SECTION 42A REPORT Designations

SECTION 42a REPORT Designations

1 Executive summary ...... 3

2 Introduction ...... 4 2.1 Author and qualifications ...... 4 2.2 Code of Conduct ...... 4 2.3 The Council versus NPDC ...... 4 2.4 Expert Advice ...... 4

3 Scope / Purpose of Report ...... 5

4 Statutory Requirements ...... 5 4.1 Designation requirements ...... 5 4.2 Procedural matters ...... 6 4.3 Section 32AA evaluation ...... 13

5 Consideration of designations ...... 13 5.1 Overview of submissions received ...... 13 5.2 Chorus New Zealand Limited ...... 14 5.3 First Gas Limited...... 15 5.4 KiwiRail Holdings Limited ...... 17 5.5 Kordia Limited ...... 18 5.6 Meteorological Service of New Zealand Limited ...... 21 5.7 Minister for Courts ...... 22 5.8 Minister of Education ...... 23 5.9 New Plymouth District Council General Designations ...... 27 5.10 New Plymouth District Council Specific Designations ...... 74 5.11 New Zealand Transport Agency ...... 98 5.12 NZME Radio Limited ...... 103 5.13 Powerco Limited ...... 103 5.14 Spark New Zealand Trading Limited ...... 104 5.15 Taranaki Regional Council ...... 105 5.16 Transpower New Zealand Limited ...... 108 5.17 All Designations ...... 110

6 Conclusion ...... 111

Appendix 1: Rolled Over Designations with no Modifications not under Submission

Appendix 2: Designations that have been withdrawn

Appendix 3: Recommended Decisions on Designations and Submissions

Appendix 4: Recommended Amendments to Designations Chapter

Appendix 5: Recommended Amendments to Planning Maps

Appendix 6: Decision Report on Non-Notified Alteration to NOR Application for MEDU-47

Appendix 7: Recommended Amendments to TPR-5: Junction Road Switching Station

Appendix 8: Recommended Amendments to TPR-6: Junction Road National Grid Line

1 Executive summary The Proposed District Plan (“PDP”) for New Plymouth district was publicly notified in September 2019. Designations is one of the headings under Part 3: Area Specific Matters. Under the Designations heading there are chapters for each requiring authority. Within each chapter designations are listed numerically in standardised tables. On the planning maps each designation is mapped spatially using a blue polygon.

Designations authorise the use of land for a particular project or public work (such as a school, police station, state highway, substation or other infrastructure). The PDP rules do not apply to a public work, project or work undertaken by a requiring authority pursuant to the designation. However, if the designated land is used for a purpose other than the designated purpose, then the provisions of the PDP do apply. Other people may not, without the prior written consent of the requiring authority, do anything in relation to the designated land that would impede the public work, project or work.

16 requiring authorities lodged notices of requirement for 260 designations in the PDP.

Forty one original submissions and seven further submissions were received. These submissions covered 17 designations in the PDP and requests for two new designations.

The majority of original submissions and further submissions received were on road widening designations requested for inclusion in the PDP by New Plymouth District Council (“the Council or NPDC”). The majority of submitters opposed their inclusion.

Since the notification of the PDP, some designations have been withdrawn by NPDC, Powerco Limited and Radio New Zealand Limited. Any submissions received on these designations become null and void.

This report has been prepared in accordance with section 42A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”).

It outlines recommendations in response to the submissions received. The report is intended to assist the PDP hearings commissioners (“the Hearings Panel”) to make decisions on the original submissions and further submissions on the PDP, and to provide submitters with an opportunity to see how their submissions have been evaluated and the recommendations made by officers, prior to the hearing.

It also outlines recommendations on whether a designation should be included in the PDP or not. The report is intended to assist the Hearings Panel to make decisions on the designations, and to provide requiring authorities with an opportunity to see how their notices of requirement have been evaluated and the recommendations made by officers, prior to the hearing.

2 Introduction 2.1 Author and qualifications My full name is Lauren Theresa O’Byrne, and I am a Senior Policy Adviser in the District Plan Team at the Council.

I hold the qualifications of Bachelor of Arts (Social Sciences) majoring in Geography from Massey University, Palmerston North and Master of Planning Practice from University of Auckland, Auckland. I am a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute.

I have 20 years of experience in planning and resource management, including 19 years in the District Plan Team at the Council. Early on my experience included developing policy, writing section 32 reports, summarising submissions, writing section 42a reports and appearing at hearings for numerous variations and plan changes to the previous district plan in both its proposed and operative form on matters such as scheduled items, rezoning of land, renewable electricity generation and off-street parking requirements in the city centre. In recent years I have been involved in the development of the Draft District Plan, the Draft Digital District Plan and the PDP, which included many consultation processes with stakeholders and the community. I have developed policy, written section 32 reports and summarised submissions for these topics in the PDP: Designations, Viewshafts, Historic Heritage, Design Guides, Commercial and Mixed Use Zones and the Special Purpose Zone: Hospital Zone.

2.2 Code of Conduct I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014 and that I have complied with it when preparing this report. Other than when I state that I am relying on the advice or evidence of another person, this evidence is within my area of expertise. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions that I express.

I am authorised to give this evidence on the Council's behalf to the Hearings Panel.

2.3 The Council versus NPDC Throughout my report I refer to New Plymouth District Council in two ways. Where I refer to “the Council” this is the Council generally. Where I refer to “NPDC” I am referring to the Council as the requiring authority.

2.4 Expert Advice In preparing this report I have relied on expert advice from several people at NPDC:

• John Eagles (Network Management Lead, Transport Team) on the matters of NPDC withdrawing some of its road widening designations and service lane designations, and on future plans regarding NPDC- 29, NPDC-40 and NPDC-122;

• Stuart Knarston (Network Planning Engineer, Transport Team) on the matters of NPDC withdrawing some of its road widening designations and service lane designations, and on future plans regarding NPDC-29, NPDC-40 and NPDC-122; and • Graeme Pool (Principal Operations Engineer, Three Waters Team) on these matters: conditions for NPDC-71 (New Plymouth Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facility), upgrades that have occurred since the PDP was notified to NPDC-74 (Oakura Water Treatment Plant), a potential landscaping condition for NPDC-140 (Corbett Park Sewer Pump Station) and a potential accidental discovery protocol condition for NPDC-146 (West Quay Pump Station).

3 Scope / Purpose of Report This report has been prepared in accordance with section 42A of the RMA to:

• assist the Hearings Panel in making their recommendations on the submissions and further submissions on the notices of requirement and designations in the PDP; and • provide submitters with an opportunity to see how their submissions have been evaluated and the recommendations being made by officers, prior to the hearing.

This report provides a recommendation on all submissions received on designations in the PDP. It also provides a recommendation on whether each designation in the PDP should be confirmed, modified or withdrawn, regardless of whether submissions were received to it or not.

In some instances this report may refer to these sorts of matters at a high level but in general it only addresses the confirmation or otherwise of the designations in the PDP. Inclusion of the designations will allow the relevant requiring authority to carry out detailed design work in the future.

In light of this, wherever possible, I have provided a recommendation to assist the Hearings Panel.

4 Statutory Requirements 4.1 Designation requirements A designation is a mechanism used by Ministers of the Crown, network utility operators and local authorities approved as requiring authorities under the RMA to get planning authorisation for public works and protect land for future public works. Requiring authorities can only make a designation where they are financially responsible for the project, work or operation on the designated land. A designation is a form of ‘spot zoning’ over a site, area or route in a district plan. A designation enables a requiring authority to undertake works in the designated area without the need for resource consent, unless works will be undertaken that are outside the scope of the designation.

4.2 Procedural matters

4.2.1 Background

When reviewing a district plan, the Council is required to invite requiring authorities that have an existing designation that has not lapsed in the Operative District Plan (“ODP”) to give written notice to the Council, stating whether the requiring authority requires the Council to include the designation in its proposed district plan, with or without modification (Clause 4, Schedule 1 RMA). If a requiring authority does not respond the Council’s invitation, the designation is not included in the proposed district plan.

In December 2018, the Council formally invited requiring authorities to withdraw, rollover or rollover with modification their existing designations and/or to supply notices of requirement for any new designations sought. If this notice is served on the Council within 40 working days of the Council notifying a proposed district plan, it can be included in the proposed district plan. The submission process on designations then runs in parallel to the submission process on all other content in the proposed district plan.

There are 16 requiring authorities in the PDP, including NPDC. All requiring authorities with existing designations in the ODP gave notice, within 40 working days of the PDP being notified, in respect of some or all of their existing designations requiring that they be included the PDP (with or without modification).

Some requiring authorities also sought new designations and notices of requirement for these were served on the Council within 40 working days of the PDP being notified. These notices of requirement were made available on the Council’s website from the date the PDP was notified.

260 designations have been included in the PDP. 192 of these are rollovers without modification, 102 of these are rollovers with modification and 139 of these are new. A summary of the designations sought by each requiring authority is provided in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Summary of Designations Sought by each Requiring Authority

Requiring Authority Rollover Rollover with New Total without modifications designations modifications Chorus New Zealand 0 8 0 8 Limited First Gas Limited 0 2 0 2 KiwiRail Holdings 0 1 0 1 Limited Kordia Limited 0 1 1 2 Meteorological Service 0 1 0 1 of New Zealand Limited Minister for Courts 0 1 0 1 Minister of Education 0 42 8 50 Minister of Police 3 0 0 3

Requiring Authority Rollover Rollover with New Total without modifications designations modifications New Plymouth District 4 27 128 159 Council New Zealand Transport 0 3 1 4 Agency NZME Radio Limited 0 3 0 3 Powerco Limited 12 3 0 15 Radio New Zealand 0 1 0 1 Limited Spark New Zealand 0 2 0 2 Trading Limited Taranaki Regional 0 1 1 2 Council Transpower New 0 6 0 6 Zealand Limited Totals 19 102 139 260

4.2.2 Evaluation and recommendation process

In assessing notices of requirement included in a proposed district plan, the Council makes a recommendation or decision, depending on who has lodged the notice of requirement.

If the notice of requirement is received from the Council in its capacity as a requiring authority (referred to as “NPDC” in this report), the Hearings Panel hear the notice of requirement and make a recommendation to NPDC to confirm, modify or withdraw the requirement. NPDC will then make its decision.

In terms of those notices of requirement lodged by other requiring authorities, the Hearings Panel hear the notice of requirement and make a recommendation to the Council to confirm, modify or cancel the requirement. The Council then decides to accept or reject this recommendation. If the Hearings Panel recommendation is accepted, the Council then makes a recommendation and the requiring authority then makes the decision whether to accept the recommendation, accept it in part, or reject it, with reasons and advises the Council of this decision. If the Hearings Panel recommendation is rejected by the Council, then the Council decides the next steps (e.g. return the matter to the Hearings Panel for further consideration).

In making its recommendation on a notice of requirement lodged by a requiring authority, the Council is required to either:

• confirm the requirement; • modify the requirement; • impose conditions; or • withdraw (reject) the requirement.

When making a recommendation or decision on a notice of requirement, the Council must have regard to matters listed in Section 171(1) of the RMA. The Council must provide reasons for the recommendation or decision. Section 171 is set out in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1: Section 171 of Resource Management Act

My evaluation of the above matters and recommendations are set out in section 5 of this report.

For those notices of requirement that are included without modification and on which the Council has received no submissions, the Council is not allowed to make a recommendation. It must simply include the 'roll over' designation in the PDP. A list of these designations is contained in Appendix 1 – Rolled Over Designations with no Modifications not under Submission to this report.

4.2.3 National Policy Statements, Regional Policy Statement and District Plan

When considering a notice of requirement and any submissions received, the Council must consider the effects on the environment of allowing a notice of requirement, having particular regard to any relevant provisions of a national policy statement, a New Zealand coastal policy statement, a

regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement and a plan or proposed plan.

National Policy Statements

The National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission (“NPSET”) 2008 recognises the national significance of the electricity transmission network (being the National Grid owned and operated by Transpower). The NPSET provides the following relevant direction for designations in the District Plan:

• Existing assets (e.g. transmission lines) should be able to be reasonably and effectively operated, maintained, upgraded and developed (Policies 2 and 5).

I have considered this requirement when reviewing designations relating to or adjacent to the National Grid and transmission lines.

The National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management 2020 (“NPS-FM 2020”) 2020 replaced the 2014 and 2017 NPS versions. The NPS-FM 2020 includes the concept of “Te Mana o te Wai,” which is about protecting the mauri of the wai. It is relevant to all freshwater management, including the District Plan, and imposes a hierarchy of obligations that prioritises:

a) the health and well-being of water bodies and freshwater ecosystems; b) the health needs of people (such as drinking water); and c) the ability of people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being, now and in the future.

While the majority of requirements of the NPS-FM 2020 sit with regional councils, section 3.5 (4) states “Every territorial authority must include objectives, policies, and methods in its district plan to promote positive effects, and avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse effects (including cumulative effects), of urban development on the health and well-being of water bodies, freshwater ecosystems, and receiving environments”. I have considered these requirements when reviewing designations within or adjacent to freshwater bodies.

Regional Policy Statement

District plans must give effect to the Regional Policy Statement. The Taranaki Regional Policy Statement 2010 (RPS) contains a section on Infrastructure (and network utilities). I have considered the following key directions from the RPS:

• INF OBJECTIVE 1: To provide for the continued safe and efficient operation of the region’s network utilities and other infrastructure of regional significance (including where this is of national importance), while avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects on the environment;

• INF POLICY 1: Provide for the efficient and effective establishment, operation, maintenance, and upgrading of network utilities and other physical infrastructure of regional significance (including where this is of national importance) and provide for any adverse effects of their establishment to be avoided, remedied or mitigated as far as is practicable; and • INF POLICY 2: The adverse effects of subdivision, use, and development on the safety, efficiency, operation, maintenance, and upgrading of the region’s network utilities and on other physical infrastructure of regional significance (including where this is of national importance) will be avoided or mitigated (i.e. avoid or mitigate reverse-sensitivity effects).

The RPS also states district councils may wish to consider the following methods to give effect to the policy direction:

• INF METH 10: Include in district plans, appropriate provisions (including designations) for network utilities and other infrastructure of regional significance (including where this is of national importance), and the procedures to be followed when proposing to undertake activities in proximity to these network utilities.

The RPS also has a separate section dedicated to ‘managing the effects of hazardous substances and contaminated sites.’ It is important to note that the RPS pre-dates the Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 and changes to the RMA to remove the control of hazardous substances as an explicit function of councils, resulting in them no longer being obliged to manage hazardous substances in RMA policy statements or plans.

Objective 3 of the Proposed Coastal Plan for Taranaki – Council Decision Version 2019 refers to the impacts on established operations and activities. I note that the RPS does not specifically define regionally significant/important infrastructure but the Proposed Coastal Plan for Taranaki – Council Decision Version 2019 defines “regionally important infrastructure”:

Regionally important infrastructure means infrastructure of regional and/or national importance and is: a. Port Taranaki and its approaches and on-going development to meet changing operational needs; b. facilities and arterial pipelines for the supply, storage or distribution of minerals including oil and gas and their derivatives; c. the national electricity grid, as defined by the Electricity Industry Act 2010; d. facilities for the generation and/or transmission of electricity where it is supplied to the national electricity grid and/or the local electricity distribution network, including supply within the local electricity distribution network; e. defence facilities; f. flood protection works;

g. infrastructure associated with the safe and efficient operation of state highways and the rail network; h. telecommunications as defined in section 5 of the Telecommunications Act 2001; i. radiocommunications as defined in section 2(1) of the Radio Communications Act 1989; j. New Plymouth airport, including flight paths; k. arterial pipelines and pumping stations for the distribution of potable water and water treatment plants; and l. arterial pipelines and pumping stations for the collection of wastewater and stormwater, and wastewater treatment plants.

District Plan

Within my analysis for each notice of requirement I have stated the zoning in the ODP and the PDP and, where appropriate, have commented on whether activities within the proposed designated area are compatible with the zoning provisions.

4.2.4 Withdrawn designations

Since the PDP was notified four requiring authorities have advised the Council that they wish to withdraw some of their designations or notices of requirement. These include some of NPDC’s road widenings and service lanes, one of NZME Radio Limited’s broadcasting and communication facilities, one of Powerco Limited’s substations, and Radio New Zealand Limited’s only broadcasting and communication facility.

NPDC’s Transport Team has notified the Council’s District Plan Team that it withdraws some of its road widening designations because they are no longer required. In total, 43 road widenings are withdrawn in full and four are withdrawn in part because NPDC considers that other tools can be used to control traffic instead of road widening strips or corner splays. These tools include traffic calming measures (e.g. chicanes and speed humps), lane markings, road space reallocation (e.g. removing parking spaces rather than buying land to widen the road) and corner build outs at intersections.

NPDC’s Transport Team has also advised that it has withdrawn seven of its service lane designations because they are no longer required. NPDC considers that these service lanes do not contribute to wider connectivity objectives for pedestrians within the city centre because they generally only have one entry and exit point.

NZME Radio Limited has withdrawn its designation for the Pohutukawa Place Broadcasting and Communication Facility because it is no longer required.

Powerco Limited has withdrawn its designation for the Tikorangi Substation because it is no longer required.

Radio New Zealand Limited has withdrawn its designation for the Pohutukawa Place Broadcasting and Communication Facility because it is no longer required.

These withdrawals reduce the number of designations in the PDP for the Council from 159 to 109, for NZME Radio Limited from three to two, for Powerco Limited from 15 to 14 and for Radio New Zealand Limited from one to zero. This reduces the total number of designations for all requiring authorities from 260 to 207.

The withdrawal of the designations means that the designations can be removed from the PDP and, where applicable, the ODP effective immediately. Any submissions received on these designations also are treated as withdrawn. Accordingly, while these submissions are referred to at a high level in this report, no analysis has been carried out in respect of them.

All landowners affected by the withdrawal of the designations will be formally advised in due course.

The list of withdrawn notices of requirement and designations is contained in Appendix 2 – Designations that have been withdrawn to this report.

4.2.5 Pre hearing meetings

Due to the clarity of submissions, no correspondence or meetings with submitters needed to be undertaken and there are no procedural matters to consider for this hearing.

No pre-hearing meetings or Clause 8AA meetings on the submissions relating to Designations were held prior to the finalisation of this s42A report.

4.2.6 Points of clarification

I sought clarification from the following representatives at Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency (“Waka Kotahi”):

• Natasha Reid (Principal Planner – Environmental Planning, System Design – Transport Services) on the matter of NPDC-160 (Airport Drive, road realignment); • Liz Little (Senior Property Manager, Property Disposals, Transport Property) on the matter of withdrawing the Council’s road widening designations that adjoin state highways; and • Mike Wood (Principal Planner – Consents and Approvals) and Stefania Chrzanowska (Senior Planner, Environmental Planning) (primary contacts) on the matter of NZTA-4 (State Highway 44) and the City Centre Strategy.

I sought clarification from Marcus Bishop (planner at BECA) on behalf of the Ministry of Education about student roll numbers given New Plymouth’s projected population increase.

I sought clarification from Rebecca Eng (Senior Environmental Planner, Environmental Policy and Planning Team) at Transpower New Zealand Limited on whether TPR-5 (Junction Road Switching Station) and TPR-6 (Junction Road National Grid Line) had been constructed or not and, in turn, whether the construction conditions for these designations should be retained or not.

4.3 Section 32AA evaluation

Section 32AA of the RMA requires the Council to undertake a further evaluation for any changes that are proposed to the PDP since the Section 32 report was completed.

A further evaluation under section 32AA is not required for the Designations Chapter because the designations themselves, the overview paragraph and conditions do not constitute plan provisions for which any section 32AA evaluation is required.

5 Consideration of designations 5.1 Overview of submissions received A total of 41 original submissions and seven further submissions were received on the Designations Chapter.

This section constitutes the main body of the report. It considers and provides recommendations on the decisions requested in submissions. Due to the number of submissions received and the repetition of issues, it is not efficient to respond to each individual submission point raised in the submissions so similar submission points have been grouped where appropriate. This response assists in providing a concise response to, and recommended decision on, submission points.

This report analyses designations in the order that requiring authorities are listed in the Designations Chapter in the PDP, i.e. alphabetical order. I have analysed any submissions received alongside my analysis on the notices of requirement.

Where requiring authorities have both rollover and new designations I have included headings to distinguish between the two. Where requiring authorities have designations with similar circumstances, e.g. urban or rural, I have included headings to group these.

At the end of my analysis for each requiring authority I have made a recommendation on whether each designation should be included in the PDP or not and whether any submissions should be accepted or not. My analysis for each requiring authority generally follows the same format except for NPDC’s road widening designations where I have used a slightly different approach.

Some points raised in submissions are outside of the scope of the PDP in that they raise concerns about resource consenting requirements or other PDP provisions or Council policies. This report does not address these concerns.

Notices of requirement for modified and new designations are listed by requiring authority below. Those designations subject to submissions are assessed individually.

As mentioned previously, for those notices of requirement for the rollover of existing designations without modification that the Council has received no submissions on, the Council is not required to make a recommendation. The Council must simply include the 'rollover' designation in the PDP. A list of these designations is contained in Appendix 1 – Rolled Over Designations with no Modifications not under Submission to this report.

A list of recommended decisions on all designations in the Designations Chapter and any submissions and further submissions received is contained in Appendix 3 – Recommended Decisions on Designations and Submissions to this report.

A tracked changes version of the Designations Chapter with designations that are recommended for amendment since the PDP was notified is contained in Appendix 4 – Recommended Amendments to Designations Chapter to this report.

Planning maps showing the designations that are recommended for amendment since the PDP was notified is contained in Appendix 5 – Recommended Amendments to Planning Maps to this report.

Additional information can also be obtained from the Summary of Submissions by Plan Chapter for KiwiRail Holdings Limited, Minister of Education, NPDC, Powerco Limited and Transpower New Zealand Limited, and the overlays and maps on the ePlan .

5.2 Chorus New Zealand Limited

5.2.1 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on Chorus New Zealand’s designations.

5.2.2 Discussion and Evaluation

Chorus New Zealand Limited requested the rollover of eight designations (CNZ-1 to CNZ-8) with minor corrections relating to the demerger between Chorus New Zealand Limited and the former Telecom New Zealand Limited as well as changes in legislation around telecommunications. These corrections were:

• the requiring authority name was changed for all designations except CNZ-3 from “Telecom New Zealand Limited” to “Chorus New Zealand Limited”;

• the requiring authority name was changed for CNZ-3 from “Chorus” to “Chorus New Zealand Limited”; • it was stated for CNZ-7 that it is primary to SPK-2 in the designation hierarchy to Spark New Zealand Trading Limited under s177 of the Act; • the capital letters in the designation purpose for all designations was changed to title case (telecommunication, radiocommunication and ancillary purposes); and • “Uriti” was changed to “Uruti” for CNZ-8.

I agree with the requiring authority these modifications provide clarity and the corrections to the designation details should be made.

All eight designations are already in existence and have been given effect to. Any adverse effects on the environment are expected to be no different from the current situation and I consider them to be part of the existing environment.

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the designations and facilities are already in existence and the designations are not changing in boundary or extent.

I consider the designations are necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority in respect of providing certainty for the on-going security and resilience of the telecommunication facilities, and to provide for the flexibility of the networks to adapt to changing technologies and community expectations.

No existing conditions apply to these designations and no conditions are sought. I do not recommended conditions as the activities presently exist, and the outline plan process allows for the consideration of future effects for any additional works proposed within the designations.

5.2.3 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that CNZ1, CNZ-2, CNZ-4, CNZ-5, CNZ-6, CNZ-7 and CNZ8 be confirmed.

I recommend that CNZ-3 be modified by removing “(formerly N26)” from the Designation Unique Identifier column. This corrects an inputting error when compiling the Designation Chapter for Chorus New Zealand Limited.

5.3 First Gas Limited

5.3.1 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on First Gas Limited’s designations.

5.3.2 Discussion and Evaluation

First Gas Limited requested the rollover of two designations (FGL-1 and FGL-2) with minor corrections. These corrections were:

• the requiring authority name was changed from “Natural Gas Corporation of New Zealand” to “First Gas Limited” for both designations; • the boundary of FGL-1 was changed to reflect the current location of the gas main; and • the designated purpose for FGL-1 was changed to include “and pipeline” as the designated parcel includes the lateral pipeline heading east in to Pt Lot 1 DP 4951.

I agree with the requiring authority that these modifications provide clarity and the corrections to the designation details should be made.

