Before a Board of Inquiry Ruakura Development Plan Change Request

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991

AND

IN THE MATTER of a Board of Inquiry appointed under section 149J of the Resource Management Act 1991 to consider a Plan Change requested by Tainui Group Holdings Limited and Chedworth Properties Limited

Statement of Evidence in Chief of Philip John Stickney on behalf of Tainui Group Holdings Ltd and Chedworth Properties Ltd 20 February 2014

Introduction

1. My name is Philip John Stickney and I am a Planner and Associate Director at Boffa Miskell Limited. I hold a Bachelor of Regional Planning from Massey University. I have practised as a planner in both Local Government and consultancy roles since 1993.

2. I am a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute. I am a member of the Planning Institute’s admission and membership interview panel. I have provided planning advice and assisted clients with a wide range of activities with my primary focus being on land development particularly for residential and industrial developments. That work has often involved applications for Plan Changes as well as resource consents. I have practised in Gisborne, Wellington and for the past 14 years in Auckland. I have also worked in many other areas of the North Island.

3. The Ruakura Plan Change was prepared by Boffa Miskell with input from a wide range of consultants and I provided a review and editing role together with my colleagues. I have been involved heavily in the planning for the development of the Ruakura Structure Plan since the engagement of Boffa Miskell by Tainui Group Holdings Limited and Chedworth Properties Limited (“the Applicants”) in 2008. I am therefore well acquainted with the contents of the Plan Change as well as the subject site.

4. I was also one of the principal consultants who worked with Hamilton City Council, NZTA, WRC and other stakeholders in the preparation of the Ruakura Structure Plan and the associated policy framework and planning provisions now contained within the Proposed Hamilton City District Plan. I have also prepared and presented submissions on the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement and the Proposed Waikato Regional Land Transport Strategy which provide direction for the future development of the R1 Area.

5. I have either been directly involved in, or privy to, the wide range and type of consultative processes undertaken in the development of the

15940985_1 1 Statement of Evidence in Chief of Philip John Stickney on behalf of Tainui Group Holdings Ltd and Chedworth Properties Ltd

Ruakura Structure Plan and associated provisions of the Proposed Hamilton City District Plan.

Code of Conduct

6. I confirm that I have read the ‘Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses’ as contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2011. I agree to comply with this Code of Conduct. In particular, unless I state otherwise, this evidence is within my sphere of expertise and I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions I express.

Scope of Evidence

7. It is my understanding based on the legal advice received by the Applicants that neither the Applicants nor the Hamilton City Council were under any legal duty to undertake consultation in respect of a privately requested plan change and that the Council is not under a duty to consult with anyone other than those persons listed in clause 3(1) of Schedule 1 of the RMA in respect of its proposed district plan. Nonetheless consultation did take place.

8. My statement canvasses the evolution of a number of earlier planning strategies and documents, all of which were subject to a consultative process under either the Local Government Act or the First Schedule of the RMA. These all clearly highlighted the direction and nature of future growth at Ruakura. In particular the Proposed Regional Policy Statement sets a growth framework for this area in an RMA framework, against which District Plans must give effect,

9. I then address the more recent consultative process undertaken for Ruakura. I also rely upon the evidence of Mr McLauchlan and Mr Webb where there is cross-over in relation to consultative processes. I also rely upon the evidence of Mr Hall in relation to planning matters where they have been influenced by the outcomes of the consultation process to address concerns raised by a number of agencies and individuals.

10. My statement describes how, as a result of consultation, amendments to various planning provisions and development standards have been 15940985_1 2 Statement of Evidence in Chief of Philip John Stickney on behalf of Tainui Group Holdings Ltd and Chedworth Properties Ltd

included in the Plan Change to address the range of environmental issues raised by various parties.

11. In particular my evidence considers the First Schedule consultative processes undertaken by Hamilton City Council, in collaboration with the Applicants. The outcomes of that statutory process are clearly reflected in the provisions contained within Part 25H of the Plan Change and the rules and standards which will govern the development of lands within the Plan Change Area until such time as the provisions of the Proposed District Plan are operative.

12. I consider the entire suite of consultative processes to be relevant to the current Plan Change. I also identify and consider additional consultative initiatives undertaken by the Applicants in the course of the preparation of the Ruakura Structure Plan, which were undertaken with the knowledge of Hamilton City Council.

Methodology and Limitations

13. While I have been extensively involved in the development of the Ruakura Structure Plan, I advise that I was not in attendance at some meetings and as such I rely upon either meeting notes subsequently provided or verbal feedback from other parties to inform me of the proceedings and the outcomes of those meetings. The outcomes of those meetings as relayed to me do not however alter my conclusions in respect of consultation undertaken.

Key Findings

14. The development of the Ruakura Structure Plan is the latest phase in a series of planning strategies and documents, all of which cite the potential and benefits of development at Ruakura for a range of employment activities. These documents include the Hamilton Urban Growth Strategy 2008 (“HUGS”), the FutureProof Growth Strategy and Implementation Plan 2009, and the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement (“PRPS”).

15. The former 2 documents were subject to a consultative process under the Local Government Act whilst the PRPS was the subject of 15940985_1 3 Statement of Evidence in Chief of Philip John Stickney on behalf of Tainui Group Holdings Ltd and Chedworth Properties Ltd

consultation through a First Schedule process. FutureProof involved a collaborative process between Territorial Authorities in the sub-region, Iwi and was the subject of a submissions and hearings process before a final adopted version of this growth strategy was released in 2009.

16. Similarly, the PRPS was developed through a First Schedule process and involved both a non statutory consultative phase, and a formal submissions, hearings and appeals process.

17. All documents clearly identify Ruakura as an area that is strategically placed to accommodate a range of employment activities. In the case of the PRPS, Table 6-2 and associated Methods contained within Chapter 6 are specific and targeted as to when and how much industrial and logistics development will occur over 3 planning periods.

18. While I was only privy to the formal submissions and hearings phases of both the FutureProof and PRPS documents, the consultation and formal submissions processes of these documents must have in my opinion highlighted awareness of development of Ruakura as well as other areas of the City and the Region. The Proposed District Plan and the Plan Change request to develop Ruakura are not by any means a new concept or an idea that has no grounding in progressively adopted planning documents.

19. In summary, my opinion is that the consultative efforts undertaken by the Council and the additional consultation undertaken by the Applicants regarding the design and impacts of development at Ruakura has been robust and extensive. The range of parties and individuals consulted with has included:

• Waikato Regional Council • Waikato Innovation Park • University of Waikato • University of Waikato, Department of Biological Sciences • Department of Conservation • AgResearch • Hamilton City Council and Waikato District Council • NZTA • Ryburn Road/Percival Road Residents • Silverdale Residents • Iwi 15940985_1 4 Statement of Evidence in Chief of Philip John Stickney on behalf of Tainui Group Holdings Ltd and Chedworth Properties Ltd

• Waikato Environment Centre • Mangaiti Gully Restoration Trust • Wider Community

20. As a result of progressive consultation with these parties, there have been a number of significant amendments and changes to planning provisions. I wish to focus on a number of aspects of the consultation with these stakeholders and individuals below.

21. I consider that it is important to first highlight the context within which consultation in the development of the Ruakura Structure Plan was undertaken. A Strategic Agreement signed by HCC, WDC and the Applicants in 2009 enabled the commencement of a collaborative planning process to prepare a Structure Plan for the Ruakura lands. The means by which such a Structure Plan was to be adopted, and subsequently included within the HCC planning provisions, was to include Ruakura in the forthcoming District Plan review, to be conducted under the First Schedule of the RMA. The Strategic Agreement was clear in that nothing in that document eroded or compromised the functions required of it under the RMA.

22. Accordingly, Ruakura would be included in the Proposed District Plan, with consultants for TGHL and CPL providing technical and policy inputs, with HCC, NZTA and other parties also providing technical information on matters such as traffic, 3 Waters servicing and integration with the Waikato Expressway planning work.

23. Prior to the release of the Draft Hamilton City District Plan in 2011, a Political Steering Group (of which all Councillors were members) was

established to begin to advance planning and to oversee the development of the entire Proposed District Plan.

24. Presentations to the Hamilton City Council Political Steering Group were attended by Hamilton City Council staff, and on some occasions by invitation to the Applicants and their representatives on matters relevant to the Ruakura Structure Plan and associated provisions. This Steering Group was the decision making authority in respect of the provisions of the Plan for the Council. 15940985_1 5 Statement of Evidence in Chief of Philip John Stickney on behalf of Tainui Group Holdings Ltd and Chedworth Properties Ltd

25. HCC Councillors and planning staff were also taken on a tour of Highbrook Industrial Park and the Wiri Inland Port, both in South Auckland, and also visited a number of key logistics operators in Auckland, including Mainfreight and The Warehouse Distribution centre to gain more insight into the requirements of such land use activities and ask questions of the operators of these facilities.

26. I note from meeting minutes (noted on the Council documents as not forming a formal record of workshop) that at each Steering Group workshop and presentation, requests were frequently made to the Council officers and to the Applicants’ representatives to provide further technical information to enable the Steering Group to collectively consider matters of landscape and visual impact, urban design, traffic, noise and connectivity of Ruakura to the rest of the City.

27. In respect of matters pertaining to traffic, landscape, urban design and “nuisance” effects, such requests involved additional visual simulation work, development of alternate controls and approaches to manage effects and advice from third parties as requested.

28. In my opinion, such an approach, although being conducted between Council staff and the Applicants, was beginning to highlight relevant environmental concerns that needed to be addressed. In other words, I consider that through this initial engagement process the Councillors and the Council officers were undertaking their duties in an impartial and fair manner. I consider that this conclusion is borne out by the fact that the Applicants provided extensive feedback on both the Draft District Plan in 2011, and have also lodged submissions on a range of matters contained within the Proposed District Plan as adopted.

29. To facilitate issues of traffic and landuse integration, a Ruakura Transport Reference Group was established, consisting of representatives from Waikato Regional Council (WRC), Waikato District Council (WDC), HCC, New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), and the Applicants. The purpose of this Group’s meetings was to deal with issues in respect of the timing and planning of the Waikato Expressway Hamilton section (WEX), manage the flow of employment and traffic data into the Waikato Region Land Transport Model and assess 15940985_1 6 Statement of Evidence in Chief of Philip John Stickney on behalf of Tainui Group Holdings Ltd and Chedworth Properties Ltd

outcomes and identify and work through local roading issues for both HCC and WDC.

30. Extensive engagement has been undertaken with Transpower over the options for the relocation of the 110kV overhead line that traverses the proposed Residential neighbourhood at the north of the site and advancing the site layout and the accommodation of freight handling activities near to, and under the 110kv and 220kV corridor that traverses the Logistics Area.

31. Engagement with KiwiRail regarding the potential of its operations to integrate with the proposed Intermodal Terminal (“IMT”) and distribution hub, as well as more engineering design-related matters regarding the WEX and rail underpasses has been ongoing.

32. High level discussions adjoining significant institutions including Waikato Innovation Park, University of Waikato and Ag Research were initiated at around the time that the Strategic Directions document was prepared in late 2010. These discussions were initially primarily directed toward the extension of the Knowledge Area as identified in the Plan Change and the Proposed District Plan.

