Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (Hpuds) Review 2016 – Overview Report to Officer Comments on Submissions

HERETAUNGA PLAINS URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (HPUDS) REVIEW 2016 – OVERVIEW REPORT TO OFFICER COMMENTS ON SUBMISSIONS

Meeting Date: 4th October 2016

Author: Philip McKay, Consultant Planner

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to inform the HPUDS Implementation Working Group (IWG) on submissions received to the Draft Revised HPUDS Strategy 2016 and to obtain recommendations on the submissions for each partner Council to consider for adoption. Any resulting changes will then be incorporated into the final Reviewed HPUDS. 2. Due to the timing of the local body elections the HPUDS IWG’s recommendations will not be able to considered until the partner Councils commence their meetings in the new term. Background

3. The development of HPUDS 2010 involved a collaborative approach by the Hastings District Council, Napier City Council and Hawke's Bay Regional Council to plan and manage urban growth for the period 2015-2045. The strategy takes a long-term integrated view of urban land-use and infrastructure. The current HPUDS review has involved the same collaborative approach between the three partner Councils. 4. HPUDS 2010 is founded on a series of guiding principles which are summarised in the following diagram. Figure 1 - Summarised form of Guiding Principles in 2010 HPUDS (Source: HPUDS Ch1.6)

A growing resilient economy which promtes opportunities to live, work, invest, and play

Quality living Mana whenua values environments with and aspirations are high levels of amenity recognised and and thriving provided for communities

HPUDS' GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Productive value of its Community and soil and water phyiscal infrastructure resources are in planned, recognised and sustainable and provided for and used affordable sustainably Urban centres of Napier and Hastings have distinct identities and provide complementary working, living and learning opportunities

5. In implementing these principles, HPUDS seeks to achieve a compact development form. This development form was settled on by the partner Councils after an initial round of consultation in the development of HPUDS. The approach to achieve compact development is explained on page 2 of the Draft Revised Strategy for Public Consultation as follows: “In the move towards more compact urban form for the Heretaunga Plains sub-region, an increasing proportion of the residential growth will need to take place through intensification, by redevelopment within existing residential and rural residential areas, Development is expected to transition from current development allocation levels to the following by 2045:

• 60% intensification (10 – 20% intensification of brownfields) • 35% greenfield • 5% of population in rural areas. The Strategy was also developed on the basis of achieving balanced supply between Napier and Hastings.”

6. To achieve this change to a more compact form and in avoiding unnecessary urban development on the Heretaunga Plains, HPUDS 2010 identifies specific areas for greenfields development out to 2045 and seeks to limit such development to these areas only. As well as seeking to protect the versatile land resource of the Heretaunga Plains, some tension in greenfields land supply is required to encourage the intensification of development within the existing urban areas to ensure that the 60% intensification target can be met. 7. Defined growth areas in conjunction with intensification are considered to be more efficient and cost effective from an infrastructure and servicing point of view. This approach also ensures land use and infrastructure can be coordinated, development well planned, and growth on the versatile land of the Heretaunga Plains avoided as much as possible. 8. The growth areas and their potential dwelling yield have been derived by projecting the dwelling growth needs for the HPUDS study area out to 2045. These projections are based on demographic information and calculate the number of greenfields, infill and rural dwellings that will be required to meet these growth needs in a ratio that achieves the preferred settlement pattern. 9. Another key feature of HPUDS’ ongoing implementation is the scheduling of 5 yearly reviews. This provides an opportunity to check actual growth against projected growth and other changes in circumstances that may have occurred over the preceding 5 years. The reviews also provide the opportunity to make adjustments as necessary. HPUDS 5 Yearly Review

10. The five yearly review of HPUDS commenced with meetings of the IWG in September and October 2015 to establish scope. The scope of the information gathering phase of the review was confirmed as follows: • Stage 1: A review of assumptions upon which the strategy is based, underpinned by monitoring of growth drivers and trends over the past five years. • Stage 2: Will proceed based on the outcomes of Stage 1. That is, specifically focusing on the components that need to be reviewed as a consequence of the findings in Stage 1. 2016 Review Stage 1

11. The HPUDS Technical Advisory Group (TAG) reported back to the IWG on 29th March 2016 on the findings of Stage 1. Stage 1 involved the preparation of 11 technical reports, which are listed in Table 1 as follows. Table 1 – List of Technical Reports Produced as Stage 1 of the HPUDS Review

Report Title Report Author Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Sean Bevin, Economic Solutions Ltd Strategy 2015-2045, Review of Base Demographic and Economic Growth Trends and Projections Since 2009 Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Mike Penrose & Trevor Kitchen, Telfer Study – Market Demand Report Young Hawke’s Bay Ltd Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Grant Russell & Des Parkinson, MWH Strategy – Phase 2 Infrastructure Ltd Reviewed 2016 – 2025 Land Demand Projection, Frank Spencer, Logan Stone Ltd Hastings District and Napier City Residential Uptake and Distribution of Mark Clews, Hastings District Council Actual Growth Relative Housing Affordability & Mark Clews, Hastings District Council Greenfields Land Availability Review of Rural Lifestyle Subdivision Mark Clews, Hastings District Council 2000 – 2015 HPUDS Update Residential Dean Moriarity, Napier City Council Intensification Capacity Literature Review - Natural Hazards Belinda Riley, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Literature Review - Urban Growth & Land Belinda Riley, Hawke’s Bay Regional Use Council HPUDS Actions Implemented Belinda Riley, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

12. The reports completed as part of the HPUDS Review Stage 1 generally confirmed that the HPUDS 2010 assumptions and directions around urban growth remain sound despite there being a slightly larger than projected increase in population during the period 2009 - 2015. The updated projections result in a slight population increase over the 30 year period to 2045 and a more significant increase in dwelling growth (based on adopting the medium – high growth projections), but this increase would still be able to be accommodated within the HPUDS identified greenfield growth areas and the infill growth projections. 13. The various reports identified some need for further work around rural residential supply and some action around immediate greenfields supply availability issues. 2016 Review Stage 2

14. In addition to the need for further work around rural residential supply and immediate greenfields supply, a matter that was not covered off in the Stage 1 reporting was the implications of a growth in demand for retirement housing, given the projected aging of the population. Accordingly three technical reports were commissioned for Stage 2 of the HPUDS Review, relating to: • A review of Rural Residential Land Supply (prepared by Cameron Drury, Cheal Consultants Ltd) • Consideration of alternative Greenfields Residential Sites and a review of the HPUDS Settlement Pattern (prepared by Nick Aiken, Opus International Consultants Ltd) • Retirement Sector Housing Demand Forecasts (prepared by Murray Tonks, EMS Ltd) 15. The other component of Stage 2 of the Review was the preparation of a draft HPUDS Review Strategy document (by Rowena Macdonald, Sage Planning HB Ltd), based on the finding of the Stage 1 reports and the abovementioned Stage 2 reports. This has formed the ‘Draft Reviewed HPUDS 2016 for consultation’. 16. All of the reports produced as part of Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the HPUDS review can be accessed from the HPUDS web site: http://www.hpuds.co.nz/resources/#draftstrat 17. The findings of Stage 2 were reported to the IWG on 30th June 2016. The key findings of the reports from this stage are summarised as follows: • That there is no short to medium term supply issue with rural residential land, therefore no adjustment is required to the settlement pattern to identify more rural residential land in this review; • That the aging population is going to have a significant effect on the type of housing that the market demands in the future being a move towards smaller dwellings and retirement units. At this stage it is envisaged that the market can provide for such housing through the preferred HPUDS settlement pattern with smaller dwellings helping meet the intensification targets and that some of the greenfields land can provide for retirement village housing; • That changes should be made to the HPUDS Settlement Pattern to replace a Greenfield Growth Area (Arataki Extension replaced with Brookvale due to reverse sensitivity issues with Te Mata Mushrooms) and introduce reserve areas in addressing the current short term supply issue and in avoiding such issues in the future; and • That two areas (Whirinaki and Clive South (off Read Crescent)) can be removed from the list of inappropriate areas for residential greenfields growth. Overall Review Findings

18. The 2015 – 16 HPUDS Review has provided updated projections which result in both population and dwelling growth increases over the 30 year period (based on the medium – high growth projections) compared to the HPUDS 2010 projections. Nevertheless, these increases would still be able to be accommodated within the HPUDS identified greenfield growth areas and the infill growth projections. In fact there is an approximate buffer of 15% of supply over projected demand1 provided over the identified greenfield growth areas in recognition that it is unlikely that each growth area will be able to be developed to its theoretical potential. 19. No change is recommended to the overall compact development approach and the principles of HPUDS 2010 all remain. Although new ‘greenfield reserve areas’ are proposed in response to the current short term supply issue, they

1 Draft Revised HPUDS Strategy 2016 for public consultation, page 18. should not be considered part of the identified greenfield supply as they may never be developed in the period to 2045. They are simply identified so that if an existing HPUDS greenfields area proves unsuitable for development (as has happened with the Arataki Extension) or there is a dramatic change in population growth, a new area can be brought in quickly from the reserve list without waiting for the 5 yearly review. Consultation

20. Notices calling for submissions were e-mailed and posted to interested parties in late July 2016. The mailing lists included the following: • HPUDS Stakeholder Consultation Group; Submitters to RPS Change 4; and those who submitted on HPUDS last time (if not already in stakeholder database); • Te Awa and South Pirimai landowners, including land owners within 100m of the boundaries of new areas (South Pirimai); and • Arataki Extension, Brookvale and proposed Hastings District Reserve Area landowners, including land owners within 100m of boundaries of new areas (Brookvale and reserve areas). 21. The long-established website (www.hpuds.co.nz) was refreshed and content updated in July 2016. All the 2015 – 2016 Review information, including new maps and information regarding the making of submissions is posted on that website. Full page advertisement / explanations were included in the community newspapers on 3rd August 2016 and articles were also included in the Hawke’s Bay Today. 22. A three week period was provided for making submissions with the closing date being Monday 22nd August. It is noted that grace was given for submissions to be received up to the 26th August due to the gastro illnesses affecting Havelock North residents at the time. Submissions

23. A total of 55 submissions on the ‘Draft Revised HPUDS Strategy 2016 for Public Consultation’ were received. These submissions are available to view on the HPUDS website: http://www.hpuds.co.nz/review/#sub

24. In terms of submission themes the following summary is provided:

• Brookvale / Arataki Area

o Submissions were received supporting Brookvale as a greenfields development area but seeking immediate rezoning (11 submissions), opposing Brookvale as a greenfields development area (1), supporting Romanes Drive as a reserve area (2), and seeking the retention of the Arataki Extension in HPUDS (1);

• Other Hastings District Growth or Reserve Areas o Submissions were received in relation to: Iona / Havelock Hills (4), Middle Road (2), Howard Street (1), Wall Road (2), Murdoch Road (1), Tomaona Industrial (2) and Te Awanga (2);

• Requests for New Hastings District Growth Areas or New Reserve Areas

o Submissions were received in relation to: Ada Street (1), Pakowhai Road (2), Clive (2), Raymond Road (3), Waiohiki (1) and Whirinaki (1);

• Existing Growth Areas, Napier

o Te Awa (2), Taradale Hills (2) and promote infill housing (1) • Requests for New Napier Growth Areas / Development Opportunities

o Jervoistown (1), Meeanee Road (1), Cnr Riverbend & Bledisloe (1) and Churchhill Drive (1)

• Another 10 general submissions (or parts of submissions) were received with a variety of requests, notably 3 of them strongly support the existing strategy and either oppose or urge caution with regards to the introduction of any new areas or reserve areas.

Principles for Officer Submission Reporting

25. For the purposes of producing officer comments (attached to this report in a series of separate documents grouped by themes and entitled “Officer Comments”), points of submissions have been grouped into reporting themes as noted in Appendix 1. This appendix consists of a table setting out submitter names and numbers, grouped into submission themes and the allocated reporting officer.

26. In general, the TAG members for Hastings District, or consultants acting for them, commented on the submissions relating to the Hastings District; Napier City Council TAG members commented on submissions relating to Napier City; and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council TAG members provided comments on the general submissions and the submission from the Hastings District Council, as well as the submissions relating to Parkhill Road (on behalf of Hastings District).

27. The officers’ comments are provided in a Local Government Act submission format (as opposed to the more detailed Resource Management Act section 42A reporting format). The officers’ comments respond to the submissions on an HPUDS principles basis. That is, can the changes requested in the submissions meet the key HPUDS principles?

28. Where amendments to the Strategy are recommended by the officers, the amendments specified will typically only relate to the key/principal alteration(s) in response to submissions. Not every consequential alteration has been specified in the recommendations, but it is intended that necessary consequential amendments will be made to ensure the revised Draft HPUDS 2016 reads seamlessly and is internally consistent.

RECOMMENDATION/S AND REASONS

A) That the report titled Draft Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy Submission Overview Report dated 4 October 2016 be received.

B) That the HPUDS Inter-Council Working Group:

i. Receive the written and hear oral submissions, in response to the Draft Revised HPUDS 2016 for Public Consultation.

ii. Receive the officer comments in response to the written and oral submissions made (attached to this report in separate documents entitled ‘Officer Comments’).

iii. Resolve to adopt the recommendations set out through the officer comments, along with any associated consequential amendments to the draft revised HPUDS 2016.

iv. Instruct officers to forward replies to all submitters thank them for their submissions, advise of any Working Group recommendations in response to the submissions and offer explanation based on the officer comments as amended by the Working Group at the meeting, and advising that final adoption by the three partner Councils cannot occur until after the new councils are formed after the elections.

v. Recommend (Conditional on accepting (iii)) to the individual partner Councils the adoption of the Revised Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy 2016 as amended by recommendations of the HPUDS Implementation Working Group.

Appendix 1 - HPUDS Submission Themes and Reporting Allocation

# Submitter Name Theme of Submission Reporting Reporting Bundle Officer Havelock North Related Brookvale 52 Whittaker, Michael Brookvale opposes re reverse sensitivity Brookvale Road Residents 8 Association 12 Daly, Brian 14 Donovan, Jill & Jeff 29 Mair, Peter 32 McNamara, Steve Rezone Immediately HDC (Mark Officer Comments 1 - Hastings District Brookvale / 33 Millward, Roger Clews) Arataki Related Submissons 35 Murphy, Mike & Heather 44 Taylor, Scott 50 Watkins, Mark 51 Wezel, Carl & Carl 25 Heavey, Pat Rezone Immediately with Romanes Brookvale area yields 54 Horticulture NZ Romanes Bourke, Michael & HDC (Mark Officer Comments 1 - Hastings District Brookvale / 6 Bourke Family Romanes Drive - Greenfield or Reserve Clews) Arataki Related Submissons 43 Stevenson Family Supports Romanes Drive as reserve area Arataki HBRC (as Officer Comments 1 - Hastings District Brookvale / Atrataki Extension - keep in strategy HDC Arataki Related Submissons 55 Hastings District Council conflicted) Iona / Havelock Hills 4 Beamish, Josi Iona & Hills Oppose 41 Rutter, Peter Iona Havelock Hills opposes Sage Graeme Lowe Properties Officer Comments 2 - Hastings District Identified Planning 18 Limited & Lowe Family Iona Havelock Hills supports amend maps & yield Greenfields Growth & Reserve Areas (for HDC) General - halt all Hastings growth for lower 34 Mohi, Rose Havelock Hills Middle Road Te Aute Rd / Middle Rd - rezone Te Aute Rd now Sage 42 Smith, Maurice Officer Comments 2 - Hastings District Identified Planning Graeme Lowe Properties Support Middle Rd as a Reserve Area Greenfields Growth & Reserve Areas (for HDC) 18 Limited & Lowe Family Hastings City Related Ada Street Include Ada - Howard - Awaho Drain in HPUDS as Opus a greenfields growth area or a reserve growth Consultants Officer Comments 3 - Hastings District New area. (for Areas Requested for Inclusion in HPUDS 7 Boyes, Whiting & Stone HPUDS) Howard Street Howard St to Awaho supports this area as Opus greenfield area in HPUDS. Consultants Officer Comments 2 - Hastings District Identified (for Greenfields Growth & Reserve Areas 10 Cooper, Karen HPUDS) Pakowhai Rd (new greenfields) Hastings Greenfield – Pakowhai Rd 3 Bayley, Kevin EMS Ltd Officer Comments 3 - Hastings District New Pakowhai Rd / Lyndhurst Rd adjacent Gracelands (for HDC) Areas Requested for Inclusion in HPUDS 19 Gregory Group Wall Road 24 Hawke's Bay Racing Wall Rd Reserve Area - supports HDC (Mark Officer Comments 2 - Hastings District Identified Wall Rd Reserve Area - supports & wants fringe Clews) Greenfields Growth & Reserve Areas 47 Troup, Jason areas if can be serviced Murdoch Road Murdoch Road Reserve Area – opposed HDC (Mark Officer Comments 2 - Hastings District Identified 27 Magee, Alan Clews) Greenfields Growth & Reserve Areas Tomoana Industrial 5 Bishop, Jim Tomoana Industrial - add whole block HDC (Mark Officer Comments 2 - Hastings District Identified 46 Token Holdings Tomoana Industrial - add whole block Clews) Greenfields Growth & Reserve Areas Wider Hastings District Clive 13 Davidson, Charlie & Susan Clive – 126 main Rd EMS Ltd Officer Comments 3 - Hastings District New 2 Batt, Mervyn & Robyn Clive South add as reserve (for HDC) Areas Requested for Inclusion in HPUDS Raymond Road, Haumoana 16 Endsleigh Cottages Identify upper terrace fronting Raymond Road for Shane Raymond Road Rezoning Rural Residential development due to soil Lambert, Group (Development constrains for productive use Officer Comments 3 - Hastings District New HBRC 39 Nous) Areas Requested for Inclusion in HPUDS (on behalf Raymond Road Rezoning of HDC) 40 Group (Maurenbrecher) Te Awanga 9 Clifton Bay Limited Te Awanga South lifestyle residential Sage Officer Comments 2 - Hastings District Identified development – requests mapping of property as Planning Greenfields Growth & Reserve Areas 28 Mahoney, Mark Greenfields Area for inclusion in HPUDS. (for HDC) Other Waiohiki - provide for lifestyle dev near Marae or Opus allow for wider development of Marae Consultants Officer Comments 3 - Hastings District New communities. (for Areas Requested for Inclusion in HPUDS 20 Gunn, Gerard HPUDS) Whirinaki - 70 lot development – seeks that this land off North Shore Road at the southern end of Sage Officer Comments 3 - Hastings District New Whirinaki be identified as a Greenfield area in Planning Areas Requested for Inclusion in HPUDS HPUDS. (for HDC) 17 Evans Family Trust 48 Unison Networks Limited General - Some areas more expensive for power HDC (Mark Officer Comments 2 - Hastings District Identified with specific reference to Te Awanga / Clews) Greenfields Growth & Reserve Areas Haumoana and Waimarama Napier Jervoice Town - allow development NCC (Dean 26 Joseph, William & Jocelyn Moriarity) Seeks identification of property on cnr of Riverbend Rd / Bledisloe Rd for greenfields NCC (Dean development Moriarity) 37 Panckhurst, Guy Officer Comments 4 - Napier City New Areas Seeks that an identified area of Rural Residential Requested for Inclusion in HPUDS NCC (Dean Zoned land off Churchill Drive be identified for Moriarity) 37 Panckhurst, Guy greenfields residential (urban cluster housing). Provide opportunity for Rural Residential NCC (James development on Meeanee Road. Minehan) 1 Absalom, Neal 38 Pedlow, Lyndon Te Awa - concern with development levies NCC (Dean 21 Harkness, Richard Te Awa - provide for development Moriarity) Western Hills supports with amendments to map & yield NCC (James Note also Matt Edwards’s submission below re Minehan) Taradale Hills. 31 Marist Holdings Limited Officer Comments 5 - Napier City identified Infill housing - promote with equity regarding dev Greenfields Growth Areas & General Submissions contributions with reference to development in NCC (Dean Napier (ie lesser development contributions for Moriarity) infill compared to greenfields). 22 Harris, Paul NCC (Dean 15 Edwards, Matt General - opposed to growth, supports Tdale Hills Moriarity)

General 34 Mohi, Rose General – Aquifer concerns HBRC General - Premature until liquefaction report available and coastal hazard consultation complete – How will future large scale Tourist / HBRC commercial and institutional uses be 49 Warren, Mary Ellen accommodated? Te Taiwhenua o General - Protect water quality - supports HBRC 45 Heretaunga papakainga Hawke's Bay Fruitgrowers General - Support 2010 HPUDS oppose reserve HBRC 23 Association and new areas New Zealand Transport HBRC 36 Agency General - support strategy Officer Comments 6 - Hawke’s Bay Regional General - Supports strategy - hard line on HBRC Council – non location based General 30 Mangin, Gillian additional greenfields / reserve. Submissions Graeme Lowe Properties Seeks a new process for moving reserve areas to HBRC 18 Limited & Lowe Family becoming greenfield areas ‘Versatile land’ references; retirement housing HBRC 54 Horticulture NZ needs in greenfield areas Greenfields options to be achievable from developer and market perspective. Questions whether more work is required to specifically ensure the housing needs of the HBRC elderly are met into the future. Wants strategy to recognise Marae and Papakainga based living as a alternative living 37 Panckhurst, Guy option for Maori.

HERETAUNGA PLAINS URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (HPUDS) REVIEW 2016

Officer Comments 1 – Brookvale / Arataki Submissions

Submissions Addressed in this Document Sub Submitter Name Submission Theme Pages # 52 Whittaker, Michael Brookvale opposes re reverse sensitivity 8 Brookvale Road Residents Association 12 Daly, Brian 14 Donovan, Jill & Jeff 29 Mair, Peter 32 McNamara, Steve Rezone Brookvale Immediately 33 Millward, Roger 35 Murphy, Mike & Heather 2 - 13 44 Taylor, Scott 50 Watkins, Mark 51 Wezel, Carl & Carl 25 Heavey, Pat Rezone Immediately with Romanes 54 Horticulture NZ Concern with Brookvale area yields 6 Bourke, Michael & Bourke Romanes Drive - Greenfield or Reserve Family 43 Stevenson Family Supports Romanes Drive as reserve area 55 Hastings District Council Atrataki Extension - keep in strategy 14 & 15

1 | Page

Sub # [page] Mark Clews (Principal Advisor 6 [56], 8 [61], 12 [74], Reporting Officer: District Development) 14 [100], 25 [162], 29 [182], 32 [191], 33 Hastings District Council. Responsible Authority: [193], 35 [195], 43 [220], 44 [222], 50 Brookvale Road Greenfields Growth [250], 51 [251], 52 Submission Theme: Area and Romans Reserve Area [260], 54 [270] Summary of Submissions:

A number of Brookvale Road landowners (Submissions: 8 (Brookvale Road Residents’ Assn),12 (Brian Daly),14 (J & J Donovan), 29 (P Mair),32 (S McNamara), 33 (R Milward), 35 (M & H Murphy), 44 (S Taylor), 51 (C & C Wezel)) support the identification of the land on the north side of Brookvale Road as a residential greenfields growth area and urge the Hastings District Council to promote a variation to rezone the land immediately. Points raised include:

• Land meets many of the HPUDS tests, particularly proximity to schooling and reserves and landowners are willing to develop.

• Past and projected demand in Havelock North has been underestimated.

• Need to provide multiple choices to mitigate against land banking.

• Question prioritisation of Iona and Howard Street.

• Brookvale should not be penalised by non-compliance with odour conditions for Te Mata Mushrooms and oppose odour effect notation on maps (or break into two stages McNamara 32).

• Process to get land rezoned is slow and cumbersome and questions around timing of District Plan reviews.

Michael Whittaker (52) of Te Mata Mushrooms opposes the inclusion of Brookvale Road, due to reverse sensitivity issues. Points raised include;

• long standing business with considerable economic and employment value

• The recommended 500m setback would affect a significant proportion east of Davidson Road and thier preferred 1,000m setback would affect most of the total area

• Reverse sensitivity will arise and further threaten existing business.

In related submissions, three submitters (Stevenson (43), Bourke (6) Heavy (25)) support the inclusion of Romanes Drive, but two of those (Stevenson and Bourke) oppose the “reserve designation” and seeks that it be expanded to Thompson Road. Points raised largely echo those for Brookvale.

2 | Page

Horticulture NZ Limited (54) notes with concern that both Brookvale and Romanes have production values which will be lost if development occurs and Brookvale is larger than the Arataki extension that it is proposed to replace.

Officer Comments:

Support for the inclusion of Brookvale is noted as is the predominance of owners willing to develop. There are however, a number of points in support of the submissions that require comment. In particular, the point that the land should be rezoned for development now.

HPUDS is a thirty year strategy that leaves sequencing decisions to the individual territorial authorities to decide, as a matter of policy and programming through their LTPs and district plans, given the considerable infrastructure spends involved. Factors influencing local authorities’ sequencing choices will typically include: • Availability and costs of infrastructure services (water, wastewater, stormwater, transport and electricity distribution);

• The operational capacity of strategic infrastructure (particularly strategic transport networks); and

• Balanced supply and locational choice across the Heretaunga Plains sub-region. A number of other factors are listed in HPUDS that may be taken into account, but at this stage the Hastings District Council has not made any determination of priority and timing for Brookvale. This will likely occur once HPUDS 2016 has been adopted by the three Councils.