Both designations are already in existence and therefore given effect to. Any adverse effects on the environment are expected to be no different from the current situation and I consider them to be part of the existing environment.

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the designations and facilities are already in existence. In addition, FGL-2 is not changing in boundary and the change to the boundary of FGL-1 is less than minor.

I consider the designations are necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority in respect of providing certainty for the on-going security and resilience of First Gas Limited’s operations.

No existing conditions apply to these designations and no conditions are sought. I do not recommend conditions as the activities presently exist, and the outline plan process allows for the consideration of future effects for any additional works proposed within the designations.

5.3.3 Officer Recommendation

I recommended that FGL-1 be modified by adding “designation purpose” in brackets after “requiring authority” in the Additional Information column. This corrects an inputting error when compiling the Designation Chapter for First Gas Limited which did not reflect that the designation purpose for FGL-1 was requested for change from “Gas sales gate” to “Gas sales gate and pipeline.”

I recommend that FGL-2 be confirmed.

5.4 KiwiRail Holdings Limited

5.4.1 Submissions Received

One submission was received from KiwiRail Holdings Limited (514.71) on their own designation seeking retention as notified. No further submissions were received.

5.4.2 Discussion and Evaluation

KiwiRail Holdings Limited requested the rollover of its only designation (KHL-1) with minor corrections. These corrections were:

• the requiring authority name was changed from “Toll Rail” to “KiwiRail Holdings Limited”; • the consolidation of information in the designation schedule that refer to matters such as railway corridors, track work, associated facilities and rail terminals; and • the boundary was changed to: reflect rail land that is currently undesignated land or deemed surplus, inaccuracies which show the current designation extending outside of KiwiRail Holdings Limited’s landholding and onto neighbouring properties, and where the existing railway lines cross over roads and watercourses.

I agree with the requiring authority these modifications provide clarity and the corrections to the designation details should be made.

I note the National Planning Standards now require councils to produce district plans based on a GIS-platform. Designation boundaries are generally mapped as polygons on the planning maps and are aligned with cadastral parcels that are produced and maintained by Land Information New Zealand. These cadastral boundaries can move slightly as approved land transfer and survey plans are lodged with Land Information New Zealand. This means that polygons are not always in alignment with the cadastral boundaries and it can result in a difference of several metres.

KiwiRail Holdings Limited made a submission supporting KHL-1 as shown. They recognise there may be anomalies between the shape files for linear designations and will work to resolve these with affected parties.

Given the size of KiwiRail Holdings Limited’s designation and the challenging nature of mapping a designation of this size, I consider it likely that there may be anomalies and mapping discrepancies. I consider this can be managed through under s181(3) of the RMA so long as these discrepancies are no more than minor.

This existing designation has been given effect to. Any adverse effects on the environment are expected to be no different from the current situation and I consider it to be part of the existing environment.

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the designation and facilities are already in existence and the change to the boundary is less than minor.

I consider the designation is necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority in respect of providing certainty for the on-going security and resilience of the railway corridor.

No existing conditions apply to this designation and no conditions are sought. I do not recommend conditions as the activity presently exists, and the outline plan process allows for the consideration of future effects for any additional works proposed within the designation.

5.4.3 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that KHL-1 be confirmed.

I recommend that submission point 514.71 be accepted.

5.5 Kordia Limited

5.5.1 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on Kordia Limited’s designation and notice of requirement.

5.5.2 Discussion and Evaluation

Notice of Requirement for KL-1 (rollover designation)

Kordia Limited requested the rollover of one of its designations (KL-1) with several minor corrections. These corrections were:

• the name of the requiring authority was amended from “Broadcast Communications Limited” to Kordia “Limited”; • the designation purpose was amended from a lengthy description with six sub sections which read like conditions to a more succinct description: “Installation, operation, maintenance, replacement and removal of broadcasting, telecommunications, radiocommunications, associated and ancillary facilities and land uses”; • the site identifier was amended from a lengthy description that combines a location and words which read like a designation purpose to a more succinct description: “Mount Taranaki – Tahurangi Bluff (together with the accessway to the site from the North Egmont Visitor Centre and carpark; and the route of the power cable running from the North Egmont Visitor Centre to the site)”; and • the words that read like conditions in the designated purpose were listed as conditions in the conditions attribute, and the conditions included updated references to radio frequency radiation emissions to reflect current safety standards.

I agree with the requiring authority that these amendments provide clarity and certainty, particularly in respect to tidying up where the conditions sit in the attribute details and the safety standards that are used. I agree that the corrections to the designation details should be made.

This designation is already in existence and has been given effect to. Any adverse effects on the environment are expected to be no different from the current situation and I consider it to be part of the existing environment.

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the designation and facilities are already in existence and the designation is not changing in boundary or extent.

I consider the designation is necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority in respect of providing certainty for the on-going security and resilience of the telecommunication facilities, and to provide for the flexibility of the networks to adapt to changing technologies and community expectations.

I consider the proposed conditions effectively avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects to an acceptable level.

Notice of Requirement for KL-2 (new designation)

Nature of the public work

Kordia Limited requested a new designation (KL-2) for an existing telecommunications site at Pukeiti. The designation is for the on-going maintenance, upgrade and replacement of equipment and other ancillary works at this site. An outline plan of works for future upgrades would be submitted as and when required.

Environmental effects

The site is on land zoned as Rural Environment Area in the ODP and Rural Production Zone in the PDP. The designation comprises an area of 432m2 (excluding the metalled access track) around an existing 30m high lattice tower accommodating several dish and panel antenna with a building below containing the electrical equipment ancillary to the operation of this radiocommunication, telecommunication and broadcasting facility. The existing facility is located amongst dense native bush approximately 550m from Carrington Road and approximately 1km north-east of Pukeiti Regional Gardens. It is in an area called Pukeiti Summit which includes a public lookout. Vehicle access to the existing facility for maintenance, repair and installation works is gained via an access track. The nearest formed public road is Plymouth Road to the east, being 3.5km away.

In terms of visual character and amenity effects, the activity is still subject to the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Telecommunication Facilities) Regulations 2016 (“NESTF”). Designating the site will not result in the establishment of any structures of a greater size and scale than are presently provided for as permitted activities in the

NESTF. If compliance is not achieved a resource consent will be required. Designating the site will not generate any adverse effects on the visual character and amenity of the surrounding environment greater than what already exists or may be generated as a permitted activity under the NESTF.

In terms of noise effects, the noise generating equipment is housed in a fully sealed building at the base of the tower. This equipment is encased and noise is not readily discernible beyond the building so there will be no adverse effects on any nearby residents, people visiting or working at the Pukeiti Regional Gardens or people walking to the public lookout. Designating the site will not alter the noise level that presently forms part of the existing environment.

In terms of traffic effects, the access track is a mix of metal and asphalt and is only accessible to those carrying out works at Pukeiti Regional Gardens, those requiring access on behalf of Taranaki Regional Council and those undertaking inspections and maintenance of the facility on behalf of Kordia Limited. Public traffic movements are not provided for. Designating the site will not alter the traffic level that presently forms part of the existing environment.

In terms of vegetation and natural environment effects, the area is confined to that area immediately surrounding the existing infrastructure and the access track. These areas do not contain significant native vegetation that would require removal by the upgrading of the facility as allowed by the creation of the designation or works permitted under the NES.

In terms of human safety effects, the facility meets current New Zealand safety standards for radio frequency emissions, the structure includes anti- climbing measures and the cabinet is securely locked.

There are no immediate works proposed to be carried out. Any works outside the scope of the designation would require resource consent. In light of this, I consider the adverse effects of the designation to be less than minor.

Alternative sites, routes or methods

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the site is already occupied by established buildings and associated telecommunications infrastructure. A radiocommunications facility was first established on the site in 1927 and has evolved over time. The current facility was established in 1980.

Designation or work is considered reasonably necessary

I consider the designation is necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority, in that it provides for the on-going security and resilience of the telecommunication facility, and provides for the flexibility of the network to adapt to changing technologies and community

expectations. It is essential to maintaining nationwide communications, particularly in the time of natural or manmade disaster.

Conditions

I consider the proposed conditions effectively avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects to an acceptable level.

5.5.3 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that KL-1 be confirmed and that the conditions as notified be imposed.

I recommend that KL-2 be confirmed and that the conditions as notified be imposed.

5.6 Meteorological Service of New Zealand Limited

5.6.1 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on the Meteorological Service of New Zealand Limited’s designation.

5.6.2 Discussion and Evaluation

The Meteorological Service of New Zealand Limited (“MetService”) requested a rollover of their only designation (MSNZ-1) with a minor correction to reduce the designated area. The MetService continues to operate in their original office building but now only uses a smaller space around it. The land no longer needed has been sold to Taranaki Air Ambulance Trust.

I agree with the requiring authority that this modification provides clarity and the correction to the designation boundary should be made.

The designation is already in existence and has been given effect to. Any adverse effects on the environment are expected to be no different from the current situation and I consider it to be part of the existing environment.

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the designation and facilities are already in existence and the change to the designation boundary represents a reduction in size not an increase.

I consider the designation is necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority in respect of providing certainty for the on-going security and resilience of MetService’s activities.

No existing conditions apply to this designation and no conditions are sought. I do not recommended conditions as the activity presently exists, and the outline plan process allows for the consideration of future effects for any additional works proposed within the designation.

5.6.3 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that MSNZ-1 be confirmed.

5.7 Minister for Courts

5.7.1 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on the Minister for Courts designation.

5.7.2 Discussion and Evaluation

The Minister for Courts requested a rollover of their only designation (MCOU-1) with minor corrections to the name of the requiring authority and the designation purpose. These corrections were:

• the name of the requiring authority was changed from the “Department for Courts” to the “Minister for Courts”; and • the designation purpose was changed from “New Plymouth Courthouse” to a much more detailed description.

The amended designation purpose will provide greater certainty to the public as to what activity can occur on the site and will provide a planning framework for assessing activities and development at the New Plymouth Courthouse. This description also reflects a recent national standardisation of descriptions for designations adopted by the Minister for Courts.

I agree with the requiring authority these modifications provide clarity and the corrections to the designation details should be made.

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the designation and facilities are already in existence and the designation is not changing in boundary or extent.

I consider the designation necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority in respect of providing certainty for the on-going operation and management of the existing New Plymouth Courthouse.

No existing conditions apply to these designations and no conditions are sought. I do not recommend conditions as the activity presently exists, and the outline plan process allows for the consideration of future effects for any additional works proposed within the designations.

5.7.3 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that MCOU-1 be confirmed.

5.8 Minister of Education

5.8.1 Submissions Received

One submission was received on the Minister of Education’s designations from Sandra Weir (100.1) on MEDU-11 (West End Primary School) seeking clarification on the future usage of the walkway that runs behind her house from the school to Devon Street West. No further submissions were received.

5.8.2 Discussion and Evaluation

Notice of Requirement for MEDU-1 to MEDU-42 (rollover designations)

The Minister of Education (“the MOE”) requested a rollover of forty two designations with minor corrections. These corrections were:

• the name of the requiring authority was changed from the “Ministry of Education” to the “Minister of Education” for designations MEDU- 1 to MEDU-42; • the site identifier for MEDU-1 was changed from “Central School” to “Central School Te Kura Waenga O Ngāmotu” to reflect a name change that occurred in April 2018; • the designation purpose for all schools (MEDU-1 to MEDU-50) was changed from “Education Facilities” to “Education Purposes” and an explanatory note was included for all schools to define “Education Purposes”; and • minor changes were made to the boundaries for 15 existing designations (MEDU-1, MEDU-2, MEDU-9, MEDU-10, MEDU-13, MEDU-15, MEDU-18, MEDU-23, MEDU-24, MEDU-25, MEDU-27, MEDU-36, MEDU-37, MEDU-38 and MEDU-40).

I agree with the requiring authority these modifications provide clarity and the corrections to the designation details should be made.

The designations are already in existence and have been given effect to. I expect any adverse effects on the environment to be no different from the current situation which I consider part of the existing environment.

The only submission received was in respect to MEDU-11 (West End Primary School). The submitter queried why the walkway (which is part of the designation) is included on the planning maps in a search of their property at 26 Bonithon Ave. They consider that the MOE has taken over management of the walkway but there have been no developments for several years and it is overgrown and in bad repair. The submitter wants the walkway developed for children to walk through which would lessen traffic problems on Bonithon Ave and Davies Lane.

I contacted the planner working on behalf of the MOE as well as the Council’s Property Team to seek clarification on ownership of the walkway. Following this, I contacted the submitter and advised that:

• There is a right of way on the property that services other properties; and • The MOE owns the walkway, which is closed and is not maintained, and there are no plans to upgrade/maintain the walkway.

I consider that the submitter’s submission has been addressed through this correspondence and no further assessment is required.

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the designations and facilities are already in existence and the designations with boundary adjustments are considered to be less than minor.

I consider the designations are necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority in respect of providing certainty for the on-going operation and management of the existing schools.

Notice of Requirement for MEDU-43 to MEDU-50 (new designations)

Nature of public work

The MOE requested eight new designations (MEDU-43 to MEDU-50) for existing special character schools. The designations are to enable the on- going operation, maintenance and development of public education on these existing sites. The designation of existing schools is a technique used nationally by the MOE and is considered to be the most effective way of ensuring that the MOE’s interest in a site is protected.

The notices of requirement for MEDU-43 (Francis Douglas Memorial College), MEDU-44 (St John Bosco School), MEDU-45 (St Joseph’s School New Plymouth), MEDU-46 (St Patrick’s School Inglewood) and MEDU-50 (St Joseph’s School Waitara) contain an incorrect reference to the Council but this does not affect the description of the sites. The MOE has been advised of this and replacement documents will be sent at a later date.

Environmental effects

In terms of adverse effects, there are no immediate works proposed to be carried out. All notices of requirement state that projections by the MOE indicate that the current rolls will remain relatively stable. Therefore there is no provision for the establishment of new buildings or the expansion of existing buildings included in the notices of requirement.

All schools, except New Plymouth Adventist Christian School (MEDU-48) are located in the residential zones under the ODP and the PDP. Schools are listed as a compatible activities in all residential zones in the PDP. MEDU-48 is located in the Rural Environment Area in the ODP and in the

Rural Production Zone in the PDP. Schools are listed as incompatible activities in the Rural Production Zone under Policy RPROZ-P3 in the PDP.

In terms of visual effects all school buildings and associated structures have existed on the sites for many years and have high levels of amenity to the surrounding street and general area. For all schools located in residential areas I consider that the visual impacts are less than minor.

In terms of the traffic and parking effects of schools located in residential areas, they interact with local traffic in two main ways:

• by general addition of traffic; and • by potential to disrupt traffic flows (through the actions of vehicles and pedestrians).

The Council has a dedicated team that work with all existing schools (MEDU-1 to MEDU-50) to identify safe crossing points, to ensure there is appropriate roadside signage, and to ensure they have a system in place to make sure school traffic arrives and leaves the school without creating a hazard to traffic. In addition, through this work, secondary schools have systems in place to manage the adverse effects of vehicle parking by older students on local residents.

For example, the entrance to MEDU-49 (Sacred Heart Girls College) is located on Pukaka Street which is a short, narrow residential street. The Council has introduced parking restrictions on weekdays to prevent senior students parking on Pukaka Street, thus mitigating the impacts on local residents.

Given the responses that have been developed by the Council and the schools within the district, I consider the traffic and parking effects of the schools located in residential areas will continue to be managed. In light of this, I consider the potential adverse effects are less than minor.

MEDU-48 (New Plymouth Adventist Christian School)

The New Plymouth Adventist Christian School (MEDU-48) is located in a rural zone and the designated area consists of an existing single building of 400m2 which is surrounded by large playing fields and mature vegetation on the boundaries. In terms of visual effects I consider that the scale of the buildings and surrounding vegetation is similar in character with the surrounding rural environment. I consider the visual effects associated with confirming the designation to be less than minor.

In terms of the noise and traffic effects of MEDU-48 on the surrounding rural environment, I also consider these to be less than minor. The designated area is situated up a long, well screened driveway and has adequate parking on-site. Clear signage alerts rural road uses to the location of the school. The intersection with the school’s driveway to the narrow rural nature of Saxton Road has good visibility.

MEDU-47 (St Pius X School)

On 7 October 2020, the MOE’s notice of requirement for MEDU-47 (St Pius X School) was altered pursuant to section 181(3) of the RMA. The MOE requested to alter the requirement for designation to include the school hall and uplift the designation from land which is no longer required for education purposes. The area of land that will be incorporated into and removed from designated area is all currently part of the school grounds. However much of the land which is proposed to be removed is under- utilised. An assessment of environmental effects concluded that the request by the MOE will not have more than minor effects on the environment. In addition, all owners and occupiers agreed to the alteration. The decision on this request which shows the amendment to the boundary is contained in Appendix 4 – Decision Report on the Non-Notified Alteration to the Notice of Requirement for MEDU- 47 (St Pius X School) to this report.

Alternative sites, routes or methods

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the schools are already in existence. Adverse effects on the environment are expected to be less than minor.

Designation or work is considered reasonably necessary

I consider the designations reasonably necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority in respect of providing certainty for the on-going operation and management of the existing schools.

Conditions

No conditions are sought. I do not recommend conditions as the activities presently exist, and the outline plan process allows for the consideration of future effects for any additional works proposed within the designations.

Population Projections for Notices of Requirement for MEDU-1 to MEDU-50 (rollover and new designations)

Given the population forecasts for the district estimate that the population will be 104,900 by 2051, the District Plan Team has sought clarification from the planner working on behalf of the MOE as to whether the MOE will require new buildings to cater for the projected population growth. We have been advised that the MOE considers student roll numbers will remain relatively stable given New Plymouth’s population forecasts.

I have reservations about the MOE’s position, but I note the outline plan process allows for the consideration of future effects for any additional building works that may be required as a result of increasing student numbers. I also note that the MOE will likely be involved in the Future Development Strategy (a requirement of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 which sets out a long term vision for accommodating urban growth). Development of the Future Urban Development Strategy for the district will commence after the PDP decision

is notified, with the MOE anticipated to be a key stakeholder in that process. Therefore I am satisfied that, in the interim, the effects of any building works can be managed within the scope of the designations.

5.8.3 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that MEDU-1 to MEDU-19 and MEDU-21 to MEDU-50 be confirmed.

I recommend that MEDU-20 be modified by amending “C24” to “C25” in the Additional Information column to correct an inputting error made by the Council when compiling the Designation Chapter for the Minister of Education.

I recommend that submission point 100.01 be accepted.

5.9 New Plymouth District Council General Designations

This section addresses designations that can be grouped generally because they are of a similar nature, their infrastructure is similar, they are on NPDC land or land partially owned by other parties, and/or they have similar environmental effects.

The designations in this section are analysed in the same order that the notices of requirement appear on the Designations page on the Council’s website.

All groupings have a notice of requirement on the Council’s website because they are new designations, except for proposed reserves and sewage treatment ponds which are rollover designations. The rollover designations are analysed at the end of this section.

Flood Detention Dams

5.9.1 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on NPDC’s flood detention dam designations or notices of requirement.

5.9.2 Discussion and Evaluation

Notice of Requirement for NPDC-12 (rollover designation)

NPDC requested a rollover of its designation (NPDC-12) with minor corrections to the site identifier. NPDC requested a change from “Council Work” to “St Aubyn Street/Bonithon Avenue Flood Detention and Diversion” to provide a more helpful description of the location of the nature of the designated works.

I agree with the requiring authority that this modification provides clarity and the corrections to the designation details should be made.

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the designation and facilities are already in existence and the designation is not changing in boundary or extent.

Notice of Requirement for NPDC-99, NPDC-100 and NPDC-101 (new designations)

Nature of public work

NPDC seeks to designate land which contains existing flood detention bunds on NPDC owned land. The Huatoki Flood Detention Dam (NPDC- 99), Waimea Flood Detention Dam (NPDC-100) and Mangaotuku Flood Detention Dam (NPDC-101) were commissioned in 1987, 1985 and 1986 respectively. The purpose of the dams is to detain and store the peak flows from the catchments above the dams, allowing a design flow to pass and gradually release the flood waters at a maximum allowable flow that does not cause unacceptable risk downstream of the dams.

Environmental effects

The Huatoki Flood Detention Dam (NPDC-99) is zoned as Open Space in the ODP and the PDP. The Waimea Flood Detention Dam (NPDC-100) is in the Rural Environment Area in the ODP and the Special Purpose Zone: Future Urban Zone in the PDP. The Mangaotuku Flood Detention Dam (NPDC-101) is zoned as Rural in the ODP and the PDP. All sites have Flooding overlays and Flood Detention Area/Spillway overlays identified in the ODP and the PDP respectively.

In terms of adverse effects, there are no immediate works proposed to be carried out as part of the notice of requirement for all three new designations. The sites already contain an earth dam, spillway and an access way to upstream of the dam for maintenance purposes. In the notice of requirement, NPDC raises visual, traffic and parking effects. In terms of visual effects, the dams are existing structures and are considered part of the existing environment. In terms of noise effects, the earth dams do not generate noise. In terms of traffic effects, impacts are limited to maintenance vehicles which visit the sites once a month. The long term protection of the existing detention dams through designation will result in positive effects on public safety due to the reduced risk of flooding.

Any future works to modify the existing infrastructure due to changing requirements, including the impacts of increased and more intense rainfall or new technology, will be considered as part of the outline plan process. In light of this, I consider the potential adverse effects are less than minor.

Alternative sites, routes or methods

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the detention dams are already in existence. Adverse effects on the environment are expected to be less than minor.

Designation or work is considered reasonably necessary

I consider the designations are necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority in respect of providing certainty for the on-going operation and management of the existing flood detention and diversion works. It will also increase public awareness of the assets and streamline any future work in accordance with the designated purpose. In particular, the designations will prevent land uses and/or development that may hinder or prevent the works.

Conditions

No conditions are recommended for NPDC-99 and NPDC-101 as the activities presently exist, and the outline plan process allows for the consideration of future effects for any additional works proposed within the designations.

I consider the condition placed on NPDC-100 is appropriate to mitigate effects of the Waimea Flood Detention Dam on the Waimea Stream.

5.9.3 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that NPDC-12, NPDC-99 and NPDC-101 be confirmed.

I recommended that NPDC-100 be modified by amending the site identifier from “Waitara Flood Detention Dam” to “Waimea Flood Detention Dam.” This corrects an inputting error when compiling the Designation Chapter for NPDC.

Refuse Transfer Stations

5.9.4 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on NPDC’s refuse transfer station designations or notices of requirement.

5.9.5 Discussion and Evaluation

Notice of Requirement for NPDC-64 (rollover designation)

NPDC requested the rollover of the Inglewood Transfer Station designation with minor corrections. These corrections were:

• the designation purpose was changed from “refuse disposal” to “transfer station”; and • the site identifier was changed from “King Road Landfill” to “Inglewood Transfer Station.”

These changes reflect the increased focus on waste minimisation, and legislation changes which have resulted in small municipal landfills being closed and replaced by larger, engineered class 1 landfills and a series of transfer stations throughout the Taranaki Region. A “transfer station” refers to a facility where waste is consolidated, possibly processed to some degree, and transported to another facility for disposal, recovery or reuse.1 The Inglewood Transfer Station has provision under its discharge consent from the Taranaki Regional Council to take municipal waste if the Colson Road Transfer Station, is unable to take the waste.

I agree with the requiring authority these modifications provide clarity and the corrections to designation details should be made.

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the designation and facilities are already in existence and the designation is not changing in boundary or extent.

I consider the designation is necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority in respect of providing certainty for the on-going operation of the Inglewood Transfer Station.

Notice of Requirement for NPDC-75, NPDC-78 and NPDC-80 (new designations)

Nature of public work

NPDC requested new designations for three existing transfer stations.

The Okato Transfer Station (NPDC-75) and the Tongaporutu Transfer Station (NPDC-78) are located on land zoned Rural in the ODP and the PDP. The Okato facility is situated on an old landfill site and is a consented clean-fill site and has provision under its discharge consent from the Taranaki Regional Council to take municipal waste if the New Plymouth Transfer Station is unable to take the waste. Waste collected at this site is generally residential waste, catering for households in the surrounding

1 Waste Management and Minimisation Strategy for Taranaki, Taranaki Solid Waste Management Committee, August 2016

rural areas. The Okato Transfer Station is open in Saturdays, Sundays and Tuesdays between 1pm and 4pm.

