Research to Understand the Planning Risks Associated with the Kapiti Expressway (RoNS)
April 2011 Andrew Guerin and Kirsty van Reenen (MWH)
January 2011 1
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 3
2. Purpose 4
3. Methodology 3.1 Lifting of LAR and potential plan changes 5 3.2 Expressway Interchanges 6
4. Development Potential 4.1 Lifting of LAR status on SH1 7 4.2 Under potential plan changes 8 4.3 In relation to expressway interchanges 9 4.3.1 Introduction 9 4.3.2 Otaki North 9 4.3.3 Otaki South 10 4.3.4 Peka Peka Road 10 4.3.5 Waikanae 11 4.3.6 Poplar Avenue 11 4.3.7 Summary 12
5. Overall Findings 13
6. Development potential in relation to Waikanae North 15 6.1 Introduction 15 6.2 Existing district plan provisions 17 6.3 Reduction in development potential 19
7. Demand Side Factors 22
8. Recommendations 23
Appendix 1 Planning around interchange areas
Appendix 2 National/international best practice
Appendix 3 Growth Management Strategies
Appendix 4 Extract from NZTA’s PPM
Appendix 5 Implications of removing LAR
January 2011 2
1. Introduction
The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) proposes to replace the current State Highway 1 (SH1) with a four lane expressway. NZTA are in the process of designing and planning for the construction of a four lane expressway through the district in four stages from Transmission Gully northwards (Transmission Gully (Linden to Mackays), Mackays to Peka Peka, Peka Peka to Otaki and Otaki to Levin). It is likely that the regional consents, NZHPT archaeological applications and Notices of Requirement applications will be lodged with the Environmental Protection Agency in late 2011/ early 2012.
If the applications are approved (via Board of Inquiry or Environment Court) it is likely that the current SH1 ownership and responsibility will be transferred to Kapiti Coast District Council with the Limited Access Road restrictions (LAR) lifted or transferred to Council. The current LAR restricts the subdivision, development and potential rezoning of land fronting SH1. This also applies to some extent to land in close proximity but with indirect access to SH1.
In addition, where development requires access on or near to, or is likely to impact on turning movements/traffic volumes on SH1, NZTA is an affected party. In many cases they oppose any new access and subdivision and resulting development onto the highway for road safety reasons. Thus, NZTA have acted as a significant constraint on development and on any plan changes to intensify landuse. With the lifting of the LAR status and transfer of the road to Council and with less traffic using the road NZTA are likely to be less concerned or have no concerns about development or plan changes involving access to the road. Further, the current restrictions and NZTA interpretation is likely to be less onerous resulting in more development potential.
January 2011 3
2. Purpose
The purpose of this research is to:
A. Assess the development potential with the removal of the LAR restrictions on SH1. This involves assessing the development potential of land with direct access to SH1 under the current District Plan subdivision and development rules.
B. To consider the impacts around the potential expressway interchanges at Otaki (2), Peka Peka, Waikanae Beach, Paraparaumu Central and Raumati under a restricted and full interchange scenario.
C. Assess the development potential of land adjacent to or within close proximity of SH1 under potential and credible plan change scenarios. The plan change scenarios were identified as being related to either the removal of the LAR restrictions, the impact of the expressway or a combination of both influences. The potential plan changes include two scales of rural residential development (1ha and 2,500m2 averages) and rezoning to urban in some areas.
D. Assess the impact of the expressway on the Waikanae North Ngarara Zone and Precincts.
E. Identify best practice and provide recommendations to manage potential intensification of land use along or within close proximity to SH1. Recommended actions to manage development are explored based on national and international best practice.
January 2011 4
3. Methodology
3.1 Development Potential: Lifting of LAR and Potential Plan Changes With regard to calculating the development potential as a result of lifting the LAR status on SH1, those parcels of land within the district which are adjacent to and have direct access to SH1 were identified. This land was grouped into character areas based on its zoning so that the development potential could be calculated based on the rules relating to that zone and to allow the areas to be mapped easily. For example the land between Otaki and Waikanae zoned alluvial with direct access to SH1 formed one character area. A total of 24 character areas were identified (refer attached maps).
An assessment was undertaken to identify potential and credible plan changes adjacent to in close proximity to the existing SH1. A total of 18 potential plan change areas were identified (refer attached maps). These potential plan changes were identified as being influenced by either the lifting of the LAR status on SH1, the expressway or a combination of both influences.
The subdivision/development rules and associated density levels for each zone under the District Plan were collated. Natural and physical constraints within each of the areas were identified. An assessment was then undertaken to determine the development potential under the current provisions.
Calculations of development potential for the lifting of the LAR and the plan change scenarios took into account natural and physical constraints. This included flood hazards, ecological sites, and topography. In rural areas there is more room to design around constraints whereas in the urban areas constraints significantly reduce the development potential of the land.
The following provides an outline of the constraints and the % of land excluded from the estimated development potential:
Table 1: Development constraints assumptions Rural Rural Rural Urban 4ha-20ha Residential Residential Res 250m2 to 600m2 average 1ha 2,500m2 average average Apartments 150m2 Industrial/Commercial Flooding - Nil Nil 25% of 50% of ponding area Ponding ponding area
Flooding - variable variable 100% of 100% of flood hazard overflow, flood hazard stream or river corridor, flood storage Ecological Sites Nil Nil variable 100% of eco site unless 300m2 + access way clear per building site can be provided Roads, Nil Nil 10% of total 20% of total area Reserves, storm area
January 2011 5
water Utilities - Nil Nil Nil 70m corridor 220/110KV Utilities - Gas Nil Nil Nil 20m corridor Peat/swamp Nil Nil Nil 50% Slope >28 Nil Nil variable 100% degrees
For the urban areas all land identified as subject to fast flowing flood hazards including overflow path, river and stream corridors or flood storage areas were taken out of the potential developable area. For ponding areas which generally do not pose a significant threat, the level of development was reduced by 50%. Likewise for low lying peat and swamp land the development potential was reduced by 50% for potential urban development. This land was identified by vegetation type (rushes and sedges vs. grassland) and soil maps. Where utilities currently traverse a site that has been identified as having the potential to be subject to a plan change a 70m corridor was excluded for 220/110KV power lines and a 20m corridor was excluded for natural gas lines.
Steep land with a slope greater than 28 degrees was excluded as were ecological sites. It was assumed for land containing protected native vegetation that there would have to be at least 300m2 and access way land with no native vegetation per site. The average lot size for the residential zone was 600m2 for Greenfield (lots >3,000m2) and 450m2 for infill (lots < 3,000m2). A 10% allowance was given for roads, reserves and stormwater infrastructure in rural residential areas (2,500m2). This allowance was 20% in urban areas for greenfield subdivision (i.e. lots >3,000m2).
3.2 Development Potential - Expressway Interchanges For the interchanges, partial and full design options were analysed for Otaki South and Peka Peka, partial for Otaki North and Raumati and full for Waikanae and Paraparaumu. It was assumed there was limited space and logic to providing a full interchange. Any potential development however is significantly influenced by the route taken.
The area of influence of the interchange design on development potential was derived from the road network and ease of access. It was assumed that full interchanges would encourage urban development due to the ease of access to employment/retail centres and schooling.
January 2011 6
4. Development Potential
4.1 Lifting the Limited Access Road (LAR) status on State Highway 1 (SH1)
Table 2 below illustrates the development potential of land within the district as a result of the lifting of the Limited Access Road status on State Highway 1. The figures in Table 1 below are those calculated for each of the distinct areas. It is noted that SH1 through some of the urban areas is not declared limited access road. These areas have, however, been included as they are likely to be affected by the lifting of the LAR. At present the NZTA is likely to be consulted (depending on the scale of the proposed development) as an affected party for developments within the urban area which have an impact on the volume of traffic on SH1. The transferring of SH1 to council and the lifting of the LAR status will mean that NZTA will have less or no influence on development decision along SH1 in the urban areas.
Table 2: Development potential of land adjacent to and with direct access to SH1 under current provisions Area Area Development potential (No. LAR # of additional lots / apartments) 1 Otaki North Hill Country 2 lots Yes 2 Otaki North Coastal 2 Lots Yes 3 Otaki North Alluvial 10 lots Yes 4 Otaki North Residential 33 lots No 5 Otaki South Residential 48 lots No 6 Otaki commercial Minimal No 7 Peka Peka – Otaki Alluvial 3 lots Yes 8 Peka Peka – Otaki Coastal 16 lots Yes 9 Waikanae – Otaki Hill Country Minimal Yes 10 Waikanae – Peka Peka Coastal Minimal Yes 11 Waikanae Residential 40 lots No 12 Waikanae Town Centre 37 apartments No 13 Waikanae – Paraparaumu Coastal Minimal Yes 14 Waikanae – Paraparaumu Alluvial 4 lots Yes 15 Waikanae – Paraparaumu Hill 10 lots Yes Country 16 Tourist Activity Precinct A 20 lots Yes 17 Tourist Activity Precinct B None Yes 18 Tourist Activity Precinct C 2 lots Yes 19 Tourist Activity Precinct D None Yes 20 Paraparaumu Medium Density 134 lots No Housing 21 Paraparaumu Low Density 5 lots Yes Housing 22 Paraparaumu Town Centre 11 apartments No 23 Paraparaumu Residential 22 Lots No 24 Raumati Residential 69 Lots Yes Total Rural lots 47 Tourist Activity Precincts 22 Residential lots 351 Apartments 48
January 2011 7
Table 2 shows that there is not a lot of further development potential under the current district plan rules for those lots which have direct access to SH1. The biggest increase in development potential of land with direct access to SH1 is for residential lots. This includes infill residential development in Waikanae, Paraparaumu (medium and low density housing areas), Raumati and Otaki. Under the current district plan rules development of that land with direct access to SH1 could result in a relatively small number of apartments, rural residential lots (tourist activity precincts) and rural lots between 1ha and 20ha.
4.2. Under Potential Plan Changes
Table 3 below illustrates the development potential of land which has the potential to be subject to a credible plan change which is located adjacent or in close proximity to SH1 (within 2km). These plan changes are either influenced by the lifting of the LAR status, the expressway or a combination of both influences as outlined in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Development potential of possible and credible plan changes adjacent to or in close proximity to SH1 Area Potential Plan Change Influenced By Development # Potential (No. of additional lots) 25 Otaki North Residential Lifting of LAR and decrease in NZTA 1160 influence as an affected party 26 Otaki residential to 350m2 Lifting of LAR and decrease in NZTA 151 - 221 and 250m2 average influence as an affected party. 27 Anglican Church Full interchange or south facing 80 ramps at Peka Peka 28 Waikanae residential to Lifting of LAR and decrease in NZTA 113 medium density housing influence as an affected party 29 Waikanae railway to Lifting of LAR and decease in NZTA 373 medium density housing influence as an affected party 30 Waikanae to Paraparaumu Lifting of LAR and decrease in NZTA 477 rural plan change influence as an affected party. 31 Tourist activity precincts Expressway changing desirability of 570 to allow residential land use at this location development (including area between A & B) 32 Paraparaumu low density Lifting of LAR status and decrease in 179 housing to medium NZTA influence as an affected party. density housing 33 Paraparaumu residential Lifting of LAR and Kapiti Road 52 to 350m2 average interchange 34 Paraparaumu residential Paraparaumu interchange 121 to commercial 35 Paraparaumu – Raumati Lifting of LAR and south facing ramps 131 residential to 350m2 at Poplar Ave / 200 Main Road Total Rural 557 Residential 2800 Commercial 121
January 2011 8
Table 3 above illustrates that there is a lot of development potential under the credible plan change scenarios. The majority of this development involves the intensification of existing residential areas or rezoning to residential.
4.3. In relation to Expressway Interchanges
4.3.1 Introduction The research around the development potential at the proposed expressway interchanges assume five interchanges at the following locations: Otaki North Otaki South – Gorge Road Peka Peka – Peka Peka Road Waikanae – Te Moana Road Paraparaumu – Kapiti Road Raumati – Poplar Avenue
Interchange Design Standard Diamond Interchange – A full diamond interchange is formed when a one-way directional ramp is provided in each quadrant. The ramps lead from the major highway to a signalised intersection, grade separated from the major highway.
Half Diamond Interchange – An interchange having single ramps in only two quadrants on the same side of the road. These types of interchanges are often described as having directional facing ramps (e.g. north facing)
4.3.2 Otaki North 2 scenarios - Full and north facing ramps Likely development scenario – North Facing Ramps Locals travelling south wanting to access the expressway will need to travel to Otaki South interchange if south facing ramps are provided there.
Due to the proximity to Otaki township, and railway and flooding constraints, any change in development potential for both residential and commercial land under both interchange scenarios is not significant.
January 2011 9
4.3.3 Otaki South 2 scenarios - Full and south facing ramps
Likely development scenario – South Facing Ramps Locals travelling north wanting to access the expressway will need to travel to Otaki North interchange if north facing ramps are provided. Through traffic will not be able to exit and get on again travelling in the same direction. As such the potential for commercial development is limited to convenience retail such as coffee kiosks and the like for local south bound travellers. North bound travellers are more likely to shop in existing retail centres such as Main Street or the Rail centre.
Under this scenario there is potential for rural-residential development at 1ha average density and some residential development. The catchment is wide due to the lack of development constraints (flooding, eco sites, topography). There is the potential for approximately 525 additional rural residential lots and 1611 low density residential lots and limited convenience retail @500m2 such as a service station(s), café, and a coffee kiosk servicing local motorists travelling south (refer attached map).
Under the full interchange scenario there could, in addition to convenience retail, be large format stores and/or supermarket. Given the ease of access to the expressway there is potential for significant commercial development of 10,000m2 if uncontrolled (refer attached map).
4.3.4 Peka Peka Road 3 scenarios - Full, south and north facing ramps
Unlikely development scenario – South Facing Ramps Locals travelling north wanting to access expressway will need to travel to the Otaki North interchange or Waikanae beach if closer. However, Peka Peka residents would have convenient access to the new expressway. Under this scenario there could be significant demand for both rural residential (600 lots) and residential (1,500 lots). Commercial development is likely, however, to be limited to small scale convenience retail similar to Otaki South.
