Report Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
Prepared for Tainui Group Holdings Ltd (Client)
By Beca Ltd (Beca)
21 June 2013
© Beca 2013 (unless Beca has expressly agreed otherwise with the Client in writing). This report has been prepared by Beca on the specific instructions of our Client. It is solely for our Client‟s use for the purpose for which it is intended in accordance with the agreed scope of work. Any use or reliance by any person contrary to the above, to which Beca has not given its prior written
consent, is at that person's own risk. Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
Revision History
Revision Nº Prepared By Description Date A Charlotte Crack Draft for Team Review 07 June 2013 B Charlotte Crack Update for integration with other 13 June 2013 Ruakura Development Assessments C Charlotte Crack Update in response to pre-lodgement 21 June 2013 feedback
Document Acceptance
Action Name Signed Date Prepared by Charlotte Crack 21 June 2013
Reviewed by Amelia Linzey 21 June 2013
Approved by Amelia Linzey 21 June 2013
on behalf of Beca Ltd
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page i 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
Table of Contents 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Project Description ...... 1 1.2 Background to the Project ...... 2 1.3 Organisation of this Report ...... 4 2 Description of the ‘Project’ Assessed in this SIA ...... 6 2.1 Plan Change Overview ...... 6 2.2 Ruakura Structure Plan ...... 7 2.3 Differences between the proposed Plan Change and the Ruakura Structure Plan ...... 8 3 SIA Scope and Approach ...... 10 3.1 Scope of this SIA ...... 10 3.2 SIA Approach ...... 12 4 Key Stakeholders/Communities of Interest ...... 16 5 Description of Social Environment ...... 17 5.1 Establishing Assessment Areas / Communities of Potential Impact ...... 17 5.2 Context – Description ...... 18 5.3 Population Profile ...... 22 5.4 Land Use and Social Infrastructure ...... 28 5.5 Political and Community Structures ...... 32 6 Assessment of Effects ...... 33 6.1 Introduction ...... 33 6.2 Community Cohesion and People‟s Way of Life ...... 33 6.3 People‟s Health and Well-being ...... 36 6.4 The Environment ...... 39 6.5 People and their Property ...... 41 6.6 Political and Community Structures ...... 43 6.7 Construction Effects ...... 43 6.8 Summary of Effects ...... 44 7 Recommendations for Avoidance and Management of Social Effects ...... 46 7.1 Recommended Management and Response Measures ...... 46 7.2 Monitoring of Effects ...... 47
Appendices Appendix A – Phase 1 SIA (Ruakura Estate Development - Community Perception Survey (Institute for Business Research)) Appendix B - Socio-Economic Policy Context Appendix C - Community Facilities & Infrastructure
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page i 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
1 Introduction
1.1 Project Description
Tainui Group Holdings (TGH), partnering with Chedworth Properties Ltd (CPL), proposes to develop land at Ruakura (the requested Plan Change area1) as a „mixed-use‟ development, incorporating commercial, industrial and residential land uses (this area (the “Ruakura Site” or the “Site”) is shown in red hashing on Figure 1). The proposal is being advanced by a Request for a Plan Change to the Waikato Section of the Operative Hamilton City District Plan, which will provide land use guidance to enable and manage development.
It is noted that this is an „initial phase‟ of implementation as a wider suite of zone changes is provided for in the Proposed Hamilton District Plan (the “R1 Area”)2. The R1 area is currently being progressed through the statutory process (Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act). The current propose Plan Change will be in advance of, but is largely consistent with the provisions of the Proposed Hamilton District Plan and will have effect until such time as the provisions of that Plan are made operative. A Structure Plan for the R1 Area has also been prepared for the land, and has been included within the Proposed District Plan.
The Site is proposed to include:
An intermodal terminal facility (otherwise described as an „inland port‟), with freight handling and distribution facilities Light Industrial activity Extensions to the existing innovation and research area A range of new residential accommodation A suburban scale retail precinct and a smaller neighbourhood retail centre to support new employees and residents, and also the wider existing residential catchment Open spaces, parks and cycleways Roading, associated servicing infrastructure, including stormwater management.
Ruakura is located approximately three kilometres to the east of Hamilton City‟s central business district. The site is dissected by the East Coast Main Trunk Railway Line and is bordered to the east by the designation for the proposed Waikato Expressway, put in place in 2004 and currently scheduled for physical completion in 2019.
1 This area is the „site‟ for the purpose of discussion in the SIA report. 2 The R1 Area relates to the 822hs transferred to Hamilton City on 1 July 2011 and induces the site. It is the same area as that of the Ruakura Structure Plan, described in section 1.2.3 of this report.
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 1 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
Figure 1: General Location Plan3 (Plan Change area in red hashing)
1.2 Background to the Project
1.2.1 Land Ownership
A large area of land at Ruakura was returned to Waikato-Tainui by the Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995. The land holdings, which are within the R1 area transferred into Hamilton City from the Waikato District on 1st July 2011, after a publicly notified consultative process was undertaken through the provisions of the Local Government Act. The stated purpose of this transfer was to provide for the future expansion of Hamilton City “in the best interests of the present and future inhabitants of the City”4.
Of the 822ha transferred into Hamilton City jurisdiction, TGH owns approximately 500 hectares; with approximately 116 hectares owned by Chedworth Park Ltd. They own all of the Site.
3 Image from „Landscape and Visual Assessment: Folio of Drawings‟, Boffa Miskell (June 2013). 4 Cited in the „Ruakura Private Plan Change Assessment of Environmental Effects‟, Boffa Miskell (June 2013)
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 2 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
The remainder of the 822ha, lying outside the Site is owned by other individual property owners, including some whose socio-economic activity is dominantly „rural-residential‟5 in nature. The nearby area also includes the AgResearch campus and the Waikato Innovation Park, and is bordered by the University of Waikato (which is outside the R1 area).
1.2.2 Planning for an Increasing Population
Hamilton City is New Zealand‟s fourth largest urban area, with a population of approximately 130,000, at the time of the Statistics New Zealand 2006 Census of Population and Dwellings6. Population projections7 indicate that Hamilton City is already one of the fastest growing urban areas in New Zealand, is home to a young population, and high rates of population are anticipated into the future. In addition to this, Hamilton, and therefore the Ruakura Site, is located within what is referred to as the „Golden Triangle‟; the term used for the economic growth triangle of Auckland, Waikato and the Bay of Plenty. The Golden Triangle plays a significant role in New Zealand‟s 8 economic activity, accounting for a significant proportion of New Zealand‟s total economic output 3 .
In response to this increasing population and economic activity, a number of plans and strategies have been developed to manage Hamilton‟s growth and address some of its associated issues, including future urban, rural and industrial land use. The R1 Area is identified within a number of plans as an area for future growth and development. For example, the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement (RPS) 2010 includes the R1 Area as a strategic industrial node and includes a specific allocation of land for industrial activity.
The key plans and strategies relating to the growth of the Hamilton area include:
Hamilton City Council - Report to Strategy, Planning and Policy Co-ordination Committee (2003); The Strategic Agreement on Future Urban Boundaries (Hamilton City Council and Waikato District Council) 2005; Hamilton Urban Growth Strategy (HUGS) 2009; Future Proof Growth Strategy and Implementation Plan 2009; Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement (PRPS) 2010 (2012 decisions currently under appeal9); and Hamilton City Council Proposed District Plan (including the Ruakura Structure Plan) publicly notified in December 2012.
A more detailed assessment of each of these plans, including relevant objectives and policies, is attached to this report as Appendix B. This provides a socio-economic policy context for the selection of the R1 Area as well as a timeline of events that led to this site selection. This assessment is focused on the contribution of the Site to the wider community‟s social and economic
5 This term is used to describe the socio-economic relationship of residents the land, identifying that the area supports residents „living‟ arrangements (their home and lifestyle) but that rural production is not the primary economic activity for these residents (who derive their economic wellbeing from activity off site) 6 Due to the Canterbury earthquakes, the 2011 Census was postponed and was most recently held in March 2013. The results of this 2013 Census are anticipate for release in later 2013, and therefore are not available for analysis, at the time of writing 7 Statistics New Zealand sub-national population projections (accessed May 2013) 8 Regional Economic Activity Report (2013)‟ Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, NZ Government: http://www.mbie.govt.nz/what-we-do/business-growth-agenda/pdf- folder/rear/REAR%20Publication.pdf 9 TGH is an appellant, for issues relating to Ruakura
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 3 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
wellbeing, and sits as one technical report assessing the „effects‟ of the Project on the environment as a component of work to support the requested Plan Change for the Site10.
1.2.3 The Ruakura Structure Plan
In September 2009, TGH and CPL agreed to work together to prepare a Structure Plan for the R1 Area, to be included within the Hamilton City District Plan Review. Development at the Site will contribute to the growth and asset base of the Waikato-Tainui Wii, providing social, economic and cultural outcomes for Iwi and the wider population of the Region11. Detailed land use plans, planning provisions and zonings have been proposed for the R1 Area within this Structure Plan document.
However, although TGH and CPL are in broad agreement with the provisions in the Proposed Hamilton City District Plan that will govern development in the R1 Area, those provisions are subject to submissions and it is likely to be some years before they are finalised and become operative. In the meantime the operative District Plan does not provide for any new business activities within the R1 area of land. This is addressed within the Assessment of Environmental Effects Report12, but is summarised as being that within the current planning rules, a number of restrictive planning provisions apply, classifying urban land development and land use activities as „prohibited‟. Therefore, no applications for resource consent can be made and development within the R1 Area cannot commence until such time as the Proposed District Plan becomes operative.
As a result, the envisaged development of the Site is prohibited from occurring until either the Proposed District Plan becomes operative or a Plan Change (to uplift the prohibited activity rules within the Waikato District Section of the Operative Hamilton City District Plan) becomes operative.
1.2.4 The Proposed Plan Change
Given the detail above, TGH and CPL therefore wish to enable the core elements of the development to be enabled under the Waikato District Section of the Operative Hamilton City District Plan, through the requested Private Plan Change.
1.3 Organisation of this Report
This report is organised into a number of main sections as follows:
Section 2 provides a description of the project for this Social Impact Assessment (SIA); Section 3 outlines the scope of this SIA report and the adopted approach; Section 4 describes the key stakeholders and communities of interest for the Project; Section 5 provides a description of the social environment; Section 6 provides an assessment of the effects on the social environment; and Section 7 provides recommendations to manage and respond to the social impacts.
10 The „Strategic Directions and Master Planning Report‟ (Boffa Miskell, September 2010) provides more detail on the Site in respect of land use/planning context 11 TGH identifies their core business as property investment and development, with a strategy is to identify and grow high quality assets, and generate income from them. With this income TGH aims to provide consistent, long-term dividends to current and future generations of Waikato-Tainui. The dividends are used for charitable purposes by shareholders, to invest in education, welfare, health, social and cultural facilities and activities, for the benefit of Waikato-Tainui members 12 Ibid
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 4 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
Figure 2: Ruakura Land Ownership Plan13
13 Image from „Landscape and Visual Assessment Folio of Drawings‟, Boffa Miskell (June 2013)
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 5 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
2 Description of the ‘Project’ Assessed in this SIA
2.1 Plan Change Overview
It is important to recognise that the project being assessed in this SIA is for the „proposed Plan Change, rather than a specific development proposal (which will be made by subsequent application for resource consent). In this regard, it is important to clearly set out what is being assessed in this impact assessment; the parameters or scope of the assessment.
In summary, the requested Plan Change is outlined as follows:
The requested Plan Change will provide for planning rules consistent with the Proposed Hamilton City District Plan Ruakura Specific Business zones and the new residential zone14 – ie the inland port and surrounding core logistics area (Ruakura Logistics Area); supporting industrial land uses (Ruakura Industrial Park Area); the expansion of the Innovation Park (Knowledge Area); and the Medium Density master planned residential development (Medium Density Residential Area). The Ruakura Logistics Area and the Ruakura Industrial Park Area include: – The proposed port will include railway facilities (sidings, platforms, container hardstand areas, lighting towers, security infrastructure and fire and hazardous substance management facilities); as well as ancillary infrastructure (including CCTV, communications and data management infrastructure and stormwater management). Initially, it is envisaged that the inland port will consist of primarily road-based freight until the rail infrastructure is developed. – The logistics area will generally include large warehouse buildings and large areas of hardstand. – Beyond the area identified for the inland port and logistics is more general industrial land for a wider range of employment and economic activities. The Knowledge Area includes: – The Knowledge Zone provides further employment opportunities and is situated to capitalise on the location of the Waikato Innovation Park, AgResearch Campus and the University of Waikato. The Knowledge Zone is divided into Precincts which reflect these significant land uses. – Within this a retail / service area is identified. This area is intended to provide retail opportunities for employees and a „hub‟ for the overall knowledge area (focal point for people working in the area). The Medium Density Residential Area is: – Positioned to maximise existing connectivity from Fairview Downs and the Hamilton Ring Road. 2 – This area includes a small community / retail area (e.g. only 1,500m ) which will provide for support retail and commercial services (e.g. opportunities for day-care facilities and similar) within the residential area established.
Where possible, existing Operative Hamilton City District Plan provisions will be utilised (eg city wide provisions such as earthworks, transportation and general residential rules).
For clarity, the Structure Plan (shown in Figure 3) includes the zones identified above, but also includes additional zones and related provisions which are considered to be outside the core
14 The Plan Change is designed to be consistent with the Proposed District Plan, subject to the relief sought by TGH and CPL within their submission/s
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 6 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
elements of the development (in other words, not included in the current Plan Change or ‟Project‟ of assessment). These areas relate to the wider Ruakura Structure Plan proposal.
Under existing planning provisions (the Waikato Section of the Operative Hamilton City District Plan), the Site is zoned „Rural‟15. The Plan Change (and then for context the wider Ruakura Structure Plan16, which is discussed further below) will introduce a number of new zones to the Site, providing for multiple new activities including residential and industrial, based upon the Ruakura Structure Plan contained within the Proposed District Plan. As such, the current permitted and controlled activity standards for the site will be amended by the Plan Change, to reflect these new zones. It is important to note that while the Plan Change (and the Structure Plan) will influence how land is used and developed in the future, it does not take away any existing use rights (in other words, landowners in the area can continue their existing lawful use of their land „as of right‟).
2.2 Ruakura Structure Plan
As identified in Section 1, a Structure Plan for Ruakura has been incorporated into the Proposed Hamilton City District Plan as a „blueprint‟ for guiding development over a long timeframe. The current Plan Change request reflects the elements contained within this Structure Plan, but seeks to enable the core elements of the development under the Waikato District Section of the Operative Hamilton City District Plan17. Elements of the overall Ruakura Structure Plan that are not included in the requested Plan Change (the „Project‟ for this SIA) include (but are not limited to) the following:
The location of the railway line and the future „Waikato Expressway‟ which provides an opportunity to establish a freight handling facility as an anchor at Ruakura. Efficient connection to the State Highway network will allow for the efficient movement of freight and therefore will be critical to the long-term success of the development. While this is not part of the requested Plan Change, it is already designated and has therefore been considered an element of the existing environment. Other elements of the Ruakura Structure Plan which provide for an eventual population of approximately 1,800 households. It also includes the development of retail, to service the local community. The Structure Plan is designed to create employment opportunities, centred on the inland port and freight/logistics hub and is also linked to new residential areas, open space and community facilities.
The R1 Area is a long-term project for Hamilton that will be developed in stages18. The whole Structure Plan development is likely to unfold over the next 40-50 years. Details of each stage are yet to be finalised and are dependent on issues such as the building of the Waikato Expressway and other infrastructure, such as wastewater and water supply. The Plan Change includes rules relating to this staging, with the intention that the Site develops efficiently and sustainably.
The Structure Plan acknowledges that there are a number of existing residential dwellings within the R1 Area, and states that adverse effects on amenity that are the result of inland port and logistic
15 The Ruakura area was incorporated into Hamilton City in July 2011. However, the HCC Operative District Planning Maps outline that the Ruakura area continues to be administered under the provisions of the Waikato District Plan July 2012 16 It is noted that within the Structure Plan there is one portion (of mostly rural residential/lifestyle land) zoned as „Country Living‟. 17 As stated in section 1.1, this Plan Change is in advance of, but is consistent with the changes in land use zoning identified in the Proposed Hamilton City District Plan and will therefore only have effect until such time as the provisions of that Plan are made operative 18 These three proposed stages are in accordance with the industrial land allocation outlined within the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 7 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
activities shall be addressed by controls (eg over noise and glare). In addition, the Structure Plan states that:
The Ruakura Industrial Park Zone has been created, in lieu of applying the existing General Industrial Zone. This Industrial Park Zone specifically excludes noxious and offensive activities and reduces the permitted container stacking height (in relation to the inland port area). The industrial park concept will be achieved by requiring a high standard of design for all buildings, as well as landscaping and „buffer‟ areas.
As identified above, it is important to understand the details of the Plan Change (and also the Ruakura Structure Plan in the Proposed District Plan), in order to determine how the resulting land use changes could impact on the identified community (ie the residents within and adjacent to the Site), as well as the City and wider region. It is also important to acknowledge that the Plan Change itself does not require landowners to move (eg it does not displace residents), but rather will create an environment of more staged changes in the activities within the Site (and the Ruakura Structure Plan or R1 Area).
2.3 Differences between the proposed Plan Change and the Ruakura Structure Plan
There are also a number of differences between the Structure Plan (as proposed within the Hamilton City District Plan) and the requested Plan Change (the „Project‟ in the context of this SIA). These differences are important to note, and are outlined as follows:
Land use in the Innovation Park Precinct of the Knowledge Zone in the Ruakura Structure Plan will roll out in two stages, with development prohibited until 2041 in order to avoid reverse sensitivity issues in the establishment of land use in the Ruakura Logistics Zone. However, TGH is seeking (as a submission on the Proposed District Plan) that this staging rule be revoked. It is considered that prohibiting activity until 2041 will prevent much of the key development areas and their associated ancillary activities (such as the public transport hub) from being developed at an appropriate time, in the context of the wider development.
As a note, we also recognise that there are a number of existing (rural-residential) dwellings in the area earmarked for Industrial Zones. The Proposed Structure Plan indicates that these properties will be rezoned as Large Lot Residential, until such time as future plan change rezones the land for Logistics. However, TGH19 is seeking (by way of a submission on the Proposed District Plan) that these dwellings are re-zoned for Logistics or for Industrial Park, as the current industrial land allocation does not meet the allocation provision identified within the Proposed Regional Policy Statement. However, this is not part of the current requested Plan Change and is referred to here to highlight the status of the current Structure Plan and District Plan review processes.
19 Amongst others, including FutureProof Implementation Committee and the NZTA (albeit not all parties may be submitting on the same rationale).
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 8 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
Figure 3: Proposed Ruakura Structure Plan (within the HCC Proposed District Plan): Land Use Map (November 2012) – The Indicative area of the requested Plan Change (being assessed in this SIA) is identified in red outline on this Plan20
20 Plan Change request overlay from „Landscape and Visual Assessment Folio of Drawings‟, Boffa Miskell (June 2013)
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 9 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
3 SIA Scope and Approach
3.1 Scope of this SIA
The purpose of this SIA report is to provide an assessment of the likely social effects (benefits and dis-benefits) that will arise as a result of the requested Plan Change. Beca has been commissioned (May 2013) to prepare this SIA as an „assessment phase‟. This phase of the SIA follows from earlier SIA consultation, which has informed the assessment. The consultation phase is reported in the „Social Impact Assessment (SIA) of the Proposed Ruakura Estate Development‟, Institute for Business Research, University of Waikato (September 2011). This report is attached to this SIA as Appendix A.
This SIA report will provide a single source document that summarises the issues, information, assessment and management/recommendations in respect of the potential social consequences of the requested Plan Change.
This SIA considers the relevant sections of Part II of the Resource Management Act (RMA), being the following:
Section 5(2): Enabling „people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing‟; Section 7(b): In achieving the purposes of the Act, all persons „shall have particular regard to… the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources‟; and Section 7(c): “the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values”21.
3.1.1 SIA Process and Framework
The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) states that SIA is: ‘…analysing, monitoring and managing the social consequences of development. Social impact assessment includes the processes of analysing, monitoring and managing the intended and unintended social consequences, both positive and negative, of planned interventions (policies, programs, plans, projects) and any social change processes invoked by those interventions.’
The IAIA notes that SIA can be undertaken in different contexts and for different purposes, but that the following principle is important across all SIA: ‘ The improvement of social wellbeing of the wider community should be explicitly recognised as an objective of planned interventions, and as such should be an indicator considered by any form of assessment. However, awareness of the differential distribution of impacts among different groups in society, and particularly the impact burden experienced by vulnerable groups in the community should always be of a prime concern.’