The Tongaporutu Transfer Station accepts domestic waste from the surrounding rural area, as there is no kerbsite refuse collection service in the area. Domestic waste is limited to vehicles carrying not more than 1m3 of general refuse and 2m3 of green waste. Hazardous wastes and all liquids are prohibited. A large bin is on site for general waste, with small containers for glass and aluminium recycling. Green waste is tipped on to a pad and pushed to the back of the site for natural decomposition. The Tongaporutu Transfer Station is open on Sundays between 1.00pm and 4.00pm.

The Waitara Transfer Station (NPDC-80) is located on land zoned Industrial in the ODP and the PDP. It services the surrounding communities of Waitara, Urenui and Onaero. Domestic waste is limited to vehicles carrying not more than 1m3 of general refuse and 2m3 of green waste. Hazardous wastes and all liquids are prohibited. Waste is emptied into a purpose- built concrete pit. Green waste is tipped onto another concrete pad and then moved to a clean bin. Specific recycling bins are also located on site. The Waitara Transfer Station is open Saturday noon to 4.00pm, and Sunday, Monday, Wednesday and Friday 1pm to 4pm.

Environmental effects

In terms of adverse effects, there are no immediate works to be carried out as part of the notice of requirement for all three transfer stations. The notice of requirement outlines the existing visual, traffic and noise adverse effects.

In terms of visual effects, both the Okato and Tongaporutu Transfer Stations are set well back from the road and surrounding properties. The buildings on the Waitara site are set back from Norman Street and mature vegetation provides visual screening to the other site boundaries.

In terms of noise effects, no heavy machinery is used at the Okato or Tongaporutu Transfer Stations, so noise generated is limited to noise from vehicles entering and exiting the site and from the unloading of waste. The Waitara transfer site uses a tractor to push waste into a deeper pit at the end of the waste area. However, as it is located in an industrial zone it does not generate unreasonable noise effects beyond the boundary of the site.

In terms of traffic effects, the present use of the Okato and Tongaporutu sites is low and there is sufficient room at both sites for vehicles to manoeuvre safely and park for the duration of their visit to the site. The Waitara Transfer Station generates approximately 15-40 vehicle movements to the site each day, and adequate parking is provided on site. Access to all sites is via locked gates.

As all three facilities already exist and effects are well known and managed, the designation of the sites will not result in an increase of adverse effects. In light of this, I consider the potential adverse effects are less than minor.

Alternative sites, routes or methods

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the facilities are already in existence and the designations are not changing in boundary or extent.

Designation or work is considered reasonably necessary

I consider the designations are necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority in respect of providing certainty for the on-going security for the operation of all three transfer stations. In particular, the designation of these sites will enable flexibility to modify infrastructure at later stages as may be required due to changing requirements or new technology, allow land required for the works and intended use of the land to be clearly identified in the district plan; and prevent land uses and/or development that may hinder or prevent the works.

Conditions

The notice of requirement discusses whether restrictions are required in relation to the hours of operation of the Okato and Tongaporutu Transfer Stations. Although the hours of operation for both these transfer stations are currently minimal no restriction has been sought in the event that additional hours become necessary in the future. Therefore no conditions are sought to apply to these sites. I do not recommend conditions as the activities presently exist, and the outline plan process allows for the consideration of future effects for any additional works proposed within the designations.

5.9.6 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that NPDC-64, NPDC-65, NPDC-78 and NPDC-80 be confirmed.

Road Widenings

Road widening may take the form of a strip or a corner splay.

Generally a strip is an area of land identified along the front boundary of a parcel of land adjacent to a road where it is intended that the land be taken so the road can be widened or used for a shared pathway or cycleway. It can sometimes cover several properties. It can also cover properties in several groups along a street.

Generally a corner splay is a small triangular area of land identified on the corner of a property where two roads intersect and where it is intended that the land be taken so that visibility through that corner is achieved. Road widenings are generally acquired at the time of subdivision or redevelopment.

These road widening designations are a long term signal of the Council’s intent to widen the carriage width of the road. Where there are specific projects, that budget is typically secured through the Council’s Long Term

Plan, giving an indication to the timing of the works. Through the planning phases of these projects the Council will work with impacted properties to determine how the road widening can be achieved. The negotiated purchase of the property will be discussed in the first instance. If this is not agreed then the Council will look at its other options and whether it takes further action or looks at alternative design solutions. In some cases a designation may not be enacted until subdivision and development occurs.

5.9.7 Submissions received on NPDC designations that have been withdrawn

As mentioned earlier in Section 5, the Transport Team at NPDC has advised the District Plan Team at the Council that it wishes to withdraw a number of its road widening designations because it is considered that other tools can be used to control traffic instead of road widening strips and corner splays. These tools include traffic calming measures (e.g. chicanes and speed humps), lane markings, road space reallocation (e.g. removing parking spaces rather than buying land to widen the road) and corner build outs at intersections. The withdrawal of the designations means that the designations can be removed from the PDP, and where applicable the ODP, effective immediately. The list of road widenings that have been withdrawn is attached as Appendix 2.

While the majority of road widening designations discussed above have been withdrawn in full, four road widening designations have been partially withdrawn. Due to historical referencing, a single designation unique identifier, i.e. one designation, often includes multiple road widening strips and corner splays along a stretch of road. Where partial removal of the designation has occurred, I recommend that the single designation unique identifier stays the same and that consequential amendments be made to the mapping of these designations.

Any submissions received on designations that have been withdrawn are also treated as withdrawn. Therefore no analysis has been carried out on these submissions and no recommendations have been made on these submissions. The designations and submissions received that are affected by these withdrawals are as follows:

• NPDC-22 (road widening, up to 4m, Dawson Street) – Council (582.62) and Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (FS 80.139); • NPDC-23 (road widening, up to 3.5m, Dawson Street) – Grant Wilson on behalf of Lettie Barnett (211.1) and Vivston Development Limited (492.1); • NPDC-36 (road widening, corner splays, Morley Street; partial withdrawal only) – Peter Caldwell (92.1); • NPDC-38 (road widening, up to 3m, Pendarves Street) – Julia Stephens (135.1) and Podgora Investments Limited (523.1); • NPDC-45 (road widening, up to 4m, Weymouth Street) – John Neeson (45.2); • NPDC-70 (road widening, corner splays, Barriball Street) – Fitzroy Community Group (537.2) and Ben Naughton (FS 155.12);

• NPDC-125 (road widening, up to 1m, Fillis Street) – Geoff and Kaddy Smale (8.1, 53.1) and Phillip Saunders (438.1); • NPDC-131 (road widening, up to 1m, Liardet Street) – Lesley Mann (96.1), Diane Hoeta (118.1) and Christopher Schurr (169.1); • NPDC-153 (road widening, corner splays, Pukatea Street) – Michele Woodd (216.1); and • NPDC-157 (road widening, corner splays, Miro Street) – Valda Hinz (239.1) and Council (582.64).

5.9.8 Submissions received on remaining NPDC road widening designations

The designations and submissions that are analysed in this report and have a recommendation provided are as follows:

• NPDC-29 (road widening, up to 3m, Hobson Street) – RJ & SA Investments Limited (190.1); • NPDC-40 (road widening, up to 6m, Record Street) – Sandra Pentelow-Hunger (104.2, 130.1), Ann Easter (193.1), Maurice Edwards (197.1), Terri Edwards (205.1), Paul Allan Catchpole (186.2), Ron Lambert (261.1), Wendy Randall (263.1), Ben Naughton (352.1), Fitzroy Community Group (537.1), Ben Naughton (FS 155.1, FS 155.2, FS 155.4, FS 155.5, FS 155.6, FS 155.7, FS 155.8, FS 155.9, FS 155.10, FS 155.11 and FS 155.13) and Paul Allan Catchpole (FS 12.2, FS 12.3, FS 12.4, FS 12.5, FS 12.6, FS 12.7, FS 12.8, FS 12.9 and FS 12.10); and • NPDC-122 (road widening, up to 10m, Huatoki Street) – Cassandra Scott (4.1), Stuart Christiansen (7.1), Janice Mace (86.1), Janice Mace on behalf of Lyn Hooper (120.1), Kathryn Scown on behalf of Noel Horton (351.1).

5.9.9 Discussion and Evaluation

Notice of Requirement for NPDC-18, NPDC-20, NPDC-36 and NPDC-49 (rollover designations)

NPDC requested the rollover of four designations with minor corrections. These corrections were:

• the designation purpose was changed for all sites from “Proposed road widening” to “Road widening (up to Xm)” or “Road widening (corner splays)”; • more succinct descriptions in the form of road names were used to describe their locations; and • boundaries were changed to reduce them in size.

I agree with the requiring authority these modifications provide clarity and that the corrections to the designation details should be made.

Generally requiring authorities have five years to give effect to their designations. NPDC has sought a ten year lapse date from the date the PDP was notified. Road widening designations can be taken at the time

land is subdivided or developed and it is unlikely that a five year time period would be a sufficient timeframe within which to give effect to them.

A negative aspect of a longer lapse period is that there are long term restrictions on how the land can be used by the landowners. A positive aspect of a longer lapse period is that it will provide a greater chance for NPDC to acquire the land required when subdivision or redevelopment occurs and increased ability to achieve the purpose of the designation.

I consider a ten year lapse date to be appropriate. Many requiring authorities in the PDP own the land on which their designations are located. In contrast, NPDC generally does not own the land on which road widening designations are located. Further, road widening strips can cover several properties making it challenging to acquire all the land required to give effect to a designation within five years.

All four designations are contained within the ODP. When given effect to, any adverse effects on the environment are expected to be less than minor and will be considered part of the existing environment.

Due to the nature of the designations, I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary and the changes to the designation boundaries are less than minor because they represent a reduction in size not an increase.

I consider the designations are necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority in respect of operating a safe and efficient roading network including pedestrian, cycling and vehicular safety.

No existing conditions apply to these designations and no conditions are sought. I do not recommend conditions given the nature of the designations.

Notice of Requirement for NPDC-17, NPDC-19, NPDC-21, NPDC-24, NPDC-28, NPDC-29, NPDC-30, NPDC-34, NPDC-35, NPDC-37, NPDC-39, NPDC-40, NPDC-47, NPDC-120, NPDC-121, NPDC-122, NPDC-124, NPDC-126, NPDC-128, NPDC-129, NPDC-132, NPDC-133, NPDC-134, NPDC-135, NPDC-138, NPDC-147, NPDC-162 and NPDC-163 (new designations)

Nature of public work

NPDC requested 28 new designations relating to road widening. Road widening may take the form of a strip or a corner splay.

13 of the 28 designations are listed in the ODP Plan, but they have not been given effect to. Accordingly, they have lapsed. Because NPDC still wants to give effect to them, new designations have been sought.

15 of the 28 designations are new. They are not listed in the ODP but NPDC has reviewed its road widening requirements in the district and considers that they are necessary.

NPDC considered a number of factors when establishing whether designations contained within the ODP had been given effect to, including the extent to which the necessary land had been acquired by NPDC.

Environmental effects

The potential effects on character and amenity will be limited to those directly affected parties where land is to be acquired. It is likely that NPDC will erect a fence, construct a footpath, lay grass, and construct kerb and channelling and any vehicle crossing required. However, structures like retaining walls may need to be negotiated between NPDC and the landowner. Laying grass and concrete, planting trees, etc. on the landowner’s side of the fence will be their responsibility. Any works outside the scope of the designation would require resource consent. In light of this, I consider the potential adverse effects are less than minor.

In addition to the above, I have also considered the environmental effects on NPDC-29 (road widening, up to 3m, Hobson Street), NPDC-40 (road widening, up to 6m, Record Street) and NPDC-122 (road widening, up to 10m, Huatoki Street) because submissions have been received on these. Noting that these are discussed in more detail later in this section, effects on landowners could include: changes to property access; changes to front yard layout; and removal of garages, fences, trees and gardens.

Alternative sites, routes or methods

Due to the nature of the designations, I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary. Adverse effects on the environment are expected to be less than minor.

Some commentary is provided below regarding alternative options suggested by submitters in respect to NPDC-40 and NPDC-122.

Designation or work is considered reasonably necessary

Conditions

No conditions are sought and I do not recommend conditions given the nature of the designations. The outline plan process allows for the consideration of future effects for any additional works proposed within the designations.

Lapse date

Like the ten year lapse date it is seeking for designations it is rolling over (described in the previous section), NPDC is also seeking a ten year lapse date for its new designations. Again, I consider a ten year lapse date to be appropriate.

Submissions

It is inefficient to analyse each submission in detail because many submitters refer to the same matters. Instead these matters are described at a high level below and generally consist of process and procedural matters, or common matters.

Below these high level matters are headings relating to specific designations where matters are discussed in more detail. The high level matters should be read in conjunction with the matters relating to specific designations.

Process and procedural matters raised by submitters

Several submitters queried how the designation process works.

The Ministry for the Environment provides detail on the process in its publication called “Everyday guide to the Resource Management Act: The designation process”:

https://environment.govt.nz/assets/Publications/Files/2.3-the- designation-process.pdf

The Council has a webpage called “Designations” that outlines the requiring authorities that have made applications for designations by lodging notices of requirement to the Council for inclusion in the PDP:

https://www.newplymouthnz.com/Council/Council-Documents/Plans-and- Strategies/District-Plan/Proposed-District-Plan/Designations

Some submitters queried when NPDC would take land. I have been advised by the Transport Team at NPDC that if landowners want to sell their land, NPDC will begin discussing the purchasing of the land with the landowner immediately. Where there are specific projects, that budget is typically secured through the Council’s Long Term Plan, giving an indication to the timing of the works. Otherwise, NPDC will generally wait until the land is redeveloped or subdivided before entering into negotiations with landowners. For example, if a landowner lodges a building and/or resource consent, there will be a discussion about NPDC purchasing their land. NPDC prefers to acquire the land this way rather than compulsorily acquiring it under the Public Works Act 1981. Compulsory acquisition may occur if a project is deemed to be a high priority and there are no alternatives.

Some submitters queried what happens if a designation covers part of a building on their property. NPDC will work with landowners to minimise the impact on them and will take a reasonable approach, i.e. if a part of a building needs to be removed or residents are no longer able to walk around their property, NPDC will consider purchasing the entire property.

Some submitters queried when NPDC would physically make changes to the land. This is done on a case by case basis. Once NPDC owns the designated land then changes will be made as and when required to give

effect to the designated works, e.g. this can occur reasonably quickly if only one landowner is affected and the works are urgent. However, it may take longer if a designation covers multiple properties, e.g. if five out of six landowners affected by a road widening designation have sold their land to NPDC but the works can’t proceed until the final landowner sells or redevelops.

Some submitters queried what they can do on their land once NPDC has purchased it, while they wait for the work to be undertaken. According to the Transport Team at NPDC, it is likely NPDC will grant an encroachment licence allowing landowners to continue to use the land in a way that will not jeopardise the designation, e.g. lawn mowing, gardening, etc. but preventing landowners from using the land in a way that will jeopardise the designation, e.g. erection of a garage, extension to a house.

Some submitters queried who has responsibility for what when NPDC physically makes changes to the land. This is assessed on a case by case basis. It is likely NPDC will cover the cost to erect a fence, construct a footpath, lay grass, and construct kerb and channelling and any vehicle crossings required. However, structures like retaining walls may need to be negotiated between NPDC and the landowner.

Common matters raised by submitters

Several submitters said that the designation will affect their private property rights, land values and resale values. Some mentioned the emotional and sentimental connection they have with their properties and gave specific examples of how the designation would affect them if implemented, e.g. it is where pets are buried, it is where children play on their swing and treehouse, and it is where their garden is located. Some said that the designation would negatively impact on the development potential of their properties. Other submitters pointed out that they have already invested time and money into their properties, and the designation could impact on their future investment/development possibilities.

If a landowner wants to sell their land, NPDC commissions an independent valuation completed by a registered valuer and advises the landowner of the result. There may be a negotiation period until an agreement is reached on the purchase price. The purchase price is based on the market value of the land that the designation covers. The land is typically valued on a “before and after” basis taking into account not only the loss of the land but also any effect the loss has on the balance of the property left, e.g. if the house is now closer to the road with increased noise, etc.

Many submitters mentioned the adverse effects that would arise if roads on which their properties are located were widened. These effects include an increase in noise, smoke, traffic generation (including heavy vehicles) and vibration, plus a loss of security, privacy and off-street parking facilities. Depending on the location of the designation under submission, some submitters said that road widening will make an already busy street busier, it will affect functionality and more traffic will create greater congestion around schools. Some submitters outlined adverse effects on

their physical health such as sleep deprivation and an increased risk of cancer.

A handful of submitters stated that there would be a loss of amenity and character if roads on which their properties are located were widened. Submitters to NPDC-40 (Record Street, road widening, up to 6m) said that it is an old street with front fences dating back to the 1920s, retaining walls, large trees, green spaces and generations of birds nesting in the same trees.

A handful of submitters stated that they would have accessibility and manoeuvrability issues if roads on which their properties are located were widened. Examples of these issues include the removal of vehicular and pedestrian access due to the elevation of the property, having little to no room to park as garages would have to be removed and the loss of on-site vehicular manoeuvrability.

NPDC-29 (road widening, up to 3m, Hobson Street)

Overview

RJ & SA Investments Limited (190.1) own a building built up to the road boundary with a road widening strip and corner splay designation on part of it. The building is leased to commercial tenants. They oppose inclusion of NPDC-29 in the PDP because part of their commercial property would be demolished and no longer fit for tenancy. They have legal obligations to their tenants and query if compensation or purchasing of the property would cover or remunerate their lease obligations.

Any valuation of the land will take into account the submitter’s commercial lease obligations. NPDC will also take into account the submitter’s commercial lease obligations when negotiating a purchase price with the landowner. Some potential outcomes could include NPDC purchasing the land but entering into an agreement with the submitter whereby the tenants continue to occupy the building until their lease expires or NPDC is ready to do the works. Another potential outcome could be NPDC purchasing the entire property meaning the submitter will need to rent or purchase another building for their tenants.

Officer recommendation

I have discussed the need for this designation with the Transport Team at NPDC. This intersection has been targeted as needing safety improvements by Waka Kotahi as part of their “Road to Zero 2020-2030” road safety strategy. This strategy aims to achieve Vision Zero, where no one in New Zealand is killed or seriously injured on our nation’s roads.

Construction on this intersection is due to commence in 2023/2024 but design concepts have not yet been developed. It is possible that this designation may not be needed but this cannot be confirmed until the design concepts are finalised. If the designation is not needed the designation will be withdrawn. In the meantime, I consider it necessary

to retain NPDC-29 in the PDP in case the land affected by the designation is needed.

NPDC-40 (road widening, up to 6m, Record Street)

Overview

The following submitters all oppose inclusion of NPDC-40 in the PDP: Sandra Pentelow-Hunger (104.2, 130.1), Ann Easter (193.1), Maurice Edwards (197.1), Terri Edwards (205.1), Paul Allan Catchpole (186.2), Ron Lambert (261.1), Wendy Randall (263.1), Ben Naughton (352.1), Fitzroy Community Group (537.1), Ben Naughton (FS 155.1, FS 155.2, FS 155.4, FS 155.5, FS 155.6, FS 155.7, FS 155.8, FS 155.9, FS 155.10, FS 155.11 and FS 155.13) and Paul Allan Catchpole (FS 12.2, FS 12.3, FS 12.4, FS 12.5, FS 12.6, FS 12.7, FS 12.8, FS 12.9 and FS 12.10).

A resource consent application was granted by the Council for a 14 lot subdivision at 53 Record Street in 2018. The land is zoned Residential A in the ODP and General Residential Zone in the PDP, but had been used for community open space purposes for many years. Development of the site is underway, including a formed road and construction of houses. This subdivision is entered from Record Street and is in close proximity to NPDC- 40.

Many submitters are of the opinion that the road widening designation was included in the PDP to accommodate the subdivision. The road widening was not required to accommodate the subdivision – it is a longstanding designation and has been in the District Plan since 1987. However, because it had not been given effect to since its inclusion in the ODP, it has been treated as having lapsed. This matter is discussed further below.

Many submitters raised issues with how the resource consent for the subdivision was processed. A subdivision has its own reporting mechanism under the RMA and so do designations. The purpose of this report is for me to recommend whether or not to include designations in the PDP, not to address matters regarding the processing of past resource consents. Therefore I recommend that submitters refer to the following resources for information about the resource consent process and subdivision:

Everyday Guide to the Resource Management Act: Applying for a resource consent (Ministry for the Environment)

https://environment.govt.nz/assets/Publications/Files/2.1-applying-for-a- resource-consent_0.pdf

Introduction to Subdivision (Quality Planning)

https://qualityplanning.org.nz/node/771

Many submitters have raised concerns about the impact of the subdivision on the transportation network, stormwater, green space, lighting and existing services. Again, the purpose of this report is to recommend

whether to confirm designations in the PDP or not, not to address matters regarding the processing of past resource consents.

Status of designation

Fitzroy Community Group (537.1) submitted that they are unclear whether the designation has lapsed or is new.

Unless otherwise stated in a district plan, a requiring authority has five years from the date a designation is included in a district plan to give effect to it. Many of NPDC’s road widening designations in the PDP (notified in 2019) are included in the ODP (operative in 2005). Due to the future focus of these designations many were not given effect to by 2010, i.e. five years from the date they were included in the district plan, and so have been deemed to have “lapsed.” Under the RMA they need to be treated as “new” designations to be included in the PDP and a notice of requirement is required.

NPDC-40 is included in the ODP using the designation unique identifier “L73”. The labelling of this designation has changed from L73 to NPDC-40 because the National Planning Standards (released in 2019) state that councils must use requiring authority unique identifiers in capital letters, i.e. NPDC, followed by a sequential number, i.e. 40.

L73 is one of NPDC’s road widening designations in the ODP that has not been given effect to and has been classed as a “new” designation in the PDP. Whilst it is classed a “new” designation, it has been NPDC’s intention to widen part of Record Street since the City of New Plymouth District Scheme was produced in 1987. A copy of the planning map from this scheme is shown in Figure 2 below:

Figure 2: Designation shown on City of New Plymouth District Scheme 1987

On the Designations page on the Council’s website, notices of requirement for all of NPDC’s road widening designations have been split into these categories: Road Widening (Corner Splays) 1, Road Widening (Corner

Splays) 2, Road Widening (Corner Splays) 3, Road Widening (New) and Road Widening (Lapsed). They have been split into these categories due to the volume of designations. Here is a link to the notice of requirement for lapsed road widenings:

https://www.newplymouthnz.com/- /media/NPDC/Documents/Council/Council%20Documents/Plans%20and %20Strategies/District%20Plan/Proposed%20District%20Plan/Road%20 Widening%20Lapsed.ashx

In this instance NPDC-40 is classed as “lapsed” but the legal record is the NPDC Designations Chapter in the PDP which states it is “new,” as shown in Figure 3 below:

Figure 3: Attributes for NPDC-40 in PDP

Metres stated in designation purpose

Terri Edwards (205.1) and Ron Lambert (261.1) raised the difference between the ODP and the PDP in terms of the number of metres stated in the designation purpose for NPDC-40, i.e. the width of land to be taken.

In the ODP it states “Record Street – 4m on east side from Clemow Road from property number 57-69” whereas in the PDP it states “Road widening (up to 6m).” Maps showing the ODP versus the PDP are shown in Figure 4 below:

Figure 4: Comparison of ODP versus PDP for NPDC-40

No changes have been proposed to designation boundaries in the PDP, i.e. the blue boundaries on the planning maps, from those shown in the ODP. The exception being where designations have been “given effect to” in part. Those parts no longer required have been removed from the planning maps and effectively the designation area has been reduced. In the case of NPDC-40 above, there is no change to the blue boundary.

It was intended that the designation purpose for road widenings in the PDP contain one succinct measurement as opposed to multiple measurements to cover instances where both a road widening strip and a corner splay designation existed. However, errors have been made in formulating this measurement and as a result it appears that NPDC is now seeking a road widening strip of 6m instead of 4m when in fact NPDC is still only seeking 4m.

I acknowledge these errors have caused unnecessary distress for some landowners and I recommend that the measurement for NPDC-40 be corrected so that the designation purpose states “Road widening strip up to 4m and corner splays up to 4m X 4m at intersections.”

Even though the submissions on this matter relate specifically to NPDC-40, I consider it appropriate to recommend that the measurements for all road widening designations be amended as consequential amendments under Clause 10(2)(b) of Part 1 Schedule of the RMA.

These errors are across the board, not just for NPDC-40, so I consider that all measurements in all designation purposes for all road widenings should be amended.