The area identified as potential for rural residential development has actual or potential local road access and is within 2km of the Peka Peka interchange (1- 2 minutes drive). This makes Wellington within an hours travel and within commutable distance making it attractive for rural-residential and urban development. Under this scenario, there is significant potential for further intensification. The catchment is wide due to the proximity to Waikanae and the relatively un-fragmented land ownership pattern.
Possible development scenario - Full interchange Under this scenario further intensification is likely as in the south facing ramps scenario. The difference is in the increased demand/supply of commercial development including Large Format Retail if unrestricted due to the ease of access to shoppers and suppliers travelling in all directions. Intensification pressures, however, remain the same as in the above scenario.
January 2011 10
Likely development scenario – North Facing Ramps Locals travelling south wanting to access the expressway will need to travel to Waikanae Beach interchange making the commute to Wellington less attractive than a south facing ramp or full interchange design. As such, urban development and in particular commercial development potential is significantly reduced. Under this scenario, there would be little advantage gained with the expressway and as such increased intensification is unlikely due to the change in road layout.
4.3.5 Waikanae, Te Moana Road - Full only Likely development scenario – given the interchange is surrounded on all but the north facing side with significant flooding, development potential as a direct result of a full interchange is reduced. The location of the Waikanae interchange will significantly influence the development potential. On the north side where there are elevated dunes and flood free building sites, service station(s), convenience retail (including takeaway shops) could be attracted to the site. Similarly, if the interchange is located on the elevated south side, there would be potential for increased convenience retail. Regardless, given the increased connectivity between the main urban areas to the south, the current Waikanae beach shops, which seem to be running successfully, will benefit from increased custom. Increased connectivity could place further pressure to provide more commercial/retail at Waikanae Beach.
Note: ½ interchange is likely to result in increased traffic along Te Moana Road with travellers travelling north or south having to get on or off other interchanges.
4.3.6 Paraparaumu, Kapiti Road - Full only
Likely development scenario – town centre land to south east and adjoining residential will become more attractive for commercial development with improved access to north and south. Would be attractive for LFR if unrestricted.
4.3.7 Poplar Avenue/Leinster 2 scenarios - Full and south facing ramps
Likely development scenario – South facing ramps only. Not expected to result in a significant increase in development for full interchange when comparing to south only ramps. This is mostly due to site constraints including the railway, significant flooding, peat, escarpment and DOC land ownership with QE Park. Regardless of the interchange scenario, there is significant urban development potential due to the close proximity to Wellington. This is increased further with the development of a rail station within 10 minute walk (i.e. 800m). The key influencer however will be the lifting of the LAR status on the current SH1 and certainty over the location and construction of the expressway.
January 2011 11
4.3.8 Summary
Table 4 below provides a summary of the development potential under the limited and full interchange scenarios discussed above.
Table 4: Development potential of land under limited and full interchange scenarios
Impacts - South facing Impacts – Full interchange interchange Rural Residenti Commercia Rural Commercia Residential residentia al l Retail residenti l Retail l al Otaki South 1611 N/A 500 1611 1000 N/A Peka Peka 2100 N/A 500 2100 1000 N/A Waikanae* N/A N/A N/A N/A 4000 N/A Paraparaum N/A N/A N/A N/A 1000 N/A u* Raumati N/A 538 - 605 N/A N/A N/A 538 - 605 South Total 3711 538 - 1000 3711 7000 538 -605 605 *
Full interchanges only assumed for Waikanae and Paraparaumu
Interchanges at Otaki South (OS) and Peka Peka (PP) have the most direct impact on development potential for rural-residential and residential development given the lack of constraints and relatively un-fragmented land ownership pattern. This results in 1611 lots for Otaki South and 2100 lots for Peka Peka. With a full interchange at Peka Peka, it has been assumed that the area within 2 minutes drive of the interchange is within commuting distance to Wellington. This would make it more attractive for commercial/industrial development. With a half interchange (north facing ramps only), demand for further intensification as a result of the change in roading would be minimal if any.
For Paraparaumu and Waikanae the interchanges will provide a more limited increase in residential development due to site constraints. For Paraparaumu, with a full interchange and no controls it could potentially shift the centre of “gravity” for trip-making for retail purposes westwards, making retail development on Kapiti Road and Te Roto Drive sites more attractive to retailers. It could also attract proposals for retailing as part of mixed-used developments at intersections with the existing road network. If not controlled this is a recipe for highly dispersed retail development which would have an adverse effect on the concentrated development at the districts retail centres (refer McDermott Miller Retail Study 2005).
January 2011 12
5. OVERALL FINDINGS
Table 5 below provides a summary of the development potential as a result of lifting the LAR status on SH1, potential plan changes and the expressway interchanges.
Table 5: Overall Findings - Number of Additional Lots and m2 (commercial retail) under three Scenarios: removal of LAR, Potential Plan Changes and Expressway Interchanges Lifting of LAR status – current rules direct access Residential Apartments Rural Rural Rural lots 1 Total Residential Residential – 20ha (2500m2) 1ha 351 48 22 None 47 468 Via Plan Change Residential Apartments Rural Rural Rural lots 1 Total Residential Residential – 20ha (2500m2) 1ha 2729 - 3022 121 330 151 110 3441 - 3734 Sub Total 3080 - 3373 169 352 151 157 3909 - 4202 Interchanges Most Likely Interchange Impacts Rural Commercial Residential Total residential retail (m2) Otaki South (south 1611 500 0 1661 facing) Otaki North (north 0 0 0 0 facing) Peka Peka north 0 0 0 0 facing Raumati 200 Main 0 0 538 - 605 538 - 605 Road south facing Waikanae full 0 4,000 0 4,000 Paraparaumu full 0 10,000 0 10,000 Total 1611 14,500 538 - 605 2149 – 2216 (plus 14,500m2 commercial retail) Highest Interchange Impacts Rural Commercial Residential Total residential retail Otaki South Full 1611 10,000 0 1711 Otaki North Full 0 0 0 0 Peka Peka Full 2100 10,000 0 2200 Raumati 200 Main 0 0 538 - 605 538 – 605 Road Full Waikanae Full 0 4,000 0 4,000 Paraparaumu Full 0 10,000 0 10,000 Total 3711 34,000 538 - 605 4249 – 4316 (plus 34,000m2 commercial retail)
January 2011 13
The development potential is influenced to a large degree by the types of restrictions on SH1 and the design of interchanges and whether the interchanges will be full or limited. In summary, the total number of potential household units that could be created along or within close proximity to SH1 under the most likely interchange scenarios is approximately 2149 – 2216 (plus 14,500m2 of convenience retail). With an average of 2.3 people per household in the Kapiti Coast, this could result in a further 5,000 (approx.) additional people living along or within 2km of the existing SH1.
On the other hand, the interchange scenarios with the highest impacts could result in a significantly higher number of households, that is 4249 – 4316 (plus 34,000m2 of convenience retail), or a further 10,000 people, approximately 5,000 more than under the likely interchange scenarios. Under the full interchange scenarios there could be a further 19,500m2 in convenience retail/office. This includes Large Format Retail and/or new supermarkets which would be attracted to the full interchanges if not controlled. This would result in a highly dispersed retail development pattern which would have significant impact on the viability and vitality of existing retail centres.
Lack of any planning controls on the new expressway and current SH1 could result in an increase in population of 10% for limited interchanges and 20% for full interchanges and an additional 34,000m2 in commercial/retail.
In general, demand for new development will be highest where there is easy access to places of employment i.e. the expressway and land in the southern part of district
Under both scenarios, there would be a mixture of new convenience retail facilities and existing firms relocating to the new expressway interchanges.
January 2011 14
6. Assessment of Development Potential in Relation to Expressway through Waikanae North [Ngarara Development Zone and Precinct]
6.1 Introduction Ngarara lies directly between Waikanae Township and the coastal settlement of Waikanae Beach. It has a total area of 280ha. A plan change (PC 80) for the development of Ngarara to enable an integrated mixed use development was initiated in 2008 which proposed to rezone the land to Ngarara Zone and Ngarara Precinct. The plan change was approved in 2009 and was made operative in March 2010.
Ngarara zone is located south of the urban edge and provides for a variety of residential development clusters, integrated into its coastal, conservation and forest setting. The goal of the zone is to provide for residential and limited mixed use development providing for a lifestyle environment with a range of dwelling densities and supporting mixed use activities.
The Ngarara Precinct is part of the Waikanae North Eco-Hamlet Area located north of the Waikanae North Urban Edge. The precinct includes four development areas, known as eco-hamlets, surrounded by pastoral land, ecologically sensitive wetlands, native bush and pastoral forestry.
The Kawakahia wetland is located within the western portion of Ngarara. The wetland is 60ha in area. A large part of the Kawakahia wetland is protected by a QEII covenant under the QEII National Trusts Act. The District Plan identifies the western portion of the site (Te Harakeke Dunes) as an outstanding natural landscape. There are also a number of smaller high value ecological sites within Ngarara including areas of indigenous vegetation and smaller interconnected wetlands and swamps. Figure 1 below illustrates the ecological sites recognised within Ngarara (PC 80) under the district plan.
January 2011 15
Figure 1: Ecological sites within Ngarara under the Kapiti Coast District Plan.
Figure 2: Extent of flooding over Ngarara. Source: Kapiti Coast District Council GIS System.
Other District Plan layers affecting Ngarara include flooding, a natural gas main, the Ngarara Stream, the western link road designation and transmission lines. Figure 2 below illustrates the extent of known flooding over Ngarara from Ngapara and Waimeha Streams. This does not include localised flioodng/ponding.
January 2011 16
The Ngarara private plan change application provided a landscape and ecological assessment of Ngarara. Ngarara was classified with the following descriptions: ‘No Go’ or high ecological constraint Moderate ecological constraint Limited ecological constraint Old growth exotic landscape No or minimal constraints The ecological constraints covering Ngarara based on the descriptions above are illustrated in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3: Ecological constraints within Ngarara. Source: Ngarara landscape and ecological framework, Boffa Miskell, March 2008.
6.2. Existing District Plan Provisions
Ngarara Zone Current District Plan provisions for the Ngarara Zone are outlined in table 1 below:
Table 1: Current District Plan provisions for the Ngarara Zone. Source: KCDC District Plan 1999 Neighbourhood Maximum Additional comments number of household units Waimeha The total number of Mixed use area – an average density of 65 neighbourhood households in this HHU/ha. neighbourhood shall not exceed 780 Intensive residential area – densities ranging between 30 – 100 HHU/ha and an average density of 40HHU/ha
Residential area – only residential uses are appropriate with densities ranging between 20 – 40 HHU/ha and an average density of
January 2011 17
400m2.
Community area
Dune area – Densities range from 7 – 20 HHU/ha allowing for lot sizes between 500 – 1500m2.
Open space and conservation Ti Kouka The total number of Intensive residential area average density of Neighbourhood households in this 40HHU/ha neighbourhood will not exceed 300. Residential area average density of 25 HHU/ha
Low density residential area average density of 10 – 16 HHU/ha Homestead Dunes The total number of Intensive residential area average density of 25 Neighbourhood households in this HHU/ha neighbourhood will not exceed 340. Residential area average density of 7 – 20 HHU/ha
Low density residential area average density of 8HHU/ha Totara Dunes The total number of Neighbourhood households in this neighbourhood will not exceed 30 (Average density of 8HHU/ha). Kanuka Ridge The total number of Neighbourhood households in this neighbourhood will not exceed 80. Nga Manu Eco The total number of Commercial/Mixed dwellings or Use accommodation Neighbourhood units associated with visitor centre will not exceed 15.
Ngarara Precinct Current district plan provisions for the Ngarara Precinct as outlined in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Current District Plan Provisions for the Ngarara Precinct. Source: KCDC District Plan 1999. Development Area Maximum number of household units Kawakahia Retreat Eco- The total number of households or accommodation units in Hamlet this neighbourhood will not exceed 20. Kukutauaki Eco-Hamlet The total number of households in this neighbourhood will not exceed 4. Smithfield Dunes Eco-Hamlet The total number of households in this neighbourhood will not exceed 40. Lamberts and Ngapara Rural The total number of households in each Eco-Hamlet will Eco-Hamlets not exceed 40.
January 2011 18
6.3 Reduction in Development Potential Due to Expressway Need to redraw map with accurate 100m corridor and latest alignment Figure 4 below illustrates the proposed alignment for the expressway through Ngarara.
Figure 4: Possible expressway alignment through Ngarara.
Figure 5 below also shows the proposed expressway corridor through Ngarara and the route through the neighbourhoods as set out in the Ngarara structure plan. Figure 5 shows that the proposed expressway largely avoids the main areas within the neighbourhood planned for residential and commercial development. The expressway alignment in part follows that of the Ngarara Link Road and in part traverses land zoned as the pastoral zone within the Ngarara precinct.
January 2011 19
Figure 5: Proposed expressway alignment through Ngarara Neighbourhoods.
Inevitably, the proposed expressway will reduce planned development in Ngarara as set out in the structure plan. This will mostly be within the Waimeha, Ti Kouka, Homestead Dunes and Ngapara neighbourhood areas. Figure 5 above illustrates development areas which are cut off or adversely affected by the expressway. This equates to approximately 35 household units.
Table 3 below illustrates the approximate area covered by the expressway alignment within the neighbourhoods affected by the expressway. The areas affected by the expressway were calculated on KCDC’s GIS system using a 100m corridor. While Table 3 illustrates a relatively large area of the Smithfield neighbourhood affected by the expressway alignment, this is largely along the pasture corridor. As there is no overlay of the proposed expressway over Ngarara on KCDC’s GIS system the figures in Table 3 are approximate only. Furthermore, as there is no overlay of the Ngarara neighbourhoods and the zones within each neighbourhood on the GIS system the number of affected HHU’s as a result of the expressway could not be accurately calculated.