33. Key issues for the University have related primarily to noise disturbance, visual amenity and the implications of the location of the WEX interchanges. In respect of all of these issues, significant work has been completed, which is reflected in the visual simulations included in the Folio of Drawings, background noise monitoring and liaison over traffic modelling and intersection and nertwork design. Conversely, some educational opportunities have been raised as matters for further discussion, particularly in regard to logistics and supply chain courses.

34. Council staff liaised with the Applicants’ consultants on the preparation of the information on all aspects of development to be conveyed at dedicated “Ruakura Open days”, held through 2011 and 2012. There were 5 days held in total at a range of local venues.

15940985_1 7 Statement of Evidence in Chief of Philip John Stickney on behalf of Tainui Group Holdings Ltd and Chedworth Properties Ltd

35. Notice of the Ruakura Open Days was publicised through Council websites, public notices and as I understand it, through the Council generating individual letters to residents. These Open Days were held over an extended duration and ran into the evening so that people could more easily attend around other commitments.

36. These forums provided an opportunity for the public and stakeholders to provide verbal and written feedback to HCC on all elements of the Ruakura Structure Plan as it evolved. Both HCC and TGHL representatives and consultants were in attendance on these occasions. HCC staff and TGH representatives recorded written feedback on note sheets. These were processed by the Council for further consideration and actioning.

37. An additional extended period for the public to provide feedback on an early “Draft District Plan” which included Ruakura, was provided in April 2011. A schedule of feedback was provided by the Council and a summary prepared by Boffa Miskell is included in Attachment One of my evidence.

38. Following this feedback period, progressive amendments and changes (where practicable) have been made to accommodate the matters raised by residents and local landowners. These are documented in the Plan Change request and are also attached to my evidence in Attachment Two.

39. Importantly, all the amendments made were formally endorsed by Hamilton City Council prior to the draft District Plan being adopted for public notification in November 2012. It is in my opinion important to note that the Applicants were not involved in any form in this decision making process. Such decision making was undertaken in a full public forum.

40. In addition to the consultative processes initiated by and under the control of the Council, the Applicants have at their own initiative, or by invitation, held discussions with adjoining landowners, particularly those who reside in Silverdale, and those immediately adjoining properties at Ryburn/Percival Road.

15940985_1 8 Statement of Evidence in Chief of Philip John Stickney on behalf of Tainui Group Holdings Ltd and Chedworth Properties Ltd

41. In particular, following feedback on the Draft District Plan released in April 2011 for public comment, the Applicants facilitated 2 public forums held at the University.

42. The invitations to attend such events were distributed by TGHL to approximately 8000 households in the area, both inside and outside the City. The forums were held on Sunday 1st and Monday 2 July 2012. Of the 8000 invitations delivered, a total of 88 attendees were present over the 2 forums held. Question and answer sessions were held, and copies of various land use plans were made available to take away. Attendees were also invited to contact TGHL if they had any further queries on any aspect of the presentations, or sought more detailed information.

43. Consultants representing the Applicants were also in attendance, including myself. HCC planning staff were present at the forums only in an observing capacity.

44. These sessions also included an invitation to travel to Auckland to visit Highbrook Industrial Park in order to provide a local point of reference as to the standard of development and amenity that a modern industrial park complex could provide. This inspection tour took place on Saturday 18 August 2012 with 16 residents attending, from Fairview Downs, Silverdale, Hillcrest and Claudelands.

45. Following the forums and as per the offer to contact TGHL, there were a number of individual requests in respect of understanding the relationship of various locations to future uses, and requests for further information on specific aspects of the proposal. These queries related to matters such as landscape setbacks and traffic.

46. In respect of these forums, it is my opinion that the geographic extent and quantum of the invitations issued was extensive, and that the initiative to run such forums was a useful and important adjunct to the wider consultation processes being run by Hamilton City Council in respect of the review of the District Plan.

15940985_1 9 Statement of Evidence in Chief of Philip John Stickney on behalf of Tainui Group Holdings Ltd and Chedworth Properties Ltd

47. I am also aware of but did not attend, 2 meetings with the Ryburn and Percival Road residents, facilitated through Mr Cowie. These meetings were attended by Mr McLauchlan. Individual meetings with residents were also held upon request.

48. In addition, submissions and further submissions on the Proposed District Plan have now closed, which has provided further feedback via the District Plan review process on matters that are pertinent to the development of Ruakura.

49. A copy of a submission summary report and an associated map denoting the location of individual submitters to the PDP and the matters contained in their submissions and is contained within Attachment Three of my evidence.

50. In this report, it is noted that submissions on Ruakura were received from residents in a total of 56 properties, out of a total of approximately 1200 submissions received by HCC on the PDP.

51. Accordingly, although there has been no tailored consultation regarding this Plan Change, there has been extensive consultation on all aspects of the wider Ruakura Structure Plan, and the associated planning provisions that will guide development and management of environmental effects. There is a high level of awareness of the development within the community.

52. The awareness of the development was further amplified by the rejection of the Private Plan Change request by TGHL and CPL to uplift the Prohibited Activity status for development at Ruakura which is contained within the Waikato Section of the Operative Hamilton District Plan. Various organisations including NZTA, WRC and FutureProof provided support for that Plan Change. I am aware that local residents were aware of the Plan Change and that they made representations to the elected representatives of the City prior to the Council making a decision to reject the Plan Change request.

53. Allied to the Ruakura Structure Plan, the Integrated Catchment Management Plan (“ICMP”) while not a statutory document in terms of

15940985_1 10 Statement of Evidence in Chief of Philip John Stickney on behalf of Tainui Group Holdings Ltd and Chedworth Properties Ltd

the Act has involved a parallel consultative process, which has in turn enabled better understanding of and measures developed to manage the progressive development of Ruakura and avoid, remedy and mitigate effects on receiving environments.

54. The consultative process for this document is ongoing with the HCC having recently approved a draft for targeted consultation. I attach a copy of the consultation plan prepared for this document as Attachment Four to my evidence.

Response to Issues in Submissions

55. The consultative processes I have described in this statement have resulted in a number of significant changes to the development envelope of the IMT, and the Ruakura Industrial Park Area. These changes were incorporated into the version of the Proposed District Plan adopted for public notification by a resolution of Council dated 13th November 2012. I have attached a summary of these as Attachment Two.

56. In addition to the matters contained within submissions which relate to the environmental matters, which are covered in the evidence of other witnesses, a number of submissions (including # 105983, 106046, 106243, 106243, 106329, 106349, 106360, 106364, 106528, 106529, 106568, 106595, 106619, 106729) voice concern that HCC and the Applicants had been planning since 2009, but that no consultation took place with residents until 2011.

57. I do not consider that the apparent “lag” between starting planning in 2009 and then consulting later constitutes any failure to consult. I base this opinion on a number of factors below.

58. In my opinion, the outcomes of consultation and the intent of engaging and receiving feedback and the views of the community is best achieved through having plans and concepts which have some robust and solid underpinning. There is in my opinion little benefit to undertake consultation based upon a very vague or notional concept which upon further technical analysis may not be feasible.

15940985_1 11 Statement of Evidence in Chief of Philip John Stickney on behalf of Tainui Group Holdings Ltd and Chedworth Properties Ltd

59. Significant scoping, preliminary technical investigations and analysis were being undertaken by HCC, NZTA and the Applicants during the period between 2009, and the subsequent release of a “Strategic Directions” document (included in Volume 4 of the Plan Change Request) dated September 2010. It was only at the point of the release of that document late in 2010 that it was beginning to appear that the land use mix on the land had the potential to be workable, albeit still at a macro level. From that point, consultation with the wider community could begin as part of the Council's draft District Plan processes through 2011 and 2012.

60. At the time that initial scoping began, there were also a number of parallel processes being advanced, including the transfer of the “R1” Growth Area from the Waikato District into Hamilton City jurisdiction. That transfer did not formally take place until the 1st July 2011 and followed the formal boundary adjustment process under the Local Government Act 2002 which included public notification and the right of the public to make submissions.

61. The dovetailing of the advancement of the Waikato Expressway with the development of the Ruakura Structure Plan has involved an extensive period of modelling, assessment of options and liaison with NZTA. The development of the Structure Plan in tandem with this Road of National Significance has meant that the ability to consult in detail prior to the outcomes of traffic modelling and development of options was not in my opinion feasible or would not have been beneficial to any party. The development of the WEX is conducted under the auspices of NZTA and that organisation consults in accordance with the consultative principles contained in the Land Transport Management Act 2003. The designation process and associated consultation for the WEX commenced in 2001 and was finalised in 2005, however no funding was secured for the WEX to be realised until much more recently.

62. While initial planning may have commenced in 2009, the agreed mechanism by which the Ruakura Structure Plan was to be advanced was as part of the First Schedule review of the Hamilton District Plan. On that basis, the timing for consultation with Ruakura was coordinated 15940985_1 12 Statement of Evidence in Chief of Philip John Stickney on behalf of Tainui Group Holdings Ltd and Chedworth Properties Ltd

with the wider District Plan review which only commenced in earnest in 2011.

63. As I have concluded in my evidence, that consultative process was extensive and robust and as such, I do not consider that the Council undertaking “internalised” scoping and planning with the 2 largest landowners in the R1 Area constitutes any breach of legislation, nor does it constitute any deliberate tactics on the part of the Applicants.

64. On the contrary in my opinion, the development of the Ruakura Structure Plan through a First Schedule process leads me to the conclusion that the checks and balances of the Council and politicians resulted in a thorough consultative process being undertaken.

65. In my opinion, the checks and balances undertaken are also reflected in the fact that the Applicants have lodged extensive submissions against a number of rules and standards contained within the Proposed District Plan.

Conclusions

66. In conclusion, I consider that the consultative processes undertaken to develop the relevant provisions of the Proposed District Plan incorporating the Ruakura Structure Plan were robust and wide ranging.

67. The primary method of consultation was through processes to align the integration of the Ruakura Structure Plan into the wider District Plan review which I consider to be an entirely appropriate planning approach to the development of the structure plan and the associated planning provisions.

68. The Applicants also undertook what I consider to be an extensive consultative programme, at their own initiative to complement the process undertaken by Hamilton City Council in the development of the Proposed District Plan. Based upon my experience in the planning field, I consider that the Applicants have been as forthcoming and responsive as they could be and I make this statement having regard to

15940985_1 13 Statement of Evidence in Chief of Philip John Stickney on behalf of Tainui Group Holdings Ltd and Chedworth Properties Ltd

the First Schedule processes that the Structure Plan and plan provisions were included within.

69. As a result of feedback and consultative meetings, I note that numerous changes and additional planning controls have been built into the Proposed District Plan and which are in turn largely reflected within this Plan Change. These changes have arisen from both statutory planning processes, and also through the consultative efforts of the Applicants.

70. Having said this, I do appreciate that some of those residents adjoining the subject site who have been consulted on the WEX, Ruakura and the land transfer from the Waikato District into Hamilton City are facing a period of some uncertainty and stress. I also recognise that some will have had their plans for their land and their place of residence placed into question.