I have reviewed all of the designation purposes for NPDC’s road widenings and I have recommended changes to the way they are described with newly inserted or updated measurements as follows:

• Where there is both a road widening strip and a corner splay, instead of using just “road widening” I recommend that “road widening strip” and “corner splay” be used. I also recommend that there are measurements included for the road widening strip and the corner splay rather than just one overall measurement. • Where there is just a corner splay, instead of using “road widening (corner splay)” I recommend that just “corner splay” be used so as not to cause confusion with a road widening strip. I also recommended that measurements be included for the corner splay. No measurements were included for corner splays in the PDP.

In no instance are the amended measurements greater than those stated in the Designations Chapter. In no instance are the newly inserted measurements greater than the boundary shown on the planning maps.

The review also revealed that three corner splay designations (NPDC-132 on Colson Road, NPDC-133 on Dorset Road and NPDC-162 on Standish Street) were incorrectly mapped as 6m X 6m when they should have been mapped as 3m X 3m. I recommend amendments accordingly.

The review also revealed that two designations (NPDC-121 on Hori Street and NPDC-138 on Bell Block Court) were incorrectly described in the designation purpose as corner splays not road widening strips. I recommend amendments accordingly.

The review also revealed that one designation (NPDC-37) incorrectly had “(up to 4m)” included in the site identifier when this should have been in the designation purpose. I recommend amendments accordingly.

Building line restrictions

Paul Allan Catchpole (186.2), Maurice Edwards (197.1) and Ron Lambert (261.1) queried the purpose of a designation given they have building line restrictions on their properties.

I have been advised by the Planning Consents Team at the Council that building line restrictions were imposed under the Public Works Act 1981. Historically they were placed on a certificate of title at the time of subdivision where the road was less than 20m wide. They specified that buildings were not allowed to be located within a certain distance from the centreline of the road or the road boundary. It was a popular subdivision tool at the time but it is no longer common practice.

Nowadays councils generally use a designation or a consent notice on a subdivision under the RMA to impose such restrictions. Building line restrictions can only be removed under the Local Government Act and the Council can do this for a fee if requested by a landowner. However, the Council usually addresses this matter at the time a landowner undertakes subdivision or development if a designation is identified on the property. Generally a designation takes precedence over a building line restriction because the designation also authorises the works and that is also NPDC’s preference (rather than simply relying on any building line restrictions in place).

Alternative options

Several submitters queried if NPDC had considered options other than widening the road. The options suggested are widespread and varied and are summarised below:

• Widen Record Street on both the western and eastern sides instead of just on the eastern side; • Put any cycleway on the western side of Record Street given that Clemow Road from Devon Street East to Record Street is only one way in an easterly direction; • Put any cycleway down Newton Street from Sackville and Barriball Streets where there is ready access to the Coastal Walkway; • Put any cycleway down Sackville Street because it is wide and connects with Devon Street East; • Make Record Street between Clemow Road and Princes Street a one way in a northerly direction;

• Impose lower speed limits in the wider area; • Move the already limited parking on Record Street between Clemow Road and Princes Street around the corner to the extra wide Princes Street with diagonal or right angled parking on one side of Princes Street; • Prevent parking on the western side of Record Street from the roundabout and create diagonal parking on Princes Street; • Paint yellow lines to: prevent parking on the western side of Record Street; prevent parking on the western and eastern side of Record Street; and prevent parking at the corners of Record Street and Princes Street; • Install street calming measures such as speed humps and chicanes; • Cut parking spaces into the grass verge; • Add a roundabout at the new access road into the subdivision at 53 Record Street; and • Remove the netball courts.

I have been advised by the Transport Team at NPDC that it is intended that NPDC-40 is used for a shared pathway on the eastern side of Record Street only and that Record Street provides a direct connection with Raiomiti Street. The shared pathway on Record Street is one of several shared pathways planned in the wider area which will include provision for cyclists. The plans for the wider area are discussed further below.

It is likely that making Record Street between Clemow Road and Princes Street a one way in a northerly direction would be detrimental to the connectivity of the transportation network, particularly in respect to Fitzroy School and Fitzroy Golf Course.

Consultation on a regional speed review is currently underway and depending on feedback changes could be made by the end of 2021.

Alternative locations for parking, yellow lines and street calming measures could be considered as part of planned improvements in the wider area, including through Record Street.

Cutting parking spaces into the grass verge means that motor vehicles will have a wider road on which to drive compared with if parking spaces were provided on the road. This can create a perception that the road is wider than what it actually is and drivers are likely to drive faster. This goes against the shared pathway philosophy, which promotes multi-modal transport not just motor vehicle transport.

A roundabout at the new access road into the subdivision at 53 Record Street is not required from a road function perspective because the subdivision is a small cul-de-sac with low traffic volume. The current intersection treatment is sufficient for a subdivision of this scale.

Removal of the netball courts is a separate matter to this designation.

Officer recommendation

I have discussed the need for this designation with the Transport Team at NPDC.

It is intended that NPDC-40 is used for a shared pathway on the eastern side of Record Street only. A shared pathway enables multiple users to get around on foot, bicycle, scooter, skateboard and with mobility devices. It is not intended for use by motor vehicles.

NPDC-40 is one of several improvements planned in the wider Fitzroy area. It is intended that the roundabout where Record Street, Clemow Road, Raiomiti Street and Normanby Street intersect is the central pivot point for several multi-modal routes. A list of the improvements and the years they are proposed for implementation in the Long Term Plan are as follows:

• A shared pathway from the Fitzroy shops to the roundabout (2024/25 to 2025/26); • A shared pathway from the roundabout, down Raiomiti Street, across a new pedestrian bridge over the Waiwhakaiho River and into The Valley (2021/22 to 2022/23); • A shared pathway from the roundabout, along Record Street to the Fitzroy golf course and north west down to the Coastal Walkway (2025/26 to 2026/27); and • Traffic calming measures along Clemow Road from the roundabout out to Lake Rotomanu (2024/25 to 2025/26).

NPDC-40 will not result in the widening of the physical road on Record Street. Rather it will result in the current kerbing remaining as it is but with a 3m wide shared pathway added. It will be not be used by motor vehicles. In my view, the submissions received do not provide any valid grounds to reject NPDC-40.

Therefore I am of the opinion that NPDC-40 should be included in the PDP.

NPDC-122 (road widening, up to 10m, Huatoki Street)

Overview

The following submitters all oppose inclusion of NPDC-122 in the PDP: Cassandra Scott (4.1), Stuart Christiansen (7.1), Janice Mace (86.1), Janice Mace on behalf of Lyn Hooper (120.1) and Kathryn Scown on behalf of Noel Horton (351.1).

Janice Mace considers that if the road widening designation goes ahead it will take away the front part of her property and devalue her asset. She considers it will destroy the equity she has built up in her house, compromise her living and sleeping areas, remove off street parking and a garage, and result in increased traffic volumes and noise levels. Janice Mace outlined the physical health effects of the designation and provided links to information on the following matters: noise pollution impacting on

quality of life, seismic activity caused by large and heavy trucks, the impact of sleep deprivation, and physical health impacts and stress.

Cassandra Scott, Stuart Christiansen and Kathryn Scown on behalf of Noel Horton also submitted that the designation will affect their land values and resale values and raised similar issues to Janice Mace. Kathryn Scown on behalf of Noel Horton also considers that his land is elevated and if the front land is taken both vehicle and pedestrian access would be affected (removed entirely) with no obvious, or cost effective, practical solution.

Janice Mace on behalf of Lyn Hooper raised safety concerns because the widened road would be close to her kitchen, bathroom and a bedroom. She does not want to shift if the road gets widened.

Cassandra Scott and Stuart Christiansen refer to statistics supplied by the Council stating that there have been less than 20 crashes within 60m of the bridge in the last 39 years which works out to be less than 0.5 crashes a year.

Alternative options

Cassandra Scott and Stuart Christiansen consider that NPDC should create a roundabout because there is already enough land to do this at the bottom of the dip on the Brois Street side of the bridge.

Stuart Christiansen is also of the opinion that NPDC should create a wider bridge because there is already enough NPDC and reserve land to do this and it should make it a three lane bridge with a lane for continuing traffic each way and a left hand turning bay to allow for vehicles to continue safely up Huatoki Street. He also states that NPDC should just fix or repair the existing bridge.

Janice Mace is of the opinion that Huatoki Street is a “short cut road” and that NPDC is not focusing on the real problem. She considers that the width of the road on the Brois Street side of the bridge is disproportionately wide compared to the narrow part of Huatoki Street up the top of the hill from numbers 40 to 62 directly down from Vogeltown School.

Officer recommendation

I have discussed the need for this designation with the Transport Team at NPDC.

Huatoki Street is identified in the PDP as an arterial road. An arterial road is a road that has a significant role in the function of the regional or local economy, having its access standards determined principally on its function and traffic volumes. An arterial road is second after a state highway on the district’s roading hierarchy. It is followed in the roading hierarchy by a collector road, a local road and a pathway connection.

Huatoki Street currently plays a critical role in the traffic distribution network by moving traffic from east to west and vice versa across the back of the city instead of forcing traffic into the city centre. It will continue to

play a critical role as the district’s population increases and people take up residence in these areas identified in the PDP: the Special Purpose Zone: Future Urban Zone between Cowling Road and Frankley Road; the Patterson Structure Plan Development Area on Patterson Road; and the Rural Lifestyle Zone areas on Frankley Road, Veale Road and Saxton Road.

The existing bridge is in poor condition but it will last a long time. The designation is needed to build a new bridge, similar to the one that exists on Cumberland Street. It is intended that the new bridge will be built to the north of the existing one while the existing one is still being used. This will ensure that Huatoki Street can be kept open to traffic while construction occurs.

The width of the designation shown on the planning maps is needed to ensure there is a straight road alignment when travelling down Brois Street and up Huatoki Street to where it intersects with Camden Street. It is also needed for a new T intersection to replace the current Y intersection where Huatoki Street intersects with Brois Street.

The width of the road, and therefore the width of the bridge, is informed by:

• Guides produced by Austroads which cover the design, construction, maintenance and operation of the road network in Australia and New Zealand; and • The Council’s Land Development and Subdivision Infrastructure Standard Local Amendments Version 3, which is based on New Zealand Standards 4404:2010 and was adopted by the Council on 13 August 2019.

To determine the width for the designation, the Transport Team at NPDC considers that a higher volume road than an E13 road is appropriate (see page 63 of the Council’s Land Development and Subdivision Infrastructure Standard Local Amendments Version 3):

https://www.newplymouthnz.com/- /media/NPDC/Documents/Council/Council%20Documents/Plans%20and %20Strategies/Plans%20and%20Strategies%20Infrastructure%20and% 20development%20standard%20local%20amendments%20document.as hx

This translates to the following widths: a 6.6-7.0m vehicle lane, a 2.0m cycle lane each side and a 1.8m footpath on each side. Slightly more road reserve width will also be needed to allow room for construction, maintenance, clip on services (like sewer mains), etc.

The alternative options put forward by some of the submitters and the reference to there being few crashes within 60m of the bridge in the last 39 years do not address the key issue at hand – that the bridge is in poor condition. To ensure that it is up to modern day standards, it needs to be of a certain width. It is possible that over time the need for the designation will move from being an “end of asset life” issue to a “capacity” issue,

particularly as the geographical areas described earlier are developed and the population increases.

Essentially the Transport Team at NPDC is trying to protect the route for the future but until construction starts there are various options available to landowners.

Therefore I am of the opinion that NPDC-122 should be included in the PDP.

5.9.10 Submissions received seeking new designations

10 Solway Terrace, Bell Block

Overview

In its submission, the Council (582.65) has requested that a road widening designation of approximately 10m be placed on 10 Solway Terrace, Bell Block (Lot 2 DP 6401) to formalise the existing road network. An aerial photograph with the affected property is shown in Figure 5 below:

Figure 5: Aerial photograph of 10 Solway Terrace, Bell Block

Officer recommendation

The addition of a new designation through a submission is not something that can be addressed as part of the PDP process. If the Transport Team at NPDC wishes to pursue this, a notice of requirement needs to be served on the Council under s168A of the RMA. The Council would then have to publicly notify the notice of requirement and call for submissions (including formally notifying the affected landowner), hold a hearing if requested, release a decision and allow for any appeals before confirming if the designation is or is not included. This process would need to be done in isolation from the PDP process that is currently occurring. Therefore I am of the opinion that this request submission should be rejected.

23 Carrington Street and 84 Liardet Street, New Plymouth

Overview

In their submission, Top of the World Limited (540.1) has requested that a road widening designation be added on 23 Carrington Street and 84 Liardet Street. The submitter has a proposed development at 25a Carrington Street with vehicle access onto Carrington Street that has limited sight visibility for vehicles leaving and approaching the site (south bound). The designation will provide a compliant 90m of sight visibility and it will provide a safe long term outcome for future owners and occupiers of apartments at 25a Carrington Street. The submitter considers that the development is consistent with the strategic direction set out in strategic objectives UFD-13 and UFD-14.

Since the submission was made, resource consent for this development has been granted. However, it is based on several conditions, including the conditions shown in Figure 6 below which directly relate to the submitter’s request:

Figure 6: Extracts from Resource Consent SUB18/47188

Officer recommendation

The addition of a new designation though a submission is not something that can be addressed as part of the PDP process. If the Transport Team at NPDC wishes to pursue this on the submitter’s behalf, a notice of requirement needs to be served on the Council under s168A of the RMA. The Council would then have to publicly notify the notice of requirement and call for submissions (including formally notifying the affected landowner), hold a hearing if requested, release a decision and allow for any appeals before confirming if the designation is or is not included. This process would need to be done in isolation from the PDP process that is currently occurring.

I have discussed this matter with the Transport Team at NPDC. They have advised that NPDC does not require the designation for roading purposes.

Therefore I recommend that this submission be rejected.

5.9.11 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that NPDC-18, NPDC-20, NPDC-36 and NPDC-49 (rollover designations) be modified by amending the designation purpose as contained in Appendix 4 – Recommended Amendments to Designations Chapter to this report.

I recommend that NPDC-17, NPDC-19, NPDC-21, NPDC-24, NPDC-28, NPDC-29, NPDC-30, NPDC-34, NPDC-35, NPDC-37, NPDC-39, NPDC-40, NPDC-47, NPDC-120, NPDC-121, NPDC-122, NPDC-124, NPDC-126, NPDC- 128, NPDC-129, NPDC-132, NPDC-133, NPDC-134, NPDC-135, NPDC-138, NPDC-147, NPDC-162 and NPDC-163 (new designations) be modified by amending the designation purpose and that NPDC-37 be modified by amending the site identifier as contained in Appendix 4 – Recommended Amendments to Designations Chapter to this report.

I recommend that NPDC-132, NPDC-133 and NPDC-162 (new designations, all corner splays) be modified by reducing their size as contained in Appendix 5 – Recommended Amendments to Planning Maps to this report.

I recommend that NPDC-24, NPDC-29, NPDC-36 and NPDC-39 (affected by partial withdrawals) be modified as consequential amendments by amending the boundary as contained in Appendix 5 – Recommended Amendments to Planning Maps to this report.

I recommend that submission points 4.1, 7.1, 86.1, 104.2, 120.1, 130.1, 186.2, 190.1, 193.1, 197.1, 205.1, 261.1, 263.1, 351.1, 352.1, 537.1, 540.1, 582.65, FS 12.2, FS 12.3, FS 12.4, FS 12.5, FS 12.6, FS 12.7, FS 12.8, FS 12.9, FS 12.10, FS 155.1, FS 155.2, FS 155.4, FS 155.5, FS 155.6, FS 155.7, FS 155.8, FS 155.9, FS 155.10, FS 155.11 and FS 155.13 be rejected.

Service Lanes

5.9.12 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on NPDC’s service lane designations or notices of requirement.

5.9.13 Discussion and Evaluation

Notice of Requirement for NPDC-8 (new designation)

Nature of the public work

NPDC requested a new designation for an existing service lane within a commercial area on Gill Street (south side between Eliot and Hobson Streets). Designation of this service lane will enable NPDC to ensure appropriate access to properties will be provided and to ensure the safe and efficient movement of vehicles within these sites. This is a lapsed

designation requiring a new designation. An outline plan of works for future upgrades would be submitted as and when required.

Environmental effects

The site is on land zoned as Business B Environment Area in the ODP and Mixed Use Zone in the PDP. In terms of adverse effects, all land which is proposed to be designated is currently in use as a service lane/parking area. As a result the designation will not impact on the character or amenity of the area as there will be no change to the existing use of the site. Any works outside the scope of the designation would require resource consent. In light of this, I consider the potential adverse effects are less than minor.

Alternative sites, routes or methods

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the site relates to an existing service lane that is yet to be fully acquired by Council. Adverse effects on the environment are expected to be less than minor.

Designation or work is considered reasonably necessary

I consider the designation necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority, in that it secures the service lane should the sites around it be redeveloped in the future. The service lane is predominantly in private ownership. Inclusion of the designation would provide long term security of the service lane ensuring adequate and safe access and servicing of the surrounding commercial activities is maintained.

Conditions

No conditions are sought and I do not recommend any conditions as the activity presently exists, and the outline plan process allows for the consideration of future effects for any additional works proposed within the designation.

Notice of Requirement for NPDC-62 (rollover designation)

NPDC requested the rollover of one designation with minor corrections.

It was requested that the designation purpose be changed from “Service lane” to Road widening” and the site identifier from “Cutfield Street, Inglewood” to “Cutfield Street.” However, it appears there was an inputting error and the designation purpose should be “Service lane.” In addition, to be consistent with other service lane designations I consider that the site identifier should be “Cutfield Street Service Lane” not “Cutfield Street.”

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the designation and facilities are already in existence and the designation is not changing in boundary or extent.

I consider the designation necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority in respect of providing certainty for the on-going security and resilience of the telecommunication facilities, and to provide for the flexibility of the networks to adapt to changing technologies and community expectations.

5.9.14 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that NPDC-8 be confirmed.

I recommend that NPDC-62 be modified by amending the designation purpose from “Road widening” to “Service lane” and the site identifier from “Cutfield Street” to “Cutfield Street Service Lane.”

Sewer Pump Stations on NPDC Land

5.9.15 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on NPDC’s sewer pump station notices of requirement.

5.9.16 Discussion and Evaluation

Nature of public work

NPDC requested 22 new designations for land which contains existing sewer pump station infrastructure. The purpose of the designations is to provide for the long term protection of this existing infrastructure and to increase its visibility within the district plan.

New Plymouth urban sewer pump stations NPDC-73, NPDC-77 and NPDC-81 to NPDC-90

NPDC-73 (Mangati Sewer Pump Station) was established in 2018 and is located on land zoned Open Space in the ODP and the PDP. In terms of visual effects, it is visible from the Mangati Walkway, but has landscaping on the eastern and western boundaries so it is not visible from the public road and is well screened from adjoining residential dwellings. In terms of noise effects, the site contains a generator which is utilised during powercuts and it is tested once a month. In terms of traffic effects, maintenance vehicles visit the site once every six months.

NPDC-77 (Te Henui Sewer Pump Station and Biofilter) was established in 1982 and is located on land zoned Open Space in the ODP and the PDP. It includes an above ground building containing a dry and wet well. A container houses the emergency generator which is tested once a month. A biofilter is located to the west (seaward) of the site and extends approximately 300m outside of the proposed designated area. In terms of visual effects, the buildings form part of the existing environment and are of a similar scale to adjacent recreational buildings. In terms of noise effects, the sewer pump station is located close to the East End car park, which is a significant distance from the coastal boundary, and does not generate unreasonable noise beyond the boundary of the proposed designated site. In terms of traffic and parking effects, a maintenance vehicle visits the site approximately once a month.

NPDC-81 to NPDC-90 are located in urban areas. NPDC-81 is zoned Residential in the ODP and the PDP. NPDC-82, NPDC-84, NPDC-87, NPDC- 88, NPDC-89 and NPDC-90 are zoned Open Space in the ODP and the PDP. NPDC-85 is zoned Business B Environment Area in the ODP and Mixed Use Zone in the PDP. Two sites are located in the legal road reserve (NPDC- 83 and NPDC-86). In terms of visual effects, they are small scale and contain a wet well, a value chamber and an above ground control panel. In some cases the concrete lid of the wet well may be visible above ground (NPDC-82, NPDC-87, NPDC-90) and in two sites the control panel is housed in a small building (NPDC-85 and NPDC-89). As they are existing structures they form part of the existing environment. In terms of noise effects, the sewer pump stations do not generate unreasonable noise effects beyond the boundary of the proposed designated sites. In terms of traffic and parking effects, vehicle movements to all of these sites (which do not contain generators) is limited to maintenance vehicles and occur approximately once every six months.

Waitara and Inglewood sewer pump stations (NPDC-91, NPDC-93, NPDC-94, NPDC- 95, NPDC- 97 and NPDC-145)

NPDC-91, NPDC-93, NPDC-94, NPDC-95, NPDC-97 and NPDC-145 are located with the urban areas of Waitara and Inglewood. NPDC-91 and NPDC-94 are located in the road reserve and NPDC-93, NPDC-95 and NPDC-97 are located on land zoned Residential in the ODP and the PDP. In terms of visual effects, the sewer pump stations are all of a small scale and consist of a wet well, a valve chamber and a control panel. All control panels are visible above the ground. In the case of NPDC-91, NPDC-94, NPDC-95 and NPDC-97, the top of the wet well and valve chamber are also visible above the ground. As they are existing structures they form part of the existing environment. In terms of noise effects, the sewer pump stations do not generate unreasonable noise effects beyond the boundary of the proposed designated sites. In terms of traffic and parking effects, vehicle movements to all of these sites (which do not contain generators) is limited to maintenance vehicles and occur approximately once every six months.

Onaero Sewer Pump Station (NPDC-98)

The sewer pump station is located within the Onaero Domain and Motor Camp and was established in 1980. It is located on land which is zoned Rural in the ODP and the PDP. In terms of visual effects, it consists of a wet well, a valve chamber and a control panel. It is an existing structure and forms part of the existing environment. In terms of noise effects, the sewer pump station does not generate unreasonable noise effects beyond the boundary of the proposed designated site. In terms of traffic and parking effects, vehicle movements to this site (which does not contain a generator) is limited to maintenance vehicles with visits occurring approximately once every six months.

Oakura Sewer Pump Station and Pump Station Outfall (NPDC-139 and NPDC-143)

Oakura transitioned from septic tanks to reticulated sewage, where the sewage is pumped from Oakura to the waste water treatment station in New Plymouth, in 2010. Both NPDC-139 (Shearer Reserve Sewer Pump Station) and NPDC-143 (The Key Sewer Pump Station) were established in 2009. NPDC-139 is located on land zoned Open Space in the ODP and the PDP and contains a building located on top of an underground circular tank with a volume of 500m3. Screens are contained within the building. A value chamber is located within the south-eastern portion of the site. NPDC-143 is located on land zoned Residential in the ODP and the PDP and contains a wet well, a valve chamber and a control panel, which is predominantly underground.

In terms of visual effects, NPDC-139 is larger in scale than NPDC-143 but it is set well back from the playground contained in the surrounding Shearer Reserve. Mature vegetation also provides a high degree of screening for the adjoining houses on Lower Wairau Road. The visual effects of NPDC-143 are minimal because the infrastructure is located underground, with the exception of the control panel which is above ground but small in size. In terms of noise effects, both sewage pump stations do not generate unreasonable noise effects beyond the boundary of the proposed designated sites. In terms of traffic and parking effects, vehicle movements to NPDC-139 and NPDC-143 are limited to maintenance vehicles which occurs approximately twice a week and approximately once every six months respectively.

Waitara Sewer Outfall Pump Station (NPDC-144)

The Waitara Sewer Outfall Pump Station is an integral part of the Waitara sewer system. This pump station only operates in emergency situations. It is connected to the Waitara Sewer Pump Station (NPDC-79). If the Waitara Sewer Pump Station fails then the Waitara Sewer Outfall Pump Station will pump wastewater out to sea. The site is located on land zoned Open Space B Environment Area in the ODP and within overlays H2c (Flood Plain), H3 (Volcanic) and the Coastal Policy Area. The site is located on land zoned Open Space Zone in the PDP. In addition, the site is located within an existing Designation (L1), which is for the purpose of Coastal Esplanade. As a result of the Waitara Lands Act and subsequent

declaration under the Public Works Act 1981, the subject land has become part of the legal road reserve.