The submitters’ consider past and forward projections for Havelock growth are underestimated. This view may be based on the current property market and pinch point in section supply in Havelock North, but it is worth remembering that HPUDS does not seek to simply accommodate demand for greenfields growth whenever and wherever the market wishes. It takes a far more strategic approach in order to promote sustainable development of limited natural and physical resources, that moves from un-constrained market led greenfields development to encouraging intensification within the existing urban footprint.

Accordingly HPUDS does not seek to predict housing growth demand by neighbourhood, noting historical growth upon which to base demand is likely to have been affected as much by Council policy and the available supply of land as people’s desire to live in any particular locale.

The submitters also consider the forward demand may be underestimated citing displacement from Napier due to sea level rise, babyboomers and aging population, immigration due to Briexit, REDS employment targets etc.

In terms of overall growth projections, the actual household growth in the sub region exceeded the 2010 projection by approximately 545 over the six year period to 2015. However, the 622 new greenfields dwellings erected in the Hastings area over the same period roughly equalled the 612 projected in HPUDS. Further, HPUDS 2016 takes a more

3 | Page optimistic view of growth, approximately halfway between Statistics New Zealand’s medium and high projections. So the projections seem to be appropriate at this point in time although this situation should continue to be monitored regularly.

The submitter’s main point is that demand exceeds supply in Havelock North at present and that Brookvale should be rezoned now. This is more a factor of problems on the supply side with the issues that developed with the Arataki Extension, rather than any under-prediction in HPUDS 2010.

On the supply side the submitters consider more rather than less land should be provided to the market to avoid market manipulation by a few developers. There are a number of issues with that. Firstly it risks undermining HPDS attempts to steer development away from a predominance of greenfields development to greater intensification models. It also potentially exposes Councils and their ratepayers to greater risk in terms of infrastructure spend on multiple fronts and can potentially lead to an oversupply of land (and under-utilised infrastructure). An oversupply would lead to downward pressure on prices and an increased selling period, which are key aspects to successful and profitable subdivision. In response developers may stall development until demand pressures build sufficiently for all areas to be released, exacerbating the boom/bust nature of the property market.

In any event, in a practical sense at the provincial level, there are limited opportunities to have multiple growth areas underway at the same time. In these circumstances land banking can best be mitigated, by having some alternative sites under development within the sub- region (rather than neighbourhood level) and having the preparatory planning work done to bring on later scheduled areas if an earlier area is delayed for land banking of other reasons.

In terms of prioritisation of Brookvale over other areas, it is accepted that Brookvale meets many of the tests for greenfields growth areas outlined in HPUDS, particularly in relation to proximity to intermediate and secondary education. However, it should also be noted that some Brookvale owners have sought rezoning of their land over many years preceding HPUDS and so was explicitly reconsidered in HPUDS 2010 as a Greenfields Growth Area. HPUDS 2010 concluded that:

The officers report at the time noted that given the need for a balance of greenfield sites between Havelock North and Hastings; and reduced travel distance, fuel use and carbon emissions; the inclusion of this block would need to substitute for Lane Road or Arataki extension if the intensification targets are to remain the same and the Hastings Greenfield options retained. The block does not have superior attributes to the Arataki extension and the elevated hills above Iona Road provide variety and choice to the Havelock North Greenfield market.

4 | Page

Given that the Hastings District Council is not now in a position to deliver infrastructure and zoning to the Arataki Extension this year as planned, it has resolved to advance the rezoning of the Iona Road Triangle area ahead of the Arataki Extension, given this was the next priority established in the 2011 Priorities and Sequencing Policy, and officers are working on a Structure Plan for this area. The situation in relation to Iona Road and Havelock North Hills has not changed and the landowners there have expressed a willingness to develop sooner rather than later as well. In that respect it should be noted that, the prioritisation of Iona over Brookvale is due to:

• Much of the lower flatter or gently rolling land at Iona has been identified and included in planning documents as a proposed new development areas since HUDS 1993.

• Developing the lower land first allows servicing to be provided that can be extended in the upper areas (at lower density) more easily and therefore create the opportunity for more diversity and choice in the Havelock North market, much earlier.

• Relatively few owner interests mean structure planning is potentially easier and quicker to achieve

• Part of the land adjoining Reynolds Road (between Middle and Iona Roads) is already zoned residential and once a structure plan is agreed, this land can potentially be developed much quicker. The estimated yield is 90 sections, which on past growth rates would provide 2-3years supply. This would address the current pinch point while other areas go through the planning rezoning process.

• As with Kingsgate and the Reynolds Road Area during the 1990’s the Iona Road area will help to promote a balanced urban form for Havelock North within the topographic constraints that exist.

With regard to Howard Street, this was already in HPUDS and was prioritised for other more localised reasons, including a desire to re-examine a free hold lifestyle (retirement) village (that predated HPUDS) under the new planning framework and Progressive Enterprises’ purchase of a large chunk of the area identified for housing development to build a supermarket, meaning some urgent resolution of the planning framework for the area became a priority. This area could also help prevent any land banking behaviour in Lyndhurst Stage 2 and to a certain extent, Iona Road (given its location on the eastern side of Hastings).

The commentary in HPUDS 2010 on Brookvale suggested that this may be a natural choice as a substitute for Arataki. However, the availability of other Havelock sites (Middle Road/Te Aute Road) and other market influences, recently led the Hastings Council to re-examine all of the greenfields growth areas considered in, but not adopted by HPUDS, as well as other sites that were the subject of submissions to the Proposed District Plan. These areas were

5 | Page considered with the HPUDS Review in mind as possible new additions or replacement (in regards to the unavailability of Arataki and reserve area) sites.

A multi-criteria scoring and weighting process was used with three different weighting scenarios. On the basis of the assessments undertaken, the Brookvale Road block was the highest scoring area. In these circumstances it was considered prudent to identify the Brookvale Road area as a possible medium term substitute to the Arataki extension through the HPUDS review process and as a backstop to the Iona Road area not proceeding in time, for whatever reason, to ensure reasonable continuity of supply of residential land in Havelock North.

There are two aspects of the Brookvale area however, that detract somewhat from the above analysis and as referred to in the submissions. Firstly the question arises as to how much if any of the identified Brookvale Road area is affected by odour issues from Te Mata mushrooms (and or other rural activities, e.g. pack houses etc). Should some of the area be excluded because the residential amenity expected cannot be delivered under current circumstances, and will those expectations create a reverse sensitivity effect which will adversely affect an existing landuse?

It should be noted that all greenfields areas identified in HPUDS have indicative boundaries and that they are subject to further testing and refinement through the structure planning process and thereafter statutory processes. HPUDS is not expected to get down to that level of detail, but to identify preferred nodes of development. As some Greenfield Growth Areas came with indications of possible boundaries, these were included in HPUDS 2010 Maps, but subject to the notation that they were indicative only.

This is the case with Brookvale as well, so it is not necessary to define boundaries in relation to the reverse sensitivity issues through the current process. The Committee will however, need to be assured that sufficient area is likely to remain after any necessary modifications to warrant its inclusion in the first place. Accordingly this part of the report does not seek to resolve the odour issue or boundary/buffer question, but to provide sufficient information to establish that these matters can be addressed later without adversely affecting the development of the area in its entirety.

The maps below show the complaint distribution from 1999 to 2016, which indicates a plume generally from the north east, reflecting light winds from that quarter. Although there is no record of complaint from to the north west toward Brookvale, this area has been largely undeveloped until recently. The adjacent map represents different distances from the main composting operations (being regarded as the most frequent and strongest source of odour), with the 1,000m diameter being the Western Australian guideline referred to by Te Mata Mushrooms and the 500m being that referred to in the Jacobs 2015 report looking specifically at the Arataki Extension. As can be seen the complaints records for TMM show that odour has been reported up to 700 metres away from the site, but that over 95% of complaints have been received from properties within 600 metres of the TMM operational areas, but these are highly directional.

6 | Page

Hastings District Council has commissioned a report looking at the specific issue of odour and associated potential for reverse sensitivity associated with the proposed Brookvale area. Tonkin and Taylor considered that the WA EPA generic guidelines provide an indication of the distances within which odour from mushroom farms can have impacts if not appropriately managed or located but do not by themselves provide a sound basis for establishing a separation distance to TMM. Overall they recommended a separation distance of 600 metres from the active composting area on the TMM site and 500 metres from other operational areas. Based on these two distances, the recommended buffer area is shown below:

It is important to note that this is a recommendation only and has not been formally adopted nor has the effect of the buffer been defined i.e. what it excludes, or what is required to allow activities to be located within it. In addition Tonkin and Taylor note that the buffer area shown

7 | Page on the figure above identifies the distance beyond which they consider there is a low risk of experiencing odours from TMM activities, based on consideration of the factors set out above. While they consider that the risk of odour effects on future residential properties outside this buffer area are low, this does not guarantee that no odour will be experienced beyond these distances (nor does it mean that the area within the separation distances will necessarily experience significant odours).

The proposed buffer area includes a small area to the west of Brookvale and Davidson Roads (shown in hatching on Figure 1). While this area is within the recommended separation distance, it may still be appropriate to provide for future residential development in this area for practical land use planning reasons, such as contiguity of land uses. If this area were to be considered for residential development, we recommend:

• additional field odour monitoring to more accurately describe the actual level of odour effects at this location, and/or • consideration of mechanisms such as ‘no complaint’ covenants on titles and/or development controls (such as controls on site layout or building design) to manage the potential for reverse sensitivity effects on TMM.

In addition it is noted that any reverse sensitivity effect exits already and needs to be dealt with regardless. The Brookvale area will not introduce a new effect of alter is character, but would add more people into the 600m buffer area. In terms of acceptable residential amenity, although there have been complaints it is observed that development continues to occur and properties continue to be purchased in Arataki, which is closer to TTM than the Brookvale Road properties under consideration.

On this basis, for the purpose of the current exercise it is considered that there is a very real prospect that some or all of the identified Brookvale growth area will be able to be developed. It is also considered that the areas within closest proximity to TMM may be able to be included in time with further information, monitoring and technological improvement. Hence, the Opus report1 concludes that overall this site is considered as a suitable site for inclusion in HPUDS as a replacement for the Arataki Extension, but that part of the site east of Davidson Road should remain subject to further consideration in terms of the Te Mata Mushroom odour issue and associated reverse sensitivity effects [emphasis added]. On that basis, as long as the issue is adequately referenced in the text for later resolution, there is no need to annotate the plan in the way it has been in the Draft HPUDS (but not the website maps) and to which the Brookvale submitters object.

The other issue, which has been raised by Horticulture New Zealand is that Brookvale is larger than the Arataki Extension that it is to replace. On this point it is noted that the theoretical yield of 320 sites is unlikely to be achieved in practice due to the need for a reverse sensitivity buffer, the amount of land likely to taken out of the development supply by existing dwellings and outbuildings and the uncertainty over the exact extent and timing of the land east of Davidson Road. In any event the 100 extra households are a consequence

1 Alternative Greenfield Sites and Review of the HPUDS Settlement Pattern, Opus International Consultants (June 2016).

8 | Page of logical boundaries, rather than trying to manufacture theses to stick rigidly within a target allocation for greenfields development. The allocation targets themselves are an aspiration based on projections, rather than derived attempts to estimated demand within market segments and in any event an extra 100 households over the allocated target of 4415 over 30 years is hardly significant.

It is accepted that the planning process is cumbersome and this is recognised at the national level. While HPUDS adds another non-statutory layer, spatial planning of this nature is supported by the government as an effective way of providing certainty and direction for economic development. Consideration is being given to providing for spatial planning in a streamlined Resource Management Act. The result may however, mean that land owners and affected parties have less, rather than more influence over the final outcomes of planning policy.

A concern raised by the submitters was the timing of the HPUDS review relative to the review of the Hastings District Plan. Two key implementation tasks form the 2010 HPUDS were necessary changes to the Regional Policy Satement and subsequently to the respective Napier and Hastings district plans to give legal effect where appropriate to the HPUDS direction. The Regional Policy Statement was amended to implement HPUDS by Change 4, which was publicly notified for submissions in December 2011 and made operative on 1 January 2014. The Proposed Hastings District Plan was notified for submissions in November 2013 and decisions on submissions were released in September 2015, just prior to the scheduled HPUDS Review commencing. Resolution of appeals is ongoing. This timing was coincidental and is the result of the length of time it took to completely review a whole district plan and the number of submissions received on it. To delay the District Plan until after the scheduled HPUDS review would have set the Plan Review back beyond the ten year statutory period provided for review by the Act (this period lapsed in 2013), and potentially set up a similar situation in the future. HPUDS provides for a five year review cycle. To meet the District Plan review timetable, the HPUDS review would have to have been initiated only a few short years after it was adopted. Regardless of all this, a Plan Change will be able to be made to implement any changes that are necessary as a result of the HPUDS Review.

Romanes Drive

Associated with the above submissions are those seeking an enlargement of and change in status of the Romanes Drive block from “reserve” area to a full growth node. The reasons for, and the way the reserve areas are intended to support the HPUDs outcomes, are dealt with in other submission reports. This report only deals specifically with Romanes Drive which is identified in the HPUDS 2016 Review website maps as follows:

9 | Page

Romanes Drive was not previously considered in HPUDS, but a wider area to Thompson Road was the subject of a retirement village private plan change request which was declined in 2008. Although in close proximity, this area is not contiguous with the existing Havelock North urban area, being separated by the Brookvale Road area discussed above, and across Romanes Drive. Rather than facing other residential development this area faces the sport fields and facilities of Guthrie Park. The site is surrounded to the west, east and north by Plains Zone land in a range of uses, but including productive uses. The site itself has poor drainage in places but is still made up of a series of large titles and productive uses including agriculture and industrial cool stores. These uses would not be particularly compatible with residential development.

If developed in isolation from Brookvale the physical separation from the remainder of the urban area would make the establishment of a defined urban edge more difficult. However the likely replacement of Arataki Extension with the Brookvale area (referred to above) would mean that Romanes would become a logical extension to Havelock North if needed. In this case Napier Road would become a natural urban edge, but a further buffer area would need to be developed to the north of the development area fronting existing coolstore development and horticultural activity on Thompson Road.

Romanes has good transport links to the north and good vehicle and cycle links to Hastings and Havelock North. Integrating the site with existing development would likely require the development of the adjacent Brookvale site.

Overall this site would be appropriate for inclusion in HPUDS as a reserve area for development provided the Brookvale area had been developed. A specific criteria for this site relating to the prior development of at least part of Brookvale that would ensure contiguous urban development and form might be appropriate.

Pat Heavy suggests that if the area east of Davidson Road was unavailable for greenfields

10 | Page development due to Mushroom Farm odour, then Romanes drive could be used as the substitute. While not saying so explicitly, this is precisely the situation envisaged that could trigger the Romanes Drive development. It is not however the only one, there may be other circumstance or issues with the remainder of Brookvale or even Iona Road, or rapid changes in the growth assumptions that HPUDS operates under, that could also have that effect.

The other two submissions largely echo those of the Brookvale Road submitters, so those comments are not repeated. Including an enlarged Romanes Drive as a full greenfields area in addition to Brookvale Road would add a further 275-350 greenfields houses and occupy approximately 23 ha, which is quite a different proposition from that evaluated by Opus2 as a reserve site. It should be noted that the land north of Brookvale Road was considered and excluded from further examination in HUDS 1993 and rejected again in 2008 with the retirement village application.

The land use classification identifies the land as suitable as perennial cropland. Soils are Sandy loam (good WT >120cm – Twyford) with moderate drainage, silt loam on sand (imperfect WT 30-60cm – Hastings) with poor drainage and clay loam on silt loam (WT<30cm – Moteo) with very poor drainage. The area accommodates 5 dwellings (plus 2 supplementary cottages), 1 Coolstore and 1 Visitor accommodation facility. A reasonable part of the land is under the coolstore, but large areas are used for cropping or in orchard use. There is some pastoral activity near Thompson Road. This area is contained by roads on 3 sides and a drain. The drain is the weakest boundary, though if treated appropriately could operate as a green space/buffer boundary. Thompson and Davidson Road do not form a particularly strong boundary to future expansion.

Being on the north side of Havelock North this area would be reasonably attractive to the market and has reasonable scale attractive for developers. However the liquefaction risk, potential agrichemical residues and poor drainage could limit profitability.

While accessibility and social proximity’s is reasonably good the larger area would require significantly more investment in roading infrastructure. When assessed using the multi- criteria analysis last year this area (as a larger area) did not score very well on soils and servicing cost criteria so ranked poorly under all except the market weighted scenarios tested.

Accordingly it is considered that development of this area under the strategy assumptions and principles could undermine public confidence in terms of promoting the protection of versatile soils, intensification and compact urban footprint and is not considered necessary within the planning period. The exception is that a portion may be required as a reserve area should circumstances require it. As noted above, using the coolstore as a boundary an extending greenbelt buffer would help to define a smaller reserve areas, but reverse sensitivity with the cools store would still need to be resolved.

Finally it is noted that Mr Heavy also comments on the need for extra land for shops and carparks in Havelock North and a need for more land for retirement villages. The first point

2 Alternative Greenfield Sites and Review of the HPUDS Settlement Pattern, Opus International Consultants (June 2016).

11 | Page can be noted for the next review, while the need for retirement villages in Havelock North should be able to be accommodated within Greenfields growth areas particularly as they are a more efficient (i.e. require less) land than traditional detached housing.

Recommendations

HPUDS 2016 does not describe Brookvale differently to the extract above form HPUDS 2010 to reflect the new circumstances relating to Arataki. Accordingly HPUDS 2016 should include a new section that carries forward section 8.8 from HPUDS 2010 with appropriate modifications to reflect Brookvale and the Reserve Areas descriptions with the Brookvale notation reading as follows: Brookvale/Davidson Road

This area of land is located on the western side of Brookvale Road opposite the existing Arataki subdivision. The availability of services to the site would not be an issue for growth considerations. There may be issues with compatibility with adjacent land uses and this growth would not form a natural urban edge to further development, although a partial low river terrace could be reinforced by a wide planted greenbelt and buffer in public ownership.

This site is located on land zoned Plains and although the soils are identified as having some limitations a large portion has been and is in productive uses. Development of this area under the strategy assumptions and principles could undermine public confidence in terms of promoting the protection of versatile soils for productive purposes, intensification and compact urban footprint and is not, but is considered necessary within the planning period, due to reverse sensitivity issues impacting on Arataki Extension in the short to medium term at least. A consideration for this site is the need to buffer against productive use on land to the north. Also a consideration is the need to address the potential for reverse sensitivity from the significant Te Mata Mushrooms facility to the south east.

And for Romanes Drive

Romanes Drive Reserve Area

This site is located on land zoned Plains and although the soils are identified as having some limitations a large portion of the area back to Thompson and Davidson Road has been and is in productive use. There may be issues with compatibility with adjacent land uses and this larger growth option would not form a natural urban edge to further development. Accordingly it is considered that development of this wider area under the strategy assumptions and principles could undermine public confidence in terms of promoting the protection of versatile soils, intensification and compact urban footprint and is not considered necessary within the planning period. The availability of services to the site would not be an issue for growth considerations and a portion that may be required as a reserve area should circumstances require it has been included. This is defined by the existing coolstore as a boundary and

12 | Page extending a wide planted greenbelt and buffer in public ownership eastwards to the Brookvale Road area. This area only makes sense if the Brookvale Road has proceeded and would help to define a smaller area for development if needed, but reverse sensitivity with the coolstore would still need to be resolved.

13 | Page

Sub # Reporting Officer: Gavin Ide [page] Responsible Authority: Hastings District (assessed by Hawke’s Bay Regional 55 [277] Council)

Submission Theme: Havelock North-related : Arataki Extension

Summary of Submission:

The Hastings District Council (submitter 55) seek the following:

1. Reinsert ‘Arataki Extension’ location as a “Greenfield Growth Area” noting that its availability for residential development is ‘put on hold’ in the short to medium term due to the reverse sensitivity issue with nearby Te Mata Mushroom’s operations.

2. Specific amended wording (as set out on pages 280-282 of the submission bundle).

Officer Comments:

‘Arataki Extension’ was identified in HPUDS2010 as an appropriate residential greenfield growth area, but subsequent assessments have led to HPUDS20163 no longer retaining that classification due to proximity of the Te Mata Mushroom operation. Hastings DC submits that the ‘Arataki Extension’ area should be retained as a residential growth area – albeit suspended in the short to medium term, but which remains available in the longer term rather than excluded altogether. Apart from the Te Mata Mushroom odour issues, the Arataki Extension location remains a good option consistent with the range of HPUDS criteria. However, currently, there is no clear and obvious remedy to the odour issues, so the Arataki Extension location is appropriately placed ‘on hold.’ HDC had suggested retaining Arataki Extension for development ahead of other identified areas in the event that odour issues from Te Mata Mushroom operations are ultimately resolved. Brookvale has been promoted as its short-term substitute.

If Arataki Extension AND Brookvale were retained as is suggested by HDC (at least in the short-term), that would skew total residential development numbers informing the Strategy’s preferred settlement pattern (i.e. to use a sporting analogy, Brookvale is selected from the reserves into the starting line-up, but Arataki – a starting player - does not leave the playing field, meanwhile other reserves are also added).

The draft HPUDS2016 has introduced the concept of “Reserve Areas.” Given the relative short-term uncertainty of a solution to the odour issues presenting at the Arataki Extension option, it is considered appropriate to reclassify Arataki Extension as a ‘Reserve Area’ in HPUDS2016 but with a clear statement intending to review that classification as part of future regular five-yearly Reviews of HPUDS. Regular reviews will present a clear opportunity to revisit whether the odour issues have been mitigated, or not. If the odour issues are resolved then it is very likely that Arataki Extension will fall back in favour as one, if not the most, appropriate locations in the Havelock North vicinity for future residential greenfield development in the next thirty years – if not sooner.

3 HPUDS Draft Revised Strategy for Public Consultation – July 2016

14 | Page

Choices regarding the staged release and sequencing of one HPUDS’ greenfield growth area relative to another over the Hastings / Havelock North urban area would be something for Hastings District Council to consider over time, in broader liaison with the HPUDS IWG. If odour issues were overcome, then Arataki Extension would be re-introduced as a location for residential development. That reintroduction may see at least one of the other greenfield growth areas in the Hastings / Havelock North urban area being deferred beyond HPUDS’ 30 year planning period as part of those choices regarding staging, sequencing and funding of services. It is difficult to predict which area(s) might be deferred in such circumstances because of the uncertain timing of a solution (if any) to the odour issues at Arataki Extension.

Recommendations:

1. Reclassify ‘Arataki Extension’ as a “Reserve Area” for residential greenfield development; AND

2. Amend HPUDS2016 Section 4.3.3 to read: “…In responding to immediate greenfields supply availability issues to 2025, the 2016 HPUDS Review confirms the replacement of Arataki Extension with Brookvale, and inclusion of the following ‘reserve’ growth areas: a. Arataki Extension (with the intention that this area may be reintroduced (e.g. as part of regular HPUDS Review process in future or similar) as a greenfield growth area ahead of other growth areas, should the odour and reverse sensitivity issues due to proximity of the mushroom farming operations, be overcome) b. …”

3. Plus any other consequential amendments necessary to implement the amendments in 1 and 2 above.

4. Accept in part those specific amendments, as consequentially amended to give effect to recommendations 1 and 2 above, set out on pages 280-282 of the submission bundle (HDC submission pages 4-6) relating to addition of hectare figures for each of the growth and reserve areas.