71. However, I consider that those residents have made their concerns well known to Council Officers, elected representatives and the Applicants either through the consultative process or through their own individual/collective initiatives over the period consultation has taken place from 2011 to 2012. In my opinion, the consultative process has gone a considerable way toward striving to achieve balance between relevant concerns and progressive urbanisation of the land in the future, under the Plan Change and the Proposed District Plan.

Philip John Stickney

20 February 2014

15940985_1 14 Statement of Evidence in Chief of Philip John Stickney on behalf of Tainui Group Holdings Ltd and Chedworth Properties Ltd Attachment 1 Draft District Plan Feedback Summary and Schedule of Matters Raised (20th April Version) Ruakura Structure Plan Draft District Plan Feedback Summary and Schedule of Matters Raised (20th April Version)

Name Address/Contacts Overview of concerns Visual/ Noise/ Glare Storm Traffic Ecology Other Proposed Mitigation /Response amenity Vibration water Tim Hayward Not provided General statement re competition Refer BERL report with other industrial areas Dr Denis 57 Nevada Road Incompatibility of land uses, impacts depth/extent of reserves and Buffer areas/landscape treatments, increases in Lauren on ecology, impacts upon existing “ecological” corridors buffers around southern area research activities Alan & 53a Ryburn Road Impact on lifestyle, impacted upon by Biosecurity issues from IMT, closure DP standards for noise/glare. CMP to manage Barbara Julian 24/7 operations of IMT. of Ruakura Road, potential flooding flooding and water quality Keith 152 Masters Ave Trucks, traffic volume and vibration Restrict access to Silverdale from structure plan Schofield area. J Bothwell Not provided (multiple Impacts of industrial land to east of Reserve corridors at rear of Spine road reserve, noise standards and setbacks homeowner in Fairview Fairview Downs dwellings, (safety). Wants land to be Downs) residential east of Fairview Downs Julie Davies- Not provided IMT in the wrong place Air pollution Comply with WRC regs for discharges as necessary Colley Gloria Not provided Loss of high quality agricultural land, loss of productive soils Policy response via PRPS (balance of development Edwards appropriateness for Hamilton? vs landuse) Peter Bos Cycle Action Waikato Parking, and public transport Make Ruakura exempt from HCC Via DP, refinements to SP parking requirements, denote PT/cycle routes on SP Ray Prickett Not provided Industrial land bounded by Ruakura Industrial land out of place when Buffer areas, planting and landscape treatments, Road/Railway line considering range of denote extent of existing development capacity at educational/knowledge activities existing knowledge area plus new areas also. nearby M J Taylor 7 Nobleman Place Industrial land so close to established Need sports grounds/better HCC response, no sports grounds needed. Increase housing reserves between Silverdale road buffer reserve in southern area as required. and industrial areas Eleanor & 588 Ruakura Road Ruakura Road relocation impacts Requests more consultation Note: Alternate routes to be identified in conjunction with Alan Ure Out of town during the week) NZTA work on expressway. Explain likely staging clearly. Don & Judith 7 Northholt Rd Green corridors Increase reserves width by at least Amendments to southern reserve area, denote Roughton 100 metres, investigate need for a planting and landscape treatments school Dawei Deng & 177 Morrinsville Road No rural zoning in south, should be Rezone rural to residential or HCC matter Jing Yuan industrial or residential industrial Xiao Li & Lizhi 177B Morrinsville Road No rural zoning in south, should be Rezone to residential or industrial HCC matter Gou industrial or residential University of Amenity concerns for university and Tighten up Objectives and Policies, Visual simulations with UW, meeting on 21st June. Waikato campus environment, create “sub-zone” within which New graphics for setbacks, planting and landscape. appropriateness of logistics zoning, logistics and industrial activities are Acoustic review, plus traffic modelling outcomes landscape relative to staging and more closely regulated/managed. (particularly 2021 planning period). effectiveness of screening, road capacity and traffic volume, lighting and noise effects (standards currently proposed) Bill Harris 162 SH 26 Justification for rural zoning and Pest control and ecology in streams CMP to deal with water quality. Ecology assessment “green gateway” in southern area. may need to be extended to cover gullies, check with WRC re existing data and studies for downstream areas. ANG & SL 187A Morrinsville Road Zoning of land in south as rural Seek residential zoning on their land HCC matter Clarke Dr R G Bell No address provided (NIWA Incompatibility of logistics with Discharge is upstream of Hamilton Consider update to SIA, landscape framework employee) innovation/knowledge zones, water supply intake. details to be provided, increase in southern buffer amenity for residents nearby Seeks specific boundary noise area. Details of biosecurity matters, CMP update as (Silverdale, Newcrest, Fairview standards within 150 m of any to potential methods for management (refer to Downs). Inadequate SIA, adequacy of residential boundary. draft ecology assessment). industrial building heights/setbacks 100m buffer between residential to residential areas, impacts from boundary and industrial land on access onto Silverdale Road, Silverdale. ecological links too narrow, storm No hazardous substances facilities water volumes and sediment and within 500 metres of any residential rubbish/debris into streams. area. NB involved as expert witness for POT and Otago ports environment court cases. James Hely & 188B/C Morrinsville Road Land in southern area zoned rural Seek alternate zoning of residential HCC matter Heather or commercial Montgomerie Peter Ziarvo 33 Radiata St, Fairview Existing Infrastructure and questions Infrastructure servicing and who will Explain infrastructure position and likely Downs how Ruakura will be serviced, contribute. apportionment of costs. valuation on property KR & LE 352 Ruakura Road Operate a garage and repair business, Realign Ruakura Road parallel to Staging and timing for closure plus alternate access Hopkins closure of Ruakura Rd will impact railway line back to City, extending provisions upon business. Want underpass to Silverdale or Knighton under expressway as per earlier information provided. Dr Pip Gerard 57 Nevada Road Incompatibility of IMT with existing Biosecurity issues, risk of pests and DP standards for noise, light and glare. Locational NIWA/Ag research etc.; effects from contaminants from IMT processing attributes of IMT, not replicated in Te Rapa. Type of noise, lighting, effects of day-night activities. industrial activity in southern area and setbacks and operations-should be in Te Rapa. Use landscape treatments. industrial area south of Ruakura Rd for high etch industry, rather than inland Port. Stormwater treatment, risk of flash floods, impacts on gullies and protecting existing homes. Buffers and reserves for Silverdale residents inadequate JJenkins & H No address provided Lack of growth provision for No evidence to support TGH viability Denote potential of existing capacity at WIP and Ag Goodman innovation park, Ag Research etc, statements regarding IMT. Want Research plus new development areas in knowledge emphasis on logistics. Adverse effects undergrounding of powerlines, IMT zone. from traffic volumes (particularly to operate from 8.00AM -8.00PM. Silverdale, Ruakura area). Noise and restrict retail within industrial zone. Noise and glare via DP. glare effects from IMT, incompatible with innovation, housing etc. Impacts Infrastructure costs associated with development. on HCC (i.e. maintaining infrastructure). Bob Mills 70B Nevada Road Stormwater issues, treatment Also raises noise from expressway CMP to deal with stormwater, possible options for standards critical. See no logic in IMT (NZTA issue) managing. Policy direction for development to and knowledge zone on high quality manage soils issue. soils. Ray Cursons & 1612 Morrinsville Road Zoning of land as rural at south of site Alignment of power lines, setbacks Noise from slip roads (NZTA response required?) Gwneth not supported. Prefer original plan significantly reduce developable Verkerk for access to Morrinsville Rd. Change area. to expressway as a result of TGH planned IMT changes means more noise from trucks using slip-roads. Gully protection and impacts upon ecological values. Waikato Question need for rules relating to General refinements and Ongoing liaison with WRC as relevant to RPS issues. Regional uptake at Rotokauri; link to PRPS amendments to rules and standards. Council hearings outcomes. More detail on Refinements to structure plan structure plan maps required, mapping. amendments to rules to ensure no retail activity etc, see value in HCC strengthening bylaw, question value in rules regulating HVRs in District Plan.

Electronic Feedback from HCC (Summary Only)

Name Address/Contacts Overview of concerns Visual/ Noise/ Glare Storm Traffic Ecology Other Proposed Mitigation amenity Vibration water Ruakura Structure Plan: Logistics [email protected] zone seems inappropriate for Robert Davies- location, and inconsistent with Colley (07) 856 -1725 knowledge zone . Buffers, setbacks and noise/traffic management Ruakura Structure Plan: Objects to what is proposed at Ruakura, feels fit is more appropriate in Te Buffers, setbacks and noise/traffic management. [email protected] Rapa/Rotokauri Locational attributes, not replicated at Rotokaui/Te Daphne Mills 07 856 6769 . Rapa. Castalia reports. Ruakura Structure Plan: Location not Buffers, setbacks and noise/traffic management. [email protected] 07 appropriate, maximise infrastructure Locational attributes, not replicated at Rotokaui/Te Robert Mills 8566769 at Te Rapa. Rapa. Castalia reports. Ruakura Structure Plan: Issue of Michele [email protected] zoning use and concern around fit Buffer areas, landscape and planting treatments, Chruch 856 8376 with existing residential. combined with DP standards for nuisance effects Ruakura Structure Plan: View reserve reserve buffer around Fairview [email protected] buffer around Fairview Downs should Downs should be extended to Marina Smith 0276822348 be extended to around 100m. around 100m. Buffer areas, landscape and planting treatments Ruakura Structure Plan: Concern that [email protected] light and noise will be disruptive at Noise standards in DP, glare and use of LED Donna Bright 0274981824 night. technology. Ruakura Structure Plan: Industrial Ruakura Structure Plan: Buffer areas, landscape, traffic management and [email protected] land to the east of the University of Industrial land to the east of noise. Increase buffer area as required at southern Luke Elliott 079811444 Waikato should be zoned residential, the University of Waikato end. not supportive of proposed industrial should be zoned residential, zone. not supportive of proposed industrial zone. Ruakura Structure Plan: Not appropriate to have rural within city Dan Qiao [email protected] 8560105 boundary, southern part of RSP. HCC matter Ruakura Structure Plan: Concern regarding the southeastern rural The designation of the gully sector. The designation of the gully system associated with system associated with Mangaonua Mangaonua Stream as reserve Stream as reserve would not be would not be appropriate - [email protected] appropriate - seek a change to open seek a change to open space James Lovatt 07 856 1232 space zone. zone. HCC matter Ruakura Structure Plan: Objection to [email protected] industrial component near existing Buffers, landscape and planting, noise standards aimee steele 021825393 residential. and traffic management. Ruakura Structure Plan: Rule Ruakura Structure Plan: Rule 12.4.5 is 12.4.5 is specific for the [email protected] specific for the Waikato Expressway Waikato Expressway Kathryn Drew 07 8380144 Designation 90. Designation 90. Ruakura Structure Plan: Light industrial activity that surrounds Sheana [email protected] Silverdale area should be Buffers, landscape and planting, noise standards Goudie 8567604 redesignated to residential. and traffic management. Ruakura Structure Plan: Opposed to Maowang [email protected] zoning of Rural, previously identified Kang 021765266 as employment. HCC matter Ruakura Structure Plan: Ecological corridor between Inland Port and Residential Area needs appropriate buffer - 100m. 2 - Visual impact of Kevin and [email protected] the Inland Port is mitigated through Increase buffer and landscape reserves as agreed, Linda Hall 07 856 9432 tree and bush plantings. . planting and screening, more detail to be provided. Ruakura Structure Plan: Concern that CMP to manage flooding, emphasiase catchment [email protected] Ruakura Structure Plan will increase approach, not just TGH lands. Water quality and Ann Hardy 856-2671 the likelihood of flooding in gully. options for treatment of stormwater Ruakura Structure Plan: Concern around existing residential being [email protected] adjacent to proposed industrial Buffers, landscape and planting, noise standards Jennifer West 856 3140 activity. and traffic management. Ruakura Structure Plan: Like to see four metre high soil mound to buffer existing residential area of Silverdale [email protected] from proposed industrial Buffers, landscape and planting, noise standards Doug Pagel 858 2445 development. and traffic management. Ruakura Structure Plan: Concern over levels of drainage given the concrete surfaces that will be present within the Ruakura Structure Plan. Concern Noise, dust, glare as per DP standards. CMP to [email protected] also on noise, dust, glare and other outline possible approach to stormwater Jennifer West 856 3140 nuisance. management and discharge into gullies. Ruakura Structure Plan: Opposed [email protected] rural zoning. Promote rural lifestyle Promote rural lifestyle zoning Lucy Hancock 07 856 7878 zoning inplace. inplace. HCC matter [email protected] Ruakura Structure Plan: Opposed to Tony Bull 0272533655 the entire Ruakura Structure Plan. Ruakura Structure Plan: Opposed location of logistics zone. Largely in Traffic modelling and management, staging. Noise [email protected] relation to noise, traffic generation as per DP standards. CMP response to catchment Garry Falloon 027 422 8198 and drainage issues. management. Landscape and planting. Ruakura Structure Plan: Opposed [email protected] logistics zone, deem location to be Locational attributes, landscape and buffer Denis Lauren 07-8569942 inappropriate for an Inland Port. approach; noise/glare as per DP. Castalia reports. Ruakura Structure Plan: Logistics Denis Lauren 07-8569942 Zone - Opposed Derrick Wilson 078385016 Ruakura Structure Plan: Ruakura Structure Plan: Ruakura Structure Plan: Logistics Zone - inappropriate location. Issues with stormwater drainage, Philippa [email protected] biosecurity and impact on existing biosecurity and impact on Outline biosecurity considerations, CMP regarding Gerard 07 838 5103 Silverdale community. existing Silverdale community. stormwater and drainage. Ruakura Structure Plan: Logistics Zone - concern that no designated setback is in place for residents within Sheridan Street. Ecological link Increase buffers as necessary, planting and needs defining. Impact of industrial landscape treatments. CMP to detail approach to Wendy [email protected] area on ecosystem, biodiversity and management of stormwater and discharges/water Jackson 07 8568584 drainage patterns. quality Ruakura Structure Plan: Generally supportive of Council plans to increase industrial land in the city. Scott and Lori [email protected] Concern around location close to Buffers, landscape and planting, noise standards Silsbee 07 855 0110 existing residential. and traffic management.