The IAIA outlines the key potential areas to consider when undertaking a SIA. In summary, these areas include:
People’s Way of Life: How people live, work, play and interact; Culture: People‟s shared beliefs, customs, values and language or dialect;
21 It is noted that other technical assessments have been prepared, most notably a „Landscape and Visual Assessment‟ (Boffa Miskell, 2013), that relate to the assessment of physical amenity characteristics, or similar
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 10 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
Community: The cohesion, stability, character, services and facilities; Political Systems: The extent to which people are able to participate in decisions that affect their lives, the level of „democratisation‟ that is taking place, and the resources provided for this purpose; The Environment: The quality of the environment that people live, work and socialise in (eg air and water that people use, the availability and quality of the food they eat, the level of hazardous risk, dust and noise they are exposed to, the adequacy of sanitation, their physical safety, and their access to and control over resources); People’s Health and Wellbeing: The state of physical, mental, social and spiritual wellbeing; People’s Personal and Property Rights: Particularly whether people are economically affected, or experience personal disadvantage which may include a violation of their civil liberties; and People’s Fears and Aspirations: This relates to perceptions about people‟s safety, their fears about the future of their community, and their aspirations for their future and the future of their children.
Based on consideration of the above, as well as the other information sources that have been used to inform this SIA (outlined within Section 3.2.1 of this report), this SIA assesses the proposal in light of four key themes – being, „Community Cohesion and People‟s Way of Life‟; „People‟s Health and Well-Being‟; „The Environment‟; and „People and their Property‟. We also make observations in respect of „Community and Political Systems‟ (specifically as the Plan Change relates to potential social impacts for beneficiaries of Waikato-Tainui). This is discussed further in Section 5 (description of the social environment), Section 6 (assessment of social effects), and Section 7 (recommendations to manage and respond to the social impacts).
3.1.2 Exclusions and Assumptions
The following exclusions and assumptions apply to the scope of this SIA:
The SIA is informed by relevant technical specialist assessments, which were prepared in support of the Ruakura Development proposal. These assessments have all been carried out by relevant technical specialists and are cited in this report where relevant to potential social impacts. The SIA is informed by consultation that has been undertaken to date, in relation to the proposal and it is recognised that information sharing in relation to the Site (the Plan Change and subsequent projects) will be on-going. No further consultation has been undertaken specifically for the preparation of this assessment phase SIA. Rather, it has drawn from earlier consultation undertaken (both in respect of the Ruakura development and wider consultation processes) as summarised in Section 3.2.1(c). More detail is provided in the Key Stakeholders and Communities of Interest Section (Section 4). This SIA has not considered alternatives to this project (including benefits and costs) from a social perspective, as this will be undertaken as an overall part of the Plan Change application (as required under the Resource Management Act 1991). This SIA has not specifically assessed economic or cultural impacts, as these are outside the scope of this report and considered elsewhere22,23. However, economic and cultural impacts have been considered insofar as they relate to social effects.
22 It is noted that a number of economic reports and assessments have been prepared in relation to the Site including: „Industrial Land Release in the Waikato Regional Policy Statement: An Evaluation of the Impacts at Ruakura‟ by Castalia and the review of this report by BERL Economics, and the most recent „National Significance of the Ruakura Intermodal Terminal‟ also by Castalia.
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 11 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
3.2 SIA Approach
Social assessment methodology is typically undertaken in phases. For this SIA, consultation has been drawn from earlier work (including SIA reporting). The approach for this SIA has been undertaken in two phases, namely:
Profile and scoping, Assessment and reporting.
Significant information (including a draft structure plan, master plan technical document and consultation activity) was already available and could be utilised for the preparation of this report.
Phase One (profile and scoping) can be determined as the information gathering phase, with Phase Two (assessment and reporting) as the analysis, assessment and reporting stage.
3.2.1 Phase One: Profile and Scoping
A range of information sources have been used to inform this SIA, including relevant SIA case studies and literature, the consultation and feedback received to date, public submissions on the Proposed Waikato RPS and the Hamilton City Proposed District Plan (including the Ruakura Structure Plan), and the other assessments that have been prepared in relation to the Site. The information sources used are described in further detail below. a. Literature Review and Internet Research
A review of relevant literature (including case studies) and internet research (including social media research) has provided information and context to guide this SIA. For example, by helping to identify local communities and their values, the statutory and strategic social planning context for Ruakura, and to assist in scoping the potential social impacts associated with the project. The following information was reviewed as part of the SIA:
24 Social/environmental impact assessments of similar projects overseas and in New Zealand ; Review of project technical reports (identified in Section 3.2.1e) Council policies, strategies and plans (outlined further in Section 1.2/Appendix B of this SIA); Print media coverage of the Ruakura Project; and 2006 Census of Population and Dwellings and 2010 Projections (Statistics New Zealand). b. Review of Policy Context
Understanding community outcomes and themes within statutory and strategic documents is important in considering a Project‟s likely social impacts, on a city/regional scale. In this instance, plans and strategies relating to the management of Hamilton‟s growth and its associated issues, including for future urban, rural and industrial land use, are particularly relevant.
23 It is further noted that cultural impact assessments have been prepared, being: „Cultural Impact Assessment Report Ruakura Estate‟, Te Kotuku Whenua Consultancy (October 2011) „An Assessment of the Potential Impact that any Expansion and Development of the Ruakura Estate might have on Cultural Values and Manawhenua‟, NaMTOK Consultancy Ltd (November 2011). 24 Being: Social Impact Assessment of the Proposed Ruakura Estate Development (Institute for Business Research, 2011); Hamilton Central City Residential Intensification Health Impact Assessment (Waikato DHB/ Hamilton City Council, 2012); Inland Port Impact Study: Will County, Illinois, USA (Aecom, 2010); Christchurch Southern Motorway (Taylor Baines and Associates, 2012)
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 12 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
Section 1.2 of this SIA introduces the key plans and strategies in relation to Hamilton‟s growth and a more detailed assessment of each of these plans is attached to this report as Appendix A. This provides a socio-economic policy context within which and in support of which development at Ruakura is proposed. c. Community and Stakeholder Consultation
Community and stakeholder consultation has been carried out in relation to the development at Ruakura. Consultation has been undertaken in the context of plans and strategies that have been prepared to address the future growth of Hamilton, as well as in relation to the Proposed Hamilton City District Plan and specifically for the Ruakura Structure Plan.
In this regard, while no consultation has been undertaken specifically in relation to this Plan Change request25, there is a large amount of consultation input on the „scope‟ of the Project.
A brief summary of community and stakeholder consultation undertaken to date can be described as follows:
Consultation on the R1 Area, in the context of plans and strategies to address Hamilton‟s growth (ie consultation that was not exclusively undertaken in relation to the Ruakura Development proposal (the Site)): Hamilton Urban Growth Strategy (HUGS) (2009). Future Proof Growth Strategy and Implementation Plan. Community consultation on the Future Proof Strategy was undertaken, and it was open for public submission (2009). Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement (RPS). The RPS was publically notified and open for public submission (2010). Proposed Hamilton City Council District Plan (2012). Public submission period closed March 2013 (see final bullet below). As discussed in section 3.1, the SIA prepared by the Institute for Business Research (2011)26 involved consultation, specifically related to the Ruakura Proposal. This was undertaken by way of interviews with a range of organisations, including voluntary groups, schools, government agencies and organisations (central, regional and local government), regional service providers and local business groups. These organisations were selected because they are operating in the proposed project area and/or were considered likely to be influenced by the proposed project. Residents were not included in this consultation, as a specific group. Ruakura Structure Plan, as part of the Proposed Hamilton City District Plan (2012): An initial structure plan consultation Open Days were held in December 2011 (led by TGH), as an initiation to the structure plan process. A further three „Open Days‟ were held in May 2012, led by HCC as part of consultation on the Draft District Plan. These featured information panels/graphics outlining details of the Structure Plan, and project representatives from Hamilton City Council, TGH and CPL were in attendance to answer questions. The Structure Plan website27 included an online form for the public to comment and respond to the proposed Structure Plan.
25 It is noted that there is no direct mandate contained within the RMA for consultation to be undertaken as part of the Private Plan Change request, although good practice usually dictates that this occur 26 Attached to this SIA as Appendix A. 27 Ruakura Structure Plan website (now closed) - http://getinvolved.hcc.govt.nz/ruakurastructureplan
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 13 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
A Ruakura Transport Reference Group was established, consisting of representatives from Council (Waikato Regional Council, Waikato District Council and Hamilton City Council) the NZ Transport Agency and Waikato-Tainui). The purpose of these meetings was to deal with issues in respect of the timing and planning of the Expressway, and identify and work through local roading issues. Engagement with key stakeholders (including Transpower and KiwiRail). Focussed consultation with the University of Waikato, Waikato Innovation Park and AgResearch (adjoining landowners) (which will be on-going). In addition to the consultation undertaken by HCC (as required by the RMA), other consultation has been facilitated by TGH. A site visit (with an open invitation to interested parties) to Highbrook (South Auckland) was held, to visit a working modern Industrial Business Park (2012), as an example of what parts of the Ruakura development may look like. Approximately 16 residents attended this site visit. TGH also held two public forums– prior to the Proposed District Plan being notified (in 2012) – inviting approximately 8,000 households from within the catchment area to those public forums. Public Submissions on the Proposed Waikato RPS and the Proposed Hamilton City District Plan As outlined above, the Proposed Waikato RPS was open for public submission (from 3 November 2010 until 28 February 2011) and a total of 200 submissions were received. Further submissions were requested between 17 June 2011 and 15 July 2011. The RPS is currently under appeal. The Proposed Hamilton City District Plan (including the Ruakura Structure Plan) was notified in December 2012 and public submissions closed on 29 March 2013. A total of 1285 submissions were received. Submissions in relation to Ruakura (of which there was a relatively small number received), particularly those that have raised specific social impacts, have been reviewed as part of the assessment included in this report. The issues raised within these submissions are discussed in Section 2.2.2 below, as part of „Assessment and Reporting‟. d. Review of Technical Assessments
Other technical reports and assessments that have been prepared to support the Ruakura Proposal have been reviewed, to provide a technical base and understanding of the project and its other actual and potential environmental effects. Of particular relevance to this SIA are the following technical reports:
„Social Impact Assessment (SIA) of the Proposed Ruakura Estate Development‟, Institute for Business Research, University of Waikato (September 2011) (attached as Appendix A). Ruakura Structure Plan (part of the Hamilton City Council Proposed District Plan, November 2012). „Ruakura Estate Environmental Framework‟, Boffa Miskell (June 2011). „Ruakura Estate Strategic Directions and Master Planning Report‟, Boffa Miskell et al (September 2010). „National Significance of the Ruakura Intermodal Terminal „, Castalia (June 2013). „Ruakura EPA: Landscape and Visual Assessment‟ and „Folio Drawings‟, Boffa Miskell (June 2013). „Cultural Impact Assessment Report Ruakura Estate‟, Te Kotuku Whenua Consultancy (October 2011). „An Assessment of the Potential Impact that any Expansion and Development of the Ruakura Estate might have on Cultural Values and Manawhenua‟, NaMTOK Consultancy Ltd (November 2011).
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 14 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
3.2.2 Phase Two: Assessment and Reporting
On the basis of the information scoped from above, this SIA has included consideration of community/stakeholder views for the Project and our technical assessment. This includes: a. Views/Concerns Expressed in Consultation and Submissions (on development at Ruakura)
The following issues were most commonly identified within submissions on the Proposed Waikato RPS and the Proposed Hamilton City District Plan (including the Ruakura Structure Plan); all of which are recognised as having or contributing to a social impact:
Effects on the character and landscape of the area; Effects on visual and amenity values; Traffic effects, including increased traffic volumes and heavy trucks, and concerns that this traffic will be diverted to surrounding neighbourhood streets – especially before the expressway is completed (affecting schools, University, and community facilities); Concerns that there has been a lack of consultation and a lack of information provided; Noise and vibration effects (in relation to industrial activity, traffic, and the inland port); Lighting effects (in relation to extended hours of operation of the inland port); Effects on air quality, from industrial activity; Economic impacts: concerns that house values will lessen, as a result of being next to industrial land; economic effects from the loss of productive land; Concerns that the proposal is in the wrong location (that it fragments the City‟s industrial sites); Concerns that the biosecurity element of the proposal has not been adequately considered; Effects of industrial run off into waterways (including the Waikato River and the Mangaonua Stream/Gully) and concerns that stormwater discharge has not been provided for; A lack of provision for green space, particularly in areas of ecological importance and in areas adjacent to residential properties; Provides for the City‟s growth and future development.
b. Social Effects Assessment
Section 6 of this SIA draws on the information from the above sources and presents an assessment of the social effects of the Ruakura Project. This involves:
An analysis of the data and information collected, to identify and describe the social effects (positive and adverse) in the short term, medium term, and long term; and Identification of mitigation options and methods for management and response, including requirements for on-going consultation with interested parties and the local community.
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 15 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
4 Key Stakeholders/Communities of Interest
Community and stakeholder consultation in relation to development at Ruakura has been carried out in various forms since 2008. A brief summary of consultation undertaken to date is outlined within Section 3.2.1c of this SIA. As previously mentioned, consultation has been undertaken in the context of plans and strategies that have been prepared to address the future growth of Hamilton, as well as in relation to the Proposed Hamilton City District Plan and specifically for the Ruakura Structure Plan.
Consultation specifically undertaken for the preparation of the Institute for Business Research SIA on the Ruakura Estate Development (2011) was held with organisations/agencies that fall within the following groups:
Voluntary organisations Schools Central government organisations Regional government organisations Local government organisations Healthcare providers Regional service providers Research facilities Places of worship Local business organisations.
The Waikato Proposed RPS and the Hamilton City Proposed District Plan (which includes the Ruakura Structure Plan), were notified for public submission. The Ruakura Structure Plan also included a project website, and the public were encouraged to provide feedback during its formative stages. It is noted that although there have been various forms of consultation undertaken in relation to the Ruakura Project, there is a concern from those who provided feedback or lodged a submission, that consultation has been insufficient and also that insufficient information has been provided.
For the purposes of preparing this SIA, the details of this consultation outlined above as well as the public submissions (on the RPS and the Proposed District Plan) and feedback from the Structure Plan open days have been analysed and the key issues raised by each group have been considered for further investigation. The social issues identified are discussed in the Assessment of Social Effects (Section 6).
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 16 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
5 Description of Social Environment
The following section provides a description of the existing social environment of Ruakura. This includes baseline demographic and socio-economic data to profile the communities of interest and provides mapped summaries of these communities in terms of their relevant socio-economic and political boundaries.
5.1 Establishing Assessment Areas / Communities of Potential Impact
The existing environment for this SIA has been identified as the land on which the Plan Change is proposed (“the Site”) and the neighbouring properties (the ‘immediate area of effect’), as well as its surrounding areas and communities (the ‘local area of effect’). For clarity, the „immediate area of effect‟ is considered to be the community/properties that may be considered as directly affected by the Project, and the „local area of effect‟ (which predominantly includes the suburbs to the west of the site), which is the assessment area for this SIA. Figure 4 illustrates the proposed Site, and the surrounding areas of interest.
In addition to these assessment areas (which are defined by proximity to the requested Plan Change area) two other scales of assessment or communities of potential impact have been identified:
1. Hamilton City and the wider region. Given the scale of potential impacts (particularly economic) the project has on the City and beyond, it is considered appropriate to consider the social effects for this wider community; and
2. The ‘beneficiaries of Waikato-Tainui’. The land referred to as Tainui Land Holdings (see Figure 2) is owned by Waikato-Tainui. The association of Waikato-Tainui with this land and their wider rohe is significant and has been detailed further in the cultural impact assessments (cited in footnote 24). More recently, the land was part of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Treaty of Waitangi settlement (1995). As commercial redress, this land was returned to provide for the socio-economic wellbeing of the tribe. Given this important cultural and resulting socio-economic facet of the land, this group has also been specifically identified as a „community of interest‟ for the social impact assessment.
It is important to note that the above „communities‟ and areas of assessment are distinct but not discrete. In other words, residents living in the „local area of effect‟ are also part of the wider Hamilton City community and potentially could be beneficiaries of Waikato-Tainui. As such, it is important to recognise that these „boundaries‟ have been used for the express purpose of better understanding the potential positive and negative social impacts of the requested Plan Change.
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 17 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
28 Figure 4: Ruakura – Plan Change area (in red)
5.2 Context – Description
The Ruakura Project is located in Hamilton City and it is recognised that the proposal will contribute to, and impact on, the City - and also to the Region - overall (City Wide area of social assessment). A local area of assessment has also been defined, which is broadly defined by the communities within and adjacent to the project site. To establish a profile of this community, the boundary of the existing social environment has followed Statistics New Zealand‟s Census Area Units (CAUs), which are described further in Section 5.4.
28 Image from „Landscape and Visual Assessment Folio of Drawings‟, Boffa Miskell (June 2013).
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 18 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
This description of the existing environment will provide detail on the Hamilton City context, before providing baseline demographic and socio-economic detail at a more localised level (the local area of assessment).
5.2.1 Hamilton City
As outlined in Section 1.2, Hamilton City is New Zealand‟s fourth largest urban area, and is one of the fastest growing urban areas in New Zealand. Hamilton is the major service centre for the Waikato region, which is an area strongly based on agriculture, especially dairy. This dairy industry is centred largely around Hamilton and Waipa. Hamilton is also a centre of agricultural and biotech research and development and is home to a number of New Zealand‟s education and research facilities; including the University of Waikato, Wintec, and the Ruakura AgResearch Centre29. Manufacturing, dairy, health and education are described as Hamilton‟s key industries30.
Hamilton is also located within the „Golden Triangle‟, which is the term used for the economic growth triangle of Auckland, Waikato and the Bay of Plenty. Hamilton is well positioned to provide significant opportunities for export and import. It is close to two main sea ports (Auckland and Tauranga), two international airports (Auckland and Hamilton), state highways and railway31.
Some of Hamilton‟s key population characteristics are described in Section 5.5 of this SIA.
5.2.2 Local Area of Assessment
As outlined in the introductory sections of this SIA, the R1 Area is situated in the eastern extent of Hamilton City; approximately 3 kilometres from the CBD. The area has two of the City‟s key institutions - AgResearch within and the University of Waikato bordering its boundaries, providing an existing substantial employment base in the area. The site is dissected by the East Coast Main Trunk Railway Line and is bordered to the east by the current (2004) designation for the proposed Waikato Expressway, currently scheduled for physical completion in 2019.
The topography of the site is flat (it was once wetland which has since been drained) and creates the area of farmland / rural and more recently rural-residential activity that exists today.
The extent of the R1 Area is significant (an area covering 822 hectares), and is predominantly owned by two landowners, being TGH and Chedworth Park Ltd32. The areas of land within the „immediate area of effect‟ that are not owned by TGH and Chedworth Park Ltd include33:
A group of approximately 30 “lifestyle” properties34 situated in the vicinity of Ryburn and Percival Roads. A linear strip of land running between Greenhill Road and Powells Road (and through which the Waikato Expressway designation is situated).
29 „Hamilton Central City Residential Intensification Health Impact Assessment (HIA)‟, March 2012 (Waikato District Health Board) 30 Immigration New Zealand (Department of Labour) website: http://www.dol.govt.nz/immigration/knowledgebase/item/4207 (accessed May 2013) 31 Hamilton Central City Residential Intensification Health Impact Assessment (HIA)‟, March 2012 (Waikato District Health Board) 32 TGH and CPL own approximately 60% of the Estate site 33 „Ruakura Estate – Strategic Directions and Urban Design‟, September 2010 (Boffa Miskell) 34 While the area within and adjacent to the proposed project area is rural in nature, activities within and adjacent to the area are dominantly „rural-residential lifestyle‟ (in other words, rural production is not the primary economic activity for residents in the area)
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 19 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
An area of predominantly rural land at the southern end which was included within the final adopted R1 boundary reorganisation scheme, in 2011.
The areas to the west, and outside the land area owned by TGH and Chedworth Park Ltd (the „local area of effect‟), are „suburban‟ in nature and feature residential accommodation, commercial and shopping centres, schools, parks and recreation facilities and community and health facilities.
5.2.3 Study Area – Census Area Units
As outlined above, the existing environment for this SIA, and the area of impact from the Plan Change, has been identified as the land of the requested Plan Change and its neighbouring properties („immediate area of effect‟), as well as the surrounding areas („local area of effect‟).
The definition of the localised areas by Census Area Units is considered appropriate for this level of social impact assessment (as area units are typically defined by geographic like areas (eg suburbs 35 and local areas)F . As such, the boundary of this social environment has been drawn from the Census Area Units (CAUs) included on the Statistics New Zealand website. These CAU boundaries are shown in Figure 5.
The relevant CAUs are listed as follows, and identified on the map below (Figure 2), to demonstrate how they are located within the context of the study area:
Eureka Chedworth Silverdale Hillcrest West University Hamilton East Peachgrove Enderley Insoll Porritt Fairview Downs Riverlea Matangi.
35 It is also noted that the most current Census data available at this time is from the 2006 Census. As such, it is considered that further more detailed meshblock analysis is not warranted at this time.
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 20 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
Figure 5: Census Area Units36
36 Prepared by Boffa Miskell (7 June 2013)
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 21 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
5.3 Population Profile
This section of the report provides a summary of the trends of the population within and surrounding the Site (ie the „local area of effect‟), with a particular focus on the areas where the population that will be more directly affected, ie those properties that are within the Site or neighbouring it (the „immediate area of effect‟). It is important to note that although the proposed development site lies within the Eureka CAU, this CAU is very large and its boundary extends well beyond the boundaries of the proposed Site. All of the other CAUs identified, sit between the Hamilton City urban area and the Site (ie to the west of Ruakura, and east of the City).
