SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 26 Airfield height and noise

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought 177 Trevor Barrett Oppose Shave an extra 3‐4 m (or 6 m as per CAA AIP) off the northern side of runway strip. Implement the RMS Pauanui airfield survey 10 m buffer along the north western boundary with an access to the 177 Trevor Barrett Neutral beach. 177 Trevor Barrett Oppose Don't protect airfield for future potential night flying. Use the CAA transitional surface of 1:4 to 2 m for VFR runways. For existing houses on the north, allow them to build two storeys, but not move the footprint closer to the airfield. 177 Trevor Barrett Add Same with the buildings opposite. Except for the three lots on the western side ‐ allow them to build to the same place as 25 Ocean Air Drive. 401 T Whitehead Oppose Don't protect Pauanui airfield for future potential night flying. 517 C Mead Oppose Shave an extra 3‐4 m (or 6 m as per CAA AIP) off the northern side of Pauanui runway strip. Implement the RMS Pauanui airfield survey 10 m buffer along the north western boundary with an access to the 517 C Mead Neutral beach. 517 C Mead Oppose Don't protect airfield for future potential night flying. Use the CAA transitional surface of 1:4 to 2 m for VFR runways. ‐Pauanui Rule 26.4 Table 1 ‐ Obstacle Limitation Surface for Pauanui; amend the runway description to mirror the amended Civil 529 Support Community Board Aviation Authority plan 640 D Batten Oppose Shave an extra 3‐4 m (or 6 m as per CAA AIP) off the northern side of Pauanui runway strip. Implement the RMS Pauanui airfield survey 10 m buffer along the north western boundary with an access to the 640 D Batten Neutral beach. 640 D Batten Oppose Don't protect airfield for future potential night flying. Use the CAA transitional surface of 1:4 to 2 m for VFR runways. Pauanui Community 705 Support Overlay and gradient for Pauanui airfield with a runway threshold size of 782 x 60 m Office 718 Civil Aviation Authority Support in part The transitional side surface requirement for aerodrome should be 1:7 gradient SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 26 Airfield height and noise

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought

If Pauanui, Thames and Whitianga are to be used for night flying these need to have a flat surface 45 m above the 718 Civil Aviation Authority Support in part level of the aerodrome. Refer to AC139‐6 Chapter 4 for Whitianga, AC139‐7 Chapter 3 for Thames and Pauanui SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 27 Archaeological Sites, Areas and Areas of Significance to Maori

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought 199 Chorus NZ Oppose Rule 3 ‐ Delete reference to "adjoining land". Remove all rules or amend 27.9 Rule 3 to read "Land disturbance on land containing or adjoining land containing an 366 Federated Farmers Oppose archaeological site….. Areas on private property should be discussed with the landowner first; should not be recorded in the District Plan and 370 S & B Goudie Support in part Council should only have regard to such sites 27.5 ‐ Tangata whenua should be the first contact, not an archaeologist. Where one is required one should be chosen 370 S & B Goudie Support in part not appointed 370 S & B Goudie Oppose Delete Rule 3 389 Tasman Buildings Ltd. Support in part Consider reversing the rule that permits an activity that doesn't require a Historic Places Trust authority. 389 Tasman Buildings Ltd. Support in part Rule 1 ‐ Delete the statement about "part of an existing land use". Permit land disturbance more generally, subject to development standards, with express permission for grazing to 389 Tasman Buildings Ltd. Support in part avoid default to NC. Rule 3 ‐ either define "adjoining land", or include a specific buffer distance, or amend Rule 3 to refer to land identified 391 Newmont Waihi Gold Support in part in the draft plan or planning maps. Show the Ngati Hei rohe from the western end of Wainuiototo (New Chum Beach) at Anarake, to Ruahiwihiwi 392 Ngati Hei Neutral Pa/Whitipirorua Pa at the Wharekawa Harbour mount at in the south, and sites of significance (see map).

List kaitiaki concern over: four harbours (Wharekawa, Tairua, Whitianga, ); with all their attendant river 392 Ngati Hei Neutral and upper harbour water systems; native and planted exotic forestry effects on water quality. 392 Ngati Hei Neutral Promote economic development that is subservient to environmental factors. Make cultural impact assessment reports compulsory for any activity that seeks to modify or destroy cultural sites of 392 Ngati Hei Neutral significance. 392 Ngati Hei Neutral Provide added protection (beyond NZHPT) under an appropriate regime for sites of significance. 392 Ngati Hei Neutral Consult with relevant iwi authorities for all potential desecration or modification of significant sites. SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 27 Archaeological Sites, Areas and Areas of Significance to Maori

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought All eastern seaboard beaches from Anarake Point at Wainuiototo to Opoutere or [Takanga], and on adjacent offshore 392 Ngati Hei Neutral islands are wahi tapu ‐ urupa. Tokatea‐a‐Hei (Castle Rock), Rangitoto (Biddy Rock, ), Pungapunga River mouth (at Whangapoua) are sites 392 Ngati Hei Neutral of significance. 392 Ngati Hei Neutral Stormont Lane (Whitianga) is an old Ngati Hei kainga/wahi tapu area. Wharekaho Council reserve (Winiata Place access) and the abutting section to the north and stream bed is of special 392 Ngati Hei Neutral significance to Ngati Hei. Robinson Road Reserve [Toumuia/Moutuku/Lover's Rock], the foreshore reserve fronting the Whangamaroro River, 392 Ngati Hei Neutral and abutting the Whitianga Waterways Canal entrance is an urupa and wahi tapu. 392 Ngati Hei Neutral Te Aioroa [Maori Land Plan 3487] 3.0351 ha on the southern bank of the Whangamaroro is an old kainga and urupa. 392 Ngati Hei Neutral Kopetui [M.L. 5588] 2.0335 ha is a wahi tapu/urupa. Te Tii C [M.L. 388803] 5.3540 ha, Maropeke [M.L. 354837] 2.0841 ha, and Waiarero [M.L. 2558] 1.8995 ha., are 392 Ngati Hei Neutral important kainga, with marakai around them. Opposite Te Tii/Maropeke/Waiarero is the main pa, kainga, marakai and urupa of Ngananganaia, now severed by 392 Ngati Hei Neutral SH25. Whenuakite Farm holding at Purangi with Hepburn Rd frontage, and associated Purangi Golf Course, has numerous 392 Ngati Hei Neutral kainga, ngahere (native bush) for reservation, historical sites, sacred maunga, urupa, springs, streams, and conservation area with kaitiaki status ‐ needs adequate controls and protections. 392 Ngati Hei Neutral Acknowledge many waka throughout the entire rohe. The old OHU site on the western bank of the Rangihau River (5 ‐ 7 kms up Rangihau Rd from SH25), on Section 29, 392 Ngati Hei Neutral Block IV, Whitianga Survey District, on DOC land comprising 259 ha, is a wahi tapu and site of significance. 392 Ngati Hei Neutral The Ngati Hei turangawaewae/papakainga and urupa at Wharekaho, Whitianga. 392 Ngati Hei Neutral 70 acre Ahiraumati, on the east bank of the Kapowai River at the end of Kapowai Rd is a wahi tapu. SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 27 Archaeological Sites, Areas and Areas of Significance to Maori

