clause 6 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991

Transcription

1 Under clause 6 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 SUBMISSION ON THE PROPOSED RUAKURA VARIATION 1 TO THE HAMILTON PROPOSED DISTRICT PLAN TAINUI GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED Dated 18 December

2 To: Hamilton City Council Name of Submitter: This is a submission on Proposed Variation 1 to the Proposed Hamilton District Plan (the Variation) by (TGHL). Introduction 1. TGHL is the inter-generational investor and kaitiaki (guardian) of the commercial assets for the 67,000 members of the Waikato-Tainui people. 2. The Ruakura land that is the subject of the Variation is very significant to Waikato-Tainui. The land was returned to Waikato- Tainui as part of its Raupatu settlement in 1995 which saw the return of approximately 1.5% of the land area that was confiscated. Some 478ha in the Variation area is owned by TGHL. 3. The Variation land represents a unique long term investment and development opportunity for Waikato-Tainui. It is a springboard of opportunity that will enable Waikato-Tainui to develop a strong economic base that is capable of providing growth, financial independence and social self-reliance. 2

3 4. The vision and development concept for the Variation area commenced in 2001 and the land use options have been progressively refined and tested through a structure plan process by TGHL in partnership with Chedworth Properties and the Council. 5. Subject to the amendments sought in this submission, the pattern of land use and zoning enabled by the Variation and structure plan: (a) maximises the opportunities to create a range of land uses that in turn provide for a range of employment opportunities at Ruakura, and therefore achieving the role of a primary employment area in eastern Hamilton; (b) maximises the synergies between existing and proposed land uses as well as the relationships between land use, infrastructure and locational needs (eg. inland port to rail network, the Waikato Expressway, and employment to residential); (c) implements and effectively realise the live-work-play philosophy contained within the Hamilton Urban Growth Strategy and Future Proof, including providing a range of residential housing choices in close proximity to employment areas; and (d) maximises a resident population within an easily accessible distance from the Hamilton CBD, while at the same time providing land uses which fulfil needs for residents in eastern Hamilton. 3

4 6. The Ruakura Structure Plan encapsulated in the Variation is the latest phase in a series of planning strategies and documents, all of which cite the potential and benefits of development at Ruakura for a range of employment and residential activities. These documents include the Hamilton Urban Growth Strategy 2008 ( HUGS ), the Future Proof Growth Strategy and Implementation Plan 2009, and the Regional Policy Statement. 7. The Variation will enable the nationally significant inland port to develop that will provide freight distribution efficiencies and increase employment in the City and Region. 8. The land allocation within the Variation is supported by the imperative that, for the inland port to be viable, there must be sufficient land for supporting logistic businesses and warehousing. By enabling the inland port, the associated development will increase employment (with 11,000 jobs created, with 75% of those jobs new to the region) and increase GDP within the region (by $4.4 billion between 2019 and 2061). 9. In June 2013 TGHL in partnership with Chedworth Properties Limited lodged the private plan change request for part of the structure plan area that was heard and determined by the Board of Inquiry. The Board of Inquiry decision approved the plan change, subject to amendments which it outlined in its decision. Except as sought in this submission, the Variation accurately reflects the Board of Inquiry decision on the Plan Change. 4

5 10. TGHL supports the variation reflecting both the detail of the Board of Inquiry decision to the Plan Change land (noting that changes are necessary to fit with the structure of the Proposed District Plan), as well as the transfer of the approach established by the Board of Inquiry in its decision to the balance of the structure plan area. 11. In general terms, where any minor changes are sought to the Board of Inquiry text and approach, these have arisen from the experience using the provisions through resource consent applications post- Board decision. Relief sought and reasons 12. TGHL strongly supports the Variation and seeks that it be adopted, subject to the changes set out in the schedule at Attachment A and the map at Attachment B to this submission. 13. TGHL seeks the relief set out in Attachments A and B or alternative relief to like effect to address the reasons set out in the schedule. General reasons for relief 14. TGHL supports the Variation for the following reasons: (a) The Variation provides a comprehensive planning regime to allow the development of the structure plan area to commence in an orderly, timely and integrated manner. It provides for the development of an Inland Port and associated Logistics Zone, and which take advantage of 5

6 significant existing and future investment in infrastructure and key strategic advantages of the land at Ruakura. (b) The Knowledge Zone which will include the innovation and research employment activities identified as being part of a future employment node at Ruakura. The Knowledge Zone provides for a new main street Suburban Centre that will serve the significant new urban area enabled by the Plan Change, as well as the wider R1 Area. (c) The development at Ruakura enabled by the Variation is a key part of the economic development strategy for Waikato- Tainui. The income derived from it will enable the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of Waikato-Tainui. (d) Economic growth enabled by the Inland Port will also give rise to significant economic benefits for Hamilton and the wider Waikato Region. (e) The Variation will provide positive social effects for the health and wellbeing of new residents as well as way of life for the wider Hamilton community including increased residential choices, local employment opportunities and improved access and availability to local commercial and retail activity (particularly for the Hamilton East area). (f) The amenity of the area will be enhanced through development enabled by the Variation through the provision of an extensive and well-connected open space network 6