The following information provides an important element of the existing social environment in terms of the people who live in the area and its broad socio-economic characteristics. Understanding the demographic composition of the study area provides context for the potential impacts of the proposed activity for this SIA.
5.3.1 Population Size and Location
Table 1 below shows the usually resident population statistics for the study area CAUs, comparing the 2006 population and the 2026 projected population37. In particular, it summarises the following:
The 2006 usually resident population in each of the CAUs (which were identified in Section 5.4) and in Hamilton City; The projected population for each CAU and in Hamilton City (2011 to 2026); The change in population (in percent) from the 2006 population to the projected 2026 population; The combined CAU population in 2006 and its projected population; and The percentage of the study area, as a ratio of the City‟s population.
It is important to note that the population projections outlined in Table 1 were forecast in 2010 and that the land the R1 Area was not transferred into Hamilton City until July 2011. Therefore, it is unlikely that these projections include specific proposals for the population increase, anticipated as a result of development (the Ruakura Structure Plan).
37 Due to the Canterbury earthquakes, the most recent census information held by Statistics New Zealand is from 2006. However, we have also accessed population projections from the Statistics New Zealand website to 2026, which were updated in 2010
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 22 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
Table 1: Population Size and ‘Projections’ CAU 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 Projected Usually Projected Projected Projected Projected Change Resident Population Population Population Population (2006- Population 2026) (%) Eureka 2,010 2,260 2,440 2,630 2,810 40% Chedworth 3,540 3,750 3,810 3,860 3,910 10% Riverlea 2,535 2,680 2,710 2,750 2,770 9% Matangi 1,791 2,080 2,290 2,400 2,500 40% Silverdale 2,514 2,730 2,790 2,840 2,890 15% Hillcrest 3,573 4,060 4,180 4,300 4,410 23% West University 4,968 6,030 6,550 6,750 6,930 39% Hamilton 3,663 4,080 4,210 4,320 4,410 20% East Peachgrove 2,841 3,140 3,210 3,260 3,300 16% Enderley 3,894 4,120 4,180 4,220 4,260 9% Insoll 2,580 2,690 2,690 2,660 2,630 2% Porritt 1,692 1,800 1,830 1,840 1,850 9% Fairview 3,333 3,660 3,820 3,980 4,120 24% Downs Combined 30,837 43,080 44,710 45,810 46,790 52% CAU Population Hamilton 129,249 145,500 155,100 164,200 173,000 34% City Population % of Study 24% 30% 29% 28% 27% n/a Area as ratio of City Population
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 23 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
5.3.2 Population Characteristics
Table 2 below provides a summary of the characteristics of people living within the study area CAUs, in terms of the local communities‟ median age, median personal income and the number of households in the area. This information is shown for each of the CAUs individually, and then provides a combined summary of the information for Hamilton City. Table 2: Population Characteristics CAU 2006 Median Age Median Number of Average Usually Personal Households number of Resident Income people/ Population household Eureka 2,010 35 $34,400 702 3 Chedworth 3,540 34 $25,000 1,218 3 Riverlea 2,535 39 $26,400 930 3 Matangi 1,791 39 $29,100 597 3 Silverdale 2,514 25 $15,300 861 3 Hillcrest West 3,573 25 $17,000 1164 3 University 4,968 22 $9,500 1437 3 Hamilton East 3,663 25 $16,400 1299 3 Peachgrove 2,841 33 $20,000 1173 2 Enderley 3,894 30 $19,900 1437 3 Insoll 2,580 27 $15,600 741 3 Porritt 1,692 32 $20,400 582 3 Fairview Downs 3,333 29 $25,400 1110 3 Combined CAU 30,837 30.4 $21,107 13,251 2.9 (average) Total (average) (average) Hamilton City Total 129,249 31 $24,000 45,726 3
5.3.3 Occupation and Industry
Table 3 provides a summary of the work characteristics of people living within the study area CAUs, in terms of the local communities‟ work/labour force status, and the most commonly cited occupation and industry. This information is shown for each of the CAUs individually, and then provides a combined summary of the information for Hamilton City.
Means of travel to work has not been included in this table; as, overwhelmingly, the results indicate that the most common means of travel to work for each CAU, the combined study area, and for Hamilton City, is to drive a private vehicle.
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 24 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
Table 3: Population Characteristics - Occupation and Industry CAU 2006 Usually Most Common Most Common Most Common Resident Work/Labour Occupation38 Industry Population Force Status (15 years +) Eureka 2,010 Employed full time Agriculture and Agriculture, Forestry (60% of the pop.) Fishery Workers and Fishing (26% of (25% of the pop.) the pop.) Chedworth 3,540 Employed full time Professionals Education and (46%) (25%) Training (12%) and Retail Trade (12%) Riverlea 2,535 Employed full time Professionals Education and (48%) (35%) Training (16%) Matangi 1,791 Employed full time Professionals Healthcare and social (52%) (24%) assistance (12%) Silverdale 2,514 Employed full time Professionals Education and (38%) (20%) Training (13%) [Closely followed by „Not in the labour force‟ (37%)] Hillcrest 3,573 Employed full time Professionals Education and West (41%) (24%) Training (16%) University 4,968 Not in the labour Service and Sales Retail Trade (15%) force (38%) Workers (22%) Hamilton 3,663 Employed full time Service and Sales Retail Trade (13%) East (39%) Workers (at 19%) Peachgrove 2,841 Employed full time Professionals Education and (40%) (20%) Training (11%) [Closely followed by „Not in the labour force‟ (38%)] Enderley 3,894 Employed full time Professionals Manufacturing (12%) (41%) (18%) Insoll 2,580 Not in the labour Elementary Healthcare and social force (41%) Occupations (25% assistance (13%) of the pop.) Porritt 1,692 Employed full time Professionals Healthcare and social (40%) (20%) assistance (12%) Fairview 3,333 Employed full time Professionals Manufacturing (16%) Downs (52%) (18%) Combined 30,837 Employed Full Time Professionals Education and CAU Total Training Hamilton 129,249 Employed Full Time Professionals Manufacturing (11%) City Total (48%) (19%)
38 This is based on the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO). The occupations listed are: „Legislators, Administrators and Managers‟, „Professionals‟, „Technicians and Associate Professionals‟, „Clerks‟, „Service and Sales Workers‟, „Agriculture and Fishery Workers‟, „Trades Workers‟, „Plant and Machine Operators and Assemblers‟, and „Elementary Occupations‟
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 25 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
5.3.4 Key Demographic Observations
The key demographic observations of the community within the project area, which can be drawn from the above tables, are as follows:
Hamilton City is projected to increase its population to 2026, and a significant proportion of this increase (52%) is projected to occur within the combined study area CAUs. This projected increase is particularly evident in the area of project - Eureka CAU and the University CAU. Within the „immediate area of effect‟ (which is the area of Project – Eureka CAU): Eureka contains approximately 8% of the population of the „local area of effect‟. This percentage of residents may also be considered as directly affected within the „immediate area of effect‟. The resident community of Eureka has a (relatively) higher median age and personal income, but has fewer households, than the other CAUs. This is a reflection of the „lifestyle/rural- residential‟ nature of this area, and infers that this real estate (lifestyle land in close proximity to the CBD) is potentially more expensive than other parts of the City. Eureka has a high employment rate (60%), which is markedly higher than the other CAUs and also for Hamilton City. It is unclear why this area has such a high employment rate, but it does reflect the population characteristics (of a higher median age and personal income, and a close proximity to the CBD) outlined above. „Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing‟ was the most common industry for the Eureka CAU, which reflects its rural nature, and its proximity to AgResearch. The majority of those employed in the Eureka CAU drive a private vehicle to work. The number of people in the „Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing‟ industry within this CAU infers (though is not stated or confirmed) that its residents may not travel into the CBD for work, and some of them may work in rural production, on the land on which they reside. Within the „local area of effect‟ (which is the combined CAUs, including Eureka): The resident community is dominated by „young working age‟ and „tertiary education age population‟ (predominantly due to its location next to the University) and as a reflection, has a lower than average personal income. The most common labour force status for the combined CAU population (as well as Hamilton City as a whole) is „employed full time‟. The most commonly cited occupation was „Professionals‟, with „Education and Training‟ the most commonly cited industry. This reflects the area‟s location in relation to the University. The dominance of the „retail trade‟ industry within the University and Hamilton East CAUs may also reflect the nature of work that university students typically undertake whilst studying.
5.3.5 Meshblock Data Analysis of the Eureka CAU
In order to better understand the demographics within the „immediate area of effect‟ (and due to the fact that the Eureka CAU is so large, relative to the size of the Plan Change area), meshblock data39 has also been assessed. Table 4 outlines the key demographic information for the meshblocks that comprise the Plan Change area40.
39 A meshblock is the smallest geographic unit for which statistical data is collected by Statistics New Zealand. Meshblocks aggregate to build larger geographic areas, such as area units, territorial authorities, and regional councils. 40 Where no census data has been provided, it is marked as a „C‟ (for „Confidential‟)
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 26 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
Table 4: Population Characteristics – Eureka Meshblocks within the requested Plan Change area Eureka 2006 Media Median No. of Average Most Most Most ‘Meshblock Res n Age Person H.hlds number of Common Common Common s’ that make Pop. al people/ Work/ Occupatio Industry up Plan Income househol Labour n41 Change d Force (15 years area Status +) Combined 294 32.3 $29,933 96 3 Employed Profession Agriculture meshblocks full time als , Forestry and Fishing Eureka CAU 2,010 35 $34,400 702 3 Employed Agriculture Agriculture full time and , Forestry (60%) Fishery and Workers Fishing (25% of (26% of the pop.) the pop.) % of 15% ------Meshblock as a ratio of Eureka CAU
Table 4 outlines that the median age of the population and the median income within the Plan Change area is slightly lower than that of the Eureka CAU. The remaining details generally reflect the Eureka CAU; as the population is employed full time, predominantly within the agricultural industry. It is noted that there is a higher proportion of residents in Professional Occupation, this is likely to be a reflection of the closer proximity to the Hamilton CBD and university.
5.3.6 Waikato-Tainui
The Ruakura area has an extensive and rich pre-European Maori history, which is detailed within the Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA)42 and the Assessment on Cultural Values and Manawhenua43.
The „Assessment on Cultural Values and Manawhenua‟ report outlines that whilst the whole of the Waikato region is the traditional lands of Waikato Tainui, each of the individual Hapu who make up Waikato Tainui have their own traditional land areas within the region. Ruakura and the surrounding district were developed upon the traditional lands of several of those Hapu44.
41 This is based on the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO). The occupations listed are: „Legislators, Administrators and Managers‟, „Professionals‟, „Technicians and Associate Professionals‟, „Clerks‟, „Service and Sales Workers‟, „Agriculture and Fishery Workers‟, „Trades Workers‟, „Plant and Machine Operators and Assemblers‟, and „Elementary Occupations‟ 42 Cultural Impact Assessment Report Ruakura Estate‟, Te Kotuku Whenua Consultancy (October 2011) 43 Assessment of the Potential Impact that any Expansion and Development of the Ruakura Estate might have on Cultural Values and Manawhenua‟, NaMTOK Consultancy Ltd (November 2011). 44 Given the significance of Waikato-Tainui in the Region and their specific relationship to the Site, the views and cultural values of Waikato-Tainui must be taken into account in relation to this Plan Change request. The CIA report and the Assessment on Cultural Values and Manawhenua provide an assessment of effects on cultural values and recommendations to mitigate any adverse effects on Waikato-Tainui.
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 27 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
A significant area of land at Ruakura was returned to Waikato-Tainui by the Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995. This settlement was a commercial redress, and therefore was intended that the land provide for the socio-economic wellbeing of the tribe. Further TGH‟s role is to own and operate commercial assets for the benefit of Waikato-Tainui45. It is noted that these beneficiaries receive „income‟ from the commercial operations of TGH to support their health, wellbeing and education46.
As at the time of preparing this SIA, there were approximately 64,600 beneficiaries of Waikato- Tainui, represented by 68 Raupatu Marae and 33 hapu. Given this size, the group is diverse. However, the following key population descriptors are noted:
65% are under the age of 40 years (higher than the NZ population overall) and with a median age of 25.5 years; Approximately 40,000 members live within the tribal boundary (which is generally described as the area including the southern sector of Auckland City extending south west from the western boundary of the Firth of Thames to the coast and extending southward to include all land „landmarked‟ by Matamata (in the east), Otorohanga and the Kawhia Harbour (in the west).
5.3.7 ‘Vulnerable’ groups
It is not considered that there are any „vulnerable groups‟ within the Plan Change area (immediate area of effect). Typically, and supported by the demographics outlined above, residents in rural- residential „lifestyle‟ areas have a high median age and high personal income level. In the areas adjacent to the Plan Change area (local area of effect), the median age and personal income is lower. This may reflect the high proportion of students living in the area (due to its proximity with the University), rather than an indication of a „vulnerable‟ population.
The 2006 Index of Deprivation47 combines nine Census variables (including income, qualifications and home tenure) to provide a „deprivation score‟ for each CAU. This score is provided as a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 representing the most deprived 10% of areas in New Zealand. This index has been used as a „gauge‟ to highlight potential vulnerable groups. The Index outlines that the lowest levels of deprivation are within the Eureka and Matangi CAUs (with a score of 1), while the highest levels of deprivation are within the Insoll CAU (with a score of 10) and the Porritt and Hamilton East CAUs (with a score each of 9). While each of these „deprived‟ CAUs are within the „local area of effect‟, they are not within the Plan Change area. The low score of these CAUs on the Index of Deprivation is noted, and taken into account within the assessment of effects section of this SIA (Section 6).
5.4 Land Use and Social Infrastructure
Within the immediate area of effect the land use is predominantly rural and rural-residential, and includes research, education and „innovation‟ activities. The areas adjacent to the Site (that are in the „local area of effect‟) are „suburban‟ in nature and feature residential accommodation, commercial and shopping centres, schools, parks and recreation facilities and community and health facilities.
45 Statement of Evidence of Michael Eric Pohio on Behalf of Tainui Group Holdings Limited, presented in the matter of the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement. 46 Ibid. 47 From the „Atlas of Socioeconomic Deprivation in New Zealand NZDep2006‟ Ministry of Health, Wellington.
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 28 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
The following sections outline the key land use and social infrastructure within the site earmarked for the Ruakura development, as well a selection of the social infrastructure in closest proximity. These services and features are identified to provide context to the Assessment of Effects (outlined in Section 6 of this SIA), ie identification of the services that support the community and therefore the services that might be affected as a result of the Project; most particularly in the Eureka CAU (the immediate area of effect).
A map illustrating the community facilities and social infrastructure in the Local Area of Effect is contained within Appendix C of this SIA.
5.4.1 Health Services
There are no health services within the immediate area of effect. However, there are a number of health services and facilities that lie within the assessment area for this SIA, including (but not limited to):
Hamilton East Medical Centre (16 Beale Street, Hamilton East) Five Cross Roads Medical Centre (284 Peachgrove Road, Hamilton East) Rossendale Home and Hospital (2 Insoll Avenue, Enderley) Hilda Ross Retirement Village (30 Ruakura Road, Claudelands).
5.4.2 Education and Research
The educational and research facilities within the immediate area of effect are:
AgResearch (Ruakura Research Centre, East Street) Plant and Food Research Ruakura Campus (Bisley Road, Ruakura).
There are also a number of facilities that are in the wider assessment area for this SIA (the „local area of effect‟), including (but not limited to):
Tertiary institutes and research facilities University of Waikato (Knighton Road, Hillcrest) Vision College, Hamilton Campus (21 Ruakura Road, Hamilton East) The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) (Silverdale Road, Hillcrest) Landcare Research (University Of Waikato, Hillcrest, Silverdale) Pre-school education and childcare: Kids to Five Dey Street Childcare (421 Dey Street, Hamilton East) ABC Peachgrove (205 Peachgrove Road, Claudelands) Newstead Country Pre-school (92 Vaile Road, Newstead) Primary and Intermediate schools: Silverdale Normal School (62 Silverdale Road, Silverdale) Knighton Normal School (Knighton Road, Hillcrest) Marian Catholic School (30 Beale Street, Hamilton East) Southwell School (200 Peachgrove Road, Claudelands) Patricia Avenue School (20 Patricia Avenue, Hamilton East) Berkley Normal Middle School (26 Berkley Avenue, Hillcrest) Hamilton Seventh Day Adventist School (46 Annebrooke Road, Hamilton East) Hillcrest Normal School (218 Cambridge Road, Hillcrest) Fairfield Primary School (260 Clarkin Road, Fairfield)
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 29 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
Bankwood School (152 Bankwood Road, Chartwell) Hukanui School (Pickering Crescent, Chartwell) Hamilton East School (Dawson Street, Hamilton East) Insoll Avenue School (95 Insoll Avenue, Enderley) Woodstock School (Fairfield Road, Hamilton East) St Joseph‟s Catholic School (88 Clarkin Road, Hamilton East) Te Kura Kaupapa Maori - Toku Mapihi Maurea (137 Silverdale Road, Hillcrest) Te Kura Kaupapa Maori - O Te Ara Rima (Fifth Avenue, Enderley) Peachgrove Intermediate (72 Peachgrove Road, Hamilton East) Fairfield Intermediate (261 Clarkin Road, Hamilton East) High schools and tertiary institutes: Hillcrest High School (132 Masters Avenue, Silverdale) St Johns College (85 Hillcrest Road, Hillcrest) Sacred Heart Girls College (52 Clyde Street, Hamilton East) Hamilton Boys High School (Peachgrove Road, Hamilton East) Waikato Diocesan School for Girls (660 River Road) Fairfield College (25 Bankwood Road, Chartwell) St Paul‟s Collegiate (77 Hukanui Road, Chartwell).
5.4.3 Commercial, Business and Industrial
The significant commercial/business/industrial facilities within the immediate area of effect are:
Waikato Innovation Park (9 Melody Lane, Hamilton East) – which falls within the development site area (within the development site) Silverdale Electricity Substation (Substation Road).
A number of „suburban centres‟, which include retail, commercial, and takeaway food stores, are also located within the assessment area. These predominantly serve their surrounding residential neighbourhoods. There are also commercial and industrial land uses that predominantly serve the rural community, to the east of the „immediate area of effect‟ (but still within the Eureka CAU).
5.4.4 Places of Worship
There are no places of worship within the immediate area of effect. However, there are a number of places of worship in the wider assessment area for this SIA (the local area of effect), including (but not limited to):
St Matthews Catholic Church (58 Silverdale Road, Silverdale) Church of Christ New Zealand – Fairview Downs (Mardon Road, Fairview Downs) Hillcrest Chapel (120 Masters Avenue, Silverdale) Fairfield Presbyterian Church/Discovery Christian Centre (9 Insoll Avenue, Enderley).
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 30 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
5.4.5 Emergency Services
Emergency services (St Johns Ambulance, New Zealand Police and the New Zealand Fire Service) are widely distributed across Hamilton City. In the local area of effect are the following emergency services:
Chartwell Fire Station (70 Crosby Road, Chedworth Park Ltd) New Zealand Police – East Hamilton (245 Clyde Street, Hamilton East).
5.4.6 Community Facilities/Sport and Recreation
There is a wide distribution of community facilities, as well as areas for sport and recreational activities, within Hamilton City. These range from public service agencies (eg citizens advice bureau) to libraries, as well as community meeting places, halls and recreation centres. There are a number of these facilities within the local area of effect, including (but not limited to):
Enderley Park Community Centre (66 Tennyson Road, Enderley) Hillcrest Library (Masters Avenue, Hillcrest) Hamilton Community Centre of Music (University of Waikato Campus, Hillcrest Road) Porritt Stadium (Crosby Road, Chartwell) Waikato University - Don Llewellyn Sports Pavilion and Bar.
There are also a number of sports fields/open spaces within the local area of effect, including (but not limited to):
Raymond Park (Fairview Downs) Morrows Orchard (Orchard Avenue, Enderley) Chelmsford Park (Chelmsford Street, Silverdale) Knighton Lake/Oranga Lake (University of Waikato Campus) Greensboro Park (Claudelands) Steele Park (Grey Street, Hamilton East) Lughton Park Tennis/Squash Club (Dey Street, Hamilton East) Marist Park (Hillcrest) Enderley Park (Enderley) Galloway Park (Hillcrest, Hamilton East) Jubilee Park/Claudelands Park (Claudelands).
5.4.7 Summary of Land Use and Social Infrastructure
As outlined within this Section, the land use within the „immediate area of effect‟ is predominantly rural and rural-residential, and includes research, education and „innovation‟ activities. The areas adjacent to the Site (that are in the „local area of effect‟) are „suburban‟ in nature and feature residential accommodation, commercial and shopping centres, schools, parks and recreation facilities and community and health facilities. There are currently no community facilities or retail within the requested Plan Change area, suggesting that the residents within this area commute to the neighbouring suburban areas (to the west of Ruakura), or to the CBD, for these services. Therefore, no services will be „cut‟ by development at Ruakura.
A map illustrating the community facilities and social infrastructure in the Local Area of Effect is contained within Appendix C of this SIA.