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought Cultural sites include maunga (mountains), awa (rivers), significant rock outcrops, harbours, landscapes, ngahere 392 Ngati Hei Neutral (forests), offshore islands on the Te Tai Tamahine coastline (Eastern seaboard), wahi tapu sites, urupa, pa sites, kainga, airspace and airwaves. 528 Telecom Oppose Rule 3 ‐ Delete reference to "adjoining land". Coastal Land Trust Clearly identify on Planning Maps and Appendices the location and values of archaeological sites scheduled in the 638 Support in part Holdings Ltd. District Plan, in particular the one on CLTHL land. Areas on private property should be discussed with the landowner first; should not be recorded in the District Plan and 670 Shelly and Rhys Moxsom Support in part Council should only have regard to such sites 27.5 ‐ Tangata whenua should be the first contact, not an archaeologist. Where one is required one should be chosen 670 Shelly and Rhys Moxsom Support in part not appointed 670 Shelly and Rhys Moxsom Oppose Delete Rule 3 Areas on private property should be discussed with the landowner first; should not be recorded in the District Plan and 671 Ken Nation Support in part Council should only have regard to such sites 27.5 ‐ Tangata whenua should be the first contact, not an archaeologist. Where one is required one should be chosen 671 Ken Nation Support in part not appointed 671 Ken Nation Oppose Delete Rule 3 Accidental Site Discovery Protocol ‐ nominated tangata whenua should be called in the first instance. If an 672 John & Verona McLeod Oppose archaeologist is deemed necessary that person should be agreed to by both parties and not someone who is an appointment of Council. Archaeological and Historical sites identified on private or Council property are done by independent archaeologist 707 BM and SA Davies Oppose and with local input. 717 TCDC Consent Planner Support in part Rule 1.1 ‐ "The statement where an authority is not required" should be listed below with a) and b). 717 TCDC Consent Planner Support in part Rule 10a) ‐ reword. 717 TCDC Consent Planner Support in part Rule 10e) ‐ reword so it doesn't sound like application would need to be sent to Historic Places Trust for consultation. SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 27 Archaeological Sites, Areas and Areas of Significance to Maori

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought K & M Nation, K Ryan, N Areas on private property should be discussed with the landowner first; should not be recorded in the District Plan and 901 Rennie (Kincraft Support in part Council should only have regard to such sites Properties) K & M Nation, K Ryan, N 27.5 ‐ Tangata whenua should be the first contact, not an archaeologist. Where one is required one should be chosen 901 Rennie (Kincraft Support in part not appointed Properties) K & M Nation, K Ryan, N 901 Rennie (Kincraft Oppose Delete Rule 3 Properties) Ngaati Whanaunga 910 Support in part Supports for overlay; this section background needs to be rewritten; Environmental Unit SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 28 ‐ Coastal Hazard

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought 8S Hosken Oppose in part Revise CCEL as negotiated with P Wishart (Mar 18I 137 Captain Cook Road) 10 Robert Nicholls Support in part Consider incorporating possible inundation from tsunami on maps. 10 Robert Nicholls Support in part Identify the effects and impacts that sea level rise will have on residents, land, infrastructure. 10 Robert Nicholls Support in part Identify areas on maps at risk of inundation. Have coastal erosion prevention (where appropriate ‐ concrete bags, rock walls, mangroves) a community‐based 13 Kathleen Moulden Support in part project including locals, iwi, colleges, unemployed. Refers to Map 12A ‐ remove both lines and enter into covenants with affected property owners at the time of building 19 G Peak Oppose consent absolving Council of any liability 21 Patricia O'Toole Support in part Ensure sandhills are parallel to waves around stormwater outlet areas, for sea erosion protection. 23 Sue & Clive O'Halloran Neutral Clarify that coastal erosion in south of Aputa Ave is a low risk and safe. 29 Regional Council Support in part Clarify if this should say “... 10% AEP or higher.” 29 Waikato Regional Council Support in part Require any new development to establish the CCEL and Future Coastal Protection Line in their area. Require provisions to have consistency with the Proposed WRPS, 13.3.1 on tsunami hazard risk, and with the 29 Waikato Regional Council Support in part Whitianga Tsunami Risk Management Plan (page 10 the implementation measures for the District Plan), and corresponding future Plans for the other areas. 29 Waikato Regional Council Support in part Rule 1.1, Rule 2.1a), Rule 3.1a) ‐ Clarify and change the term “commissioned". 29 Waikato Regional Council Oppose Revise Rule 2.1b) to say: "It is to install a consented or permitted coastal erosion defence structure." 29 Waikato Regional Council Support in part Rule 3.1a) ‐ clarify which "Council". 29 Waikato Regional Council Oppose Rule 4.3 ‐ change to full notification. 29 Waikato Regional Council Support Table "Current Coastal Erosion Area Assessment Matters and Criteria." A Ogden (on behalf of other 36 Oppose Coastal setback lines on 401‐409 Thames Coast Road and 3, 5, 7 and 9 Sarjants Road, Te Puru. property owners) 36 A & A Ogden Oppose The Coastal Erosion Setback Lines, particularly on their property at 405 Thames Coast Road 39 Allan Hooker Oppose Future Coastal Protection Line should be 32 meters east at 201 Hinemoa St, Whangamata. 48 C.J. Watts Oppose Keep the current District Plan rules, no other changes. 81 WI & J Nobilo Oppose No Future Coastal Protection Line. SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 28 ‐ Coastal Hazard

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought 81 WI & J Nobilo Oppose No additional resource management processes or new limitations on coastal development. 81 WI & J Nobilo Oppose No Plan provisions that may potentially impact our property insurance. 81 WI & J Nobilo Oppose No Plan provisions that may alter the general public's perception of coastal erosion potential at . No encumbrances (or similar) registered on the titles or LIMs of Future Coastal Protection Lines, in particular 103 81 WI & J Nobilo Oppose Omara Place. TCDC to join with WRC and coastal communities to set a new global standard for a principled approach to preservation and management, one that keeps robust science and an agreed value set at the core of a dynamic management model 81 WI & J Nobilo Oppose that blends the interests of existing coastal landowners with best practice conservation and management principles, a partnered approach between landowners, TCDC, EW/WRC, and DOC. Retract the coastal management proposals and proceed to collaborate with eastern Coromandel coastal property 81 WI & J Nobilo Oppose owners on the development of a partnered future plan. 103 Graeme Osborne Oppose No additional provision that may potentially impact the 'insurability of beachfront property Matarangi Beach. No additional provision that may alter public perception about instability and therefore marketability of Matarangi 103 Graeme Osborne Oppose Beach. Specify, in comprehensive detail, what is meant by "any resource consent also needs to consider the implications of 103 Graeme Osborne Oppose future erosion risk." 106 Bernard Werder Oppose If there is concrete evidence of erosion at Matarangi, apply lines around all of Matarangi. If not, remove the lines. 118 Cadmont Holdings Ltd Support in part Base lines on actual measurements. 118 Cadmont Holdings Ltd Oppose Remove the Future Coastal Protection Line. 118 Cadmont Holdings Ltd Oppose Do not register any encumbrances on titles. 118 Cadmont Holdings Ltd Oppose No new resource management processes. 160 Anita Beach Oppose No Future Coastal Protection Line ‐ support Graeme Osborne's comments 168 Symmans Trustee Ltd Oppose No Future Coastal Protection Line. SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 28 ‐ Coastal Hazard

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought 168 Symmans Trustee Ltd Oppose Do not register any encumbrances on titles. 168 Symmans Trustee Ltd Oppose No Plan provisions that may potentially impact our property insurance. 168 Symmans Trustee Ltd Oppose No additional resource management processes. 175 John & Louise Tulp Oppose No Future Coastal Protection Line. 175 John & Louise Tulp Oppose Do not register any encumbrances on titles. 175 John & Louise Tulp Oppose No additional resource consent processes. 175 John & Louise Tulp Oppose No Plan provisions that may potentially impact our property insurance. 176 Dianne Patricia Barron Oppose Do not include Rings Beach in the Coastal Erosion line 179 Department of Conservation Support in part Rule 4 ‐ include ecological or natural value assessment in restricted discretionary matters. Also allow for notification. Be careful with measures to control Buffalo Beach erosion or road format changes ‐ maintain good access to 8 Buffalo 181 Elizabeth Thompson Support in part Beach Road. 182 Paula Ann Ryan Oppose No Future Coastal Protection Line. 182 Paula Ann Ryan Oppose Do not register any encumbrances on titles. 182 Paula Ann Ryan Oppose No additional resource consent processes. 182 Paula Ann Ryan Oppose No Plan provisions that may potentially impact our property insurance. SL Anderson, RA Dallimore, 183 Oppose No Future Coastal Protection Line. PA Ryan SL Anderson, RA Dallimore, 183 Oppose Do not register any encumbrances on titles. PA Ryan SL Anderson, RA Dallimore, 183 Oppose No additional resource consent processes. PA Ryan SL Anderson, RA Dallimore, 183 Oppose No Plan provisions that may potentially impact our property insurance. PA Ryan 184 John Williams Oppose Revise setback to 5 m, as per Jim Dahm report 17/12/2007 186 Neilo Matarangi Ltd Oppose No Future Coastal Protection Line. SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 28 ‐ Coastal Hazard