Table 3 illustrates the approximate area and household unit (HHU) within each neighbourhood that forms the Ngarara Link Road on the structure plan. Again, as the Ngarara neighbourhoods and zones are not available as a layer on KCDC’s GIS system the calculations in Table 3 are approximates only. While that area covered by the Ngarara Link Road is considerable less than that which will be affected by the expressway, some of this land forms the expressway corridor and most of the balance is required to maintain connectivity between neighbourhoods. Some of the Ngarara Link Road may be able to accommodate development which was planned for areas covered by the expressway corridor. This could be particularly relevant in the Kanuka
January 2011 20
Ridge, Nga Manu and Lamberts neighbourhoods. However it is not expected to amount to much as with no access on or off the expressway, there will be a need for local roads to connect all neighbourhoods.
Table 3 also sets out the approximate eco site areas affected by the expressway alignment. The proposed expressway alignment largely avoids the eco sites as identified on the district plan and is likely to affect approximately 0.25 hectares identified as eco sites.
Table 3: Approximate area of Ngarara neighbourhoods affected by the proposed expressway alignment.
Ngarara Approximate Approximat Approximate Approximat Neighbourhood area of e eco site area of e number of neighbourhoo area covered neighbourhoo household d affected by by d affected by units expressway expressway Ngarara Link affected by corridor alignment Road as in the (including eco (ha) structure plan proposed sites) (Ha). expressway Waimeha 4.2ha None 1.98ha 10 neighbourhood Ti Kouka 8.5ha 0.17ha 2.34ha 15 Neighbourhood Homestead Dunes 7ha None 2.7ha None Neighbourhood Totara Dunes None None None None Neighbourhood Kanuka Ridge None 0.08ha None 14 Neighbourhood Nga Manu Eco None None None None Commercial/Mixe d Use Neighbourhood Smithfield 8.7ha None None None Ngapara & 6.3ha (Ngapara) None 1.05ha None Lamberts (Lamberts) Total 34.7ha 0.25ha 8.07ha 35
The area zoned for most intensive development is at the southern end of Ngarara zone. From a development point of view this is the area most affected by the expressway. It’s also the area where there is least room to relocate the expressway due to topography and the intensive landownership to the south. As such the road should be designed to mitigate the noise and visual effects as much as possible.
January 2011 21
7. Demand Side Factors Demand and pressure for development is influenced by several factors including:
In/out migration Economy – likely to slowly pick up Expressway blight both in terms of uncertainty on current SH1 and expressway route till 2013 when decision from BOI effective Direct impact of constructing expressway on adjoining land 2013 – 2016 + Ongoing impact of expressway Proximity to public transport e.g. train extension to Waikanae Proximity to community services such as medical Proximity to Wellington Level of amenity e.g. views of hills/sea/rivers/streams, native bush, rivers, streams etc
January 2011 22
8. Recommendations
Initial ideas were explored on best ways to manage growth and development to limit the effects on the local environment.
Given the potential level of development resulting for the construction of the new expressway, consideration should be given to including development controls along the following lines:
Transfer some/all LAR status ex SH1 under Council jurisdiction; and or:
Retain similar/same subdivision/development, noise and access restrictions to apply generically to roads with more than 10,000 vehicles per day and/or major community connector route (district arterial road). Would require retention of current SH1 road hierarchy classification of major district arterial
Explore strengthening Regional Policy Framework via review of Regional Plans
Toughen up on policy framework to send strong signal to restrict further intensification through subdivision and plan changes. Incorporate Kapiti Development Management Strategy and Transport Strategy.
Include eco hamlet type restrictions on rural areas
Introduce urban edge at Otaki similar to Waikanae
Incorporate findings of rural productivity study to support targeted policy in rural area to restrict further subdivision
Explore separation (spite) strips around interchanges to restrict development onto expressway
Explore purchasing/retaining/increasing ownership with Open Space zoning with landscaping in particular around interchanges to mitigate expressway impacts such as s/w, noise, landuse. Need to consider offer back responsibilities
Current Provisions Retain/adapt the current provisions and apply to include the following:
Generic Provisions – all zones Transfer LAR restrictions under Council jurisdiction for old SH1. This will provide Council with the ability to manage development. On its own however it will not act as a significant constraint as with less vehicles using current SH1, the traffic impact of new developments is less than what it is now.
January 2011 23
Add subdivision rule similar to Horowhenua DC Plan Change 20:
(a) Any subdivision with access to a State Highway or Limited Access Road as a Restricted Discretionary Activity. The exercise of Council’s discretion shall be limited to:
(i) the approval of New Zealand Transport Agency as road controlling authority for State Highways and Limited Access Roads, or the Horowhenua District Council for any Limited Access Roads not controlled by New Zealand Transport Agency being obtained; and
(ii) The location and design of access onto the State Highway network or Limited Access Road.
(b) Any subdivision with access over or under the North Island Main Trunk Railway Line, provided the standards for Controlled Activities in Rules 19.4.2.B and 19.4.2.C are met. The exercise of Council’s discretion shall be limited to;
(i) the approval from NZRC as the rail controlling authority for the railway lines being obtained; and
(ii) Location and design of access over or under the North Island Main Trunk Railway Line.
Note: The above two rules only apply to subdivision applications that have access to a State Highway or Limited Access Road or over or under the North Island Main Trunk Railway Line. The approach currently adopted by the Council is to refuse subdivision consent applications where the approval from the relevant controlling authority (New Zealand Transport Agency, NZRC, or Horowhenua District Council) cannot be obtained. The Council does not consider level crossing access over the North Island Main Trunk Railway Line to constitute legal and physical access in terms of section 106(1)(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991.”
Retain current SH1 classification as Major District Arterial. Retain C.14 Noise insulation policies Retain noise insulation permitted activity standards for new dwellings within 80m of old SH1 to give effect to above policies. Amend C.18 Transport policy 12 to read: “Protect the existing state highway and Major Community Connector Routes and/or proposed routes from the adverse effects created by adjoining land use activities including the subdivision of land, to ensure the safe and efficient movement of goods and people through the District.”
January 2011 24
Include a requirement for Traffic Impact Assessment by suitably qualified and experience traffic engineer for new accessways/roads with speed environments between 70km/h and 100km/h (similar to airport and Waikanae North.) This is an NZTA requirement as part of their assessments under the current LAR restrictions Limit new accesses via existing registered crossing places Add a restriction on intensification of existing accesses unless they meet minimum criteria Add minimum sight distance criteria for accesses and intersections in 70km/hr + speed limits/environments for following reasons: o Adequate sight distance is one of the prime provisions to ensure a safe road. o All vehicles need the same distance to slow and stop to avoid a crash whether they are on a State highway or a local road. o Use current AUSTROADS distances with no “fudge factor”. NZTA Planning Policy Manual now has out of date figures Include separation (spite) strips at interchanges to prohibit access onto expressway Explore purchasing/retaining/increasing ownership with Open Space zoning with landscaping in particular around interchanges to mitigate expressway impacts such as s/w, noise, landuse. Need to consider offer back responsibilities
Urban Area Retain minimum access from corner of road 30m (50km), 100m (>50km road) – 15m other roads Retain spacing between accesses: o Up to and including 50km - 7.5m o 50km – 70km – 15m o >70km – 200m
Rural Zone Retain maximum 3 lots access to highway otherwise road intersection required (4 in other roads) Retain minimum distances between crossing places 400m and for roads 800m Retain policies and rules restricting roadside stalls/retail outlets for SH1 or roads exceeding 10,000 vpd Amend Rural Policy C.7.2. 15: “Ensure that rural subdivisions adjoining State Highway 1, Major Community Connector Routes and the North Island Main Trunk Railway Line avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects on the safe and efficient operation of the Highway/ Major Community Connector Routes and rail networks.”
Regional Policy Framework Greater Wellington RPS
January 2011 25
Explore opportunity to provide directive provisions to strengthen urban containment and Waikanae North urban edge via Regional Plans review.
District Policy Framework
Kapiti Coast Choosing Futures Development Management Strategy (2007) The Kapiti Coast Choosing Futures Development Management document is the Kapiti Coast District Council’s strategy for the management of development and settlement patterns on the Kapiti Coast. The vision for the district, as set out in the growth management strategy, is for ‘managed growth’ where management focuses on quality, local benefit, location and design to fit local character, protection of resources such as rural areas and natural character.
The management strategy sets out policies which emphasise the importance of managing the expansion of the urban area at the periphery, particularly north of Waikanae and consolidating growth within existing urban areas. The strategy, however, also sets out policies that aim to maintain the low density urban areas within the district and to target intensification in specific areas. Within the rural environment, the strategy aims to control development in order to protect the productive capabilities of the land. The policies which relate to managing development in the district and have not been fully incorporated into the district plan are set out below:
Policy 2.4(a) Urban development will occur within a broad ‘consolidation framework’ consisting of: Existing zoned residential, industrial, commercial and centres land; Specified future urban development areas, provided that these areas are developed under a structure plan approach, can ensure good access to services and an adherence to sustainable development/urban form principles; The concept of an ‘urban edge’ at Waikanae, limiting urban type development north of that edge; [Note achieved via PC79] No further expansion of the coastal village areas of Peka Peka and Te Horo Beach, subject to some flexibility of the 2006 residential zone boundaries to provide for a suitable urban/rural interface, provided that there is environmental or community benefit as a result and it is at a scale or form that does not create or facilitate expectations of further continuous incremental edge expansion of the coastal village and does not force change to existing infrastructure arrangements.
Policy 2.4(c) Future development in Otaki will be managed in a way that: Consolidates such development primarily within existing residential, commercial and industrial zoned land; Makes effective use of existing infrastructure capacity and does not demand unnecessary geographic extension of that infrastructure;
January 2011 26
Supports community aspirations around improvement to existing centres and for local employment; Avoids unnecessary loss of productive soils around the township; Protects valued character, including low density residential areas, Otaki Beach and cultural heritage; [partly achieved via PC77] Is staged to fit with local stormwater capacity upgrades.
Policy 2.5 (a) Sustainable development will be managed within the rural areas of the District in a way that protects and maintains the life supporting and productive capacity of those lands. Provision for the maintenance of the productive capacity of the high quality soils, for landscape and rural lifestyle activities and opportunities will occur within this framework.
Policy 3.4 (a) The low density urban areas of Kapiti Coast will be maintained as a first principle. Management within these areas will focus on reflecting and maintaining particular character, where that has been identified by the community as being of value. Some intensification (to the level of medium density housing/apartments) in targeted areas will be provided for, where there is a clear benefit to the following: Support for passenger transport through location around selected transport nodes; Enhancement of selected town and local centres. ural Productivity Study Kapiti Coast: Choosing Futures – Towards a Sustainable Transport System (2008)
Add reference in District Plan to Transport Objective and in particular sustainable transport principles 2 and 3 and methods to ensure action outcomes/targets e.g. CWB priority routes are enabled Also refer to focus areas and how these will be enabled or where expressway could be an impediment.
Transport Objective Within the overall District vision, the primary transport objective for the Kapiti Coast is to…create a physical transport system that is attractive, affordable, connected, responsive, safe and offers effective mode choice so that it enables people to act in a sustainable way.
Sustainable Transport Principle 2 In moving to a sustainable transport system and as a way of reducing and spreading environmental and economic risk, emphasis must be given to the following hierarchy of transport users, until such time as each travel mode is capable of delivering balanced benefits across the four areas of wellbeing: • pedestrians; • people with physical mobility problems;
January 2011 27
• cyclists; • public transport users; • people accessing health and services within and outside the District; • commercial/ business users; • car borne shoppers and visitors; • car borne commuters; • car borne general travel.
Sustainable Transport Principle 3 Communities should have access to a physical network and travel service that offers them the widest possible range of travel modes giving access to essential civic and economic centres, social infrastructure and enjoyment of the local environment.
The above policies could be included in the district plan to support restrictions on urban sprawl and to send a strong signal for plan change/district plan review.
Eco-hamlet Provisions Modify for large blocks e.g. north and east Peka Peka + East Paraparaumu Tini Bush opposite Otaihanga.
Urban Edge Otaki
Modify to use base of hill + ponding area from Waitohu stream as northern boundary?
Findings of Rural Productivity Study Confirmed once study complete – estimated to be Nov.
Waikanae North Provide for local connectivity with provision for at least two future local road connections in addition to Ngarara Road linking west-east and at least three pedestrian/cycleway/horse riding east-west connections. That quiet seal be used Mass indigenous vegetation landscaping be established. Given low impact future urban and rural, lighting be kept to a minimum to retain “country” atmosphere
Action: Include in feedback to Alliance Project Team
January 2011 28
Appendix 1
Planning around Interchange areas
A.
Sustainable Transportation Practice (refer Plan4SustainableTravel.Org)
Strategic development location refers to the selection of areas for major new residential and non-residential development (employment, leisure and retail), including the spatial distribution of housing and employment within Growth Areas and Growth Points and between urban centres. It is an important input to the apportionment of development between districts at the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) level. There is strong linkage with development site location, which takes place lower down the strategic scale, where integrating development into the existing urban fabric is considered.
To promote sustainable travel, the aim should be to locate development where travel generation is likely to be reduced. Hence, in locations where there is good public transport accessibility, particularly for short trips to existing or new centres. Development locations which may facilitate long distance journeys by car should be avoided, including at or near to junctions on strategic roads (motorways/dual carriageways).
Key Questions
January 2011 29
1. How much can travel distances and mode share be affected through strategic development location?
The potential reduction in travel distances depends largely on context but evidence from Oxfordshire showed that ‘good strategic location’ can reduce overall travel distances by 15- 20% relative to the regional average (Headicar and Curtis, 1998). Similarly, research at the UK level (Stead, 2001) and in Surrey (Hickman and Banister, 2007a) suggests that a range of urban structure variables, including location, are important to resulting travel patterns.
Planning Checklist: Strategic Development Location
Key issues to consider in regional and sub-regional planning are outlined below:
1. Locate major employment, retail and leisure uses with a sub-regional catchment:
i. in the first instance, in existing city and town centres, or ii. secondarily (where the physical opportunity is not available for option 1), at other locations which can be accessed conveniently by public transport from the relevant catchment area
2. Improve the sustainability credentials of urban, ‘dispersed conurbation’ and suburban locations (which may sometimes be within the formal ‘built-up’ area) through the application of local traffic demand management measures, including travel plans.