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 31 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
5.5 Political and Community Structures
5.5.1 Local Government
Hamilton City is within the Waikato Region. Local government bodies include Hamilton City Council and Waikato Regional Council. The purpose of Hamilton City Council is to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities, in the present and for the future (as defined by the Local Government Act 2002). Hamilton City does not currently have community boards, and the 12 councillors of the City Council are elected (six each) from two wards: East and West. The requested Plan Change applies to an area of the East Ward.
5.5.2 Waikato – Tainui
Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Incorporated is the constitutionally mandated and legal Iwi Authority for Waikato-Tainui. TGH managed the commercial assets of the Waikato-Tainui people. It follows a strictly commercial business model, with strong governance. There is a clear distinction between the organisation responsible for wealth creation, TGH, and those responsible for distribution of that wealth, the Waikato-Tainui tribal authorities.
Waikato-Tainui tribal authorities invest in education, welfare, health, social and cultural facilities and activities, for the benefit of Waikato-Tainui members. There are a range of grants and funds currently made available by Waikato-Tainui, which includes:
Education (e.g. doctoral scholarships, tertiary education grants and training assistance); Health and wellbeing (e.g. Kaumatua medical grants, and health and well-being initiatives); Cultural support (e.g. Maatauranga grants and Maatauranga Toi grants); and Facilities (e.g. the Marae facilities grants).
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 32 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
6 Assessment of Effects
6.1 Introduction
This assessment section will discuss the Plan Change in relation to the four key social impact themes determined in Section 3.1.1 („Community Cohesion and People‟s Way of Life‟, „People‟s Health and Well-being‟, „The Environment‟, and „People and their Property‟) and „Political and Community Structures‟ in the context of the Waikato-Tainui beneficiaries. This Section of the SIA relies on a combination of information; the objectives and policies of the relevant plans and strategies, the existing social environment, the technical and reports prepared in relation to the Ruakura Proposal, as well as the consultation undertaken to date.
For the purpose of this assessment, we have assumed that the Plan Change will result in a gradual change in land uses and social activities within the local area of assessment (as per the land releases identified within the Proposed RPS). The purpose of this assessment of effects is therefore to consider:
The impacts on the immediately affected community – for which the rate of change and transition from existing to proposed land uses is important; The impacts for the local affected community – which relate to both the physical changes proposed (in terms of movement through the Plan Change area, effects of activities in the Plan Change area) and in the socio-economic changes proposed (in terms of employment and potentially new services etc that will be made as the Plan Change area develops); and The wider impacts for Hamilton City, the Region and the Upper North Island – which relate particularly to the socio-economic changes that are anticipated to be generated from the development of the area.
Because the „project‟ that is being assessed in this SIA is for the „Plan Change‟ request, rather than for a specific development proposal (ie via resource consent), the social effects that can arise from construction activity have not been included in this assessment of effects. Although final construction details are not known at this stage, it is anticipated that the construction of the site is likely to consist of „normal‟ construction activity, which would be managed through the existing rules and standards; and, therefore, would not require specific management in addition to the District Plan controls.
This SIA also seeks to identify how identified social impacts can be managed, including during future stages of the Project. Recommendations for the avoidance and management of social effects, and the ways in which the management framework will assist with this, are considered in more detail in the following Section (Section 7).
6.2 Community Cohesion and People’s Way of Life
„Community cohesion and people‟s way of life‟ refers to the stability, character, services and facilities of a community, and how people live, work, play and interact within it. The following section will assess how the Project impacts on these services and facilities, and people‟s movements and interactions, within the local area and the immediately affected area.
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 33 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
6.2.1 Changes to traffic volume and flow and how this will affect the community
Potential Adverse Effects
Adverse traffic effects were raised as a common concern during consultation; particularly from the residents/organisations that are located within the existing residential areas, nearby to the Site (the „local area of effect‟). The concern from these residents is predominantly in relation to increased traffic volumes and a higher incidence of heavy trucks on the road network within Ruakura, as a flow-on effect of the inland port and freight/logistics facility.
Potential adverse social effects that can result from increased traffic include noise, reduced safety, and social severance. Noise effects are discussed in more detail in Section 6.3.1, in relation to its actual or potential effect on amenity. Reduced road safety (and the potential for increased accident and injury for road users and pedestrians) was raised during consultation, with particular concern for reduced safety on the roads near residential areas, schools and local shopping centres, and in the vicinity of other established land uses located in close proximity to the proposed development.
Social severance effects occur when the movement of people is affected (eg by increased traffic volumes) and these effects can flow into social and economic life as people change their patterns, for example, to meet people or do business. Over time, severance effects change as communities adapt and create new patterns of movement. It is noted that the designations for the Expressway and existing motorway bound the Project area on the east and west and two rail lines transect through the Industrial Park/Logistics centres. These major transport corridors will effectively provide conduits into and out of the Ruakura development for freight and commuter traffic. These features are considered to mitigate any potential severance impacts resulting from the traffic volumes of the development area as a „working‟ site.
Residual potential adverse social effects (eg as a result of traffic flows from the Site using local streets) are likely to be avoided, as the Hamilton City Council Traffic Bylaw (2012) prohibits heavy vehicles from residential streets. Efficient connection to the State Highway network is critical to the plans for development at Ruakura as it allows for the efficient movement of freight. The staging rules for the wider R1 Area will (in the future) assist in mitigating these potential adverse social effects (with proposed controls to development beyond 2021 requiring the completion of the Hamilton section of the Waikato Expressway). In the long term (ie once the Site is fully operational), it is also anticipated that many of the required truck movements will be replaced by rail. Combined these measures will reduce traffic through the residential neighbourhoods adjacent to the Site, thereby reducing potential social severance issues and road safety concerns.
Potential Benefits
A potential benefit of the project is in relation to the relief of traffic congestion. Within the city wide roading network, a significant existing issue is the congestion experienced on the cross town bridges in the morning and evening commuter peak periods48. This appears to be symptomatic of the current distribution of employment nodes, relative to residential areas. Relief of this congestion is offered by the Ruakura proposal, namely through the „correction‟ of this distribution of nodes/land uses.
The Site is expected to provide more geographic socio-economic „self-sufficiency‟ on the eastern side of the City. The requested Plan Change is anticipated to provide the opportunity for employment. The employment opportunity for the complete R1 Area is estimated to be in the vicinity
48 Outlined within the „Strategic Directions and Master Planning Report‟ - Boffa Miskell, 2010
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 34 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
of 11,000 new jobs. As such, the requested Plan Change has included an area of medium density residential and the Structure Plan (for a greater area) has included land for residential development in a range of densities. The intention of this is to encourage people (new and existing residents) to live and work in the Ruakura area, achieving the „live-work-play‟ philosophy promoted within the HUGS report. The residential area proposed in the requested Plan Change will be connected to the employment areas by road, cycle ways and walking corridors (particularly between the northern residential areas and the employment lands to the south). Containing this commuting activity within the Site will also reduce traffic - and its associated effects - on streets in the surrounding neighbourhoods49.
For those from within Ruakura (and beyond) who do still wish to travel into the CBD for employment, linkages to the existing bus network are proposed and provision has been made for the railway line to also serve as public transport (in addition to its role in moving freight). The Ruakura Estate also plans to incorporate a park and ride facility, which could draw residents from other parts of Hamilton, as well as servicing the University and AgResearch campuses.
Open space will also be a key requirement of the area. The Structure Plan includes general provision for an „open space network‟, including areas of open space and an open space corridor, to be used as a cycleway/walkway for recreation, and as a key linkage between various areas within the Estate. The Proposed District Plan (Structure Plan) also provides for a „Neighbourhood Open Space Zone‟ at Ruakura, although the final boundaries of this Zone within the site has not yet been finalised.
6.2.2 Effect on Community Cohesion
Community cohesion can also be affected when a number of new people enter a community to live and work. The development will result in the introduction of many new people and families into the area, moving to be close to the Site. It is noted that this effect was also considered by decision makers when they the joint committee of Hamilton City and Waikato District Council‟s considered submissions on the boundary adjustments to include the area in Hamilton City (these discussions were undertaken in October 2010 and the boundary adjustment confirmed in July 2011)50.
As outlined above, the Site is expected to provide more „self-sufficiency‟ on the eastern side of the City, encouraging people to live, work and plan in the Ruakura area (through job opportunities, recreation, residential and community facilities/retail as proposed through the master plan process of the Plan Change). This is considered to be a benefit of the proposal, but it is also noted that there are existing dwellings in the area, which will experience a significant change in terms of the culture and character of their local area, albeit a change that is gradual and over a long timeframe, which can create feelings of uncertainty. As such, appropriate information sharing with the community in the areas affected and responsiveness to people‟s concerns and needs may provide some certainty to these existing residents, as the development progresses.
It is also anticipated that the Plan Change development will contribute to the cohesion and sense of pride for Waikato-Tainui beneficiaries as they see their land contributing to Hamilton‟s growth and development and more specifically strengthening the resources they have available as a tribe, to provide for their own social and economic wellbeing51.
49 A similar philosophy is proposed in the land use pattern of the Ruakura Structure Plan across the wider R1 Area. 50 Hamilton City Council Date Set for Boundary Changes, October 2010 (infonews.co.nz). 51 The scale of this potential benefit could be further quantified through interview inquiry with beneficiaries.
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 35 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
6.2.3 Summary
It is acknowledged that development at Ruakura will have a significant change on the area; with a number of new people in the area, which can have adverse effects on the local community, in terms of cohesion and character.
This section has demonstrated that there are potential social effects in relation to increased traffic volumes and flows on the local streets surrounding the Site, particularly in the early stages of development. However, the majority of these effects will be avoided as a result of the transport network/structure plan design, existing Hamilton City Council provisions (the Traffic Bylaw) as well as the staging rules proposed in relation to development at Ruakura. The effects of a change to community cohesion and character may be felt most significantly within the „immediate area of effect‟, as the rural-residential nature of the existing site will be permanently, and significantly changed by the development.
There will also be positive benefits that arise from the development, particularly in terms of reducing the need for cross-town commuting (which will serve to relieve traffic congestion for the CBD), and encouraging people to live and work in the local Ruakura area, strengthening the ability for this part of Hamilton City to provide for its social and economic wellbeing.
6.3 People’s Health and Well-being
6.3.1 Amenity Effects
It is noted that a number of specific „effects‟ assessments have been undertaken which address specific elements of amenity. From a social perspective, this assessment draws from these assessments to consider how these effects will contribute to the people‟s overall experience of their environment and how this will impact their health and well-being. a. Noise
The potential noise effects of the Project are in relation to permanent activities, ie the operational industrial site. Once operational, the noise effects are also potentially disruptive and adverse, and are predominantly anticipated to be in relation to industrial activity occurring on site. This operational noise will likely come from static machinery and vehicles moving within the Logistics and Industrial Zones. Vehicle movements in other areas of the site (including trucks and rail), which have the potential to be in operation 24 hours a day/7 days per week, may also create an adverse noise effect.
The most significant method to manage this operational noise effect are noise standards that would apply to the Site, which have been assessed and recommended by acoustic noise experts. In addition to these noise standards, the Plan acknowledges that there are a number of existing residential dwellings within the development site and, therefore, open space/reserve setback areas52 are proposed between existing residential areas, and the Logistics/Industrial/Inland Port areas. This is to reduce the noise impact, and the visual impact, of the site for the adjacent properties. Other remedial measures (eg changing the reversing alarms on vehicles and machinery), which are typically used at industrial sites, are anticipated to be employed at Ruakura.
52 The Proposed Ruakura Industrial Park Zone includes a 40m setback from existing residential development to the south-east of the Structure Plan area. As many of the surrounding existing dwellings are located on large rural or lifestyle properties a notional residential curtilage of 20m from the external walls of any dwelling shall determine where amenity controls (noise and glare) are to be measured
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 36 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
b. Visual53
Adverse effects on the landscape and visual amenity of the area as a result of the development was raised as a common concern during consultation. A relatively large proportion of the site will be industrial in nature, which is a significant change from the current, predominantly rural, landscape. In addition, lighting and associated lighting towers were outlined as a concern; as lighting will be required to provide for operation of the inland port through the night, and potentially in adverse weather.
It is acknowledged that the proposed development will produce a significant change in the landscape of the area and as a result will change the amenity values people derive from this environment. In order to manage the visual and amenity effects the Plan Change has been prepared to provide for an industrial area that will deliver a higher standard of amenity than would ordinarily be associated with an industrial zone. The Plan Change as proposed, requires (through rules and controls) a high standard of design for all buildings, landscaping and buffer areas and through the restriction of certain types of industrial activities (such as heavy industry). The Boffa report concludes that these measures will sufficiently respond to the potential adverse visual effects.
Similarly, the mitigation proposed for the management of noise effects, includes rules for a notional residential curtilage of 20m from the external walls of any dwelling, to determine where amenity controls (noise and glare) are to be measured.
On the basis of the above, it is considered the consequential social effects from changes amenity will also be mitigated. In addition, appropriate and on-going information sharing with the community on the changes that are being progressed may provide an additional measure to respond to the community‟s concerns regarding these changes to the character of the environment.
The Logistics Zone will generally comprise large warehouses, large areas of hardstand and container storage. As such, landscaping rules are outlined for the Proposed Logistics Zone to mitigate the visual effects of this landscape, requiring that each stage of the inland port shall be pre- empted by a planting strip, to screen the facility from residential dwellings. The site will also be developed in stages, over a relatively long time frame (anticipated to be 40-50 years), which will provide time for a level of acceptance from the surrounding community. Again, on-going and appropriate information sharing with the community is considered an appropriate response to the potential social effects of these landscape/amenity changes.
6.3.2 Health Effects a. Air Quality
Adverse effects on air quality (predominantly from dust, vehicle emissions and industrial activities) and its resulting potential adverse effect on human health, was a common concern raised during consultation. It is acknowledged that industrial activities, particularly when several such activities combine as part of an industrial „park‟ environment, have the potential to create adverse effects on air quality, which can result in adverse effects on human health.
This is noted within the Plan Change, which outlines that the aim of the Industrial Zone at Ruakura is to encourage industrial activities that support the primary purpose of a port and logistic area,
53 For more detailed information on these effects, a comprehensive assessment of the landscape and visual effects has been prepared, in support of the Plan Change request (Boffa Miskell, 2013)
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 37 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
while avoiding offensive and noxious activities (such as heavy industry). In addition, the proposed Ruakura Logistics Zone identifies that sensitive land uses (which includes residential and commercial sites) will require protection from issues such as odour. This Logistics Zone, in conjunction with city-wide rules, includes such provisions.
Therefore, it is not considered that the air quality effects resulting from the project will be significant enough to create an adverse health effect on the local population; particularly given that sensitive land uses (which would be in the „immediate area of effect‟) have been identified and are to be protected via controls in the Proposed District Plan. There may be some cumulative positive effects experienced in the long term as a result of decreased road congestion (once trains replace vehicle freight movements, as planned).
6.3.3 Community Values in Respect of the Project
The consultation undertaken to date indicates that the local community, predominantly the residents in the „immediate area of effect‟ (north of East Coast Main Trunk railway line and the proposed inland port and logistics zone), is (generally) opposed to these aspects of the Ruakura development. Submissions received on the proposal, during public notification of the RPS and the Plan Change, show that the following issues/concerns are most commonly cited for this project:
Concerns that there has been a lack of consultation and a lack of information provided; Amenity effects – specifically noise and lighting effects (in relation to extended hours and the operation of the inland port) and visual effects of the industrial area; Traffic effects, including increased traffic volumes and heavy trucks; Economic impacts: concerns that house values will lessen, as a result of being next to industrial land; and Environmental effects, particularly in relation to industrial run off into waterways.
While these concerns are acknowledged, it is also important to recognise that the requested Plan Change is a process that indicates widespread change, but that this change will not be singular or immediate. For this reason, the most effective method to address (and ultimately to alleviate) concerns is to provide regular and on-going information and liaison with the community to provide certainty (where able) about the changes in land use that will result from the Plan Change. For example, this could include information relating to the timing of the works and the location of changes. Incomplete, inaccurate or infrequent information can compound feelings of stress and anxiety and lead to exaggerated negative perceptions of the proposal. This may be through a number of methods, including utilisation of existing Council newsletters and information hand-outs (eg within the newsletter distributed to the City‟s ratepayers) and on-going liaison with landowners. Such approaches are generally considered „core business‟ for Councils in the communication between Council and the community. In addition, tools such as a Project website may be appropriate for specific aspects/major elements of the development, (eg the inland port).
While the current community opposition to the Project is certainly acknowledged, it is important to note that there are also aspects of the proposal that have drawn support from the community; specifically in relation to the provision of land for the growth and future development of Hamilton City. This is important from a social perspective, as the disruptions of change can be better accommodated by people if they see the work has a „greater good‟.
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 38 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
6.4 The Environment
The assessment of environmental effects of the requested Plan Change is outside the scope of this SIA. An Assessment of Effects on the Environment has been prepared in support of the Plan Change request (Boffa Miskell 2013), and should be referred to for a comprehensive assessment of the potential environmental effects of the proposal, as well as methods to avoid, remedy or mitigate those effects.
However, environmental effects - insofar as they relate to the social environment (ie the quality of the environment that people live, work, and socialise in) – are noted in this section to assist in understanding how these environment changes might impact on how people use and relate to this environment. Effects on the environment as a result of the proposal were commonly raised as a concern during consultation. These concerns were predominantly in relation to the discharge of industrial waste, effects on air quality, a loss of green space and local ecology, and the potential risk to the environment as a result of the proposed biosecurity activities on site. a. Discharge of Pollutants from Industrial Activities
Concerns were raised during consultation in relation to the discharge of industrial pollutants and its effects on the waterways in the immediate area, and for Hamilton City. Specifically, there was concern that the pollution would be visible to the public; that it would make it unsafe for recreational users; and that it would have flow on effects to the town water supply.
The development at the Site is seeking to improve the water quality discharging from the site. This improved quality is anticipated to predominantly occur „naturally‟, through conversion of the land from farmland; as discharges such as phosphorus and nitrogen are likely to decrease as land is converted. It is acknowledged however, that discharges from industrial land can also have a significant adverse effect on water quality. Pollutants such as heavy metals (eg copper, zinc), total petroleum hydrocarbons, chemical (or biological) oxygen demand, and turbidity could potentially increase, in the absence of treatment measures54. As such, provisions for high quality stormwater treatment and low impact design have been included, in order to meet the applicable guidelines and standards (contained within the Waikato Regional Plan) for discharge of contaminants to water. The Ruakura Industrial Park Zone also includes a rule that requires the implementation of an Integrated Catchment Management Plan (a strategic planning and management tool in relation to stormwater quality and quantity), which will apply to all parts of the Site (and subsequently to all parts of the Proposed District Plan Ruakura Structure Plan / R1 Area). Compliance with these provisions will assure recreational water users, and there should be no visual pollution or flow on effects to water supply systems.
An assessment of the potential effects from the discharge of industrial waste is provided in the Assessment of Effects on the Environment report. b. Air Quality
The effect of reduced air quality on human health was discussed in Section 6.3.2a of this SIA. However, feedback received during consultation also indicated that there is a concern that the industrial activity on site will also have an adverse environmental effect. As outlined previously, the intention of the Industrial Zone at the Site is to encourage industrial activities that support the primary purpose of a port and logistic area, while avoiding offensive and noxious activities. Sensitive land uses have also been identified and provisions in the Plan will control industrial
54 „Ruakura Estate Environmental Framework‟ (Boffa Miskell, 2011)
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 39 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
activity in these areas. The Operative Waikato Regional Plan has rules that must be complied with, in relation to discharges to air.
These measures will restrict activities (and therefore emissions) that are normally typical of industrial areas. Therefore, it is not considered that the air quality effects resulting from the project will be significant enough to create an adverse environmental effect. In the event that the air discharges were to be significant, measures will need to be employed (via rules in the Regional Plan) to remedy or mitigate its adverse effects.
In addition, there may also be some cumulative positive effects on air quality (for Hamilton City and the wider Region) experienced in the long term as a result of decreased road congestion (once trains replace vehicle freight movements, as planned).
An assessment of air quality effects is provided in the Assessment of Effects on the Environment report. c. Local Ecology
Consultation also identified a concern that the loss of green space may have an effect on the local ecology of the area. It is acknowledged that a relatively large proportion of the site will be industrial in nature, which is a significant change from the current, predominantly rural, landscape. Although the Site mirrors the wider Hamilton Ecological District and little native vegetation remains as a result of clearing for farmland55, there are areas of ecological significance within the local area of effect and the immediate area of effect (the Site and neighbouring property).
One of these ecological sites, the Mangaonua Gully (to the south of the Ruakura Structure Plan and R1 Area) has an Environmental Protection Overlay within the Operative District Plan, which is intended to encourage the protection and enhancement of ecosystems, the habitats of plants, birds and other wildlife and ecological corridors56. Rules within the Plan provide for this protection and the Project will need to meet the specified terms and conditions of these rules. The key ecological sites have been identified in the Ruakura Structure Plan, and have been recognised and provided for as „ecological corridors‟.
Open space will also be a key requirement of the area. The Structure Plan includes general provision for an „open space network‟, which includes areas of open space, as well as an open space corridor, to be used as a cycleway/walkway for recreation, and as a key linkage between various areas within the Estate. The Proposed District Plan also provides for a „Neighbourhood Open Space Zone‟ at Ruakura, although the final boundaries of this Zone within the site has not yet been finalised.