15 | Page

HERETAUNGA PLAINS URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (HPUDS) REVIEW 2016

Officer Comments 2 – Hastings District Identified Greenfield Growth & Reserve Areas

Submissions Addressed in this Document Sub Submitter Name Submission Theme Pages of this # Report 4 Beamish, Josi Iona Havelock Hills - opposes 41 Rutter, Peter 18 Graeme Lowe Iona Havelock Hills supports amend Properties Limited & 2 – 7 maps & yield Lowe Family 34 Mohi, Rose General - Halt all Hastings growth for lower Havelock Hills 42 Smith, Maurice Te Aute Rd / Middle Rd - rezone Te Aute Rd now 18 Graeme Lowe Properties Limited & Support Middle Rd as a Reserve Area 8 – 14 Lowe Family 41 Rutter, Peter Supports Middle Rd area over Ioana & Hills 10 Cooper, Karen Howard St to Awaho supports this area as 15 – 16 greenfield area in HPUDS. 24 Hawke's Bay Racing Wall Rd Reserve Area - supports 47 Troup, Jason Wall Rd Reserve Area - supports & wants fringe 17 areas if can be serviced 27 Magee, Alan Murdoch Road Reserve Area – opposed 18 – 20 5 Bishop, Jim Tomoana Industrial - add whole block 21 – 25 46 Token Holdings 9 Clifton Bay Limited Te Awanga South– requests mapping of property 26 – 30 28 Mahoney, Mark as Greenfields Area in HPUDS. 48 Unison Networks General – cost of power supply - Te Awanga / 31 Limited Haumoana and Waimarama

1 | Page

Sub # Reporting Officer: Rowena Macdonald (Sage Planning) [Page] 4 [35], 18 Responsible Authority: Hastings District Council [119], 34 [194], 41 Submission Theme: Iona/Havelock Hills Greenfield Growth Areas [213] Summary of Submissions:

Josi Beamish (submission 4) seeks that: the Iona Hills area be removed from the Greenfields growth area. Peter Rutter (submission 41) seeks: rezoning of the area between Middle Road and Te Aute Road, south of Upham Street, as residential area, and delete the area identified as Iona Triangle/Hills from HPUDS identified areas. Rose Mohi (submission 34) supports: further growth in Havelock North through creation of a new suburb in poorer soil areas or on low hills, not on Te Mata Peak. Graeme Lowe Properties Ltd & Lowe Family (submission 18) makes the following submission points: - Supports continued inclusion of their Iona Road land (both ‘triangle’ (Middle Road/Iona Road) and ‘hill’ (Havelock North Hills) areas) as greenfield growth areas; - Seeks amendment of the ‘Residential Growth Areas – 2016 Draft HPUDS Review – Iona, Havelock North’ map on the HPUDS website to make it consistent with Maps 27 & 28 in the Draft Revised HPUDS Strategy 2016 document; - Seeks amendment to section 2.1.9, Figure 6 of the Draft Revised HPUDS Strategy 2016 to change the indicative yields to match the yield calculated in the Iona Issues and Options Report, as follows: Greenfield Growth Areas (Indicative Yield) … … Middle Road/Iona 160 210 dwellings Havelock North Hills 140 190 dwellings … … TOTAL 5,030 5,130 dwellings

Officer Comments:

The submissions range from support with minor amendments, to partial or total removal of the Iona Road growth areas (Triangle and Hills) as Greenfield Growth Areas in the HPUDS 2016 Review. The following addresses these submissions in terms of: - Rationale and extent of the Greenfield Growth Areas for Iona/Havelock Hills; and - Minor amendments. 1. Rationale and Extent The ‘Middle Road/Iona/Lower Hills’ (incorporating the ‘Triangle’) and ‘Havelock Hills Lower Extension’ (incorporating ‘Iona Hills’) areas were identified as Greenfield Growth Areas in HPUDS in 2010 – with the ‘Middle Road/Iona/Lower Hills’ area already part of Hastings District Council’s existing urban development strategy (HUDS) to 2015, and the ‘Havelock Hills Lower Extension’ area providing future greenfield expansion beyond 2015. These two greenfield growth areas have been carried over into the Draft Revised HPUDS 2016 document, and the website version of the corresponding map shows these areas combined under the single map title of ‘Iona Road’. Hastings District Council has broken the wider Iona Residential Growth Area into three

2 | Page

distinct areas: - the Iona Triangle site; - the Iona Hill site; and - the remaining HPUDS areas. These are outlined in the figure below:

The Iona Triangle is already zoned for residential development in the Proposed Hastings District Plan (decisions version, September 2015), and is currently in two zones: i) 9.2ha zoned ‘Character Residential’ (this land has been zoned for residential development for more than 20 years, but has never been progressed as the landowner had no desire to develop the land for this purpose, and it remains a vacant lifestyle site); and ii) a further 7.5ha zoned ‘Deferred Residential’. The Iona Hill site is a series of valley areas and ridgelines which are orientated towards Iona Road and form part of the lower Havelock Hills (Kohinuraukau Range), and is zoned ‘Rural Residential’ in the Proposed District Plan. This site is also the subject of an appeal to the Proposed District Plan by the landowners seeking a residential zone through the application of a structure plan that allows for a greater level of residential development on this site than the current rural residential zoning allows. The site comprises of 5 lots, with a total area of 26.89 hectares. All these parcels of land are however held in a single ownership. The remaining land within the growth area comprises properties on the southern side of Lane Road that bound the Hill Site, as well as two discrete areas on the northern side of Lane Road that adjoin the existing character residential zoned suburban area, and are also zoned ‘Rural Residential’ in the Proposed District Plan. The topography of these areas is similar to the hill site in that the land forms part of the lower Havelock Hills (Kohinuraukau Range) and comprises a series of valleys and ridgelines that orientate towards Iona Road and lane Road. Currently this area is used for residential lifestyle purposes and stock grazing.

3 | Page

In identifying these areas for future urban growth HPUDS 2010 stated that this area: “has a number of locational advantages being close to existing development for services, not impacting on versatile soils for productive purposes, not conflicting with adjacent land uses, not impacting on landscape qualities and not impacting on transport infrastructure. It may be marginally more expensive to develop due to the rolling nature of the topography. It is recommended as a greenfield expansion area for the period 2015-2045”. The Triangle and Hill sites are listed as residential growth areas for Havelock North in the Proposed District Plan (see Appendix 2 Figure 2 of the Proposed District Plan below), with the Hill site identified for future ‘large lot’ residential, meaning that this land is anticipated to be needed to accommodate growth within the 10-year life of the District Plan.

To this end, in July 2016 Hastings District Council released an Issues and Options Paper for the Proposed Iona Residential Growth Area, seeking landowner, mana whenua and wider community feedback on which of 3 options is preferred for development of the wider Iona Road greenfield growth area. The option that is eventually progressed will then have a detailed Structure Plan developed, and once that is complete, changes will be proposed to the District Plan to reflect appropriate rezoning of the land for residential use. This consultative process will provide a number of opportunities for landowner, mana whenua and wider community involvement and submissions, and structure planning and subsequent changes to the District Plan are anticipated to take place next year (2017). This is on top of the consultation undertaken during the preparation of HPUDS 2010 and the Regional Policy Statement (Change 4) in 2012, which endorsed the settlement pattern outlined in HPUDS. On that basis, it is considered that the Issues and Options analysis, and subsequent structure planning and plan change processes are the more appropriate forum in which to address the extent of area and the sequencing of development in the wider Iona Road greenfield growth area. To delete or substantially alter the extent of the ‘Middle/Iona’ and ‘Havelock Hills Lower Extension’ greenfield growth areas in HPUDS, when the area was identified in HPUDS 2010 and incorporated into the Regional Policy Statement would undermine both those public planning processes and would pre-empt the outcome of the public process that Hastings District Council has already

4 | Page

commenced on its detailed planning. 2. Minor Amendments Mapping: Graeme Lowe Properties (18) have identified what appears to be a mapping error between HPUDS 2010, the Draft Revised HPUDS 2016 document and the website version of the map applying to the Iona/Havelock Hills greenfield growth areas. This is evident in comparing the maps below.

Above: Draft Revised HPUDS (July 2016) – Maps (website version)

Above (left to right): Map 28 in HPUDS (Aug 2010), and Map 27 in Draft Revised HPUDS

5 | Page

(July 2016). There is no obvious reason why this piece of land would have been excluded from the growth area, and hence likely occurred in error when updating the draft maps which were subsequently uploaded to the website. On that basis, it would be appropriate to correct this error. Indicative Yield: Graeme Lowe Properties (18) suggest that the indicative yields for the ‘Middle/Iona’ and ‘Havelock North Hills’ Greenfield Growth Areas, as contained in Figure 6 of the Draft Revised HPUDS 2016, should be amended to reflect the higher indicative yields contained in Hastings District Council’s recent ‘Issues and Options Paper for the Proposed Iona Residential Growth Area’, released in July 2016. In section 2.1.9 of the Draft Revised HPUDS 2016 document, it clearly states as follows: “It should be noted that the yields below are 'indicative only' and are subject to further refinement as part of future structure planning and formal District Plan Change processes, following further assessment. The indicative yields in the Draft Revised HPUDS 2016 document are the respective territorial authorities’ high level estimates based on an expected ‘yield per hectare’ with some site specific assumptions around the impact of topography, amount of land required for roading, reserves and other infrastructure services, and other constraints such as optimum lot size desired by the market. By their nature, it is likely that indicative yields will be conservative estimates and, if anything, will likely underestimate yield. Similarly, the yields suggested in the Iona Issues and Options Paper are also only based on rules of thumb. At this stage, neither ‘indicative yield’ quoted is necessarily more correct than the other. It is important to note that the ‘indicative yields’ in HPUDS are not hard and fast, and their role is merely to assist in a high level analysis of long term urban development capacity and to inform broad sequencing decisions of the relevant territorial authorities. In other words, discrepancy is to be anticipated and even expected. A preferred option for the Iona Residential Growth Area has yet to be determined, and consequently detailed structure planning and a formal District Plan Change process have yet to commence (anticipated 2017). Ultimate determination as to likely yield will be appropriately addressed at the Structure Plan and District Plan Change/Variation stage. In the meantime, the indicative yields expressed in the Draft Revised HPUDS 2016 document are ‘fit for purpose’, and not seen as being definitive or constraining. On that basis, it is considered unnecessary (and premature) to make changes to the indicative yields for ‘Middle/Iona’ and ‘Havelock North Hills’ Greenfield Growth Areas. Recommendations:

1. That minor amendment is made to the ‘Iona Road’ residential growth area map (website version) to make it consistent with the area incorporated in the original HPUDS 2010 (Map 28 – Havelock Hills Lower Extension) and the Draft Revised HPUDS Strategy 2016 document (Map 27 – Havelock Hills Lower Extension), as follows (additional land to be included is outlined in red):

6 | Page

Note: base aerial photo will also need extending.

2. That no other amendments be made as a result of these submissions.

7 | Page

Sub # Reporting Officer: Rowena Macdonald (Sage Planning) [Page] 18 [119], Responsible Authority: Hastings District Council 41 [213], 42 [215] Submission Theme: Middle Road Summary of Submissions:

Graeme Lowe Properties Ltd & Lowe Family (submission 18) supports: inclusion of the Middle Road reserve area. Peter Rutter (submission 41) seeks: rezoning of the area between Middle Road and Te Aute Road, south of Upham Street, as residential area, and delete the area identified as Iona Triangle/Hills from HPUDS identified areas. Maurice Smith (submission 42) seeks: immediate release of 162 Te Aute Road from its ‘reserve status’ and rezone as a greenfield development area for the retirement sector (remaining portion of the Middle Road area could remain ‘reserve’ for future residential development or be rezoned for the retirement sector at a later date according to market demand).

Officer Comments:

General support for Middle Road as a greenfield residential growth area from the three submitters is noted. The differing requests from the submitters are around the ‘reserve’ status and timing of rezoning of that land. The following addresses these submissions in terms of: - Background; - Rationale for introduction of ‘Reserve’ Greenfield Growth Areas; and - Sequencing and timing of release of Greenfield Growth Areas. Background The Middle Road/Te Aute Road area has been considered in previous urban development strategies for Hastings, but excluded for various reasons. Plan Change 40: In 2007, an area of land around Te Aute Road was subject to a private plan change request to rezone approximately 9.4 hectares to General Residential with an average density of 700m2 and minimum lot size of 400m2 (Plan Change 40). This was declined for a number of reasons, including: • That the requested plan change would result in a “finger” of urban development extending into a rural area beyond the Herehere Stream, which currently serves as a natural boundary to the urban area. The Plan Change would also create a significant 750 metre long extension to the rural/urban interface, which would be disproportionate to the 60 to 70 residential sites that would be developed. Therefore the requested plan change promotes neither an appropriate nor efficient use of the Plains land resource.

8 | Page

HPUDS 2010: An area around Te Aute Road /Middle Road was again evaluated during HPUDS 2010 (two areas were considered – a 5.5 hectare strip of land between Te Aute Road and the Karamu Stream, and a second block of approximately 55 hectares between Te Aute Road and Middle Road). The first area was similarly rejected on the basis that it would result in a ‘finger’ of residential development into the Plains Zone and consequently should not be considered alone as it would not be an efficient use of land. The second area was considered unsuited for greenfield development for a number of reasons: “Firstly it is Plains zoned land that has been used productively and it would set a new direction for the development to the south of Havelock North. It is also such a large area of land it would provide for greenfield land well in excess of what is needed for the area in the time period and could reduce the incentive to intensify within the Havelock North area which under the strategy assumptions, is not necessary at the present time. Finally, the Arataki area is a better alternative providing a smaller area of land and creating a defined urban edge”. Proposed Hastings District Plan: More recently, a submission was made to the Proposed Hastings District Plan (notified September 2013) seeking the identification of approximately 6ha of land for future rezoning

9 | Page

between Te Aute Road and the Karamu Stream. This submission was rejected, and is currently the subject of appeal.

HPUDS Review 2016: The general conclusions from the Stage 1 data and assessments carried out during the HPUDS 2016 review found that the core principles and long term projections of HPUDS 2010 remained sound, but that some refinement was required in light of faster than expected population and household growth, and to deal with a short term pinch point in greenfields land supply which, in the case of Havelock North, was caused by the Arataki extension becoming unavailable. It was also concluded that there was a need for identification of reserve areas should additional areas identified in HPUDS prove unviable through the detailed investigation and structure planning process. Subsequently, the HPUDS partners commissioned a report to review alternative greenfield sites and the HPUDS settlement pattern (Opus Report1). The Opus report reviewed the appropriateness of the sites identified in the report to the HPUDS Implementation Working Group from the HPUDS Technical Advisory Group (TAG) dated 29 March 2016, which recommended four sites as ‘Reserve’ areas, intended to provide additional flexibility in the event that difficulties were identified for other development areas. These four sites included an area around Middle Road/Te Aute Road (a smaller area than originally evaluated in HPUDS 2010). The Opus report assessed this area as follows: “This site was initially considered as a larger 54ha block extending between Middle and Te Aute Roads and South to Gilpin Road. The site presented for consideration in this review is approximately half that size. This area is contiguous with the southern edge of the Havelock North urban area, but does extend into productive surrounding land. Most logical in the sense of providing a

1 Alternative Greenfield Sites and Review of the HPUDS Settlement Pattern, June 2016.

10 | Page

legible urban boundary would be an extension only so far as the urban area opposite on Middle Road in the vicinity of Breadalbane Road. The land in this area is used for high performing grassland and cropping. There are 13 titles in the block with land parcels ranging mostly from 4ha to 10ha. Roads surrounding the larger block would have provided some buffering from other land uses but the smaller block not in consideration would require some form of reverse sensitivity buffer, similar to a green belt. This could form a defined urban edge to urban development. The site has good transport links and is in fairly close proximity to the Havelock town centre, although connections might need to be made along the busy Middle and Te Aute Roads. Speed limits on those roads might require specific design if active transport modes are to be promoted, however the distance to facilities and the Hastings cycle network is good. Improvements to wastewater, stormwater and transport infrastructure would also be required. Schools and parks are nearby, although Havelock North Intermediate School and High School are not within walking distance. Part of this site has been identified as subject to liquefaction risk, and onsite drainage may be poor. These factors would need to be addressed if residential development were to proceed. The above considerations are able to be addressed as part of testing against other relevant provisions of the RPS and through a district plan change and structure planning process. Overall this site is suitable for consideration as a ‘Reserve’ area for future development in HPUDS.” The Opus report recommended inclusion of a new ‘Reserve Area’ status for development areas in HPUDS (Recommendation 3), and the inclusion of five areas into HPUDS in this new category of ‘Reserve Area’ (Recommendation 2). Recommendations were also made around including new guidance and criteria into HPUDS that sets out when it is appropriate to consider a Reserve Area to replace an identified residential greenfield development area etc. One of the five areas recommended for inclusion as ‘Reserve Area’ is the Middle Road block as outlined in the following figure.

11 | Page

Inclusion of ‘Reserve Areas’ in HPUDS Based on the recommendations of the Opus report, the 2016 HPUDS review introduces the concept of ‘Reserve Areas’. It was not deemed necessary to have ‘reserve areas’ for every identified greenfield growth location in HPUDS, but considered prudent to have them available for the main urban areas of Napier City and Hastings District. ‘Middle Road’ is considered a suitable replacement for the Iona Road area if either of those (Triangle or Hills) Greenfield Growth Areas (or indeed the Brookvale/Romanes substitute for the Arataki extension), become unviable. The purpose of ‘reserve areas’ as outlined in the draft Revised HPUDS 2016 document, is as follows: “to act as replacements if any greenfield growth areas identified in HPUDS are deemed unviable for residential development, or in circumstances where the area is not able to be progressed in a timely fashion when required, or when other issues become insurmountable. These reserve areas may also be advanced if there is a rapid and significant change in growth demand.” The draft HPUDS 2016 document also specifically notes (in section 4.3.3) that ‘reserve areas’ may also be advanced if retirement village needs cannot reasonably be met within the preferred greenfield areas. As part of the HPUDS 2016 review, the HPUDS partners commissioned a report looking at

12 | Page

2 retirement sector housing demand (EMS Report ). This retirement sector analysis forecasts retirement sector housing demand over the life of the Strategy, and concludes that retirement units will represent 30-40% of all future new-build housing in the Heretaunga Plains sub-region, with half of these likely in ‘traditional’ retirement villages. It is accepted that the average size of existing villages of this kind, in the Strategy area, is about 6.25ha, and that sites of this size are only likely to be found on greenfield land. The Iona Triangle and Hills areas are already variously zoned for residential development – the Iona Triangle has been zoned for residential development for some 20 years but development has not progressed in that time. Council has embarked on a comprehensive assessment of options for development of the Iona Road area, with a view to initiating structure planning for this area in 2017. It would be pre-emptive of this process to substitute this area with that of the ‘Middle Road’ reserve area at this point in time. At this stage, there appears sufficient large vacant greenfield land of 6+ hectares within the various Greenfield Growth Areas being progressed (including the Brookvale and Iona Road areas in Havelock North) to cater for perceived retirement sector demand, and there is no deficit in supply sufficient to promote Te Aute Road ahead of these Greenfield Growth Areas (or the remainder of the Middle Road ‘reserve area’ for that matter) for this purpose. If, however, this proves not to be the case, or the rezoning and development issues do become insurmountable, Middle Road’s ‘reserve’ status means that all or part of it could be substituted without referral back through the HPUDS review process, if necessary.

Sequencing Matters HPUDS is a 30-year strategy that leaves sequencing decisions to the individual territorial authorities to decide, as a matter of policy and programming through the Long Term Plans and District Plans, given the considerable infrastructure spends involved. The sequencing of land use, infrastructure and funding is fundamental to successful growth management and integrated planning. Sequencing involves identifying timeframes for land use which has regard to infrastructure servicing and funding availability. The aim is to balance the need for orderly development that is well supported by infrastructure while retaining enough flexibility to ensure that land is not overly restricted. The market has not always delivered infrastructure or a development pattern in a way that is efficient and cost-effective for the community. Addressing the timing and sequencing of development is designed to ensure, within broad limits, that development proceeds in a way that gives infrastructure service providers time to match demand, and the ability to fund that service delivery, and also to ensure sufficient locational choice. In terms of prioritisation of Middle Road over other areas, it is accepted that the Middle Road area has merit for future residential growth in Havelock North, and meets many of the tests for greenfield growth areas outlined in HPUDS and the RPS. Hence it’s suitability and inclusion in HPUDS as a ‘Reserve Area’. It is the sequencing of this that continues to present a problem in terms of the submissions, and needs to be considered as part of the wider strategy. While the merits of the 162 Te Aute Road block and wider Middle Road area have been acknowledged, the immediate progressing of the 162 Te Aute Rd block would result in the same issues identified in relation to Plan Change 40. Therefore, progressing Middle Road as a Greenfield Growth Area when the Iona Road area is still viable, or alternatively progressing the 162 Te Aute Road block ahead of both Iona Road areas or the rest of the Middle Road ‘reserve area’ (should Middle Road be required in

2 Retirement Sector Housing Demand Forecasts 2016 – 2045 – A Report for the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Study Review (2016), EMS Ltd, June 2016.

13 | Page the future), is not promoted. As a retirement village, the 162 Te Aute Road block would not be a quick fix to the pinch point in residential supply. It would potentially be slower to bring to the market than the Iona Road areas, and likely no quicker than Brookvale. Given that the Hastings District Council is not now in a position to deliver infrastructure and zoning to the Arataki Extension this year as planned, it has resolved to advance the Iona Road Triangle area, given this was the next priority established in the 2011 Priorities and Sequencing Policy. The Iona Road areas are already variously zoned for residential/rural residential development in the Proposed Hastings District Plan, indicating they are anticipated for development within the 10-year life of the District Plan. As already outlined, the Council is part way through considering issues and options for the Iona Road area, with a view to initiating structure planning for this area in 2017. Planning for development of the Iona Road area is therefore some considerable way further along than is the case for Middle Road. On that basis, it is considered that ‘Reserve’ area status is appropriate for the Middle Road area at this time (including 162 Te Aute Road), and replacing either of the Iona Road greenfield growth areas, or advancing rezoning of 162 Te Aute Road immediately, would also undermine the outcome of the public process that Hastings District Council has already commenced for the Iona Road area. As already noted, if any issues arise that make either of the Iona Road areas unviable, or if any issues arise that become insurmountable, the Council is in a position to progress Middle Road (or part thereof, if considered appropriate) as a replacement, without referral back through the HPUDS review process.

Recommendation:

That no amendments be made as a result of these submissions.

14 | Page

Sub # Reporting Officer: Andrew Sowersby (Consultant - Opus) [page] Responsible Authority: Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy 10 [71] Submission Theme: Howard St to Awaho - supports this area as greenfield area in HPUDS.

Summary of Submissions:

Karen Cooper (submission 10) supports the inclusion of Howard Street to Awahou Drain as a residential growth area because:

The productive capacity of the land is compromised; it is uneconomic for commercial horticulture or agricultural production; the amalgamation of the parcels into larger parcels is highly unlikely as it already contains numerous dwellings; there are reverse sensitivity issues preventing commercial or agricultural production; there are clear natural greenfield boundaries; opportunities exist for a walkway along the greenbelt (drain); there is social infrastructure nearby; and the development will create housing options with urban infrastructure in a rural setting.

Officer Comments:

Howard Street to Awahou Drain area is currently proposed as a future residential greenfield growth area in the HPUDS Draft Revised Strategy for Public Consultation – July 2016 (see Map 21 on page 56) and the Hastings District Council has structure planning work underway for this land. The area is included as it tested favourably in multi-criteria analysis undertaken by the Hastings District Council3 and against Policy UD4.2 of the RPS as assessed by Opus Consultants in the report titled Alternative Greenfield Sites and Review of HPUDS Settlement Pattern4, June 2016. The principle reasons for the inclusion of this area as part of the Howard Street Greenfield Growth Area is because it is contiguous with existing residential; it is held in 6 small titles which limit productive capacity; and it has good vehicle transport links.

The Howard Street to Awaho Drain area is identified on the following map, with the extension from the HPUDS 2010 Howard Street Greenfields Growth Area identified in red outline:

3 As reported to the Hastings District Council Planning & Regulatory Committee Meeting in February 2016 4 This report was prepared for Stage 2 of the HPUDS Review and is available on the HPUDS website: http://www.hpuds.co.nz/resources/#draftstrat

15 | Page

This submission is in support of the inclusion of Howard Street to Awahou Drain as a greenfields growth area in HPUDS and does not request any changes.

Recommendation:

No changes recommended as a result of this submission.

16 | Page

Sub # Reporting Officer: Mark Clews [page] Responsible Authority: Hastings District Council 24 [161], Submission Theme: Wall Road Reserve Greenfields Growth Area 47 [245] Summary of Submissions:

Hawke’s Bay Racing (submission 24) and Jason Troup (submission 47) support the inclusion of the Wall Road Area as a reserve greenfields growth area. Jason Troup however, also seeks the ability for any owner of land under a certain size be able to subdivide and develop if services are available, largely because such properties may be unviable as a farming business.

Officer Comments:

The submitters support for the Wall Road Reserve Greenfield Growth Area is acknowledged. The map of this area from the HPUDS 2016 Review Website is as follows:

An open ended right to develop on smaller blocks as suggested by Mr Troup however, would not be in accord with HPUDS. Notwithstanding that a property may not be viable as a business, many still have productive potential and can be eventually amalgamated with other larger units and/or used productively as a lifestyle choice thereby contributing to the local economy. Residential development would prevent such productive contributions from occurring within the foreseeable future.

In any event the existing lifestyle lots still provide diversity in the market and removing those that exist creates pressure for further lifestyle subdivision of rural land elsewhere. In addition such ad hoc development can undermine the ability to achieve planned and integrated development and compact urban form.

Recommendations:

That no amendments are made to the strategy as a result of these submissions.

17 | Page

Sub # Reporting Officer: Mark Clews [page] Responsible Authority: Hastings District Council 27 [179] Submission Theme: Opposes inclusion of Murdoch Road West as Reserve Greenfields Growth area.

Summary of Submissions:

Alan Magee (submission 27) is concerned that the identification of his land, which is one of two parcels identified, as a reserve greenfields growth area will result in a sizeable increase in property values and therefore rates, notwithstanding that they wish to continue with the current pastoral farming usage. He points to the previous identification of a small part of their property as a greenfield growth node in HPUDS 2010 having a 40% effect on rates.

Officer Comments:

The Magee’s property is 4.5 ha of a total of 11.8 ha between the existing urban boundary, the railway line, Murdoch Road East and the Southland Drain. The Magees’ property is essentially a lifestyle lot with an older homestead set back to the rear of the property and the remainder in pasture. It has an area of frontage to Murdoch Road between ribbon residential developments on both sides. The other larger lot is a productive orchard operated in conjunction with land on the other side of the Southland Drain connected by a bridge/culvert. The subject area is identified on the following map.

Left – The area highlighted in pale red as the Reserve Area as identified on the 2016 HPUDS Review maps. The Magee property can be seen as an area of pasture extending from Murdoch Road West back to the Southland Magee Drain. A 7.3ha orchard block between the Magee property and Railway Road South can also be seen.

A smaller 1ha portion of the Magee property was considered in HPUDs 2010 along with the wider surrounding area and it was concluded:

“This small area of land of approximately 1 ha bridges a gap between existing residential development on this section of Murdoch Road. It would create a natural boundary for any development and infrastructure would be readily available. The soils are silt/clay loam with

18 | Page

imperfect drainage. An extension of this area to the Upper Southland Drain and Railway Road was considered, which would also form a sensible round off with strong boundaries and encompassed a further 10ha (sic). It has not been included under the current growth assumptions as it has an existing producing orchard and grazing land and is not considered as being necessary within the planning period.”