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought 186 Neilo Matarangi Ltd Oppose Do not register any encumbrances on titles. 186 Neilo Matarangi Ltd Oppose No additional resource consent processes. 186 Neilo Matarangi Ltd Oppose No provisions that may alter instability and marketability Re‐draw the curved line bending inward at the end of the Jacksons Claim/Champion Place walkway so it is parallel to 193 Peter Menzies Support in part the sea. 196 Angus Cochrane Support in part Move the CCEL seaward of pohutukawa tree on the 102 Rennie St property. David Richard & Sheryll Gay 198 Oppose No Future Coastal Protection Line ‐ support Graeme Osborne's comments Cole David Richard & Sheryll Gay 198 Oppose Do not register any encumbrances on titles. Cole David Richard & Sheryll Gay 198 Oppose No additional resource consent processes. Cole David Richard & Sheryll Gay 198 Oppose No Plan provisions that may potentially impact our property insurance. Cole David Richard & Sheryll Gay 198 Oppose No provisions that may alter instability and marketability Cole 361 J Calder Oppose The coastal hazard lines on 13 Moore Crescent, Opito Bay Opito Bay Ratepayers' Tell the Opito Bay Ratepayers' Association what changes or additions could be made to the current and Future Coastal 381 Oppose Association Protection Lines to reflect terrain and height above sea level. Set minimum floor levels for all new buildings on the coast where the natural ground level is below projected future 408 M Trebes Support in part sea level 411 P Symmans Oppose Remove the Future Coastal Protection Line No encumbrances (or similar) registered on the titles and LIMs of eastern Coromandel properties about the Future 414 C & M Box Oppose Coastal Protection Line, in particular 112 Pacific Parade, Matarangi Beach. 414 C & M Box Oppose No additional provision that may potentially impact the 'insurability of beachfront property Matarangi Beach. SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 28 ‐ Coastal Hazard

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought

414 C & M Box Oppose No additional provision that may potentially impact the 'insurability of beachfront property Matarangi Beach. No additional provision that may alter public perception about instability and therefore marketability of Matarangi 414 C & M Box Oppose Beach. 415 L Bird Oppose Put the lines at the edge of the foredune along the entire beachfront of Whitianga and protect against further erosion 436 D Novis Oppose Remove the Future Coastal Protection Line at Port Charles 439 Aquasoleil Oppose Put the lines at the edge of the foredune along the entire beachfront of Whitianga and protect against further erosion 444 B Impey Oppose Support G Osbornes comments regarding Matarangi 452 P Glass Oppose The Future Coastal Erosion Line, particulary on 306 Kenwood Drive, Matarangi and related provisions 453 M & M Stiassny Oppose The Future Coastal Erosion Line, particulary on 266 Kenwood Drive, Matarangi and related provisions I am against any retreat landward of any Current Coastal Erosion Line along Buffalo Beach Road within 'Area c' and 454 Peter Reddish Oppose that the Current Coastal Erosion Line, NZTA Rock Wall and Roadway be maintained within 'Area C'. 455 C & D Hurdley Oppose The Future Coastal Erosion Line, particulary on 116 Pacific Parade, Matarangi and related provisions 458 C & J Custodian Ltd Oppose The Future Coastal Erosion Line, particulary on 116 Pacific Parade, Matarangi and related provisions Remove the sea level rise projections used for Future Coastal Protection Line modelling, and the Bruun rule. Replace 462 J & E Presig Oppose with site‐specific (i.e. accretion in Matarangi) projections that take into account uncertainty as part of a partnered approach with coastal communities. If the future coastal erosion threat is real, apply the Future Coastal Protection Line to all of Matarangi, including the 462 J & E Presig Oppose harbour front and the . No encumbrances (or similar) registered on the titles and LIMs of eastern Coromandel properties about the Future 462 J & E Presig Oppose Coastal Protection Line, in particular Matarangi Beach. 462 J & E Presig Oppose No new resource management processes or consents for beachfront property Matarangi Beach. SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 28 ‐ Coastal Hazard

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought

462 J & E Presig Oppose No additional provision that may potentially impact the 'insurability of beachfront property Matarangi Beach. No additional provision that may alter public perception about instability and therefore marketability of Matarangi 462 J & E Presig Oppose Beach. Specify, in comprehensive detail, what is meant by "any resource consent also needs to consider the implications of 462 J & E Presig Oppose future erosion risk." 471 A TeHuia Oppose The Coastal Erosion Setback Lines, particularly on their property at 401/403 Thames Coast Road 476 H & C Brown Oppose The Future Coastal Erosion Line 481 D & A Jackson Oppose The Coastal Erosion Setback Lines, particulary on 169 Carey Road, Port Charles 482 M, H & Y Hunt Oppose The Current Coastal Erosion Line, particularly on 167 Carey Road, Port Charles Council should erect a retaining wall in front of the properties at Port Charles or allow property owners to do so 482 M, H & Y Hunt Oppose without cost of resource consent or permit 485 A & B Riggs Oppose The Future Coastal Erosion Line and related provisions Remove the sea level rise projections used for Future Coastal Protection Line modelling, and the Bruun rule. Replace 485 A & B Riggs Oppose with site‐specific (i.e. accretion in Matarangi) projections that take into account uncertainty as part of a partnered approach with coastal communities. If the future coastal erosion threat is real, apply the Future Coastal Protection Line to all of Matarangi, including the 485 A & B Riggs Oppose harbour front and the Firth of Thames. No encumbrances (or similar) registered on the titles and LIMs of eastern Coromandel properties about the Future 485 A & B Riggs Oppose Coastal Protection Line, in particular Matarangi Beach. 485 A & B Riggs Oppose No new resource management processes or consents for beachfront property Matarangi Beach. 485 A & B Riggs Oppose No additional provision that may potentially impact the 'insurability of beachfront property Matarangi Beach. No additional provision that may alter public perception about instability and therefore marketability of Matarangi 485 A & B Riggs Oppose Beach. SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 28 ‐ Coastal Hazard

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought Specify, in comprehensive detail, what is meant by "any resource consent also needs to consider the implications of 485 A & B Riggs Oppose future erosion risk." 488 D Claasen Family Trust Oppose The Future Coastal Protection Line Environmental Defence 514 Support in part Background ‐ Replace “Future Coastal Protection Zone” with “100‐year erosion risk zone” throughout the DDP. Society Overlay ‐ Add rules applying to the area between the Future Coastal Protection Line and the CCEL. All activities with Environmental Defence the potential to increase natural hazard risk should have an activity status of restricted discretionary or higher. 514 Oppose Society Significant development should be discretionary and essential community assets and infrastructure should be non‐ complying. Environmental Defence 514 Support Rule 1 Society Environmental Defence 514 Support in part Rule 2 ‐ support conditional on the activity status of hard engineering structures in rule 5. Society Environmental Defence 514 Support Rules 3, 4, 5 Society 527 CS & ME Irwin Oppose The Future Coastal Protection Line, particularly on their property at 308 Kenwood Drive, Matarangi No encumbrances (or similar) registered on the titles and LIMs of eastern Coromandel properties about the Future 527 CS & ME Irwin Oppose Coastal Protection Line, in particular Matarangi Beach. 527 CS & ME Irwin Oppose No new resource management processes or consents for beachfront property Matarangi Beach. 527 CS & ME Irwin Oppose No additional provision that may potentially impact the 'insurability of beachfront property Matarangi Beach. No additional provision that may alter public perception about instability and therefore marketability of Matarangi 527 CS & ME Irwin Oppose Beach. FCPA. Could be replaced by narrative if there is considered a statutory need or requirement to deal with the 100 year 533 Mary Bright & Barbara Reid Oppose focus. SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 28 ‐ Coastal Hazard