Jacqui [email protected] McCullum 07-8550569 Ruakura Structure Plan Ruakura Structure Plan Ruakura Structure Plan: Supportive of new industry, but feel location of industrial activity close to existing residential housing is inappropriate. Suggest buffer zone is wider Judy & Terry [email protected] 07 Suggest buffer zone is wider and and noise mitigation methods Buffers, landscape and planting, noise standards O'Dwyer 853 6391 noise mitigation methods utilised. utilised. and traffic management. Ruakura Structure Plan: Location of a logistics zone next to a knowledge zone is not appropriate. Work is Work is needed on the Social needed on the Social Impact of the Impact of the proposal. Further proposal. Further detail is needed on detail is needed on the SIA may need to be updated to reflect concerns. [email protected] the mitigation for noise, dust, light mitigation for noise, dust, light Buffers and setbacks to logistics/knowledge to be Dr Rob Bell 07 8561742 etc. etc. shown, noise and glare as per DP standards Ruakura Structure Plan: Opposed the Logistics Zone. Silverdale is at the [email protected] centre of educational/research and global.com this proposal could compromise this Buffers and setbacks to logistics/knowledge to be Prajina Baisyet 021 2596212 environment. shown, noise and glare as per DP standards Ruakura Structure Plan: Gloria [email protected] Ruakura Structure Plan: Opposed to Opposed to the Ruakura Inland Edwards 07 8384022 (D) the Ruakura Inland Port. Port. [email protected] Ruakura Structure Plan: Concern Expansion of buffer zone Increase to southern buffer area, denote landscape Douglas Hall 078396185 around proximity of industrial and should occur. and planting for balance of areas as required. existing residential land. Expansion of buffer zone should occur. Ruakura Structure Plan: Increase buffer zone to include a visual barrier between industrial and existing Ruakura Structure Plan: Further Increase to southern buffer area, denote landscape residential. Further consideration consideration about large and planting for balance of areas as required. Traffic Margaret and [email protected] about large vehicles having access to vehicles having access to local hierarchy and restriction of access onto Silverdale John Hendra 07 8554161 local streets. streets. Road by heavy vehicles. Ruakura Structure Plan: Opposed to logistics zone - concern around noise, concern around noise, air Noise, dust and glare as per DP standards, buffers Julie Davies- [email protected] air pollution, dust and the impact on pollution, dust and the impact and planting to mitigate. CMP to outline approach Colley (07) 856-6144 gullies and streams. on gullies and streams. to discharges of stormwater from site. Ruakura Structure Plan: Industrial land should not be placed close to Jerramy and existing residential housing. Miranda [email protected] Substantial buffer needs to be in Substantial buffer needs to be Increase in southern buffer, planting and landscape Winchester 855 2487 place between these zones. in place between these zones. treatments.

Attachment 2 Amendments and changes made following feedback Logistics Zone

Issue/Standard As originally drafted Subsequent Changes Container Stack Heights Provided for at 25m Container heights reduced to 12 m within 100m of Ryburn/ Percival Road (East Coast Main Trunk Line boundary) and 100m of the Spine Road in response to feedback from University and residents/Hamilton City Council workshops. 12 m modelling in visual simulations confirms no significant adverse effects when combined with controls for landscape. Container Stack No setbacks apart from unloading As drafted, plus Hamilton City Council has included setbacks forward of any building line provisions restricting container loading/unloading or buildings erected within 40m of Ryburn/Percival Road (excluding road corridor). Tailored rules regulating container storage forward of any building line fronting the Waikato Expressway. Landscape Controls Landscaping @ 10m deep if security As drafted plus: fencing installed Additional controls developed from visual simulations for Ryburn Rd requiring landscape screening along Ryburn Rd or within Intermodal Terminal lands prior to each stage being progressed. Additional planting heights and maintenance requirements included in District Plan rules. Building/Infrastructure 20m for buildings As drafted plus: Heights 35m for gantries/cranes/lighting Amendments after consultation with University to through entire Logistics Zone limit heights to 20m outside the Intermodal MT operational area. All structures other than lighting, CCTV and flagpoles (retained at 35m). Container heights outside the IMT operational area now reduced to 12m. Buildings remain at 20m based upon vis.sim. modelling. Noise Standards as originally drafted, no Additional controls to require a noise management need for noise mitigation plan. 20m plan proposed by Hamilton City Council and curtilege around any residential accepted by Tainui Group Holdings. Noise dwelling identified in Ryburn/Percival measuring and modelling comparison to rules for Road similar environments indicates that the noise standards proposed by Hamilton City Council are lower than they should be. Lighting and Glare Standards reviewed by BECA No amendments, use of LED technology and specific design to manage.

Industrial Park Zone

Issue/Standard As drafted Subsequent Changes Activity Tables Zoning was Feedback resulted in complete new zoning tailored to Ruakura, originally to be recognising established residential areas. Offensive/noxious activities General made noncomplying, with addition of certain specified activities Industrial additional, including recycling plants, bulk storage/heaving industrial activities not appropriate for zone. Container Zoning would Amendments after discussions with Hamilton City Council, now a stacking have enabled maximum height of 6m for container storage in Ruakura Industrial with no control Park Zone, none in front yard areas of buildings. Landscape 20m from any After feedback from residents; buffer reserve along southern Buffers established boundary widened to 40m to be consistent with Spine Road reserve residential area width. Additional setback for activities introduced within northern boundary of Ag Research campus as per their feedback (25m).

Attachment 3 Proposed District Plan submissions related to Ruakura

PDP Submissions Analysis

Prepared for Tainui Group Holdings Limited and Chedworth Properties Limited

13 June 2013

Document Quality Assurance

Bibliographic reference for citation: Boffa Miskell Limited 2013. PDP Submissions Analysis : Report prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited for Tainui Group Holdings Limited and Chedworth Properties Limited.

Prepared by: John Carter Senior Planner Boffa Miskell Limited

Reviewed by: Phil Stickney Associate Director/Planner Boffa Miskell Limited

Status: Final Revision / version: 3 Issue date: 13 June 2013

Use and Reliance This report has been prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited on the specific instructions of our Client. It is solely for our Client’s use for the purpose for which it is intended in accordance with the agreed scope of work. Boffa Miskell does not accept any liability or responsibility in relation to the use of this report contrary to the above, or to any person other than the Client. Any use or reliance by a third party is at that party's own risk. Where information has been supplied by the Client or obtained from other external sources, it has been assumed that it is accurate, without independent verification, unless otherwise indicated. No liability or responsibility is accepted by Boffa Miskell Limited for any errors or omissions to the extent that they arise from inaccurate information provided by the Client or any external source.

Template revision: 20120910 0000

File ref: AEE_Report_Land_Use_v1.dotx

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction 2 2.0 Submissions 3 2.1 Institutional Submitters 3 Waikato University 3 AgResearch 3 Waikato Innovation Park 4 Future Proof 4 New Zealand Transport Agency 4 KiwiRail 4 The Property Council 5 Waikato Chamber of Commerce 5 Hamilton City Council 5 Waikato District Council 5 Waikato Regional Council 5 Transpower 5 Fonterra 6 2.2 Percival/Ryburn Road Residents 6 2.3 Submission to the East of the Expressway Designation 8 2.4 Southern area (Silverdale North) Residents 9 2.5 Panhandle Large Lot Residential Area 10 2.6 Silverdale Southwest Residents 11 2.7 Fairview Downs Residents 11 2.8 Wairere Drive 13 2.9 Enderley Residents 13 2.10 Submissions on Residential Chapters 13 3.0 Conclusion 14

Appendices Appendix 1: Ruakura Submissions Map

U:\Auckland\2008\A08274_PSt_Tainui_Ruakura\Documents\8000_Submissions_on_Council_Planning _Documents\District_Plan_Submissions\Submissions Position Paper\A08274_9000_Submsissions- Analysis_JCFurther edits.docx

1.0 Introduction

This paper sets out a brief summary of submissions relating to the district plan chapters relevant to the Ruakura Structure Plan Area. A plan showing the location of submitter addresses for the business and structure plan chapters is attached as Appendix 1.