3. Avoid workforce intensive development in non-central locations, close to junctions with motorways and similar dual-carriageway routes unless they enjoy exceptional public transport accessibility (e.g. a rail ‘parkway’ station). This will discourage short and medium-distance travel by car on strategic highways and is especially important in cases where new housing is likely to be attractive as a ‘dormitory community’ for people working in major urban areas accessible by the route.
4. Locations for additional housing should also have regard to:
the proportion of trips likely to be made within the home settlement (i.e. the degree of ‘self-containment’) the average distance of trips to places outside the home settlement and the likely proportion to be made by public transport
5 Where significant out-commuting is perceived as inevitable, new housing should be located in settlements which already enjoy good, or can receive improved, public transport accessibility to the relevant external destination(s), for example by virtue of a rail service or express bus route.
Evidence and Examples
The evidence given here is necessarily selective, but gives an introduction to the research on this topic. More details are found in the background technical report.
In a comparative statistical analysis of Botley, Kidlington, Bicester, Didcot and Witney in Oxfordshire (Headicar and Curtis, 1998) found that, although car availability is an important factor in influencing travel behaviour, there is an inherent link between location itself and car ownership (and hence travel). Not surprisingly, proximity to Oxford as an employment source influenced trip length and trip mode. Differences in trip length and trip mode across the five towns were a result of a number of factors, including journey distance, relative journey speed by mode, restraint of car parking supply in Oxford, priority for buses and cycling. Location accounted for + or – 15-20% to the study average travel distance per week.
January 2011 30
New housing development located outside existing urban areas, or close to the strategic highway network, or as a free-standing development increases travel distance (Curtis and Headicar, 1994; Headicar, 1997, 2000). Thus, most new development should be allocated to places in the vicinity of the largest urban areas or in corridors where closely spaced settlements provide for similar employment concentrations overall (Headicar, 2000).
In London, Manchester and Birmingham, commuting distances increase with distance from the urban centre. Specifically, London experiences a linear increase in commute distance up to 20 km from the centre; in Birmingham a plateau is reached at 7 km, and then decreases; and, in Manchester a plateau is reached at 5 km (Spence and Frost, 1995). However, the complexity of alternative centres in outer parts of these conurbations may make these results misleading. Evidence from Oxfordshire shows that travel distances continue to increase much further from the urban centre (Oxford).
Other research looks at differences in vehicle miles travelled (VMT) between urban, suburban and rural neighbourhood types in Austin, Texas. The results showed that 90% of the difference in VMT between neighbourhood types could be explained by different locations (rather than self-selection), which suggests that strategic development location can have a strong influence on travel distances (Zhou and Kockelman, 2008).
The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan provides one example of strategic criteria for prioritising the location of new development that attempts to reduce travel, encourage high public transport mode share and provide other benefits to the local environment and region. See further discussion in the Northstowe case study. Selected other local authorities also use similar selection criteria.
Summary Guide Background Technical Report
Longbridge, Birmingham - The Longbridge mixed-use development in Birmingham is a brownfield regeneration project incorporating a planned suburban commercial centre with sub-regional public transport accessibility. More here
Northstowe, South Cambridgeshire - The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan places sustainable travel considerations at the forefront of criteria for selection of development locations. A transparent, selection criteria was used to select the final location for a new settlement (Northstowe) in the region. More here
North East of England - The North East Regional Spatial Strategy attempted to follow a policy of concentration of development in urban centres. However, some challenges and modifications emerged during the decision-making process. More here
Milton Keynes / South Midlands - The North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy incorporates policies that concentrate housing and office development in urban centres and the bulk of new development is allocated to larger towns. Inter-urban travel nonetheless poses a challenge to the sustainability of the region. More here
January 2011 31
Public Transport Accessibility Map – towns and facilities
Urban Structure as an Enabler of Travel - reference Planning for Sustainable Travel Summary Guide, Commission for Integrated Transport, Dr Robin Hickman, Halcrow Group and University of Oxford (Transport Studies Unit)
The challenges of climate change and achieving wider sustainability objectives mean we should seek to use all available policy levers, including land use and transport planning, as effectively as possible to enable people to lead more sustainable lifestyles.
January 2011 32
There are significant associations between the built environment and travel
Spatial planning is typically a long-term instrument; its effects manifest themselves over several decades. However, the cumulative effect of land use decisions over recent decades has had a profound effect on travel patterns, and has the potential to have an equally significant effect, positively or negatively, in the future.
The evidence concerning the interrelationships between urban structure and travel shows that urban structure plays an important structuring role in enabling – or inhibiting – particular types of travel. This is, of course, tempered by socio- economic and cultural factors.
Much more attention should be given, at an early stage, to analysing locational options in terms of their propensity to generate trips or, if significant longer distance travel is seen as unavoidable, on selecting places where the greatest potential exists to offer a competitive non- car alternative.
This contrasts with the present focus on Transport Assessments of individual development proposals where the volume of travel is largely determined by earlier decisions on strategic location. In a similar vein there is also the current emphasis on the internal streetscape design of individual development proposals. Although this is very important, in many cases the pattern of trip-making has already been determined by location, density and other strategic factors. The practicable extent of influence of streetscape design is limited to reducing the car modal share by a few percentage points at most.
January 2011 33
Backcasting from a future aspiration
We therefore recommend a much stronger forward-looking ‘futures’ aspect to policy making, continuing to build on the recent developments in scenario building. Backcasting methodologies may also be useful – where future agreed scenarios are ‘cast back’ to develop pathways, timelines and programmes for delivery (Hickman and Banister, 2007a) (refer above graph).
Practitioners can hence move beyond conventional ‘predict and provide’ approaches to develop a greater focus on demand management and the achievement of alternative strategic aspirations.Such a scenario-based approach is also useful from the ‘precautionary principle’ standpoint.
For example, there is much current uncertainty over the extent to which technical developments in motor vehicles (and their take-up by manufacturers and motorists) will deliver reduced CO2 emissions; over the future availability and price of oil; and whether, in a changing economic climate, it will be possible to maintain the level of public investment which underpins the current projected traffic conditions. Future development policies and transport strategies will need to be flexible, adaptable and resilient over time.
Development Site Location
Development site location refers to the selection of sites for new housing allocations or other new developments. Development site location is often a catalyst for transport interventions, helping to justify or making viable a new transport service. The selected development site should also be well integrated into the existing urban fabric, including local transport networks (existing and new).
The aim of good development site location in relation to sustainable travel should be to locate new housing where:
the amount of travel by car (trip length and mode share) is likely to be low; good accessibility is available or can be created by sustainable modes to: o employment and other main facilities in the town or its immediate vicinity; o a rail station or other public transport interchange where good services are available to other (larger) centres within the sub-region; and o community facilities within the development or the surrounding neighbourhood; opportunities exist to: o promote the use of walking, cycling and public transport;
January 2011 34
o provide an attractive level of public transport service which does not depend on (additional) subsidy over the longer term; o utilise and support existing public transport services and community facilities in the locality; o incorporate services or facilities within the development which improve accessibility by sustainable modes; o in certain locations car free or low car provision housing will be appropriate Practitioners working at the local level are advised to adopt a systematic process of identifying new sites for housing development (subject to the availability of sites and other considerations, e.g. flood risk, design and conservation aspirations) as follows:
1 Identify and/or assess sites for housing development on the basis of existing accessibility by car and public transport to employment and other key facilities (alongside, but potentially before, other policy objectives). This will help ensure that existing transport investment and services are utilised and requirements for new investment are minimised. Deficiencies in accessibility are unlikely to be remedied by transport measures that can be introduced as part of smaller scale development.
2 Include the location and quality of existing bus routes and local facilities, as well as the opportunities presented by the development to bring about improvements in accessibility, as key criteria for final site selection. In particular: in larger towns incorporate necessary network links in the layout of a development to enable the utilisation and enhancement of existing urban bus services – larger extensions may justify a dedicated bus service along a radial corridor with priority measures; and in small towns focus development on radial corridors in order to utilise and support inter-urban bus services that run along them – again larger extensions may justify their own frequent bus service.
3 Create attractive walking, cycling and public transport links with local facilities in the neighbourhoods surrounding the new development.
Street layout and travel
January 2011 35
Note the image contrasts poor permeability to the north of the road and better permeability to the south. The original diagram has been amended to provide linear high-street style shopping to the south (originally mall style) and a more integral school location.
Conclusions Spatial planning has an important role to play in helping to achieve sustainable travel. ‘Integrating land use and transport planning’ is often put forward as a policy objective in planning and transport planning policy documents, but little follows in practice (beyond perhaps a limited thickening of densities around key public transport interchanges in the centre of urban areas). Too often new development is spread around an area, often reflecting the historical urban pattern. The impact of new development on travel patterns is very often overlooked, certainly at the strategic level, and at best it is very much a lower order consideration. The end objective in integrating spatial planning and transport more effectively is in achieving more sustainable travel patterns consistent with wider aspirations. Strategic CO2 emission reduction targets can act as a catalyst to changed working approaches.
A greater focus on longer-term aspirations and achieving reduced per capita car use, alongside more emphasis on likely regional and/or sub-regional travel impacts, is required. There is a current lack of focus on these issues. Giving more attention to development location and form – in relation to settlement size, density, jobs–housing balance, accessibility, mix of use, neighbourhood design and street layout, traffic demand management and parking – can help in moving towards sustainable communities, while achieving wider policy objectives. This can help place new developments and settlements in the wider context of their labour market catchments and more effectively recognise the inter-urban, long distance commuting problem. A key difficult issue remains in achieving the original design aspiration in development on the ground. Development location and transport investment decisions made today will influence travel for many years to come. More effective integration of the planning and transport disciplines – in policy, process and implementation – can help us to avoid ‘building in’ car dependency and instead plan for sustainable travel.
January 2011 36
B A GUIDE FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING IN INTERCHANGE AREA’S’, 2007, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
Interchanges create opportunities and challenges for communities with respect to land use and economic development. With good local planning and land use controls, an interchange can be an attractive, efficient community asset. The goal is to bring the development around the highway interchange and surrounding land use into harmony.
On highways where access is limited to interchange areas, there is often pressure for development, particularly of highway service facilities, to take place at these points. As well as providing access to existing land uses along the expressway, the interchange may also generate its own special development patterns. This development often includes the motorist services including motels, service stations and restaurants necessary to serve the long distance traveller. ‘Big-box’ and other regional scale developments are also often located along interchanges.
Issues with interchanges include: Unattractive appearance due to a disregard of the natural setting and an unrestricted profusion of signs and billboards. Uncontrolled growth can result in the proliferation of signs and billboards. New commercial development at interchanges can complete or conflict with existing commercial areas. Strip development can develop along the expressway. If there are no restrictions on access to the intersection road it may result in congestion and hazardous driving conditions and traffic may eventually back up on the ramps and interfere with traffic on the expressway itself. Uncontrolled growth around interchanges can reduce the traffic carrying capacity of the interchange and reduce access to adjacent property and reduce the potential for successful development. An excessive number of access locations along the intersecting road can create its own set of potential traffic conflicts.
Interchange area planning can be part of a comprehensive planning programme for a community, especially where strong development pressures are already being felt in these areas. The following broad objectives should be considered in interchange land use planning: Provide for the most appropriate land uses; Provide for and encourage the provision of public transport Ensure the orderly and productive development of the area; Provide an attractive gateway to nearby communities; Provide for bicyclist and pedestrian circulation; and Protect the traffic carrying capacity of the interchange and its connecting roads.
Interchange areas attract almost all types of land development. The following are the major factors that will influence decisions to locate at an interchange: The market or demand for the use and the land; The physical characteristics of the site including infrastructure; and Local objectives as embodied in plans, policies and regulations.
Highway service facilities such as service stations, restaurants and motels are particularly attracted to high volume crossroads that in many cases are the major entrances to urban areas.
Ample room for parking and the advertising value of a location within sight of a well travelled highway attracts commercial uses which can lead to further growth pressures away from existing towns and infrastructure which can adversely affect the vitality and vibrancy of existing retail centres.
January 2011 37
Where a growing community is near the interchange, there will be a general demand for new residential land. In the instances where the interchange provides faster and easier access to townships, adjacent lands may have increased value for urban development.
Improved access and efficient transportation may also attract light industry and highway oriented warehousing and inland ports to the interchange areas.
Rural interchange development In rural locations, the interchange area may experience little to no development pressure. The use of the land immediately near the interchange may be the same as surrounding properties. If or when development occurs in a rural area, it is typically in one quadrant only and is either a highway dependant business (such as a petrol station) or serves local rural interests (such as agricultural supply stores). However if the interchange provides for easy access to employment centres, there will be increased demand for rural-residential living.
Mixed use interchange development Mixed-use development occurs in higher population areas and provides a mix of land uses and service including residential, retail, and commercial businesses. These are typically high volume businesses that attract a lot of traffic into the interchange area. Depending on the location and site layout of the development relative to the interchange, mixed-use development may have a moderate to high impact on the interchange’s functionality.
Business/Industrial Park development Business/industrial park development often occurs near interchanges because of their proximity to one or more major transportation facilities. These can be attractive to local communities because it minimises the amount of semi-truck traffic on local roads and locates high noise generating facilities away from residential areas.
C Vermont interstate interchange: Planning and development design guidelines’, 2004, Vermont Department of Housing and Community Affairs.
In the early stage of planning for interchange development the following should be considered: Are there areas that are visually sensitive and need special consideration? What land use and development patterns have evolved over time? How will current regulations affect the look and feel of future development? What are the community goals and vision for the interchange area?
In addition to the physical analysis, Councils should consider several issues associated with interchange development. An important issue facing interchange communities is the relationship between interchange development and development within existing centres. Councils need to consider what types of development would be beneficial, and whether certain types of interchange area growth will draw public investment and economic viability away from traditional centres. Interchanges often serve as an entrance or gateway to a community. Consideration needs to be given to the type of image the community wants to present to the travelling public. Consideration also needs to be given to what uses are appropriate for interchange area development. Uses that benefit from or require convenient access to the interstate system will locate in these areas.