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought

533 Mary Bright & Barbara Reid Oppose No encumbrances (or similar) registered on the titles 533 Mary Bright & Barbara Reid Oppose No new resource management processes or consents for beachfront property Matarangi Beach. 533 Mary Bright & Barbara Reid Oppose No additional provision that may potentially impact the 'insurability of beachfront property Matarangi Beach. No additional provision that may alter public perception about instability and therefore marketability of Matarangi 533 Mary Bright & Barbara Reid Oppose Beach. 533 Mary Bright & Barbara Reid Oppose Dispute the validity of the sea level rise projections assumed or adopted by Dahm & Gibberd. The use and validity of the Bruun equation by Dahm & Gibberd is not an appropriate predictor in the Coromandel 533 Mary Bright & Barbara Reid Oppose coast context. If the future coastal erosion threat is real, apply the Future Coastal Protection Line to all of Matarangi, including the 533 Mary Bright & Barbara Reid Oppose harbour front and the Firth of Thames. 534 G Harford Oppose The Future Coastal Protection Line No encumbrances (or similar) registered on the titles and LIMs of eastern Coromandel properties about the Future 534 G Harford Oppose Coastal Protection Line, in particular Matarangi Beach. 534 G Harford Oppose No new resource management processes or consents for beachfront property Matarangi Beach. 534 G Harford Oppose No additional provision that may potentially impact the 'insurability of beachfront property Matarangi Beach. No additional provision that may alter public perception about instability and therefore marketability of Matarangi 534 G Harford Oppose Beach. 540 Selwyn & Michelle Knaggs Oppose No encumbrances (or similar) registered on the titles

540 Selwyn & Michelle Knaggs Oppose No new resource management processes or consents for beachfront property Matarangi Beach. SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 28 ‐ Coastal Hazard

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought

540 Selwyn & Michelle Knaggs Oppose No additional provision that may potentially impact the 'insurability of beachfront property Matarangi Beach. No additional provision that may alter public perception about instability and therefore marketability of Matarangi 540 Selwyn & Michelle Knaggs Oppose Beach. 543 CE Resettlement Trust Oppose Future Coastal Protection Line, particularly for the Waterfront Zone. 549 William Guy Black Oppose Do not amend the coastal set back lines in Te Puru. 569 BW & J Palmer Oppose The Future Coastal Protection Line, particularly on their property at 118 Pacific Parade, Matarangi 569 BW & J Palmer Oppose No encumbrances (or similar) registered on the titles 569 BW & J Palmer Oppose No new resource management processes or consents for beachfront property Matarangi Beach. 569 BW & J Palmer Oppose No additional provision that may potentially impact the 'insurability of beachfront property Matarangi Beach. No additional provision that may alter public perception about instability and therefore marketability of Matarangi 569 BW & J Palmer Oppose Beach. 623 Roy Family Trust Oppose No Future Coastal Protection Line ‐ support Graeme Osborne's comments. Rely on the status quo. 670 Shelly and Rhys Moxsom Support in part Make one dwelling as of right ‐ controlled, not restricted discretionary. 670 Shelly and Rhys Moxsom Support in part All restricted discretionary activities should be controlled activities. 671 Ken Nation Support in part Make one dwelling as of right ‐ controlled, not restricted discretionary. 671 Ken Nation Support in part All restricted discretionary activities should be controlled activities. Adopt something more sympathetic to the reasonable rights and entitlements of landowners that allows for them to 681 Geoffrey Wilson Hardy Oppose in part respond to a hazard as and when it develops. 682 The William Murray Trust Oppose Tinkering with coastal building margin will effect the value of property

712 Paul Basten Oppose Hypothetical scenario for coastal erosion line when future projected amount of sea level rise is under debate. 717 TCDC Consent Planner Oppose Rule 4 ‐ removing public engagement under 95 might not be a good idea. 28.8 Future Coastal protection, there needs to be a rule that gets you to this assessment criteria? You cannot have the 717 TCDC Consent Planner Support in part rule imbedded into the assessment criteria? SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 28 ‐ Coastal Hazard

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought

K & M Nation, K Ryan, N 901 Support in part Make one dwelling as of right ‐ controlled, not restricted discretionary. Rennie (Kincraft Properties) SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 29 Electricity Transmission Line Buffer Notation

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought 366 Federated Farmers Neutral Request to be consulted on any amendments to this Chapter 717 TCDC Consent Planner Oppose Assessment matter 5 ‐ delete. Section 29.1 Background ‐ amend as follows: first sentence remove the word substation after Warahoe Road; third 512 Transpower NZ Ltd Support in part paragraph delete all but the last sentence to read "Outside of the electricity transmission corridor shown on the Planning Maps, the rules in this section do not apply." Section 29.2 Activity Table ‐ amend the activities to read: Activities, structures and buildings wihtin 12 m of a 512 Transpower NZ Ltd Support in part transmission line; delete structure between 12 m and 32 m of transmission line 512 Transpower NZ Ltd Support in part Section 29.3 to 29.4 ‐ replace with new rules provided by Transpower SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 30 Flood Hazard and Flood Protection Structures

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought 29 Waikato Regional Council Support in part Clarify relationship of this section with Section 42A. Kopu Landowners & 699 Oppose Use the 1995 Flood Management Plan to deal with proposed industrial development. Occupiers Association Community 710 Support in part Flood hazard area through the Residential Zone west of Mahon Avenue, Matarangi Board Existing homes and valuable infrastructure should be relocated away from flood hazard areas ‐ particularly on outwash 903 Ernslaw One Ltd. Support in part fans. Ensure that no unreasonable impediments be in the way of mitigation measures for debris movement, and work with 903 Ernslaw One Ltd. Add Regional Council staff when required on allowing these when the Regional Council requirements are met. SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 31 Historic Heritage

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought 16 D Fussey Support in part Reconsider the extent of the Whitianga Heritage Area 105 Blue Water Estates Support Recognition and conservation of cultural heritage resources in the District 366 Federated Farmers Oppose Remove all rules 85, Natalie Blasco, 363, Coromandel Mainstreet 31.2 How to Use the Overlay: sentence "For heritage sites the focus is on retaining the actual structure" is in conflict 364, Inc, David Foreman, Oppose in part with the RMA ‐ need to refer to surroundings. 367 & Daniel Kirsch & Alison 516 Carter 85, Natalie Blasco, 363, Coromandel Mainstreet 31.4 Heritage Site Permitted Activities: request performance measures are included from NZHPT to ensure 364, Inc, David Foreman, Support in part maintenance and repair is consistent with the need to protect historic heritage (list of performance standards 367 & Daniel Kirsch & Alison provided). 516 Carter 85, Natalie Blasco, 363, Coromandel Mainstreet 31.5 Heritage Site Controlled Activities: a sign on a heritage site should be a restricted discretionary activity ‐ not 364, Inc, David Foreman, Oppose in part controlled. Alternatively, there couild be a lower consent status if there are clear guidelines to ensure all signs are 367 & Daniel Kirsch & Alison appropriate. 516 Carter 85, Natalie Blasco, 363, Coromandel Mainstreet 31.6 Heritage Site Restricted Discretionary Activities: Land disturbance within a defined setting of a listed historical 364, Inc, David Foreman, Support in part building should also be a restricted discretionary activity. 367 & Daniel Kirsch & Alison 516 Carter SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 31 Historic Heritage