An assessment of the potential effects on the local ecology is provided in the „Assessment of Effects on the Environment‟ report and the „Landscape and Visual Assessment‟ report. d. Biosecurity
Concern was raised during consultation in relation to biosecurity; namely that it presents a biosecurity risk to the environment - in the Project area, in Hamilton City, and for New Zealand.
55 Ibid 56 Ibid
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 40 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
The inland port within the Site will include facilities for the transfer of freight. All biosecurity activities are guided and controlled by domestic law, international agreements, and standards to which New Zealand is a signatory nation. The Biosecurity Act 1993, administered by the Ministry for Primary Industries, is the primary legislation providing a range of powers, duties and obligations. Other legislation is also used, including the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (for „new organisms' not yet present in New Zealand). The Ministry for Primary Industries interprets and applies guidelines at an operational level through a series of policies, agreements and frameworks57. The inland port will be subject to all relevant legislation, including rules and policies, and therefore the risk to the environment (and the pubic) in relation to biosecurity, is considered to be low. e. Social Assessment of Potential Environmental Effects
It is acknowledged that the requested Plan Change (as well as the Proposed District Plan Ruakura Structure Plan and subsequent development) will result in a significant change to the Ruakura environment; namely, it will change from a rural „greenfield‟ area, to an area that includes industrial activity, as well as residential, commercial and transport networks. This section has also demonstrated that the community has concerns about how these changes might impact on how people use and relate to this physical environment.
While the identified potential environmental effects can be avoided, remedied or mitigated through a number of design and engineering solutions, the significant change to the nature of the landscape is a permanent effect. This is acknowledged but it is also recognised that the requested Plan Change is a process that indicates widespread change, but that this change will not be singular or immediate. Furthermore, it is acknowledged that future changes were anticipated in the statutory process that resulted in the area being included into Hamilton City (in July 2011)58.
Initially (ie in the first phases of development) the social effects in terms of the „environment‟ are considered to be adverse, due to the significant change taking place – particularly for the existing residents in the area. However, in the long-term, as the development is gradually rolled-out, it is considered that the social effects in terms of the environment will be positive. The long time-frame for development provides time for a level of acceptance from the surrounding community and adaption to the environment. The adoption of mitigation measures will in many cases improve the existing environment (eg the high quality stormwater treatment and low impact design measures proposed), meaning people may value this resource even more. Once the area is fully operational, it is considered that people will have adapted to the environment, and new people will have moved to Ruakura specifically for this development; meaning they will relate to, and therefore value, their surroundings.
6.5 People and their Property a. Close Proximity of an Industrial Site
The most common concern raised during consultation was in relation to the establishment of an industrial site in close proximity to existing dwellings. The comments received specifically discussed that the nature of the land (rural) will be significantly and permanently altered by the proposal; with the rural lifestyle and outlook being the reason that the majority of the residents live in the Ruakura
57 Ministry for Primary Industries: Biosecurity in New Zealand (http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/biosec/pol) – accessed 6 June 2013 58 See section 1.2.1.
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 41 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
area. This is particularly of concern for those residents who live in the immediate area of effect, within (or adjacent to) the Site.
It is acknowledged that some people may not choose to live next to an industrial site, and that the site in its current form will be permanently altered as a result of the development (this is particularly relevant considering the existing residents who are likely to have been attracted to the area for its rural or rural-residential character). As discussed in previous sections, the Structure Plan notes that there are existing dwellings in the immediate area of effect. As such, the development, and specifically the proposed Industrial Zone, will be designed to encourage industrial activities that support the primary purpose of a port and logistic area, while avoiding offensive and noxious activities. That is, it is not proposed as a „typical‟ industrial area. There are also numerous provisions proposed (including landscaping and a „buffer‟ zone) to mitigate the visual effects of the industrial site.
From a social effects perspective however, it is considered that the effects of this landscape change and the changes that will occur over time are not able to be completely avoided. As discussed previously, the most effective method for alleviating concerns and mitigating these type of effects is to ensure that there is regular and on-going information sharing and liaison with the community (including those affected) to provide certainty (where able) about the project, especially in relation to timing of the works and location. Other methods to address these social impacts are identified in Section 7. b. Potential Economic Effects
Another concern raised during consultation was in relation to house values; specifically, the value of the houses that are in the immediate area of effect – the Ruakura Project site. This concern stems from a perception that people will not want to live next to an industrial site, and that this will then have an adverse economic effect (house values will decline). This perception may also lead to feelings of uncertainty and anxiety for these homeowners.
As above, it is acknowledged that some people may not choose to live next to an industrial site. However, the Ruakura development is not proposed as a „typical‟ industrial area, and the Plan incorporates housing of various densities, to encourage people to live in close proximity to their employment – the industrial and commercial areas of the site. Having people living and working in an area will also encourage „supportive‟ facilities, such as retail and public transport. All of these factors are planned in order to encourage people to live in the area and in the long term, if the demand for employment on site grows, it may have a positive impact on house prices in the area. It is also important to note that although the houses in question will lose their current rural-residential/ lifestyle „value‟, they are likely to still have a value in the market because of their proximity to the Site (in other words, will likely be attractive to other people with different aspirations, in the future). The planned growth of residential activity surrounding this area (in the Ruakura Structure Plan) is consistent with this assessment. c. City-Wide Effects
In considering these effects at a wider City-wide level, it is also important to recognise that this Project is consistent with and contributes to wider Regional proposals for socio-economic growth of the City (eg the Proposed Regional Policy Statement and Ruakura Structure Plan in the Proposed District Plan). As such, it is considered that the Project will provide for the City-wide community and future community through increased employment opportunities, with estimates of around 11,000 new jobs provided as a result of the Project (eg within the Industrial Park) and residential activities. The project also provides for a wider community through the generation of economic returns for the
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 42 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
land-owners/investors in the development area. This is a significant positive effect for the community‟s social and economic wellbeing and contributes to fulfilling the growth aspirations identified by the Hamilton community for their City. d. Waikato-Tainui Beneficiaries
In particular, in the case of this Plan Change, there are potential positive effects for the socio- economic well-being of the Waikato-Tainui beneficiaries in addition to the wider effects noted. The mandate of TGH is to provide consistent, long-term dividends to current and future generations of Waikato-Tainui. The dividends are and will be used for charitable purposes by shareholders, to invest in education, welfare, health, social and cultural facilities and activities, for the benefit of Waikato-Tainui members (as described in section 5)59. As such, it is important to acknowledge that there are also positive (even significantly positive) social effects (both social and economic) for this group.
6.6 Political and Community Structures
By improving the asset base of Waikato-Tainui, it is considered that the requested Plan Change will contribute to the sense of pride for Waikato-Tainui beneficiaries in their tribal identity and as such, strengthen these political and community structures. This philosophy is articulated in the Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust Annual Report (2012). This is a potentially positive social effect.
6.7 Construction Effects
As outlined previously, because the „project‟ that is being assessed in this SIA is for a Plan Change, rather than for a specific development proposal (ie via resource consent), the social effects that can arise from construction activity have not been included in this assessment of effects.
Although final construction details are not known at this stage, ie for the zones/activities identified in the Plan Change, it is anticipated that the construction of the site is likely to consist of „normal‟ construction activity, which would be managed through the existing rules and standards of District and Regional Plans (these standards have already been prepared and confirmed as „acceptable‟ in terms of their potential effects including social). As no specific construction management controls are proposed in the Plan Change, it is not considered necessary to further assess the „social effects‟ of established District Plan and Regional Consent controls.
In addition, it is also noted that for any major construction works (ie this will likely include development of activities that the Plan Change provides for) a resource consent (or consents) will be required prior to implementation. As such, at that time (and once the scale of these works is better defined) a specific assessment of the potential effects will be undertaken. As necessary, appropriate conditions of consent could then be required to manage any actual or potential effects (including social effects) of the construction works.
The methods for management and response of social effects outlined in the following sections can also be applied to assist in managing the social effects of construction, as required (eg providing accurate and frequent updates prior to, and during, construction). In this respect, it is consider the SIA may provide a useful „benchmark‟ of the social environment and social impacts likely to be generated at that time.
59 pers. comm. Parekawhia McLean, Chief Executive, Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Incorporated, 12 June 2013.
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 43 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
6.8 Summary of Effects
As outlined within the introductory section (Section 6.1), and for the purposes of this assessment, we have assumed that the Plan Change will result in a gradual change in land uses and social activities within the local area of assessment. The purpose of this assessment of effects was therefore to consider the impacts on the immediately affected community, the local affected community and the wider impacts for Hamilton City, the Region and the Upper North Island (if applicable). The potential effects on these areas include (but are not limited to):
6.8.1 The impacts on the immediately affected community Amenity and people‟s health and well-being: there will be some disruptive effects (eg construction noise) although these are considered to be primarily during construction and consistent with the short-term nature of development. In the longer term, it is acknowledged that the environment and amenity of that environment will be significantly changed as a result of the development envisaged in this Plan Change (conversion from rural to industrial), as well as the industrial activity taking place (including lighting and associated lighting towers, and freight container storage). A full assessment of the visual effects of this change has been undertaken. Effects on community cohesion - existing dwellings in the area will experience a significant change (albeit over a long timeframe) in terms of the culture and character of their local area. Environmental values – in the first phases of development within the requested Plan Change area, the social effects in terms of the „environment‟ are considered to be adverse, due to the significant change taking place (e.g. from rural to business / industrial) (particularly for the existing residents in the area). However, the long-term social effects are considered to be positive. Over time, it is considered that these impacts will diminish as people will have adapted to the environment, and it is anticipated that new people will have moved to Ruakura specifically for this development; meaning they will relate to, and therefore value, the surroundings.
6.8.2 The impacts for the local affected community Amenity and people‟s health and well-being: there will be some disruptive effects eg noise in relation to industrial activity and vehicle movements and the visual effects resulting from the conversion of the land from rural to industrial (which is a significant change in outlook for residential properties in the area). As above, a full assessment of visual effects of this change has been undertaken. Positive impacts for residents (existing and new residents) in Hamilton East in terms of increased residential choice, employment opportunities and commercial and retail activity.
6.8.3 The wider impacts for Hamilton City and beyond Potential positive benefits that arise from the development, particularly in terms of reducing the need for cross-town commuting (which will serve to relieve traffic congestion for the CBD), and encouraging people (existing and new residents) to live and work in the local Ruakura area. Benefits for Waikato-Tainui members, as the dividends of the development will be used for charitable purposes, to invest in education, welfare, health, social and cultural facilities and activities in the Region. The Plan Change presents the opportunity for the creation of a significant number of jobs in Hamilton City, rising to approximately 11,000 for the full development envisaged in the Ruakura Structure Plan / the R1 Area. Addresses (in part) the wider Hamilton shortfall of industrial land required to accommodate employment and business growth; and residential land for an increasing population.
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 44 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
A key component of the establishment of this area is the opportunity to foster more interaction between Ag Research, the University and future innovation related operations (eg through the introduction of training courses and/or University diploma/degrees in logistics systems etc). Potential cumulative positive effects on air quality (for Hamilton City and the Region) experienced in the long term as a result of decreased road congestion (once trains replace vehicle freight movements, as planned).
6.8.4 The Impacts for Waikato-Tainui Beneficiaries
In addition to the potential positive effects from employment opportunities and growth (which are captured in the assessments above), it is considered that there are specific social benefits for the large group of Waikato-Tainui beneficiaries (this group comprises over 64,000 people). In summary, these benefits include:
Opportunities for beneficiaries to provide for their social and economic wellbeing through an increased asset base. With this income Waikato-Tainui aim to provide consistent, long-term dividends to current and future generations of the tribe and continue to support the charitable purposes (e.g. for education, welfare, health, social and cultural facilities and activities) for the benefit of Waikato-Tainui members. Anticipated positive benefits from the resulting strengthening in the tribes community cohesion (sense of pride) and the political arrangements (for Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Incorporated) from the outcomes above.
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 45 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
7 Recommendations for Avoidance and Management of Social Effects
7.1 Recommended Management and Response Measures
Section 6 provides a broad summary of the social effects of this SIA. This section sets out recommendations to respond to these effects. In summary, the key proposed recommendations are: 1. Continue to carry out information sharing throughout the planning phases (Implement, maintain and continue to update community throughout the planning phase), through council communication and consultation processes (discussed further below); and
2. Adoption of proposed provisions and controls of the requested Plan Change (most particularly including the Integrated Catchment Management Plan and controls for amenity (noise, glare and landscaping)).
7.1.1 On-going Information Sharing with Interested Parties and the Local Community
Communication and clarification of relevant details of the Project to landowners (in the immediate area of effect), the local community (the local area of effect), and other interested parties thorough the sharing of key information, is an important way to continue to include people and increase understandings of the actual and potential (both positive and negative) effects of the Plan Change.
The consultation undertaken to date indicates that some members of the community have concerns in relation to the Project, and there is a feeling from this community that consultation to date has been insufficient. Inevitably, there is uncertainty within the community in the course of planning for any large infrastructure project, or land use change. However, it is also important to note that there are aspects of the proposal that have drawn support from the community; specifically in relation to the provision of land for the growth and future development of Hamilton City. This is important from a social perspective, as the disruptions of change can be better accommodated by people if they see the work has a „greater good‟.
The most effective method for mitigating social effects (positive or negative) is to ensure that there is regular and on-going information sharing and liaison with those affected to provide certainty (where able), particularly in the areas where the community is feeling uncertain (for example, in relation to the effects on house prices, or how environmental effects will be addressed). Therefore, it is also important that any proposed mitigation methods are communicated appropriately to those residents and communities affected. Providing scope for community involvement and some flexibility around when these changes will occur (if possible) is important, so that people have the opportunity to provide feedback and be engaged in the process.
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 46 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
On-going information sharing through the identified stages of the proposed plan change (and its subsequent related projects, such as the inland port) may be undertaken through a number of methods, including: utilisation of the Structure Plan website, newsletters and information hand-outs, or on-going meetings with individual land owners. Incomplete, inaccurate or infrequent information can compound feelings of stress and anxiety and lead to exaggerated negative perceptions of the proposal. It is important to acknowledge that once the Plan Change is operative, this information sharing and communication would be undertaken by Council – as managers of land use and development in the City. In addition, it is not considered necessary to set conditions for such information sharing, within the Plan Change itself. Rather, this is considered a core function of Council under its local government remit.
7.2 Monitoring of Effects
Because this is a Plan Change request rather than a specific development (ie via resource consent), no site-specific monitoring is proposed. The exception to this will be the environmental baseline monitoring that will be undertaken in relation to the Integrated Catchment Management Plan.
However, as outlined above, it is important to acknowledge that once the Plan Change is operative, Council effectively become land use regulators. As part of the overall management of resource and land use, and in accordance with the District Plan, Council is responsible for monitoring of the effectives of the Plan in delivering the outcomes sought from it.
Furthermore, under Council‟s local government remit, it is required to undertake regular „state of the environment‟ reporting, to monitor progress against identified community outcomes. By their very nature, these community outcomes provide a baseline for what the community expects in terms of their environment (including the social dimensions of this).
Collectively this monitoring provides a baseline for all areas of the City (including new developments, such as Ruakura) to assist Council to understand how (amongst other things) land use and development is impacting on people and communities. This monitoring using a variety of methods includes (but not limited to):
Annual Residents Survey - use of and satisfaction with Council provided facilities and services, overall attitudes, and community needs and priorities Community Outcomes Progress Report (not less than once every three years) – reports on progress made towards Hamilton's Community Outcomes and helps inform decision-makers about community needs in Hamilton, and to promote better co-ordination and application of community resources MARCO (Monitoring and Reporting Community Outcomes) as part of the Waikato Regional Perception Survey – a multiagency working group that has compiled indicators relating to the quality of, and any changes in, life for people in the Waikato region. The results are displayed for the Waikato region and, where available, by city/district council area. The indicators are up- dated, analysed and reported every year. Hamilton Social Well-Being Strategy 2012 – was developed through partnership between social development agencies. Input was also sought from community organisations, the general public, and key social service organisations. The Strategy identifies the social priorities for Hamilton City (including connecting communities; training for jobs; accessible housing; and safety), which will be regularly monitored and evaluated. Progress reports will be available online giving everyone the opportunity to see how the projects are progressing.
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 47 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Proposed Ruakura Development: Social Impact Assessment
Access Hamilton Strategy 2010 – provides for an integrated and coordinated combination of transport interventions to provide transport choices for everyone. This is to be implemented through a series of Action Plans, covering a range of transport issues, and which contain specific objectives and actions with measureable outcomes. At a regional level, Environment Waikato is required (under the RMA) to monitor the effectiveness of the RPS, in terms of how well it achieves its objectives and policies At a national level, the government measures social outcomes and trends in each region through the Social Report (Ministry of Social Development) and the Census (Statistics New Zealand)).
It is therefore not considered necessary to set conditions in the Plan Change in relation to monitoring.
Beca // 21 June 2013 // Page 48 4261585 // NZ1-7536152-13 1.0
Appendix A 2011 Phase 1 SIA
Social Impact Assessment (SIA) of the Proposed Ruakura Estate Development
Report prepared for: Tainui Group Holdings Limited
and Chedworth Park Limited
Prepared by:
Richard Calderwood and Stuart Locke, Institute for Business Research, University of Waikato
09 September 2011
Institute for Business Research, Waikato Management School, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton 3240 Telephone: 64 7 858 5009 e-mail: [email protected] TGH Social Impact Study
Contents Executive Summary ...... 3 Introduction ...... 4 Proposed development ...... 4 The Intermodal Terminal and Integrated Distribution Centres ...... 4 General Employment Lands ...... 7 Retail/ Commercial/ Mixed Use Precinct ...... 7 Proposed Residential Neighbourhoods ...... 8 Transportation Network ...... 8 Waikato Expressway Alignment ...... 8 The Social Impact Assessment Approach ...... 9 Method ...... 11 Analysis & Findings ...... 13 Knowledge of the Proposed Development ...... 13 The Consultation Process ...... 14 General Land Use...... 14 Residential ...... 15 Transport ...... 15 Infrastructure...... 17 Commercial ...... 18 Industrial Land Use ...... 18 Population ...... 18 Employment ...... 19 Recreation and Green Space ...... 19 Development Aesthetics ...... 20 Health Comments ...... 20 Education Comments ...... 20 Noise and Light ...... 21 General Comments ...... 21 Discussion ...... 22 Appendices: ...... 28 Appendix One: SIA Questions ...... 28 Appendix Two - Organisations contacted ...... 44 References ...... 45
Page 2 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
Executive Summary
Tainui Group Holdings Limited and Chedworth Park are planning an Intermodal Terminal and Integrated Distribution Centres on land in Hamilton known as Ruakura Estate. The Institute For Business Research was commissioned by TGHL to conduct a social impact analysis to ensure that the potential development maximises benefits and minimises costs to the community. Identification of social impacts in advance improves decision making in the planning and implementation process.
The social impact analysis needs to be supported with cultural impact and economic impact analyses to reflect a harmony across key aspects for sustainable communities.
The social impact analysis (SIA), involved research design, interviews and analysis components. The SIA was conducted with the approval of the University of Waikato Ethics Committee. The design of questions and the target respondents were based upon international best practice. The role of a SIA has evolved over time and is now seen as a core component of larger scale development projects.
The respondents were chosen as representative of the communities surrounding the proposed Ruakura Estate development. In total 34 respondents were interviewed during the period 31 May and 13 July 2011. The decision was made, based on best practice, not to go to well-known public figures and commentators as they will comment in other fora.
The knowledge of the project reflected through the interview responses varied widely. There were few negative reactions and the majority wanted to know more. This suggests a carefully constructed public information programme is needed.
Respondents involved in social service delivery and city council activities were more specific in concerns about needing resources to deal with growing populations. Ability to get emergency vehicles along roads, the potential for more criminals to live in the environs and safe crossing of roads were observations made. It is important that good relations be maintained with council staff and other key service providers through regular contact and open information channels.
Concerns about aesthetics rated highly; polluting sources such as light, noise, vibration and smell were raised as concerns. This suggests that the public information campaign needs to include landscaping and environment aspects to allay fears concerning aesthetics and pollution.
The potential benefits to the community in terms of promoting more sustainable economic outcomes were not well understood by respondents. This indicates that the well-constructed public information programme needs to inform the public of the likely benefits.
The size of the project was not appreciated by respondents and nor was the managed stage developments that will occur. It is important that the public information programme indicate clearly that it is not all at once and that various stages of development will occur.
The importance of indicating that all development must work through HCC planning approvals and Resource Consents to ensure the protection of the environment in the immediate and longer-term needs to be better understood. This indicates that the well-constructed public information programme needs to inform the public of the protection that the regulatory framework of Hamilton City Council and Waikato District Council provide.
Page 3 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
Introduction
Tainui Group Holdings (“TGHL”) and Chedworth Park Limited (“CPL”) propose to develop an Intermodal Terminal and Integrated Distribution Centres on land in Hamilton known as Ruakura Estate. The Institute for Business Research, University of Waikato has been engaged by “TGHL” to conduct a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) relating to the proposed development. The brief does not include studying economic or cultural impacts.
