transport Agency (“NZTA”) and the Matamata- Piako District Council also assisted with the Strategy’s development.

3

1.7 Prior to Future Proof’s launch on 8 September 2009 I held the position of (Technical) Project Manager. In that role I was responsible for overseeing the Strategy’s research, drafting, public notification, submission hearings, and adoption phases. Future Proof is currently in its implementation phase.

1.8 I have read the Proposed Hamilton District Plan (“PDP”) which was notified by the Hamilton City Council in December 2012 and forms the subject of these proceedings.

1.9 The Future Proof Implementation Committee (“FPIC”) prepared primary and further submissions in broad support of the PDP. The FPIC is a joint committee under Clause 30 of Schedule 7 of the LGA 2002 and is tasked with implementing Future Proof. Although the FPIC comprises members from each Strategy partner, as the administering authority for the PDP, the Hamilton City Council abstained from forming a part of the FPIC’s primary and further submissions in broad support of the PDP.

1.10 I have also read both the:

. Summary of Submissions to the PDP which the Hamilton City Council notified in May 2013; and . Council’s Section 42A Reports – Report on Submissions and Further Submissions – Chapter 9 Industrial Zone Volume 1 (Incorporating Appendix 6 Industrial Zone Volume 2) and Report on Submissions and Further Submissions – Chapter 12 Te Rapa North Industrial Zone Volume 1 (“Staff Report”) which were released in November 2013.

1.11 As a result of my experience, I have a comprehensive working knowledge of developing and implementing district plans under the RMA 1991. Furthermore having been involved in the sub-region on a number of issues associated with Future Proof implementation, I also have considerable knowledge of:

a) Growth issues facing the Future Proof sub-region; b) The Future Proof Strategy framework that sits alongside the Hamilton City Council’s policy framework; c) The context of the PDP;

4

d) The importance of integrating land use and infrastructure; and e) The linkages between the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement (“Proposed RPS”) and the PDP.

C. Code of Conduct

1.12 I confirm that I have read and am familiar with the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses in the Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note (2006) (including its 2011 amendments) and I agree to comply with it. In that regard I confirm that this evidence is written within my expertise, except where otherwise stated, and that I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed.

2. EVIDENCE SCOPE

2.1 I have been authorised by the FPIC to present this evidence in support of its primary and further submissions to the PDP.

2.2 My evidence brief covers the following:

a) The importance of the industrial zone provisions of the PDP in terms of implementing the Future Proof Strategy; b) FPIC’s major primary and further submission points to the PDP which are relevant to the industrial zone; c) Discusses the recommendations of the Staff Report; and d) Sets out my conclusions.

2.3 In the evidence which I presented to the Hearings Committee on 17 September 2013 on the Overview and Strategic Framework chapters of the PDP, I covered the origins of the Future Proof Strategy, the Future Proof settlement pattern, integrating land use and infrastructure, Future Proof and the RMA 1991 and the importance of the PDP. I do not propose to repeat that material, however the information included in that brief is relevant to this subject and provides important background and context.

5

3. IMPORTANCE OF THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE PROVISIONS

3.1 The Future Proof Strategy contains key principles for business development. I note that the term “business” in the Future Proof Strategy encompasses both industrial and commercial activity.

3.2 The key Future Proof principles include maintaining the Metropolitan Hamilton CityHeart as the vibrant retail, business, arts, and social “heart” of the sub- region; ensuring commercial and industrial development is located in selected sub-regional areas and that it is not located where it undermines the areas of influence of the Hamilton CityHeart; protecting existing and future infrastructure and transport corridors, including the , Southern Links and rail corridors, from development that could constrain or compromise the efficiency of infrastructure and transport corridor operation; and encouraging development in existing settlements to support existing infrastructure.2

3.3 The Strategy contains the following key approaches for business development3:

(a) Focus on Hamilton CityHeart as the commercial and business heart of the Future Proof sub-region. (b) Ensure commercial and industrial developments are not located in areas that undermine the areas of influence of the Hamilton CityHeart, including the extensive development of retail/mall shopping in locations not identified in the Future Proof Strategy. (c) Business land will be provided for on an uptake basis, only in the areas agreed in the Future Proof Strategy. (d) The amount of business land has to be sufficient to meet the sub-region’s needs and it also needs to support ‘live, work, play’ principles. (e) Locating future industrial land in suitable areas to avoid sensitivity issues and maximise efficient use of existing and planned infrastructure. (f) Infrastructure and services are in place, or will be provided as part of planned extensions or upgrades, to support business land but only in accord with Future Proof.