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought

85, Natalie Blasco, Provisions relating to total or partial demolition of a building with identified heritage values should read: "Partial 363, Coromandel Mainstreet demolition of a Group A listed historical building (Category I) is a non‐complying activity. Partial demolition of a Group 364, Inc, David Foreman, Support in part B listed historical building (Category II and unlisted NZHPT items) is a discretionary activity, and the demolition of a 367 & Daniel Kirsch & Alison Group B building is a non‐complying activity." Further, the demolition of a Group A listed historical building is a 516 Carter prohibited activity and consent cannot be granted by the Council for this activity. 85, Natalie Blasco, 363, Coromandel Mainstreet Rule 1 (Maintenance and Repair) and Table 2: there needs to be tighter controls around maintenance and repair so 364, Inc, David Foreman, Support in part that heritage buildings are maintained in the same character as they stand. 367 & Daniel Kirsch & Alison 516 Carter 85, Natalie Blasco, 363, Coromandel Mainstreet Rule 3 (External addition or alteration) and Table 2: alteration must be in accordance with the local Heritage Area 364, Inc, David Foreman, Oppose in part design guide. 367 & Daniel Kirsch & Alison 516 Carter 85, Natalie Blasco, 363, Coromandel Mainstreet Rule 3 (External addition or alteration) and Table 2: a provision should be added that requires the alteration to be in 364, Inc, David Foreman, Oppose in part accordance with the existing materials of the heritage building or site to be consistent with the streetscape. 367 & Daniel Kirsch & Alison 516 Carter 85, Natalie Blasco, Rule 2 (Signs) and Table 1: add provisions regarding size and proportionality of signs to uphold the integrity of the 363, Coromandel Mainstreet historic area. In particular, add: h) corporate signs must be incorporated in a way that is sympathetic to the heritage 364, Inc, David Foreman, Support in part area and does not appear brash or out of place; i) ghost signs (remnants of old signs from the original building) must 367 & Daniel Kirsch & Alison be kept and maintained if evident. 516 Carter SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 31 Historic Heritage

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought 85, Natalie Blasco, 363, Coromandel Mainstreet Rule 4 (Fences) and Table 2: add an additional provision as follows: c) be consistent with the materials of the heritage 364, Inc, David Foreman, Support in part building and in the appropriate style for the building's age and design compatibility. 367 & Daniel Kirsch & Alison 516 Carter 85, Natalie Blasco, 363, Coromandel Mainstreet Rule 9 (Demolition/Removal), Rule 13 (New or Relocated Building) and Table 2: the wording in these sections needs to 364, Inc, David Foreman, Oppose be strengthened (note: these comments related to an earlier draft of the Draft Plan and subsequent changes were 367 & Daniel Kirsch & Alison made where the objectives and policies were incorportaed into the Rule section). 516 Carter 85, Natalie Blasco, 363, Coromandel Mainstreet Rule 12 (Signs) and Table 1: need to add "Neon or internally lit signs are prohibited." Need to add a provision to 364, Inc, David Foreman, Support in part prevent 'pylon' type signs e.g. KFC style signs). Consents must only be granted after referral to the local design code as 367 & Daniel Kirsch & Alison set out by a local Heritage Authority to determine locally appropriate design. 516 Carter 85, Natalie Blasco, 363, Coromandel Mainstreet Absence of rules concerning driveways and parking in heritage areas ‐ needs to be included in the Plan and will be 364, Inc, David Foreman, Support in part developed in the local Coromandel Town Guidelines. 367 & Daniel Kirsch & Alison 516 Carter 85, Natalie Blasco, 363, Coromandel Mainstreet There is no reference concerning carparking spaces, or building to 'full frontage' of the site. This is particularly 364, Inc, David Foreman, Oppose necessary in the special heritage area of Coromandel Town and provisions must be introduced into the Plan unde the 367 & Daniel Kirsch & Alison Coromandel Town 'special character' area. 516 Carter SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 31 Historic Heritage

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought 85, Natalie Blasco, 363, Coromandel Mainstreet Assessment Matters and Criteria: could include reference to the ICOMOS Charter, requiring all proposals to be 364, Inc, David Foreman, Support in part consistent with the principles of the NZ Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value. 367 & Daniel Kirsch & Alison 516 Carter The National Trading Retain the controlled activity status for additions and alterations to non‐heritage buildings and construction of new 537 Support in part Company of NZ Ltd buildings in Heritage Areas. The National Trading 537 Support in part Make demolition of non‐heritage items in an Heritage Area a permitted activity Company of NZ Ltd Support both Chris Stark and Coromandel Mainstreet's comments in principle with particular emphasis on 451 Sue Wright Oppose Mainstreet's screens 54 to 57 and 59 to 93. 451 Sue Wright Oppose Retain any scheduled buildings in Coromandel Town. Have rules that are able to ensure that the heritage issuse outlined in both the above submissions are effective and 451 Sue Wright Oppose enforceable. 456 John Isdale Support in part Mechanisms such as heritage policy areas (HPA) should be strengthened. 456 John Isdale Support in part Ambiguities that exist on what can be done in such areas (and the other heritage structures) should be eliminated.

456 John Isdale Support in part Buildings listed as heritage buildings in the district plan should only be removed in exceptional circumstances. Any and all council control building in a heritage protection area must as required in the RMA apply heritage criteria 456 John Isdale Support in part first and foremost and the district plan should reflect this as a requirement. SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 32 Landscape

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought The overlay rule should contain provisions that control the activity status of activities that may 29 Waikato Regional Council Support in part adversely affect landscape, amenity and natural character values identified within the overlays. Rule 4 ‐ amend to include matters such as: Buildings exceeding a certain height or floor area; Other structures or infrastructure; Removal of indigenous vegetation; Earthworks greater than a certain volume; Planting of new 29 Waikato Regional Council Oppose in part commercial forestry or woodlot forestry; and Mineral and aggregate extraction and mineral prospecting; As either RD, D or NC activities. Rule 5 ‐ amend to include matters such as: Buildings exceeding a certain height or floor area; Other structures or infrastructure; Removal of indigenous vegetation; Earthworks greater than a certain volume; Planting of new 29 Waikato Regional Council Oppose in part commercial forestry or woodlot forestry; and Mineral and aggregate extraction and mineral prospecting; As either RD, D or NC activities. Table 3 ‐ amend so that it applies to RD, D and NC activities, and to include the following general assessment matters: The extent to which the activity reduces or impacts on the values and characteristics that have determined the locations status as an Outstanding landscape or natural feature. The extent to which commercial forestry and woodlot planting is shaped to the lie of the land not 29 Waikato Regional Council Support in part to property boundaries, and avoids harsh geometric shapes, and whether cosmetic edge planting around commercial forestry integrates with the surrounding indigenous vegetation. Also include the following additional specific assessment matters: 1a) The extent to which the scale and location of earthworks associated with the activity, including access to the site, detracts from the values and characteristics of the landscape. 1c) The extent to which earthworks are visible from a public place. Add a new rule that covers matters such as earthworks and vegetation removal within and adjacent to areas of 29 Waikato Regional Council Neutral identified natural character and within 20 m of waterways. Add a building setback rule for buildings, structures and infrastructure within 25 m of waterways as a 29 Waikato Regional Council Neutral Discretionary Activity. SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 32 Landscape

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought Rule 7 ‐ amend by adding assessment matters to address impacts on natural character as follows: The extent to which the activity reduces or impacts on the values and characteristics that have determined the locations status as an area of high or outstanding natural character. The extent to which the proposed activity or building would impede natural ecological functioning of 29 Waikato Regional Council Neutral waterways and the maintenance and enhancement of riparian habitat. The extent to which the activity impacts on public access to and along coastal and riparian margins. The extent to which the activity provides opportunities to enhance and restore natural character where it has already been degraded. Rule 7 assessment matters 1‐5 ‐ amend to effectively cover potential impacts on natural processes, natural features, and ecological functioning. As an example, matter 1a) should be amended as follows: "1a) The extent to which 29 Waikato Regional Council Neutral earthworks impacts on natural processes, natural features, and ecological functioning and opportunities for those impacts to be remedied or mitigated." Department of Background ‐ introductory paragraphs require amendments to be consistent with the wording of the Act and NZCPS 179 Support in part Conservation 2010. Department of 179 Support in part Make methods, assessment standards, matters and criteria reflect the Policy 13 and 15 NZCPS requirements. Conservation Department of 179 Support in part Rule 1 ‐ care with illuminated signs. Conservation Department of 179 Support in part Rule 2 ‐ make accessory dwellings a restricted discretionary activity. Conservation Department of 179 Support in part Rule 5.1 ‐ provide for maintenance of an existing walking track on public conservation land or within a reserve. Conservation Make above‐ground network utilities restricted discretionary activities with assessment on merits. Default to non‐ 199 Chorus NZ Support in part complying where standard not met. 366 Federated Farmers Oppose in part Amend all rules to exlude farmland from the overlays 370 S & B Goudie Oppose Rule 4 a) ‐ delete maximum floor area SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 32 Landscape