Communities have several tools to steer growth towards a desirable pattern. A comprehensive planning process involves several components. Defining desirable growth patterns and ways to achieve them can be accomplished through a public process. This process may involve surveys, informational meetings and public forums.
January 2011 38
Successful community planning for interchange area development, Randolph (Vermont, USA) The Randolph exit has been an area of community concern and a site of development pressure over the past five years. A master plan was developed for the interchange area that identified potential sites for development which articulated the desired land uses, and mapped sensitive scenic areas. The work was then furthered by utilising a community visioning process to bring together property owners, interested residents and planning authorities. After many meetings and consultations, a future development scenario was created that was agreeable to participants and it was presented to the larger community at a well attended forum. As a follow up, new draft zoning regulations and design standards for the area were created to enable the type, density and location of development envisioned by the committee.
Lessons Learnt - Involve the community and interested/affected parties at the early stage in the interchange area development process. - Identify potential sites for development, desired land uses and sensitive areas to be protected. - Undertake different development scenarios and display these visually. Application to Kapiti This example illustrates how a comprehensive planning process can be used to achieve the desired outcome for development around an interchange. The example also illustrates how the community and affected parties can be involved throughout the process. Should the Kapiti Coast District Council want to provide for development around an interchange(s) along the expressway, the Randolph example provides processes by which the desired outcomes could be achieved.
Interchange area planning can involve the following steps: Delineate the interchange plan area in relation to existing and planned interchange functions, transportation networks, land uses and settlement patterns. Map natural, cultural and scenic resources. Determine which areas are suitable for development. Evaluate the functional capacity of the transportation network within and around the interchange. Determine the capacity of existing water and sewer infrastructure to support development. Identify ownership patterns and engage landowners in the planning process.
D Land Development and Access Management Strategies for Florida Interchange Areas
Interchange areas provide economic development opportunities because of their proximity to the expressway. They can create additional demand for development as they can provide for: Residential development, allowing commuters to live in suburban areas while providing quick access to job centres. Office development, allowing easy access for commuters from a broad catchment area. Major retail uses, such as discount malls and big box retailers. Highway-oriented commercial, such as gas stations, restaurants, hotels, and tourist- oriented Commercial facilities for travellers. Industrial uses, which are compatible with the noise generated from the freeway. Tourist attractions and recreational facilities for accessibility to out-of-towners. Institutional or service-related uses such as schools, medical centres, churches.
Land use changes can be rapid and intensive near interchange areas. If local governments provide for development in interchange areas without the necessary plans or regulations to manage access outcomes, the result is a proliferation of driveways near interchange ramps. Without access to public transport they can also encourage one form of transportation.
January 2011 39
It is important to determine what types of development will be allowed, where development should be located and, planning a system of local roads to serve development. Some areas of caution to consider are: - Incompatible land uses (especially in rural areas) - Strip development - Unattractive and cluttered buildout, including signage - Insufficient building setback - Excessive number of access points - Land uses that generate excessive traffic - Inadequate off street parking, loading space and delivery areas.
Effective interchange area management requires a combination of techniques involving land use planning, zoning, subdivision regulation, signage, access management, and intergovernmental coordination.
No single land use control is enough to fulfill planning for interchange development and protection. It requires a combination of land use/zoning, subdivision and site plan regulations. Each control serves a separate function in the process, and incorporating several controls ensures the intended outcome of the plan.
Subdivision regulations are critical with regard to interchange areas. They can require dedication of land for road improvements, ensure proper street layout in relation to existing or planned roadways, require internal property access for residential development, and establish design principles and standards for lots, blocks, streets, public places, pedestrian ways, and utilities.
Zoning Regulations Zoning regulations are important as they establish the allowable use of land, building setbacks, and lot dimensional requirements. Minimum lot frontage standards should be higher on thoroughfares and near interchanges to allow for greater spacing between access points and interchange ramps. Smaller lot frontages are appropriate where properties have frontage on internal subdivision roads or where there are other alternatives to direct, individual highway access. Zoning regulations can also be applied in a variety of ways to advance interchange area access and development objectives. These include: • Interchange Overlay District. Interchange zoning controls are added to the standard zoning requirements of the underlying district (commercial, residential, etc.). The property and any improvements thereon are subject to both the standard zoning regulations and the overlay restrictions. • Interchange Zoning District. A separate zoning district specifically for those areas within the designated interchange area, having its own set of subdivision and development regulations. • Planned Unit Development for Interchange Areas. Larger tracts are planned and developed as a functional unit, as opposed to standard zoning which regulates development on a lot- by- lot basis. A PUD process is oriented toward accomplishing site design that is more sensitive to the characteristics of an area. For interchange areas, they could be oriented toward accomplishing consolidated access and circulation systems.
Accessibility refers to the ease of reaching destinations or activities. Places that are highly accessible can be reached by many people quickly, whereas inaccessible places can only be reached by a few people in the same amount of time. The focus for practitioners can be on improving accessibility rather than mobility, and in moving people rather than vehicles. There are urban and rural dimensions to accessibility planning.
January 2011 40
Appendix 2 - National/International Best Practice
1.1 Managing Subdivision in the District Plan
Subdivision provisions in district plans are one tool that can be used to control the use, development and protection of land and associated natural and physical resources in a district. Subdivision provisions can also be used to address strategic planning issues such as urban growth management. Some Councils such as Wellington City Council and Kapiti Coast District Council promote strategies of urban consolidation which may adopt a restrictive management approach for subdivision outside urban boundaries and a flexible approach allowing for higher densities within urban boundaries, such as around town centres and public transport routes.
Where it has been identified to target growth to a specific area it is important to consider: The cost of developing or not developing in areas where growth is planned to occur; Whether current engineering standards achieve the form of development planned for these areas; Whether the council is to initiate the rezoning process or whether this is to be left to market-led private plan changes or submissions on the district plan review; Any need for structure plans; and How to keep development from leap-frogging into areas beyond the targeted areas.
The structure plan approach may be preferred to the ‘traditional’ zoning approach for the management of subdivision in targeted growth areas, especially where land areas are large or land ownership is fragmented, so as to avoid uncoordinated patterns of development and provision of services. However, structure plans may be less appropriate when contemplating larger areas over a longer term as they may become superseded by changing circumstances. Caution also needs to be exercised where future development is speculative. In these circumstances a more appropriate technique may be deferred or staged zoning for such areas, with intensions broadly expressed.
1.2 Rural Subdivision
Responses to pressure to allow subdivision in rural areas need to provide a clear and consistent framework for managing rural dwelling and subdivision densities, particularly with regard to reverse sensitivity issues. Consideration should be given to aligning subdivision with land management and catchment management issues, such as providing for ecological corridors and managing surface and ground water. Furthermore, subdivision and the resulting potential development rights that may be provided should be used to promote outcomes such as environmental enhancement, natural and cultural heritage protection, catchment management and public access.
Some best practice examples are provided as follows:
January 2011 41
Manawatu District Plan Review – July 2010 The current subdivision rules in the Manawatu District Plan (2002) are based on two rural zones based on soil type, the fertile land being zoned Rural 1 and the less fertile land being zoned Rural 2. The district plan uses an average lot size philosophy which required people wanting to create a small lot to also create a large lot to achieve the average. The district plan also requires at least 50% of the block being subdivided to be left in one piece. The district plan also identifies areas around rural villages for nodal subdivision where maintaining rural character is less important.
The Manawatu District Council has published a discussion document (July 2010) on the district plan review which poses questions about current provisions to be addressed under the district plan review. These include the prospect of tighter controls on managing where rural subdivision should be allowed, the nature and size of lots and using land use controls to protect the most productive soils. The discussion document recognises the importance of addressing the adverse effects of nodal subdivision on rural landscapes, amenity and character and the fact that nodal subdivision poses a threat to potential residential growth areas as it is often difficult to create an urban area once lifestyle development has occurred.
Lessons Learnt 1. Avoid ad-hoc rezoning or new subdivisions and development occurring with no overall structure or connection to the existing urban area. 2. Need to safeguard the qualities of soil resources from being split into small properties through subdivision. 3. Need to provide for rural living without having to compromise or degrade the rural character and landscape qualities of the rural environment. 4. Need to manage the expectation for urban services in nodal areas.
Application to Kapiti The Manawatu District is a rural district experiencing growth in rural lifestyle living much like the Kapiti Coast District. A relatively high proportion of the Manawatu’s population commute to centres such as Palmerston North and Fielding for work. The issues that the Manawatu District Council has identified in their discussion document are relevant to the Kapiti District and the pressures it could face in the future. The provisions which the Manawatu District develops during its district plan review could be useful by way of providing an example of how rural subdivision provisions can be strengthened in the district plan.
Waikato District Council – Review of Subdivision and Residential Development in Rural and Coastal Zones (2010). In 2010 the Waikato District Council has proposed a review of its subdivision and residential development provisions in the rural and coastal zones. This has been proposed to ensure that growth in these areas is managed appropriately and to ensure the principles of the Waikato District Growth Strategy are implemented. Proposed changes to the subdivision and land use rules are so that:
January 2011 42
Most growth is provided for in towns, villages and identified Country Living Zone areas, and The Rural and Coastal Zones will primarily be used for productive rural activities.
It is proposed to add new objectives, policies and explanations to provide an overarching strategic direction for the district plan that reflects the Waikato District Growth Strategy. An integrated package of provisions has been proposed to reduce the amount of subdivision and urban-type residential development occurring in rural and coastal areas. These changes include: Providing for one additional allotment to be created as a restricted discretionary activity and a second allotment as a non-complying activity for land which has an old title (issued before 6 December 1997). The existing subdivision rules in the rural and coastal zones provide for the creation of two additional allotments as a controlled activity for land which has an old title. Increase the minimum lot size ensuring that the potential of lots to be used for productive rural activities is retained:
Existing key subdivision Proposed changes to key rules subdivision rules To be eligible to subdivide, a lot To be eligible to subdivide, a lot is must be at least 2.6ha in size at least 6ha in size i.e. average lot size at least 1.3ha. The minimum size of new lots The minimum size of new lots created by created by subdivision is 5,000m2 subdivision is one hectare
Tighten the rules so that two or more dwellings on a site is a discretionary activity. Under the current rules 2 dwellings on a site is a permitted activity on a site 24ha or larger and 3 dwellings on a site is a permitted activity on a site 36ha or larger. Tighten the rules so that a dependant persons (granny flat) dwelling is a discretionary activity and is subject to more targeted standards. Under the current rules, a ‘granny flat’ on a site located close to the main dwelling is generally a permitted activity.
Lessons Learnt 1. Need to safeguard options for the productive use of rural land 2. Develop a settlement-led growth pattern where growth is clustered in and around towns and settlements 3. Requires effective management of the rural/urban interface 4. Seek to preserve rural character and achieve a high ratio of open space in relation to areas covered by buildings. 5. If further subdivision occurs under the current district plan provisions it will result in density that significantly compromises rural character, rural landscape and amenity values and lead to demand for new council infrastructure.
January 2011 43
Application to Kapiti The Waikato District Councils proposed new provisions for subdivision and residential development in the rural and coastal illustrate how an integrated approach to subdivision and land use rules might ensure that the outcomes sought are achieved. This example could provide guidance for the control of rural subdivision in the Kapiti Coast District. Furthermore, the Waikato Expressway is progressively being implemented in the district and will ultimately bypass Huntly, Ngaruawahia and Hamilton. On its completion, State Highway 1B and part of State Highway 39 will revert to being local roads. This scenario is similar to that which will be experienced to that in the Kapiti Coast District. An evaluation of the effectiveness of the Waikato District Plan subdivision provisions in controlling subdivision once the expressway has been completed and the state highway has reverted back to being a local road could provide some guidance for the Kapiti Coast District Council.
Horowhenua District Council – Rural Plan Change (Operative February 2010) The current Horowhenua District Plan provisions were developed during the mid 1990s when the district was experiencing little growth or development. The subdivision provisions reflect a ‘one size fits all’ approach with no distinction other than the areas of highly versatile soil. Rather than keeping the ‘one size fits all’ approach by simply changing the minimum subdivision standards, Plan Change 20 introduces an approach that is based on recognising the many different landscapes within the district and providing policies and rules that specifically reflect these differences. The background paper to Plan Change 20 explored a number of different options to tighten the rules on land fragmentation and protect the productive potential of rural land, rural character and amenity. In exploring these options the benefits, cost, effectiveness and efficiency of each option were tabulated. The plan change results in the following changes to the district plan provisions for subdivision on the rural area: Introducing a land domain overlay and land domain provisions to the existing rural zone to provide for specific rural areas based on their landscape characteristics, qualities and values. This has resulted in the introduction on 13 new domains within the district. Outlines a defined design and pre-lodgement process where previously there was no defined process. Increasing the minimum lot size from 2000m2 to 5000m2 or greater (based on the landscape domain) Restrictions on the type of subdivision including the number of lots to be created, based on which landscape domain the site is located within and the size of the parent lot. Under the previous provisions there were no restrictions on the number of lots created and the type of subdivision; Restricting subdivision opportunities for sensitive landscape areas such as the coastal environment, coastal lakes and hill country domains. Under previous provisions there were no restrictions. For subdivision on properties on highly versatile soils subdivision type is limited to boundary adjustments, subdivision of surplus farm
January 2011 44
dwellings and farm sized lots. A minimum lot size has been set at 5000m2 and there are now minimum road frontage and shape factor requirements for farm lots. Under previous provisions subdivision opportunities were restricted based in the size and date of the parent title and there was no minimum lot size. Introduction of a rural subdivision design guide. Introduction of assessment criteria for rural subdivisions, previously there were none. Subdivision applications requiring access onto the State Highway or over railway lines are subject to a more restrictive process. Previously the standard subdivision standards applied. Conservation lot provisions with the introduction of additional subdivision entitlements for subdivisions protecting indigenous vegetation or wetland areas as conservation lots.
Lessons Learnt 1. Flexible subdivision rules are not effective in ensuring the protection of environmental values or well designed subdivision. 2. Ad-hoc rural residential subdivision creates tension between those that rely on the productive capability of the rural land and those who choose to live in the rural area. 3. Subdivision can result in changes in rural character and amenity. 4. There is a need to recognise the different landscapes within a district and provide provisions in the district plan to achieve the desired development or protection of these landscapes.