What has changed since then is that HPUDS now identifies areas such as Murdoch Road West which are not needed for development, but which may become needed for development if other areas identified in HPUDS cannot proceed (for example Kaiapo Road due to stormwater constraints /costs), or there are rapid changes in other circumstances impacting on growth drivers. Reserve Greenfields Growth areas are intended to provide some flexibility to respond more quickly to change, but it does not foreshadow any certainty that the land will be zoned for development at any time within the next 30 years of the strategy.

Leaving aside the productive potential of the land, the Murdoch Road West area has many desirable features from an urban development perspective. The Hastings Council re- examined all of the greenfields growth areas considered in, but not adopted by HPUDS as well as other sites as possible new additions or replacement sites for consideration in the 2016 HPUDS Review. A multi-criteria scoring and weighting process was used with three different weighting scenarios. On the basis of the assessments undertaken, the Murdoch Road block was the preferred reserve area to consider for Hastings. In these circumstances it was considered prudent to identify the land as a possible reserve area as a backstop to the Hastings greenfield growth areas not proceeding in time, for whatever reason, to ensure reasonable continuity of supply of residential land in Hastings.

In this respect it would not make sense to leave out the Magee land (in pastoral use) and leave in the balance (in orchard use). The orchard land will necessarily need access through the pastoral block and even then the Magee property would be an island of rural land sandwiched between residential development. While it would be the Magee’s choice to continue with the current use, it would be a nonsense from a planning perspective not to zone it with the neighbouring land to allow for conversion to residential use at that time, if the Magee’s or subsequent owners so desired.

The concerns the Magee’s have regarding property values and rates are understood. Any rate increase (over the norm) is however going to be based on an improvement in land value (given the actual rating calculation is based on current rather than future use), which can ultimately be realised by the Magees to offset those costs. The values will reflect the potential the market may see and be prepared to pay for, rather than on a “as if it were zoned” basis. Given that the area will only have ‘reserve’ status, this potential value uplift may be quite low, by comparison to the 1 ha black (approx. 10-12 sections) identified in HPUDs 2010. The latter would have a high surety of happening sooner rather than later if the Magee’s so desired and the level of value in 12 potential sections would have been quite high in relation the rural value of the block as a whole, hence the 40% rise. While a value uplift would have been expected back in 2010 with the 1 ha block, this rating effect could be avoided by developing the land and realising the potential. That will not be the case with the Reserve Area designation, but the corollary, is that the value uplift will likely be much smaller.

Finally, if the value impact is larger than the Magee’s see warranted, given there is not an immediate or reasonably certain right to develop within these reserve greenfields areas, they can object to the valuations and have that tested through the established processes, including a right of appeal to the Land Valuation Tribunal.

19 | Page

Officer Recommendations:

It is noted that the description of the Murdoch Road West area in HPUDS 2010 needs updating to reflect the new approach with the introduction of Reserve Greenfields Growth areas. It is therefore recommended that the following paragraph be added to HPUDS 2016:

“This small area of land of approximately 1 ha bridges a gap between existing residential developments on this section of Murdoch Road. It would create a natural boundary for any development and infrastructure would be readily available. The soils are silt/clay loam with imperfect drainage. An extension of this area to the Upper Southland Drain and Railway Road would also contribute to compact urban development and form a sensible round off with strong boundaries and encompass a further 25ha. It has not been included under the current growth assumptions as it has an existing producing orchard and grazing land and is not considered as being necessary within the planning period, however, it has been included as a reserve greenfields growth area should it be needed due to a change in circumstances of the nature described in HPUDS ”

20 | Page

Sub # Reporting Officer: Mark Clews [page] 5 [36], Responsible Authority: Hastings District Council 46 [225] Submission Theme: Mapped Definition of Tomoana Industrial Growth Node. Summary of Submissions:

These submissions seek that the indicative Tomoana Industrial Node as represented in HPUDS by a grey circle, be replaced with a more defined area as follows:

Jim Bishop (submission 5) - all of the land between Pakowhai Road, Richmond Road, Tomoana Road and the Proposed North Eastern Connector.

Token Holdings (submission 46) - As requested by Jim Bishop, but extending northwards to Elwood Road.

Points made to support the submission are;

• Consistent with previous Industrial Strategies • Well defined by physical features • Does not directly adjoin residential areas (Northwood separated by North Eastern Connector and acoustic fence) • Access to services • Provides a wet industry option • Close to labour • Avoids natural hazards and cultural sites of significance

Officer Comments:

From a HPUDS perspective there is no dispute that the Tomoana area is generally suitable as an industrial growth node for the reasons given. The main question here is should the boundary be more clearly defined at this point and if so where that boundary should be drawn?

Drawing a boundary, even if indicative, suggests a defined area is required to be converted from plains use to industrial use to meet demand, and secondly some appreciation of where and how interface and servicing issues can be addressed, at least at a high level.

As part of the 2016 HPUDS review, updated projections of the consumption of land by industrial activities within Hastings District and Napier City for the period from 2016 to 2025 inclusive was undertaken. This indicated that around 64ha is likely to be consumed over the 10-year period to 2026, with an average projected uptake of 1.6ha and 5.2ha per annum for Napier and Hastings, respectively. Ten years is considered the limit of meaningful industrial growth projections, but having said that the Economic Solutions Ltd report ‘Review of Base Demographic and Economic Growth Trends and Projections Since 2009’ March 2016, infers an annual average demand of 5 ha per annum or 150 ha in total for Hastings and 2.5 ha or 75 ha for Napier, over the thirty years to 2045.

Zone expansions for dry industry are currently underway at Irongate and Omahu Road Hastings capacity identifies it as being the logical choice for wet industry at Whakatu and later Tomoana. However, HPUDS identifies that some of the expansion will conflict with recognised soil values, particularly in the Tomoana/Whakatu areas. This is an issue that will

21 | Page

require careful consideration as much of the infrastructure that is suited to ‘wet industry’ is already in place in these areas. HPUDS 2016 also notes that issues with high servicing costs in the Omahu and Irongate Industrial areas have resulted in these areas being revised. The outcome has been to rezone larger areas in association with a change in approach to stormwater servicing. This has resulted in significant areas of land resource becoming available for dry and service industries in these locations, beyond that identified in HPUDS 2010. The table below indicates the industrial areas, their capacity, timing and potential activities. This is deemed sufficient to cater for growth needs out to 2045.

It is noted in the table that an expansion at either Tomoana or Whakatu is planned only after spare capacity is consumed at Whakatu and that capacity is estimated at approximately ha. So even if the full 60 ha for Tomoana/Whakatu is allocated to an expansion at Tomoana, this is unlikely to be needed until Whakatu is full and predicted uptake will be tempered with the knowledge that expansion at Omahu and Irongate is likely to see relatively generous levels of land supply over all (54 ha over projected need). Tomoana is also an area of highly productive soils and valued versatile land, as such, any rezoning of this land for urban use is likely to be strongly opposed by rural land protection interests. At this stage therefore it would seem difficult to determine with any degree of accuracy the forward land requirement upon which to draw justifiable urban boundaries. Particularly as such boundaries could compromise versatile rural land unnecessarily. The total land sought to be identified by the submitter’s amounts to 80ha, being 31 ha to Richmond Road and a further 50 ha extension to Elwood Road, so is considerably more than the 60ha projected for the Tomoana / Whakatu area.

On top of the uncertainty about demand and supply and therefore the need for and size of a zone, there are interface and servicing issues that also come into play. It should be noted that all greenfields areas identified in HPUDS have indicative boundaries and that they are subject to further testing and refinement through the structure planning process and thereafter statutory processes. HPUDS is not expected to get down to that level of detail, but to identify preferred nodes for development. As some nodes suggested for development came with indications of possible boundaries as a result of past work or where natural features were likely to be determinative, these were included in HPUDS 2010, but subject to the notation that they were indicative only. Less certainty surrounded the exact location of development in other areas which were identified with an indicative circle, this is the case with Tomoana and Whakatu, as it is for Awatoto, Bridge Pa, Maraekakaho, Te Awanga and Haumoana as well.

22 | Page

In the case of Tomoana some structure planning work was undertaken in the mid-2000s, but was put on hold while resources were focussed into Omahu Road and Irongate. There were a number of issues identified relating to boundaries, these included flooding risk in the northern corner near Elwood Road (as identified in the submitters supporting hazard information), and rural outlook and landscape values for the public travelling along Pakowhai Road, a reasonably significant gateway route to the city.

In this early structure plan work and consultation the area encompassed by the proposed rezoning is smaller than that originally indicated in 2003 (Hastings Industrial Demand Strategy). The boundary was moved south east away from Pakowhai Road to reduce the visual impact of industrial development on the Pakowhai Road entrance to Hastings and also the area to the north was reduced to maintain the current plains zone character (See Preliminary Landscape Plan below).

A two staged development of 25 Ha in stage 1 and 35 Ha in stage 2 was proposed (total 60 ha). Stage 1 This comprises land between the proposed North Eastern Connector and Richmond Road, with a green buffer strip along the Pakowhai Road boundary of around 100-120 m. This means that parts of sites along Pakowhai Road are included in the zone and the remainder fall outside the new zone and remain as Plains zone land. These remaining areas would become lifestyle blocks with their own internal buffer to supplement any industrial zone boundary controls. Stage 2 consists of the land bounded by the existing Watties industrial site, Richmond and Elwood Roads. Again a buffer strip ranging from 120 to 300m is provided along the Pakowhai Road boundary, but in this case following existing established shelter belts (one of which has since been removed and most of the area back to Pakowhai Road planted in orchard) and land ownership and would likely remain in productive use. This setback would also accommodate the bulk of the areas identified as being subject to flooding risk (as shown in the District Plan at the time, this has been updated since).

23 | Page

Figure 1 Early Landscape Plan for Tomoana Industrial Expansion

24 | Page

Figure 2. Early Tomoana Extension Staging Plan showing Roading and Waste Water Provision

Against this background, the following key points emerge : • Uncertainty over the area required given surplus industrial land already identified/zoned beyond the projections • Highly versatile land conversion of which to industrial use will be of interest to other parties seeking to protect such land • Earlier preliminary Structure Plan indication of different boundary lines to those proposed for landscape/amenity and flooding reasons. • Servicing issues have not been fully developed that may impact on land requirements.

It is therefore concluded that overall it would not be prudent to raise expectations by determining a more precise boundary at this time.

Recommendation:

That no amendments be made as a result of these submissions.

25 | Page

Sub # Reporting Officer: Rowena Macdonald (Sage Planning) [Page] 9 [63], 28 Responsible Authority: Hastings District Council [181] Submission Theme: Te Awanga/Haumoana

Summary of Submissions:

Clifton Bay Limited (submission 9) and Mark Mahoney (submission 28) seek that: the Strategy incorporates accurate planning maps that correlate to recent district planning decisions, in particular that HPUDS Map 11 (Te Awanga) and Map 12 (Haumoana) be updated to reflect Map 38 and Map 39 from the Proposed Hastings District Plan decisions.

Officer Comments:

These submitters are effectively seeking replacement of the undefined ‘indicative nodes’ in HPUDS applying to Haumoana and Te Awanga, with more defined areas based on the boundaries of those areas recently rezoned in the Proposed Hastings District Plan (September 2015, decisions version), being: i) ‘Haumoana-Te Awanga Residential Zone’ with ‘Lifestyle Overlay’ applied to 380 Clifton Road; ii) ‘Haumoana-Te Awanga Deferred Residential Zone’ applying to land in East Road in Haumoana; and iii) ‘Haumoana-Te Awanga Deferred Residential Zone’ applying to land in and around Gordon Road in Te Awanga

(as shown on Maps 38 and 39 of the Proposed Plan).

Map depicting indicative growth for Haumoana – HPUDS 2016 (website version)

26 | Page

Map depicting indicative growth for Te Awanga – HPUDS 2016 (website version)

HPUDS Settlement Pattern Map (with the relevant Haumoana and Te Awanga indicative nodes circled in yellow) – HPUDS 2016 (website version) From HPUDS perspective, there is no dispute that the Te Awanga and Haumoana areas are generally suitable for limited coastal residential growth.

27 | Page

As for other growth areas such as Bridge Pa (marae-based), Maraekakaho, Omahu (marae- based), and the Whakatu, Tomoana and Awatoto industrial growth areas, the indicative growth for Haumoana and Te Awanga have each been depicted by a circle. This has tracked through from the respective maps in HPUDS 2010, with the indicative circles being identical in the revised HPUDS 2016 maps (website version) shown above. The main questions then are: 1. is it necessary and/or desirable to more accurately reflect boundaries?; and if so 2. can boundaries for indicative growth in Haumoana and Te Awanga be more accurately defined?; and if so 3. where should those boundary lines be drawn? In answer to the first question, clearly the more definitive and precise the boundaries, the greater clarity and certainty for the community and landowners looking ahead over the life of the Strategy. This is the argument promoted by the submitters. However, it should be noted that all greenfields areas identified in HPUDS have indicative boundaries and are subject to further testing and refinement through the structure planning process and thereafter statutory plan change processes. HPUDS, as a high level strategic document, does not seek to get down to that level of detail, but to identify preferred nodes for development (albeit that cadastral boundaries are used for areas where certainty is available). In the case of Haumoana and Te Awanga, HPUDS broadly identifies these areas as appropriate for residential growth and assigns an indicative yield of 130 dwellings across the two settlements. Recent rezoning of certain blocks of land in these areas from ‘Plains’ to ‘Deferred Residential’ through the recent Proposed Hastings District Plan process confirms that there has been some further testing and refinement of where future growth is expected to go within the 10-year life of the District Plan. The specific indicative areas for growth in Haumoana and Te Awanga, as proposed by the submitters, would reflect those zone boundaries incorporated in the Proposed Hastings District Plan (September 2015, decisions version) as shown on Maps 38 and 39 inserted below (with the relevant rezoned areas circled in red).

Map 38 Haumoana (part) – Proposed Hastings District Council (September 2015, decisions version)

28 | Page

Map 39 Te Awanga (part) – Proposed Hastings District Council (September 2015, decisions version) The Proposed District Plan provides explanation in relation to the ‘Haumoana – Te Awanga Deferred Residential Zone’, as follows (Section 11.1.6 Methods): “Haumoana – Te Awanga Deferred Residential Zone: This Zone is applied to land identified for future residential expansion. The Deferred Zone will provide a resource for future residential development that can be fully utilised for residential activities when satisfactory measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate natural hazards and other environmental impacts on nearby activities and land uses are met, when servicing needs are adequately addressed and when comprehensive master planning has been completed to the satisfaction of Council. In order to ensure sustainable management of the land resource, the Haumoana – Te Awanga Deferred Residential Zone will continue to be used in a manner consistent with a Plains Zoning until detailed master planning has been completed.” It is clear from the above, that the Council anticipates completion of a master planning exercise before contemplating a detailed structure planning process for this area. At the same time, the Partner Councils are also collaborating on a joint ‘Clifton – Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy’. The development of this Coastal Strategy is only part way through. It is likely that any master planning for Haumoana and Te Awanga will not be commenced until that wider Coastal Strategy has been completed. In essence, it is still not clear where these strategic processes will lead, and they may impact significantly on the exact location of future residential growth, and the resulting density (and ultimately the yield) that can be achieved in Haumoana and Te Awanga. Indeed, precise boundaries would remove flexibility in determining where residential growth should occur in Haumoana and Te Awanga, when there is still a level of uncertainty around where that growth can and should occur. Drawing a boundary, even if indicative, suggests a predictable area is required, and that the decisions about where all the future growth in each of the two settlements is to occur between 2015 and 2045, have been made. In addition, whilst these areas have been rezoned in the Proposed District Plan for future residential growth, they are all still subject to appeals that are yet to be resolved. In the case of 380 Clifton Road, there is an outstanding appeal against the Council’s decision to apply a ‘lifestyle overlay’ to the zoning of this land, which enables a significantly lower density of

29 | Page development than normally expected under a ‘Residential’ zoning. In the case of the ‘Deferred Residential’-zoned area in Te Awanga (the Te Awanga Downs Family Trust property), submissions to the Proposed District Plan sought to remove the deferment. This was rejected as there remains a number of outstanding issues that need to be resolved before the deferment can be lifted, and is now the subject of appeal. In the case of the ‘Deferred Residential’-zoned area in Haumoana (at East Road), submissions to the Proposed District Plan sought to remove the deferment. This was rejected. The location of an intensive rural production activity within 400 metres of the land concerned continues to present a significant constraint (particularly given recent experience with odour in respect of the Arataki extension), and the Council’s decision not to uplift the deferment reflects that those issues would have to be resolved before development can proceed. Again, it is still unclear what impact this will have on the area that will ultimately be developed for residential purposes, and the yield that can be achieved. On the basis of the above, given the level of uncertainty and outstanding appeals applying to the Deferred Residential zoned areas in Haumoana and Te Awanga, as well as outstanding appeals on the Residential/Lifestyle Overlay zoning of the land at 380 Clifton Road, it would seem prudent to leave the broad HPUDS indicative nodes as they are at the present time. Precisely defining these areas in HPUDS, as sought, could be seen as pre-empting the outcome of those appeals to the Proposed Hastings District Plan, as well as any strategic direction from the Clifton – Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy and any future master planning exercise for Haumoana – Te Awanga. Leaving the indicative nodes as they are would retain a sufficient level of flexibility around where growth is ultimately provided for, the appropriate density, as well as the relative share of indicative yield between the two settlements. More precise boundaries could be a matter for further consideration during the next HPUDS review cycle, assuming outstanding matters have been settled or sufficiently progressed in that time. Recommendation:

That no amendments be made as a result of these submissions.

30 | Page

Sub # Reporting Officer: Mark Clews

48 Responsible Authority: Hastings Distract Council [246] Submission Theme: Need for Electricity Upgrades

Summary of Submissions:

Unison Networks Ltd (submission 246) note that in addition to costs to Councils with intensifications and greenfields areas, there may be significant costs borne by Unison for electricity upgrades. Unison therefore encourages the Council and developers to engage with them as early as possible to determine the exact cost implications of planned development.

Officer Comments:

It is accepted that both intensification and greenfields growth areas place more demand onto the electricity network. Costs may be incurred due to the need to strengthen the network to deliver a greater capacity of service and these cost will also be dependent on location. It is for this reason that the infrastructure reports were prepared in 2010 and were reviewed again in 20165 for this review, and Unison was specifically consulted in HPUDS 2010 on whether there were any significant issues with the settlement pattern.

It is accepted that there are some locations identified in the HPUDS that are likely to incur a higher cost relative to the size of the planned growth network in these areas such as Haumoana / Te Awanga where an additional feeder is likely to be needed and at Waimarama, which is on a spur, due to its remoteness.

It is also accepted that other electricity growth demands on the Heretaunga Plains and other factors may mean that circumstance change between HPUDS reviews. In this respect the review process is an ideal opportunity to test assumptions about the feasibility of parts of the proposed settlement pattern.

In the final event the structure planning and financial feasibility modelling exercise prior to rezoning and resource consents is where the details on upgrading and costs can be evaluated. It is worth noting therefore that it will be important in these processes to engage with Unison at an early opportunity.

Recommendation:

No amendments are recommended as result of this submission.

5 Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy Phase 2 – Infrastructure – Reviewed, MWH Consultants, March 2016.

31 | Page

HERETAUNGA PLAINS URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (HPUDS) REVIEW 2016

Officer Comments 3 – Hastings District New Areas Requested for Inclusion in HPUDS

Submissions Addressed in this Document Sub Submitter Name Submission Theme Pages in this # Report 7 Boyes, Whiting & Stone Include Ada - Howard - Awaho Drain in HPUDS as greenfields growth area / 2 – 3 reserve area. 3 Bayley, Kevin Include new Hastings Greenfield – Pakowhai Rd 4 – 7 19 Gregory Group Include Pakowhai Rd / Lyndhurst Rd adjacent Gracelands 13 Davidson, Charlie & Susan Include 126 Main Rd, Clive 2 Batt, Mervyn & Robyn Include Clive South (off Read Cres) as 8 – 12 reserve 16 Endsleigh Cottages 39 Raymond Road Rezoning Identify upper terrace fronting Group (Development Nous) Raymond Road, Haumoana for Rural 13 – 20 40 Raymond Road Rezoning Residential development Group (Mr Maurenbrecher) 20 Gunn, Gerard Waiohiki - provide for lifestyle dev near Marae or allow for wider development 21 – 22 of Marae communities 17 Evans Family Trust Whirinaki – identify land off North Shore Rd at southern end of Whirinaki 23 – 26 for growth in HPUDS

1 | Page

Sub # Reporting Officer: Andrew Sowersby (Consultant - Opus) [page] Responsible Authority: Hastings District Council 7 [58] Submission Theme: Include Ada - Howard - Awaho Drain in HPUDS as a greenfields growth area or a reserve growth area.

Summary of Submissions:

The submitters, J Boyes, K & D Whiting and K Stone (submission 7), request the inclusion of the land bounded by Howard Street and Ada Street to the Awaho Drain as a residential growth area or alternatively as a reserve area. The submitters consider that the area meets the HBRPS Policy UD4.2 criteria in that: it forms a contiguous extension to Hastings; its productive capability is compromised; there are logical natural boundaries to the urban area; servicing is feasible; there are good transport connections; there are no natural hazard constraints; and there are local shops, schools and parks nearby.

Officer Comments:

The land that is the subject of this submission is 13.9ha in area and is identified by a red outline on the following map:

The areas identified as reserve areas in HPUDS were selected as they were consistent with certain criteria as part of a multi-criteria analysis undertaken by the Hastings District Council1 and were subsequently deemed the most appropriate with respect to the criteria in RPS Policy UD4.2 as assessed by Opus Consultants in the report titled Alternative Greenfield Sites and Review of HPUDS Settlement Pattern2, June 2016. The land identified by the submitters did not score as favourably as the reserve areas that were identified for inclusion in the HPUDS Draft Revised Strategy for Public Consultation – July 2016. This is primarily

1 As reported to the Hastings District Council Planning & Regulatory Committee Meeting in February 2016 2 This report was prepared for Stage 2 of the HPUDS Review and is available on the HPUDS website: http://www.hpuds.co.nz/resources/#draftstrat

2 | Page as the site has soil of high versatility. Approximately half of the site has soil identified as being suitable for perennial cropland and the other half as high performing grassland. The eastern half of the identified land is currently utilised as an orchard (see the aerial photograph below). In addition, there is no natural boundary to the north east to define the urban limit; half the land has a high liquefaction risk; and the Howard Street block identified for inclusion in HPUDs will provide for the market in this area. It is also likely that there would be contaminants in the soil which would require mitigation, owing to the long standing orchard that has existed on the site since the 1950’s.

The HPUDS review includes the extension of the Howard Street to Havelock Road block up to the Awaho Drain as a new residential growth area. This block is situated to the southwest of the submitters land, on the opposite side of Howard Street. It scored higher than the submitters land as the block has lower land versatility; it is held in 6 smaller titles; there is poor drainage; and there are better defined boundaries to define the urban limits.

Current projections indicate that no additional supply is required and too much greenfield supply would affect the ability to meet the intensification targets. This is on the basis of the Draft Revised HPUDS Strategy 2016 for Public Consultation which includes figures on page 19 that show the long term indicative yield (of the greenfield growth areas identified in the strategy) over and above projected demand is 615 dwellings or 16%, but where the proposed reserve areas are included these figures increase to 2,365 dwellings and 54%.

On this basis HPUDS identifies sufficient greenfield land over and above projected long term demand. As such, the inclusion of the identified land in HPUDS as a residential growth area would be contrary to the principles of HPUDS and an additional reserve area is currently not required.

Recommendations:

No changes recommended as a result of this submission.

3 | Page

Sub Reporting Officer: Philip McKay (EMS Ltd) [page] Responsible Authority: Hastings District Council 3 [13], 19 Submission Theme: Pakowhai Road request for a new Greenfields [128] Growth Area

Summary of Submissions:

Kevin Bayley (submission 3) is seeking a new greenfield growth area involving approximately 44ha of land and fronting Pakowhai Road, between Evenden Road and the Lyndhurst Extension Greenfields Growth Area. Reasons given in this submission include: • Market indications have identified that there is a shortage of residential sections available on the market; • Proposed National Statement on Urban Development Capacity will require a residential land supply of 20% over and above projected short and medium term demand; • A number of existing urban development sites are either unviable or hindered by time cost and / or RMA constraints; • HPUDS needs to provide alterative and additional land development options and location to cater for both shortfalls in supply and to cater for unviable or limited sites already part of the strategy.

The Gregory Group (submission 19) is based on the inclusion of a single 3.7ha property with frontage to Pakowhai Road as an addition to the Lyndhurst Extension Greenfields Growth Area which is already identified in HPUDS. The reasons given in this submission are very similar to those listed in the bullet points in support of the Bayley submission above.

Officer Comments:

The map shown below uses the HPUDS 2016 Review Website ‘Lyndhurst Extension’ as a base (the area highlighted in blue). The submission of Gregory Group relates to the property shown in yellow outline, while the Bayley submission relates to the area in red outline.