2 Future Proof Growth Strategy & Implementation Plan 2009, pages 20-21 3 Future Proof Growth Strategy & Implementation Plan 2009, section 8.19.3 at page 124, section 8.18.3 at pages 120-121, 6

(g) Discourage the development of big box retail outside of the Hamilton CityHeart, suburban and town centres.

3.4 The Future Proof Strategy contains actions for giving effect to Future Proof principles concerning business development. These actions include providing for suitable business and employment opportunities close to where people live; investigating appropriate locations and means of delivering sites for heavy industry and ensuring that settlement patterns do not adversely impact the benefits of the Waikato Expressway.4

3.5 In my opinion the industrial zone provisions of the PDP are consistent with these approaches.

3.6 In 2010 Future Proof commissioned a Business Land Review5 which included analysis of industrial land demand, distribution and projections. That work concluded that location is key for industrial activity in terms of efficiency and maintaining a competitive environment. The report also found that it is important that there is certainty in the market as to the location of this activity and that it has limited pressure from other uses.

3.7 The Proposed RPS implements key aspects of the Future Proof Strategy including the settlement pattern. The Proposed RPS provides clear direction for industrial development through Policy 6.13:

Policy 6.13 Adopting Future Proof land use pattern Within the Future Proof area: … d) 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; e) [Deleted] ea) 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

4 Future Proof Growth Strategy & Implementation Plan 2009, Actions 8.18.4.(3) & (5), page 121; Action 8.24.4(2), page 141 5 Future Proof Business Land Review: Summary Report of Findings and Recommendations, October 2010, Latitude Planning Services Ltd 7

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; eb) new industrial development outside the strategic industrial nodes shall not be of a scale or location where the development undermines the role of any strategic industrial node; ec) 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;

3.8 Implementation Method 6.13.1 sets out that Hamilton City Council, Waipa District Council and Waikato District Council district plans shall review or prepare changes to their district plans to identify locations and limits for future urban development, including future areas of major industrial development, and that district plans shall ensure urban development is located and managed in accordance with Policy 6.13.

3.9 The explanation to Policy 6.13 and its implementation methods emphasises the importance of integrated planning for industrial land use and infrastructure and that future industrial development should focus on the support and protection of identified industrial nodes.

3.10 The policies and implementation methods in 6.15 on commercial development in the Future Proof area emphasise that commercial development should not occur in areas specifically provided for industrial development.

3.11 In my opinion the PDP is consistent with the Proposed RPS which provides important regional direction for industrial development in the sub-region.

3.12 Through my experience in growth management in a number of New Zealand regions, cities and districts, there is one principle that is paramount – and that is the need for land use certainty. Without it, Councils, developers and the community, cannot plan for what they need over time. This relates to the provision of infrastructure and services and the ability to fund these. Industrial

8

land has particular infrastructure requirements and it is important that we know where this activity will locate in the future and so that we can plan for the necessary infrastructure.

3.13 As I have noted in previous briefs of evidence for the PDP hearings, a number of first generation District Plans under the RMA 1991 left much of the planning detail to the market and often advanced an overly permissive planning framework. In practice this has not worked well. One of the consequences of this approach is significant invasion of land use into other areas, for example retail into industrial areas, and leakage between zones. This is most evident in industrial zones where substantial office and retail development has been allowed. In my opinion this has had the effect of undermining the CBD and allowing office and retail to be scattered in an ad hoc manner. It is important that the Industrial Zone remain primarily for industrial activities.

3.14 It is important that industrial land is not used up for retailing or other general commercial activities. Industrial land is a finite and valuable resource. The PDP provides for ancillary activities which is appropriate, but the overarching purpose of the industrial zone is to provide land for industrial activities, not retail or other commercial activities. The Council needs to be able to encourage the development of land in the most efficient manner possible. It is important that valuable industrial land is not inappropriately used up by other activities.

3.15 The policy approach of the industrial zone which aims to recognise and protect industrial land, complement the City’s commercial areas and ensure that industrial land is not occupied by non-industrial uses, is strongly supported.

3.16 The industrial zone provisions are an important part of achieving the Future Proof settlement pattern as it helps to promote “live, work, play” principles, identifies the key industrial areas for the City in line with Future Proof and the Proposed RPS, and encourages development into planned growth areas supported by infrastructure. These are core issues for the Future Proof sub- region.