Application to Kapiti The Kapiti Coast is known for its unique and distinct landscapes. The provision of Operative Plan Change 20 to the Horowhenua District Plan demonstrate the importance of developing provisions specific to those distinct landscapes. The above example also demonstrates how rules can make subdivision adjacent to a transport corridor more restrictive. This is relevant to the Kapiti Coast District as development along the existing SH1 has the potential to be an issue in the future. Therefore, the council may explore options to make this development more restrictive.
Rural Subdivision Design Guides Subdivision design guides can provide assistance to those designing and assessment rural subdivisions. The design guides generally: Help deliver quality Help create variety Help achieve environmental standards Speed up the planning process Provide certainty to the community and landowners/developers
They can also include: Illustrations of recommended site and road layout and ways in which effects, for instance on landscape or character, can be avoided or mitigated.
January 2011 45
Illustrations of recommended planting, earthworks, infrastructure and maintaining ecological values. References to provisions in the district plan such as objectives, policies or rules to a particular area. Outline the best practice subdivision design process Identify design principles for the district or qualities of a good subdivision Provide best practice examples and outline the costs and benefits of each approach Outline mechanisms available to practitioners to ensure best practice design is achieved e.g. covenants and consent notices. Subdivision design checklist
Kapiti Coast District Council – Rural Subdivision Design Guide (April 2009) In 2009 the Kapiti Coast District Council developed a rural subdivision design guide with the vision of encouraging best practice subdivision design that helps ensure the qualities of the Kapiti Coast rural area are maintained and enhanced. The guide is designed to be read in conjunction with the District Plan.
This guide provides practical examples of how rural subdivisions can be located and designed, from overall layout to the individual lot, in ways that achieve benefits to the subdivider, rural residents, the community and the environment. The guide sets out the subdivision design process which involves the following steps: - Identify and analyse the wider context; - Identify and analyse the characteristics, constraints and opportunities of the site; - Design the proposal using the principles - Pre-application meeting with Council - Consult with affected parties - Refine design proposals - Prepare resource consent application.
The subdivision design guide is intended to assist the subdivider, the subdivision designer and council staff who assess subdivision applications. The guide forms part of the Councils Subdivision Development Principles and Requirements document which has status under the RMA (s. 104(1)(c)).
Wellington City Council Rural Area Design Guide (November 2009) and Subdivision Design Guide (2005) The Wellington City Council has developed a rural area design guide which deals with many changes to subdivision in the rural area. The guide forms part of the Wellington City Council District Plan. The guide aims to strengthen the council’s policy on minimising land fragmentation. The intention of the guide is to provide for sustainable rural living while enhancing rural character and amenity. Where rural subdivisions and residential buildings in the rural area are provided for as a discretionary activity under the district plan applications will be assessed against the objectives and criteria of the design
January 2011 46
guide. Subdivisions must not result in the creation of more than 2 new allotments. In the Horokiwi zone the minimum lot area is 50ha. In all other areas there is no minimum lot area but the area of the lot to be subdivided must be no less than 30ha. Applicants are required to demonstrate that the requirements of the design guide have been satisfied when formulating their proposal.
Lessons learnt The Wellington City Council Subdivision Design guide also forms part of the district plan. A review of the Wellington City Council Subdivision Design guide took place in 2005 and recommended the following: 1. Important to avoid vehicle dependence and environmental sustainability 2. Promote clustering 3. Provide for the retention, enhancement and protection of significant landscapes, ecological and natural features 4. Maintain streams and watercourses 5. Require environmentally sustainable stormwater design 6. Provide for change including future street extensions, lot access and placement of buildings on site to allow further subdivision 7. Design for diversity in order to facilitate enhanced social outcomes 8. Enhance safety by ensuring good natural surveillance is provided 9. Encourage mixed use to enhance convenience, livability and reduce vehicle dependence 10. Achieve hazard mitigation 11. Integrate cross reference to other council documents
Application to Kapiti The Wellington City Council design guides provide best practice examples which could be used in an assessment of the current Kapiti Coast Rural Subdivision Guide. The issues and topics covered in the Wellington design guides are relevant to the Kapiti Coast District.
Hurunui District Rural Subdivision Guide (1998) The Hurunui District Rural Subdivision Guide provides a list of specific assessment criteria and a subdivision design checklist. The design guide enables clear interpretation of the district plans requirements and consistent application of the plan provisions across applications. The guide outlines the importance and definition of amenity values, natural character and rural character. This guide highlights design approaches and techniques that can be incorporated into subdivision plans.
Lessons Learnt Design appropriately with the existing rural landscape character in mind, Enhance the natural and rural character of a particular landscape. Design subdivisions that are sympathetic to the natural landforms of the site. Reduce the effects of urbanisation of the rural landscape through clustered developments.
January 2011 47
Incorporate natural features such as existing trees, waterways, areas of indigenous vegetation, or rock outcrops. Site buildings sympathetically and unobtrusively in the rural landscape. Incorporate and protect areas of ecological importance such as native vegetation and waterways as part of the subdivision plan. Provide appropriate planting as part of the subdivision. Design subdivision details that are sympathetic to the rural character of the area. Protect areas of ecological value in and around a proposed subdivision.
Application to Kapiti The matters covered in the subdivision design guide are consistent with the Kapiti rural subdivision guide. It validates to some degree the provisions in the Kapiti guideline.
January 2011 48
Appendix 3 - Growth Management Strategies
A growth management strategy is a long term strategy that provides a comprehensive spatial framework for managing the growth of an area. A growth strategy can provide a clear, spatial framework and strategic direction for anticipated future growth in an area.
The creation of an urban edge is a mechanism through to protect significant environments and contain urban sprawl. Urban sprawl has often been criticised as an inefficient and expensive form of urban development. Alternative consolidation frameworks suggest the following: 1. Constraint on continuous outward expansion; 2. The increased emphasis on connectivity within and between suburbs and communities; and 3. A focus on local centres to improve their vitality and viability as employment centres and to support public transport.
Waikanae North Urban Edge Plan Change 79 - Waikanae North Urban Edge and Eco Hamlets became operative in March 2010. The purpose of the plan change was to provide a framework for the Council and the community to plan for and manage urban growth pressures at Waikanae North. This included:
The introduction of an urban edge in the district plan to define the extent of development immediately north of Waikanae; The introduction of a requirement for low impact urban development to the south of the ‘urban edge’, to be advanced through a structure plan approach; The introduction of low impact rural subdivision (or eco hamlets) to the north as an additional way of constraining northern urban expansion, to be managed through an integrated structure plan process.
Wellington Regional Strategy (WRS) 2007 The Wellington Regional Strategy was adopted in February 2007 by the Greater Wellington Regional Council. The WRS is a growth strategy that has been developed by greater Wellington’s nine local authorities, in conjunction with central government and the region’s business, education, research and voluntary sector interests. It is a sustainable economic growth strategy that contains a range of initiatives to realise the regions economic potential and to enhance regional form – transport, housing, urban design, open space.
The strategy has three focus areas for sustainable growth. Focus area three ‘Good Regional Form’ is the most relevant when considering management of growth and development on the Kapiti Coast. Regional Form is ‘about the physical arrangement of urban and rural communities including effective environmental management. It is fundamental to a successful, sustainable economic growth strategy.
The strategy identifies eight regional focus areas which are the priority for action. Two of these areas are within the Kapiti Coast District, Paraparaumu
January 2011 49
to Paraparaumu Beach and Northern Waikanae Edge. The strategy states that ‘each Council will identify, with its own community, where and how higher density housing will be provided, and how infill development and residential expansion will be managed. These matters will ultimately be incorporated into each District Plan’.
The Regional Strategy recognised that there are threats to rural lifestyle expansion like potentially taking quality soils out of rural production, or threatening sensitive ecosystems or significant landscapes. It also recognises that the orderly extension of urban areas and urban services also becomes more difficult if land ownership is too fragmented. The WRS supports the development of the Waikanae Urban Edge and recognises the risks to containment and enhancement of centres, or general urban sprawl.
Many of the provisions of the Wellington Regional Strategy have been incorporated in the Proposed Wellington Regional Policy Statement 2009. Objective 21 of the Regional Policy Statement is the development and/or management of the regional focus areas identified in the Wellington Regional Strategy. Policy 67 is to maintain and enhance a compact, well-designed and sustainable regional form by implementing the actions in the Wellington Regional Strategy for the Regional Focus Areas.
Greater Wellington Proposed RPS
The PRPS, which has been approved and amended by submissions provides a policy framework to encourage a regional urban form that is compact and well designed. The objectives and policies provide direction rather than a requirement to achieve this outcome. For instance there is a non-regulatory policy (no.67) to implement the actions in the Wellington Regional Strategy for the Regional Focus Areas in order to maintain and enhance a compact, well designed and sustainable regional form.
The relevant provisions are outlined below:
Objective 21 A compact well designed and sustainable regional form that has an integrated, safe and responsive transport network and:
(d) development and/or management of the Regional Focus Areas identified in the Wellington Regional Strategy3; (e) urban development in existing urban areas, or when beyond urban areas, development that reinforces the region’s existing urban form;
Policy 54: Maintaining a compact, well designed and sustainable regional form - consideration
January 2011 50
When considering an application for a resource consent, or a change, variation or replacement to review of a district plan for urban development beyond the region’s urban areas (as at March 2009), particular regard shall be given to whether: (a) the proposed development is the most appropriate option to achieve Objective 21; and (b) the proposed development is consistent with the Council’s growth and/or development framework or strategy that describes where and how future urban development should occur in that district; and/or (c) a structure plan has been prepared.
Explanation
Urban development beyond the region’s urban areas has the potential to reinforce or undermine a compact and well designed regional form. The region’s urban areas (as at March 2009) include urban, residential, suburban, town centre, commercial, community, business and industrial zones identified in the Wellington city, Porirua city, Lower Hutt city, Upper Hutt city, Kapiti coast and Wairarapa combined district plans. Urban development is subdivision, use and development that is characterised by its planned reliance on reticulated services (such as water supply and drainage) by its generation of traffic, and would include activities (such as manufacturing), which are usually provided for in urban areas. It also typically has lot sizes of less than 3000 square metres. Examples of growth and/or development frameworks or strategies in the region are: • The Upper Hutt City Council Urban Growth Strategy • Wellington City Northern Growth Management Framework • Porirua City Development Framework • Kapiti Coast: Choosing Futures Development Management Strategy and local outcome statements contained in the Kapiti Coast Long Term Council Community Plan
Policies 53 and 55 also need to be considered in conjunction with policy 54. In addition, there are also a range of ‘related policies’ in the Regional Policy Statement that set out matters to be considered in order to manage effects on natural and physical resources. Structure planning integrates land use with infrastructure – such as transport networks, community services and the physical resources. Structure planning should also deliver high quality urban design. The content and detail of structure plans will vary depending on the scale of development. Notwithstanding this, structure plans, as a minimum, should address: • Provision of an appropriate mix of land uses and land use densities • How environmental constraints (for example, areas at high risk from natural hazards) and areas of value (for example, indigenous ecosystems, rivers, streams and ephemeral streams, wetlands, areas or places with historic heritage, outstanding landscapes, or significant amenity landscapes) are to be managed • Integration with existing and proposed infrastructure services, such as, connections to existing and proposed transportation systems and provision of public and active transport linkages by undertaking an integrated transport assessment
January 2011 51
• The integration of the development with adjoining land use activities including measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate reverse sensitivity effects • Integration of social infrastructure and essential social services as necessary • Development staging or sequencing • How the region’s urban design principles12 will be implemented
Policy 67: Maintaining and enhancing a compact, well designed and sustainable regional form – non-regulatory
To maintain and enhance a compact, well designed and sustainable regional form by: (a) implementing the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol; (b) promoting best practice on the location and design of rural residential development; (c) recognising and enhancing the role of the region’s open space network; and (d) encouraging a range of housing types and developments to meet the community’s social and economic needs, including affordable housing and improve the health, safety and well-being of the community; and (e) implementing the actions in the Wellington Regional Strategy for the Regional Focus Areas.
The location of the Regional Focus Areas is shown in Figure 3 below. These are areas predicted to either come under significant development pressure (for example, the northern Waikanae edge and Pauatahanui Inlet) or provide significant development opportunities for a range of land use activities (for example, Porirua, Aotea and Linden, and Upper Hutt). They are areas of critical importance to the achievement of a compact and well designed regional form. Developing growth and/or development frameworks or strategies, as identified in the Wellington Regional Strategy, for each of the Regional Focus Areas is therefore an important action to be carried out by the relevant district and city councils.
Method 45: Develop strategies or development frameworks planning for each Regional Focus Area Develop growth and/or development frameworks or strategies for each Regional Focus Area.
Implementation: Wellington Regional Strategy
There is some mandate to strengthen the above provisions via the review of the Regional Plan. The non-regulatory policy framework including the Development Management Strategy can provide the analysis and basis for district plan provisions with investment priorities provided in the LTCCP. While there is no regulatory policy directing urban edge and containment provisions in a regional plan, there would be merit in considering making this a directive provision at the regional level in the review of the Regional Plans.
Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy 2007
January 2011 52
The Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy 2007 was developed to improve the economic, social, cultural and environmental indicators in the Canterbury region and to address the issues relating to sporadic and unplanned development. The strategy came about in part as a result of rulings by the environment court on a number of occasions that the provisions in the Christchurch Regional Policy Statement are largely toothless as they lack specificity and did not give sufficient guidance in relation to the location of new settlement.
In Christchurch Regional Council v Waimakariri District Council, the Court stated that the Christchurch Regional Policy Statement was “a document almost totally lacking meaningful directives to district councils in respect of the location of settlements and/or the expansion of existing settlements in and about Christchurch and within the Canterbury region.”
The Strategy and Action Plan is based upon a set of Guiding Principles and Strategic Directions that provides an overall vision for the Greater Christchurch area. The principles provide the ‘how’ the strategy will be implemented while the strategic directions provide the ‘what’ the strategy will implement.