4 | Page

Both submissions include assessments of how the respective areas would meet the criteria in Policy UD4.2 ‘New Residential Greenfield Growth Area Criteria’ of the Regional Policy Statement. Although the assessment against many of the criteria may be favourable, there would need to be an identified greenfields supply deficit to add either of these areas as a new HPUDS Greenfield Growth Area. In regards to supply, the Draft Revised HPUDS Strategy 2016 for Public Consultation states under the heading ‘2016 Review Findings’:

“The HPUDS Review findings generally confirm that the 2010 HPUDS assumptions and directions around urban growth remain sound. In essence, the outcome of the Review confirms that growth is able to be accommodated within the current HPUDS settlement pattern, and there is no significant change in the underlying assumptions that would necessitate a radical change to the overall settlement pattern. While the updated projections showed a significant population increase over the 30-year period …, the 2016 Review confirmed this increase is still able to be accommodated within the HPUDS identified growth areas and the infill growth projections.”

The ‘Key Aspects of the Strategy’ include “…a preferred settlement pattern of ‘compact design’ for the Heretaunga Plains. In particular, this recognises the community’s preference to maintain the versatile land of the Heretaunga Plains for production purposes.3” Another key component of the strategy is moving towards a majority of housing provided by intensification rather than greenfields development, by 2035. An oversupply of greenfields land would not promote a move towards greater intensification. The identification of 44ha of additional versatile Plains Production zoned land for greenfields development will not therefore be consistent with these key components of the Strategy.

3 http://www.hpuds.co.nz/assets/Docoment-Library/Reports/Draft-Reviews/DRAFT-Revised-2016- Heretaunga-Plains-Urban-Development-Strategy-for-public-consultation-purposes-NOT-official- council-policy.pdf (Revised HPUDS 2016Strategy document, page 1)

5 | Page

With regards to the versatility of the subject land the majority of it is identified as being Land Use Capability Class 14 with a ‘silt loam’ soil type. The land is therefore of the highest versatility and in keeping with HPUDS would not be appropriate to identify for Greenfields Residential Development when there is no need for additional sites to be identified for such development.

The most recent consideration of this land for greenfields residential rezoning was in the Hastings Urban Development Strategy (HUDS) Greenfields Review Report5 produced in 2000. In that report a wider area of over 200ha involving the whole block up to the Expressway was investigated and dismissed as only being suitable for further consideration after the development of Lyndhurst. A smaller area involving 20ha fronting Pakowhai Road (having the same road frontage as the area sought in the Bayley submission) was also considered and dismissed as having no obvious northern limit and due to being ‘ribbon development’. This is one of the reasons why this area was not reconsidered last year by the Hastings District Council alongside other requested sites as potential “reserve” or alternative/additional greenfields growth areas.

With regards to the Gregory submission, there is no need (in terms of a supply shortage) for any additional land to be added to the HPUDS Lyndhurst Extension Greenfields Growth Area. It is acknowledged that the submission identified how a defensible boundary of a green belt buffer strip could be incorporated into the rezoning of this land. In general terms however this additional 4.7ha does not fit logically with the Lyndhurst extension, which itself has defined an associated greenbelt buffer strip, being accessed off Pakowhai rather than Lyndhurst Road and does not have any readily identifiable physical features on which to base a defensible boundary.

In terms of the points raised by the submitters the, ‘Proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity’ (PNP – UDC) is referred to. This is a document that was put out for consultation by the Ministry for the Environment on which submissions have been received and are currently being considered, with a finalised National Policy Statement anticipated to be released in October 2016. In the meantime the proposed document has no legal status. The submissions referred to Policy PD5 of the NPS-UDC as requiring regional councils to provide sufficient residential land of 20% over and above projected short and medium term demand and of over 15% above projected long term demand. The NPS-UDC defines short term demand as 3 years, medium terms as 10 years and long term as the next 30 years.

Given the above, there is no basis on which to support the identification of either of these areas as HPUDS Greenfield Growth Areas.

As a consultation document the NPS-UDC should not be given much weight. It should also be noted that the context of HPUDS is to provide a planned and strategic approach to residential land supply over the long term (30 years), including implementation of a shift to compact settlement pattern to reduce further encroachment onto the Heretaunga Plains. HPUDS does not seek to sequence and implement residential development in the short to medium terms this is a function of the territorial local authorities through their LTP and district plan processes. It is noted that a district plan change must give effect to the Regional Policy Statement.

4 Hawkes Bay Regional Council on line mapping: http://maps.hbrc.govt.nz/IntraMaps80/?project=HBRC&configId=497c9efb-a430-4c9f-badb- da35f90c4a7d 5 Produced by Beca, Carter, Hollings and Ferner Ltd for the Hastings District Council.

6 | Page

In terms of greenfields residential supply the Draft Revised HPUDS Strategy 2016 for Public Consultation sets out on page 14 household growth allocations (based on a medium high population projections) between greenfields, intensification and rural residential out to 2045. This allocation is for 4,415 greenfield dwellings in the period to 2045, and for 2,405 greenfield dwellings in the year period to 2025. Page 19 of the Draft sets out the Long Term Development Capacity for greenfield dwellings. These figures show that the long term indicative yield (of the greenfield growth areas identified in the strategy) over and above projected demand is 615 dwellings or 16%, but where the proposed reserve areas are included these figures increase to 2,365 dwellings and 54%. On this basis HPUDS identifies sufficient greenfield land to achieve the draft NPS-UDC long term supply target of over 15% above projected long term demand.

In support of including the additional land requested, the submitters also state that ‘HPUDS needs to provide alterative and additional land development options and location to cater for both shortfalls in supply and to cater for unviable or limited sites already part of the strategy’. This is exactly the intent of the reserve areas added to the Draft Revised HPUDS Strategy 2016 for Public Consultation. The reserve areas add significant capacity to the supply of greenfields land identified in HPUDS and would be available to implement should any of the identified greenfield areas prove to be unviable.

Given all of the above the land that is subject of the submissions from Kevin Bayley and The Gregory Group respectively, should not be identified in HPUDS for either greenfields growth or as a reserve area and rather should remain part of the Plains Production Zone land resource.

Officer Recommendations:

That no amendments are made to the strategy as a result of these submissions.

7 | Page

Sub # Reporting Officer: Philip McKay (Consultant, EMS Ltd) [page] Responsible Authority: Hastings District Council 2 [9], 13 [75] Submission Theme: Requests for land at Clive to be identified in the Strategy

Summary of Submissions:

Mervyn & Robyn Batt (submission 9) are seeking that their 4ha property at Clive South be: • Removed from the list of ‘Inappropriate Areas for Development’; and • Be included as a reserve greenfield growth area.

The Batt submission raises a number of points in support of the relief that they are requesting including: • Clive South is more consistent with RPS Policy UD4.2 than the Romanes Drive Reserve Area; • Weight should be given to the proximity of Clive South to Napier (9km), Havelock North (9km) and Hastings (8.5km) and on this basis include it as a fifth reserve area; • Clive South is uniquely positioned compared to other reserve areas and would provide a more ‘flexible’ option and alternative market choice; • Clive hasn’t been considered in the Telfer Young Report with regards to market demand, presumably because there are no sections in Clive available to the market; • Request that consideration be given to potential market demand for residential development in Clive South if land was available for expansion.

Charlie & Susan Davidson (submission 13) request that their 1.1ha property at 126 Main Road, Clive along with a neighbouring property, be identified in HPUDS to provide for the future residential development of Clive. The following provides a summary of some of the key points made by the Davidson’s in support of their submission: • The request for future residential zoning also relates to the 984m2 neighbouring property, which is in residential use; • The site is currently used for a mixture of residential and commercial activities and is no way an economic orchard or grazing unit; • The site is between the existing Clive-Whakatu Residential Zone on the northern and eastern boundaries and the Clive River; • Although the site is not in the area referenced for Clive South it is adjacent that area and is more easily serviced and at a higher ground level avoiding flooding issues; • The site satisfies the greenfield growth area criteria of Policy UD4.2; • The inclusion of this site in HPUDS will help release of greenfield sites and could be provided to market very quickly; • A development concept to provide 4 new residential sections meeting the 1,000m2 minimum site size of the district plan is shown in the submission; • Access would be provided off the State Highway via the existing approved access; • The neighbours are supportive.

Officer Comments:

The map shown below identifies the location of the land subject to the submissions in red

8 | Page

outline. The Davidson property is incorporated in the red outline between SH 2 and the Clive River, while the Batt property can be seen in the red outline off the end of Read Crescent and adjacent SH 2 and Muddy Creek.

Both submissions include statements that the respective areas would meet Policy UD4.2 ‘New Residential Greenfield Growth Area Criteria’ of the Regional Policy Statement. The following statement from HPUDS 2010 indicates why Clive was identified in the list of ‘areas where there is no provision for growth’:

“The Clive Development Strategy which was undertaken in 2002 looked at the servicing aspects of future growth to ascertain the potential for future growth. Stormwater is the major issue for Clive and a number of sites were identified for future growth that were outside the potential flood hazard areas. Since that time these sites have largely been developed. There has been no stormwater upgrading and therefore it is recommended that no growth be provided for in Clive due to stormwater servicing issues”6.

The Batts made a submission to the Proposed Hastings District Plan (PHDP), challenging the HPUDS based policies in that plan about Clive being inappropriate for future residential development. Their submission pointed out that their property, is 1m higher than the area mapped as being prone to a 1:50 year flood event. As a result of this submission amendments were made to some of the PHDP objectives and policies relating to Clive, although as required by the RMA these policies still seek to give effect to the Regional Policy Statement (and HPUDS 2010) by not promoting further development in Clive. The most

6 Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy, Hawke’s Bay Regional, Napier City & Hastings District Councils, August 2010 (page 170)

9 | Page

pertinent of these PHDP policies now read (as amended by decisions on submisssions) as follows: POLICY CPP1: To ensure that the subdivision of urban land within the Clive SMA does not adversely impact on identified hazards and infrastructure limitations.

Explanation: Clive and Whakatu have stormwater capacity issues with the Muddy Creek system unable to accommodate any further stormwater without significant downstream impacts. The larger lot sizes are required to reduce the volume of stormwater runoff and this will also assist in maintaining the level of amenity currently enjoyed within the settlement. In order to mitigate the effects on the existing flood hazard, on-site attenuation of stormwater will be required. POLICY CPP3: Future residential development and subdivision must be undertaken within the existing Zone boundaries to avoid the identified flood hazard areas and safeguard versatile soils. Explanation: The Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy has recommended that no further growth beyond the existing zoned residential boundaries be provided for at Clive or Whakatu. This is due to stormwater capacity issues, beyond the boundary of parts of the existing zoned area and also to achieve compact development within the existing urban areas in the District to prevent spread onto the versatile soils. The no growth recommendations does not preclude further infill development from occurring on the larger sites as long as the stormwater effects can be successfully attenuated, and the character valued by the Clive and Whakatu communities maintained.

The officer’s report on the Batt submission to the PHDP hearings included the following statement from the Hastings District Council’s Water Services Manager, Mr Brett Chapman:

“There are a number of localised stormwater issues that are problematic within Clive that result in inundation and ponding within roads and properties. There is limited ability to gravitate to existing stormwater infrastructure and the ability to cater for secondary overland flows remains problematic. Larger storm events that impact on the Muddy Creek system will reduce the ability to discharge stormwater from Clive and the potential for further flooding and inundation is a concern. With respect to infill and greenfields development, while land may sit well above existing known flood levels, the increased stormwater that is generated and discharged into the stormwater network will add to an already existing problem and must therefore be mitigated to the extent that no additional effects occur. The Batt property has previously been the subject of a residential development proposal. In the context of both local and wider issues, an engineering solution was approved which included a design that addressed internal site issues and did not impact on the wider receiving network in a 50 year event. This involved a large area of land for on-site attenuation.”

Given the acknowledgement from Mr Chapman, that an engineering solution for the Batt property exists, Opus Consultants in their reporting on potential amendments to the HPUDS settlement pattern as part of the 2016 Review, were asked to consider whether Clive should remain on the list of ‘inappropriate areas’ for greenfields development. The Opus report7 concluded:

Two areas identified in the ‘Inappropriate Areas for development’ list have had some of the issues that might preclude development addressed. These are Clive South (an area off Read Crescent and bounded by SH2 and Muddy Creek) and Whirinaki. Both were included because of servicing issues, … Although removed from the ‘Inappropriate’ list,

7 Alternative Greenfield Sites and Review of the HPUDS Settlement Pattern, June 2010 (page 23)

10 | Page

neither area is considered to warrant inclusion in the Reserve Areas.

Although this statement is specific to the Batt’s property it is noted that Davidson’s property is at a similar level to the Batt’s property at its road frontage but slopes up towards the Clive River to be over a metre higher at the rear.

The Opus report also assessed Clive South in terms of its appropriateness for a reserve area and concluded: “Overall this site could be suitable for consideration as a ‘Reserve’ area for future development in HPUDS but would need to be investigated further prior to any such decision being made.”8 With regard to the reference to further investigation, the potential constraints mentioned were in relation to liquefaction risk, stormwater disposal and potential agrichemical contamination.

In introducing five ‘reserve areas’ the Draft Revised HPUDS Strategy 2016 for Public Consultation, states at page 17: “It is not deemed necessary to have ‘reserve growth areas’ for every identified greenfield growth location in HPUDS, but is it prudent to have them available for the main urban areas of Napier City and Hastings District.”

As set out under the ’summary of submissions’ heading above, the Batt’s challenge this in suggesting that Clive, as a midway point between the settlements of Napier, Hastings, and Havelock North, could be an appropriate reserve area for the greenfield growth locations in these main urban areas.

The purpose of the reserve areas however, is to be able to be called upon as a like replacement for the area that it is replacing. Although Clive is a handily located to the main urban areas it is a settlement in its own right, with its own character. For this reason, that area of Clive South that has development potential, may be better to be considered for development in its own right in the wider context of the HPUDS settlement pattern, rather than as a reserve area.

In regards to this, although development could be appropriate in Clive South, there would need to be an identified greenfields supply deficit to be able to add these areas as new HPUDS Greenfield Growth Areas. The 2016 review has concluded that the greenfield growth areas identified provide a 16% surplus of greenfields supply over projected demand (in terms of the HPUDS preferred settlement pattern) and this surplus is even more pronounced (54%) when the reserve areas are included.

The ‘Key Aspects of the Strategy’ (see page 1 of the Draft Revised Strategy) include “…a preferred settlement pattern of ‘compact design’ for the Heretaunga Plains. In particular, this recognises the community’s preference to maintain the versatile land of the Heretaunga Plains for production purposes.”

Another key component of the strategy is moving towards a majority of housing provided by intensification, rather than greenfields development, by 2035. An oversupply of greenfields land would not promote a move towards greater intensification.

The subject sites of the respective submissions are 1.1 and 4ha respectively so are relatively small in the context of the strategy. In terms of the 1.1ha site it contains 2 exiting dwellings and the submission includes a concept plan showing provision for 4 additional dwellings. In regards to the 4ha site, at 15 dwellings per hectare it could have a theoretical capacity of 60 dwellings however structure planning work may well result in a significantly lower capacity than this. Given the comments from Mr Chapman above, a significant area would be

8 Ibid (page 17)

11 | Page required for onsite stormwater attenuation. Land would also be required for internal roading, a yield in the vicinity of 30 – 35 dwellings is therefore more likely.

The last study of residential growth for Clive was undertaken in 2002. Given that development of the rezoned land resulting from this study was completed prior to 2010 and in light of the challenges to the 2010 HPUDS conclusions regarding Clive being inappropriate for further development, it may be timely for the Hastings District Council to consider the potential of Clive South. The consideration would need to be in the context of whether limited greenfield growth can be provided in Clive South in a manner that does not undermine the current HPUDS preferred settlement pattern and greenfields / intensification targets. Any recommended development could then be considered within the wider HPUDS context and consequential changes to the settlement pattern beyond Clive.

Given the above, it is appropriate that Clive South is removed from the areas listed as ‘inappropriate for growth’, however given the HPUDS preferred settlement pattern and overall objectives, there is no basis on which to recommend adding additional areas to the HPUDS Greenfield Growth Areas at this time.

In regards to the Davidson submission it is noted that the Clive area is still identified under the heading ‘Areas Where Greenfield Growth is Deemed Inappropriate’ in the Draft HPUDS 2016 Review, with the following wording:

“Clive (except for the area off the end of Read Crescent and between Main Rd (SH2) and Muddy Creek)”

This exception is specific to the Batt’s land and would not cover the Davidson property. Given this it is recommended that a slight adjustment in wording be made so that the Davidson land is also excluded from the ‘inappropriate area’ classification. See the suggested rewording under the officer recommendation below. This would ensure that the land was able to be considered on its merits if a consent application were to be pursued, rather than being ruled out from consideration by HPUDS and the statutory documents that flow from it, particularly as only 4 lots are involved.

Recommendations:

That no additions are made to the HPUDS settlement pattern areas as a result of these submissions, however the following minor amendment to the reference to Clive under the heading ‘Areas Where Greenfield Growth is Deemed Inappropriate’ is recommended:

Clive (except for the areas off the end of Read Crescent, and between Main Rd (SH2) and Muddy Creek; and between Main Rd and the Clive River opposite the Mill Rd intersection)

12 | Page

Sub # Reporting Officer: Shane Lambert, HBRC [page] 16 Responsible Authority: Hastings District Council [104], 39 Submission Theme: Identify upper terrace fronting Raymond Road, [201], Haumoana, opposite Park Hill Rural Residential 40 Farm Park, for Rural Residential development. [210] Summary of Submissions:

Submissions 16 (Endsleigh Cottages), 39 (Raymond Road Rezoning Group(RRRG)), and 40 (RRRG – Anton Maurenbrecher) address a combined area of approximately 20ha of land with a number of different owners on the corner of Raymond Road/Parkhill Road and extending along Raymond Road. These submissions have similarities and differences. In summarising these submissions, it is recognised that they are separate submissions made from different perspectives. For efficiency and to recognise where there is similarity this will be stated, and differences will also be summarised.

Submission 16: Endsleigh Cottages An area of 3.7ha from a larger title is sought to be recognised as suitable for Rural Residential lifestyle growth, as part of a group of submissions with other landowners (submissions 39 and 40). Summary of key points: • 3.7ha sits on an elevated terrace defined by a change in soil characteristics being Ruataniwha f (Landcare Rua2l/c) or Waipukurau 30 (HBRC). • There needs to be a variety of residential growth markets that can be brought on in response to demand almost immediately. The need and provision for market choice ensures a fair and balanced market that is not constrained through land banking, a lack of construction and a variety of owners. • Allowing for lower density residential activity on the upper platform areas will allow for a more efficient use of the land resource for housing. • Remainder of property will remain in long term production (approx. 17ha). • If a comparison is drawn of characteristics against which growth areas are selected (section 2.2.1) then there appears no cogent planning reason as to why it should not be genuinely considered. • Reverse Sensitivity can be addressed through boundary setbacks and use of no- complaints covenants. The elevation of the terrace will also provide an element of vertical separation. • Subject land is in very close proximity to the Parkhill development, schooling, kindergarten and public amenities, in a highly desirable location. • Structure plan not required as it would be low density self-serviced residential land, accessed from Raymond Road, under minimum site size of Rural Residential Zoning (1ha average site size). • The terrace provides a clear boundary forming a defined development edge. • It can be serviced and avoid or mitigate locational constraints including; projected sea level rise as a result of climate change; active coastal erosion/inundation; stormwater infrastructure that is unable to mitigate identified flooding risk; flood control and drainage schemes that are at or over capacity; active earthquake faults; high liquefaction potential, and; nearby sensitive waterbodies that are susceptible to potential contamination from on-site wastwater systems or

13 | Page

stormwater discharges. • Appraisal of land suitability by Fruition Horticulture, concludes that: poor drainage, limited aeration, moderate to slow permeability, high soil structure and water logging vulnerability of 3.7ha of Ruataniwha f or Waipukurau 30 soils significantly limits suitability for horticulture. It has low productivity and episodic plant mortality that prevents viable and reliable income to be generated. Mitigation treatments in this area have not overcome the limitations of the site. Significant constraints of this area and consequent low versatility combine to give it a low sustainable productive capacity. Area appears to be outside the criteria normally considered horticulturally suitable as defined by Land Use Capability Classes (MPI)

Decision requested: Seeks that the land be earmarked as a future growth option, either in the form of direct mapping or alternatively as an area identified for consideration by way of other planning methods such as resource consent. The latter ensuring that the ongoing adoption of the HPUDS document under the guise of the RPS means that it will give effect to this higher level document.

Submission 39 Raymond Road Rezoning Group Approximately 20ha of land across a number of land titles is sought to be recognised as suitable for Rural Residential lifestyle growth, as part of a group of submissions with other landowners (submissions 16 and 40). Summary of key points - All the points made in submission 16 above except that: • It is for approximately 20ha of combined land area across a number of titles, not just 3.7ha in relation to submission 16.

Submission 40 Raymond Road Rezoning Group (Maurenbrecher) Approximately 20ha of land across a number of land titles is sought to be recognised as suitable for Rural Residential lifestyle growth, as part of a group of submissions with other landowners (submissions 16 and 39). Summary of key points - All the points made in submission 16 and 39 above with the following additional points as summarised: • The Raymond Road Rezoning Group has made submission to the Hastings District Plan and has recently withdrawn its appeal to the Environment Court due to changed circumstances and the understanding that there is more to be gained from direct engagement with Council. • With regard to timing, this HPUDS review is being conducted after the District Plan review with appeals running concurrently, providing very few options to take part in the HPUDS review constructively. • There seems to be a general attitude to protect zoning decisions made in the past on a questionable basis. (i.e. using roads as administrative boundaries rather than physical characteristics). • General land use trend seems to be in favour of amalgamation of properties which favours global, big business and disadvantages smaller properties that wish to

14 | Page

combine lifestyle/retirement with some income from horticulture or farming. • Rural options give a greater opportunity for local communities to address their own service requirements, point in case being monitoring of their water supply. • Does not agree that the HPUDS projections of development demand and capacity are correct. It appears that the projections are based on out of date statistics. The submitter asks that owner/occupiers be consulted earlier in the review process. • Rural lifestyle blocks of a smaller size could be an attractive proposition for retirees. Services are expensive only in transport and power. These can both be addressed by considering areas close to villages (such as Te Awanga, Haumoana). • Intensifying development within existing rural residential zone areas is not supported. • Suggest that HPUDS should identify some ‘reserve’ rural residential zone areas. • Intensifying development can also be done in areas in other zoning on a land suitability basis. • Where communities are generally in agreement that closer development would be desirable, what is the down side to working with such groups. • Four properties in the Raymond Road group have had a change of circumstance over the period of submissions to the District Plan. This has altered the present demand to a potential total of around 15 to 20 lots over three properties, totalling around 20ha, rather than the original 30 lots over 31 Ha. We look to council for options such as inclusion in the HPUDS review as areas suitable for intensification under the present zoning. • The reasons for zoning are generally founded in physical characteristics and current demography. In the case for Raymond Road, there should be grounds for reconsideration of the zoning boundary, particularly when there are also clear demographic implications to support this. • The experience of residents is that the soil type along Raymond Road does not easily sustain profitable horticultural enterprises in the current lot size. This changes dramatically where the land meets the silt-based plains soil. • Smaller lots in this area are very manageable and therefore attractive to residents who want to live in a rural environment, and engage in a small-scale occupation/hobby (Boutique Vineyard, Berries, Olives, etc.) providing supplementary income. • Servicing of this area is potentially self-contained with capacity to address any issues in close consultation with council. • With the development of East Road and some areas in Te Awanga, development would not be ad-hoc, particularly as we are within 500m of the local school and kindergarten. • Away from coastal erosion, raised above the plains, not subject to flooding, tsunami damage or liquefaction and within 10-15 minutes of 3 major urban centres. Raymond Road is a highly sought after place to live. (Note recent sales) • The current review has acknowledged that many life style blocks may not be taken up as they are in unsuitable locations and possibly of a size not desirable to the market. • Our interest group has strong and practical justification for inclusion in this review and to be specifically reported on by your consultants, as appears to be the case

15 | Page

for some other submissions.

Decision requested: Council to provide clear leadership as to how the Raymond Road Groups aspirations can be met, possibly within the present zoning framework. (Such as a non-complying resource consent). For Raymond Road to be included in some form in the HPUDS review and opportunity for further discussion.

Officer Comments:

In assessing the merits of the three submissions the original HPUDS 2010, and the 2016 Review, including the Review of Rural Residential Lifestyle Sites9 undertaken by Cheal Consultants, have also been considered.

This request for a Rural Residential type zoning on Raymond Road, will be considered in accordance with the corresponding parts of HPUDS. The zoning of Raymond Road could also be considered as a coastal choices context that can also be considered against the principles of HPUDS and the findings of the various review assessments and documents.

An assessment of these submissions against the HPUDS principles, the Rural Residential Review, and a coastal choices context alternative is provided as follows. The map below identifies the general location of the area being referred to, in terms of the red oval. It is noted that no specific maps were provided in the RRRG submissions identifying the exact boundary of the 20ha referred to. Refer to the Endsliegh Cottages submission (26, page 104) for a map of that property.

HPUDS principles The key HPUDS principle to consider in respect of the Raymond Road area is whether ‘Productive value of its soil and water resources are recognised and provided for and used sustainably’.

In regard to this principle (but not in isolation), the productivity and versatility of the soil resource in this area needs to be considered further. Reverse Sensitivity should also be

9 HPUDS Implementation Working Group – Review of Rural Residential Lifestyle Sites, Cheal Consultants Limited, June 2016.

16 | Page

considered as the area neighbours surrounding productive uses of the soil as can be seen from the above aerial photograph.