9

4. FPIC’S SUBMISSIONS ON THE PDP RELEVANT TO THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE

4.1 The focus of the FPIC’s primary submission is to support the PDP as it implements key aspects of the Future Proof Strategy and settlement pattern. The PDP is a key implementation tool giving statutory effect to the Future Proof Strategy and principles.

4.2 In particular, Future Proof supports provisions in the PDP which:

. aim to integrate land use and infrastructure . promote a more compact urban form; . enable urban intensification; . give effect to the Future Proof settlement pattern, including the identified growth areas; . promote integrated and co-ordinated planning; and . provide for the sequencing and/or staging of development.

4.3 Future Proof is very supportive of the PDP as it gives effect to the Future Proof Strategy and the Proposed RPS.

4.4 The Future Proof submission supports the purpose of the industrial zone in section 9.1. Industrial land is key to the economic growth of Hamilton City, the Future Proof sub-region and wider Waikato region. It is important that this land is used in the most efficient and effective manner and that it is not consumed by non-industrial uses which could locate elsewhere.

4.5 Objective 9.2.1 and the supporting policies are supported as they give effect to the purpose of ensuring that industrial land uses occur in an efficient and effective manner. The objectives and policies clearly identify that the limited industrial zoned land within the City is to be used for industrial purposes. This recognises and upholds the industrial land allocations defined in the Proposed RPS.

4.6 The activity status rules in 9.3 are supported, in particular (f) and (g) as they restrict activity in the industrial zone to ancillary offices and ancillary retail. This ensures that only office and retail activity which supports the industrial activity

10

can establish in the zone. Without this limitation significant commercial activity could establish on valuable industrial land which also encourages out of centre development that is better focussed in identified commercial centres.

4.7 The FPIC further submission has opposed the original submission of Progressive Enterprises Ltd where they have sought amendments to 9.1 to make it clear that supermarkets are not considered to be in the same category as general retail and are allowed to establish in Industrial Zones subject to achieving certain criteria. Future Proof does not support the requested amendments. It is important that industrial land is not used up for retailing or other general commercial activities. Industrial land is a finite and valuable resource. The Proposed Plan provides for ancillary activities which is appropriate but the overarching purpose of the industrial zone is to provide land for industrial activities, not retail activities, including supermarkets.

4.8 Future Proof has also opposed the submission of Alan Sharp Submitter where this sought the deletion of Rule 9.5.2 which limits retail activity in the industrial zone to ancillary only. Future Proof opposes this submission as it is important that valuable industrial land is not used for retailing when this is more appropriately located elsewhere. The amount of retail in the industrial zone needs to be confined to ancillary so that it supports the activities in the zone but doesn’t end up as a de-facto general commercial and retailing area.

11

5. THE STAFF REPORT

5.1 Future Proof supports the recommendations of the Staff Report. All of Future Proof’s submission points have either been accepted or accepted in part.

5.2 Future Proof supports the amendments to the Industrial Zone chapter as outlined in Appendix E1 of the Staff Report.

5.3 Future Proof is also strongly supportive of the Staff Report in relation to Te Rapa North. This is a potential development hotspot which if not handled well within the wider policy of the RPS and District Plan frameworks has the potential to “screw the scrum” and undermine integrated planning certainty with its essential links between land use, infrastructure and funding.

6. CONCLUSIONS

6.1 Future Proof supports Chapter 9 of the PDP on the Industrial Zone. This section of the Plan helps to implement the Future Proof Strategy by giving effect to the Future Proof settlement pattern, establishing industrial provisions consistent with Future Proof and the Proposed RPS, encouraging the efficient development of land and infrastructure, and integrating land use and infrastructure.

6.2 The Future Proof Strategy contains key principles for business development. These include maintaining the Metropolitan Hamilton CityHeart as the vibrant retail, business, arts, and social “heart” of the sub-region; ensuring commercial and industrial development is located in selected sub-regional areas and that it is not located where it undermines the areas of influence of the Hamilton CityHeart; protecting existing and future infrastructure and transport corridors, including the Waikato Expressway, Southern Links and rail corridors, from development that could constrain or compromise the efficiency of infrastructure and transport corridor operation; and encouraging development in existing settlements to support existing infrastructure. In my opinion the industrial zone provisions of the PDP are consistent with these principles.

12

6.3 Future Proof supports the approach of the Staff Report and the amendments proposed.

6.4 Future Proof supports the PDP as a key tool for implementing the Future Proof Strategy, which is imperative to the sustainable management of growth in the sub-region.

Ken Tremaine 4 December 2013

13