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought

375 Tairua Environment Society Oppose Rule 8 ‐ one dwelling per lot should be discretionary or non‐complying There need to be rules for outstanding and high natural character areas and for amenity landscape in areas other than 375 Tairua Environment Society Oppose coastal living 376 MJ & SA Edens Support in part Amend where overlay covers existing farmland to be similar to the Coastal Zone rules in the Operative District Plan 378 Patricia Hishon Support in part Table 2 ‐ increase the reflectivity % from 35% to 45%. 378 Patricia Hishon Oppose Allow landowers to continue to run a sustainable business on their land e.g. farming. Assessment of subdivision and development on an amenity landscape mostly on the objectives and policies as part of 384 Blackjack Farms Ltd. Support any discretionary or non‐complying resource consent. 384 Blackjack Farms Ltd. Support No specific rules for natural character overlay. 384 Blackjack Farms Ltd. Support No specific rules for amenity landscape outside the Coastal Living zone. Table 4 ‐ replace the criterion that an activity "needs" to be located here, to protection from "inappropriate" use 389 Tasman Buildings Ltd. Oppose in part relative to the natural character characteristics. 389 Tasman Buildings Ltd. Oppose Table 4‐3a ‐ delete Table 4‐3b ‐ reframe to refer to whether the activity maintains, restores or enhances the function and cohesion of the 389 Tasman Buildings Ltd. Support in part resource attributes giving rise to application of the overlay. 391 Newmont Waihi Gold Support Background ‐ how effects will be assessed in these areas. 391 Newmont Waihi Gold Support Outstanding landscape overlay assessment standards, matters and criteria. Environmental Defence 514 Add Include rules relating to the activities likely to have more than minor adverse effects on natural character. Society Environmental Defence Include rules relating to subdivision, buildings, vegetation clearance and earthworks to address the activities most 514 Add Society likely to have significant adverse effects on amenity landscapes. Environmental Defence If any outstanding natural landscapes are located outside the coastal and rural area it is necessary for the outstanding 514 Add Society natural landscape rules to address vegetation clearance. SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 32 Landscape

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought Environmental Defence 514 Support Rules 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Society Environmental Defence 514 Support in part Rule 8 ‐ apply Council discretion to all matters in Table 3. Society Environmental Defence Table 2 ‐ support, but should also include the colours and materials required to blend in with the surrounding 514 Support in part Society landform and vegetation. Environmental Defence Table 3 ‐ support, especially consideration of alternative locations. However, amend to allow consideration of 514 Support in part Society vegetation clearance and other biodiversity effects. Make above‐ground network utilities restricted discretionary activities with assessment on merits. Default to non‐ 528 Telecom Support in part complying where standard not met. Whauwhau Environment 637 Oppose Make subdivision in an outstanding landscape more enabling (such as restricted discretionary or discretionary). Group Ltd Coastal Land Trust Holdings 638 Oppose Make subdivision in an outstanding landscape more enabling (such as restricted discretionary or discretionary). Ltd. 670 Shelley and Rhys Moxsom Oppose Delete restriction on floor area.

670 Shelley and Rhys Moxsom Support in part Rules 7, 8, 9 ‐ change to controlled status from restricted discretionary status. 671 Ken Nation Oppose Delete restriction on floor area. 671 Ken Nation Support in part Rules 7, 8, 9 ‐ change to controlled status from restricted discretionary status. Rule 10 ‐ Remove non‐complying activity status from subdivision and allow for future development to be considered 678 Annabel Wharton Oppose on it's own merit 706 I M Wernham Oppose Use the LA 4 landscape charts as basis for outstanding landscapes Table 1 ‐ be more specific for colour. Use reflectancy values or similar to existing section 853 ‐ use of exterior colours 715 TCDC Consent Planner Support in part which harmonise with the tonings of indigenous vegetation or the existing natural backdrop. SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 32 Landscape

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought Table 3‐2 ‐ Add assessment criteria: "minimising light spill at night and ensuring buildings do not have large areas of 715 TCDC Consent Planner Support in part glass relative to the bulk of the building." 717 TCDC Consent Planner Support in part Table 1.2 ‐ The reflectivity of external materials, not just glass. 717 TCDC Consent Planner Support in part Natural character Overlay Assessment Matters ‐ show where are the rules that get you to these assessment matters. 894 Powerco Oppose Rule 10 Above ground electricity line ‐ delete so it is not a non‐complying activity Provide for maintenance and minor upgrading of above ground electricity lines as a permitted activity and above 894 Powerco Oppose ground electricity line as a discretionary activity, K & M Nation, K Ryan, N 901 Oppose Delete restriction on floor area. Rennie (Kincraft Properties)

K & M Nation, K Ryan, N 901 Support in part Rules 7, 8, 9 ‐ change to controlled status from restricted discretionary status. Rennie (Kincraft Properties)

903 Ernslaw One Ltd. Support Ensure that Outstanding Natural Landscape and Amenity landscapes continue to have no separate rules for forestry. Rule 5 ‐ the volumes are too restrictive. Either delete or amend the rule to include an exclusion clause when the 905 Rayonier NZ Ltd. Oppose activity already holds a resource consent from the regional council. Ngaati Whanaunga 910 Amend No mention of cultural significance; assessment criteria should include cultural values Environmental Unit SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part V Section 33 Significant Trees

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought

Rule 1 ‐ amend to only require consent where work/activity is within the tree dripline; work of scheduled trees in road 199 Chorus NZ Ltd Support in part corridors undertaken by a network utility operator with a corridor access request should be a permitted activity

Tairua Environment The trees listed in Tairua. Suggest adding a rule: "trees can be pruned for sun or views as long as it does not affect the 375 Support Society health of the tree and its shape/amenity and is carried out by a Council approved arborist." 671 Ken Nation Support in part Table 2 ‐ change to controlled activity. 894 Powerco Support in part Amend Rule 2.1 to refer to a contractor approved by the Council 894 Powerco Support in part Amend Rule 3.1 c) to refer to a network utility operator K & M Nation, K Ryan, N 901 Rennie (Kincraft Support in part Table 2 ‐ change to controlled activity. Properties) SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 35 Structure Plans

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought

MATARANGI STRUCTURE PLAN Waikato Regional 29 Support Sections 35.1, 35.2, 35.3. Council 56 J Reeves Support Retention of golf course as open space 57 I John Support Retention of golf course as open space Protection of open spaces including the golf course, holes 3‐7 and greenkeepers shed. Provision is also needed for 88 C Joynt Support in part planting, pedestrian/cycle access Protection of open spaces including the golf course and greenkeepers shed. Provision is also needed for creation of 89 J Skelton Support in part separate neighbourhoods and planting, pedestrian/cycle access 95 D Cochrane Support in part Protection of open spaces including the golf course and green keepers. Amendments to ensure that the golf course and green keepers hill is retained as open space in perpetuity; structure 103 G Osborne Support in part plan must also identify cells and neighbourhoods and public access connections 109 S & K Jones Support in part Protection of open spaces including the golf course and holes 8‐18 Protection of open spaces including the golf course and green keepers hill; identification of cells and neighbourhoods, 110 R Healy Support in part pedestrian/cycle connections between harbour and beach/neighbourhoods and town centre 138 R & V Reece Support in part Protection of open spaces including the golf course 159 PA & JM Johnstone Oppose Retain the Matarangi Golf Course land as Open Space, including "greenkeeper's hill". Provide and protect areas of open space, trees, pedestrian & cycling access between open spaces, neighbourhoods, 159 PA & JM Johnstone Support in part ocean, harbour and recreation areas. 160 Anita Beach Oppose Retain the Matarangi Golf Course land as Open Space, including "greenkeeper's hill". Provide and protect areas of open space, trees, pedestrian & cycling access between open spaces, neighbourhoods, 160 Anita Beach Support in part ocean, harbour and recreation areas. 161 Warwick Fenwick Oppose Retain the Matarangi Golf Course land as Open Space, including "greenkeeper's hill". Provide and protect areas of open space, trees, pedestrian & cycling access between open spaces, neighbourhoods, 161 Warwick Fenwick Support in part ocean, harbour and recreation areas. SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 35 Structure Plans