The purpose of the strategy is to provide greater Christchurch over the next 35 years with a clear strategic direction of what Christchurch will look like including the desirable location of future housing, where social and retail centres will be developed or enhanced, where new areas of employment will be focused, and how transport networks will be integrated to service the new areas. The Strategy also provides guidelines for how the Strategic Partners, communities, business, Central Government and non-government agencies can work collaboratively to manage growth in a way that conserves or enhance precious resources and environments, while allowing growth to build vibrant and prosperous towns and suburbs that help support a healthy city.
While there has not been an evaluation of the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy and no case law referencing the strategy to date, there are a number of key lessons which can be taken from the strategy development process including: . gain community-wide support (in principle) in advance . establish a mechanism that commits political leaders to the project . provide a clear project structure with the flexibility to respond to new issues as they arise . provide strong project leadership that combines organisational, communication and intellectual skills . use sustainability specialists who are adept at running workshops and ensure that their information needs are met . respond to local needs and differences . use local authority staff to ensure local knowledge, deliverability and continued support . test through design or calculation where possible . co-ordination is not enough - drive the sustainability agenda. Push to achieve sustainable outcomes with a strong emphasis on quality; go beyond what the market delivers and/or policy requires.
January 2011 53
Vancouver The Livable Region Strategic Plan (1996) The Livable Region Strategic Plan was adopted by the Metro Vancouver Board and deemed to be a regional growth strategy under the Local Government Act in 1996. Regional Context Statements are prepared by the municipalities in the region as part of their official community plans and sent to the regional government for acceptance. In this statement a municipality must show how its plan complies with and applies the Regional Growth Strategy. In cases where the plan is not consistent with the strategy, the regional context statement must show how the plan will be brought into conformance with the strategy.
The four main strategies of the plan are: Protect the Green Zone: The Green Zone protects Greater Vancouver's natural assets, including major parks, watersheds, ecologically important areas and resource lands such as farmland. It also establishes a long-term growth boundary. Build complete communities: The plan supports the public's desire for communities with a wider range of opportunities for day-to-day life. Focused on regional and municipal town centres, more complete communities result in more jobs closer to where people live and accessible by transit, shops and services near home, and a wider choice of housing types. Achieve a compact metropolitan region: The plan avoids widely dispersed development and accommodates a significant proportion of population growth within the "growth concentration area" in the region. Increase transportation choice: The plan supports the increased use of transit, walking and cycling through convenient arrangement of land uses and by managing transportation supply and demand.
Monitoring for the Livable Region Growth Strategy is carried out through Annual Reports which are produced for the Metro Vancouver Board.
A report by the Department of Environment and Resource Studies provides an assessment of Growth Management in the Vancouver Region and attempts to identify some quantitative growth management goals that have been espoused by planning authorities in the region, and measure these against actual trends. The report makes the following statements: Among the key objectives of growth management, undoubtedly the most successful from an implementation and performance point of view has been the Green Zone concept. The region’s goal of preserving large swaths of green areas has been achieved without being watered down during goal formulation or implementation. Conservation has been done in a way that does not compromise growth in the region. Governance - relying on a partnership between municipal and regional government, has served the region fairly well in building support for the need for growth management and in elaborating growth management vision. However, there is serious doubt about the ability
January 2011 54
of this system to set ambitious growth management objectives and to see through the implementation of those objectives in the face of forces attempting to preserve business-as-usual trends in the region. The growth concentration goal – one of the principal objectives– was gradually diluted as regional planners were forced to retreat from dramatic visions of urban containment. This clearly suggests that municipalities are largely following their own development paths, regardless of regional planning efforts. Other municipalities are adopting the Livable Region Strategic Plan objectives and attempting to implement them. For instance, the City of Vancouver’s official community plan, adopted in 1995, makes provision for extensive intensification of the existing urban fabric. Less car dependency - The past 25 years of planning documents are characterized by the themes of compact, transit-supportive urban structure with high-quality transit links between urban centres and a shift away from car dependency. Unfortunately, this vision has been realized only in a very limited form. A primary reason for this disappointing performance has to be the chronic under-funding of transit infrastructure in the region. Another key explanatory factor is the lack of coordination between land use and transportation planning in the region.
The report provides the following conclusions and recommendations: The Growth Strategies Act could be amended to require regional authorities to use their spending and investment powers to enforce municipal compliance to regional goals. The province could help strengthen transportation planning – and the link between transportation and land use goals – by providing TransLink with a more stable funding base with which to carry out its transit expansion and demand management plans. Municipalities could explore the use of this or other incentive mechanisms that would enhance acceptance of densification initiatives in established neighbourhoods. Municipalities could choose among the many planning tools that are becoming better understood in Canada. This includes density housing, inclusionary (mixed use?) zoning requirements, basing development cost charges (which go to pay for the infrastructure needed to support growth) on a per square metre basis, alternative development standards, and performance based zoning.
Draft Regional Growth Strategy 2010 The vision and direction for the new Regional Growth Strategy began in 2007. The Regional Growth Strategy, when enacted, will replace the Livable Region Strategic Plan. Some challenges that the strategy addresses are: Accommodating the next 1 million people and 500,000+ jobs which are projected over the next 30 years Building complete, healthy communities Supporting the region’s economy by protecting the industrial land base, identifying places for jobs, and connecting transportation networks Protection of agriculture and conservation and recreation lands
January 2011 55
Addressing climate change
The strategy sets out an implementation framework in order to achieve the visions and goals of the growth strategy. It includes a sustainability framework which provides a foundation for all of Metro Vancouver’s roles and functions.
Vancouver - Urban/Rural interface
The Metro Vancouver Sustainability Framework
REGIONAL VISION The highest quality of life embracing cultural vitality, economic prosperity, social justice and compassion, all nurtured in and by a beautiful and healthy natural environment. Achieved by an unshakeable commitment to the well-being of current and future generations and the health of our planet, in everything we do. METRO VANCOUVER ROLE AND MISSION Serve the region and attain excellence in meeting these responsibilities. Plan for the future by developing and using an integrated system of plans. Facilitate collaboration with local governments and citizens. VALUES Integrity is our foundation. Passion for our work and pride in our accomplishments are our drivers. Respect for the public and compassion in our relationships are our guideposts.
January 2011 56
SUSTAINABILITY IMPERATIVES Have regard for local and global consequences and long-term impacts. Recognize and reflect the interconnectedness and interdependence of systems. Be collaborative. SUSTAINABILITY PRINCIPLES Protect and enhance the natural environment. Provide for ongoing prosperity. Build community capacity and social cohesion.
Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy is one plan among a suite of interconnected management plans developed around Metro Vancouver’s Sustainability Framework. The Regional Growth Strategy focuses on land use policies to guide the future development of the region and support the efficient provision of transportation, regional infrastructure and community services. In combination with other management plans, Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy can help meet the region’s priorities and mandates and support the long-term commitment to sustainability.
The strategy includes an Urban Containment Boundary. This is intended to establish a stable, long-term regionally defined area for urban development. The establishment of the Urban Containment Boundary will reinforce the protection of agricultural, conservation and rural areas, and provide predictability for locating urban uses, major regional transportation and infrastructure investment.
The Regional Growth Strategy has been designed so that the more regionally significant an issue, the higher the degree of Metro Vancouver involvement in decision-making, and conversely, the less regionally significant an issue, the less Metro Vancouver involvement. An example of this is any proposals to change the urban containment boundary. In this case it would require a 2/3 majority vote by the Metro Vancouver Board and a public hearing. To assist in implementing the Regional Growth Strategy, Metro Vancouver will prepare an annual report on progress in meeting the goals of the Regional Growth Strategy.
Auckland Regional Growth Strategy: 2050 The Auckland Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) was adopted by all Auckland councils in 1999 and provides a framework for councils to ensure a consistent approach to managing the social, environmental and economic effects of future growth across the region. The strategy sets out a 50 year vision for managing growth which is to sustain strong supportive communities, a high quality living environment, a region that is easy to get around and protection of the coast and surrounding natural environment.
The key feature of the RGS is to manage growth by promoting compact, quality urban environments. Other features include: Most growth within the existing metropolitan area with development outside current urban limits only where environmental, accessibility and community principles can be met Most urban growth focused around town centres and major transport routes to create higher density communities, with a variety of housing, jobs, services, recreational and other activities (mixed use)
January 2011 57
Much less emphasis on general infill throughout suburban areas Outside the suburbs, specific new areas are earmarked for growth
The implementation of the growth strategy has the following five main themes: An emphasis on partnership and relationships within the process of achieving the stated regional outcomes. Recognition of the need for alignment of policy and funding over time across RGS partners and across geographical areas. Recognition that good growth management requires both a clear long- term (50 years) vision and identified short-term (1 to 10 to 20 year) actions to achieve the regional outcomes. An emphasis on a wide and adaptable range of implementation measures to achieve regional outcomes. This includes both statutory and non-statutory measures to achieve an agreed balance of certainty for regional guidance and flexibility for local implementation. An emphasis on creating a living strategy to keep the regional vision alive over time.
The effectiveness of the strategy depends on the continued commitment of the region’s seven city and district councils. It is up to the seven local authorities to enhance or amend their district plans, strategic plans, long term financial strategies, asset management plans and annual plans to implement the vision contained in the strategy.
The first evaluation of the RGS was completed and endorsed by the Regional Growth Forum in September 2007. The Growing Smarter (2007) report recommends a range of actions and concludes that while the region has made a good start, there is an urgent need for the region to take a more sophisticated approach to implementing the RGS using new tools and approaches to achieve better, quicker implementation and on a larger scale. In particular, quality comprehensive redevelopment and intensification in town centres is identified as being critical to achieve the RGS vision.
The report highlights the progress which has been made in the region, which includes: The development of supporting strategies to address gaps in the RGS and to support its implementation; Significant investments in infrastructure; Changes to regional and local statutory planning documents to reflect the RGS; Changes in the urban form of Auckland. There has been a strong market for more intensive urban living. Nearly half of all housing built between 2000 and 2007 has been in the form of terraced housing, town houses or apartments.
The evaluation report identifies a range of challenges to the success of the RGS including barriers to comprehensive quality centre-bases development (such as current planning and approval processes and infrastructure constraints),
January 2011 58
limited good development examples, community opposition, limited tools and uncertainty as to the sequencing and nature of future growth and investment.
The report concludes by offering a range of actions and recommendations including: Identifying priority areas for implementation; Refining the classification of centres, business areas and corridors; Develop and trial new approaches to encourage quality residential and business intensification and large scale urban transformation; Coordinate infrastructure planning and investment; and Improve communication, monitoring and information sharing.
Auckland Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL) The Auckland MUL has been used to either contain growth in order to prevent urban sprawl or encourage intensification. The policy of controlling the outward spread of Auckland through MUL type mechanisms has been a policy in regional planning documents for more than fifty years. The reasons for its use have changed over time however. The location of the Auckland MULs is currently defined in the 1999 Auckland Regional Policy Statement, within which containment and consolidation by the MUL is a fundamental strategy.
The following quotes from the Regional Policy Statement offer the main reasons for ‘Policy 2.6.1: Urban Growth Management:’ Areas of high amenity value; Natural heritage and cultural heritage features and areas Prime land; Vulnerable ecosystems; Areas where the quality of the environment is already degraded and requires improvement; Areas prone to the impact of natural hazards such as flooding or land instability, are areas which is urbanised are likely to induce flooding or instability elsewhere; Strategic infrastructural facilities such as airports/airfields.
In, the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy (1999), the MUL’s were a key part of focusing urban development, including population, employment and infrastructure, in nodal centres whilst at the same time accepting that a degree of Greenfield land was necessary.
Opposition to the MUL as a mechanism and the location of the line itself has been contested for almost the MULs entire existence. The courts have not passed judgement on whether or not MULs are necessarily the most effective, or efficient technique to manage urban growth in the Auckland Region. There has been no significant increase in the MULs for the past forty years as most of the growth has been accommodated within those limits. What move there has been in the MUL has been relatively small. However, as much of the Greenfield capacity has been used up, how much more is needed or is appropriate becomes a major issue. The MUL has not contained all development, however, it is not designed to do so. The MUL is only one tool
January 2011 59
and it is insufficient on its own to address urban and rural growth management issues.
CASE LAW
Christchurch Regional Council v Waimakariri District Council Pegasus Bay Coastal Estates Limited (2002) The Pegasus Bay private plan change, adopted by the Waimakariri District Council, and the Residential 6 Zone in the Proposed Plan, were intended to provide for the development of Pegasus Bay, a planned and structured ‘new urbanism’ town of approximately 338ha ultimately catering for 5000 people comprising 1800 households.
The Regional Council contended that the Plan Change was inconsistent with the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) and the Regional Land Transport Strategy in that ‘the land use pattern would reinforce and increase the demand for cars as a means of transport, the town would have little self sufficiency being reliance on surrounding towns for employment, entertainment and servicing needs.’
The Court held that the District Council had to consider the matters in the RPS but was not bound by them as the Regional Council submitted. The Court found the RPS almost totally lacking in meaningful directives to district councils in relation to the location and/or expansions of settlements in the Canterbury region.
Green and Mccahill Holdings Ltd v Rodney District Council (April 2010) This was a successful application by Rodney District Council (RDC) to amend provisions in the Proposed Rodney District Plan relating to 830 ha in Weiti, south of Stillwater. Before appeal hearing the parties reached agreement and submitted a consent memorandum with suggested alternative plan provisions to Court. The provisions proposed a comprehensive development plan for 550 residential units and a securing greenbelt or conservation zone, with open recreation areas, public car parking and public tracks to coast walkway and inland.
The most significant concern of the Court was the prohibition in the Auckland Regional Policy Statement against urban development outside Metropolitan Urban Limit unless it is within coastal or rural settlements. Although the area is not shown in the plan as a coastal settlement, the court found that there was no doubt that the consent had been existing for some time (there was an existing consent for 150 units) and that development opportunities had been identified in the area over several plans
The Auckland Regional Council accepted that for current purposes the area can be regarded as a coastal settlement, and the issue, therefore, arising is whether Policy Areas 1 and 2 are an expansion of the coastal settlement. The Court referred to 2.6.2 Methods of the Auckland Regional Policy Statement which provide a mechanism by which the District Council may add to coastal settlements.