The objective of a SIA is to ensure that the developments (or planned interventions) that do occur maximise the benefits and minimise the costs of those developments, especially those costs borne by the community. Too often, these costs (externalities) are not adequately taken into account by decision makers, regulatory authorities and developers, partly because they are not easily identifiable, quantifiable and measurable. By identifying the impacts in advance, better decisions can be made about which interventions should proceed and how they should proceed. Mitigation measures can be implemented, and redesign can occur, to minimise the harm and maximise the benefits. By promoting participatory processes, better consideration can be given to what appropriate development for a community may be (Vanclay, 2006, p.1).
TGHL requested this study for the purpose of seeking information on:
• the potential impacts of the project and the characteristics of the impacts, their magnitude, distribution and duration. • groups/organisations who will be positively or negatively affected. • Information which helps to understand people’s perceptions of the project and any possible impacts. • mitigation measures which might be taken to minimise any negative impacts. • the capacity of project proponents to implement the mitigation measures.
Proposed development
The Intermodal Terminal and Integrated Distribution Centres
The Ruakura Estate is situated in the eastern extent of Hamilton City; approximately 3 kilometres from the Central Business District. The land holding for the proposed development is in excess of 500 hectares. Details of the area of the planned development are provided in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
Page 4 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
Figure 1 provides detail of the proposed land use for the development. Figure 1.0 Land Use Allocation Pattern
Page 5 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
Figure 2 provides a footprint of the proposed development as well as street locations in and around the proposed development. Figure 2: Transport Networks
Page 6 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
The Intermodal Terminal and Integrated Distribution Centres is a fully connected Logistics development. In addition to the core logistics activities, the development will facilitate other complementary logistics and distribution activities around this land use, and has the potential to become a facility of regional, and potentially national, importance.
The Intermodal Terminal involves the efficient transfer of non-bulk freight from rail to road and vice versa. There are significant benefits and efficiencies resulting from such concepts to handle freight, including a reduction in the growth of road freight movements resulting in an easing of road congestion and more efficient use of rail infrastructure.
The proposed development covers a number of land uses, from an Urban Planning perspective. These include:
General Employment Lands General employment areas proposed, including light industrial activities occupying a significant area of the Ruakura Estate (i.e. approximately 257 hectares or 50% of the landholding) taking account of the desired growth and land use pattern identified for Ruakura within Future Proof (which is a sub- regional planning and strategy forum).
It is expected that the presence of the IMT and the Distribution Hub will introduce and consolidate a range of support industry and services in the Waikato region.
Retail/ Commercial/ Mixed Use Precinct Two commercial and mixed-use precincts are being advanced, one situated at the northern end of the Ruakura lands aligned with the future off ramp and entrance into Hamilton from the expressway; the other at the south, strategically located between the existing AgResearch campus and the University of Waikato Campus. These areas cover approximately 35 hectares.
Research/ Innovation Precinct This precinct is proposed to be located around the existing AgResearch campus and Innovation Park areas. Future Proof has, in part, Ruakura Estate functioning as an innovation and research hub for the sub-region. This precinct also considers the location of the Waikato University Campus as an important element.
Both precincts are intended to provide commercial and supporting retail activities, but with slightly differing roles and potential mixes of uses. A “main street” concept for the southern concept will be provided with buildings constructed out to the kerb line and, with ample room for street trees and pedestrian movement along each side of the street. Larger scale commercial and mixed use development including potential accommodation will be sleeved around the “main street”. These Page 7 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
buildings are proposed to accommodate tenants with activities similar and/or complimentary to IWL, thereby extending and reinforcing the research innovation precinct.
The northern precinct is currently proposed to be centred on the Greenhill Road entrance to Hamilton City. A change in designation is possible which would see the connection between the Expressway and the Wairere Drive round-about being a more direct route through the Chedworth Park lands. It is important that this area does not develop into an industrial or general employment area, as a conflicting use land use to the master-plan.
Proposed Residential Neighbourhoods The establishment of a range of housing types and densities (ranging from 250sqm – 500 sqm sites) is planned to provide housing in close proximity to employment; as well as utilising existing connections from adjoining established “Fairview Downs” development. It is envisaged that a mix of public and private housing will be established, with a further aim of developing some housing that enables ownership opportunities for those in lower income brackets. The housing will be positioned to maximise the use of a comprehensively planned reserves and open space network. Just over 63 hectares (approximately 12 %) of the land is intended to be used for residential development.
Transportation Network The Ruakura Estate has significant locational advantages in relation to existing and future roading networks, as well as existing rail links. The networks will deal with a number of primary issues including the alignment with the Waikato Expressway and interchanges; cross city movement capacity and its associated congestion; and internal movement and the relationship between land uses.
Waikato Expressway Alignment The following roading infrastructure items are currently being planned by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) as part of the Waikato Expressway development: 1. Full diamond interchange at Greenhill Road
2. Half Diamond interchange at State Highway 26 Morrinsville Road
3. Half Diamond interchange at Cherry Lane
The Ruakura development contemplates a further full diamond interchange at the southern section of the Ruakura estate.
Page 8 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
The Social Impact Assessment Approach TGH wishes to ensure that the SIA process follows international best practice. The requirement for social impact analyses has been present among town and regional planners for more than 50 years. As time has passed and more complex developments have occurred planners and decision makers have acknowledged the need to better understand the social consequences of policies, plans, programmes and projects. SIA enables those involved in planning and development to develop a better understanding of such impacts.
SIA is able to notify planners and project proponents of the likely benefits and costs of the proposed project. These may have a social and economic impact. Having identified the likely impacts of the project in advance enables decision makers to decide whether the project should proceed, proceed with alterations or be discontinued. The best outcome for all involved is to see any potential negative outcomes on individuals and communities mitigated.
Social scientists have long been involved in the completion of impact assessment. A study carried out by Condorcet in the nineteenth century is believed to be the first SIA (Prendergast, 1989). SIA as we know it today emerged somewhat later:
The beginnings of SIA can be traced to developments as recent as those during the 1970s. By this time, development agencies began to use these approaches – which are about predicting, before the start of a project, its likely environmental, social and economic consequences –in order to approve, adjust or reject it (Roche, 2009,p.18)
In the early 1980s a series of new methods emerged, including Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), Participatory Action Research (PAR), and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) (Chambers, 1997). These types of assessment endeavoured to make people and communities active participants in the assessment process.
By the early 1990s, social science professionals had developed an acceptable set of SIA guidelines and principles (IOCPGSIA: 1994 and 2003, and IAIA: 2003). The Intergovernmental Committee on Guidelines and Principles define social impacts as:
The consequences to human populations of any public or private actions that alter the ways in which people live, work, play, relate to one another, organise to meet their needs, and generally cope as members of society. The term also includes cultural impacts involving changes to the norms, values and beliefs that guide and rationalise their cognition of themselves and their society (IOCGP, 2003, p.231).
Page 9 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
Such changes are able to affect employment, income, production, way of life, culture, community, health and well-being, personal and property rights, fears and aspirations. These impacts may be positive or negative.
It is at this time SIA became firmly established amongst government agencies as a way to assess the impacts of proposed developments before the proposed developments go ahead. Kaul (1999) indicates that SIA is not only concerned with minimising social costs-the negative social impact of development strategies-but also enhancing the responsiveness of policies to people’s needs – maximising social benefits.
A number of attempts have been made to define SIA. Early definitions of SIA suggest that SIA measures the social consequences of policy decisions:
SIA can be defined as the process of assessing or estimating, in advance, the social consequences that are likely to follow from specific policy actions or project development, particularly in the context of appropriate national, state or provincial environmental policy legislation (Burdge and Vanclay, 1995, p. 32)
This definition however, did not account for the fact that the assessment might be undertaken internally by a corporation, by government, or even by the affected community outside the regulatory process. The definition fails to account for the impacts of past developments and there is no role given to the management, mitigation and monitoring of impacts, or for the contribution of SIA participants in the redesign of the project or what might constitute an appropriate project.
Goldman and Baum (2000) define SIA as:
A method of analysing what impacts actions may have on the social aspects of the environment. It involves characterising the existing state of such aspects of the environment, forecasting how they may change if a given action or alternative is implemented and developing means of mitigating changes that are likely to be adverse from the point of view of the affected population (Goldman and Baum, 2000, p.7)
Vanclay (2002) extends his earlier thinking to suggest that SIA is not only concerned with assessing and estimating the social consequences of a project, but is also concerned with evaluating and reflecting on the possible consequences of a project, noting that:
the process of analysing (predicting, evaluating and reflecting) and managing the intended and unintended consequences on the human environment of planned interventions (policies, programs, plans, projects) and any other social change processes invoked by those
Page 10 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
interventions so as to bring about a more sustainable and equitable biophysical and human environment (Vanclay, 2002, p.388)
While many of the earlier definitions are essentially linked to the regulatory context Vanclay (2006) further updated his definition to suggest that:
The SIA seeks to ensure that the impacts of the development are specified differentially for different groups and not measured in total. This ensures that the impacts on each of the different groups are treated in an equitable manner and certain groups are not just bundled together with supposedly more significant other impacts. Taking this approach ensures that no individuals or groups are deemed to be excessively vulnerable and made to bear the majority of adverse social impacts.
SIA recognises the importance of giving high priority to the most significant social impacts focussing on the impacts identified by the people in the local community. Often those at the lower end of the social hierarchy do not participate in the early stages. This project recognises the need for their concerns to be fully addressed. In addition, it is the role of the SIA researcher to prioritise the main issues and identify any impacts that may not have been mentioned by individuals and organisations. The findings of such an assessment provide a way forward for the project promoters to develop a project aimed at mitigating any negative impacts and enhancing the positive impacts.
Method The SIA research methodology involved:
1. Researcher familiarisation with proposed development. A map was accessed to identify the area that had the potential to be directly or indirectly impacted on by the development. Visiting the actual location also gave the researcher a better understanding of the geographic limits of the area affected by the project and the people presently living in the area.
2. Identification of organisations to be interviewed. These organisations were identified as those who may be impacted by the proposed project.
3. In-depth interviews (following pre-test of questions within the WMS) were held with a range of organisations either operating in the proposed project area or organisations likely to be influenced by the proposed project.
Page 11 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
4. A series of questions relating to the proposed development were prepared in consultation with TGH.
a. These include a general set of questions which applied to each of the respondent organisations as well as questions that were more particular for the types of activity with which the organisation is involved.
b. Potential respondents were contacted both by phone and email to explain the purpose of the research as well as to arrange a time for an interview. A total of 34 interviews were held at the offices of the respondents. The interviews took place between the 31st May and the 13th July 2011. Each of the respondents was provided with an overview of the proposed project as well as a Participant Information Sheet. These are found in Appendices Four and Five. Each of the interviews lasted between 45-75 minutes. Interviews were transcribed and returned to the respondents for verification and sign off regarding their accuracy.
c. It was expected that a number of interview respondents may have had little knowledge of the proposed development. It was considered important in terms of respondents’ ability to answer the interview questions effectively that they were provided with some knowledge of the area covered by the proposed development and the proposed land uses within the proposed development. Prior to questioning each of the respondents was provided with a written summary of the proposed development and an explanation of two maps (Figure One and Figure Two) relating to the proposed development. The first map provided details of the proposed land uses within the development. The second provided a footprint with transport networks overlaid. This enabled the respondents to develop a better understanding of the physical scope of the proposed development as well as being able to relate it to the present and future transport networks.
Page 12 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
5. Any groups not initially identified as likely to be impacted by the project but were considered by respondents as likely to be affected were added to the list.
6. A thematic analysis was conducted of the interviews using verified transcripts.
Analysis & Findings An analysis of the interview transcripts identified a number of different themes. These related to:
1. Knowledge of the proposed development. 2. The Consultation Process 3. General Land Use 4. Residential 5. Transport 6. Infrastructure 7. Commercial 8. Industrial Land Use 9. Population 10. Employment 11. Recreation and Green Space 12. Development Aesthetics 13. Health Comments 14. Education 15. Noise and Light 16. General Comments
A summary of the key findings within each theme is provided below.
Knowledge of the Proposed Development 1. About half the respondents indicated that they were unaware of the proposed development.
2. Those who had knowledge of the development have been involved in the planning process for the proposed development, had become aware of the proposed development through a party closer to the development or had read press releases.
Page 13 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
The Consultation Process Those interviewed indicated an interest in the proposed project from a number of different standpoints.
1. Some are interested in the impact of the project on Hamilton City and more generally on the Waikato Region.
2. Others are more interested in how the proposed development might impact on their organisation and the people who they catered for.
3. Most of those interviewed indicated that they are keen to be involved in the consultation process.
4. They indicated that their involvement would help them in their planning for the future. Several indicated that it would be important for there to be robust consultation with the surrounding community and organisations that operated within the community.
5. Other respondents asked what format the consultation process would take and how they could become involved in this process.
6. Some indicated that they would be happy to be involved in the dissemination of information on behalf of the proposed projects proponents. It is suggested that schools, sports, community and church groups could provide a way to provide information to the local community.
7. Those groups involved in planning for the community and nearby communities indicated that it would be good to develop a comprehensive public relations programme rather than being faced with a big surprise at the end.
8. It is suggested that the development of a website and public meetings might also be a useful way for the projects proponents to reach the local and wider community.
General Land Use 1. The question raised by a number of respondents was what is the timeframe for the proposed development?
2. Questions were asked whether the project was likely to be a staged or full development.
3. Respondents indicated that it would be important to consider the overall land use and the infrastructural needs to support the proposed land use. Any land use needs to be based on evidence based negotiation and evidence based consideration needs to be made for the infrastructural needs to support the proposed land uses.
Page 14 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
4. The reality for some was that present land use was not likely to be able to be sustained so close to the city in the long term.
Residential When asked about the possible impacts on their organisations, resulting from the proposed development, a number of respondents had a range of comments to make relating the proposed residential development at the northern end of the “Ruakura Estate”. These questions focused on the type of housing to be built, the standard of housing to be built and the affordability of the housing.
1. Respondents were concerned about the type of community that the developers were trying to achieve around the housing development.
2. Respondents indicated the importance of mixed family types in the residential area. That is family units such as single parent families, families with children, migrant families and older families.
3. Other respondents questioned the ability for Hamilton to have housing developments on four fronts given that the present emphasis is being placed on residential developments at Peacockes Road, Rotokauri and Rototuna.
4. Respondents also emphasised the importance of open public spaces, and both vehicular and pedestrian access for residents to different parts of the residential development.
5. Several respondents mentioned the impact of the proposed development on the values of existing residential developments.
6. Some expressed that it was important that the subdivision considered access for service vehicles such as rubbish collection and emergency services.
7. Consideration also needs to be made for the potable water demands of the residential and industrial areas.
8. A respondent suggested that some form of rainwater harvesting might be appropriate for use in the industrial areas and as back up in the residential areas.
Transport A range of comments were made in relation to the potential increases in transport volumes that might result from the proposed development.
1. Several indicated that without the Ring Road and Expressway in place it may be difficult for the project to proceed.
Page 15 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
2. It was recognised however, that the Expressway was likely to help to reduce the through city movement of traffic. 3. Without the complete Ring Road there could be increases in the volume of traffic using the present main arterial route-ways. 4. There may also be increased traffic volumes on Silverdale and Knighton Roads if the Ring Road was not completed. 5. For some of the organisations presently occupying part of the proposed development site, they expressed there could be difficulties in terms of access to and from their sites. 6. There is also a call for the development to consider the provision of pedestrian and cycle ways connecting throughout the development as well as linking the Ruakura Campus and Innovation Park with the University of Waikato. 7. It was suggested that it would be important to consider how residents in the new residential development and Fairview Downs would be able to cross the Ring Road in a safe and timely manner. 8. With the expected increases in traffic volumes, consideration needs to be given to cross town movements for workers accessing the site and those working in industries allied with the site. At present there are three main cross city roads at Cobham Drive, Boundary Road and Wairere Drive. The completion of the Ring Road will be a major factor in taking pressure off the now congested central connector at Boundary Road. 9. School students access a range of different schools in the region from many different parts of the city and the region. Given what could be increased traffic volumes coming into the area consideration may need to be given to realigning public transport networks to meet these changing demands. 10. With the development that is proposed it is suggested that a dedicated interchange on the Expressway may be a critical element to ensure that the proposed development site is not serviced by the Ring Road and present arterial routes which are already busy. 11. Any movement of the present proposed interchanges may require road changes to other corridors. These changes could have flow on effects throughout the network. 12. Any staging of the port may require the relocation of Ruakura Road. 13. A number of schools indicated a concern about the large volumes of traffic passing their schools as well as the increase of travel times that might occur if there were increased volumes of traffic. 14. Consideration may need to be given to the potentially increased traffic volumes in the development phase and how the present network will deal with these as well as the changing volumes that might occur when the project is operational. Whether in fact there
Page 16 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
will be increased volumes of traffic will be evidenced by the traffic modelling that is presently taking place. 15. Even though the Ring Road will cross over the Eastern railway link, if there are increases in train numbers, train lengths or both, issues of stacking are likely to occur at the Peachgrove Road and Grey Street level crossings. This has the potential to cause considerable delays for vehicular traffic particularly if train lengths mean that motorists will need to wait extended periods of time for a train to pass. 16. Potentially increasing traffic volumes may also impact on response times for emergency services. 17. With a suggested transport centre aligned to the “Main Street” at the southern end of the proposed development, there may be similar issues to those faced by the central transport centre. 18. There are also potential impacts on the road networks with larger truck sizes and larger numbers within the region. 19. The development of the project has major cost implications that cannot be understood until transport and land use modelling is complete. 20. Access for health service providers will be important. 21. There is a need to plan for safe routes for children to get to school. 22. Public transport will need to be such that people choose that for across town movements rather than deciding to use private vehicles. 23. Intra-city transport planning will need to be a high priority. 24. There is a need to ensure that the proposed development does not compromise regional transport planning systems.
Infrastructure There are number of respondents who indicated that the proposed development would bring with it a number of demands in terms of infrastructural developments to support the development.
1. The full development is likely to require considerable infrastructural developments.
2. Access and roading design will be important for the proposed development.
3. It is likely that there will only be infrastructure developed to support one or two inland ports. There will need to be decisions made as to which of the several proposed developments are likely to receive the funding for infrastructural support.
Page 17 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
Commercial 1. A number of respondents indicated that it is important to have a range of neighbourhood shopping facilities close to the proposed residential area. These might include supermarkets and stores supporting everyday consumer requirements rather than supporting a large number of chain store type operations.
Industrial Land Use Respondents shared a number of views in relation to the proposed land use types.
1. A number were surprised by the size of the proposed development and the influence that it might have on present land use patterns within the city. 2. The possible movement of industry from other parts of the city to the new development could have positive and negative outcomes. 3. School pathway programmes could benefit from the industries locating in the proposed development area. 4. How might the proposed development relate to the city’s planned Greenfield industrial developments? 5. There is considerable cost in the lead infrastructure for such projects. How much of the present industrial land use allocation will be used up by the time the proposed development comes on stream? 6. The industrial area will provide significant economic growth for the city and region. 7. There needs to be careful choice of land use types and tenants. 8. The freight and logistics hub is in an ideal location in relation to the railway network and the Ports of Auckland and the Port of Tauranga. 9. Any development should be closely linked to the activities of the Hamilton Airport and related industrial development. 10. Overall any land use considerations should be based on the “Future Proof” plan which identifies growth areas and protects strategic nodes.
Population Respondents indicated that there are a number of potential impacts on the present city population and the population that might eventuate as a result of the development.
1. Will the development result in population growth or population shift?
2. Are there likely to be any displacements as a result of the development?
3. There may be a greater need for social services that are provided by churches.
Page 18 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
4. The development provides the opportunity to develop a better socio economic base in the new residential area and neighbouring Fairview Downs.
5. The proposed development is adjacent to an area of quite high social and economic deprivation. There needs to be some integration between the existing community of Porritt, Insoll, Claudelands, Enderley and Peachgrove.
6. If it brings a population base that is going to live and work around here they bring their own problems of burglary and domestic violence. They become victims and offenders.
Employment Most respondents indicated that the proposed development has the potential to have a positive impact on employment locally and regionally. The project has the potential to generate employment during the build and operational phases.
1. There will need to be infrastructure and transport systems to match this growth.
2. The question is however, what sorts of jobs is this going to create?
3. What skill sets will be required to match the proposed development?
4. The project could generate a considerable number of part-time jobs, particularly for students.
5. With a growing number of skilled migrant workers there would be a ready work force for the industrial area. There could be the opportunity to develop training facilities on site and associated employment opportunities.
6. The proposed project may provide employment links between TGH and local Māori. A respondent indicated that there is the opportunity for dedicated funding to be provided to support a project of this size. This funding is likely to continue on an on-going basis.
Recreation and Green Space There was a general concern from a large number of respondents for the provision of recreation and green space areas associated with the proposed development.
1. Respondents asked whether provision has been made for sport, recreation and community facilities associated with the residential and industrial development.
2. The present provisions for sport are in close proximity but there are considerable roadways to cross. Any provisions for green space should consider access, personal security, personal safety and proximity to the proposed residential development.
Page 19 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
3. Respondents asked whether consideration had been given to a dual cycle and walkway throughout the length of the development.
Development Aesthetics A number of respondents called for consideration to be given to the aesthetic appeal of the residential and industrial developments.