It is noted that more detailed summaries of submission points have been produced by Boffa Miskell and the Hamilton City Council summary was provided on 31 May. Copies of submissions can be found at http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/PDPSubmissions2013.pdf

Overall submissions relevant to the business zones at were received from 56 addresses, although in some cases numerous submissions were received from the same address. In addition we also had a number of submissions from institutional or non-locational specific submitters including Hamilton City Council, Fonterra, NZTA, Kiwi Rail, Transpower and Future Proof.

Appendix 1: Ruakura Submissions Map

PDP Submissions Analysis | [Subject]

2.0 Submissions

2.1 Institutional Submitters

Waikato University - Map reference 26

http://www.hamilton.co.nz/P - The submission from the University primarily relates DPSubmissions2013/Proposed to the Knowledge Zone provisions specific to the %20District%20Plan%20Submis University which do not directly affect the sion%201059.pdf greenfield innovation area

- Supports 45% building coverage

- There are some comments in relation to finding the appropriate balance between promoting the Rukura proposal and maintaining the environmental and social objectives of existing facilities and neighbourhoods

- Amend Objective 10.2.2 as follows (or similar wording); To optimise the long term economic benefits of the logistics hub while ensuring that development proceeds in a manner which does not compromise the amenity and social values of surrounding neighbourhoods and facilities. To optimise the long-term positive environmental, economic and social effects of the logistics hub.

- In addition a submission point requests the reduction of the height of cranes from 35m to 20m outside the inland port. It is noted that this change formed part of the TGHL submission.

- Seeks setbacks from open space increased to 15m.

- Concerns about noise standards

- Seeks amendment to restricted discretionary activity criteria

AgResearch - Map reference 63

http://www.hamilton.co.nz/P - Opposes activities not listed in activity DPSubmissions2013/Proposed tables defaulting to non-complying %20District%20Plan%20Submis activities sion%20609.pdf - Supports the Ruakura Structure Plan development - Supports a Suburban Centre within the knowledge zone

- Supports flexibility with the spine road

- Support TGHL’s preferred interchange

Appendix 1: Ruakura Submissions Map

PDP Submissions Analysis | [Subject]

locations

- Seek increase from 50% to 70% buildings coverage.

- Minimum road frontage (20m) opposed

- Seek amendments to events provisions

- Seek amendments to Radioactive and Hazardous facilities rules

Waikato Innovation Park - General alignment in particular the support the suburban centre and the http://www.hamilton.co.nz/P removal of excessive reference to the DPSubmissions2013/Proposed Central City %20District%20Plan%20Submis sion%201051.pdf - Seek removal of restriction of Greenfield area to post 2041

- Seek permitted activity status for new buildings

- Seek permitted activity status for new buildings.

- Oppose 20m minimum road frontage

Future Proof - Supports TGHL’s proposal

http://www.hamilton.co.nz/P - Supports re-zoning of Percival Road DPSubmissions2013/Proposed Large Lot residential to Ruakura Logistics %20District%20Plan%20Submis - Supports TGHL’s preferred interchange sion%20608.pdf locations

New Zealand Transport Agency - Support the strategic integration of land use and infrastructure http://www.hamilton.co.nz/P DPSubmissions2013/Proposed - Supports TGHL’s proposal %20District%20Plan%20Submis - Need to ensure buildings/containers not sion%20924.pdf to high close to expressway

- No advertising signage to be visible from the expressway

- Request a 5m wide landscape planting strip along the expressway

- Supports Logistics zoning for Ryburn/Percival Road

KiwiRail - Supports the development of a regional logistic hub at Ruakura http://www.hamilton.co.nz/P DPSubmissions2013/Proposed %20District%20Plan%20Submis sion%20366.pdf

Appendix 1: Ruakura Submissions Map

PDP Submissions Analysis | [Subject]

The Property Council - Comprehensive submission primarily focussed on the Central city and existing http://www.hamilton.co.nz/P urban areas DPSubmissions2013/Proposed %20District%20Plan%20Submis - Generally not in-consistent with TGHL sion%20938.pdf submission

- Supports an efficient consent process

Waikato Chamber of Commerce - Supports TGHL’s proposal

http://www.hamilton.co.nz/P DPSubmissions2013/Proposed %20District%20Plan%20Submis sion%20698.pdf

Hamilton City Council - Seeks sewer with sufficient capacity to support not only Structure Plan Area but http://www.hamilton.co.nz/P also other growth areas. DPSubmissions2013/Proposed %20District%20Plan%20Submis - Various alterations and corrections to sion%201146.pdf provisions.

Waikato District Council - Supports TGHL’s proposal

http://www.hamilton.co.nz/P - Seeks 18 dph for Greenfield areas DPSubmissions2013/Proposed - Asks for Social infrastructure to be %20District%20Plan%20Submis provided for sion%201211.pdf - Indicates that roads will be stopped and

a new underpass provided for Ruakura Road

Waikato Regional Council - Supports the PRPS and Future Proof growth pattern http://www.hamilton.co.nz/P DPSubmissions2013/Proposed - General support for provisions relating to %20District%20Plan%20Submis environmental protection including sion%20714.pdf ecological corridors.

- Support for Ruakura and the recognition of the PRPS industrial land allocation table

Transpower - Supports the use of land under powerlines for stormwater treatment http://www.hamilton.co.nz/P DPSubmissions2013/Proposed - Increase the setbacks from poles from %20District%20Plan%20Submis 8m to 12m sion%201083.pdf - Seeks buildings being non-complying within electricity corridors including new dwellings within existing urban areas.

Appendix 1: Ruakura Submissions Map

PDP Submissions Analysis | [Subject]

- Seeks the addition of new vertical and horizontal separation standards

- Definition of sensitive land uses to include buildings where people might spend more than 20 hours per week.

Fonterra - Submission point are predominantly related specifically to the Te Rapa Dairy http://www.hamilton.co.nz/P Factory and the Crawford Freight Village DPSubmissions2013/Proposed %20District%20Plan%20Submis - Restricted to submission points related to sion%201200.pdf infrastructure provision

2.2 Percival/Ryburn Road Residents

This area is currently zoned Countryside Living and is located directly adjoining the proposed Waikato Expressway and next to the existing East Coast Main Trunk Line. The Structure Plan seeks a logistics zoning on the land. The proposed plan has however zoned the land Large Lot Residential. TGHL’s submission apposes this zoning as it is located in the middle of a large industrial growth cell.

22 submitter addresses are located in this area

Submission No Map Reference No Name Address

1005 20 Alan Frederick and 53a Ryburn Road Barbara Winifred Julian

1006 31 Peter and Barbara 3 Brighton Grove Ryan

1007 19 Bo Han and Maggie 53C Ryburn Rd Wang -

1224 24 Shing-long Lee 134B Percival Rd

238 16 Ross & Leonie Hopkins 352 Ruakura Rd

763 21 Wei Lee 124B Percival Rd

764 22 Ming-San (Arvin) and 51b Ryburn Rd Meng-Chu (Anna) Tang

827 23 Ken Shang and Hong 51a Ryburn Rd Wang -

831 29 Kung-Yao Lin 12 Brighton Grove

Appendix 1: Ruakura Submissions Map

PDP Submissions Analysis | [Subject]

835 25 Derrick Ross and Robyn 134A Percival Rd Mary Marsters

861 17 Allan Liang-chitz and 45 Ryburn Road Shirley Tzu-ling Wan

864 59 Raylene Cowie and 60a Percival Rd Saul Spriggs

910 58 Bryce and Natasha 6 Brighton Grove Carmichael

928/1275 30 William Roy 60 Percival Road Cowie/Ruakura Residents and Ratepayers

1277 42 Russell Cooper 318 Ruakura Road

1278 43 David Evan and 124a Percival Road Karlene Chibnall

1279 44 Roland and Wendy 116 Percival Road Spirig

1280 45 David Murray Young & 4 Brighton Grove Karen Lee Young

1281 51 Dr Liz Halsey 130 Percival Road

1257 62 Kerry and Donna 63 Ryburn Road Willmott

1004 32 Japara Trust 10 Brighton Grove

180 48 Graeme Ernest 23 Ryburn Road Goodwin

Key issues raised by submitters:

The submitters almost consistently seek the following;

- Large Lot Residential zoning to be retained. Reference to temporary nature of the zone be removed. - 1 dwelling per 2500m2 - 100m buffer - 100m landscaped area and an 4m high earth bund - Larger areas of landscape screening In addition other comments included

- Ryburn road should be offered mitigation - 70% uptake of industrial land before Ruakura land made available - Oppose logistics hub

Appendix 1: Ruakura Submissions Map

PDP Submissions Analysis | [Subject]

- No freight movements on Percival road - City should buy out landowners

A copy of the Submission from the Ruakura Residents Association can be found at the following link http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/Proposed%20District%20Plan%20Submission%201 275.pdf

Current remediation contained in the District Plan: Container Height: Height of containers limited to 12m within 100m of the northern boundary of the inland port– This formed part of TGHL submission to the District Plan Screen Planting– 5m wide 1.5m high landscape planting strip to be established to provide screen of the facility from Ryburn/Percival Road area. Potential to locate this on the road reserve to increase the level of screening ( Proposed Rule 10.4.7) Noise controls – Amended city wide noise controls proposed Lighting Glare controls – 3 lux to be achieved – the same as any other residential zone

2.3 Submission to the East of the Expressway Designation

Submission No Map Reference No Name Address 238 16 Ross & Leonie Hopkins 352 Ruakura Rd

252 49 Alastair Philip Calder 81 Davison Road

911 12 Hugh Goodman and 3 Vaile Road Katie Mayes -

Key issues raised by submitters:

- 70% uptake of industrial land before Ruakura land made available - Seek Residential/Innovation rather than industrial development - Oppose land release prior to the expressway being completed - Adverse effects to residential property - Support for commercial and general industrial activities being non-complying in the logistics zone. - Support logistics and freight handling activities being restricted discretionary activities. - Seek amendments to the permitted activity standard for lighting towers in the Ruakura Logistics Zone so that "Provision and use of artificial lighting, producing an illuminance in excess of 150 lux, measured at any point on the site containing the light source, in a horizontal or vertical plane at ground level" is a discretionary activity. - Seek a a permitted activity standard in the Ruakura Logistics Zone and Ruakura Industrial Park Zone that prevents glare from buildings as follows: "Buildings shall be designed and built so that the reflectivity of all external surfaces does not exceed 20% of white light. This means that glass and other materials with reflectivity values that exceed 20% may only

Appendix 1: Ruakura Submissions Map

PDP Submissions Analysis | [Subject]

be used provided they are covered or screened in such a way that the external surfaces will still meet this rule."

2.4 Southern area (Silverdale North) Residents

The Industrial Park Zone adjoins this existing residential area. The properties located near to the zone boundary are located on Sheridan and Nevada Street.

9 submitter addresses are located in this area.