January 2011 60
The Court concluded that the proposal complies with Method 2.6.2(7) in that it is an expansion of a coastal settlement and is not inconsistent with the Auckland Regional Policy Statement.
Clevedon Cares Inc v Manukau City Council (June 2010) Clevedon Cares Inc and others successfully appealed against Proposed Plan Change 13 to the Manukau District Plan which introduced a new sub-Chapter, and two new special zones, into the operative plan to enable the development of the Wairoa River Maritime Village in the lower reaches of the Wairoa River, providing for 267 residential dwellings in a canal village layout.
One of the four key issues stated by the Court in the case was ‘urban containment’ Looking at the ARPS as a whole the Court was satisfied that the clear direction was that any new urban development outside the Metropolitan Urban Limit (“MUL”), unless it was an expansion of an existing rural or coastal settlement, required a two-fold procedure: a direct plan change which was to be preceded or paralled by a change to the ARPS which, if approved, would shift the MUL. The development did not address “integrated management” matters in the ARPS; PC13 had been prepared in isolation and did not give effect to the ARPS provisions concerning strong urban containment, and the strong policies providing for urban growth to be managed through an integrated process on a regional basis.
Chapter 2 of the ARPS sets out the strategic direction for the region. Part 2.5 states that the "strategic direction for the Auckland region ... comprises the following strategic objectives and policies ... to achieve integrated management of the natural and physical resources of the whole region". The critical provision in terms of accommodating growth is Objective 1 which says: To ensure that provision is made to accommodate the region's growth in a manner which gives effect to the purposes and principles of the Resource Management Act, and is consistent with these strategic objectives and with the provisions of this RPS. This objective indicates a strong intent to deal with growth through a comprehensive, regionally focussed strategy.
The strategic policies which give effect to the objectives are contained in Part 2.5.2 of the Policy Statement. Policy 3 sets out unequivocally the direction to contain urban development: Urban development is to be contained, within the metropolitan urban limits shown on Map Series 1 and the limits of rural and coastal· settlements as defined so that…
Policy 3 is a very strongly worded policy which provides a comprehensive description of the manner in which urban development can be accommodated. It strongly precludes urban development outside the MUL and existing urban areas and rural and coastal settlements, unless areas for further growth are identified and provided for in a managed way through an integrated process on a regional basis, consistent with the Strategic Direction.
January 2011 61
The Court concluded that to allow the Plan Change would (amongst other things) fail to give effect to the strong provisions of the Auckland Regional Policy Statement on urban containment and strategic direction as is required by Section 75(3) of the Act.
In Stark v Auckland Regional Council [1994] NZRMA 126 the Planning Tribunal refused consent for a 20 bed rest home on a 4 ha rural allotment at Red Hills Road, Massey. It was a "green fields" situation, the land at that time being used for grazing stock. In addition to the area to be occupied by buildings, a substantial area would have had to be set aside for sewage disposal.
It was held that the grant of consent would undermine the district plan's integrity and run counter to the metropolitan limit provisions of the regional scheme. In this case the judge agreed with the observations of the presiding Judge (Bollard DCJ) at p 138: In our view the urban fence philosophy which the regional scheme embraces is not at odds with the aims of sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations. Quite the reverse. We apprehend that the questions of containment of urban spread and the protection of rural areas beyond the urban periphery may very well be claimed to be as important as ever in terms of the purpose and principles of the Act. The ever-present pressures to push the metropolitan limits of Auckland further and further outwards is a matter that must surely continue to exercise the minds of planners, both at regional and district levels.
January 2011 62
Appendix 4 - Extract from NZTA Planning Policy Manual
January 2011 63
January 2011 64
Appendix 5
Implications of Removal of LAR Status from State Highway 1
When an existing state highway that is a Limited Access Road ceases to be a State Highway (s46(3), Government Roading Powers Amendment Act 1989), it is deemed to be a Limited Access Road created under the Local Government Act 1974 and the administration of the road passes to the territorial authority (s96, Government Roading Powers Amendment Act 1989).
The Limited Access Road provisions of the Local Government Act 1974 are contained in s346 to s346J. Each parcel of land that adjoins or has access to a limited access road and that does not have reasonably practical alternative legal access to some other road that is not a limited access road is entitled to one crossing place located as specified by the Council (s346D, E). Movement to and from a limited access road is restricted to authorised crossing places, roads or a motorway (s346F).Limited access roads are not roads for the purpose of subdivision or sale (s346G).
Note: As part of the hand over agreement between NZTA and the KCDC, obtaining the administrative records including crossing place notices and plans will facilitate the ongoing administration of the LAR while minimising cost implications to the Council.
Note: If KCDC decides it wants to rely on another mechanism to control access on the section of road to be transferred to their control, such as the District Plan, and does not want to retain the LAR status, it would be prudent to arrange for NZTA to revoke the LAR status before it declares the section of road is to be under the control of KCDC under s46(3) of the Government Roading Powers Amendment Act.
The sections of the Government Roading Powers Amendment Act 1989 and the Local Government Act 1974 relevant to Limited Access roads follow.
Government Roading Powers Amendment Act 1989: Relevant Sections
46 Minister may make roads and declare Government or district roads (1) The Minister may construct or repair any road within any part of New Zealand, but such road shall not by reason only of such construction or repair become a Government road. (2) The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare that any road shall be a Government road, and that road shall become a Government road accordingly. (3) The Minister may in the same manner declare that any road constructed or controlled by the Minister within the district of a territorial authority shall be under the control and management of that territorial authority, and thereupon that road shall be deemed to be a road within the meaning of section 315 of the Local Government Act 1974.
January 2011 65
(4) The powers conferred on the Minister under this section may be exercised from time to time, and any notice made under this section may at any time be revoked in whole or in part or amended. (5) The Minister shall have the full power of control of all Government roads.
88 Creation and revocation of limited access roads (5) The Agency may from time to time, by notice in the Gazette and publicly notified, revoke the status of limited access road from any State highway or part of it— (a) Which has been created a limited access road under either subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section, but subject to section 96(1) of this Act; or (b) Which has been created a limited access road under section 4 of the Public Works Act Amendment Act 1963, but subject to section 96(1) of this Act; or (c) Whose administration has passed to the Agency under section 96(2) of this Act.
96 Administration of limited access roads (1) If any limited access road which is a State highway ceases to be a State highway, it shall thereupon be deemed to be a limited access road created under the Local Government Act 1974; and the administration of that road shall pass to the territorial authority responsible for the control of roads in the district.
Local Government Act 1974: Relevant Sections
346 Interpretation In sections 346A to 346J of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— Limited access road means any road declared to be a limited access road under section 346A of this Act or the corresponding provisions of any former enactment: Road does not include an access way or a service lane.
346A Declaration and revocation of limited access roads (1) The council may … declare any road or part thereof in the district to be a limited access road. (2) The council may … revoke the status as limited access road of any road or any part thereof.
346B Provisions of Acts relating to roads to apply to limited access roads Subject to sections 346C to 346J of this Act, the provisions of this Act and of every other enactment relating to roads, as far as they are applicable and with the necessary modifications, shall apply to every limited access road.
346C Requirements of declaration of limited access road
January 2011 66
The following provisions shall apply in respect of the declaration under section 346A(1) of this Act of a limited access road: (a)
Every such declaration shall refer to a plan showing— (i) The road or part thereof to which the declaration relates: (ii) Any crossing places to be authorised: (iii) The boundaries of all road frontages of each parcel of land adjoining the road or part thereof to which the declaration relates: (iv) The boundaries of all other types (if any) of legal access (whether roads, private roads, private ways, rights of way, or any other types whatsoever) connecting the road or part thereof to any other parcel of land: (v) The title references to every parcel of land to which subparagraph (iii) or subparagraph (iv) of this paragraph applies: (b) Every such declaration shall indicate where the plan is held and may be inspected: (c) The council shall forward to the District Land Registrar a certificate authenticated by the council (together with a copy of the plan and of any resolution under section 346D(3) of this Act), setting out by sufficient descriptions and title references, every parcel of land that is affected by that limited access road, either by reason of the parcel of land adjoining the limited access road or by reason of the legal access of the parcel of land to any other road being lost or adversely affected as a result of the creation of the limited access road; and the District Land Registrar shall record it against the titles to all the parcels of land therein described: (d) The council shall cause a copy of the certificate to be served on the owner and the occupier (if he is not also the owner) of any land to which the declaration relates, so far as they can be ascertained.
346D Access to and from land (1) Each parcel of land that adjoins or has legal access to a limited access road and that does not have reasonably practicable alternative legal access to some other road that is not a limited access road, shall be entitled to one crossing place at which vehicles are permitted to proceed to and from the limited access road from and to the parcel of land. The location of that crossing place shall be specified by the council from time to time by notice issued to the owner under section 346E of this Act. (2) No road, or part thereof, shall be declared a limited access road, unless the council, in any case where it considers it inexpedient to authorise any sufficient specified crossing place as aforesaid, purchases or takes under the Public Works Act 1981]] or otherwise acquires any parcel of land that does not have a reasonable practical alternative legal access. (3) In this section and in section 346E of this Act the term parcel of land means a parcel of land that can legally be transferred to a person other than an owner of adjoining land without the dedication of any further land as a road and without the deposit of any further plan: Provided that the council may, by resolution, declare— (a) Two or more adjoining parcels of land, while remaining in one ownership; and
January 2011 67
(b) All parcels of land included in one unit title plan deposited in accordance with the Unit Titles Act 1972—
Editorial Note - Statutes of New Zealand
Subsection (3)(b) is to be amended, as from a date to be appointed by Order in Council, by s 233(1) Unit Titles Act 2010 (2010 No 22) by substituting “Unit Titles Act 2010” for “Unit Titles Act 1972”. to be a single parcel of land for the purposes of this section and of section 346E of this Act.
346E Authorisation of crossing places The council may from time to time— (a) By notice to the owner of the parcel of land affected,— (i) Authorise, subject to such conditions (if any) as it may specify, any crossing place (whether formed or not) at which vehicles may proceed to and from any limited access road from and to that parcel of land: (ii) Specify the location of any authorised crossing place: (iii) Cancel any such authorisation or specified location if the parcel of land has reasonably practicable legal access to some other road that is not a limited access road or has another authorised crossing place: (iv) Cancel or vary all or any conditions imposed under this section or impose further conditions or vary the location of any authorised crossing place: (b) Construct any road that it may be expedient to construct to give access, whether additional or not, to any land adjoining or near the limited access road.
346F Restricting movement to or from a limited access road Without restricting any provision of any other Act, it is hereby declared that no person shall drive or move any vehicle or animal, or permit any vehicle or animal to be driven or moved, onto or from any limited access road, except— (a) At a motorway or road from which vehicles or animals, as the case may be, might lawfully be driven or moved onto the limited access road or part thereof immediately before its declaration as a limited access road; or (b) At a motorway or road from which vehicular or animal access to the limited access road has been authorised by the council and subject to such conditions as the council approves and publicly notifies; or (c) At a crossing place authorised and specified by the council and subject to such conditions as are for the time being imposed by the council in accordance with section 346D or section 346E of this Act.
346G Limited access road not a road for purpose of subdivision or sale (1) Where any provision of this Act or any other Act makes any person's right to erect or use a building of any kind on any land, or to subdivide or sell any land, conditional upon the land having a frontage or vehicle access to a road, or in any other way conditional upon the existence of a road, then, for the purposes of that provision, a limited access road shall be deemed not to be a
January 2011 68
road, except for such purpose, to such extent, and on such conditions, as may be notified from time to time by the council to the District Land Registrar. (2) Any person aggrieved at— (a) The refusal of the council to issue a notice to the District Land Registrar under subsection (1) of this section; or (b) Any condition subject to which any such notice is issued— may object in writing to the Environment Court within one month after being notified of that refusal or condition, or within such further time as the Environment Court may allow, and the objection shall be made and determined by the Environment Court in the manner prescribed by the Resource Management Act 1991 and the regulations under that Act. (3) (Subject to section 299 of the Resource Management Act 1991), the decision of the Environment Court on any such objection shall be final.
346H Certificate of land affected to be forwarded to District Land Registrar (1) Where any road is declared to be a limited access road under section 346A of this Act, the council shall forward to the District Land Registrar a certificate authenticated by the council specifying by sufficient description and title reference every parcel of land that is affected by that limited access road, either by reason of the parcel of land adjoining the limited access road or by reason of the legal access of the parcel of land to any other road being lost or adversely affected as a result of the creation of the limited access road; and the District Land Registrar shall record the certificate against the titles specified therein. (2) Where the council revokes the status as a limited access road of any road or part thereof, the council shall forward to the District Land Registrar a certificate authenticated by the council that the status of the road or part thereof as a limited access road has been revoked, and setting out by sufficient descriptions and title references all parcels of land affected by the revocation, and the District Land Registrar shall record the certificate against the titles to all the parcels of land therein described. (3) The council shall also cause a copy of that certificate to be served on the owner and the occupier (if he is not also the owner) of every parcel of land affected by the revocation, so far as they can be ascertained.
346I Compensation Where the exercise of any power given by any provision of sections 346A to 346H of this Act gives rise to any claim for compensation under (section 60 of the Public Works Act 1981)— (a) The claim shall not be made after a period of 5 years from the date of the exercise of the power: (b) (Section 62(2) of the Public Works Act 1981) shall be read as if the term “specified date” meant the date of the exercise of the power: (c) The Land Valuation Tribunal shall take into account, by way of deduction from the total amount of compensation that would otherwise be awarded, any increase in the value of the parcel of land in respect of which compensation is claimed that has occurred in consequence of the exercise by the council of any power under section 346E of this Act.
346J
January 2011 69
Offences Every person commits an offence against this Act who— (a) Acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any provision of section 346F of this Act; or (b) Uses or makes any crossing place to or from a limited access road that is not a crossing place authorised under section 346E of this Act.
January 2011 70