The submissions include an appraisal of land suitability by Fruition Horticulture, which concludes that: • Poor drainage, limited aeration, moderate to slow permeability, high soil structure and water logging vulnerability of the soils in the area significantly limits suitability for horticulture. • It has low productivity and episodic plant mortality that prevents viable and reliable income to be generated. • Mitigation treatments in this area have not overcome the limitations of the site. • Significant constraints of this area and consequent low versatility combine to give it a low sustainable productive capacity. • The area appears to be outside the criteria normally considered horticulturally suitable as defined by Land Use Capability Classes (MPI)

This report has a particular focus on horticulture, and of course horticulture is widespread across the plains. The Fruition Horticulture assessment comments that wine grapes may tolerate the conditions, but with question marks on economic viability of scale. It is noted that there are vineyards on the opposite side of Raymond Road which is the same soil type as shown on the maps in the Fruition report. It would be helpful to have a more robust productive versatility assessment of this site.

The current Plains Production zoning seeks to provide for the amalgamation of sites under 12ha where existing house sites can be subdivided to create larger (via amalgamation), more productive balance sites. Such an approach in this area does not seem out of place with the wider Plains Production Zone.

In terms of reverse sensitivity from surrounding productive uses, this is likely to require further consideration. The use of the Rural Residential type setbacks (for instance a 30m setback is required from Plains Production zone boundaries in the Hastings District Plan) and the use of ‘no complaints’ covenants could theoretically manage this matter. There are however 2 poultry farms within a 400m proximity to parts of the area included in the submission. Any new dwellings within 400m of the poultry farms would require resource consent, or alternatively the 400m buffer could be avoided. Further consideration of reverse sensitivity should be considered and potentially this could be tested through a plan change or resource consent process.

Rural Residential Review HPUDS and the review of it to date has not provided for any additional areas of rezoning for Rural Residential Zone land, nor has it recommended reserve areas of potential land for Rural Residential development.

The key conclusions in the Cheal Review of Residential Lifestyle Sites are:

1. The anticipated demand of 450 lots over the period 2015-2025 can be adequately met; 2. Assuming existing subdivision consents (yet to be completed) are completed and the rate of further subdivision as considered during the moderating exercise applies, there will be sufficient supply to meet the remaining demand of 400 lots over the period 2026 to 2045; 3. Depending on the outcome of further investigations on the availability of the 188 vacant lots within the Plains Production Zone, this analysis indicates a potential surplus (or buffer) of 131-319 lots at the end of the period in 2045 – within the 15 minute drive time extent.

17 | Page

Supply within the 15 to 20 and 20 to 25 minute drive time extents will provide further buffer; 4. Although the analysis indicates that the buffer or surplus during preceding years is likely to be greater, this will be influenced by market forces and the rate of further subdivision.

There does appear to be some uncertainty in the long term, on supply and how development of lifestyle sites will unfold across the region over time. However, to add a new approach to HPUDS by adding maps for Raymond Road as a potential Rural Residential Zone, or as a reserve if required would not be consistent with HPUDS in its overall approach of achieving a more compact settlement pattern. It would require a number of changes that could undermine the integrity of the strategic approach taken.

Raymond Road – Haumoana/Te Awanga context The position of this part of Raymond Road is in close proximity to the Haumoana (and Te Awanga) settlement, the Haumoana school, and the Park Hill Rural Residential Zone. Logically, this Raymond Road area could be reasonably considered as part of this geographical area in terms of providing coastal housing choices. This would be dependent on consideration of the submissions in terms of the HPUDS principles as assessed above. The following diagram is included in the draft revised HPUDS strategy for public consultation:

HPUDS 2010 included an assessment of growth option sites (Section 8.8). This remains relevant and includes the following for Haumoana:

8.8.1 Coastal Settlements … • Haumoana

Haumoana is a popular coastal settlement located approximately 9km east of Hastings. The settlement is low lying and parts of it have been subject to flooding coastal inundation, and coastal erosion. Infrastructure limitations and topographical considerations generally make the settlement unsuitable for further growth. There is however a small area of land located off the southern side of East Road and contiguous to the existing Coastal Residential Zone and close to the Suburban Commercial Zone off Clifton Road, that is free of flooding and coastal hazard constraints and suitable for residential growth.

An amendment to this description of Haumoana could be considered if the submissions are considered to have merit. An addition to this could be worded in the following manner to reflect the situation:

“There is also an area of approximately 20ha on the corner of Raymond Road/Parkhill Road opposite the Haumoana school on Ruataniwha f soils (also described as Waipukurau 30 soils), free of flooding and coastal hazard restraints that could be suitable for coastal growth choices. This would be subject to further assessment through the proposed Masterplan process to

18 | Page

commence after the completion of the Clifton – Tangoio Hazards Strategy. This assessment would include matters such as: • The productive versatility of this area and the Ruataniwha f soil type, and • Reverse sensitivity with nearby horticultural/viticultural and poultry farm activities. • Appropriateness in terms of contributing to the Haumoana / Te Awanga development options as part of the HPUDS preferred settlement pattern”

Such an approach could provide a reasonable signal to the community and submitters of how this area could be incorporated into a coastal choices context if tested further. There is room to provide this type of acknowledgement of the Raymond Road area within HPUDS, providing a potential housing choice but without committing to a set outcome. Based on the submissions received this area has a number of merits around its soils, topography, position in relation to the adjacent Rural Residential Zone and the settlements of Haumoana and Te Awanga, and could represent sustainable land use management if considered further as an option for low density housing in the future.

This approach would enable the landowners at their own cost and risk, to work through the RMA process options available to them. This could be through a Non-Complying Resource Consent for instance (under the current Plains Production Zone) for the 3 properties involved, assessed on its own merits, scrutinised in a much finer and more detailed resource consent approach.

The approximate 20ha of land included in the submissions could be expected to yield around fifteen 1ha plus sites once building platforms and access arrangements were worked through, some of these may incorporate some of the existing dwellings. Considering this against the full growth projections across the 30 year period, it would provide a relatively small amount of housing as a coastal choice that is clear of coastal hazards and flooding if the future Haumoana / Te Awanga Master plan process deemed such development appropriate. Even though it would be a relatively small supply of rural residential sites, as stated above such development could not be justified on a standalone basis (as opposed to consideration as part of the Haumoana / Te Awanga Master plan process) for the purposes of rural residential supply.

The current and reviewed Haumoana and Te Awanga growth node maps do not include the Raymond Road site. At this point no change is recommended to the maps but incorporation of the wording suggested above would be an appropriate response to these submissions.

Recommendations:

To include an additional description to the HPUDS 2010 assessment of growth option sites (Section 8.8) for Haumoana (additions emboldened):

8.8.1 Coastal Settlements … • Haumoana

19 | Page

suitable for residential growth.

There is also an area of approximately 20ha on the corner of Raymond Road/Parkhill Road opposite the Haumoana school on Ruataniwha f soils (also described as Waipukurau 30 soils), free of flooding and coastal hazard restraints that could be suitable for coastal growth choices. This would be subject to further assessment through the proposed Masterplan process to commence after the completion of the Clifton – Tangoio Hazards Strategy. This assessment would include matters such as: • The productive versatility of this area and the Ruataniwha f soil type, and • Reverse sensitivity with nearby horticultural/viticultural and poultry farm activities. • Appropriateness in terms of contributing to the Haumoana / Te Awanga development options as part of the HPUDS preferred settlement pattern

20 | Page

Sub # Reporting Officer: Andrew Sowersby (Consultant - Opus) [Page] Responsible Authority: Hastings District Council 20 [149] Submission Theme: Waiohiki - provide for lifestyle development near Marae or allow for wider development of Marae communities.

Summary of Submission:

Mr G Gunn (submission 20) requests that provisions be included in HPUDS to allow parcels of land which are not eligible for development under the existing Papakianga rules (because they are not Maori Land under the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993), to be able to be subdivided and developed at high densities within or near existing maori settlement areas such as Waiohiki. Mr Gunn makes the following points in support of his submission: • There are many non-Maori land titles at Waiohiki that are underutilised as they are not economically viable productively, cannot be viably amalgamated with other blocks and are surrounded (land locked) by papakianga. • Developing these underutilised blocks would be a better outcome than rezoning the larger utilised greenfield growth areas identified in HPUDS.

In terms of specific relief Mr Gunn requests that additional wording be added to the third paragraph of Section 2.1.8 of HPUDS is as follows:

‘In addition, land that is within a settlement area that cannot be ‘reasonably’ used for economically viable food and crop production or amalgamation to make larger non-complying blocks, be allowed for subdivision /peri urban housing again subject to the requirement they can adequately meet the servicing requirements and the district plan provisions. Any such development to be in accordance with peri urban development rather than an urban environment’.

The submission also requests that the settlement of Waiohiki be included in HPUDS as a Rural Settlement Area.

Officer Comments:

Waiohiki includes a large number of Maori land titles which could potentially be developed under the Proposed Hastings District Plan papakianga rules for housing. These district plan provisions have enabled several successful papakianga housing developments throughout Hastings District over the last few years, including at Waiohiki. Amongst the Maori land titles at Waiohiki are several general titles, including one owned by Mr G Gunn, which cannot utilise the papakianga housing development rules.

Whilst it is acknowledged that these blocks of land are situated between Maori land titles, the development of these general titles for housing purposes would not be consistent with the HPUDS principles. This is because the projections indicate that no additional rural residential10 supply is required and too much greenfields and rural residential supply would affect the ability to meet the intensification targets of HPUDS. The development of fee simple titles at Waiohiki could be pursued through the resource consent process, though such a proposal would still be inconsistent with HPUDS (in a rural residential supply context at

10 ‘Rural residential’ in this context is not just referring to Rural Residential Zoned land but to land available for lifestyle residential development in the wider rural area.

21 | Page

least) and potentially the statutory documents that implement it, in the form of the Regional Policy Statement and the Proposed Hastings District Plan (given the Plains Production zoning of the land).

The proposed residential greenfield growth areas identified in HPUDS are have been identified as they meet specific criteria for inclusion (such as connection to reticulated utility services) and result in defined urban limits. In terms of the HPUDS Settlement Pattern, Waiohiki falls under the heading of Marae Based Settlements. In regards to this, the relevant section of the Draft Revised HPUDS Strategy 2016 for Public Consultation is extracted as follows:

2.1.8 Marae Based Settlement As identified in 2010 HPUDS, the changing demographics of Maori over the period has considerable implications for housing needs. Corresponding with the national trend there is a marked increase in the 65 plus age cohort. Alongside this, and going against the national trend, is a significant growth in the 15-24 age group population. Maori aspirations seek to provide for these housing needs and economic activity around the marae and on other Maori owned land. However, these areas are not serviced and the strategy has identified marae (Bridge Pa and Omahu) where the potential for servicing might be more practically achieved both from a physical and cost viewpoint. The identification of Bridge Pa and Omahu as Marae Based Settlements does not preclude development of other marae and Maori owned land, providing that they can independently meet the servicing requirements and the district plan provisions. District Plans may need to consider Maori aspirations in this regard. Indeed, in the period 2010 to 2015, multiple unit papakainga developments have been constructed in the Waipatu and Waiohiki areas.

The third paragraph does refer to development not being precluded in Marae Based Settlements outside of Bridge Pa and Omahu providing that they can meet servicing requirements and district plan provisions. As noted above, at this point in time the Proposed Hastings District Plan does not provide for development at Waiohiki outside of the papakainga provisions, so this is not particularly helpful to the submitter. Nevertheless HPUDS as currently worded does not preclude the possibility of future residential development in Marae Based Settlements such as Waiohiki. HPUDS is a high level strategic document for guiding residential growth and cannot get down to the specifics of addressing individual properties. On this basis the existing reference to Marae Based Settlements is considered appropriate and no changes are recommended in response to this submission.

Recommendations:

No changes recommended as a result of submission.

22 | Page

Sub # Reporting Officer: Rowena Macdonald (Sage Planning) [Page] Responsible Authority: Hastings District Council 17 [116] Submission Theme: Whirinaki

Summary of Submissions:

Evans Family Trust (submission 17) seek: to have their land between the State Highway and North Shore Road in the Whirinaki area (legally described as Lot 7-8 DP 381095 contained in CFR 325069) identified as a future residential Growth area, or at least as a Reserve Growth area in the Revised HPUDS document, as an alternative or additional housing choice to those sites identified in HPUDS.

Officer Comments:

HPUDS 2010 (and subsequently, the RPS) identified Whirinaki as an ‘inappropriate area for development’. During the 2016 HPUDS review, it became apparent that two areas identified in the ‘inappropriate areas for development’ list in HPUDS have had some of the issues that might preclude development addressed since the adoption of HPUDS in 2010. These were: . Clive South (an area off the end of Read Crescent between SH2 and Muddy Creek); and . Whirinaki. Both had been included because of servicing issues. As part of the 2016 Review, the HPUDS partners commissioned a report to review alternative greenfield sites and the HPUDS settlement pattern (Opus Report11). This included a requirement to consider, based on current information, “whether any change is required to the settlement patterns outlined in HPUDS, including the list of ‘inappropriate areas for development’”.

The Opus report assessed this area as follows: “Whirinaki The Current and Emerging Issues with HPUDS Greenfields Areas TAG report has identified that some servicing constraints that influenced the identification of Whirinaki (along with a small area in Clive South) as inappropriate for development have changed. Addressing the issue of water supply for Whirinaki removes a major constraint on development. It follows that the “Inappropriate” classification could be removed from this area, however potential for reverse sensitivity to the major nearby Pan Pac Mill and Contact Energy electricity operations exists and issues associated with servicing and flooding from the Esk River may also need to be addressed. The removal of the ‘Inappropriate’ classification will enable any future subdivision to be considered on its individual merits should relevant matters be addressed. Any decision to enable future development of the area would obviously need to consider such hazards, including coastal hazards. Such consideration is beyond the scope of this review.” The Opus report concluded that Whirinaki could be removed from the list of ‘inappropriate areas for development’ (Recommendation 2), but does not consider that this area warrants

11 Alternative Greenfield Sites and Review of the HPUDS Settlement Pattern, June 2016.

23 | Page inclusion as a ‘Reserve’ growth area. As part of the Proposed Hastings District Plan process, two submissions sought to rezone land at Whirinaki from Rural Zone to Coastal Settlement Zone: i) a 2.8 hectare slither of land at the rear of North Shore Road (to enable the development of 15 residential sites);

ii) a further 11.5 hectare parcel between North Shore Road and State Highway 2 (to enable the development of 77 residential sites).

Both those submissions were rejected for various reasons, including: . “That the submission does not represent an efficient use or development of natural and physical resources insofar as HPUDS, the RPS and the Proposed District Plan have specifically identified Whirinaki as an inappropriate growth node while identifying other coastal settlements such as Haumoana, Te Awanga and Bay View as appropriate locations to accommodate future growth in the coastal segment of the

24 | Page

market. . That allowing for growth at Whirinaki will have an adverse impact on the efficient use and development of the identified coastal growth nodes mentioned above and the planned provision, operation, maintenance and upgrading of strategic and regionally significant infrastructure. . That the submission is fundamentally inconsistent with the RPS and the Proposed District Plan…and would specifically undermine the strategic directions to transition to a compact settlement philosophy and achieve settlement patterns that promote sustainable transport and reduced fuel dependency, move towards establishing long term urban limits to define boundaries and create certainty and promote more intensive re-development within existing urban areas and greenfields locations. . Significant uncertainty exists as to whether potential adverse effects arising from the rezoning can be avoided, remedied or mitigated with regards to stormwater and wastewater treatment and disposal and avoiding, remedying or mitigating flood hazards. . There are significant infrastructural servicing issues at Whirinaki that have not been appropriately considered or addressed by the submitter. The submitter has not demonstrated an effective, efficient and affordable means of servicing the planned residential development with the ‘Concept Plan’ area, such that development could result in adverse social and environmental effects. Accepting the residential rezoning request may create an expectation that residential activities requiring full level services are able to establish unrestricted within the zone. This is potentially at odds with the limited services currently available within the Whirinaki area. . The rezoning request is contrary to the Objectives and Policies of the Proposed District … which support HPUDS and the RPS and actively seek to avoid further residential growth at Whirinaki or of rural land close to urban areas or on arterial or national traffic corridors to avoid sporadic and uncontrolled conversion to activities that will individually or cumulatively adversely affect the sustainability of the rural resource base and the efficiency of the road network and within areas significantly at risk of natural hazards. . The requirement to prepare a Structure Plan in accordance with the RPS as part of any rezoning request is intended to addresses concerns regarding impacts on character and amenity as a result of urban development, stormwater management and design, infrastructural restraints and effluent discharge and disposal. No such Structure Plan has been prepared in support of the rezoning request.”12 Decisions on these District Plan submissions have subsequently been appealed, and have been resolved by Consent Order that provides for a 15 lot subdivision of the 2.8 hectare block in the Rural Zone, but not for it to be rezoned, and with no rezoning of the other 11.5 hectares. Ultimately, the submitters here (Evans Family Trust) argue that this area should be included as a growth area or reserve growth area on the basis that they consider the area entirely consistent with Policy UD4.2 of the Regional Policy Statement, and that any actual or potential effects from the Pan Pac and Contact Energy sites can be appropriately addressed via a structure plan and Plan Change process. This may or may not be the case, however consistency with Policy UD4.2 and ability to address outstanding issues still does not necessarily lead to automatic entry as a growth area as part of the wider HPUDS Settlement Pattern. At this stage, the 2016 HPUDS review findings have confirmed that there is sufficient land within the various Greenfield Growth Areas comprising the HPUDS Settlement Pattern to

12 Decision Report on Zone Change Request – Evans Family Trust (HDC 56 & 57), 9 November 2013.

25 | Page

cater for future residential demand in the Heretaunga Plains sub-region over the life of the Strategy, and there is no evidence of a deficit in supply sufficient to warrant inclusion of a further growth area at Whirinaki. In respect of assigning this area a ‘Reserve’ growth area status. The purpose of ‘reserve areas’ as outlined in the draft Revised HPUDS 2016 document, is as follows: “to act as replacements if any greenfield growth areas identified in HPUDS are deemed unviable for residential development, or in circumstances where the area is not able to be progressed in a timely fashion when required, or when other issues become insurmountable. These reserve areas may also be advanced if there is a rapid and significant change in growth demand.” It should be noted that this concept has not introduced ‘reserve areas’ for every identified greenfield growth location in HPUDS, but focuses on providing replacement growth areas for the main urban areas of Napier City and Hastings District. On that basis, there is no evidence to suggest that this area is required as a ‘reserve’ growth area. Ultimately, whilst the 2016 HPUDS Review concludes that Whirinaki warrants removal from the ‘inappropriate’ list, this area does not warrant inclusion as a greenfield growth area (or reserve area) as part of the HPUDS Settlement Pattern. On the basis of the above, it is considered that neither ‘Greenfield Growth Area’ or ‘Reserve Growth Area’ status is appropriate for this area of land at Whirinaki at this time. It should be noted however, that if future reviews identify rapid and significant change in growth demand that is unable to be catered for under the current HPUDS Settlement Pattern, the Whirinaki area is now able to be considered in the mix, along with other areas that are not listed as ‘inappropriate areas for development’.

Officer Recommendation:

That no amendments be made as a result of this submission.

26 | Page

HERETAUNGA PLAINS URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (HPUDS) REVIEW 2016

Officer Comments 4 – Napier City New Areas Requested For Inclusion in HPUDS

Submissions Addressed in this Document Sub Submitter Name Submission Theme Pages in this # Report 26 Joseph, William & Jocelyn Jervoice Town - allow development 2

37 Panckhurst, Guy Seeks identification of property on cnr of Riverbend Rd / Bledisloe Rd for greenfields development

3 – 5 37 Panckhurst, Guy Seeks that an identified area of Rural Residential Zoned land off Churchill Drive be identified for greenfields residential (urban cluster housing). 1 Absalom, Neal Provide opportunity for Rural Residential development on Meeanee 6 – 7 Road.

1 | Page

Sub # Reporting Officer: Dean Moriarity (Senior Policy Planner) [page] Responsible Authority: Napier City Council 26 [178] Submission Theme: Ability to Subdivide at Jervoistown

Summary of Submissions:

William and Jocelyn Joseph (submission 26) have made submissions regarding their Jervoistown property summarised as follows: • Long term resident of Jervoistown with a large section they would like to subdivide. • Queries when sewerage will be provided to Jervoistown.

Officer Comments:

HPUDS is an Urban Development strategy document for the Heretaunga Plains spanning a 30 year time period. Individual properties of the size and scale of the submitter’s property (0.4307ha) are of little relevance for HPUDS and are an issue that can, and should, most appropriately be considered and dealt with as part of the consenting regime under the District Plan.

In terms of Jervoistown a recent plan change (#7 in 2012) was developed to address the cumulative effects of adhoc subdivision and the subsequent effects on existing properties as a result of inadequate servicing in Jervoistown. The purpose of Plan Change 7 was aimed at restricting further development in Jervoistown in order to minimize any further impact on the environment. The primary mechanism for achieving this being to prohibit subdivision in all but limited situations, unless the community agreed they wanted and were willing to contribute to the costs of providing full urban services.

Two structure plans for the Jervoistown area were included in the Appendices of the District Plan to ensure that future development of Jervoistown is undertaken in an efficient and effective manner that avoids remedies or mitigates any effects on the environment. Residential subdivision and development on this land is tightly restricted until the area is fully serviced. Unfortunately the submitters land on its own is not of a sufficient size to be able to subdivide under the rules adopted by the Jervoistown plan change. Full servicing will only occur if a clear majority of land owners in the Jervoistown Zone want and are willing to contribute towards paying for full urban services to be put in place. To date no such majority support has been demonstrated to Council and therefore no such services have been provided or are planned for in the near future.

Recommendation:

No changes recommended as a result of this submission.

2 | Page

Sub Reporting Officer: Dean Moriarity (Senior Policy Planner) [page] Responsible Authority: Napier City Council 37 [197] Submission Theme: Urban Growth Areas in Taradale Hills; and Cnr Riverbend and Bledisloe Roads

Summary of Submissions:

Guy Pankhurst (submission 37) has made a submission including a number of requests two of which are summarised and assessed as follows (the remainder of the submitters requests are addressed in the report ‘Officers’ Comments 6’):

• Has identified 2 properties in the Taradale Hills that could be included as an ‘urban cluster growth area’ with higher densities than the current Rural Residential zoning. • Has identified a property on the corner of Riverbend and Bledisloe roads they would like included in the Loop greenfield area in HPUDS.

Officer Comments:

Taradale Hills

The 2 properties in the Taradale Hills that the submitter has identified (see map provided in submission) could be included as an ‘urban cluster growth area’ (“with higher densities”) are currently zoned Rural Residential in the Napier District Plan.

The original HPUDS and the underlying reports on which it was premised concluded in 2010 that there was a surplus of existing rural residential sites to meet projected market demand. While concern was expressed that these conclusions may not be valid, following further analysis of potential uptake of rural residential/lifestyle development opportunities, the 2016 HPUDS Review ultimately concludes that sufficient supply of zoned land should be available to meet the demand of 850 rural lifestyle living lots over the period of the Strategy albeit with the necessity for subdivision to create new lots (particularly in areas of market preference).

The land subject to this submission seems to ideally meet the market preference criteria (particularly the location close to urban amenities) and it is noted that a recently approved subdivision on one of the subject properties created an additional 7 lots fronting onto and/or having access off Puketapu Road, having exercised the development rights afforded under the existing Rural Residential Zone. The total potential yield of lifestyle lots from these properties under the existing rules could net 46 lots in this one location alone. Any rezoning of this land would reduce the potential stock of available Rural Residential zoned land in what ideally seems a market preferred location.

While there is nothing to say that the land could not be considered as an alternative urban growth option (with higher densities) there is no evidence to support that the land can actually be developed in the manner requested (access, servicing, land stability, landscape and cultural impacts etc, are issues that have simply not been addressed to date). Notwithstanding this the HPUDS Review findings generally confirm that the 2010 HPUDS assumptions and directions around urban growth remain sound. In essence, the outcome of the Review confirms that growth is able to be accommodated within the current HPUDS settlement pattern, and the Review has not identified any significant change in the underlying assumptions that would necessitate a radical change to the overall settlement pattern, although it should be noted that ‘reserve’ growth areas have been included in the strategy to act as replacement areas should some of the preferred growth options not be

3 | Page able to be developed in a timely manner.

The updated projections do result in a slight population increase over the 30 year period and a more significant increase in dwelling growth (based on adopting ‘medium – high’ growth projections), but this increase is still able to be accommodated within the HPUDS identified greenfield growth areas and infill growth projections. Further five yearly reviews of HPUDS will provide the opportunity to retest whether the proposed supply of residential growth options remains sufficient to cater for projected growth.

Corner of Riverbend and Bledisloe Roads

HPUDS is an Urban Development strategy document for the Heretaunga Plains spanning a 30 year time period. Individual properties of the size and scale identified by the submitter (0.5620ha including at least 4 existing dwellings plus curtilage) are of little relevance for HPUDS and are an issue that can most appropriately be considered and dealt with as part of the consenting regime under the District Plan. Notwithstanding this, the property that the submitter has identified on the corner of Riverbend and Bledisloe roads is an anomaly in that the Loop greenfield area will inadvertently isolate this small parcel of rural zoned land from what is intended to be residentially zoned land surrounding the property in the future. There is no logic to such a future zoning pattern. The property that is the subject of the submission is identified on the following Map of the “Loop Greenfield Growth Area” by the red circle:

On the face of it there would appear to be a logical argument that could be mounted for developing this Main Rural zoned property for residential purposes ahead of the Loop greenfield area as it already contains at least 4 residential dwellings, adjoins residential zones, is potentially able to connect to reticulated services and its use would be consistent with all adjacent activities including the consented church on an adjacent Main Rural zoned site. Its small site size and locational characteristics would be unlikely to compromise any future structure plan for the Loop.