The site was constructed in 1977 and consists of a building with an area of approximately 175m² containing three large pumps which enable discharge offshore in an emergency situation. A smaller pump is also located within the building which pumps wastewater back into the reticulated system. In terms of visual effects, the pump station already exists and I consider it forms part of the existing environment. In terms of noise effects, as the pump station only operates in emergencies, noise is generated infrequently and does not result in adverse effects beyond the boundaries of the proposed designated site or in excess of the permitted noise standards in the district plan. In terms of traffic and parking effects, no changes are proposed to the existing parking and access arrangement.

I note there is a procedural issue that arises with respect to NPDC-144. NPDC-144 is shown on the planning maps and is listed in the NPDC Designations Chapter. However, the notice of requirement document for this designation was inadvertently omitted from the notices of requirement that were included on the Designations page on the Council’s website when the PDP was notified.

As noted above, NPDC-144 is depicted on the designated land on the planning maps and it is listed in the Designations Chapter, where the site identified is described as Waitara Sewer Outfall Pump Station and the proposed works are also described in the designation purpose. The sewer outfall pump station already exists and the land on which it is located is owned by NPDC, together with the surrounding reserve land. There are no consents needed for the pump station and given that the pump station is existing infrastructure, no alternative sites are considered appropriate. Given this, I don’t consider the omission of a link on the website to the notice of requirement document is material. I therefore recommend that NPDC-144 be confirmed in the PDP. I also consider that the Designations page of the Council’s website should be corrected to include a link to the notice of requirement document. I note the Designations page does not form part of the PDP. However, if there is any concern that persons affected may have submitted on the notice of requirement had the notice been included on the website, the Hearings Panel may wish to consider whether re-notification of the notice of requirement is appropriate.

Summary of environmental effects for all sites

In terms of adverse effects, there are no immediate works proposed to be carried out on any of the sites described above as part of the notices of requirement. The noise generated from all sites listed above (designations NPDC-73, NPDC-77, NPDC-81, NPDC-82, NPDC-83, NPDC-84, NPDC-85, NPDC-86, NPDC-87, NPDC-88, NPDC-89, NPDC-90, NPDC-91, NPDC-93, NPDC-94, NPDC-95, NPDC-97, NPDC-98, NPDC-139, NPDC-143, NPDC-144 and NPDC-145) does not generate unreasonable noise beyond the boundary of the proposed designation areas. As the infrastructure already exists the designation of the sites will not result in an increase in noise, visual amenity effects or traffic from the sites. Any further development

would be restricted by the size of the designated areas. The outline plan process allows for the consideration of future effects for any additional works proposed within the designations. Any works outside the scope of the designations would require resource consent. In light of this, I consider the potential adverse effects are less than minor.

Alternative sites, routes or methods

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the facilities are already in existence and the designations are not changing in boundary or extent.

Designation or work is considered reasonably necessary

The sewer pump stations which are located on NPDC land and described above are necessary to provide the community with effective wastewater services. I consider the designation of these sites necessary to enable flexibility to modify infrastructure at later stages as may be required due to changing requirements or new technology, allow land required for the works and intended use of the land to be clearly identified in the district plan, and prevent land uses and/or development that may hinder or prevent the works.

Conditions

No conditions are sought. I do not recommend conditions for NPDC-73, NPDC-77, NPDC-81, NPDC-82, NPDC-83, NPDC-84, NPDC-85, NPDC-86, NPDC-87, NPDC-88, NPDC-89, NPDC-90, NPDC-91, NPDC-93, NPDC-94, NPDC-95, NPDC-97, NPDC-98, NPDC-139, NPDC-143, NPDC-144 and NPDC-145 as the activities presently exist, and the outline plan process allows for the consideration of future effects for any additional works proposed within the designations.

5.9.17 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that NPDC-73, NPDC-77, NPDC-82, NPDC-83, NPDC-84, NPDC-85, NPDC-86, NPDC-87, NPDC-88, NPDC-89, NPDC-90, NPDC-91, NPDC-93, NPDC-94, NPDC-95, NPDC-97, NPDC-98, NPDC-139, NPDC-143 and NPDC-145 be confirmed.

I recommend that NPDC-144 be confirmed. I also consider that the Designations page of the Council’s website should be corrected to include a link to the relevant notice of requirement.

Sewer Pump Stations on/partially on Land Owned by Other Parties

5.9.18 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on NPDC’s sewer pump station notices of requirement.

5.9.19 Discussion and Evaluation

Nature of public work

NPDC requested new designations for five sewer pump stations (NPDC-92, NPDC-96, NPDC-140, NPDC-141 and NPDC-142) which are located on land partially owned by NPDC and partially owned by other parties to increase public awareness for the assets in the PDP, streamline any future work in accordance with the designated purpose and effectively provide for the long term protection of these assets. Three designations (NPDC-92, NPDC- 96 and NPDC-141) are located partially on land owned by NPDC and land owned by Taranaki Regional Council. Taranaki Regional Council requested conditions be placed on these designations to protect their interests in the land.

Environmental effects

NPDC-92 (East Quay Sewer Pump Station) is located partially within the legal road reserve on the corner of Atkinson Street and East Quay and partially within the designated area of TRC-1 (Lower Waitara River Flood Protection and River Control Scheme). The land adjacent to the road reserve is zoned Residential in the ODP and the PDP. The existing sewer pump station established in 1977 is situated outside the stop banks (on the protected side), so it is protected from flooding hazards. In terms of visual effects, the structure is small in scale, and does not adversely impact on the natural character and amenity of the surrounding area. In terms of noise effects, the existing infrastructure is setback approximately 25m from the nearest dwelling at 1 Atkinson Road, and does not generate unreasonable noise effects beyond the boundary of the proposed designated site. In terms of traffic and parking effects, access to the site is via Atkinson Road. Vehicle movements to the site are limited to once a month and do not adversely impact on traffic and parking for surrounding uses and residents.

NPDC-96 (West Quay Sewer Pump Station) is an existing pump station which was established in 1977 and is located between the stop banks of the Lower Waitara River Flood Protection and River Control Scheme and the Waitara River. As the pump station is located inside the stop banks it is prone to flooding and volcanic hazards, which are identified via overlays in the ODP and the PDP. The land within TRC-1 has an underlying zone of Open Space B Environment Area in the ODP and Rural Production Zone in the PDP. Given the site’s high risk of flooding, NPDC applied for a new designation (NPDC-146) to construct a new sewer pump station outside of the area of high risk of flooding on the protected side of the stop banks. It is intended that once the new sewer pump station is fully operational the existing pump station will be decommissioned and NPDC will withdraw the designation. In terms of visual effects, the above ground infrastructure is small in scale and does not impact adversely on the amenity of the adjoining Waitara River. In terms of noise effects, the existing infrastructure does not generate unreasonable noise effects beyond the boundary of the proposed designated site. In terms of traffic and parking effects, vehicle movements to the site are limited to once a month and do

not adversely impact on traffic and parking for surrounding uses and residents.

NPDC-140 (Corbett Park Sewer Pump Station) is located partially within road reserve and partially within the designated area of NZTA-3 (State Highway 45). It is surrounded by land which is zoned Rural in the ODP and the PDP. The site was established in 2009 and contains a building which houses the control panel. Other above ground infrastructure includes a biofilter with timber boxing which is located to the south-west of the pump station within the designated area. The remaining infrastructure, the wet well and chamber, are below ground. In terms of visual effects, the buildings are at a scale that they are visible from State Highway 45. Additional landscaping could help mitigate the visual effects, as the buildings are not in keeping with the rural character of the area. The Three Waters Team has advised that in this case landscaping was not possible as it would impact on drainage of the site, and could also adversely affect the sight lines from the intersection of the site with State Highway 45. In terms of noise effects, the noise generated from the existing activities is minimal and does not extend beyond the boundary of the designated area. In terms of traffic and parking effects, access to the site is gained vis State Highway 45 and vehicle movements are limited to two to three times per week. Given the low level of vehicle movements, the site has no adverse effects on traffic, parking and vehicle movements for surrounding rural residents.

NPDC-141 (Messenger Terrace Sewer Pump Station) is an existing pump station which was established in 2009. It is located predominantly within the Wairau Road legal road reserve, and partially within a reserve owned by NPDC and partially on land which is in a hydro parcel attached to the Wairau Stream. It is on land zoned Open Space in the ODP and the PDP. It contains a wet well, a valve chamber and a control panel. In terms of visual effects, only a small control panel is visible above the ground so the impacts on the adjacent reserve or amenity of Messenger Terrace are minimal. In terms of noise effects, the pump station is located approximately 20m from the nearest dwelling. In terms of noise effects, noise from the existing activities do not generate noise effects beyond the boundary of the proposed designated area. In terms of traffic and parking effects, access to the site is via Wairau Road. Vehicle movements are limited to maintenance vehicles which occur approximately every six months and do not adversely impact on traffic and parking for surrounding uses and residents.

NPDC-142 (Oakura Motor Camp Sewer Pump Station) is located in the Oakura Motor Camp, adjacent to the toilet block on land zoned Open Space in the ODP and the PDP. The sewer pump station was established in 2000 and contains a wet well, a value chamber and a control panel. In terms of visual effects, only the control panel is above ground and visible from the Oakura Camp Road. In terms of visual effects, the sewer pump station is small in scale and, as it is located close to the toilet block, does not impact adversely on the amenity of the Oakura Motor Camp. In terms of noise effects, no unreasonable noise is generated from the boundaries of the designated site. In terms of traffic and parking effects, access to the site

is via the Oakura Camp Road and is limited to one visit per month. Given the low frequency of vehicle movements the site does not adversely impact on vehicle movements or parking for camp users.

Summary of environmental effects for all sites

In terms of adverse effects, there are no immediate works proposed on four sites (NPDC-92, NPDC-140, NPDC-141 and NPDC-142). The notice of requirement for West Quay Sewer Pump Station (NPDC-96) does state that the site will be decommissioned in the near future but is currently required to deliver sewer services to the area. The effects within the designated area of the decommissioning of NPDC-96 will be addressed as part of the outline plan process, and effects outside the site will be addressed via a resource consent if required. As the infrastructure already exists, designating all five sites will not result in any increase in adverse effects on noise, visual amenity or traffic. In light of this, I consider the potential adverse effects are less than minor.

Alternative sites, routes or methods

An alternative site has been considered for NPDC-96, as NPDC is seeking a new designation 100m to the south, which is outside of the Waitara stop banks (refer to discussion on NPDC-146). However, the existing site is required until the new site is operational. For the remaining four sites, I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the facilities are already in existence.

Designation or work is considered reasonably necessary

The sewer pump stations, which are located on and partially on land owned by other parties and described above, are necessary to provide the community with effective wastewater services. I consider the designation of these sites necessary to enable flexibility to modify infrastructure at later stages as may be required due to changing requirements or new technology, allow land required for the works and intended use of the land to be clearly identified in the District Plan, and prevent land uses and/or development that may hinder or prevent the works.

Conditions

Conditions are attached to NPDC-92, NPDC-96 and NPDC-141 which require NPDC to consult with the Taranaki Regional Council prior to undertaking any excavation work on Taranaki Regional Council land or a Taranaki Regional Council asset. I consider the proposed conditions on NPDC-92, NPDC-96 and NPDC-141 appropriate to effectively avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects to an acceptable level on the in-stream values of the Wairau Stream (in relation to NPDC-141) and on Taranaki Regional Council’s assets contained within the amended designation for the Lower Waitara River Flood Protection and River Control Scheme (in relation to NPDC-92 and NPDC-96). In particular, conditions on NPDC-96 are necessary to ensure that NPDC consults Taranaki Regional Council before undertaking the earthworks necessary to decommission the existing

sewage pump and associated infrastructure to avoid any damage to the existing stop banks.

No conditions sought and I do not recommend conditions for NPDC-140 and NPDC-142 as the activities presently exist, and the outline plan process allows for the consideration of future effects for any additional works proposed within the designations.

5.9.20 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that NPDC-92, NPDC-96, NPDC-140, NPDC-141 and NPDC- 142 be confirmed and that the conditions as notified be imposed for NPDC- 92, NPDC-96 and NPDC-141.

Detention Bunds on NPDC Land

5.9.21 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on NPDC’s detention bund notices of requirement.

5.9.22 Discussion and Evaluation

Nature of public work

NPDC requested new designations for five existing flood detention bunds (NPDC-102, NPDC-105, NPDC-106, NPDC-118 and NPDC-199) located on NPDC land. The bunds consist of an earth embankment and are designed to impound water within the area of the bund and prevent flooding of surrounding land. The purpose of the designations is to increase public awareness for the assets in the PDP, streamline any future work in accordance with the designated purpose and effectively provide for the long term protection of these assets.

Environmental effects

NPDC-102 (Magnolia Drive Detention Bund) is located on land zoned Residential A Environment Area in the ODP and Open Space Zone in the PDP. The zoning of this site has been changed to reflect that the site is used for stormwater purposes and that it is not suitable for residential purposes. The site was established in 2004. In terms of visual effects, the earth bund is covered in mature vegetation and, as it is an existing structure, it is considered part of the environment.

NPDC-105 (Huatoki Street Detention Bund) was established in 1960 and is located within the legal road reserve (Huatoki Street). It adjoins land zoned Residential in the ODP and the PDP. In terms of visual effects, the bund is grassed and, as it is an existing structure, I consider it part of the existing environment.

NPDC-106 (Highlands Park Detention Bund) was established in 2005 and is located on land zoned Open Space in the ODP and the PDP. The earth bund is located in the centre of the designated site and is set well back from the residential development to the east and west of the site. In terms of visual effects, the bund is grassed and, as it is an existing structure, I consider it part of the existing environment.

NPDC-118 (Sutherland Park Detention Bund) was established in 1975 and is located on land zoned Open Space in the ODP and the PDP. In terms of visual effects, the bund is grassed and forms the western boundary of Sutherland Park with Fernleigh Street. Sutherland Park is used as an active sport and recreational space and the bund is an existing structure so I consider it part of the existing environment.

NPDC-119 (Vogeltown Park Detention Bund) was established in the 1990s and is zoned Open Space in the ODP and the PDP. The earth bund is grassed and located in the middle of Vogeltown Park, which is used as an active sport and recreational space. As the bund is an existing structure, I consider it part of the existing environment.

In terms of noise effects for all of the above sites, the infrastructure consists only of the earth bund which does not generate any noise.

In terms of traffic effects for all of the above sites, vehicle movements are limited to maintenance vehicles which visit the site at least once a month.

In terms of adverse effects, there are no immediate works proposed to be carried out on any of the sites described above as part of the notices of requirement. As the infrastructure already exists, designating the sites will not result in any increase in adverse effects on noise, visual amenity or traffic. Any further development will be restricted by the size of the designated area. The outline plan process allows for the consideration of future effects for any additional works proposed within the designations. Any works outside the scope of the designation would require resource consent. In light of this, I consider the potential adverse effects are less than minor.

Alternative sites, routes or methods

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the flood detention bunds are already in existence.

Designation or work is considered reasonably necessary

The flood detention bunds which are located on NPDC land and described above are necessary to provide sufficient flood protection to mitigate the flooding risk to surrounding properties. I consider the designation of these sites necessary to enable flexibility to modify infrastructure at later stages as may be required due to changing requirements or new technology, allow land required for the works and intended use of the land to be clearly identified in the District Plan, and prevent land uses and/or development that may hinder or prevent the works.

Conditions

No conditions are sought and I do not recommend any conditions as the activities presently exist, and the outline plan process allows for the consideration of future effects for any additional works proposed within the designations.

5.9.23 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that NPDC-102, NPDC-105, NPDC-106, NPDC-118 and NPDC- 119 be confirmed.

Detention Bunds on/partially on Land Owned by Other Parties

5.9.24 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on NPDC’s detention bund notices of requirement.

5.9.25 Discussion and Evaluation

Nature of public work

NPDC requested new designations for three existing flood detention bunds (NPDC-103, NPDC-104 and NPDC-113) located on land partially owned by NPDC and partially owned by other parties, e.g. Francis Douglas Memorial College, Taranaki Stadium Trust/Taranaki Regional Council. The bunds consist of an earth embankment and are designed to impound water within the area of the bund and prevent flooding of surrounding land. The purpose of the designations is to increase public awareness for the assets in the PDP, streamline any future work in accordance with the designated purpose and effectively provide for the long term protection of these assets.

Environmental effects

NPDC-103 (Waimea St Detention Bund) was established in the 1980 and is located on land zoned Residential in the ODP and the PDP. It is within the proposed new designated area for MEDU-43 (Francis Douglas Memorial College). The designated area of NPDC-103 contains a narrow earth bund on the edge of an existing sports/playing field within the school, which adjoins mature vegetation. In terms of visual effects, the bund is grassed and, as it is an existing structure, I consider it part of the existing environment.

NPDC-104 (Rugby Park Detention Bund) was established in 2002 and is located on land zoned Open Space in the ODP and the PDP. The designated area contains an earth bund, which is located within the grounds of Rugby Park (now known as Yarrow Stadium). It runs north to south between two rugby fields ending near the Clawton Street entrance. In terms of visual effects, the bund is covered by mature vegetation and, as it is an existing structure, I consider it part of the existing environment.

NPDC-113 (Brois Street Detention Bund) was established in the 1970s and is located on land zoned Open Space in the ODP and the PDP. The designated area contains an earth bund which is located within the Salaman Simpson Reserve and is located near the banks of the Waimea Stream. In terms of visual effects, the bund is surrounded by mature vegetation and, as it is an existing structure, I consider it part of the existing environment.

In terms of noise effects for all of the above sites, the infrastructure consists only of the earth bund which does not generate any noise.

In terms of traffic effects for all of the above sites, vehicle movements are limited to maintenance vehicles which visit the sites at least once a month.

In terms of adverse effects, there are no immediate works proposed to be carried out on any of the sites as part of the notices of requirement. As the infrastructure already exists, designating the sites will not result in any increase in adverse effects on noise, visual amenity or traffic. Any further development would be restricted by the size of the designated area. The outline plan process allows for the consideration of future effects for any additional works proposed within the designations. Any works outside the scope of the designations will require resource consent. In light of this, I consider the potential adverse effects are less than minor.

Alternative sites, routes or methods

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the detention bunds are already in existence.

Designation or work is considered reasonably necessary

The flood detention bunds, which are located partially on NPDC owned land and land owned by other parties and described above, are necessary to provide sufficient flood protection to mitigate the flooding risk to surrounding properties. I consider the designation of these sites necessary to enable flexibility to modify infrastructure at later stages as may be required due to changing requirements or new technology, allow land required for the works and intended use of the land to be clearly identified in the District Plan, and prevent land uses and/or development that may hinder or prevent the works.

Conditions

No conditions are sought and I do not recommend conditions for NPDC- 103 and NPDC-104 as the activities presently exist, and the outline plan process allows for the consideration of future effects for any additional works proposed within the designations.

A condition has been sought for NPDC-113 as the bund is close to the Waimea Stream. The condition requires NPDC to consult with Taranaki Regional Council prior to undertaking any excavation work on the site. I consider this condition adequate to mitigate any effects on the in-stream values of the Waimea Stream.

5.9.26 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that NPDC-103, NPDC-104 and NPDC-113 be confirmed and that the conditions as notified be imposed for NPDC-113.

Water Reservoirs

5.9.27 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on NPDC’s water reservoir designations and notices of requirement.

5.9.28 Discussion and Evaluation

Notice of Requirement for NPDC-13, NPDC-51, NPDC-54, NPDC-55, NPDC-60 and NPDC-61 (rollover designations)

NPDC requested the rollover of six designations relating to water reservoirs with minor corrections. These corrections were:

• the designation purposes of all the sites was changed from “Water Works,” “Water Supply” or “Proposed Water Supply” to more accurately reflect the use of the site, e.g. water supply: water reservoirs, ancillary infrastructure, buildings and access; and • the names of the sites were changed to more accurately reflect the use of the site but also to provide a more accurate description of their location, e.g. “Junction Road Reservoir” instead of “SH3”.

NPDC also requested modification of the boundary for NPDC-55 (New Plymouth Water Treatment Plant). The current boundary, which includes the water treatment plant, was changed to include the reservoirs and trunk mains from the lake, an additional 5.9ha of land.

I agree with the requiring authority these modifications are necessary and that the corrections to designation details should be made.

All six designations are already in existence and therefore given effect to. Any adverse effects on the environment are expected to be no different from the current situation and I consider them part of the existing environment.

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the designations and facilities are already in existence. The boundary change for NPDC-55 includes land that is owned by NPDC. The surrounding land is also owned by NPDC and the majority is covered in forest. The modification sought will ensure that the infrastructure which forms an integral part of the New Plymouth Water Treatment Plant is contained within the designation boundaries and will future proof the future water supply for New Plymouth should there be a need to increase the water holding capacity on the site to meet the increasing water demand within the district.

I consider the designations are necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority in respect of providing certainty for the on-going security and resilience of the water reservoirs and to meet community wellbeing expectations.

No existing conditions apply to these designations and no conditions are sought. I do not recommend any conditions as the activities presently exist, and the outline plan process allows for the consideration of future effects for any additional works proposed within the designations.

Notice of Requirement for NPDC-109, NPDC-110, NPDC-111 and NPDC-161 (new designations)

Nature of the public work

NPDC requested new designations for four existing water reservoirs on NPDC owned land in order to increase public awareness for the assets in the PDP, streamline any future work in accordance with the designated purpose and effectively provide for the long term protection of these assets. These water reservoirs are NPDC-109 (Urenui Domain Reservoir), NPDC-110 (Faull Road Reservoir), NPDC-111 (Urenui Reservoir) and NPDC- 161 (Johnston Street Reservoir). An outline plan of works for future upgrades would be submitted as and when required.

Environmental effects

The sites are on land zoned as Rural Environment Area in the ODP and Rural Production Zone in the PDP and are owned by NPDC.

NPDC-109 (Urenui Domain Reservoir) has an area of 1.612ha and contains an existing reservoir with a water holding capacity of 320m3. It is used for fire-fighting purposes for the Urenui Domain and was established in approximately 1995. In terms of visual effects, the site does not have road frontage with access via a right of way and there is a shelterbelt along the northern, southern and westernmost boundaries. In term of noise effects, noise is limited to that generated by site visits and any noise generated is minimal. In terms of traffic and parking, approximately one vehicle visits the site per week for maintenance purposes.

NPDC-110 (Faull Road Reservoir) has an area of 2094m2 and contains an existing reservoir with a water holding capacity of 4500m3. In terms of visual effects, the reservoir is visible from Faull Road particularly when approaching from the west, ancillary buildings are located within the centre of the site and landscaping within the road reserve and on the eastern boundary partially screens the site when viewing from the south and east of the site. In terms of noise effects, they are limited to that generated from the pumps contained within the pump house. In terms of traffic and parking, access is via an existing driveway, a sealed area adjoins the reservoir providing parking for maintenance vehicles and approximately three vehicles visit the site per week for maintenance purposes.

NPDC-111 (Urenui Reservoir) has an area of 955m2 and contains an existing reservoir with a water holding capacity of 1250m3. The reservoir

services the Tikorangi/Urenui Water supply zone. In terms of visual effects, the reservoir is partially visible from Kaipikari Road, ancillary buildings are located within the centre of the site and landscaping within the road reserve and on the eastern boundary partially screens the site when viewing from the road. In terms of noise effects, the reservoir does not generate unreasonable noise effects beyond the boundary. In terms of traffic and parking, access is down an existing driveway, a sealed area adjoins the reservoir providing parking for maintenance vehicles and approximately three vehicles visit the site per week for maintenance purposes.

NPDC-161 (Johnston Street Reservoir) has an area of 20,360m2 and contains an existing reservoir with a water holding capacity of approximately 1250m3. It was originally built as part of a raw water supply to the Waitara freezing works and formed part of an agreement between Waitara Borough Council (now New Plymouth District Council) and Borthwick’s (then AFFCO and now ANZCO). It has not been used since approximately 2005 although the agreement to supply raw water remains in place, hence why the designation is required. The designation also helps with resilience and ensures long term protection of the public work. In terms of visual effects, the reservoir is not visible from Raleigh Street or Johnston Street and is located within the centre of the site. In terms of noise effects, the reservoir does not generate unreasonable noise effects beyond the boundary. In terms of traffic and parking, access is via an existing accessway over 102 Raleigh Street, Council officers visit the site approximately once every two months for maintenance purposes.

As the infrastructure already exists the designation of all of the above sites will not result in an increase in adverse effects from the sites or a change to the nature of the sites. Any works outside the scope of the designation would require resource consent. In light of this, I consider the potential adverse effects are less than minor.