1. The greenfields development is seen as an opportunity to be informed by very good urban design principles.
2. These are covered in the Hamilton City Vista document and the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design principles identified by the Ministry of Justice.
Health Comments The health of the population is identified as an area that needed to be considered.
1. Respondents raised questions about the provision of community health, medical facilities, and access to medical facilities.
2. Unless the population is to increase by 500,000 hospital services would be intensified on the present site.
3. Health providers suggested the need to consider access for community health services and emergency services.
4. How would residents in the new residential development access the services provided at Waikato hospital? Would transport systems allow them easy access?
5. The east side of Hamilton seems to be well serviced by medical centres and pharmacies.
6. The proposed development could see increased Emergency Department admissions from industrial accidents.
7. Emergency services indicated that the proposed development might hasten the establishment of a station on the south east side of the city.
Education Comments Respondents indicated that the proposed project is likely to impact on education providers at different levels.
1. In a number of cases it is indicated that the proposed development could impact on the rolls of nearby schools. Much however will depend on the make-up of the population in the new residential area.
Page 20 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
2. The proposed development will also call for forecasting about future demands for education services in the development area and surrounding areas. This will ensure that they are able to plan for the provision of future education facilities.
3. It is likely that present school facilities would need to be at capacity before any future provision is considered.
4. Zoning would need to be carefully considered for schools in the immediate and surrounding areas.
5. Several schools in the area surrounding the proposed development indicated that it would be difficult to accommodate more students with their present facilities. The proposed development could hasten the development of the new high school in Hamilton North.
6. The proposed development could provide more opportunities for work experience and field trips. Respondents indicated that they would like to be informed throughout the process. The total schooling network needs to be considered when such a development is proposed.
Noise and Light 1. A number of respondents talked about the impact of the noise and lighting arising as a result of the proposed development.
2. It is noted however, that aspects of noise reduction are part of the resource consent process.
General Comments 1. The potential impacts of the project are very encouraging. It is good for the city and the region.
2. A number of respondents indicated that it would be good if the project could be staged over a long period with residential development planned to coincide with industrial development.
3. Questions repeated regularly:
a) who would be paying for what in the development?
b) how the proposed development would fit into the overall plans for the city?
c) Can we afford to duplicate some of the activities that we presently have?
d) What are the timeframes for the proposed development?
e) Can the city sustain the development?
4. A full development might have very different impacts to a staged development.
Page 21 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
5. There is no doubting that the site has strategic advantage. The location at the mid-point between Tauranga and Auckland is very advantageous.
6. We need the continued strength of Innovation Park and AgResearch.
7. Some suggested the need to stick with the details set out in “Future Proof”.
8. The impact of the proposed development could be quite significant, both in terms of a city perspective, but also in terms of a sub-regional perspective.
9. The project will boost economic growth.
10. Great for business in the region and provide easier access to markets.
11. This will add more to regional GDP as businesses move into the area.
Discussion
Knowledge of the Proposed Development About 50% of the respondents had indicated that they were unaware of the project. Of those who were aware, they had either read it through press releases had heard through a party closer to the development or were closely involved for the planning process for the development. Once they had had the details of the proposed project explained, a number could see benefits of the project to the local economy and the region and were interested in learning about the proposed development. Some of this interest was personal, whilst others were interested on behalf of the organisation that they worked for. A number indicated that they would be willing to help with the dissemination of information.
Recommendations 1. It is recommended that TGH develops a considered consultation process. Initially it will be important for them to consider what information they wish to share and with whom.
2. Once this decision has been made TGH should develop a comprehensive public relations programme to parallel the proposed development.
General Land Use Whilst a number of the respondents could see the potential in the proposed development, they wanted to know whether the development was likely to be a full development or staged over time. Aligned to this a number of respondents wanted to know what would be located in the different land use zones and what infrastructural developments would be necessary to support the proposed development.
Page 22 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
Recommendations 1. It is suggested that TGH highlight the issues identified above for consideration in the District Plan Review.
2. TGH then need to consider how they will provide information to the public and business organisations relating to the land use and the infrastructural needs of the proposed development.
Residential Whilst the residential development was seen by the majority as something that complemented the planned industrial, logistics area and transport hub, a number of respondents asked questions about what type and standard of housing would be built and whether the housing was anticipated to be owner occupied or rental stock. Questions were also asked about what the mix of family types might be in the new development. There was also some concern shown over the impact that the proposed residential development might have on the future of residential developments that have already been planned for the city.
Recommendations 1. It is recommended that TGH clearly identify the type of housing to be developed and estimates of the proportions proposed to be rental versus owner occupied.
It may be important for TGH to investigate the timing of completion of the planned city residential developments .
Transport Several respondents questioned the ability of the development to proceed without the completion of the Ring Road and Expressway. Given that the Ring Road and Expressway are both likely to take significant volumes of any predicted traffic increases from the Inland Port and Industrial activity, it will be important not to overlook any potential cross city movements which may develop as a result of the proposed development. Respondents questioned whether the proposed development was likely to impact train volumes and lengths. It was suggested that both the increases in cross city vehicular movement and increased train numbers may pose problems for emergency services in terms of response times.
Recommendations 1. That consideration be given to the impacts of the proposed project on transport movement with or without the Ring Road and Expressway completed and have regard for changes in cross town traffic movements that might result from the proposed development.
Page 23 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
2. Consider how potential increases in traffic and train volumes might add to the already high levels of congestion, particularly peak hour that exist on Peachgrove Road, Grey Street and Five Cross Roads and consider the future of the Peachgrove Road and Grey Street level crossings.
Infrastructure The research completed indicated that there are several groups proposing inland ports similar to that being proposed at “Ruakura Estate”.
Recommendations 1. The development will require TGH to work in consultation with various authorities and it is important that a clear vision can be rolled out early to increase public awareness.
Commercial It was considered it will be important to have a range of essential commercial activities associated with the residential, industrial, inland port and logistics development and that the choice of tenant types will be critical.
Recommendation 1. It will be important that TGH anticipate the potential impact on retail facilities in close proximity and promote the new services in a positive manner.
Industrial Overall the inland port, freight and logistics hub and land is ideally located to take advantage of its central location between the Ports of Auckland and Port of Tauranga. The associated activities could have a positive impact on the region. Some respondents were sometimes surprised by the size of the proposed industrial area, whilst others had some concern as to the impact that such a development might have on previously designated industrial areas and the infrastructural costs likely to be associated with the proposed development.
Recommendations 1. As part of the PR campaign TGH should consider providing detail to the general public in relation to the extent of the development and the types of activities likely to be carried out in the industrial area.
Population The impact of the proposed development in population terms is likely to be dependent on whether the proposed development leads to population growth or population shift. The type of community
Page 24 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
that develops around the new residential area and its integration with new residential areas will also be important.
Recommendations 1. It will be important for TGH to develop a residential community that is able to integrate effectively with existing residential areas.
2. It will be important for TGH to consider the types of housing and family unit that become part of the residential development.
3. TGH needs to ensure that the “Ruakura Estate” develops a range of commercial and community facilities that support those in the residential and industrial areas. These might include church community facilities and sports and recreation space.
Employment It was generally considered that the proposed development had the potential to add significantly to employment opportunities in the area.
Recommendations 1. TGH work closely with employment agencies such as Work and Income to ensure they are able to identify the types of skills that the proposed development will have.
2. Work and Income have the ability to designate funding to the skill development for such projects. As such TGH could benefit greatly from these opportunities.
Recreation and Green Space It was considered that with the planned residential, industrial, logistics and inland port that there will need to be opportunity given for the provision of green space and recreation facilities.
Recommendations 1. That TGH consider the inclusion of sports and community facilities to be associated with the proposed development.
2. TGH should also consider the provision of cycle and walkways connecting the different parts of the development.
Development Aesthetics As with any new greenfield development TGH has the opportunity to apply good urban design principles to the project. Some concerns were expressed about the extent to which eyesores will be created, e.g. a stack of containers visible from University Buildings. Principles of good design are able to enhance the aesthetic appeal of the development, ensuring that as a minimum it is in
Page 25 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
keeping with the design standards already in place for similar land use zonings. A concern that crime might flourish around such a development was expressed by some neighbours. Adopting high principles of design will help to reduce potential crime and property damage which is sometimes a feature of new developments.
Recommendations 1. It is recommended that TGH publicise the intentions with respect to design and the desire to build a showcase development
2. It is recommended that TGH should consider overtly observing CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) principles that have been developed by the Ministry of Justice.
3. The potentially adverse aesthetic affects between intensive and less intensive use areas need to be ameliorated through choice of internal boundaries and careful landscaping.
Health Whilst respondents indicated that there are existing facilities that are able to provide for the healthcare needs of those working in the proposed “Ruakura Estate” there are several areas that need to be considered in relation to the provision of these services.
Recommendations 1. Transport networks will need to be able to ensure that community health care providers are able to provide their services to the proposed residential and industrial areas in a timely fashion.
2. Transport networks need to be developed in a manner that ensures that emergency service response times are not negatively impacted.
3. Intra city transport networks and modes of transport will need to be considered so that those requiring access to Waikato Hospital have a range of transport options.
Education It was suggested that the schools in the immediate area could accommodate growth in student numbers resulting from the proposed development at least in the short and medium timeframe.
Recommendation 1. It is recommended that TGH keep a close liaison with the Ministry of Education as the planning for the development proceeds. This will ensure the Ministry of Education is able to plan for the entire education network into the future.
Page 26 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
Noise and Light It was considered by some that there might be an impact in terms of the levels of noise, dust, vibration and light resulting from the proposed development. Some of these potential impacts were thought likely to occur during the development stage whilst others are more likely to occur as the project becomes operational. Whilst such potential impacts are able to be monitored there is the possibility that they will change through different stages of the development.
Recommendation 1. It is recommended that TGH is in a position to assure interested parties that appropriate monitoring and amelioration measures will be in place to protect the community from undue noise and light pollution.
2. It is recommended that TGH should ensure they are meeting all requirements for resource consent and planning requirements in respect of noise and light, throughout the project, so as to be able to offer an assurance to any concerned parties.
General Comments It was suggested by a number of respondents that the project was likely to have positive impacts on the city and the region. Some suggested that such a development would need to be staged and completed over a long timeframe. A number were concerned about how the proposed development would fit within the overall “Future Proof” plan for the city. Questions were also asked as to who might be responsible for any expenditure directly or indirectly related to the development. It was also considered important that any such development retained the strengths of AgResearch and Innovation Park.
Recommendations 1. TGH needs to retain is close relationship with H.C.C. working together to ensure that both groups are clear about their future plans for development.
2. TGH needs to take a collaborative approach to ensure that all stakeholders are kept informed throughout the planning and development process.
Page 27 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
Appendices:
Appendix One: SIA Questions
GROUPING #1 Voluntary Organisations: Salvation Army
1. Are you aware of the proposed Ruakura Estate Development by Tainui Group Limited (TGH) and Chedworth Properties Ltd (CPL)? (If not the following sheet and photographs will provide you with details of the extent of the proposed project).
2. Do you consider the development is likely to impact on your organisation? (Y/N)
3. What (if any) impacts do you consider the proposed development might have on the local community?
4. In what ways (if any) do you consider the proposed development is likely to benefit your organisation?
5. What pressures do you consider the proposed development might place on your organisation?
6. Which of the present activities that your organisation is involved in do you consider will be needed as a result of the proposed development?
7. What opportunities do you consider the proposed development might create for your organisation?
8. Are the demands on your organisation likely to be greater as a result of the development? (Y/N)
9. What extra demands do you consider are likely to be placed on your organsaition as a result of the proposed development?
Page 28 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
GROUPING #4 Primary Education Providers: Southwell School; Fairfield Primary; Insoll Avenue School
1. Are you aware of the proposed Ruakura Estate Development by Tainui Group Limited (TGH) and Chedworth Properties Ltd (CPL)? (If not the following sheet will provide you with details of the extent of the proposed project). 2. Do you consider the proposed development is likely to impact on your organisation (Y/N) ? 3. In what ways might you envisage the proposed development impacting on your organisation? 4. Does your school have the ability to absorb the new population which will arrive in the area as a result of the proposed development? 5. What benefits do you consider the proposed development on the local community and your school? 6. Do you consider that there might be any pressures on your school resulting from the proposed development? 7. Is your organisation likely to be affected by such pressures? 8. How might your school deal with these pressures? 9. How might the proposed development impact on the present activities that your organisation is involved in? 10. Do you consider that the proposed development will impact on the resources that you presently have available to the community? 11. What opportunities do you consider the proposed development might create for your organisation? 12. What if any extra demands do you consider are likely to be placed on your organisation as a result of the proposed development? 13. What do you consider that the project developers could do to mitigate any potential problems resulting from the project?
Page 29 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
GROUPING #5 Secondary Education Providers: Fairfield College; Hillcrest High School; Hamilton Boys High School; St Paul’s Collegiate
1. Are you aware of the proposed Ruakura Estate Development by Tainui Group Limited (TGH) and Chedworth Properties Ltd (CPL)? (If not the following sheet will provide you with details of the extent of the proposed project).
2. Do you consider the proposed development is likely to impact on your organisation (Y/N)?
3. In what ways might you envisage the proposed development impacting on your organisation?
4. Does your school have the ability to absorb the new population which will arrive in the area as a result of the proposed development?
5. What benefits do you consider the proposed development on the local community and your school?
6. Do you consider that there might be any pressures on your school resulting from the proposed development?
7. Is your organisation likely to be affected by such pressures?
8. How might your school deal with these pressures?
9. How might the proposed development impact on the present activities that your organisation is involved in?
10. Do you consider that the proposed development will impact on the resources that you presently have available to the community?
11. What opportunities do you consider the proposed development might create for your organisation?
12. Do you consider that the demands on your organisation are likely to be greater as a result of the development?
13. What if any extra demands do you consider are likely to be placed on your organisation as a result of the proposed development?
14. What do you consider that the project developers could do to mitigate any potential problems resulting from the project?
Page 30 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
GROUPING #6 Central Government Organisations: NZ Police, Ministry of Education
1. Are you aware of the proposed Ruakura Estate Development by Tainui Group Limited (TGH) and Chedworth Properties Ltd (CPL)? (If not the following sheet will provide you with details of the extent of the proposed project).
2. Do you consider the proposed development is likely to impact on your organisation (Y/N)?
3. Which other organisations will you need to align yourselves with if such a development is to go ahead?
4. What sort of alignments do you consider will be necessary?
5. Does your organisation have the ability to absorb the impacts of the new population which will arrive in the area as a result of the proposed development?
6. If you consider that such a development is likely to pose difficulties or require adjustments to the way you operate what might these be?
7. What do you consider might be the benefits of the proposed development on the local community?
8. Are there advantages of such a development for your organisation?
9. Do you consider that there might be any impacts on your organisation resulting from the proposed development? What might these be?
10. Is your organisation likely to be affected by such impacts? How might you deal with these impacts?
11. How might the proposed development impact on the present activities that your organisation is involved in?
12. Do you consider that the proposed development will impact on the resources that you presently have available to the community?
13. How might your organisation plan to deal with the increased population and activity resulting from the development?
14. What if any extra demands do you consider are likely to be placed on your organisation as a result of the proposed development?
15. If you consider that there are any potential pressures as a result of the project?
16. What do you consider that the project developers could do to lessen these pressures?
Page 31 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
GROUPING #8 Central Government Organisations: NZ Transport Agency
1. Are you aware of the proposed Ruakura Estate Development by Tainui Group Limited (TGH) and Chedworth Properties Ltd (CPL)? (If not the following sheet will provide you with details of the extent of the proposed project). 2. What impact do you consider the proposed development is likely to have on your organisation? 3. Which other organisations will you need to align yourselves with if such a development is to go ahead? 4. What sort of alignments do you consider will be necessary? 5. What has your organisation done to absorb the impacts of the new population which will arrive in the area as a result of the proposed development? 6. If you consider that such a development is likely to pose difficulties for your organisation or require adjustments to the way you operate, what might these be? 7. What level of coordination do you consider will be necessary between your organisation and the projects proponents? 8. How might a coordinated approach lessen any pressures resulting from the project? 9. What do you consider might be the benefits of the proposed development on the Waikato; Hamilton and the local community? 10. Are there advantages of such a development for your organisation? 11. Do you consider that there might be any impacts on your organisation resulting from the proposed development? 12. What might these impacts be? 13. In what ways is your organisation likely to be affected by such impacts? 14. How might you deal with these impacts? 15. How might the proposed development impact on the present activities that your organisation is involved in? 16. Do you consider that the proposed development will impact on the resources that you presently have available to the community? 17. How might your organisation plan to deal with the increased population and activity resulting from the development? 18. What if any extra demands do you consider are likely to be placed on your organisation as a result of the proposed development? 19. If you consider that there are any potential pressures as a result of the project, what do you consider that the project developers could do to lessen them?
Page 32 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
GROUPING #9 Central Government Organisations: Work and Income New Zealand
1. Are you aware of the proposed Ruakura Estate Development by Tainui Group Limited (TGH) and Chedworth Properties Ltd (CPL)? (If not the following sheet will provide you with details of the extent of the proposed project).
2. What impact do you consider the proposed development will have on your organisation?
3. Does your organisation have the ability to absorb the extra work which may result from the proposed development?
4. If you consider that such a development is likely to require adjustments to the levels of service that you provide what adjustments might need to be made?
5. What if any extra demands do you consider are likely to be placed on your organsisation as a result of the proposed development?
6. How might your organisation plan to deal with the increased activity resulting from the development?
7. What do you consider might be the benefits of the proposed development on the Waikato; Hamilton and the local community?
8. Do you consider that are likely to be any pressures on your organisation as a result of the proposed development? What might these be?
9. Is your organisation likely to be affected by such pressures?
10. If you consider that there are any potential pressures likely to arise as a result of the project, what do you consider that the project developers could do to lessen these pressures?
Page 33 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
GROUPING #11 Central Government Organisations: Kiwi Rail
1. Are you aware of the proposed Ruakura Estate Development by Tainui Group Limited (TGH) and Chedworth Properties Ltd (CPL)? (If not the following sheet will provide you with details of the extent of the proposed project).
2. What impact do you consider the proposed development will have on your organisation?
3. What level of coordination do you consider will be necessary between your organisation the projects proponents, and other organisations?
4. How might a coordinated approach lessen any pressures which may result from such a project?
5. What if any extra demands do you consider are likely to be placed on your organsisation as a result of the proposed development?
6. How might your organisation plan to deal with the increased activity resulting from the development?
7. What do you consider might be the benefits of the proposed development on the Waikato; Hamilton and the local community?
8. Are there advantages of such a development for your organisation?
9. What might these advantages be?
10. Do you consider that are likely to be any pressures on your organisation and other organisations as a result of the proposed development?
11. What might these pressures be?
12. Is your organisation likely to be affected by such pressures?
13. How might you deal with these impacts?
14. If you consider that there are potential pressures likely to arise as a result of the project, what do you consider that the project developers could do to lessen these?
Page 34 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
GROUPING #12 Regional Government Organisations: Waikato Regional Council
1. Are you aware of the proposed Ruakura Estate Development by Tainui Group Limited (TGH) and Chedworth Properties Ltd (CPL)? (If not the following sheet will provide you with details of the extent of the proposed project).
2. Do you consider your organisation is likely to be impacted upon by the proposed development?
3. In what ways might your organisation be impacted upon?
4. Does your organisation have the ability to absorb the potential extra work which is likely to result from the proposed development?
5. If you consider that such a development is likely to require adjustments to the way you operate what adjustments might need to be made?
6. What if any extra demands do you consider are likely to be placed on your organsisation as a result of the proposed development?
7. How might your organisation plan to deal with the increased activity resulting from the development?
8. What do you consider might be the benefits of the proposed development on the Waikato; Hamilton and the local community?
9. Are there advantages of such a development for your organisation? What might these be?
10. Do you consider that there are likely to be any pressures on your organisation as a result of the proposed development? What might these be?
11. Is your organisation likely to be affected by such pressures?
12. How might you deal with these pressures?
13. If you consider that there potential potential pressures likely to arise as a result of the project, what do you consider that the project developers could do to lessen these?
Page 35 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
GROUPING #13 Local Government Organisations: Hamilton City Council
1. Are you aware of the proposed Ruakura Estate Development by Tainui Group Limited (TGH) and Chedworth Properties Ltd (CPL)? (If not the following sheet will provide you with details of the extent of the proposed project).
2. What changes to the size and structure of the population of Hamilton are likely to occur as a result from the development?
3. How are these likely to impact on certain groups and things such as access to housing?
4. What changes in landuse patterns are likely to result from the development?
5. How many zone changes are likely to be required as a result of the development?
6. Who is likely to be affected by these changes?
7. What employment opportunities do you consider are likely to result from the proposed development?
8. What pressures do you consider the proposed development will put on present and future housing stocks?
9. What community infrastructure do you consider will be necessary to accompany the proposed development?
10. Whose responsibility will it be to provide these facilities?
11. Do you consider that the proposed development is likely to have an impact on property values in the area? If so what impacts are there likely to be?
12. What impact do you consider the proposed development will have on the present social networks in the area?
13. Are you able to identify any potential conflicts between the present community and the community that may result from the proposed development?