4 | Page

Officer Recommendations:

No change to the review of HPUDS in relation to the sites on the Taradale Hills.

Include the subject property on the corner of Riverbend and Bledisloe roads (as identified on the above map) as part of The Loop Greenfield Area (Map 6 of the Revised Strategy Document).

5 | Page

Sub # Reporting Officer: James Minehan [page] Responsible Authority: Napier City Council 1 [4] Submission Theme: Provision for ribbon development on the northern side of Meannee Road from Tannery Road to the Meeanee Settlement.

Summary of Submission:

Neal Absolm (submission 1) has 4 lots held in one 1.819ha title at 258 Meeanee Road. Mr Absalom’s submission is summarised as follows:

• HPUDS strategy has insufficient regard to other forms of residential or lifestyle development or to appropriate locations for lower density development in other areas other than on the hills, even where lower quality soils are present. • Meannee Rural Residential Zone should be extended to include a ribbon development along the northern side of Meeanee Road to Tannery Road. • This would not create a precedent for other areas because of the unique existing land title layout and the fact that the soils are not typical of the more versatile/fertile nature of the soils south of the Tutaekuri River. These sites can be independently serviced.

Officer Comments:

The HPUDS strategy is based on a preferred pattern of compact design and recognises the community’s preference to maintain the versatile land of the plains for production purposes. The direction for growth to 2045 relies on Napier City and Hastings District having defined growth areas and urban limits with the need to balance increased intensification and the provision of lifestyle choice. Defined growth areas are the key element of the settlement pattern as is the target for a development transition to 60 % intensification, 35 % greenfields, and 5 % rural.

The relevant guiding HPUDS principles are:

“Recognise versatile soils for productive purposes through minimising the need for urban development on such soils and providing for rural lifestyle development in other locations.”

“Ensure there is choice in the supply and location of residential living, commercial and industrial opportunities.”

With regard to the provision of lifestyle choices Napier City already has a wide range of existing options. These include : Rural Residential (5,000m2 minimum lot size with 1.5 ha average yield); Rural Settlement (800m2 minimum for serviced sites and 1,500m2 minimum for unserviced sites); Jervoistown (2,500m lot minimum); Lifestyle Character (1,000m2 minimum and 3,000m2 average yield), and Western Hills Residential (currently zoned for a range site sizes from 200m2 to 5,000m2). Additionally single dwelling units are permitted on any existing sites within the Main Rural and Rural Conservation zones provided they are of a minimum site size of 2,500m2.

While the existing Napier District Plan promotes lifestyle living options on the hills surrounding Napier City there are existing rural settlements on the flats including Bayview, Meeannee and Jervoistown providing a range of lifestyle choices.

6 | Page

In terms of land intended to be used for productive rural uses, there are two areas identified as Main Rural in Napier City (4ha minimum site size for the creation of new lots). One of these is the Bayview area and the other is Meeanee. These are important rural areas for Napier and are the type of land that the HPUDS seeks to protect from further development.

With specific reference to the submitter’s proposal regarding ribbon development along Meaanee Road, there are a number of smaller lots on the northern side of the road approximately 5,000m2 in size. However only about four of these lots are actual standalone sites as most are amalgamated to form titles ranging from 8,000m2 to 8.2ha. It is interesting to note that the site size averages out to approximately 1.7 ha which is close to Napier City’s existing Rural Residential Zone provisions. So by default this gives another alternative lifestyle option on the fringe of the Main Rural Zone without having to change any provisions in HPUDS or compromise the potential of the land for supporting productive uses both now and into the future.

The original HPUDS and the underlying reports on which it was premised concluded in 2010 that there was a surplus of existing rural residential sites to meet projected market demand. While concern was expressed that these conclusions may not be valid, following further analysis of the potential uptake of rural residential/lifestyle development opportunities, the 2016 HPUDS Review ultimately concludes that sufficient supply of zoned land should be available to meet the demand of 850 rural lifestyle living lots over the period of the Strategy albeit with the necessity for subdivision to create new lots (particularly in areas of market preference).

In conclusion although there are sites under 4ha along the north side of Meeannee Road, in the Main Rural Zone there is no HPUDs imperative to change this area to Rural Residential or Lifestyle development.

Recommendation:

No changes recommended as a result of this submission.

7 | Page

HERETAUNGA PLAINS URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (HPUDS) REVIEW 2016

Officer Comments 5 – Napier City Identified Greenfield Growth & Reserve Areas

Submissions Addressed in this Document Sub Submitter Name Submission Theme Pages in this # Report 38 Pedlow, Lyndon Te Awa - concern with development 2 – 3 levies 21 Harkness, Richard Te Awa - provide for development 4 – 6 31 Marist Holdings Limited Western Hills supports with amendments to map & yield Note also Matt Edwards’s submission 7 – 9 below re Taradale Hills.

22 Harris, Paul Infill housing - promote with equity regarding dev contributions with reference to development in Napier (ie 10 lesser development contributions for infill compared to greenfields).

15 Edwards, Matt General - opposed to growth, supports 11 – 12 Tdale Hills

1 | Page

Sub # Reporting Officer: Dean Moriarity (Senior Policy Planner) [page] Responsible Authority: Napier City Council 38 [198] Submission Theme: Te Awa Servicing Costs

Summary of Submissions:

Lyndon Pedlow (submission 38) a long term resident of the Te Awa area raised the following concerns regarding the Te Awa greenfield growth area: • The nature and costs associated with servicing the land for residential purposes, particularly in regard to stormwater. • Would appear to want Te Awa development costs reduced/deleted or at least presumably would like alternative options for servicing Te Awa considered.

Officer Comments:

Concerns regarding the cost of servicing the land under the current structure plan have been widely expressed from a number of sources. As a response NCC commissioned an independent preliminary review to understand the cost drivers and opportunities to reduce costs if possible. Drainage of the land is responsible for 50% of the cost and so further consideration is being given to alternatives for drainage in the first instance with a view to reducing costs.

It was identified that in order to understand drainage issues properly, and to be able to fully consider alternative options, a new model of the city’s stormwater infrastructure was required. Work has begun on this process but unfortunately has not yet been completed. The intention is that when the model has been developed all potential development sites across Napier can be considered both in their own right as well as compared to alternative

2 | Page options to assist with future sequencing decisions. There are 2 major steps that need to be achieved in the modelling, firstly to create a detailed drainage model of the greater catchment area (whole of city) and secondly to undertake critical infrastructure planning for Te Awa using the output of the model (assessing alternatives to those in the existing Structure Plan).

In terms of reducing/deleting development levies the current NCC position is that the developer (as the beneficiary) pays and the costs of development are apportioned to their own specific development area rather than say the whole of the city, or by a whole of catchment. Any change to this position would require a Council decision taking into account alternative sources of funding infrastructure (such as rates) but in any case is an issue and function for NCC outside of HPUDS.

Recommendation:

No changes recommended as a result of this submission.

3 | Page

Sub Reporting Officer: Dean Moriarity (Senior Policy Planner) [page] Responsible Authority: Napier City Council 21 [152] Submission Theme: Te Awa Servicing Costs

Summary of Submissions:

Richard Harkness (submission 21) on behalf of Durham Properties raised a number of concerns relating to the Te Awa greenfield growth area which are summarised as follows: • Key issues relating to urban growth are adequately identified in HPUDS but expresses concerns regarding the costs associated with servicing land in Te Awa for residential purposes, particularly for a retirement village. • Does not support the concept of ‘Reserve Areas’ potentially replacing existing areas as the submitter believes issues associated with existing areas (such as Te Awa) should be resolved. • Supports the identification of retirement housing as a key issue for the future but wants HPUDS to more actively encourage it to overcome cost prohibitive issues associated with providing for it at Te Awa. • Supports the following; key message from HPUDS; Strategy Vision; compact design and intensification; Te Awa being included as a greenfield growth option for Napier; findings that there will be increased demand for retirement housing and an aging population; and flexibility in the way infrastructure and urban design can be provided (rather than a single prescriptive approach). Decision Requested • Seeks that HPUDS enables a proposed retirement village at Te Awa to be developed that is not cost prohibitive and restrictive, through consideration of alternative ways to provide servicing in a more economical way (as per what the submitter states would be consistent with a number of actions (14-18, 40, 47-49, 52. 56, 57, 58, 59-61 and 63) of the intended Implementation Plan to give effect to HPUDS). • Seeks that HPUDS embraces the direction of the proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity 2016 (NPSUDC) and other initiatives that aim to address urban growth issues through local authorities planning for growth and change, and providing critical infrastructure (by reducing regulatory barriers, enhancing infrastructure provision and connecting planning decisions to economics).

Officer Comments:

Te Awa

Te Awa is one of the greenfield growth options for Napier City and has a residential zone in place along with a structure plan for coordinating the infrastructural services necessary to support residential use. Concerns regarding the cost of servicing the land under the current structure plan have been widely expressed from a number of sources. As a response NCC commissioned an independent preliminary review to understand the cost drivers and opportunities to reduce costs if possible. Drainage of the land is responsible for 50% of the cost and so further consideration is being given at looking at alternatives for drainage in the first instance.

4 | Page

across Napier can be considered both in their own right as well as compared to alternative options to assist with future sequencing decisions. There are 2 major steps that need to be achieved in the modelling, firstly to create a detailed drainage model of the greater catchment area (whole of city) and secondly to undertake critical infrastructure planning for Te Awa using the output of the model (assessing alternatives to those in the existing Structure Plan).

The submitter has also highlighted that a number of actions of the intended Implementation Plan to give effect to HPUDS indicate that the partner Councils’ expect to continue on a work programme that seek to maximise efficiencies (and reduce costs) in the delivery of urban growth for the Heretaunga Plains sub-region. This work is intended to be ongoing (and as evidenced above currently is occurring for the Te Awa area) but ultimately there will be costs associated with the provision of infrastructural services that have to be paid for. How the costs are apportioned is a political decision for the individual Council’s to determine outside of HPUDS.

Notwithstanding the above review, the ability to establish a proposed retirement village at Te Awa outside of the Structure Plan through consideration of alternative ways to provide servicing in a more economical way can still be explored and assessed on its merits by way of a resource consent process. It is impossible to pre-empt the outcome of such a process through HPUDS itself and neither should HPUDS determine where specifically certain types of facilities such as retirement villages be located.

National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity 2016 (NPSUDC)

In terms of the NPSUDC, HPUDS is a collaborative approach by the Hastings District Council, Napier City Council and Hawke's Bay Regional Council to provide comprehensive, integrated and effective growth management strategy for the Heretaunga Plains sub-region over the 2015 to 2045 period. HPUDS brings together the separate urban development strategies that both Hastings and Napier had in place from the 1990s through to 2015. HPUDS takes into account a large number of global, national and local influences including climate change, peak energy, transport efficiency objectives, and national environmental standards plus, at a regional and local level, demographic and employment projections.

HPUDS will be adapted to take into account changing circumstances over the 30 year timeframe. The Strategy is intended to adapt to changing trends over time through 5 yearly reviews, which is supported by regular monitoring of supply and demand trends and a range of other factors.

The HPUDS partner councils are therefore already taking action which amounts to many of the requirements proposed to be placed on councils via the NPSUDC. As outlined above, HPUDS is a joint strategy that is already in place for coordinated management of urban development within the Heretaunga Plains sub-region.

Over the last few years, implementation of HPUDS has already seen amendments to the Regional Policy Statement (by way of plan ‘Change 4’) and amendments to both the Hastings and Napier district plans. In addition to those RMA planning documents, the councils have taken steps to align their respective 30-year Infrastructure Strategies and

5 | Page

Long Term Plans with the projected needs for housing and business land. A lot of that effort already goes a long way to fulfilling Policies PB1 to PD4, of the NPSUDC. This clearly signals that the HPUDS partner councils are already actively providing for sufficient capacity for medium and longer term housing needs and business land projections in their relevant regional and district planning documents while being cognisant of reducing unnecessary regulatory barriers, enhancing infrastructure provision and connecting planning decisions to economics.

Reserve Areas

A reserve growth area approach is deemed a necessary and an appropriate way of ensuring the necessary flexibility is secured to ensure adequate supply of new sites, while still avoiding difficulties associated with oversupply and adhoc development contrary to HPUDS. It caters for the instance of a fatal flaw (be it permanent or temporary) in the potential supply of greenfield growth options.

Reserve areas will act as replacements if any greenfield growth areas identified in HPUDS are deemed unviable for residential development or in circumstances where the area is not able to be progressed in a timely fashion when required, or when other issues become insurmountable. It is intended that reserve areas only substitute for existing greenfield areas once all practicable options for resolving ‘issues’ have been exhausted.

Officer Recommendations:

No change to the review of HPUDS as a result of this submission.

6 | Page

Sub # Reporting Officer: James Minehan [page] Responsible Authority: Napier City Council 31 [186] Submission Theme: Amend mapping and yield provisions in HPUDS regarding “Western Hills” area behind Taradale.

Summary of Submission:

Marist Holdings (Greenmeadows) Limited (MHL) (submission 31) request the following changes to HPUDS (as summarised):

• That the map identifying the area available for greenfield growth be amended to include some of the adjacent rural residential land as defined in the MHL amended map.

• That the MHL land shown as greenfield growth land on the HPUDS website (i.e. the area identified as the Western Hill Residential Zone in the Napier District Plan) be expanded to include some of the surrounding Rural Residential land to align with the design led development concept (as presented to Napier Council and proposed to be followed by a private plan change request later this year).

• Identify the area as “Western Hills” in HPUDs not as “Taradale Hills” or “Mission”.

• Identify the yield of this greenfield growth area as 600 not 350 dwellings.

• Amend the wording in Appendix 8.8 of HPUDS as follows (delete text (struckout) and add text (underlined):

This area is the area of land that immediately adjoins includes the Mission’s Western Hills Residential Zone Plan Change fronting Puketitiri Road. This area can be readily serviced, and is beyond also if developed in association with replanting of the Taradale Hills backdrop to the City so there are no landscape issues can be addressed. The area is in close proximity to established residential areas for energy efficiency considerations. It is an appropriate location for a future greenfield expansion area 2015-2045.

Officer Comments:

HPUDS identifies greenfield growth areas and this includes “Taradale Hills” for Napier City which is the MHL land and corresponds to the Western Hills Residential Zoning in the Napier District Plan as shown on the HPUDS website.

Section 2.1.9 of HPUDS “Long Term Development Capacity” notes that the yields for the greenfield growth areas are indicative only and are subject to refinement as part of future structure planning and formal district plan change processes following further assessment. Therefore there is room for adjustment as long as the HPUDS principals are met and recognising that MHL have presented a concept plan to Napier Council and are to follow up with a private plan change request.

The HPUDS relevant principles in this case are:

A range of densities in new residential development and more intensive redevelopment of existing urban areas that will continue to meet amenity values

7 | Page

Provide housing and lifestyle choice within defined locations with greater emphasis on good urban design outcomes as well as recognising an ageing population

Maintain the separation of defined urban areas by green and open space

Recognise versatile soils for productive purposes through minimising the need for urban development on such soils and providing for rural lifestyle development in other locations

Ensure there is a choice in the supply and location of residential living, commercial and industrial opportunities

Recognise the effects of climate change

Ensure that infrastructure servicing development is integrated with existing networks

The proposed development as presented to the Napier City Council indicates a unique design led development concept which utilises the MHL land combining two adjacent land areas, “Western Hills Residential” and “Rural Residential” in a manner sensitive to the existing landscape values. The proposal will provide a variety of site sizes, interspersed with green spaces, and recognises the existing landscape values including the hill face as a backdrop to the existing winery.

As far as yield is concerned the HPUDS greenfield target is 350 for the residentially zoned portion of the site (70ha). However the rural residential part of the MHL land (196 ha) has a permitted potential yield of another 130 sites under the District Plan. The rural portion of the MHL land (22.6ha) has a permitted potential of another 6 sites. This adds up to nearly 500 sites and does not take into account that the residentially zoned land could be developed more intensively under the current District Plan provisions (currently zoned for a range site sizes from 200m2 to 5,000m2).

As noted in the HPUDS documentation the figures are “indicative”. The concept plan presented to Council earlier this year showed that there could be a potential yield of 550 to 600 dwellings. This yield will be dependent on the eventual design and the outcome of the private plan change process, however, it is prudent to indicate the potential yield based on the latest information in the revised HPUDS document.

It is important to recognise that the indicative yields in HPUDS are not exact and their role is to merely assist in a high level analysis of long term urban development capacity and to inform sequencing decisions of the relevant territorial authorities.

The point to note about this particular land is that it is entirely unique within the intended HPUDS settlement pattern. It is a single landowner of a large land holding, in a market preferred location, with an existing residential zoning in place proposing to develop a form of residential development on an elevated position with soils that have only limited potential for supporting productive rural uses. Simplistically, the more intensive the residential development in this particular location the less pressure Napier City will face for developing other residential growth options on soils that have more potential to support a range of productive uses.

In relation to the utilisation the adjacent rural residential land it can be noted that the revised HPUDS confirms that the expected demand for rural residential is 850 sites but also indicates that there may not be any expected surplus as was envisaged in the original HPUDS document. This proposal will absorb some of the rural residential land but this loss

8 | Page will be offset by providing a range of higher density residential living options in a market preferred location. This would help provide a buffer to any increase in market demand that may occur in the future for this type of development.

In regard to the requested rewording of Appendix 8.8 this is appropriate and more correctly describes the subject greenfield growth area.

Recommendation:

The changes as requested are made to the HPUDS documentation:

Amend map of area to red line as shown below:

Replace references to the ‘Taradale Hills’ or ‘Mission’ Greenfields Growth area to ‘Western Hills’.

Amend Figure 6 in section 2.1.9 by deleting “Taradale Hills – 350 dwellings” and replace with: “Western Hills – 600 dwellings”

Amend Appendix 8,8 of HPUDS 2010 as follows: This area is the area of land that immediately adjoins includes the Mission’s Western Hills Residential Zone Plan Change fronting Puketitiri Road. This area can be readily serviced, and is beyond also if developed in association with replanting of the Taradale Hills backdrop to the City so there are no landscape issues can be addressed. The area is in close proximity to established residential areas for energy efficiency considerations. It is an appropriate location for a future greenfield expansion area 2015-2045.

9 | Page

Sub Reporting Officer: Dean Moriarity (Senior Policy Planner) [page] Responsible Authority: Napier City Council 22 [158] Submission Theme: General concerns with HPUDS approach in regards to Napier

Summary of Submissions:

Paul Harris (submission 22) raised several concerns in his submission which are summarised as follows: • Concerned about a shortage of residential sections in Napier, inappropriate level of development contributions and believes infill housing needs more consideration. Believes changes are required if Napier is to develop.

Officer Comments:

One key aspect of HPUDS is to ensure a sustainable urban growth pattern for the Heretaunga Plains. In accordance with the community’s preference to maintain the versatile land of the Heretaunga Plains for production purposes the direction for growth through to 2045 relies on Napier and Hastings having defined growth areas and urban limits with a need to balance increased intensification and higher densities against the provision of lifestyle choice. There needs to be a balance between supply and demand for greenfield residential housing options otherwise the intended goal of intensification is unlikely to occur. The art of the strategy is making sure that there is in fact sufficient supply to meet market demand over the life of the strategy while also influencing the market to move towards acceptance of higher residential densities than traditional housing types.

HPUDS actively encourages infill development and intends that over the life of the strategy greater emphasis is placed on this type of development. It is a core principle of HPUDS to achieve compact urban development but there remains recognition that it will take time to achieve widespread market acceptance of higher density living rather than an abrupt change in the supply side of development options.

In terms of reducing/deleting development levies to encourage infill development over greenfield options, the current NCC position is that the developer (as the beneficiary) pays and the costs of development are apportioned to their own specific development area rather than say the whole of the city, or by a whole of catchment. This includes infill development which is currently expected to contribute towards the cumulative costs required to upgrade existing infrastructure to support increased urban density. Any change to this position would require a Council decision taking into account alternative sources of funding infrastructure (such as rates) but in any case is an issue and function for NCC outside of HPUDS.

Officer Recommendations:

No changes are recommended to HPUDS as a result of this submission.

10 | Page

Sub Reporting Officer: Dean Moriarity (Senior Policy Planner) [page] Responsible Authority: Napier City Council 15 [102] Submission Theme: General Concerns with direction for growth and support of Taradale Hills

Summary of Submissions:

Matt Edwards (submission 15) raises a number of concerns which are summarised as follows: • Concerned about growth removing productive land for a variety of reasons (loss of valuable rural land for productive purposes, high risk from liquefaction, tsunami and flooding and other problems with existing urban growth such as low occupancy rates of dwellings).

Decision Requested • Supports Taradale Hills as a growth option.

Officer Comments:

One key aspect of HPUDS is to ensure a sustainable urban growth pattern for the Heretaunga Plains. In accordance with the community’s preference to maintain the versatile land of the Heretaunga Plains for production purposes the direction for growth through to 2045 relies on Napier and Hastings having defined growth areas and urban limits with a need to balance increased intensification and higher densities against the provision of lifestyle choice. There needs to be a balance between supply and demand for greenfield residential housing options otherwise the intended goal of intensification is unlikely to occur. The success of the strategy will be dependent on making sure that there is in fact sufficient supply to meet market demand over the life of the strategy while also influencing the market to move towards acceptance of higher residential densities than traditional housing types.

Parts of the Taradale Hills have long been identified and promoted as a potential greenfield growth option for Napier dating back to 1998. It is already identified in HPUDS as one of Napier’s potential growth nodes and indications are positive that it will be developed for residential purposes, however it is contingent on the landowner voluntarily pursuing this development option, i.e. residential development cannot be forced on unwilling landowners. Reliance on a single growth option for the whole of the city comes with supply side risks and does not provide options around lifestyle choice.

While the Taradale Hills is a preferred option for meeting certain market segments, a range of housing options is required to meet lifestyle and locational choice and that involves providing some options for living on the Plains rather than all development being directed onto the hills. The retirement sector analysis suggest retirement units will represent 30-40% of all future new build housing in the Heretaunga Plains sub-region between now and 2045 with half of these likely in traditional retirement villages. The average size of villages of this kind is over 6 hectares and in all likelihood a significant proportion of this form of development will seek flat land opportunities on the fringe of existing urban areas for a range of factors including mobility issues associated with aged care. The method of developing structure plans and rezoning greenfield options requires consideration and assessment of, among other things, natural hazards. Provided some methods can be adopted to address the likely impacts of natural hazards there should be no reason why the flatter areas should be excluded from consideration for supporting greenfield

11 | Page growth options. The existing identified greenfield growth areas in HPUDS have, at this point in time, no known fatal flaws associated with natural hazards that would preclude them from supporting urban growth.

Officer Recommendations:

No change to the review of HPUDS as a result of this submission.

12 | Page

HERETAUNGA PLAINS URBAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (HPUDS) REVIEW 2016

Officer Comments 6 – Non-Location Specific General Submissions – Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

Submissions Addressed in this Document Sub Submitter Name Submission Theme Pages in this # Report 34 Mohi, Rose General – Aquifer concerns 2 – 3 49 Warren, Mary Ellen General - Premature until liquefaction report available and coastal hazard consultation complete – How will 4 – 5 future large scale Tourist / commercial and institutional uses be accommodated? 45 Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga General - Protect water quality - 6 – 7 supports papakainga 23 Hawke's Bay Fruitgrowers General - Support 2010 HPUDS oppose 8 – 9 Association reserve and new areas 36 New Zealand Transport General - support strategy 10 Agency 30 Mangin, Gillian General - Supports strategy - hard line 11 – 12 on additional greenfields / reserve. 54 Horticulture NZ ‘Versatile land’ references; retirement 13 – 14 housing needs in greenfield areas 18 Graeme Lowe Properties Seeks a new process for moving reserve 15 – 16 Limited & Lowe Family areas to becoming greenfield areas 37 Guy Pankhust General – Greenfield options to be achievable, provision for housing needs 17 – 18 of elderly, and greater recognition of papakainga

1 | Page

Sub # Reporting Officer: Gavin Ide [page] Responsible Authority: Hawke’s Bay Regional Council 34 [194] Submission Theme: General issues

Summary of Submissions:

Rose Mohi (submission 34) makes a number of general submission points summarised as follows:

1. Suggests further expansion onto fertile Plains soil around Hastings should not be allowed. (Note the submission made in regards to directing growth to the lower Havelock Hills is commented on in ‘Officer Comments 2’ under the heading ‘Iona / Havelock Hills’) 2. Suggests no further development over Heretaunga Plains aquifer, esp. no industrial development in vicinity of Roy’s Hill and Brookvale Road.