Alternative sites, routes or methods

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the sites are already occupied by established water storage facilities and ancillary buildings. Adverse effects on the environment are expected to be less than minor.

Designation or work is considered reasonably necessary

I consider the designations are necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority. They provide for temporary water storage before piping this out for community use which will assist the Council in meeting its obligations under the Local Government Act in terms of the provision of water services. They will also enable flexibility to modify infrastructure at later stages due to changing requirements or technologies.

Conditions

No conditions are sought and I do not recommend any conditions as the activities presently exist, and the outline plan process allows for the

consideration of future effects for any additional works proposed within the designations.

5.9.29 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that NPDC-13, NPDC-51, NPDC-54, NPDC-55, NPDC-60, NPDC-61, NPDC-109, NPDC-110, NPDC-111 and NPDC-161 be confirmed.

Mountain Road Reservoirs

5.9.30 Submissions Received

One submission was received from the Council (582.63) on the designation for the Mountain Road Reservoir seeking retention but an amendment to the boundary to include the north eastern corner affecting 452 Manutahi Road, Tarurutangi (Lot 2 DP 21006). No further submissions were received.

5.9.31 Discussion and Evaluation

Nature of the public work

NPDC requested a new designation (NPDC-112) for an existing reservoir and the provision of an additional reservoir. The nature of the proposed work is the continued operation and maintenance of the Mountain Road Reservoir for community supply and the construction, operation and maintenance of a second reservoir for community supply at the site. At the time of writing, the second reservoir is being constructed and is expected to be in operation by the end of this year. An outline plan of works for future upgrades would be submitted as and when required.

Environmental effects

238. The site is on land zoned as Rural Environment Area in the ODP and Rural Production Zone in the PDP.

Lot 1 DP 16835 contains one existing reservoir. A second reservoir is proposed to be constructed within a portion of Lot 2 DP 21106. The works required to construct a second reservoir can be designed to achieve compliance with the underlying zone rules and works can be undertaken as a permitted activity in the ODP. The future works will be of a scale and nature that is compatible with development anticipated within the rural environment. There is currently no dependence on the inclusion of a designation to undertake the works but the designation will ensure the long term protection of the public work once established. Noise effects from the existing site are restricted to valves throttling flow only which does not generate unreasonable noise effects beyond the boundary. Apart from maintenance works, operations are largely dormant. Landscaping may be proposed to reduce the visual effects of both reservoirs. This, along with future access, will be confirmed at the time an outline plan is lodged.

The Council has made a submission requesting an amendment to the boundary. This is to correct an administrative error when compiling the Designations Chapter in the PDP and to ensure NPDC can effectively provide for public works. I consider this to be less than minor and will not create any adverse effects.

Alternative sites, routes or methods

The notice of requirement refers to the Council’s Water Master Plan 2015 to 2045, which describes the analysis of future water demand and the required capital improvement projects to meet this demand. Three new reservoirs are required in the district overall and considerable investigations have already been undertaken in regard to a number of possible sites within the district. I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary for the second reservoir as this work has already been done. Nor is it considered necessary for the first reservoir as it is already established.

A need for one of the reservoirs to be within 5km of the existing reservoir has been identified. The preferred site is more desirable over two others because it will have less visual effects when viewing the reservoir from Mountain Road due to the setback from road boundaries, it will have a lesser impact on the character of the site as the nature of the site has already been altered to some degree due to the presence of the existing reservoir, it creates an opportunity for greater setbacks from adjoining properties, siting the future reservoir next to the existing one will result in less pipework reducing effects associated with construction (i.e. earthworks and disturbance) and it is not located in close proximity to a high voltage transmission line as is the case for one of the other options.

Designation or work is considered reasonably necessary

I consider the designation is necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority. It provides for temporary water storage before piping this out for community use which will assist NPDC in meeting its obligations under the Local Government Act in terms of the provision of water services. It will help NPDC to increase resilience and cater for growth because it has been identified that there is currently limited capacity at Mountain Road reservoir and there is a need to increase reserves of stored treated water. It will also enable flexibility to modify infrastructure at later stages due to changing requirements or technologies.

Conditions

245. No conditions are sought and I do not recommend any conditions as the first reservoir already exists and the construction of the second reservoir would be less than minor and limited to the landowner of Lot 2 DP 21106. The outline plan process allows for the consideration of future effects for any additional works proposed within the designations.

5.9.32 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that NPDC-112 be modified by including the north eastern corner affecting 452 Manutahi Road, Tarurutangi (Lot 2 DP 21006).

I recommend that submission point 582.63 be accepted.

Okato Bores

5.9.33 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on NPDC’s Okato Bores notices of requirement.

5.9.34 Discussion and Evaluation

Nature of the public work

NPDC requested two designations for two sites containing water sources for potential community water supplies. The two sites are NPDC-116 (Okato Water Treatment Borehole 1) and NPDC-117 (Okato Water Treatment Borehole 2). The nature of the proposed work is for the purpose of providing better visibility of these existing assets in the PDP and providing a “clear” approval process for any asset maintenance/upgrade/development works as opposed to requiring resource consent (if required). Works required to utilise the bores would be relatively small in scale and would include installation of pumps, riser pipes and electrical control equipment. The bore heads would include backflow prevention and flow metering. Electrical equipment would be installed inside a stainless-steel cabinet close to the bore heads or at the water treatment plant (depending on pump power and cable sizing limitations. It would be necessary to construct pipework from the bore heads along the edge of Oxford Road to the Okato water treatment plant where the water would be treated by the existing treatment process before entering the existing treated water reservoir for distribution. It is likely this pipework would be contained within the legal road reserve. An outline plan of works for future upgrades would be submitted as and when required.

Environmental effects

The sites are on land zoned as Rural Environment Area in the ODP and Rural Production Zone in the PDP. The proposed designations encompass two allotments. Section 1 SO 499384 has an area of 1000m3 while Section 2 SO 499384 has an area of 940m2. In terms of visual effects, the bores do not impact adversely on the rural character or amenity of the site or surrounding area and the infrastructure required for abstraction of water is small in scale. In terms of noise effects, the existing bores are not currently in use and do not generate noise beyond the boundary of the site. Should they be they be utilised in the future a pump would be installed and would not generate noise beyond the boundary of the site. In terms of traffic and parking effects, there are currently no regular vehicle movements because the bores are not being used. Should they be utilised

the minimum requirement is to visit each bore once a month for confirming security and taking water quality samples. Technicians currently visit the Okato water treatment plant three times a week and it is likely that visits to the bores will occur at the same time. Technicians would park at the Okato water treatment plant and walk to the bores given their proximity.

Alternative sites, routes or methods

250. I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the land is owned by NPDC.

Designation or work is considered reasonably necessary

I consider the designations are necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority. They will assist NPDC in meeting its obligations under the Local Government Act in terms of the provision of water services. The designations will safeguard the existing bores as a potential future option for providing a supplementary/alternative water supply for the community of Okato.

Resource Consents

NPDC holds resource consents in regard to these sites for installing bores and taking groundwater for aquifer testing. Resource consent would be required from Taranaki Regional Council for the taking of groundwater from the bores and would be applied for separately by NPDC.

Conditions

5.9.35 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that NPDC-116 and NPDC-117 be confirmed.

Proposed Reserves

5.9.36 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on NPDC’s proposed reserves designations.

5.9.37 Discussion and Evaluation

NPDC requested the rollover of three designations (NPDC-3, NPDC-11 and NPDC-148) with minor corrections relating to reserves. These corrections were:

• the boundaries were reduced in size for NPDC-3 (Waipu Lagoon and adjoining wetlands) and NPDC-11 (Devon Road (State Highway 3)

25m strip on southern side) due to land acquisition over time by NPDC; • the designation purpose for NPDC-148 (Matai Street Railway Land) was changed from “Local Purpose Reserve” to “Proposed reserve”; and • the site name for NPDC-148 (Matai Street Railway Land) was changed from “Cnr Rata and Matai Streets” to “Matai Street Railway Land.”

I agree with the requiring authority these modifications reflect changes in land ownership and provide clarity and that the corrections to the designation details should be made.

NPDC-3 will form part of a wider area consisting of a series of small coastal lagoons in Bell Block that contain various types of bird species and vegetation. NPDC-3 is a slither of land next to the lagoons that acts as a buffer and public access area. NPDC-11 will form part of a wider landscaping corridor along Devon Road on State Highway 3 that will assist with beautifying the entrance to New Plymouth city and provide a visual and noise buffer from nearby industrial activities. NPDC-148 is a road reserve with a railway corridor running through the middle of it. It includes the Inglewood Railway Station, the Inglewood band rotunda and the Inglewood War Memorial (all heritage items) as well as the Inglewood public toilets. Any adverse effects on the environment are expected to be no different from the current situation and I consider them to be part of the existing environment.

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the designations and areas for proposed reserves are already in existence. The changes in boundary to NPDC-3 and NPDC-11 are less than minor because they represent a reduction in size as opposed to an increase.

I consider the designations are necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority in respect of biodiversity, amenity, safety, and community and cultural wellbeing.

No existing conditions apply to these designations and no conditions are sought. I do not recommend any conditions as the reserves presently exist, and the outline plan process allows for the consideration of future effects for any additional works proposed within the designations.

5.9.38 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that NPDC-3, NPDC-11 and NPDC-148 be confirmed.

Sewage Treatment Ponds

5.9.39 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on NPDC’s sewage treatment ponds designation.

5.9.40 Discussion and Evaluation

NPDC requested the rollover of one designation (NPDC-66) with minor corrections relating to sewage treatment ponds. These corrections were:

• the designation purpose was changed from “Sewage Treatment” to “Sewage treatment ponds”; • the site name was changed from “Lincoln Road” to “Lincoln Road Sewage Treatment/Oxidation Ponds”; and • the boundary was amended to include all sewage ponds so that the entire activity is contained within the designation boundary.

I agree with the requiring authority these modifications provide clarity and that the corrections to the designation details should be made.

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the designation and facilities are already in existence and the changing of the designation boundary is less than minor.

I consider the designation is necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority in respect of providing certainty for the on-going security and resilience of the sewage treatment ponds and to meet community wellbeing expectations.

No existing conditions apply to this designation and no conditions are sought. I do not recommend any conditions as the activity presently exists, and the outline plan process allows for the consideration of future effects for any additional works proposed within the designation.

5.9.41 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that NPDC-66 be confirmed.

5.10 New Plymouth District Council Specific Designations

This section addresses designations individually because they differ in nature, infrastructure, location and/or environmental effects.

The designations in this section are analysed in the same order that the notices of requirement appear on the Designations page on the Council’s website.

All specific designations have a notice of requirement on the Council’s website because they are new designations, except for the New Plymouth Waste Water and Treatment and Disposal Facility and the New Plymouth

Airport which are rollover designations. The rollover designations are analysed at the end of this section.

Resource Recovery Facility

5.10.1 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on NPDC’s Resource Recovery Facility notice of requirement.

5.10.2 Discussion and Evaluation

Nature of the public work

NPDC requested a new designation for a Resource Recovery Facility which comprises the following principal elements:

• Collection, separation and off-site transfer of a variety of useable, recyclable or recoverable materials; • A Community Reuse and Recycle Centre (known as “The Junction”), including a small scale retail area (for the sale of ‘up-cycled’ materials), an education space, a sustainability and waste reduction demonstration space(s) or similar activities, library, café, art gallery, sustainable business incubation, and a repair and upcycling workshop; • Material Recovery Facility for recyclable processing and area for a viewing/education room; • Material Recovery Facility for construction, demolition and other commercial or industrial waste; • Refuse transfer station including acceptance and storage of hazardous waste, and consolidation of waste for transfer to landfill; and • Collection and processing of organic waste on site (including mulching, composting or other processing methods).

Environmental effects

The site is currently zoned “Industrial C” in the ODP and General Industrial Zone in the PDP. The site occupies 11.9 hectares of land and was previously used for railway purposes. This land was purchased by NPDC in March 2015 and is no longer designated for railway purposes. The surrounding land uses include KiwiRail designated land, other industrial zoned sites and rural land. The nearest dwelling is approximately 30m from the site boundary.

The Material Recovery Facility is already built within the designated area and was granted resource consent (LUC 15/464 16). The resource consent was required as the building exceeded the permitted height requirement by 1 metre. A resource consent was also required under the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health, as the site has had activities undertaken on it described in the current edition of the Hazardous Activities and Industries

List (“HAIL”). These activities include the previous use as a railway yard. An Engineering Feasibility Assessment Report prepared by WPS Opus in July 2014 also identified that historical use of the land included fly tipping, being the deposit of unknown waste onto the land.

The Community Reuse and Recycle Centre (The Junction) was granted resource consent (LUC 18/47 1391) in December 2019. As of May 2021, the parking area, landscaping and upgrade of the existing access way on Colson Road has been completed. There is currently a temporary building on site. The construction of the permanent building will begin in mid-2022.

The existing New Plymouth Refuse Transfer Station, which is located to the west of the designated area will move to the designated area in November 2021. Additional resource consents may be required, particularly as the site has been identified as a HAIL site. It is anticipated that any required applications for resource consents will be applied for at the same time as the outline plan approval is sought.

The notice of requirement includes provision for activities such as small scale retail and a café. These are ancillary activities and are associated with the primary purpose of the site. The intention is not to create a destination-type shopping offering. Rather, the retail activity would be based around the sale of recycled or upcycled items.

In terms of visual effects, the existing Materials Recovery Facility will be the most significant building on site, with a constructed and consented footprint of 3,016m2 and is 11m in height. The soon to be constructed Community and Reuse and Recycle Centre will have a footprint of 991m2, and will provide up to 63 carparks, plus bus parking and manoeuvring space. As at May 2021, there are currently 31 car parks (including 2 disabled), plus two bus parks constructed.

All future structures will be below the permitted maximum height, but will be visible from the rail corridor and adjoining properties. To mitigate the visual effects, the entranceway will be screened and landscaping is required under the approved resource consents to ensure there is a high level of amenity. Due to the size of the site and the required screening and landscaping the visual effects on the surrounding property owners are considered to be less than minor.

In terms of noise effects, noise generated by the site is associated with both the construction of the proposed buildings and the day-to-day operation of activities on the site. Noise related to the construction of new works on the site will be addressed in the relevant future outline plans. However, any noise will be temporary in nature and managed in accordance with the requirements of NZS 6803:1999 Acoustic Construction Noise and DIN 4150-3:199 Structural Vibration. In addition, a condition has been proposed to limit the hours of work for when earthworks can be carried out on site. The carrying out of earthworks on the site and transport of excavated material from (or to) the site, are restricted to:

• Monday to Saturday 7.30am to 6pm; and • No work is to be carried out on Sunday or public holidays.

The noise generated from the day-to-day operation of the Resource Recovery Facility will be the same as the existing activity and relates to vehicles entering and existing the site, materials being dumped and heavy vehicle movements. Any noise generated on site is mitigated by the site being located away from populated areas, the activities do not take place at night, and a noise bund has been constructed. Any noise generated by activities on site is unlikely to have an adverse effect on any residents or users outside of the site boundaries.

In terms of traffic effects, a Traffic Management Plan has been developed to manage safety concerns for users at the site, and ensure good visibility in relation to sight distances to the east of the access to the site. As the existing New Plymouth Refuse Transfer Station is to be relocated to the site there will be no change in vehicle movements associated with this activity. There may be increased traffic volumes generated by the Community Reuse and Recycle Centre (The Junction). However, as the proposed retail activity is ancillary to the primary use of the site which is the recycling and material recovery activities the impact of these activities is not considered to be significant. In particular, these small scale retail activities will not compete with retail activities in commercial zones, as they would be based around the sale of recycled or upcycled items, rather than a stand-alone retail activity selling goods produced off-site. The location of car and bus parking has been addressed and approved in the resource consent associated with the Community Reuse and Recycle Centre (The Junction).

In addition to the effects discussed above, any further development would be restricted by the size of the site and the conditions of the designation. Any works outside the scope of the designation would require resource consent. In light of this, I consider the potential adverse effects are less than minor.

Alternative sites, routes or methods

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the site is already occupied by established buildings, and resource consents have been granted for the construction of new buildings, which will commence in mid-2021 for the New Plymouth Transfer Station and mid- 2022 (The Junction). Adverse effects on the environment are expected to be less than minor.

Designation or work is considered reasonably necessary

I consider the designation is necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority, in that it provides for the ability to construct, operate and maintain the Resource Recovery Facility on an on-going basis. The designation of the site will assist NPDC to achieve the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan targets for waste reduction.

Conditions

I consider the proposed conditions effectively avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects to an acceptable level. Since the conditions were proposed in September 2019, condition 2, which relates to the need to submit construction drawings for the upgrade of the existing access way on Colson Road has been completed. The receipt and acceptability of the required plans has been confirmed by Council resource consent monitoring officers. I therefore consider that condition 2 is no longer required and should be removed, and that the condition document should be re- numbered.

5.10.3 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that NPDC-114 be modified by removing condition 2 and renumbering the remaining conditions.

Airport Drive

5.10.4 Submissions Received

Three submissions were received on NPDC’s notice of requirement (NPDC- 160) regarding realignment of Airport Drive.

Linda Giddy on behalf of Neil and Lloma Hibell (272.1) support in part NPDC-160 but consider that it should be amended by moving the roundabout away from their house further up the road. They are concerned about these matters: roundabout location, roading, proposed subdivision, registered valuation including compensation and other matters such as the renaming of the cul-de-sac and mowing of the road frontage.

Kevin and Glenis McDonald (293.1) support NPDC-160 because they have lived in the area for many years and seen huge growth and an increase in vehicles. They are concerned for their safety and the hazardous right turn onto State Highway 3. They support wider development in the area and would like construction of the road and works to be in the same construction period and for consideration to be given to the safety and security of their cattle when construction occurs.

Tama Trust Limited (315.1) oppose NPDC-160 because their property will lose its existing frontage to Airport Drive and be bisected by the road proposed to serve Area R, effectively dividing the property in two. They consider that the development of Area R is undetermined so designating a road through to Area R is unnecessary. They consider that once the realignment of Airport Drive takes place, Area R can be rezoned and the remainder of Area Q developed for residential purposes. The location of the road would be better determined at this time. Tama Trust Limited seek that the Area R link road be removed from 46 Airport Drive.

Noel and Lloma Hibell have made further submissions in respect to Kevin and Glenis McDonald and Tama Trust Limited (FS 101.1 and FS 101.2). They consider the submission of Kevin and Glenis McDonald should be

allowed in part where it supports general development consistent with the Area Q Structure Plan. They consider the submissions of Kevin and Glenis McDonald and Tama Trust Limited should be disallowed in part if it were to:

• Result in the location of the roundabout at the intersection of Airport Drive and Parklands Avenue being located in close proximity to the existing dwelling at 47 Airport Drive; and/or • Compromise general development consistent with the Area Q Structure Plan; and/or • Compromise the rezoning of the north eastern corner of 47 Airport Drive to commercial zoning (Local Centre Zone); and/or • Compromise the rezoning of the balance of 47 Airport Drive to General Residential Zone.

5.10.5 Discussion and Evaluation

Nature of the public work

NPDC requested a new designation (NPDC-160) which abuts NZTA-1 (State Highway 3), a rollover designation for Waka Kotahi. The designation is for a road realignment to enable the construction, operation and maintenance of:

• A new section of road from the intersection of Devon Road/State Highway 3 and De Havilland Drive to the proposed intersection of Airport Drive with the extension of Parklands Avenue; • A new roundabout at the proposed intersection of the new section of Airport Drive with Parklands Avenue and a proposed road into ‘Area R’; and • A new intersection to connect the current alignment of Airport Drive between State Highway 3 and the proposed new roundabout with the new section of Airport Drive and a new local road connection into Area Q.

This will increase the level of service and safety for traffic generated by the New Plymouth Airport and existing residents and businesses. Figure 7 below shows a plan illustrating the proposed new road designation in yellow and how it connects to proposed amendments to State Highway 3.

Figure 7: Map of preferred route for Airport Drive realignment

Environmental effects

In the ODP, the area is primarily on land zoned as Rural Environment Area with a Future Urban Development Overlay. Small areas on the western side are zoned Residential and on the southern side are zoned Open Space B Environment Area and Industrial C Environment Area. In the PDP, the site is primarily on land zoned as Special Purpose Zone: Future Urban Zone. Small areas on the western side are zoned Residential and on the southern side are zoned Open Space Zone and General Industrial Zone. The land to the west of Airport Drive is known as Area Q and the land to the east is known as Area R. “Area R” and “Area Q” were identified in the Framework for Growth 2008.

The realignment of Airport Drive is identified as an indicative road in the ODP and the PDP, where Airport Drive is realigned to the intersection of De Havilland Drive and State Highway 3 and the existing intersection of State Highway 3 and Airport Drive is closed.

An important feature of Airport Drive as you drive south is the view of Mount Taranaki. The PDP includes a newly created viewshaft for Airport Drive. It identifies Airport Drive and a corridor of land to the east as ‘Airport Drive Section 1’. The PDP also includes a newly identified ‘Entrance Corridor’ for Airport Drive. A significant part of the proposed designated area is within the Airport Drive Viewshaft.

The topography of the area to be designated is generally flat with the surrounding land uses generally being a mixture of agricultural and rural

lifestyle living. There are also a number of businesses operating from the southern section of Airport Drive that are subject to the proposed realignment. These businesses are of an agricultural and horticultural nature and include a poultry farm. The proposed designation will require the purchase of land from five properties (1205 Devon Road, 34 Airport Drive, 46 Airport Drive, 47 Airport Drive and 52 Airport Drive). The adverse effects of the proposed designation on two properties at 34 and 52 Airport Drive are unable to be avoided and mitigated and NPDC has recently purchased these properties in their entirety. The dwelling on 34 Airport Drive has been removed.

The full potential for subdivision and development activities within Area Q and Area R are dependent on the realignment of Airport Drive. The increase of residents anticipated from the development of Area Q will generate a significant increase in traffic on Airport Drive, adding to the need for improving the efficiency and safety of the existing road. Area R has been identified as an area for future long term employment land (10- 30 years). There are several landowners in Area R, including a large block owned by Central Football for the development of a sports facility. It is my understanding that Central Football are now looking for development opportunities elsewhere and wish to sell the property.

In terms of visual and amenity effects, the view to Mount Taranaki is an important feature of Airport Drive. Conditions 21-23 address the requirement to prepare a Landscape Management Plan that documents how the view to Mount Taranaki will be maintained and enhanced.

In terms of amenity effects on local residents and business owners, NPDC has discussed with them a range of mitigation options including a combination of noise reducing boundary fencing and landscape screening. Conditions 24-29 address measures to mitigate the adverse effects of noise, landscape and lighting on private land.

In terms of noise effects, a noise assessment report was prepared by WPS Opus. It identified four properties (40 Airport Drive, 46 Airport Drive, 47 Airport Drive and 58 Airport Drive) which are likely to be affected by increased noise levels from the proximity of the new road. Conditions are proposed which provide mitigation measures such as plantings and new fencing to reduce the effects on noise on these four affected properties. However, for the two properties at 34 and 52 Airport Drive which have been purchased by NPDC, it is not possible to mitigate the effects of noise. In the case of 34 Airport Drive, the road would be located only 3m from its southern boundary. Conditions 6-13 address how the impacts of construction noise on the surrounding environment will be mitigated and conditions 24-28 address how the impacts of construction noise and operational noise on private land will be mitigated.

In terms of cultural effects, there are no identified sites and areas of significance to Māori and archaeological sites in the designated area in the ODP or the PDP. Face to face meetings were held with representatives of Puketapu Hapū on 21 November and 17 December 2018. The hapū raised the importance of the protection of the view to Mount Taranaki, including the opportunity for a road layby green space with a Taranaki Maunga

viewpoint and story board. They also expressed a desire to complete a cultural values statement and the need for an accidental discovery protocol, noting that the surrounding land was involved in the land wars. A cultural values statement was completed by Puketapu Hapū in February 2019. This statement references the existing identified sites of cultural significance which are in close proximity to the designated area and explains that it is the role of a professionally prepared cultural impact assessment to identify the actual or potential effects of a proposed activity on the cultural values and interests identified in the cultural values statement.

Further discussions with Puketapu Hapū since the 2018 meetings have reaffirmed their interests to be involved in the design of the road reserve space so that it reflects their cultural values. Conditions 30-31 outline the requirement for an accidental discovery protocol. Condition 22(e) outlines the need to document the kaitiaki input of Puketapu Hapū in regard to species selection and the design of any entry statement or layby areas to ensure information panels reflect the cultural significance of the area.