14. What impact do you consider the proposed development will have on your organisation?
15. Does your organisation have the ability to absorb the extra work which is might result from the proposed development?
16. If you consider that such a development is likely to require adjustments to the way you operate what adjustments might need to be made?
Page 36 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
17. What if any extra demands do you consider are likely to be placed on your organsisation as a result of the proposed development?
18. How might your organisation plan to deal with the increased activity resulting from the development?
19. What do you consider might be the benefits of the proposed development on the Waikato; Hamilton and the local community?
20. Are there advantages of such a development for your organisation?
21. What might these be?
22. Do you consider that there are likely to be pressures on your organisation as a result of the proposed development? What might these be?
23. Is your organisation likely to be affected by such pressures?
24. How might you deal with these pressures?
25. If you consider that there are any potential pressures which are likely to result from the project, what do you consider that the project developers could do to lessen these?
26. What role do you consider your organisation will play as a coordinator between the project developers and other organisations affected by the proposed development?
Page 37 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
GROUPING #15 Central Government Health Care Providers: Waikato District Health Board
1. Are you aware of the proposed Ruakura Estate Development by Tainui Group Limited (TGH) and Chedworth Properties Ltd (CPL)? (If not the following sheet will provide you with details of the extent of the proposed project).
2. Do you consider the proposed development is likely to impact on your organisation?
3. Does your organisation have the ability to absorb the extra medical service requirements which are likely to result from the proposed development?
4. Do you consider that such a development is likely to require adjustments to the way you operate?
5. If so what adjustments might need to be made?
6. What if any extra demands do you consider are likely to be placed on your organsisation as a result of the proposed development?
7. How might your organisation plan to deal with the potential increase in activity resulting from the development?
8. Are there advantages of such a development for your organisation?
9. What might these advantages be?
10. Do you consider that are there are likely to be any pressures on your organisation resulting from the proposed development?
11. Is your organisation likely to be affected by such pressures?
12. How might you deal with these pressures?
13. If you consider that there are any potential pressures likely to occur as a result of the project, what do you consider that the project developers could do to lessen these?
Page 38 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
GROUPING #16 Local Health Care Providers: Radius Health Care
1. Are you aware of the proposed Ruakura Estate Development by Tainui Group Limited (TGH) and Chedworth Properties Ltd (CPL)? (If not the following sheet will provide you with details of the extent of the proposed project).
2. What impact do you consider the proposed development will have on your organisation?
3. Does your organisation have the ability to absorb the extra medical service requirements which are likely to result from the proposed development?
4. Are you well placed to take on new patients on a permanent or casual basis if necessary?
5. Do you consider that such a development is likely to require adjustments to the way you operate?
6. If so what adjustments might need to be made?
7. What if any extra demands do you consider are likely to be placed on your organisation as a result of the proposed development?
8. Are there advantages of such a development for your organisation?
9. What might these advantages be?
10. Do you consider that are there are likely to be any pressures on your organisation as a result from the proposed development?
11. What might these pressures be?
12. Is your organisation likely to be affected by such pressures?
13. How might you deal with these impacts?
14. If you consider that there are any potential negative pressures on your organisation as a result of the project, what do you consider that the project developers could do to lessen these impacts?
Page 39 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
GROUPING #17 Regional Service Providers: New Zealand Fire Service and St John Central
1. Are you of the proposed Ruakura Estate Development by Tainui Group Limited (TGH) and Chedworth Properties Ltd (CPL)? (If not the following sheet will provide you with details of the extent of the proposed project).
2. Do you consider the proposed development is likely to have an impact on your organisation?
3. What sort of impact might the project have on your organisation?
4. Given that the development involves a considerable amount of light industrial, residential and commercial activity, do you believe that your organisation has the ability to absorb the extra service requirements which are likely to result from the proposed development?
5. Do you consider that such a development is likely to require adjustments to the way you operate? If so what adjustments might need to be made?
6. What if any extra demands do you consider are likely to be placed on your organisation as a result of the proposed development?
7. How might your organisation plan to deal with any increased activity resulting from the development?
8. Are there advantages of such a development for your organisation?
9. What might these advantages be?
10. Do you consider that are there are likely to be any pressures on your organisation resulting from the proposed development?
11. What might these pressures be?
12. Is your organisation likely to be affected by such pressures?
13. How might you deal with these pressures?
14. If you consider that there are any potential pressures which might occur as a result of the project, what do you consider that the project developers could do to lessen these?
Page 40 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
GROUPING #18 Research Facilities: AgResearch and Innovation Park
1. Are you aware of the proposed Ruakura Estate Development by Tainui Group Limited (TGH) and Chedworth Properties Ltd (CPL)? (If not the following sheet will provide you with details of the extent of the proposed project).
2. Do you consider the proposed development is likely to impact on your organisation?
3. Does your organisation have the ability to take advantage of the opportunities provided by the proposed development?
4. What changes do you consider are likely to occur within your organisation as a result of the proposed development?
5. What adjustments do you consider that you might need to make to take advantage of the opportunities that the project provides?
6. In what ways do you consider you might be able to work closely with companies involved in the proposed development?
7. What if any extra demands do you consider are likely to be placed on your organsisation as a result of the proposed development?
8. How might your organisation plan to deal with the increased activity resulting from the development?
9. Are there advantages of such a development for your organisation? What might these be?
10. Do you consider that are there are likely to be any pressures on your organisation as a result of the proposed development?
11. What might these pressures be?
12. Is your organisation likely to be affected by such pressures?
13. How might you deal with these pressures?
14. If you consider that there are any potential pressures likely to occur as a result of the project, what do you consider that the project developers could do to lessen these?
Page 41 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
GROUPING #22 Church Organisations: The Anglican Diocese
1. Are you aware of the proposed Ruakura Estate Development by Tainui Group Limited (TGH) and Chedworth Properties Ltd (CPL)? (If not the following sheet will provide you with details of the extent of the proposed project).
2. Do you consider the proposed development is likely to impact on your organisation?
3. If so, what impacts might there be?
4. Do you consider that such a development is likely to require adjustments to the way you operate?
5. What adjustments might need to be made?
6. What if any extra demands do you consider are likely to be placed on your organsisation as a result of the proposed development?
7. How might your organisation plan to deal with the increased demands resulting from the development?
8. What do you consider might be the potential benefits of the proposed development on the Waikato; Hamilton and the local community?
9. Are there advantages of such a development for your organisation?
10. What might these advantages be?
11. Do you consider that are likely to be any pressures on your organisation as a result of the proposed development?
12. What might these pressures be?
13. How might you deal with these pressures?
If you consider that there are any potential pressures resulting from the project, what do you consider that the project developers could do to lessen these?
Page 42 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
GROUPING # 23 Local Business Organisations: Opportunity Hamilton, Waikato Chamber of Commerce
1. Are you aware of the proposed Ruakura Estate Development by Tainui Group Limited (TGH) and Chedworth Properties Ltd (CPL)? (If not the following sheet will provide you with details of the extent of the proposed project). 2. Do you consider the proposed development is likely to impact on your organisation (Y/N)? 3. Which other organisations will you need to align yourselves with if such a development is to go ahead? 4. What sort of alignments do you consider will be necessary? 5. Does your organisation have the ability to absorb the impacts of the new population which will arrive in the area as a result of the proposed development? 6. If you consider that such a development is likely to pose difficulties or require adjustments to the way you operate what might these be? 7. What do you consider might be the benefits of the proposed development on the local community? 8. Are there advantages of such a development for your organisation? 9. Do you consider that there might be any impacts on your organisation resulting from the proposed development? What might these be? 10. Is your organisation likely to be affected by such impacts? How might you deal with these impacts? 11. How might the proposed development impact on the present activities that your organisation is involved in? 12. Do you consider that the proposed development will impact on the resources that you presently have available to the community? 13. How might your organisation plan to deal with the increased population and activity resulting from the development? 14. What if any extra demands do you consider are likely to be placed on your organisation as a result of the proposed development? 15. If you consider that there are any potential pressures as a result of the project? 16. What do you consider that the project developers could do to lessen these pressures?
Page 43 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
Appendix Two - Organisations contacted Organisation Hillcrest High School New Zealand Police Southwell School Opportunity Hamilton St Paul's Collegiate School Ministry of Education Waikato Regional Council St John Central NZ Fire Service Fairfied College NZTA Salvation Army Anglican Church Waikato Chamber of Commerce Fairfield Intermediate Waikato District Health Board Population Health Waikato District Health Board Population Health Population Health Peachgrove Intermediate Hamilton City Council Public Affairs Waikato District Health Board Hamilton and Rural Family Health Team Hamilton City Council Police Waikato District Health Board Radius Pharmacy Davies Corner Hamilton Boys' High School Work and Income New Zealand Radius Medical Centres Insoll Avenue Primary School Fairfield Primary School Ag Research Kiwi Rail Innovation Park
Page 44 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
References
Albrecht, S.L. and Thompson, J.G. (1988).”The place of attitudes and perceptions in SIA, Society and Natural Resources, 1, pp 69-80.
Becker, H.A. (1997) SIA: method and experience in Europe, North America and the developing world. UCL Press, London.
Becker, D.C., Harris, C.C., McLaughlin, W.J., and Nielsen, E.A., (2003). A Participatory approach to SIA: the interactive community forum. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23(3), pp.367-382.
Branch, K., Hooper, D.A., Thompson, J., and Creighton, J.C., (1984) Guide to social assessment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Burdge, R., and Vanclay, F. (1955). SIA. In F. Vanclay and D.A. Bronstein (Eds.) Environmental and SIA. (pp.31-65). Chichester, England: John Wiley.
Burdge, R.J. (1987). SIA Model and the Planning Process. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 7 (2), pp. 141–150.
Burdge, R.J. (1998). A Conceptual Approach to SIA. Social Ecology Press, Middleton, WI.
Burdge, R.J. (2004). The concepts, process and methods of SIA. Middleton, WI: The Social Ecology Press.
Carley, M.J. (1983). “A review of selected methods”, In. Finsterbusch, K., Llewellyn, L., And Wolf, C.P., (EDS.) SIA methods. Sage Publications, Beverley Hills, CA.
Chambers, R. (1997). Whose reality counts? Putting the last first. London: IT Publications.
Daniels, S.E., and G.B. Walker. (2001). Working through environmental conflict: The Collaborative Learning Approach. Westport CT: Praeger Publishers.
Diduck, A. (1999). Critical education in resource and environmental management: Learning and empowerment for a sustainable future. Journal of Environmental Management , 57, 85–97.
Finsterbusch, K., Llewellyn, L.G., and Wolf, C., (Eds. ). (1983). SIA methods Reading, MA, Sage Publications.
Force, J.E., and Williams, K.L. (1989). A profile of national forest planning participants Journal of Forestry, 87(1) p. 33-38.
Page 45 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
Friedmann, J. (1987) Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gismondi, M. (1997). “Sociology and environmental impact assessment”, Canadian Journal of Sociology, 22(4), pp 457-479.
Laird, F.N. (1993). “Participatory analysis, democracy and technological decision making”, Science, Technology and Human Values, 18(3), pp.341-361.
Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1993). The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 65, 959-974
Goldman , L. And Baum, S. (2000). Introduction. In L.R. Goldman (Ed.), Social Impact Analysis: An Applied Anthropology Manual (pp-1-31). Oxford/New York: Berg.
IAIA. (2003) International principles of SIA. Fargo, ND, USA: International Association for Impact Assessment (Special Publication Series No.2, May 2003) (pp1-8) retrieved from www.iaia.org
IOCGP (Inter-organisational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for SIA). (1994). Guidelines and Principles for SIA . Impact Assessment, 12(2): 107-52.
IOCGP. (2003) Principles and Guidelines for SIA in the USA. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21(3): 231-250.
Kaul, I. (1999). Introduction: Steps towards social progress in the new millennium. International Social Science Journal (Policy Options for Social Development), L1 (4): 425-36.
Lane, M.B., Ross, H., and Dale, A.P. (1997). “Social impact research: Integrating the technical, political, and planning paradigms”, Human Organisation, 56, pp. 302-310.
Machlis, G.E., Force, J.E., and Burch, J.R. Jnr (1997).The human ecosystem part 1: the human ecosystem as an organising concept in ecosystem management, Society and Natural Resources, 10, pp347-367.
Poisner, J. (1996). A civic republican perspective on the National Environmental Policy Act’s process for citizen participation. Environmental Law 26:53–94.
Roberts, R., (1995). Public involvement: from consultation to participation, In. Vanclay, F. and Bronstein, D (Eds.) Environmental and SIA, Wiley, Chichester, pp221-246.
Roche, C. (2009). Impact assessment for development agencies: Learning to value change. Oxford: Oxfam.
Page 46 of 47 TGH Social Impact Study
Rowe, G., and Frewer, L.J., Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. Science Technology Human Values, 2000 25: 3
Selznick, P. (1992). The moral commonwealth: Social theory and the promise of community. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Stasser, G., Kerr, N. L., & Davis, J. H. (1989). Influence processes and consensus models in decision- making groups. In P. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed., pp. 279–326). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Stasser, G., Stewart, D. D., & Wittenbaum, G. M. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 244–265.
Stasser, G., Taylor, L. A., and Hanna, C. (1989). Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of three- and six-person groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, pp. 67– 78.
Stolp A., Groen, W., Van Vliet, J., and Vanclay, F., (2002). Citizens values assessment: incorporating citizens’ value judgements in environmental impact assessment”, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 20(1), March, pp.11-23.
Taylor, N.C., Bryan, H.C., and Goodrich, C.G. (1995). Social Assessment: theory, process and techniques. (Taylor, Baines and Associates , Riccarton, New Zealand).
Vanclay, F. (1999) SIA. In J. Petts (Ed), International Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment Vol (1) Oxford : Blackwell Science.
Vanclay, F. (2002). “Conceptualising social impacts” Environment Impact Assessment Review, 22, 183-211.
Vanclay, F. (2002). SIA. In: Munn. Editor. Encyclopaedia of Global Environment Change, Vol (4), pp. 387-393.
Vanclay, F. (2006). Conceptual and Methodological Advances in SIA. In H.A. Becker and F. Vanclay (Eds.). The International Handbook of SIA: Conceptual and Methodological Advances. London: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Yankelovich, D. (1991). Coming to Public Judgement: making democracy work in a complex world. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, NY.
Page 47 of 47
Appendix B Socio-Economic Policy Context
Appendix A: Socio-Economic Policy Context
In response to Hamilton City’s increasing population and economic activity, a number of plans and strategies have been developed to manage Hamilton’s growth and address some of its associated issues, including future urban, rural and industrial land use. Land at Ruakura is identified within a number of plans as an area for future growth and development.
The following table outlines the key plans and strategies relating to the growth of the Hamilton area, and identifies the way in which the Ruakura site has been incorporated into these plans. This provides a socio-economic policy context for the selection of the Ruakura site as well as a timeline of events that led to this site selection.
Table 1: Socio-Economic Policy Context – Ruakura Development Plan Summary Inclusion of Ruakura Area Hamilton City § September 2003 § Ruakura: Earmarked since the Council - Report § Industrial land demand: City is 1960’s. The report identifies that the to Strategy, largely bereft of available industrial area is capable of future urban Planning and land – identification options for development but it is not entirely Policy Rotokauri (lighter industrial); serviceable within the constraints of Co-ordination Ruakura (hi-tech industrial park); council’s present wastewater trunk Committee Horotiu, Airport and Waipa (heavier capacity. industry). § City growth: 50-70ha pa of land for new housing. 20ha pa of land for industry. The city has a depleting urban land bank and no secure future for its growth beyond its present cells. § The Waikato Expressway provides a logical definition and practical boundary within which to scope the city’s longer term urban needs. Strategic § Agreement document between § Identification of the R1 growth cell - Agreement on Hamilton City Council and Waikato largely encompassing the Tainui Future Urban District Council (March 2005) landholdings at Ruakura (being Boundaries § Stems from the councils joint desire approximately 730 ha). to address the sustainable § Potential for expansion to development future of both incorporate a further area of land communities, as recognised within between SH26 and SH1, and the the Local Government Act 2002, and alignment of the Waikato existing cross boundary issues within Expressway following confirmation of the context of the Resource the outcome of consultation to be Management Act 1991 undertaken with affected residents. § Excludes the area identified within R1 for the Innovation Park Hamilton Urban § First growth strategy prepared in § HUGS 2009 confirmed the Growth Strategy 1990 to plan for new areas of land development of its previously (HUGS) incorporated into the City boundary identified growth cells and also (Rotokauri, Peacocke and Rototuna) included Ruakura for the first time, § Re-visited in 2009, resulting in the as an “innovation and employment Hamilton Urban Growth Strategy precinct” (HUGS) § Land at Ruakura to be transferred § Hamilton City Council - non-statutory from the Waikato District into document Hamilton City, and a detailed structure plan for Ruakura would be developed as part of the Hamilton
Plan Summary Inclusion of Ruakura Area City Council District Plan Review. § HUGS provides for the development of the whole Ruakura growth cell (R1), primarily for industrial use. § Was publically notified and open for submissions. Future Proof § Sub-regional growth strategy and § Ruakura included as a Hamilton City Growth Strategy plan prepared by the Future Proof growth area and described as “a and partners in 2009: Hamilton City high technology innovation precinct Implementation Council, Environment Waikato, and and a more general employment Plan Waipa and Waikato District Councils. area” Tangata Whenua input. § Ruakura included in the growth § Non-statutory document allocations for Commercial Business Land and most specifically for Industrial Business Land: – 310ha available at Ruakura for staged land development (for high technology and innovation precinct/ and a more general employment area) § Ruakura will be developed as an employment precinct, including leverage off AgResearch and the University campuses § Community consultation on the Future Proof Strategy was undertaken, and it was open for public submission. Waikato Regional § Operative RPS (2000) § Proposed RPS 2010 – first specific Policy Statement § Proposed RPS 2010 currently under mention of Ruakura (not identified in and Proposed appeal. Mediation discussions taking operative RPS). Waikato Regional place. § Identified as a strategic industrial Policy Statement node for Industrial Land allocation (130ha): – 30ha (2010 – 2021) – 70ha (2021 – 2041) – 30ha (2041 – 2061) § April 2011 – August 2011: Summary of submissions/ further submissions released. § Proposed RPS decision document (2012, under appeal): – Increased industrial land allocation at Ruakura – to a total of 405ha, over three stages. – To be advanced through a structure plan process – Land identified for development beyond the 2021 period (325ha) is subject to completion of the Waikato Expressway
Plan Summary Inclusion of Ruakura Area Proposed § Operative District Plan (July 2012) § 2010 Outcomes and Options Hamilton City § Proposed District Plan 2012/2013 - discussion document for District Plan Council District a summary of submissions are incorporates HUGS and the Plan (including currently being prepared by Council identification of Ruakura as an area of future growth § Proposed District Plan includes the Ruakura Structure Plan: – Sets out the development concept for the long-term growth of Ruakura – Land use in the Ruakura Structure Plan Area will roll out in three stages in accordance with the (Proposed) Regional Policy Statement’s industrial land allocation – Rules for each component of the Ruakura area (including residential and industrial land) are outlined in the Structure Plan and provided for in the Proposed District Plan. § Submissions on the Proposed Plan closed April 2013.
Appendix C Community Facilities & Infrastructure
File Ref: A08274_Community_Facilities_Infrastructure.mxd r o t n e i l C e h t y b .
e d c e r i l u p o p s
l u s a
n n r e e e t b x
e s a y h n
a n r o i o t t a n e m i r
l RUAKURA o C f n e i
h t e r y e
b ESTATE h
d W e
. d i k v s i o r r
p n
n w o o i
t s a y t r m r a o p f t n i a h e t t
a t r a
u s c i
c y a t r n i a p
m d o r r i f h e t
s i a
r y a b y
e e c h t n
t a i a l e h r t
r t o n
e e t s x u
e y e n h A t
. o k t r o s n w
o f i s o
s i e p m o o c
r s
o WAIKATO d s e r e o r r g r a e
e y UNIVERSITY n h t a
r h t o i f w d
e e t c i n m a i d L r l l o e c c k s a i n i M
e a f s f u
o s B t
y n b e i l d C e
t r p u e o
c r c o a f
s y i l
y e l t i o l i s
b s i i s t n I
. o t p n s e e i r l
r C
o r
y u t o i
l f i o b
a s i l n o o i t N c . u e r t t a s r n u i
c c c i a f i s c i e t i p s t
a e h h t t
d n e o
m d e u t s i s a m i L n l e l e e b k s s i a M h
t a i f
, f s o e B c
r y u b
o d s e l r a a n p r e e r t p x
e n r e e e h b
t s o a h m c o i r f h p d a e r n g i
a s i t h b T o
d
0 500 Meters n RUAKURA e Suburban Centre / Schools
g
e L Commercial Waikato River Community Facilities & Infrastructure ° 1:27,000 @ A3 Reserves / Recreation Road Date: 06 June 2013 | Revision: 0 Data Sources: LINZ, Boffa Miskell, Ministry of Education, Other Community Plan Prepared for Tainui Group by Boffa Miskell Limited BECA Facilities www.boffamiskell.co.nz Projection: NZGD 2000 New Zealand Transverse Mercator Author: [email protected] | Checked: JBr