(Note a specific submission regarding development in the Havelock North Hills is addressed in the report ‘Officers’ Comments 2’). Officer Comments: HPUDS 2010 already acknowledged the importance of the Heretaunga Plains aquifer system and the versatile/productive soils. The 2016 Review doesn’t propose to alter that recognition (for example, the 2016 Review has not altered HPUDS’ core principles which include Principle 3 that Productive value of its soil and water resources are recognised and provided for and used sustainably). The selection of appropriate greenfield growth areas considered a range of issues including potential impacts of development on nearby sensitive waterbodies and production land. Not allowing any further urban grown onto existing margins of urban Hastings could have the following effects: 1) need to move more abruptly to intensification potentially stimulating greater community resistance 2) less affordable housing choices due to servicing costs 3) increased housing costs due to imbalanced supply choices 4) people move to Napier Greenfield sites where sites will likely be cheaper 5) greater car dependency, fuel use and carbon emissions as people live further away from employment nodes i.e. Havelock North Hills and Napier 6) identified areas remain unproductive as lifestyle blocks. This would conflict with the Strategy’s principles. The Strategy strikes a balance between quality living environments, housing choice and affordability and balanced supply between Hastings, Havelock North and Napier with minimal impact on productive soils for housing. It also allows for a more even transition and is therefore more likely to gain community acceptance. While HPUDS does provide for further limited growth, around existing settlements, (including some locations over the Heretaunga Plains aquifer system), it also contains the following two key approaches to ensure any effects are mitigated. 1) that an integrated, sustainable approach to the three urban waters (water supply, wastewater and storm water) occurs so that that the use of discharge of one does not impact negatively on the other; 2) water, wastewater and stormwater management is developed with protection of ecological values a key outcome. To achieve this for example, various agencies implement a range of actions and planning processes. It is not solely implemented via HPUDS alone.

2 | Page

Recommendation:

No changes to HPUDS2016 recommended as a result of this submission.

3 | Page

Sub Reporting Officer: Belinda Riley [page] Responsible Authority: Hawke’s Bay Regional Council 49 [249] Submission Theme: General issues

Summary of Submissions:

Mary Ellen Warren (submission 49) makes a number of general points in her submission, which are summarised as follows:

1. Suggests completing HPUD2016 Review is premature ahead of new liquefaction hazard information and completion of coastal hazards consultation. 2. Queries how HPUDS would accommodate large-scale commercial and institutional uses.

Officer Comments:

The Heretaunga Plains is at risk of numerous natural hazards. Those of particular relevance are flooding, earthquake, tsunami and coastal erosion. As part of Stage 1 of the 2016 HPUDS review, a study was undertaken looking at published natural hazard information released post 2010. The study enabled the HPUDS IWG to obtain a better understanding of any new natural hazard information, the key outcomes and results of this research, and whether it was relevant to the HPUDS review.

There were two studies outstanding at the time this review was undertaken, being the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazard Management Strategy, and the updated Liquefaction report. These are discussed in further detail below:

Coastal Hazard Management Strategy

The Coastal Hazard Management Strategy is a long term for managing coastal hazards between Clifton and Tangoio and is currently being jointly developed by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Hastings District Council, Napier City Council and Iwi.

Phase one of the strategy focused on understanding the coastal hazards issues facing the Clifton to Tangoio coastline and assessing the likelihood of occurrence and potential consequences of certain coastal hazards. Phase 1 of the Coastal hazard Strategy has now been completed and the coastal hazards maps produced by Tonkin and Taylor are finalised. Further information on the Coastal Hazard Strategy can be found at http://www.hbcoast.co.nz/resources/.

The updated hazard maps confirm none of the residential greenfield growth areas proposed in the draft HPUDS2016 are located on land assessed as being subject to coastal erosion over the next century.

Liquefaction

According to the 1996 report by GNS Science, the Heretaunga Plains has a number of areas with sediment of high liquefaction susceptibility and numerous earthquake sources capable of generating an earthquake large enough to cause liquefaction. In July 2013, the Hawke's Bay Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Group commissioned a review of the liquefaction risks across the region to provide a clearer understanding of how liquefaction occurs and where it is likely to happen during a large‐scale earthquake.

4 | Page

This information was originally expected to be finalised by May 2016, however the date has since been revised to December 2016. While this information is likely to be critical to informing future development locations and design standards for future buildings and infrastructure in the Heretaunga Plains sub region, it is not considered necessary to defer finalising the 2016 Review of HPUDS until after the liquefaction reporting is finalised. As discussed elsewhere in submission evaluations, all identified greenfield growth areas in draft 2016 HPUDS will be subject to a further more rigorous assessment (such as through a structure planning or district plan rezoning process) which will include the most up-to-date hazard information at that point in time.

Large-scale institutional commercial and tourism activities The needs, timing and infrastructural requirements of these types of activities are difficult to assess in a strategic planning process. HPUDS does not shut the door on prospective tourism and large-scale commercial activities, but they would nevertheless be subject to an assessment on their merits against the relevant district planning zoning provisions, either by way of a resource consent application or a plan change process. The draft 2016 Strategy does identify sizeable areas of land for industrial activity, which may be suitable for some activities as is the case in some other cities.

Officer Recommendations:

No changes to HPUDS 2016 recommended as a result of this submission.

5 | Page

Sub # Reporting Officer: Gavin Ide [page] Responsible Authority: Hawke’s Bay Regional Council 45 [223] Submission Theme: General issues

Summary of Submission:

Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga (submission 45) raise a number of general point in their submission which are summarised as follows: 1. Suggests the Review needs to have reassessed ‘safe landuse’ and starting point for strategy needs to be a higher standard of drinking water quality. 2. Suggests discharges into the Karamu Stream need to be stopped and diverted over the next 30 years. 3. Supports papakainga policy [presumably in reference to Hastings District Plan content] 4. Suggests marae-based reservations and facilities need to be supported in similar way as papakainga, esp. given progression of Treaty Settlement claims.

Officer Comments:

Water resources HPUDS 2010 already acknowledged the importance of the Heretaunga Plains aquifer system. The 2016 Review doesn’t propose to alter that recognition. The selection of appropriate greenfield growth areas considered a range of issues including potential impacts of development on nearby sensitive waterbodies. While HPUDS does provide for further limited growth, around existing settlements, over the Heretaunga Plains aquifer system, it also contains the following two key approaches to ensure any effects are mitigated. 1) that an integrated, sustainable approach to the three urban waters (water supply, wastewater and storm water) occurs so that that the use of discharge of one does not impact negatively on the other; 2) water, wastewater and stormwater management is developed with protection of ecological values a key outcome. To achieve this, various agencies implement a range of actions and planning processes. It is not solely implemented via HPUDS alone. In this way, how discharges into the Karamu Stream are managed into the future is not solely a matter for this HPUDS Review process. HPUDS is a 30-year strategy for managing urban development and as such, it does not attempt to direct how impacts of rural activities on freshwater ought to be controlled. Furthermore, it is expected that the Greater Heretaunga catchment planning process (TANK) being coordinated by HBRC will build on these objectives to achieve sustainable outcome for fresh water over time. Papakainga HPUDS2016 (at pg20) indicates papakainga housing is not included within the other quantities of projected housing demand and housing needs. In this way, HPUDS does not propose to constrain papakainga housing to only a small selection of locations within the Heretaunga Plains sub-region. However, the identification of several ‘marae-based’ housing nodes at Bridge Pa and Omahu might create unnecessary ambiguity by implying that those are the only suitable locations for marae-based housing. Rather the intention is that development of other marae and Maori owned land is not precluded by HPUDS, provided such developments can independently meet the servicing requirements and the relevant district plan requirements. Recent examples of this are in the Waipatu and Waiohiki areas. This suggests councils can (and do) already choose to support marae-based reservations and facilities as part of their broader LGAct roles.

6 | Page

Recommendations:

1. Amend HPUDS2016 (s2.1.8 in particular) to further clarify development of marae and Maori owned land for housing is not precluded by HPUDS, but such developments will nonetheless have to meet servicing requirements and relevant district plan requirements. Omahu and Bridge Pa locations are but two locations that may be appropriate for providing choice in housing needs for Maori. 2. No other changes recommended as result of this submission.

7 | Page

Sub Reporting Officer: Gavin Ide [page] Responsible Authority: Hawke’s Bay Regional Council 23 [159] Submission Theme: Havelock North; Reserve Areas; and General issues

Summary of Submission:

The Hawkes’s Bay Fruit Growers’ Association (submission 23) raise a number of points in their submission which are summarised as follows: 1. Suggests 5-yearly review timeframe should be lengthened for future reviews. 2. Suggests Arataki Extension should not be “written-off” at this early stage. Opposes ‘additional areas’ (South Pirimai and Brookvale) and ‘reserve areas’ (part Romanes Drive; part Middle Road; Murdoch Road; Wall Road) that are included in the draft HPUDS2016 compared to HPUDS2010.

Officer Comments:

The HPUDS IWG carefully considered the scope of the first 5-yearly review. This was done in full knowledge that the Strategy’s planning period (2015-2045) had only just commenced, but a range of actions and events had transpired since HPUDS2010 was adopted. The 2016 Review was timely to check-in if anything major had altered the original assumptions and preferred settlement pattern, given in particular, record international net migration and house price escalation at the national level. A five yearly review is considered appropriate given the pace of change in modern society and for the reasons elaborated on below. Stages 1 and 2 of the 2016 HPUDS Review studied implications for accommodating housing demand and needs in the Havelock North location given Hastings District Council was no longer contemplating short-to medium term development of the ‘Arataki Extension’ greenfield area. ‘Brookvale’ was introduced to accommodate the similar housing needs which Arataki Extension would’ve otherwise provided. Similarly, South Pirimai was introduced due to the high infrastructure servicing costs associated with further development in the low-lying ‘Te Awa’ greenfield area in Napier City. ‘Arataki Extension’ is discussed in relation to the submission by Hastings District Council. HDC had suggested retaining Arataki Extension for development ahead of other identified areas in the event that odour issues from Te Mata Mushroom operations are ultimately resolved. In the meantime, Brookvale is the next most appropriate greenfield growth area for residential development in the Havelock North location. Both the odour issue and the relative merits of Brookvale were signalled in HPUDS 2010. The concept of ‘reserve area’ has merit and is not recommended to be discarded. Amendments are recommended (refer submission#18 by Graeme Lowe Properties Ltd) to better clarify the purpose of reserve areas and the associated process(es) to transfer a ‘reserve area’ to replace a growth area which had been identified in HPUDS, but was no longer able to be developed to meet projected needs and demands. If these areas are not ultimately needed they will remain available for primary production. If they are needed then presumably another area has not been developed and remains available for primary production, unless there are significant and rapid changes in growth drivers. A five yearly review timeframe, rather than 10 years, enables HPUDS to be fine-tuned through a transparent process to accommodate changes in growth demand, rather than deferring too quickly to theses reserve areas, unless the speed and scale of such changes necessitates it.

8 | Page

Officer Recommendations:

No changes recommended as a result of this submission, but also refer to: • Sub#18 – amendments to clarify ‘reserve area’ classification and associated processes; • Sub#55 – amendments to reclassify Arataki Extension as a ‘reserve area.’

9 | Page

Sub Reporting Officer: Gavin Ide [page] Responsible Authority: Hawke’s Bay Regional Council 36 [196] Submission Theme: General issues – transport infrastructure

Summary of Submissions:

The New Zealand Transport Agency (submission 36) raise the following in their submission:

1. Supports strategic approach that the councils and their partners can work towards – being crucial for development of various local and national land transport plans and programmes. 2. Signals willingness to continue working with the councils in implementing the Strategy regarding provision of transport infrastructure.

Officer Comments:

Support for Strategy is noted, as is NZTA’s willingness to assist where relevant regarding implementation.

Officer Recommendations:

No change to the review of HPUDS as a result of this submission.

10 | Page

Sub Reporting Officer: Gavin Ide [page] Responsible Authority: Hawke’s Bay Regional Council 30 [184] Submission Theme: General issues

Summary of Submissions:

Gillian Mangin (submission 30) raises a number of points in her submission which are summarised as follows:

1. Suggests HPUDS must continue to “hold the line” against residential, commercial and industrial expansion onto versatile soils of the Plains. 2. Suggests Strategy needs to be flexible to changing productive land use emerging in response to changing climate over the medium term. 3. Suggests no ‘Reserve Areas’ should be identified on the Plains. Any ‘Reserve Areas’ should be off the Plains. 4. Concern that ‘Reserve Areas’ end up being advanced without following due consideration of HPUDS’ preferred staged and sequenced greenfield areas. 5. Suggests Hastings DC needs to make better provision for inner city off-street parking.

Officer Comments:

The original principles in HPUDS 2010 have not been altered as part of the 2016 Review so the general settlement pattern remains the intent. However, Stages 1 and 2 of the 2016 HPUDS Review studied implications for accommodating housing demand and needs in the Havelock North location given Hastings District Council was no longer contemplating short-to medium term development of the ‘Arataki Extension’ greenfield area. ‘Brookvale’ was introduced to accommodate the similar housing needs which Arataki Extension would’ve otherwise provided. Similarly, South Pirimai was introduced due to the high infrastructure servicing costs associated with further development in the low-lying ‘Te Awa’ greenfield area in Napier City. ‘Arataki Extension’ is discussed in relation to the submission by Hastings District Council. HDC had suggested retaining Arataki Extension for development ahead of other identified areas in the event that odour issues from Te Mata Mushroom operations are ultimately resolved. In the meantime, Brookvale is the next most appropriate greenfield growth area for residential development in the Havelock North location. Both the odour issue and the relative merits of Brookvale were signalled in HPUDS 2010. The concept of ‘reserve area’ has merit and is not recommended to be discarded. Amendments are recommended (refer submission#18 by Graeme Lowe Properties Ltd) to better clarify the purpose of reserve areas and the associated process(es) to transfer a ‘reserve area’ to replace a growth area which had been identified in HPUDS, but was no longer able to be developed to meet projected needs and demands. While staging and sequencing of identified greenfields growth areas are matters for the local Council’s to determine given the high level of public infrastructure and cost involved, reserve areas are not staged, other than, when necessary, to substitute for another planned area, all other things being equal. If ‘reserve areas’ are to be retained, then it is impractical that any such reserve areas are located “off the Plains” as that would have them located on the surrounding hills (for example, Havelock North and Taradale) which would present other challenges and issues. Provision of off-street inner city parking is a specific detail that HPUDS as a strategic level

11 | Page document does not seek to guide or direct.

Officer Recommendations:

No specific changes recommended as a result of this submission, but also refer to: • Sub#18 – amendments to clarify ‘reserve area’ classification and associated processes; • Sub#54 – amendments to versatile land; monitoring and reporting of overall development pattern; • Sub#55 – amendments to reclassify Arataki Extension as a ‘reserve area’.

12 | Page

Sub Reporting Officer: Gavin Ide [page] Responsible Authority: Hawke’s Bay Regional Council 54 [270] Submission Theme: General issues

Summary of Submissions:

Horticulture New Zealand (submission 54) raises a number of points in their submission which are summarised as follows:

1. Suggests replacing references to productive/versatile/fertile soils etc with references to ‘versatile land’ 2. Concern that greenfields are increasingly featuring as a form of development rather than Strategy’s intention for intensification. 3. Concern that residential greenfields may not actually be used for retirement housing, yet retirement developments then likely to seek new greenfield development locations – therefore specific provision should be made for retirement facilities. 4. Suggests future Reviews of HPUDS clearly monitor and report on the overall development pattern targets (i.e. greenfields : infill : lifestyle : etc). (Note: Another aspect of this submission relating to Brookvale is addressed in ‘Officer Comments 1’.)

Officer Comments:

Havelock North residential demand The concept of ‘reserve area’ has merit and is not recommended to be discarded. Amendments are recommended (refer submission#18 by Graeme Lowe Properties Ltd) to better clarify the purpose of reserve areas and the associated process(es) to transfer a ‘reserve area’ to replace a growth area which had been identified in HPUDS, but was no longer able to be developed to meet projected needs and demands. While staging and sequencing of identified greenfields growth areas are matters for the local Council’s to determine given the high level of public infrastructure and cost involved, reserve areas are not staged, other than, when necessary, to substitute for another planned area, all other things being equal. If ‘reserve areas’ are to be retained, then it is impractical that any such reserve areas are located “off the Plains” as that would have them located on the surrounding hills (for example, Havelock North and Taradale) which would present other challenges and issues. Retirement housing Housing needs for the retirement sector were evaluated during Stage 2 of the 2016 HPUDS review. That report by EMS Ltd (Tonks) noted that over the next 30 years the 65+, 75+ and 90+ age groups will increase by 94%, 173% and 286% respectively. The Tonks report suggested retirement units will represent 30-40% of all future new build housing in the Heretaunga Plains sub-region between now and 2045, with half of these likely in ‘traditional’ retirement villages. It should be noted that such housing is a much higher density and a very efficient use of greenfields land by comparison to the more traditional greenfields development. What is of more concern is that other developers may take up the available greenfields supply for lower density greenfields development at the expense of retirement villages and as a consequence the intensification targets, and as a consequence further greenfields may come under pressure for retirement village development. They suggest reserving some greenfields sites specifically retirement villages. Whether that occurs given the change in relative demand for retirement housing remains to be seen and at present there is probably insufficient evidence to interfere in the market to the extent proposed by the

13 | Page

submitter, unless further sites are identified. The concern is valid and understood and should be carefully monitored. Nonetheless, no immediate change to the HPUDS settlement pattern is considered necessary as a result of findings in the Tonks report; rather what is required is an awareness that the type of homes built within the Heretaunga Plains sub-region is going to change over the study period to meet the demands of the aging population. In addition there will be a need for developers to be able to aggregate larger blocks within residential greenfield growth areas in suitable locations to accommodate retirement villages of 6ha and more in size. Retirement housing needs is something warranting specific monitoring during the remainder of the 30 year HPUDS planning period. Future regular 5-yearly reviews will assess the monitoring data for emerging needs over and above current projections. In this way, HPUDS2016 does not need an immediate overhaul to accommodate a flood of retirement housing demand in the short-term. ‘Versatile land’ There are various interchangeable references to productive land and soils etc. Consistent references to the term ‘versatile land’ is recommended. Monitoring and reporting overall settlement pattern trends HPUDS2010’s preferred settlement pattern promoted a transition towards greater intensification over the 30 year planning period. This is the first 5-year Review of HPUDS and just entering the 2015-2045 planning period to which HPUDS applies. While there appears to be trend toward a greater proportion of urban development in greenfields locations it is still early days. Even though this appears to be the case the trend has been for rural development to remain strong, rather than reducing, so that the actual greenfield land demand over the past five years has nevertheless been within HPUDS expectations. The Phase 1 Reports did report on the Distribution of New Housing Growth 2000-2015 and Review of Greenfield Land Supply and Housing Affordability, but improved monitoring of overall development pattern targets would assist future Reviews and better inform whether those Reviews needed to re-orientate implementation to ensure overall goals could still be achieved over time.

Officer Recommendations:

1. Replace (or insert) references to versatile soils, productive soils, fertile soils, productive land etc with references to ‘versatile land’ where relevant throughout HPUDS2016. 2. Include definition of ‘versatile land’ into HPUDS2016 Glossary as being the same as included in the HBRRMP glossary. 3. Amend HPUDS2016 Implementation Plan to ensure monitoring and regular reporting against overall residential development pattern targets (i.e. proportional supplies of infill : greenfield : lifestyle, etc). 4. Also refer to: • Sub#18 – amendments to clarify ‘reserve area’ classification and associated processes; • Sub#55 – amendments to reclassify Arataki Extension as a ‘reserve area’

14 | Page

Sub Reporting Officer: Belinda Riley [page] Responsible Authority: Hawke’s Bay Regional Council 18 [119] Submission Theme: General issues – reserve area concept

Summary of Submissions:

Graeme Lowe Properties Limited & Lowe Family Trust (submission 18):

1. Seeks amendments to draft HPUDS2016 to include a process for moving ‘reserve areas’ to becoming approved greenfield growth areas, with the specific intent of giving priority to identified reserve areas becoming greenfield growth areas over other areas within the region. Specific amendments are set out on page 126 of the submission bundle (Sub#18 page 8). (Note: The remainder of this submission is addressed in ‘Officer Comments 2’.)

Officer Comments:

A ‘reserve’ growth area approach has been incorporated into the draft HPUDS2016 to assist the councils to provide flexibility in development staging and sequencing so that an adequate supply of new sites is provided while still avoiding difficulties associated with oversupply and ad-hoc development contrary to HPUDS. Reserve areas will act as potential replacements of a nearby greenfield growth area if that greenfield growth area proves unviable or unavailable for development; or in circumstances where the area is not able to be progressed in a timely fashion when required; or when other issues become insurmountable. Alternatively, the reserve areas may also be advanced if there is a rapid or significant change in growth demand which greenfield growth areas cannot accommodate alone, or when a reserve area has been identified as a greenfield growth area in earlier version of HPUDS but was not able to be progressed due to issues which have now been overcome. Reserve areas will not be progressed in any other circumstances by the HPUDS partner councils. Similarly, a ‘reserve area’ classification does not enable leap-frogging over pre-identified greenfield growth areas where the circumstances outlined above do not exist. Reserve areas have first priority for inclusion as a new greenfield growth area when any of the circumstances outlined above exist. As such, the inclusion of an area not currently listed in HPUDS would only be possible when there is no identified Reserve Area for the city, town or settlement where the identified greenfield growth area that needs replacing is located. HPUDS2016 as currently worded does not reflect this intent. It is not considered necessary to have ‘reserve areas’ for every identified greenfield growth location in HPUDS, but it is prudent to have them available for the main urban areas of Napier City and Hastings District. It should also be noted that while the greenfield growth areas identified in HPUDS and any reserve areas that might also be identified in HPUDS would have passed a preliminary assessment of residential (or business use) development suitability through the HPUDS process, they will each still be subject to fuller and more rigorous assessment (i.e. structure planning, rezoning proposals etc) to determine their appropriateness, before urban development is committed to within these areas. It is recommended that Figure 7 in draft HPUDS2016, which outlines a process for introducing Greenfield Growth Areas not already Identified in the HPUDS Settlement Pattern, be amended to insert a new step two which requires a ‘reserve area’ to take the place of an identified greenfield growth area in the first instance.

15 | Page

Officer Recommendations:

Amend Figure 7 of HPUDS2016 to insert a new step two i.e. between “New Area is Proposed for Development” and “Apply RPS Criteria (Policy UD4.2)” as follows:

Select a Select an area which is identified as a ‘Reserve’ Greenfield Growth Area in proposed HPUDS as the ‘Proposed Development Area’. This step is not applicable for those development towns or settlements which do not have an identified Reserve Area. area

16 | Page

Sub Reporting Officer: Gavin Ide [page] Responsible Authority: Hawke’s Bay Regional Council 37 [197] Submission Theme: General issues

Summary of Submissions:

Guy Pankhurst (submission 37) raises a number of points in his submission which are summarised as follows:

1. Generally supports the intent and conclusions of the 2016 Review, and acknowledges the significant reporting that substantiates the conclusions. 2. Suggests that the greenfield options have to be realistic and achievable, not only from councils’ perspectives, but also from developer and market driver perspectives. 3. Suggests further evaluation be done on the housing needs of elderly given projected increase in retirees in coming years. 4. Suggests HPUDS needs to more strongly recognise that papakainga is a credible and necessary living option for Maori, and that district plans should be more receptive to alternative living options than traditional greenfield and infill housing. 5. Also refer to separate officer comments (Officer Comments 4) for: a. The Loop/Bledisloe Road extension; b. Taradale hills developments.

Officer Comments:

Greenfields selection HPUDS2010 (and 2016) identify criteria to inform selection of appropriate locations for greenfield growth (both residential and business land). Market appeal and developer costs were also considered at the outset of HPUDS through the Phase 1 Market Demand Report. The HPUDS criteria elaborates on HPUDS’ six guiding principles – one of which is “community and physical infrastructure is planned, sustainable and affordable.” HPUDS’ identification of appropriate greenfield growth areas is akin to an initial screening, as any development location will be subject to further detailed evaluation (such as via structure planning, district plan rezoning or a resource consent application) of its merits, its impacts, and its costs before proceeding to physical works. Retirement housing Housing needs for the retirement sector were evaluated during Stage 2 of the 2016 HPUDS review. That report by EMS Ltd (Tonks) noted that over the next 30 years the 65+, 75+ and 90+ age groups will increase by 94%, 173% and 286% respectively. The Tonks report suggested retirement units will represent 30-40% of all future new-build housing in the Heretaunga Plains sub-region between now and 2045, with half of these likely in ‘traditional’ retirement villages. Nonetheless, no immediate change to the HPUDS settlement pattern is considered necessary as a result of findings in the Tonks report; rather what is required is an awareness that the type of homes built within the Heretaunga Plains sub-region is going to change over the study period to meet the demands of the aging population. In addition there will be a need for developers to be able to aggregate larger blocks within residential greenfield growth areas in suitable locations to accommodate retirement villages of 6ha and more in size. Retirement housing needs is something warranting specific monitoring during the remainder of the 30 year HPUDS planning period. Future regular 5-yearly reviews will assess the monitoring data for emerging needs over and above current projections. In this way, HPUDS2016 does not need an immediate overhaul to accommodate a flood of retirement

17 | Page housing demand in the short-term. Papakainga HPUDS2016 (at pg20) indicates papakainga housing is not included within the other quantities of projected housing demand and housing needs. In this way, HPUDS does not propose to constrain papakainga housing to only a small selection of locations within the Heretaunga Plains sub-region. However, the identification of several ‘marae-based’ housing nodes at Bridge Pa and Omahu might create unnecessary ambiguity by implying that those are the only suitable locations for marae-based housing. Rather the intention is that development of other marae and Maori owned land is not precluded by HPUDS, provided such developments can independently meet the servicing requirements and the relevant district plan requirements. Recent examples of this are in the Waipatu and Waiohiki areas. This suggests councils can (and do) already choose to support marae-based reservations and facilities as part of their broader LGAct roles.

Officer Recommendations:

18 | Page