In terms of traffic effects on existing residents and businesses, these have been discussed extensively with landowners throughout the design of the realignment. Associated with the construction of these new roads will be the closure of the existing State Highway 3/Airport Drive intersection. The southern portion of Airport Drive will have a cul-de-sac head at either end and will be connected to the new portions of Airport Drive by a new link connection. In terms of the alignment of the road into Area Q, the notice of requirement has adopted the option of going through the dwelling at 34 Airport Drive, rather than going around it. This property has now been purchased by NPDC. The proposed alignment of the roundabout into Area R also goes through the dwelling at 52 Airport Drive, which has also been purchased by NPDC. In terms of the remaining dwellings and businesses, discussions are still continuing as to how the final design of the new roads and intersections can mitigate effects on their properties. This includes discussions with the owners of the poultry farm at 58 Airport Drive as to how to best achieve the maintenance of the existing heavy vehicle access. As a result of consultation with the landowner at 49 Airport Drive, the southern cul-de-sac head has been shifted further south to enable the development of a private accessway connection to their property. Conditions 2-5 ensure that these matters raised by local residents are considered in the development of the detailed design plans.

The notice of requirement also documents the positive effects that the Airport Drive realignment will have on traffic flows in the Bell Block area. In developing the route alignment for Airport Drive, the Transport Impact Assessment which was prepared by MWH/Stantech in February 20182 concluded that, when factoring in the general projected growth in the use of Airport Drive and the full development of Stage 2 of Area Q, in 10 years the level of service at the intersection of Airport Drive and State Highway 3 would be at unacceptable levels. An unacceptable level of service for this intersection has been classified as a Level of Service F, which is a delay

2 Area Q/Airport Drive Transport Impact Assessment, MWH Stantech, 28 February 2018

time of 50 seconds at priority intersections. Based on this evidence, it is clear that the Airport Drive realignment is necessary to enable planned residential growth and to enable NPDC to meet its obligations under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020. This aligns with the submission of Kevin and Glenis McDonald (293.1).

Alternative sites, routes or methods

Linda Giddy on behalf of Neil and Lloma Hibbell (272.1) support in part NPDC-160 but consider that it should be amended by moving the roundabout away from their house further up the road. Tama Trust Limited (315.1) oppose NPDC-160 because their property at 46 Airport Drive will lose its existing frontage to Airport Drive and be bisected by the road proposed to serve Area R, effectively dividing the property in two. The primary alignment of the designated area is relatively fixed as it needs to provide a new alignment between the proposed amended designed area for the State Highway 3 roundabout at the De Havilland Drive intersection and the proposed extension of Parklands Drive through Area Q to Airport Drive. Significant consultation has occurred over the selection of the preferred realignment route. This includes three public open days, two of which were held in March and December 2017 to discuss improvements to State Highway 3 between Bell Block and Waitara, and one specific public open day to discuss the preferred route for the Airport Drive realignment which was held on 9 May 2019. In addition, NPDC has had numerous face- to-face meetings with affected landowners and representatives of Puketapu Hapū. Some face-to-face meetings were also attended by Waka Kotahi staff to provide advice on the wider State Highway 3 Bell Block to Waitara project.

The selection of the preferred realignment was also the subject of two technical studies undertaken by Beca. The first report titled “New Plymouth Airport Structure Plan: Intersection Review’’ dated February 2018 considered six different realignment options (Options A to F). The second report titled “Airport Drive Intersections Review” dated November 2018 provided additional assessment of the preferred Option F. Option F was then further refined by feedback obtained at the 9 May 2019 public open day and face-to-face meetings, to ensure that the adverse effects were mitigated as far as practicable.

The notice of requirement does not include detailed design plans of road formation and road reserve treatment, including landscaping. The Council Project Management Team who are responsible for detailed design of NPDC-160 have meet with the submitters and other landowners and will continue to do so as land requirements and boundaries of the road progresses. Finalised detailed design plans will be submitted as part of the outline plan process.

Further, since notification of NPDC-160 and NZTA-1 in the PDP, Waka Kotahi has reviewed their design concepts for intersection improvements along State Highway 3 from Waitara to Bell Block, including where NPDC- 160 intersects with NZTA-1. Waka Kotahi has indicated that the boundaries of both designations are likely to change and that the notice of

requirement will need updating to reflect this. Any amendments to the designation boundaries of NPDC-160 and NZTA-1 would need to be done in isolation outside of the PDP process that is currently occurring. These amendments would require a public submission period.

Regardless of any future amendments, the key purpose of NPDC-160 is to provide a centralised roundabout to allow access to a future Parklands Avenue and future urban areas. The wider context of the designation, including the two legs extending to Parklands Avenue in the west and the future Area R road in the east, have been included to provide appropriate future proofing to enable future land use activities and connectivity to these areas. While Tama Trust Limited (315.1) does not support the leg into Area R, it is appropriate to include these areas in the designation to acknowledge the future urban growth potential.

Designation or work is considered reasonably necessary

I consider the designation is necessary for the following reasons:

• the implementation of safety improvements to State Highway 3 as a result of the Waka Kotahi Waitara to Bell Block Project; • to provide a fit for service road connection for the planned urban growth in Areas Q and Areas R, which is necessary to meet the Council’s requirement under the National Policy Statement for Urban Development 2020; and • to address the projected unacceptable performance of the existing State Highway 3/Airport Drive intersection.

Conditions

34 conditions have been sought in total. I consider the conditions adequate to avoid, remedy and mitigate the potential environment effects of the proposed designation.

Resource consents

Resource consents may also be required from Taranaki Regional Council in relation to the discharge of contaminants to air from earthworks, subject to Rule 44 of the Regional Air Quality Plan for Taranaki 2001. These consents have yet to be applied for.

5.10.6 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that NPDC-160 be confirmed and that the conditions as notified be imposed.

I recommend that submission points 293.1 be accepted and that 272.1, 315.1, FS 101.1 and FS 101.2 be rejected.

West Quay Sewer Pump Station

5.10.7 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on NPDC’s West Quay Sewer Pump Station notice of requirement.

5.10.8 Discussion and Evaluation

Nature of the public work

NPDC requested a new designation to construct, operate and maintain a new sewer pump station at West Quay, Waitara (NPDC-146). The new sewer pump will replace the existing West Quay Sewer Pump Station (NPDC-96), which is prone to flooding (as it is located on the inside of the Waitara River stop banks) and does not have adequate emergency storage. The proposed new sewer pump station will be located approximately 100m to the south of the existing sewer pump station on the protected side of the stop bank. It will be partially within the road reserve and partially on land zoned Business B Environment Area in the ODP and Open Space in the PDP. A small portion is within the Taranaki Regional Council’s designation for the Lower Waitara River Flood Protection and River Control Scheme.

Environmental Effects

The infrastructure within the designated area will include an underground storage tank, electrical and water supply cabinet, pump station, valve chamber and flow meter chamber, pipe stringing area and 3 X 2m pad for a biofilter. The majority of this infrastructure is located underground, with only the top of the wet well, valve chamber, electrical and water supply cabinet, ventilation pole and aerial visible above ground. In terms of visual effects, the proposed buildings comply with the relevant bulk and location requirements, and will not impact adversely on the character or amenity of the surrounding area.

In terms of noise effects, noise will be generated during the construction of the works and from the day-to-day operation of the sewer pump station. Construction noise will be of a temporary nature, and will be managed by conditions attached to the designation. Noise generated by the operation of the sewer pump station will be similar to that of the existing sewer pump station, which is minimal. The noise generated from the operation of the pump station will not generate unreasonable noise effects beyond the site boundaries.

In terms of traffic effects, access to the site will be gained via West Quay. Conditions have been attached to the designation to manage any impacts of construction vehicles on existing traffic during the construction period. When the site is in operation vehicle movements to the site will be limited to maintenance vehicles which would occur once a week, which is similar to traffic generated by the existing pump station. The designation of the site will not impact adversely on traffic or parking.

The adverse effects of earthworks during the construction period have been addressed by conditions attached to the proposed designation. Taranaki Regional Council was consulted when preparing the notice of requirement and have agreed to the proposed work, subject to a condition that NPDC must consult with them prior to undertaking any excavation work as the area to be designated is partially over land which contains a Taranaki Regional Council asset (the Lower Waitara River Flood Protection and River Control Scheme).

There is a considerable record of traditional Māori occupation in the general Waitara area and the proposed designated area is located 100m south west of a site and area of significance to Māori, a mid 19th century papakainga of Mahoe in the PDP. In March 2021, an archaeological assessment of effects concluded that “due to the extent of earthworks and development that has occurred at this location, the likelihood of recovering in-situ archaeological evidence relating to the occupation of Mahoe has been assessed as low, but cannot be discounted.” The report recommended that prior to undertaking earthworks NPDC apply to Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga for an archaeological authority to modify an archaeological site. The report did not address the cultural significance of the site to local iwi/hapū, and recommends that NPDC seek the views of Manukorihi Hapū and Te Kotahitanga O Te Atiawa Trust.

The site is not located within close proximity to any known waahi taonga or archaeological sites. However, given that the Waitara River has significant cultural value, it is my opinion that it would be appropriate to include an accidental discovery protocol should an archaeological site be discovered during the construction period.

I have discussed this matter with the Three Waters Team at NPDC. They advised that an accidental discovery protocol is a standard clause in all Council contracts which require earthworks. They have accepted the recommendations of the archaeological assessment of effects, and are currently awaiting a cultural values assessment from local iwi/hapū. In addition, The Three Waters Team advised that it is intended to write an accidental discovery protocol into the contract, along with a requirement that hapū representatives will need to be onsite during any excavation and an archaeologist will be on call if any finds are located.

In light of the above precautionary steps and the methods that are being applied in the case of an accidental discovery, I am satisfied that an accidental discovery would be adequately managed. In this regard, I have not recommended such a condition.

Alternative sites, routes or methods

An alternative location for the new sewer pump station was considered, being within the existing footpath. This option was disregarded once it was established that constructing in this area would undermine the structural foundations of nearby buildings.

Designation or work is considered reasonably necessary

I consider the designation necessary to enable flexibility to modify infrastructure at later stages as may be required due to changing requirements or new technology, allow land required for the works and intended use of the land to be clearly identified in the district plan, and prevent land uses and/or development that may hinder or prevent the works.

An error was made in recording the lapse date for the designation. As the pump station is yet to be built a 10 year lapse date is sought by NPDC. While it is anticipated that construction will commence in the next three to five years, the commencement of construction is dependent on funding availability. For this reason, an extended timeframe to give effect to the designation is sought in order to provide for a situation where funding cannot be secured in the short term. I consider a ten year lapse date to be appropriate given that the project is dependent on funding availability and that the land is owned by local authorities not private individuals.

Conditions

I consider the proposed conditions effectively avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects to an acceptable level.

5.10.9 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that NPDC-146 be modified by amending the lapse date to “23 September 2029” instead of “Given effect to (i.e. no lapse date).”

Waitara Sewer Pump Station

5.10.10 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on NPDC’s Waitara Sewer Pump Station notice of requirement.

5.10.11 Discussion and Evaluation

Nature of the public works

NPDC requested a new designation (NPDC-79) for the existing Waitara Sewer Pump Station, which transfers wastewater from Waitara to the New Plymouth Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Environmental effects

The proposed designated area is located within the Industrial C Environment Area in the ODP and the General Industrial Zone in the PDP. The site adjoins residential development on the western site of Queen Street and the Waitara River stop banks and Waitara River on the eastern side. The Waitara stop banks are part of an existing designation (TRC-1) which is held by the Taranaki Regional Council for the Lower Waitara River Flood Protection and River Control Scheme.

In terms of adverse effects, there are no immediate works proposed to be carried out as part of the notice of requirement. The site was established in 1992 and already contains buildings which house control systems, pumps, a wet well, screens blowers, compressors, wastewater storage tanks and ancillary infrastructure (odour bed and telemetry aerials). The site also includes a smaller pump station consisting of underground tanks and above ground cabinets and aerials.

In terms of visual effects, the site contains established landscaping which partially screens the wastewater storage tanks and ancillary buildings from the Waitara River and residential area on Queen Street. As they are existing structures I consider they form part of the existing environment and are in keeping with the surrounding industrial zoned land.

In terms of noise effects, noise is generated from the existing infrastructure, including from the pumps, screens, blowers and compressors. However, these activities do not generate unreasonable noise effects beyond the boundary of the proposed designated area.

In terms of traffic effects, vehicles are required to visit the site daily for maintenance purposes. Two vehicle crossings provide two separate access points from Queen Street.

As the infrastructure already exists, the designation of the site will not result in an increase in visual, noise or traffic effects. In addition, the outline plan process allows for the consideration of future effects for any additional works proposed within the designated area, and any works outside of the designated area would require a resource consent. In light of this, I consider the potential adverse effects are less than minor.

Alternative sites, routes or methods

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the facilities are already in existence and the designation is not changing in boundary or extent.

Designation or work is considered reasonably necessary

I consider the designation is necessary to enable flexibility to modify infrastructure at later stages as may be required due to changing requirements or new technology, allow land required for the works and intended use of the land to be clearly identified in the district plan, and

prevent land uses and/or development that may hinder or prevent the works.

Conditions

I consider the proposed conditions effectively avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects to an acceptable level.

5.10.12 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that NPDC-79 be confirmed and that the conditions as notified be imposed.

Memorial Hall Stormwater Pump Station

5.10.13 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on NPDC’s Memorial Hall Stormwater Pump Station notice of requirement.

5.10.14 Discussion and Evaluation

Nature of the public work

NPDC requested a new designation for the existing Memorial Hall Stormwater Pump Station (NPDC-107) which pumps stormwater over the Waitara River stop bank when the Waitara River is at high flows to protect people and property from the effects of stormwater run-off and localised flooding. The pump was established in the early 2000s and then used infrequently, with 2016 being the last time it was used.

Environmental effects

The site is within the Industrial C Environment Area in the ODP and is zoned Open Space in the PDP. In terms of adverse effects, there are no immediate works proposed to be carried out as part of the notice of requirement. The site already contains a concrete building which contains pumps, valves, piping, meters, cables, controls, generator and a wet well. In terms of visual effects, the building is setback approximately 20m from West Quay and existing mature vegetation screens the site from the Waitara River. A car park is located between West Quay and the stormwater pump building. In terms of noise effects, noise is generated from a diesel generator. However due to the infrequent use of the site, as well as the setback from the road, the activity does not generate noise beyond the boundary of the proposed designated site. In terms of traffic effects, access to the site is via West Quay. Vehicle movements to the site are infrequent and limited to monthly maintenance.

As the infrastructure already exists, the designation of the site will not result in an increase in any adverse visual, noise or traffic effects. In addition, the outline plan process allows for the consideration of future effects for any additional works proposed within the designated area, and

any works outside of the designated area would require a resource consent. In light of this, I consider the potential adverse effects are less than minor.

Alternative sites, routes or methods

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the facilities are already in existence and the designation is not changing in boundary or extent.

Designation or work is considered reasonably necessary

Conditions

I consider the proposed conditions effectively avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects to an acceptable level.

5.10.15 Officer Recommendation

I recommended that NPDC-107 be confirmed and that the conditions as notified be imposed.

Oakura Water Treatment Plant

5.10.16 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on NPDC’s Oakura Water Treatment Plant notice of requirement.

5.10.17 Discussion and Evaluation

Nature of the public work

NPDC requested a new designation (NPDC-74) for existing water supply infrastructure in Oakura. The purpose of the designation is to provide for the long term protection of this infrastructure which includes all ancillary above and below ground structures and infrastructure associated with the treatment of water, including the Oakura Water Treatment Plant, reservoir, water booster pump and bores. Some additions and alterations to the Oakura Water Treatment Plant are planned that will provide an increased level of treatment allowing the facility to continue to meet evolving water safety requirements. The notice of requirement refers to this upgrade requiring the boundaries of the site to be extended out slightly and that NPDC is negotiating with the relevant landowners about acquiring the additional land. The Three Waters Team has advised that this additional land has since been purchased.

Environmental effects

The site is on land zoned as Rural Environment Area in the ODP and Rural Production Zone in the PDP. The proposed designation encompasses four allotments containing the Oakura Water Treatment Plant and reservoir which were established in the mid 1980s, a water booster pump and two bores providing the municipal water supply for the community of Oakura. The plant has the capacity to treat up to 280,000L/day and treatment of water includes chlorination to provide residual disinfection in the reticulation system, pH control and corrosion minimisation (lime). The treated water is piped to two reservoirs.

The Three Waters Team has advised that the upgrade has commenced since the notice of requirement was written. It includes an enlarged building at the main site, but no additional reservoirs, and is under construction at present. The building envelope is completed and the installation of new equipment inside the building is well advanced. It is expected that the upgraded plant will be commissioned within the next two to three months.

In terms of visual effects, the reservoir and plant are set back 135m and 163m respectively from Wairau Road. The additions are similar in nature, scale and location. Given the large setback the infrastructure does not impact adversely on the rural character or amenity of the site. The water booster pump building, which is integral to the operation as it contains the mains power, is only 15m from Wairau Road but it is small in scale and visually integrates with a neighbouring piece of nonrelated infrastructure owned by Natural Gas Corporation. It does not impact adversely on the rural character or amenity of the site. The bores on the west and east of Wairau Road are barely visible and do not impact adversely on the rural character or amenity of the area when viewed from Wairau Road or nearly residential properties.

In terms of noise effects, the plant and the pump do not generate unreasonable noise effects beyond the boundary of the site. The bores do not generate any noise.

In terms of traffic and parking effects, access to the plant is gained via an existing easement from Wairau Road. A light vehicle visits the site daily for maintenance purposes.

Designating the site will not result in an increase in noise or vehicle movements or adverse effects on character and amenity or parking.

Alternative sites, routes or methods

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the designation relates to sites containing existing infrastructure.

Designation or work is considered reasonably necessary

I consider the designation is necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority. It will assist NPDC in meeting its obligations under the

Local Government Act in terms of the provision of water services. The water treatment plant, reservoir, ancillary infrastructure and bores are necessary for abstracting, treating and providing temporary storage for water before piping this out for community use. The designation will enable flexibility to modify the infrastructure at later stage as may be required due to changing requirements or new technology. It will create greater visibility in the district plan, clearly indicating the intended use of the site. It will prevent land uses and/or development that may hinder or prevent the works.

Resource Consents

NPDC has four existing resource consents relating to the abstraction of water and operation of the Oakura Water Treatment Plant.

Conditions

5.10.18 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that NPDC-74 be confirmed.

Okato Water Treatment Plant

5.10.19 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on NPDC’s Okato Water Treatment Plant notice of requirement.

5.10.20 Discussion and Evaluation

Nature of the public work

NPDC requested a new designation (NPDC-76) for existing water supply infrastructure in Okato. The purpose of the designation is to provide for the long term protection of this infrastructure and to increase its visibility within the district plan. The Okato Water Treatment Plant has a capacity to treat up to 900m3/day. At the plant a multi-barrier process occurs including two stage microfiltration, ultra-violet sterilisation and the addition of lime and chlorine before being transferred to the adjoining reservoir which can hold 1.2million litres. There are currently 50 metered connections on the supply, 14 from farms and 36 from residential properties, with either metered or restricted flow connection.

Environmental Effects

The site is on land zoned as Rural Environment Area in the ODP and Rural Production Zone in the PDP. The site has an area of 1012m2 and contains

the Okato Water Treatment Plant and reservoir which were established in 2003. The untreated water source is the Mangatete Stream and the reservoir capacity is 50,000L/hr. Water from the stream is drawn through an infiltration gallery under the riverbank and flows by gravity to the plant where a multi-barrier treatment process occurs.

In terms of visual effects, the plant and reservoir are set back 7m from Oxford Road. Landscaping within the site largely screens the structures from view when approaching from the north. The plant and reservoir are visible when approaching from the south but they are similar in scale to the onsite landscaping and are nondescript in colour.

In terms of noise effects, the plant is 120m from the closest residential dwelling. It does not generate unreasonable noise effects beyond the boundary of the site.

In terms of traffic and parking effects, access to the site is gained via an existing driveway from Oxford Road. A light vehicle visits the site daily for maintenance purposes.

Designating the site will not result in an increase in noise or vehicle movements, adverse effects on character and amenity or a change to the existing access arrangement.

Alternative sites, routes or methods

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the designation relates to sites containing existing infrastructure.

Designation or work is considered reasonably necessary

I consider the designation is necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority. It will assist NPDC in meeting its obligations under the Local Government Act in terms of the provision of water services. The water treatment plant is necessary to supply drinking water to the Okato community. The designation will enable flexibility to modify the infrastructure at later stage as may be required due to changing requirements or new technology. It will create greater visibility in the district plan, clearly indicating the intended use of the site. It will prevent land uses and/or development that may hinder or prevent the works.

Resource Consents

NPDC holds a resource consent to abstract water from the Mangatete Stream. Discharging water from the treatment process into an unnamed tributary of the Kaihihi Stream is a permitted activity under a Certificate of Compliance issued by Taranaki Regional Council.

Conditions

No conditions are sought and I do not recommend any conditions as the activity presently exists, and the outline plan process allows for the

consideration of future effects for any additional works proposed within the designation.

5.10.21 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that NPDC-76 be confirmed.

Inglewood Water Treatment Plant

5.10.22 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on NPDC’s Inglewood Water Treatment Plant notice of requirement.

5.10.23 Discussion and Evaluation

NPDC requested the rollover of its designation for the Inglewood Water Treatment Plant (NPDC-65) with minor corrections. These corrections were:

• the designation purpose was changed from “Water Supply” to “Water treatment, storage and pumping”; and • the site identifier was changed from “Dudley Road Upper” to “Inglewood Water Treatment Plant.”

Currently the designation covers an area of 3,918m2 and encompasses Pt Lot 1 DP 17502. The site contains the plant and associated infrastructure including reservoirs. The plant has a capacity of 200,000L/hr. The water is extracted from the Ngatoro Stream via an infiltration gallery. The two gallery pipe legs feed a pipeline that supplies the plant. Treatment includes filtration, coagulation, mixing, flocculation, contact flocculation, filtration, sterilisation and pH correction. Following treatment the water flows into two reservoirs that can each hold 4.5 million litres. As well as changes to the designation schedule, it was also requested that the designation boundary be modified to include an additional 1985m2 of land. The additional area encompasses Sec 1 SO 325702 in its entirety and this allotment contains a second reservoir which provides storage for water following treatment at the plant.

I agree with the requiring authority that the modifications described above provide clarity and the corrections to the designation details should be made.

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the designation and facilities are already in existence. Whilst the designation boundary is increasing in size by approximately a third to include the second reservoir, I consider this to be less than minor because the reservoir

already exists, the land is owned by NPDC and the boundary change is simply to formalise what is already in existence.

I consider the designation is necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority in respect of providing certainty for the on-going security and resilience of the water treatment plant for water supply to the Inglewood community, and to provide for the flexibility of the plant to adapt to changing technologies and community expectations.

No existing conditions apply to this designation and no new conditions are sought. I do not recommend any conditions as the activity presently exists, and the outline plan process allows for the consideration of future effects for any additional works proposed within the designation.

5.10.24 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that NPDC-65 be confirmed.

Huatoki Plaza Weir and Fish Pass

5.10.25 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on NPDC’s Huatoki Plaza Weir and Fish Pass notice of requirement.

5.10.26 Discussion and Evaluation

Nature of the public work

NPDC has requested a new designation (NPDC-108) for existing flood protection infrastructure on NPDC owned land to provide for the long term protection of this existing asset for the purpose of ‘weir and fish pass.’ The site has already been developed for this use and the designation will not alter the existing use of the site. An outline plan of works for future upgrades would be submitted as and when required.

Environmental Effects

The site is on land zoned as Business A Environment Area A in the ODP and City Centre Zone in the PDP. The site contains an existing weir and fish pass within the Huatoki Stream which was established in 2010. The site is located in the heart of the city centre and is surrounded by retail, hospitality and public facilities. In terms of visual effects, the infrastructure already exists so designation of the site will not create any adverse effects on character and amenity. In terms of traffic and parking effects, vehicle movements include maintenance vehicles which visit the site on a monthly basis. Designation of the site will not generate additional vehicle movements to the site, adversely impact on parking or result in a change to the existing access arrangement. In terms of noise effects, the activity does not generate unreasonable noise beyond the boundary of the site and designation of the site will not result in an increase in noise.