Submission No Map Reference No Name Address

16 66 Kevin Brian Hall 61a Nevada Road

184 8 Denis Richard Lauren 57 Nevada Rd

187 15 Robert Alan Mills 70B Nevada Road

249 8 Philippa Jane Gerard 57 Nevada Rd

260 13 Robert James Davies- 76 Nevada Road Colley

265 13 Silverdale Residents 76 Nevada Road Group

268 10 Robert Gordon Bell 69 Nevada Rd

270 14 Roberta Lee Farrell 74 Nevada Road

283 14 Roy McIver Daniel 74 Nevada Road FRSNZ

289 7 Josina Wilhelmina Maria 1 Chelmsford Street Ellis

303 11 Silverdale Residents 75 Nevada Road Group

909 9 Jennifer and John West 66 Nevada Road

Key issues raised were;

- Industrial Park Zone is an inappropriate use of land

- Stormwater controls at source should be required

- Impact to local school

- Impact to the Mangaonua Gully

- A buffer of 200m required

- Impact to the Knowledge Zone/Waikato University

- Reduce site coverage (75% max)

- Reduce height of container stacking buildings and light towers

Appendix 1: Ruakura Submissions Map

PDP Submissions Analysis | [Subject]

- Increase landscaping from University and Expressway

- Remove low value freight activities

- 40m setback from all Residential and Special Character Zones

- Limit hours of operation

Submission from the residents group can be accessed from the following link http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/Proposed%20District%20Plan%20Submission%201 275.pdf

Current remediation proposed in the District Plan:

- Setbacks – 40m setback from the residential zone, 8m from open space.

- Controls over types of activities - A number of activities that would normally be expected within an Industrial zone have been specifically excluded from consideration. Including any noxious or offensive activity, motor vehicle dismantling and repair, recycling plants, incinerators and fertiliser manufacture.

- Design Controls – New buildings within 40m of the public realm require consent as a Controlled Activity. It is noted that all buildings currently require consent although this is opposed in the TGHL submission.

- Noise Controls – amended city wide noise controls proposed

- Light spill controls – 3 lux city wide control

- Landscaping – Landscaping required in all yards adjoining public open space ( Proposed Rule 11.4.7) and 2m planting strips required. Open space zoned buffer also provided.

- Building height control – 20m (Proposed Rule 11.4.4)

- Interface standards – No unloading of containers in front yards (Proposed Rule 11.4.9)

2.5 Panhandle Large Lot Residential Area

This area is currently zoned rural but is proposed to be rezoned as Large Lot Residential under the Proposed Plan.

3 submitter addresses are located in this area

Submission No Map Reference No Name Address

293 56 Gwyneth Ann Verkerk 161 Morrinsville Rd

832 57 James Hely and 188B Morrinsville Road Heather Montgomerie

951 61 ANG & SL Clarke 187A, SH26, Hamilton

Key issues raised were:

- Generally these submissions support the zoning of the land

Appendix 1: Ruakura Submissions Map

PDP Submissions Analysis | [Subject]

- The Clarke submission identified stormwater management as a key issue. I have added links to this submission http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/Proposed%20District%20Plan%20Submissi on%20951.pdf

2.6 Silverdale Southwest Residents

This area of residential development is located on Silverdale Road near the University. It is separated by Silverdale Road and an area of open space from the commercial zones.

3 submitter addresses are located in this area

Submission No Map Reference No Name Address

1018 28 Gillian Anne Denny 199 Silverdale Road

218 18 Nagarajah Manoharan 103A Silverdale Road

245 27 Dianne Leathwick 197 Silverdale Road

Key issues raised were:

- Impact on the character of the area

- Farm and associated buildings are heritage sites

- Minimise impact on residential properties

- Staging Plans required

- Impacts to the University

- Clean Green alternative uses should be found.

Current remediation proposed in the plan:

- Open Space – Open Space zoned Buffer Area provided

- Design Controls – New buildings within 40m of the public realm require consent as a Controlled Activity. It is noted that all building currently require consent although this is opposed in the TGHL submission.

- Noise Controls – amended city wide noise controls proposed

- Light spill controls – 3 lux city wide control

- Interface standards – No unloading of containers in front yards (Proposed Rule 11.4.9)

2.7 Fairview Downs Residents

This is an existing area of established residential development previously developed by CPL.

5 submitter addresses are located in this area

Appendix 1: Ruakura Submissions Map

PDP Submissions Analysis | [Subject]

Submission No Map Reference No Name Address 282 37 Deborah June Fisher 80 Alderson Road

327 36 Lori Silsbee 10 Ada Place

330 35 David Charles Ferguson 117 Powells Road

338 34 Jennifer Rita Bothwell - 26 Aldona Place Fairview Downs Residents

56 39 Dennis Roy McLeod 25 Alderson Rd

Key issues raised:

- Protection required for local residents

- Removal of the Structure Plan from the Plan - Spine road should be shown as an arterial - Landscaping 1.5m by 5m is not enough - Removal of notification rule - 8m and 40m building setbacks setbacks should be increased - Request no industrial views - Rural outlook - 400m greenbelt required The submission from the Fairview downs residents can be accessed via the following link http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/Proposed%20District%20Plan%20Submission%203 38.pdf

Submission 35 (David Charles Ferguson) relates to a piece of land that is included within the R1 land but is not owned by the JV partners but has been identified as open space associated with the spine road.

Current remediation proposed in the plan:

- Open Space – Open Space Zoned Buffer Area provided between Rukura Industrial Park Zone and residential.

- Noise Controls – amended city wide noise controls proposed

- Light spill controls – 3 lux city wide control

- Interface standards – No unloading of containers in front yards (Proposed Rule 11.4.9)

Appendix 1: Ruakura Submissions Map

PDP Submissions Analysis | [Subject]

2.8 Wairere Drive

This area is located in the far north-western corner of the Structure Plan Area.

Submission No Map Reference No Name Address 80 47 Alexandra Lee Simmons 22 Stoneleigh Drive

977 46 Parkwood Gateway PRS Planning Services Limited Limited

984 46 Portland Park Limited PRS Planning Services Limited

3 submissions have been received that relate to the northern most extent of the R1 land. Submission 46 relates to area of land currently zoned for a suburban centre in the Hamilton City Operative Plan. The proposed plan zones this as a neighbourhood centre. The submitter seeks to enable a suburban centre on this site. Both submissions 46 and 37 are concerned with wastewater connection in this area.

2.9 Enderley Residents

This submission relates to a residential area to the west of AgResearch.

Key issues raised:

- Primarily these submissions relate to areas of proposed residential intensification not related to the R1 growth cell.

- Restrict further industrial development until existing areas are full

- Minimise use of 5th Ave as a thoroughfare

- Planting should be provided along Wairere Drive

- Note submission 906 (Stephen George Bigwood) includes as a submission point that stages 2 and 3 should be rezoned as deferred Industrial Areas.

2.10 Submissions on Residential Chapters

A large number of submissions were received in relation to the residential chapters most of these submission are not directly relevant to Ruakura. The following is noted;

- Predominantly submission points related to the specific provisions of the General Residential Zone and various garage gate issues.

- Most Ryburn/Percival Road residents made submission points in relation to the supporting the Large Lot residential Zone on their properties.

- There are only limited submission points that relate to the Medium Density Zone. These relate to minimum dwelling sizes and residential yield. Generally comments are aligned with CPL submission.

- It is noted that Portland Park Limited has challenged the need for an Integrated Retail Development with the Medium Density Zoned land at Ruakura.

Appendix 1: Ruakura Submissions Map

PDP Submissions Analysis | [Subject]

Further detailed analysis of these issues will be provided once the council release their detailed summary of submissions.

3.0 Conclusion

The following observations are made;

• Overall there were a relatively low number of submissions.

• Residents submissions tend to relate to specific interfaces with the Structure Plan Area. They do not show a ground swell of opposition to the proposal

• Although there are some issues that will need to be resolved overall there appears to be a high level of consistent support for the proposal by key partners.

• One submitter Stephen George Bigwood (submission 906) included as a submission point that stages 2 and 3 should be rezoned as deferred Industrial Areas

Appendix 1: Ruakura Submissions Map

PDP Submissions Analysis | [Subject]

Appendix 1: Ruakura Submissions Map

PDP Submissions Analysis | [Subject]

File Ref: A08274_Submissions.mxd

47 !( 46 !(

5 !( 34 39 !( 35 !( 36 !( !(

37 !(

25 !( 24 44 !( !( !( 51 43 !( 21 29 !( 19 31 !( !( !( !( 22 !( 62 16 41 58!(!( 32 !( !( !(

t or any external source. external anyt or !( 45 !( 59 23 !(!( 20 rmation has been suppliedby theClient or !( 30 17 42 48 !( 40 !( !(

38 65 !( !( 12 !( 63 !(

49 64 !( !(

28 11 13 !( 27 !(!(!( !( 10 !(!( 14 !(!( 9 !( 15 8 66 26 7 !( !( ffa Miskell Limited for any errors or omissions to the extent that they arise from inaccurate information provided by the Clien the by provided information inaccurate from that arise extenttheomissions they or to errors any for Limited Miskell ffa s use in accordance with the agreed scope of work. Any use or reliance by a third party is at that partys own risk. Where info Where risk. own partys that at is party third a by or reliance use Any work. of scope agreed the with accordance in use s

18 61 !( !( 57 56 !( !(

60 !( obtained fromother external sources,it has been assumedthatis it accurate. No liability or responsibilityaccepted is by Bo This graphic has been prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited on the specific instructions of our Client. It is solely for our Client our for solely is It Client. our of instructions specific the on Limited Miskell Boffa by prepared been has graphic This

0 500 m !( Submitter Location A08274 Tainui Ruakura

Legend R1 Boundary Ruakura Submissions ° 1:20,000 @ A3 Date: 24 May 2013 | Revision: 0 Data Sources: LINZ Topo250, BML Plan Prepared for Tainui Group by Boffa Miskell Limited www.boffamiskell.co.nz Projection: NZGD 2000 New Zealand Transverse Mercator Author: [email protected] | Checked: JCa

Attachment 4 ICMP: Summary Report of Consultation/Communications

RUAKURA Integrated Catchment Management Plan

Summary Report of Consultation/Communications

Version Nov 2013

Ruakura Integrated Catchment Management Plan 19 Nov 2013 Summary Report of Consultation / Communications

CONTENTS

1 Introduction ...... 1 2 Background ...... 1 3 Objectives ...... 1 4 Policies ...... 2 5 Representative ...... 2 6 Summary of Consultation/Communication ...... 2 6.1 Stakeholders ...... 2 6.2 Waikato Regional Council ...... 3 6.2.1 Summary ...... 3 6.2.2 Actions ...... 3 6.3 Waikato Innovation Park ...... 4 6.3.1 Summary ...... 4 6.3.2 Action ...... 4 6.4 University of Waikato ...... 4 6.4.1 Summary ...... 4 6.4.2 Actions ...... 4 6.5 University of Waikato, Department of Biological Sciences ...... 4 6.5.1 Summary ...... 4 6.5.2 Actions ...... 5 6.6 Department of Conservation (DOC) ...... 5 6.6.1 Actions ...... 5 6.7 AgResearch ...... 5 6.7.1 Summary ...... 5 6.7.2 Actions ...... 5 6.8 Waikato District Council ...... 5 6.8.1 Summary ...... 5 6.8.2 Action ...... 5 6.9 New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) ...... 6 6.9.1 Summary ...... 6 6.9.2 Action ...... 6 6.10 Ryburn Road / Percival Road Residents ...... 6 6.10.1 Summary ...... 6 6.10.2 Actions ...... 7 6.11 Silverdale Residents ...... 7