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought 162 JL & TS Anderson Oppose Retain the Matarangi Golf Course land as Open Space, including "greenkeeper's hill". Provide and protect areas of open space, trees, pedestrian & cycling access between open spaces, neighbourhoods, 162 JL & TS Anderson Support in part ocean, harbour and recreation areas. 163 Jean Irene Law Oppose Retain the Matarangi Golf Course land as Open Space, including "greenkeeper's hill". Provide and protect areas of open space, trees, pedestrian & cycling access between open spaces, neighbourhoods, 163 Jean Irene Law Support in part ocean, harbour and recreation areas. 164 Keith William Law Oppose Retain the Matarangi Golf Course land as Open Space, including "greenkeeper's hill". Provide and protect areas of open space, trees, pedestrian & cycling access between open spaces, neighbourhoods, 164 Keith William Law Support in part ocean, harbour and recreation areas. Michael & Susan 165 Oppose Retain the Matarangi Golf Course land as Open Space, including "greenkeeper's hill". Thornber Michael & Susan Provide and protect areas of open space, trees, pedestrian & cycling access between open spaces, neighbourhoods, 165 Support in part Thornber ocean, harbour and recreation areas. 166 IJ & JL Simpson Oppose Retain the Matarangi Golf Course land as Open Space, including "greenkeeper's hill". Provide and protect areas of open space, trees, pedestrian & cycling access between open spaces, neighbourhoods, 166 IJ & JL Simpson Support in part ocean, harbour and recreation areas. 167 Kenneth Were Oppose Retain the Matarangi Golf Course land as Open Space, including "greenkeeper's hill". Provide and protect areas of open space, trees, pedestrian & cycling access between open spaces, neighbourhoods, 167 Kenneth Were Support in part ocean, harbour and recreation areas. Landowners adjoining Include policy to ensure that the open space qualities of Lot 36 DPS 72837 containing Holes 1 and 2 of the Matarangi 369 Holes 1 and 2 of Support in part Golf Course and the dune structure at the seaward end are protected in perpetuity and identify Lot 36 as a future Matarangi Golf Course reserve and impose a covenant to protect its open space qualities Landowners adjoining Inclusion of the Structure Plan; inclusion of holes 1 and 2 in the structure plan; confirmation of Matarangi Golf Course 369 Holes 1 and 2 of Support providing open space that enabled residential subdivision to occur; use of unzoned land to protect the golf course Matarangi Golf Course SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 35 Structure Plans

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought Inclusion of the Structure Plan; inclusion of holes 1 and 2 in the structure plan; confirmation and recognition of the Matarangi Ratepayers 373 Support value of open space; subdivision controls and activity status; inclusion of Greenkeepers hill and the golf course in the Association same "zone" Amend policy 2 f) to ensure existing open spaces are retained and recognised as meeting requirements for existing Matarangi Ratepayers 373 Support in part subdivision and development within these areas and that further subdivision and development is required to provide Association open space to a similar ratio Matarangi Ratepayers Policies are required to ensure pedestrian connectivity is maintained and enhanced between ocean and harbour, 373 Support in part Association residential cells and town centre, youth park and active recreation activities, with emergency services

Matarangi Ratepayers Include the neighbourhood villages/cells in the structure plan diagram and a walkway network to complement the 373 Support in part Association road network and in Rule 2 include a diagram to illustrate how the walkway network would look Matarangi Ratepayers 373 Support in part Include rationale for the large indicative reserve fronting Matarangi Drive Association Include an enlarged fire station site; a youth park on the eastern side of the shopping centre; a more extensive area Matarangi Ratepayers 373 Support in part for boat trailer parking near the jetty and boat launching ramp; and recognise existing tennis courts and provide for Association additional courts Include a policy: "incorporate the block of land known as Greenkeepers Hill into the golf course to protect the Matarangi Ratepayers 373 Support landscape qualities of the land and to retain the existing buffer of elevated land and vegetation to minimise future Association risks to road traffic and residential sites from the operation of the golf course." 393 Golf (2012) Ltd. Oppose Don't require the golf course to remain a golf course in perpetuity ‐ illegal. 393 Golf (2012) Ltd. Oppose Contact Golf (2012) Ltd. to discuss zone and structure plan changes 393 Golf (2012) Ltd. Oppose Don't require holes 10 to 16 to be vested in Council if not used as a golf course ‐ illegal. 393 Golf (2012) Ltd. Oppose Keep the structure plan and zoning status quo. 397 Aaron Morgan Neutral Any change from the Open Space Zone south of Matarangi Drive should be publicly notified. SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 35 Structure Plans

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought Make provision for housing clusters among open space with trees, connecting pathways and permanent protection for 404 A & J Chisholm Support in part the golf course land 413 P Warner Support in part Ensure that Golf Course holes 1 and 2 are protected in perpetuity Amendments to ensure that the golf course and green keepers hill is retained as open space in perpetuity; structure 470 J & C Hart Support in part plan must also identify cells and neighbourhoods and public access connections Retain residential subdivision in accordance with Structure Plan but as a Controlled Activity; Controlled Activity to be 486 Coromandel Assets Ltd Support in part assessed as non‐notified application Retain minimum lot sizes for Residential and Extra Density Zones; Retain Extra Density Residential Development within 486 Coromandel Assets Ltd Support in part Matarangi Structure Plan; Clarify Extra Density Residential area in Structure Plan; Extra Density subdivision should be a Controlled Activity Retain existing provisions for building setback from MHWS; Retain provisions for pedestrian accessways; Refine 486 Coromandel Assets Ltd Support in part subdivision standards and assessment criteria Retain existing Structure Plan diagrams; Remove additional reserve area, open space and setback requirements; 486 Coromandel Assets Ltd Support in part Changes to structure plan diagrams 486 Coromandel Assets Ltd Opposed Natural Character overlay purpose needs to be explained Amendments to ensure that the golf course and green keepers hill is retained as open space in perpetuity; structure 540 S Knaggs Support in part plan must also identify cells and neighbourhoods and public access connections 547 PD White Support in part Protection of Holes 1 and 2 at the Matarangi Golf Course as open space in perpetuity Amendments to ensure that the golf course and green keepers hill is retained as open space in perpetuity; structure 552 S Bootten Support in part plan must also identify cells and neighbourhoods and public access connections Amendments to ensure that the golf course and green keepers hill is retained as open space in perpetuity; structure 553 K Bootten Support in part plan must also identify cells and neighbourhoods and public access connections Amendments to ensure that the golf course and green keepers hill is retained as open space in perpetuity; structure 554 V Thornton Support in part plan must also identify cells and neighbourhoods and public access connections SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 35 Structure Plans

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought Amendments to ensure that the golf course and green keepers hill is retained as open space in perpetuity; structure 555 Bradley Holmes Support in part plan must also identify cells and neighbourhoods and public access connections Amendments to ensure that the golf course and green keepers hill is retained as open space in perpetuity; structure 556 T Cibalskia Support in part plan must also identify cells and neighbourhoods and public access connections Amendments to ensure that the golf course and green keepers hill is retained as open space in perpetuity; structure 557 P Cibalskia Support in part plan must also identify cells and neighbourhoods and public access connections Amendments to ensure that the golf course and green keepers hill is retained as open space in perpetuity; structure 558 S Teodoresan Support in part plan must also identify cells and neighbourhoods and public access connections Amendments to ensure that the golf course and green keepers hill is retained as open space in perpetuity; structure 560 K Davison Support in part plan must also identify cells and neighbourhoods and public access connections Amendments to ensure that the golf course and green keepers hill is retained as open space in perpetuity; structure 565 B Evans Support in part plan must also identify cells and neighbourhoods and public access connections Amendments to ensure that the golf course and green keepers hill is retained as open space in perpetuity; structure 566 J Howard Support in part plan must also identify cells and neighbourhoods and public access connections 570 R & D Cameron Support in part End the uncertainty over zoning of the golf course Landowners adjoining 570 Holes 1 and 2 of Support in part Take into account that all the issues relevant to Matarangi have been around for some time and publicly available. Matarangi Golf Course Landowners adjoining 570 Holes 1 and 2 of Support in part Make it clear that Lot 36 has, and will always be, open space. Matarangi Golf Course Landowners adjoining 570 Holes 1 and 2 of Support in part Make any increase or change of buildings on the golf course a resource consent, with notification. Matarangi Golf Course SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 35 Structure Plans