Alternative sites, routes or methods

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the designation relates to a site containing existing infrastructure.

Designation or work is considered reasonably necessary

I consider the designation is necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority. It will assist NPDC in meeting its obligations under the Local Government Act in terms of flood protection measures. One of the core services of local authorities is the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards. The designation will enable flexibility to modify the infrastructure at later stage as may be required due to changing requirements or new technology. It will create greater visibility in the district plan, clearly indicating the intended use of the site. It will prevent land uses and/or development that may hinder or prevent the works.

Resource Consents

NPDC holds a consent to install, use and maintain a weir and fish pass in the Huatoki Stream.

Conditions

5.10.27 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that NPDC-108 be confirmed.

New Plymouth Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facility

5.10.28 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on NPDC’s New Plymouth Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facility designation.

5.10.29 Discussion and Evaluation

NPDC requested the rollover of one designation (NPDC-71) with minor corrections relating to wastewater treatment and disposal. These corrections were:

• the designation purpose was changed from “Wastewater treatment and disposal facility, including effluent disposal pipeline” to “Wastewater treatment and disposal facility (including effluent disposal pipeline)”; and

• the site name was changed from “115 Rifle Range Road” to “New Plymouth Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facility.”

I agree with the requiring authority these modifications provide clarity and that the corrections to the designation details should be made.

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the designation and facilities are already in existence and the designation is not changing in boundary or extent.

I consider the designation is necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority in respect of providing certainty for the on-going security and resilience of wastewater and treatment disposal and to meet community wellbeing expectations.

I have reviewed the conditions of NPDC-71. While some matters in condition 1 regarding landscaping have been completed, including the preparation of a landscape plan, there is a need for matters relating to the objectives of the landscape plan and the on-going management and maintenance to be retained. In particular, the Three Waters Team has advised that there is the need for replacement plantings as mature exotic vegetation reaches the end of its life and where new plantings have failed to take hold. Condition 2(b) also requires that the objective of the landscaping plan be referred to and achieved in the preparation of outline plans for proposed works not covered by condition 2(a). I therefore do not recommend any changes to condition 1 regarding landscaping.

In relation to condition 2(a) where NPDC is not required to submit outline plans, the third clarifier was built in 2007, the third aeration basin has not been built and the sludge drying area adjacent to Lagoon No. 2 is currently under construction. I recommend that the term “a third clarifier” is deleted from the list of works under condition 2(a), as the work has been completed and that aspect of the condition is no longer needed.

5.10.30 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that NPDC-71 be modified by removing the reference to “a third clarifier” in condition 2(a).

New Plymouth Airport

5.10.31 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on NPDC’s New Plymouth Airport designation.

5.10.32 Discussion and Evaluation

NPDC requested the rollover of one designation (NPDC-151) with minor corrections relating to an aerodrome. These corrections were:

• the site name was changed from “Airport Drive (formerly Brown Road)” to “New Plymouth Airport”; and • the designation boundary was amended to remove land that is in the ownership of Puketapu E Block not NPDC.

I agree with the requiring authority these modifications provide clarity and that the corrections to the designation details should be made.

The designation encompasses a terminal and runway. The 1960s airport terminal was recently transformed into a modern regional gateway terminal and opened in March 2020. The designation is already in existence and has been given effect to. Any adverse effects on the environment are expected to be no different from the current situation and are I consider it to be part of the existing environment.

I consider the designation is necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority in respect of providing certainty for the on-going security and resilience of the aerodrome. It also meets community expectations around regional connectivity in terms of facilitating trade, tourism and employment opportunities which in turn generates economic growth and development.

5.10.33 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that NPDC-151 be confirmed.

5.11 New Zealand Transport Agency

5.11.1 Submissions Received

Waka Kotahi (566.126) seeks that where their designations abut, intersect or overlap with KiwiRail Holdings Limited’s designations on the planning maps that they be amended so they can differentiated, e.g. by using different colours or shading. KiwiRail Holdings Limited (FS 118.15) made a further submission supporting this because it will provide clarity and certainty for Waka Kotahi and KiwiRail Holdings Limited as well as other plan users.

Waka Kotahi seeks that the mapping be amended for NZTA-1 (State Highway 3) in 11 places and for NZTA-3 (State Highway 45) in 14 places (566.127a to 566.127x, maps supplied) to address circumstances where land is surplus to requirements, parcels are paper roads, land is gazetted as road and is managed by Waka Kotahi, the designation does not cover the entire formed state highway and/or the designation boundary does not align with the legal road boundary. One of the property owners (Sarah McPhee on behalf of Sue and Ray Shand, 407.1) with land incorrectly shown within the designation boundary due to the designation boundary not aligning with the road boundary has submitted that the designation boundary for NZTA-3 (State Highway 45) be amended so that it is limited to the road corridor. Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities (FS 201.881) made a further submission supporting an instance for NZTA-1 (State Highway 3) at 26 Bell Block Court, Bell Block where land is surplus to requirements and will be sold.

Z Energy Limited supports NZTA-1 (State Highway 3) insofar as it applies to the Z Waiwhakaiho and Z Inglewood sites (284.24) and insofar as it does not extend into the Z TS Waitara site (284.37). Z Energy Limited supports NZTA-3 (State Highway 45) insofar as it does not extend into the Z Courtenay Street Service Station site (284.3). No further submissions were received.

Waka Kotahi (566.115) seeks that the lapse date for NZTA-4 (State Highway 44) be amended from “23 September 2024” to “Given effect to (i.e. no lapse date)”. No further submissions were received.

5.11.2 Discussion and Evaluation

Notices of Requirement NZTA-1 to NZTA-3

Waka Kotahi requested a rollover of three designations (NZTA-1, NZTA-2 and NZTA-3) with minor corrections. These corrections were:

• the designated purpose was changed to read “To undertake construction, maintenance, operation, use and improvement of the State Highway network and associated infrastructure” to ensure national consistency for all state highways across all territorial authorities; and • the site identifiers were consolidated from several lines of information in the ODP designation schedule to one succinct line per designation in the PDP.

Boundaries for all state highways were also included. The ODP does not spatially define the designations. Instead it states that all state highways are designated and are shown on planning maps by pink dots to differentiate them from other roads.

I agree with the requiring authority these modifications provide clarity and will assist with consistency across all territorial authorities, and that the corrections to the designation details should be made. I also agree that

boundaries should be included as they will provide clarity and certainty for plan users.

The designations are already in existence and therefore given effect to. Any adverse effects on the environment are expected to be no different from the current situation and I consider them to be part of the existing environment.

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the designations and roads are already in existence.

I consider the designations are necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority in respect of providing certainty for the construction, maintenance, operation, use and improvement of the state highway network and associated infrastructure.

No existing conditions apply to these designations and no new conditions are sought. I do not recommend any conditions as the activities presently exist, and the outline plan process allows for the consideration of future effects for any additional works proposed within the designations.

I consider it appropriate to make the amendments sought to the designation boundary for NZTA-1 (State Highway 3) by Waka Kotahi (566.127a to 566.127k) and Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities (FS 201.881), and the amendments sought to the designation boundary for NZTA-3 (State Highway 45) by Waka Kotahi (566.127l to 566.127x) and Sarah McPhee on behalf of Sue and Ray Shand (407.1). The amendments will address circumstances where land is surplus to requirements, parcels are paper roads, land is gazetted as road and is managed by Waka Kotahi, the designation does not cover the entire formed state highway and/or the designation boundary does not align with the legal road boundary. It will also provide clarity and certainty for affected landowners and plan users.

The National Planning Standards (13 Mapping Standard, Table 20 Symbol representation, pages 51 and 52) state that the Council must show designations as a polygon with a width of 1.5 pts with no fill and in colour RGB 20, 177, 231. Therefore the Council is unable to amend the appearance of any of the designation boundaries on the planning maps, as per the request of Waka Kotahi (566.126) and KiwiRail Holdings Limited (FS 118.15).

Notice of Requirement for NZTA-4 (new designation)

Nature of the public work

Waka Kotahi requested a new designation for State Highway 44. The designated area comprises of existing legal road and is approximately 5.21km in length. State Highway 44 is the preferred route between State Highway 3 and Port Taranaki and comprises part of Eliot Street/Molesworth Street/St Aubyn Street and Breakwater Road. The purpose of the designation is to provide for the construction and operation of a road (being State Highway 44) including its maintenance, improvement, enhancement, expansion, realignment and alteration.

100

In the ODP, State Highway 44 adjoins land zoned Residential Environment Area, Business B, C and D Environment Area, and Industrial D Environment Area. In the PDP, State Highway 44 adjoins land zoned City Centre Zone, Mixed Use Zone, Residential Zone, Local Centre Zone, General Industrial Zone and Special Purpose Zone: Port Zone.

In terms of adverse effects, there are no immediate works proposed to be carried out as part of the notice of requirement. Waka Kotahi seeks the formalisation of a designation over an existing formed state highway route. The already formed roads of Eilot Street, Molesworth Street/St Aubyn Street and Breakwater Road were gazetted as part of the state highway network on 17 June 2004.3

State Highway 44 is labelled on the planning maps in the ODP, but there is no record of the Council receiving a notice of requirement to designate it and it is not included in Appendix 4.3 (Schedule of Designations – Network Utility Operators). It is likely that the planning maps show a label for State Highway 44 because the Council regularly updates the planning maps to reflect changing cadastral boundaries and road names based on information supplied by Land Information New Zealand, but that a notice of requirement was not prepared as an administrative oversight.

The preparation of the notice of requirement is to rectify this historical administrative oversight by formally designating the route as State Highway 44. Any adverse effects on the environment are expected to be no different from the current situation as State Highway 44 is considered part of the existing environment. In light of this, I consider the potential adverse effects are less than minor.

I consider it appropriate to amend the lapse date for NZTA-4 (State Highway 44) from “23 September 2024” to “Given effect to (i.e. no lapse date)” as requested by Waka Kotahi (566.115) because this designation has already been given effect to and was an inputting error when compiling their Designation Chapter in the PDP.

Alternative sites, routes or methods

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the state highway is already in existence and the designation is not changing in boundary or extent. However, it appears an error has been made in the mapping of the designation boundary supplied to the Council. The PDP shows the designation incorrectly ending at the intersection of Ngamotu Road and Breakwater Road. The correct termination of the designation at its western point is at 175 Breakwater Road (NZTM 1689277, 5676157), as referred to in the notice of requirement.

The Council is currently drafting its City Centre Strategy and will seek feedback from the wider community in the later part of 2020. The purpose of the strategy is to set the direction for New Plymouth’s city centre over the next 30 years. It provides the Council, its partners and the community a ‘route’ map to energise the city centre as the main community and

3 New Zealand Gazette No.73, pp1762-1763

101

employment hub and visitor destination of the district. The strategy will outline key moves that collectively aim to deliver on its strategic goals and principles and unlock the potential of the city centre.

Early indications from community stakeholder workshops that have informed the City Centre Strategy are that a better connection between the city centre and the coast is desirable. Presently part of NZTA-4 (State Highway 44) runs along the foreshore. It carries a large volume of heavy vehicles each day, many of which are truck and trailers or tankers carrying freight to and from Port Taranaki. The strategy will likely set out goals to enhance a more pedestrian friendly environment.

Any proposal to increase pedestrian connectivity across NZTA-4 (State Highway 44) will require discussion with Waka Kotahi and other stakeholders such as Port Taranaki.

Given the City Centre Strategy requires stakeholder discussion, I consider it is too early to amend NZTA-4 (State Highway 44) in any way and that it is appropriate to include it in the PDP as requested, albeit with the mapping amendment to rectify the error referred to earlier. However, I am indicating now that that an amendment may be needed in the future given upcoming consultation with the wider community on the City Centre Strategy.

Designation or work is considered reasonably necessary

I consider the designation is necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority in respect of providing certainty for the construction, maintenance, operation, use and improvement of the State Highway 44 and associated infrastructure.

Conditions

5.11.3 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that NZTA-1 (State Highway 3) be modified by amending the planning maps in the 11 places outlined in Waka Kotahi’s submission so that the designation boundary matches the cadastral boundary.

I recommend that NZTA-2 (State Highway 3A) be confirmed.

I recommend that NZTA-3 (State Highway 45) be modified by amending the planning maps in the 14 places outlined in Waka Kotahi’s submission so that the designation boundary matches the cadastral boundary.

I recommend that NZTA-4 (State Highway 44) be modified by including a small extension to Breakwater Road on State Highway 44 to the west.

102

I recommend that submission points 566.126 and FS 118.15 be rejected.

I recommend that submission points 284.3, 284.24, 284.37, 407.1, 566.115, 566.127a to 566.127x and FS 201.881 be accepted.

5.12 NZME Radio Limited

5.12.1 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on NZME Radio Limited’s designations.

5.12.2 Discussion and Evaluation

NZME Radio Limited requested the rollover of two designations (NZME-1 and NZME-2) with a minor correction to change the name of the requiring authority for both designations from “The Radio Network Limited” to “NZME Radio Limited.”

I agree with the requiring authority this modification provides clarity and that the correction to the designation details should be made.

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the designations and facilities are already in existence and the designations are not changing in boundary or extent.

I consider the designations are necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority in respect of providing certainty for the on-going security and resilience of the broadcasting and communication facilities, and to provide for the flexibility to adapt to changing technologies and community expectations.

5.12.3 Officer Recommendation

I recommended that NZME-1 and NZME-2 be confirmed.

5.13 Powerco Limited

5.13.1 Submissions Received

One submission was made by Ynette and Richard Foreman (269.1) seeking removal of PL-7 (Tikorangi Substation) because they received confirmation

103

from Powerco Limited that the designation is no longer required. The Council received a letter from Powerco Limited dated 15 November 2019 giving notice that it no longer requires PL-7 in the PDP and N20 in the ODP. No further submissions were received. Given PL-7 has been withdrawn there is no submission analysis on PL-7.

5.13.2 Discussion and Evaluation

Powerco Limited requested the rollover of three designations (PL-8, PL-10 and PL-12) with minor corrections. These corrections were:

• the name of the requiring authority for PL-10 was changed from “Independent Transmission Services Limited” to “Powerco Limited” because the former is no longer a subsidiary company and the ownership of the substation has reverted to Powerco Limited; and • the names of sites were changed to the names that Powerco Limited refers to the sites by to ensure that there is no confusion as to which sites are designated.

I agree with the requiring authority these modifications provide clarity and that the corrections to the designation details should be made.

All three designations are already in existence and therefore given effect to. Any adverse effects on the environment are expected to be no different from the current situation and I consider them to be part of the existing environment.

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the designations and facilities are already in existence and the designations are not changing in boundary or extent.

I consider the designations are necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority in respect of providing certainty for the on-going security and resilience of the substations and to provide for the flexibility to adapt to changing technologies and community expectations.

5.13.3 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that PL-8, PL-10 and PL-12 be confirmed.

5.14 Spark New Zealand Trading Limited

5.14.1 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on Spark New Zealand Trading Limited’s designations.

104

5.14.2 Discussion and Evaluation

Spark New Zealand Limited requested the rollover of two designations (SPK-1 and SPK-2) with minor corrections relating to the demerger between Chorus New Zealand Limited and the former Telecom New Zealand Limited as well as changes in legislation around telecommunications. These corrections were:

• the name of the requiring authority for both designations was changed from “Telecom New Zealand Limited” to “Spark New Zealand Trading Limited”; and • it was stated for SPK-2 that it is secondary to CNZ-7 in the designation hierarchy to Chorus New Zealand Limited under s177 of the Act.

I agree with the requiring authority these modifications provide clarity and the corrections to the designation details should be made.

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the designations and facilities are already in existence and the designations are not changing in boundary or extent.

5.14.3 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that SPK-1 and SPK-2 be confirmed.

5.15 Taranaki Regional Council

5.15.1 Submissions Received

No submissions were received on Taranaki Regional Council’s designation and notice of requirement.

105

5.15.2 Discussion and Evaluation

Notice of Requirement for TRC-1 (rollover designation)

Taranaki Regional Council requested a rollover of the designation for the Lower Waitara River Flood Protection and River Control Scheme (TRC-1) with minor corrections. These corrections were:

• the designated purpose was changed to omit the word “reserve” from the wording in the ODP: “Lower Waitara Local purposes (Soil Conservation and Rivers Control) Reserve”; • the site identifier was consolidated from several lines of information in the ODP designation schedule to one succinct line in the PDP; and • the boundary was modified as a result of a major scheme upgrade completed in June 2016 to include a number of assets and associated infrastructure which are located outside of the designation boundary on the ODP maps.

I agree with the requiring authority these modifications provide clarity and the corrections to the designation details should be made.

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the designation is already in existence and changes to the designation site boundary reflect what is built on site as a result of the 2016 scheme upgrades.

I consider the designation is necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority in respect of providing certainty for the operation, maintenance, use and improvement of the Lower Waitara River Flood Protection and River Control Scheme.

Notice of Requirement for TRC-2 (new designation)

Nature of public work

Taranaki Regional Council requested a new designation to allow for the construction, operation and maintenance of the Lower Waiwhakaiho River Flood Protection and River Control Scheme. The scheme is on the Waiwhakaiho River and Mangaone Stream and was established in 1997 as a response to a major flood in 1995. As a result of changing land use, including the establishment of large format retail in the area, the scheme

106

was upgraded in 2011, and now provides a 1% AEP (1 in 100 year protection) for the surrounding land.

Environmental effects

The flood protection works are located on the Waiwhakaiho River downstream of the State Highway 3 Devon Road Bridge to the river mouth, including the active channel and the public land contained within the floodwall and stop banks and natural river terrace. The works also include the Mangaone Stream from the railway culvert adjacent to Egmont Road down to the confluence with the Waiwhakaiho River. The adjoining land is zoned Industrial C, Open Space A, and Open Space B Environment Area in the ODP and Sport and Active Recreation Zone, Mixed Use Zone, Open Space Zone and General Industrial Zone in the PDP.

In terms of adverse effects, there are no immediate works proposed to be carried out as part of the notice of requirement. The visual effects include the loss of natural character of the river, by the construction of stop banks, concrete block or gabion floodwalls, rock revetments and floodgates. As the infrastructure is in place, these visual effects are considered part of the existing environment. In terms of noise and traffic effects, the on-going maintenance of the flood works will be minor in nature and unlikely to generate adverse effects. In light of this, I consider the potential adverse effects to be less than minor.

Alternative sites, routes or methods

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary or possible as the flood protection works are already in place, and are necessary to prevent the flooding of existing land from the Waiwhakaiho River and Mangaone Stream over topping their banks.

Designation or work is considered reasonably necessary

I consider the designation is necessary to achieve the objectives of the requiring authority in respect of providing certainty for the operation, maintenance, use and improvement of the Lower Waiwhakaiho River Flood Protection and River Control Scheme.

Conditions

No new conditions are sought and I do not recommend any conditions as the activity presently exists, and the outline plan process allows for the consideration of future effects for any additional works proposed within the designation.

5.15.3 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that TRC-1 be confirmed.

I recommend that TRC-2 be confirmed.

107

5.16 Transpower New Zealand Limited

5.16.1 Submissions Received

One submission was received from Transpower New Zealand Limited on all of their designations. Their submission was split into two components. For each designation they sought retention of the designation (TPR-1: 565.202; TPR-2: 565.195; TPR-3: 565.197; TPR-4: 565.203; TPR-5: 565.205 and TPR-6: 565.214). For each designation they also sought additional details about the location of sites in the Designations Chapter to improve accuracy and certainty, e.g. address, legal description, parcel size, parcel ID, etc. (TPR-1: 565.199; TPR-2: 565.196; TPR-3: 565.198; TPR-4: 565.200; TPR-5: 565.217 and TPR-6: 565.215). No further submissions were received.

5.16.2 Discussion and Evaluation

Transpower New Zealand Limited requested the rollover of six designations (TPR-1 to TPR-6) with minor corrections. These corrections were:

• the name of the requiring authority for all six designations was changed from “Transpower New Zealand” to “Transpower New Zealand Limited”; and • the name of TPR-2 was changed from “Carrington Substation” to “Carrington Street Substation.”

I agree with the requiring authority these modifications provide clarity and the corrections to the designation details should be made.

I consider it unnecessary to include additional details about the location of sites in the Designations Chapter as per the request in Transpower New Zealand Limited’s submission because it has been developed according to the National Planning Standards, it avoids individuals and organisations using different identifiers to the Council, it avoids information becoming out of date if subdivision occurs and some of the information requested for inclusion is already available on the planning maps.

The Designations Chapter has been structured and populated according to the National Planning Standards (9 Designation Standard, page 39 and 40). The National Planning Standards refer to using various types of information such as legal descriptions, physical addresses and site names. However, councils only have to provide “one or more” of these types of information. The Council has only included site names in the “Site Identifier” attribute.

The Council has not included information such as legal descriptions and physical addresses in the PDP schedules (e.g. heritage buildings, notable trees, significant natural areas, etc.) because this information becomes out of date if subdivision occurs. This in turn requires on-going correction through a manual process which is unnecessarily laborious.

If additional details about the location of sites were added in the Designations Chapter, the addition of “Parcel ID” would complicate matters

108

for users of the PDP because the Council uses “Property ID” not “Parcel ID”.

Some of the information requested for inclusion is already available on the top left hand corner of the planning maps when you select a property, so it would be a duplication to include it in the Designations Chapter. The PDP is a GIS-driven e-plan allowing integration with planning provisions via a property-based search. It was the first plan in New Zealand to be developed according to the National Planning Standards. Some of the information that was traditionally found in district plan schedules is now found on the e-plan GIS platform. Figure 8 below is an example of the information that comes up on the left hand panel if you search on 361 Carrington Street, New Plymouth, which contains TPR-2.

Figure 8: Left Hand Panel Information in regards to 361 Carrington Street, New Plymouth

TPR-1 (New Plymouth Outdoor Switchyard), TPR-2 (Carrington Street Substation), TPR-3 (Huirangi Substation) and TPR-4 (Motunui Substation) are already in existence and therefore given effect to. Any adverse effects on the environment are expected to be no different from the current situation and I consider them to be part of the existing environment.

Notices of requirement were confirmed in the ODP in March 2017 for TPR- 5 (Junction Road Switching Station) and TPR-6 (Junction Road National Grid Line) and both of these designations have conditions. Since the PDP was notified, both TPR-5 and TPR-6 have been given effect to and some construction related conditions are now redundant. I therefore consider it appropriate to remove these redundant conditions.

I do not consider alternative sites, routes or methods are necessary as the designations and facilities are already in existence and the designations are not changing in boundary or extent.

109

5.16.3 Officer Recommendation

I recommend that TPR-1 to TPR-4 be confirmed.

I recommend that TPR-5 be modified by removing the redundant conditions as contained in Appendix 7 – Recommended Amendments to Conditions for TPR-5: Junction Road Switching Station to this report and renumbering the remaining conditions.

I recommend that TPR-6 be modified by removing the redundant conditions as contained in Appendix 8 – Recommended Amendments to Conditions for TPR-6: Junction Road National Grid Line to this report and renumbering the remaining conditions.

I recommend that submission points 565.202, 565.195, 565.197, 565.203, 565.205 and 565.214 be accepted.

I recommend that submission points 565.199, 565.196, 565.198, 565.200, 565.217 and 565.215 be rejected.

5.17 All Designations The Additional Information column in the Designations Chapter for each requiring authority contains information on the following:

• the designation status, i.e. new designation, rollover designation, rollover designation with modifications (with modifications to which attribute listed); • the reference used in ODP where applicable, e.g. N60; and • for all MOE designations, an explanation of what ‘Education Purposes’ means.

I recommend that the designation statuses and the references used in the ODP be removed once the PDP becomes operative. These were intended for information purposes only to assist with transitioning from the old to the new district plan and will become irrelevant once the PDP becomes operative.

110

6 Conclusion This report has provided an assessment of submissions received and notices of requirement lodged in relation to Designations.

Section 6 considers and provides recommendations on the decisions requested in submissions. I consider that the submissions on the Designations Chapter should be accepted, accepted in part, rejected or rejected in part, as set out in my recommendations of this report.

Section 6 also considers and provides recommendations on the notices of requirement lodged by requiring authorities. I consider that the notices of requirement in the Designations Chapter should be confirmed or modified (with or without conditions imposed) or rejected, as set out in my recommendations of this report.

I recommend that the Designations Chapter and planning maps be amended as set out in Appendix 3, 4 and 5, for the reasons set out in this report.

111