Page i

Ruakura Integrated Catchment Management Plan 19 Nov 2013 Summary Report of Consultation / Communications

6.11.1 Summary ...... 7 6.11.2 Actions ...... 7 6.12 Iwi ...... 7 6.12.1 Summary ...... 7 6.12.2 Actions ...... 8 6.13 Wider Community ...... 8 6.13.1 Summary ...... 8 6.13.2 Action ...... 8 6.13.3 Summary ...... 8 6.13.4 Actions ...... 8 6.14 Mangaiti Gully Restoration Trust ...... 8 6.14.1 Actions ...... 9 6.15 Mangaonua Stream Project ...... 9 6.15.1 Summary ...... 9 6.15.2 Action ...... 9 6.16 Waikato Environment Centre ...... 9 6.16.1 Summary ...... 9 6.16.2 Actions ...... 9 7 District Plan ...... 9 7.1.1 Summary ...... 9 7.1.2 Action ...... 10 8 Commentary ...... 10 9 Consultation after the ICMP is Adopted ...... 11

Appendices

Appendix 1 - Initial “Draft District Plan” feedback, technical meetings and Ruakura Open Days (x4) Appendix 2 - Proposed District Plan submissions related to Ruakura Appendix 3- Plan 132241-GA024-X Rev1

Page ii

Ruakura Integrated Catchment Management Plan 19 Nov 2013 Summary Report of Consultation / Communications

1 Introduction

Consultation with key stakeholders is a critical aspect of the development of catchment management plans. This report, which forms part of the Ruakura Integrated Catchment Management Plan (‘ICMP’), reports on the consultation/communications that have occurred to date in respect to this project and the areas where further consultation/communication should occur.

This report was prepared initially by Tainui Group Holdings Limited and Chedworth Properties Limited (TGH and CPL), but will eventually be adopted through the ICMP process by Hamilton City Council.

An ICMP is a live document that by its very purpose needs to respond, change and be modified over time. Ongoing consultation on the changes and the ICMP will occur overtime where necessary.

2 Background

The area within the ICMP to be urbanised in stages is encompassed by the Ruakura Structure Plan, which is now contained within the Proposed Hamilton City District Plan. The Structure Plan was prepared collaboratively by HCC and TGH/CPL, with detailed planning work commencing after the transfer of the R1 growth area into Hamilton City jurisdiction, from Waikato District jurisdiction on 1st July 2011.

The structure plan process was considered an integral component of the Proposed District Plan; therefore consultation on the Structure Plan was aligned with the Proposed District Plan process. The ICMP processes commenced in January 2012 building on the work already completed with Hamilton City on the Plan Change and Structure Plan process. Additionally, HCC have recently developed and called for submissions on the draft Infrastructure Technical Specification (ITS), which replaces the Development Manual. This document has adopted many of the low impact design stormwater management techniques contained in the Ruakura ICMP.

Therefore, a number of issues were already being scoped and identified at the time that the structure plan and district plan objectives, policies and rules were being developed. Similarly a number of the solutions have been flagged through the development of the ITS.

As the ICMP is a strategic document it does not contain detailed design and project or developer specific information. Consequently details or matters such as culverts sizes, erosion, scour protection and other mechanisms have not, and should not, be consulted on through this process. Therefore it is important to note consultation is targeted based on what an ICMP can realistically cover. Following this process individual consents (discharge, landuse and subdivision, earthworks, etc) will be required at a later date. Decisions on the need to consult on the specific matters of these consents is not for consideration in the ICMP.

3 Objectives

The objectives to be achieved in undertaken consultation throughout the ICMP process are as follows:

 To present Hamilton City Council as a credible and cooperative organisation by communicating relevant information to stakeholders and landowners.

 To ensure consultation with all relevant parties to a level that meets the requirements of the ICMP project, its scale and significance

Status: Draft Page 1

Ruakura Integrated Catchment Management Plan 19 Nov 2013 Summary Report of Consultation / Communications

 To provide relevant parties with enough information to ensure that they fully understand the purpose of the ICMP and effect the ICMP will have on their interests.

 Involve other stakeholders (such as Tangata Whenua, recreational and local interest groups) who may wish to contribute to the management of the catchment’s waterbodies.

4 Policies

The policies that have been adopted to guide the ICMP process are:

 To inform stakeholders of the proposed outcomes and where possible obtain agreement and support on specific catchment management related issues where possible, but realise that on some issues Council and stakeholders may not agree.

 Clearly document all aspects of the consultation/communication process.

 Ensure issues and concerns raised by relevant parties are considered in the assessment process and addressed where possible.

5 Representative

The representatives (point of contact) moving forward on the implementation of the ICMP is:

Agent for HCC: Rae Simpson/Ian McComb Agent for Tainui: Tony McLauchlan Agent for CPL: Simon Webb

6 Summary of Consultation/Communication

The following provides a summary of the consultation that has occurred through the various processes relating to outcomes that are incorporated into the ICMP.

6.1 Stakeholders

In general, consultation/communication has occurred with the following stakeholders:

 Waikato Regional Council  Waikato Innovation Park  University of Waikato  University of Waikato, Department of Biological Sciences  Department of Conservation  AgResearch  Waikato District Council  NZTA  Ryburn Road/Percival Road Residents  Silverdale Residents  Iwi  Hamilton City Council  Waikato Environment Centre

Status: Draft Page 2

Ruakura Integrated Catchment Management Plan 19 Nov 2013 Summary Report of Consultation / Communications

 Mangaiti Gully Restoration Trust  Wider Community

The sections below summarise the consultation/communications undertaken with the key stakeholders and the matters that have been raised. The actions as a result of the consultation/communications undertaken are also indentified. Included as Appendix 1 to this report are the summary sheets providing further detail of the consultation. Appendix 2 contains a summary of the proposed District Plan which informs the ICMP.

6.2 Waikato Regional Council

6.2.1 Summary

During consultation regarding the Draft District Plan the Regional Council supported the provision of a wetland as an opportunity to address stormwater issues for Ruakura and is an opportunity for the biodiversity chapters. They support the use of low impact design techniques and sought that this approach was retained and maintaining the level of stormwater at a pre-development level.

A meeting on 20 June 2012 involved a general discussion on the project and the purpose of the ICMP. The Regional Council confirmed that they are principally interested in the conditions of the comprehensive discharge consent. General discussion was held on water take issues and the need to consider drainage schemes was advised. The Regional Council confirmed that they would want to see consideration of LID options in stormwater designs.

A meeting of was held on 11 December 2012 and the following matters were discussed:

 Project and construction timing.  Modelling requirements of WRC.  Parameters of discharge – including the need to provide for extended detention.  Service levels for the drainage scheme – 38mm to be drained in 24 hours.  Compliance with the Comprehensive Discharge Consent.  Given the size and the length of the project a number of individual consents may be applied for, or an overall consent.  WRC approval process would be via Brian Richmond and technical review by Mohammed Hassan’s team.

Discussions with Roger Spooner should be undertaken in regards to the rural drainage scheme rather than individual landowners.

6.2.2 Actions

 Consideration of the impact on drainage schemes.  Consideration of LID options in stormwater designs.  Parameters of discharge – including the need to provide for extended detention.  Service levels for the drainage scheme – 38mm to be drained in 24 hours.  Compliance with the Comprehensive Discharge Consent.  They would expect the detailed design information at consent application stage rather than ICMP stage.  A number of individual consents may be applied for, or an overall consent.

Status: Draft Page 3

Ruakura Integrated Catchment Management Plan 19 Nov 2013 Summary Report of Consultation / Communications

6.3 Waikato Innovation Park

6.3.1 Summary

During the initial consultation phase of the Draft District Plan Waikato Innovation Park (WIP) held discussions with HCC. The following matters were raised:

 An area which was identified as public open space is an area that has been earmarked for stormwater control and carparking. This is an area which WIP pay rent for.  As part of the Ruakura Structure Plan key stormwater management facilities will be located along open space corridors next to the spine road or underneath the national grid transmission lines, where other land uses are limited.  Unclear why it is necessary for a water impact assessment for all non-residential buildings with an area of more than 300m2.

6.3.2 Action

Consideration into the location of stormwater management facilities needed through ICMP development phases and detailed design.

6.4 University of Waikato

6.4.1 Summary

Several meetings have been held with John Cameron and other representatives of the University of Waikato over an 18 month period. The following matters were raised:

 Noise  Traffic  Visual amenity  Assurance that servicing wouldn’t impact the University.

6.4.2 Actions

Ongoing consultation with the University is occurring through the Proposed District Plan process to address the concerns raised. No specific actions relevant to the ICMP.

6.5 University of Waikato, Department of Biological Sciences

6.5.1 Summary

Meeting held with Brendan Hicks to discuss the project and the investigations undertaken to date. An overview of the project was provided and the research/investigations undertaken to date were discussed. Brendan advised of studies in the area that have been undertaken and possible additional sources of information once detailed design is advanced.

Status: Draft Page 4

Ruakura Integrated Catchment Management Plan 19 Nov 2013 Summary Report of Consultation / Communications

6.5.2 Actions

Ongoing consultation with the University when detailed design and construction are proposed. Copies of relevant reports to be circulated through the Proposed District Plan process to address the concerns raised. No specific actions relevant to the ICMP.

6.6 Department of Conservation (DOC)

Meeting with Rachel Kelleher to discuss the Departments interests and role in the project. DOC are limited in what they can comment on until they see detailed design information, design of structures, and information on ongoing monitoring etc. Rachel advised of general outcomes DOC advocate for, include on site protection of existing flora and fauna.

6.6.1 Actions

Ongoing consultation through detailed design phase and consenting.

6.7 AgResearch

6.7.1 Summary

Ongoing meetings have been undertaken with the mangers of the AgResearch facility on what is being proposed in the ICMP. This includes ongoing discussions over using some of AgResearch’s leased land for the water reservoir and associated access and maintenance requirements.

6.7.2 Actions

Confirmation of the location for the reservoir sites and then agreement reached with AgResearch.

6.8 Waikato District Council

6.8.1 Summary

Consultation has occurred with Waikato District Council in their role within the Transport Reference Group and related discussions.

Discussions were undertaken with Glen McIntosh over three water issues on 19 June 2013, the following key points were raised:

 Confirmation that the stormwater assets weren’t to be vested in WDC  If BoPRC are involved in the board drains in the WDC don’t need to be.  WDC are looking at installing its own reservoir near SH26, no shared service opportunities were identified.  WDC have an existing water network that is fed from HCC’s network, this will need to be maintained once Ruakura is developed and provided for in the detailed design.

6.8.2 Action

On going consultation required when detailed design is undertaken with particular consideration of the water supply network.

Status: Draft Page 5

Ruakura Integrated Catchment Management Plan 19 Nov 2013 Summary Report of Consultation / Communications

6.9 New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA)

6.9.1 Summary

Numerous meetings have occurred with NZTA via Transport Reference Group and separate meetings have been held to advance stormwater concepts. Three meetings have been held with representatives from NZTA and Opus (29 July 2012, 24 August 2012 and 19 December 2012).