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought Amendments to ensure that the golf course and green keepers hill is retained as open space in perpetuity; structure 603 Mr & Mrs Hurrell Support in part plan must also identify cells and neighbourhoods and public access connections Amendments to ensure that the golf course and green keepers hill is retained as open space in perpetuity; structure 604 M Bates Support in part plan must also identify cells and neighbourhoods and public access connections Amendments to ensure that the golf course and green keepers hill is retained as open space in perpetuity; structure 605 E Zeiser Support in part plan must also identify cells and neighbourhoods and public access connections Amendments to ensure that the golf course and green keepers hill is retained as open space in perpetuity; structure 606 M Stone Support in part plan must also identify cells and neighbourhoods and public access connections Amend the Plan to ensure the land currently contained within the golf course (including the green keeper's hill ) is 607 Mark Harley Support in part retained as open space in perpetuity. 607 Mark Harley Support in part Protect the land forming the golf course as open space in perpetuity. 607 Mark Harley Support in part Make the green belts (open space) provide shade trees and continuity of pedestrian and cycling access. The structure plan must identify or indicate: cells and neighbourhoods, areas of open space, connections to be made 607 Mark Harley Support in part and retained for non‐motorised public access between ocean and harbour, and from east to west connecting cells and neighbourhoods with the town centre and recreation facilities. Amend the Plan to ensure the land currently contained within the golf course (including the green keeper's hill ) is 608 Owen Malmanche Support in part retained as open space in perpetuity. 608 Owen Malmanche Support in part Protect the land forming the golf course as open space in perpetuity. 608 Owen Malmanche Support in part Make the green belts (open space) provide shade trees and continuity of pedestrian and cycling access. The structure plan must identify or indicate: cells and neighbourhoods, areas of open space, connections to be made 608 Owen Malmanche Support in part and retained for non‐motorised public access between ocean and harbour, and from east to west connecting cells and neighbourhoods with the town centre and recreation facilities. Amend the Plan to ensure the land currently contained within the golf course (including the green keeper's hill ) is 609 Ross Johnson Support in part retained as open space in perpetuity. SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 35 Structure Plans

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought 609 Ross Johnson Support in part Protect the land forming the golf course as open space in perpetuity. 609 Ross Johnson Support in part Make the green belts (open space) provide shade trees and continuity of pedestrian and cycling access. The structure plan must identify or indicate: cells and neighbourhoods, areas of open space, connections to be made 609 Ross Johnson Support in part and retained for non‐motorised public access between ocean and harbour, and from east to west connecting cells and neighbourhoods with the town centre and recreation facilities. Amend the Plan to ensure the land currently contained within the golf course (including the green keeper's hill ) is 635 Toby King Support in part retained as open space in perpetuity. Add stronger policy rationale, and incorporate the resource management reasons why the open space qualities of Lot Grant Watson & Kristine 636 Support in part 36 (Holes 1 & 2 of the Golf Course) must continue to be retained. Also make very clear why land use activities Marie McCurrach involving any buildings or structures (of any type) on Lot 36 must be avoided. Grant Watson & Kristine Maintain the existing open spaces, preserve green areas free of buildings so as to maintain the natural character of 636 Support Marie McCurrach Matarangi and the visual landscape connection fro the Ocean Beach to the Coromandel Ranges. 654 Stephen B Fisher Support in part Protect remaining 'Open Space' zoning in perpetuity Support the Matarangi Structure Plan subject to the Council adopting the recommendations made by the Matarangi 679 David Stephen Griffiths Support in part Ratepayers Association Protection of open spaces including the golf course and green keepers hill; identification of cells and neighbourhoods, 680 A Harford Support in part pedestrian/cycle connections between harbour and beach/neighbourhoods and town centre 704 JP & MT Dunn Oppose Amendments to ensure that the golf course is retained as open space in perpetuity Mercury Bay Community 710 Support Golf course identified as open space Board Ngaati Whanaunga 910 Mana whenua held on this area Environmental Unit SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 35 Structure Plans

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought

KOPU‐THAMES STRUCTURE PLAN Waikato Regional 29 Support Kopu to Thames Structure Plan: Objectives 2 and 8 and their policies. Council Waikato Regional 29 Support Objective 6 and policies. Consider 6d to be specific with WRPS 8.3.9 c. and h., and d. for management plans. Council Waikato Regional 29 Support Diagram 2 – retain with ecological corridors and ensure this will be reflected in full through the planning maps. Council On the basis that the need/demand has been identified; infrastructure is able to be provided to accommodate the 69 P Barrett Support growth 370 S & B Goudie Oppose Inefficient use of land through land classification 370 S & B Goudie Oppose Exclude our property P Findlay and Associates 518 Oppose The boundary of Stage 1 and the zoning of residential land in relation to Totara Valley Road Ltd P Findlay and Associates The roading loop/collector road to connect to Totara Valley Road in no viable or consistent with Low Density 518 Support in part Ltd Residential development P Findlay and Associates 518 Support in part The area in Stage 1 is inadequate Ltd P Findlay and Associates 518 Support in part Include 128 Totara Valley Road in Stage 1 and rezone as Residential Ltd P Findlay and Associates Consider how the ecological corridors may be provided by the landowner; reconsider the collector road proposed in 518 Support in part Ltd Stage One; clearly identify the level of building platforms 532 Brian Sharp Neutral Introduce a gateway zone between Kopu and Thames so as Thames remains a retail centre. 671 Ken Nation Oppose Structure Plan a completely inefficient use of land. Kopu Landowners & The collector road (i.e. in Industrial Zone) must be designated and formed (if in stages) by Council and development 699 Add Occupiers Association levies imposed with consents granted. SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 35 Structure Plans

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought Kopu Landowners & In some cases the ecological, archaeological and other reports will be unnecessary as they can be drawn to 699 Oppose Occupiers Association developers' early attention and are within Council's knowledge. Kopu Landowners & 699 Oppose Use the 1995 Flood Management Plan to deal with proposed industrial development. Occupiers Association Kopu Landowners & 699 Add Entice the necessary large industry to Kopu, otherwise nothing will happen. Occupiers Association Kopu Landowners & 699 Add Forget lifestyle ‐ zone for residential. Occupiers Association 717 TCDC Consent Planner Support in part Add in objectives and policies for flood management. K & M Nation, K Ryan, N 901 Rennie (Kincraft Oppose Inefficient use of land through land classification Properties) K & M Nation, K Ryan, N 901 Rennie (Kincraft Oppose Remove the structure plan Properties) K & M Nation, K Ryan, N 901 Rennie (Kincraft Oppose Remove 80‐86 Kopu Road from the Structure Plan Properties) Ngaati Whanaunga 910 Support in part structure plan wide assessment needed for definitive maps of important sites Environmental Unit SUMMARY OF CHANGES SOUGHT BY PLAN SECTION

Volume 1 Part 5 Section 35 Structure Plans

# Commenter Support/Oppose Changes Sought

WHITIANGA STRUCTURE PLAN Waikato Regional Whitianga Waterways Structure Plan ‐ There are no provisions for the natural environment e.g. along coastal margins 29 Support in part Council – are there no ecological corridors left?

Whitianga Waterways, Hopper Developments 204 Ltd, Whitianga Support in part Remove the area shown as indicative reserve on the northern side of Jan Gaskell Drive. Commercial Ltd and Pauanui Waterways Ltd

GENERAL

53 T Schramm Oppose Reinstate the Ferry Landing ‐ Flaxmill Bay Purangi Road Structure Plan contained in the Operative District Plan 432 A Horne Oppose Need to ensure that the objectives and policies of structure plans are achieved 432 A Horne Oppose Include a timeframe restricting the life of structure plans 432 A Horne Oppose No more structure plans