Discussions included:

29 July 2012  Preliminary thoughts were that stormwater management would be reliant on drainage through Ruakura land (TGH/CPL).  Use of wetlands were being considered by both parties instead of ponds and hard infrastructure.  General discussion regarding culverts under the state highway, stormwater management devices and the general alignment of interchanges.  General discussion regarding reluctance of NZTA to have joint stormwater treatment and discharge systems.

24 August 2012  Interchange locations and stormwater management device locations.  Confirmed that while collective management and discharge may benefit all there is still a general reluctance to follow these options.  Water quality.

19 December 2012  5th Avenue interchange was discussed along with other locations and the consequences for stormwater management.  NZTA/Opus to consider stormwater options proposed by TGH/CPL to assess if the highway can coordinate with these options.  General agreement to share plans and information moving forward as changes are made.

6.9.2 Action

Ongoing consultation with NZTA over stormwater management by TGH/CPL to assess if the highway discharges can align with what NZTA propose. This will occur though the NZTA designation and consenting processes.

6.10 Ryburn Road / Percival Road Residents

6.10.1 Summary

Two meetings have been held with groups of Ryburn Road / Percival Road residents, on 27 August 2012 and 15 March 2013.

Discussions included the following

27 August 2012  An up date on the bio-security area of the Inland Port.

Status: Draft Page 6

Ruakura Integrated Catchment Management Plan 19 Nov 2013 Summary Report of Consultation / Communications

 What is planned for the area near to residents, on their northern and western boundaries, including likely developments and timeframes.  Adverse effects of the proposal on families, property values and lifestyle – changing from a rural residential landscape, quiet no-exit road, access to schools and university and financial investment in their properties.  Some suggestions offered by residents was TGH assist in shifting residents to TGH land on the other side of the expressway or otherwise residents being bought out.  Mike Pohio (CEO, TGH) provided background to the area, the basis to investigating an Inland Port and assessments and investigations that have occurred to date.  Roles of TGH and HCC regarding re-zoning of residents land.  Specific questions regarding the closure of Ruakura Road and zoning for local schools

15 March 2013  Questions were asked regarding the plan change, particularly: o consultation with neighbouring landowners occur prior to lodgement, o the Urban Expansion Policy Area (UEPA), o conflict of the zoning on the HCC plan.  Overview of the process of a plan change.

6.10.2 Actions

 No specific actions required relevant to the ICMP.

6.11 Silverdale Residents

6.11.1 Summary

Matters of note that arose from a meeting with Silverdale residents on 17 August 2012 was the protection of the stream gully and its values.

6.11.2 Actions

This has been addressed through the stormwater management system developed as part of the ICMP. Individual structures and erosion protection will be set out in individual consent applications.

6.12 Iwi

6.12.1 Summary

A Cultural Impact Assessment has been prepared for the Structure Plan which details the core issues regarding water management and stormwater treatment factored into the ICMP. Meetings have been held to discuss key concepts and opportunities. In conjunction with Ngati Haua Mahi Trust and Waikato Regional Council work has occurred in respect of the Mangaonua Stream gully.

The ICMP has also been developed having regard to Waikato-Tainui’s draft Environmental Plan.

Status: Draft Page 7

Ruakura Integrated Catchment Management Plan 19 Nov 2013 Summary Report of Consultation / Communications

6.12.2 Actions

Ongoing meetings will be held to discuss key concepts and opportunities through the development phase. No further consultation necessary for the ICMP. A copy of the draft ICMP is to be provided to Tim Manukau (Waikato-Tainui’s Environmental Manager) for comment.

6.13 Wider Community

6.13.1 Summary

As part of the initial consultation for the Draft District Plan and the Proposed District Plan, consultation was undertaken with members of the public, of relevance, some community members raised the following issues:

 Concern about the impact on the gully system and its values.  Concern about stormwater runoff quality and quantity.  Likelihood of stormwater flooding needs to be minimised by ensuring an adequate stormwater piping system.  Concern about impact to water supply.  Concern about the impact on existing infrastructure.

Open days for the Ruakura Structure Plan were also held (5 and 6 December 2011 – 65 attendees and 35 attendees). The following matters were raised from these open days:

 Include information on impact design and stormwater design.  Impact on gully system.  Support for making the gully systems parks or reserves.  Concern about additional stormwater quantity.  Endorse BPO’s for stormwater management, including wetlands, green roofs and where possible re-use for non-potable uses.

The Council also undertook consultation with the wider community when developing the draft ITS, which covers a number of the servicing solutions contained in the ICMP.

6.13.2 Action

6.13.3 Summary

No further action is required, the public have been provided with extensive information about the proposed development and the implications for 3 waters management. They have had both statutory and non-statutory involvement (i.e the TGH ran meetings in July 2012, which included the opportunity for people to visit the Highbrook development in Auckland to better understand the look and feel of that TGH was aiming for at Ruakura) in the development of the Structure Plan and Proposed District Plan which inform the ICMP.

6.13.4 Actions

6.14 Mangaiti Gully Restoration Trust

Meeting held with Robin Holdsworth, he confirmed the Trusts prime concerns were in relation to invertebrates, fish life and any increases in volumes of stormwater. They seek adequate detention

Status: Draft Page 8

Ruakura Integrated Catchment Management Plan 19 Nov 2013 Summary Report of Consultation / Communications

before stormwater reaches the receiving environment. They would like some assurance over bank erosion and details over the design of discharge structures.

6.14.1 Actions

Ongoing discussions during consent and detailed design.

6.15 Mangaonua Stream Project

6.15.1 Summary

Through discussions with Ngati Haua Trust and the Waikato Regional Council four outcomes/milestones have been developed to achieve restoration of the stream gully:

 Eradication of pest species, both flora and fauna.  Planting native flora species.  Developing and implementing a monitoring system to monitor the health and wellbeing of plants, and to monitor pests and water quality.  Constructing walkways through the gully system to improve access, use and the holistic wellbeing and appreciation of the Mangaonua Stream.

First planting day was occurred on 13 May 2013 with some weed control completed prior to this.

6.15.2 Action

Ongoing discussions with project manager Hone Pene (NHMT) to discuss project scope, programme and planting plan. Discussions will be undertaken with the Regional Council to determine if any such projects get advanced for the Kirikiriroa Stream system.

6.16 Waikato Environment Centre

6.16.1 Summary

Phone conversation on the general nature of the project with Katherine Hay. Some consultation had occurred during the preliminary ecological reporting. No significant concerns, only interested in detailed design as it relates to discharges structures and fish passage.

6.16.2 Actions

Ongoing consultation during detailed design and consenting stage.

7 District Plan

7.1.1 Summary

A number of submissions were made to the Proposed District Plan which are relevant to the ICMP. The key submission points are summarised as follows:

 Encourage knowledge based industry due to existing university and research institutes.  Develop ecological corridor linking the Mangaonua Fully and stormwater management system.

Status: Draft Page 9

Ruakura Integrated Catchment Management Plan 19 Nov 2013 Summary Report of Consultation / Communications

 Comprehensive stormwater control should be developed with stormwater generated should be controlled at source as well as centralised stormwater management system to protect the Mangaonua Stream gully from erosion and pollution damages.  A stormwater management plan should be prepared in consultation with affected neighbours.

Relevant submissions to the District Plan are included within Appendix 2.

7.1.2 Action

The period for further submissions is open until Friday 2 July 2013 where any further submissions may be made in support or opposition of the submissions made to Council. Following this a review of the relevant further submissions should be made to asses if there are any implications on the ICMP.

8 Commentary

Information on all aspects of development was conveyed at dedicated “Ruakura Open days”, held through 2011 and 2012. These forums provided an opportunity for the public and stakeholders to provide feedback to HCC on all elements of the structure plan as it evolved.

An extended period for the public to provide feedback on an early “Draft District Plan” was also undertaken as a separate process to the targeted open days for the Ruakura Structure Plan.

The feedback provided therefore included a range of responses on the stated objectives and principles for managing 3-Waters aspects of the structure plan, and in particular, feedback was collected on the stormwater treatment options being considered. A focus of the feedback was on the need to maintain and enhance, downstream water quality as the structure plan area is progressively developed.

Submissions on the Proposed District Plan have now been concluded, which has provided further feedback via the District Plan review process on matters that are pertinent to the development of the ICMP. It is noted, after a review of relevant submissions on the District Plan, that there is a clear alignment of issues raised in submissions, with the feedback obtained during the earlier preparation of the structure plan and consultation as part of the District Plan review.

These responses and submissions provide a robust basis from which to distil key issues of concern, and to then make an informed judgment as to the beneficial extent of further consultative initiatives as the development detail is advanced.

The Ruakura ICMP is unique in comparison with other ICMP’s in that there are a relatively small number of landowners with the structure plan area. Further, two of the landowners (TGH and CPL) hold significant landholdings. On this basis the ICMP and developed solutions for 3waters management have been advance initially by these landowners and the solutions reached (in agreement with Hamilton City) place little or no burden upon other landowners.

This is best demonstrated in the plan contained in Appendix 3 which shows the indicative locations of the stormwater management devices (swales and wetland areas). These have specifically been located within CPL or TGH land or within road corridors so that they are not reliant upon other landowners approval. Furthermore allowance has been made for assets (wetlands, swales, etc) within TGH and CPL land to be suitably sized so as to not limit development of other landholdings within the catchment. For stormwater solutions the only departure from this is for drainage basin BNE 1 in the north east of the site. To utilise this will require a negotiation amongst other

Status: Draft Page 10

Ruakura Integrated Catchment Management Plan 19 Nov 2013 Summary Report of Consultation / Communications

landowners. Funding and costing sharing arrangements for access to this infrastructure will be allocated outside of the ICMP.

Consequently, other than for TGH and CPL, there are next to no implications either environmentally or financially for landowners within the catchment until such time as they may choose to develop in the future and seek to connect to infrastructure. Therefore, consultation on the detail with other land owners has not been necessary beyond that already undertaken.

In terms of other landowners external to the site this has either been addressed through the Proposed District Plan or will be (if necessary through individual consents). The comments received from external landowners through the consultation phase have all been incorporated into the ICMP where appropriate, including consideration of ecology, erosion, etc from the proposed stormwater management system.

For these reasons no further consultation is considered necessary for the approval to the Ruakura ICMP.

9 Consultation after the ICMP is Adopted

Following adoption of the ICMP, the Hamilton City Council sets out the following commitments for ongoing consultation relating to the ICMP.

Changes will only be made annually and any significant changes will be adopted 1 July every year to coincide with the LTP and Annual Plan Process. Before proposing any changes HCC will undertake an assessment of:

 Changes proposed  Who do they impact  What is the potential financial implications?  What are the long sustainable implications

If changes are minor then they will be made without further consultation, if more significant these will be subject to 1 round of consultation. Individual landowners within the area subject to the ICMP will be notified of intended changes and they can then submit through the LTP process. Depending on the nature of the changes if there are potential effects on stakeholders outside the ICMP catchment then they will be consulted no later than 2 months before the LTP submission close.

Noting this does not remove Councils responsibility for consultation, nor the developers requirements for consultation through individual consent processes.

Status: Draft Page 11