7 and the addition of integrated and well-planned neighbourhoods. (g) The Variation will enable a number of environmental benefits, including water quality, and terrestrial and freshwater habitats that are superior to those of the present day, and better manage biosecurity risks through consolidation of existing transitional facilities. (h) Subject to the changes sought in this submission, the Variation appropriately manages environmental effects arising from new urban land uses provided for. 15. The specific changes to the Variation sought by TGHL are set out in Attachments A and B. Broadly, these changes can be summarised as follows: (a) Ensuring that the structure plan features (roads, open spaces etc) are shown and referred to indicatively, allowing their precise location and extent to be determined through subsequent Land Development Plan (LDP) consents; (b) Removing references in the provisions to specific infrastructure requirements and outcomes where these are better determined through LDP processes and/or the subject of Private Development Agreements; (c) Including rules to manage reverse sensitivity effects on nearby future Industrial, Logistics and Inland Port land arising from new residential activities on the Ryburn- Percival Large Lot Residential enclave. In the alternative, 7

8 including rules to discourage further fragmentation and intensification of this land; (d) Reducing the width and specific standards required for the landscape buffer adjoining the Ryburn-Percival Large Lot Residential enclave, with a change to policies to remove the requirement to protect the amenity values of this area in favour of managing significant effects in recognition of the significant land use change in this area that the Variation promotes; (e) Reducing the consent threshold for Medium Density Residential Zone buildings from a site area of 400m2 to a site area of 250m2 (irrespective also if its semi-detached, duplex or terrace housing); (f) Various changes to the LDP provisions including removing reference to the need to accord with specific LDP areas, the determination of activity status based on the grant of an LDP consent and to achieve consistency with the Board of Inquiry decision; (g) A small number of other changes to ensure consistency with the Board of Inquiry decision, including the provisions on non-notification; (h) Various minor amendments to development controls to provide for optimum outcomes, reflect best practice or current designs developed through LDP applications that have been lodged; 8

9 (i) Revising the Electricity National Grid Corridor provisions to reflect the Board of Inquiry decision; (j) Changing the Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria to ensure consistency with the Board of Inquiry decision such that they deal with Ruakura specific resource management issues rather than issues of a more general nature; (k) Various amendments to the Variation maps and plans as a consequence of the relief sought, to fully reflect the current anticipated provision of infrastructure, open space and amenities in the Variation area and to correct various mapping errors and omissions. 16. In general terms, these changes are required to: (a) Ensure the Variation is consistent with the detail and approach established by the Board of Inquiry; (b) (c) Give effect to national and regional policy statements; Better allow the Council to achieve integrated management of land and control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land; and (d) Otherwise achieve the purpose of the RMA Without detracting from the generality of the above reasons, additional specific reasons for the changes sought are set out in Attachments A and B. 9

10 Further additional and/or consequential relief 18. TGHL seeks such other changes to the Variation as necessary to give effect to the matters raised in this submission and to otherwise achieve consistency in detail and approach with the September 2014 Board of Inquiry Decision on the Proposed Ruakura Development Plan Change. 19. TGHL seeks such other consequential changes as necessary to give effect to the relief sought in this submission. Trade Competition 20. TGHL could not gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission. Request to be heard 21. TGHL wishes to be heard in support of this submission. Peter Hall On behalf of Date: 18 December

11 Address for service of submitter: Boffa Miskell PO Box Auckland Attention: Peter Hall Telephone:

12 Attachment A Submission Table: Council s proposed Variation 1 tracked changes shown as strike outs and underlines. Relief sought in this submission shown as shaded as strike outs and underlines. 3 Structure Plans 3.7 Ruakura, clause 3.7 a) Support in Part The explanation at 3.7 a) i vi generally accurately records the vision behind the development of the Ruakura Structure Plan, with the exception of the following: 3.7 a) iv refers to comprehensively planned areas of residential housing providing both a range of housing types and affordability. While the provision of housing choice can provide for more affordable options, affordability is a not a key driver behind the vision and should be deleted. 3.7 Ruakura, clause 3.7 b) Support in Part 3.7 b) records that the Ruakura Structure Plan provides 405ha of employment land incorporating Amend 3.7 a) iv as follows: iv. Develop comprehensively planned areas of residential housing connecting with Fairview Downs, providing a range of housing choice and affordability. Amend 3.7 b) as follows: b) The Ruakura Structure Plan provides ha of employment land 1

13 an inland port, freight and logistics hub and other employment land. This clause does not properly recognise the significant component of Ruakura Industrial Park area that also makes up the employment land and should be amended accordingly. incorporating an inland port, freight, and logistics hub, industrial park and other employment land. It also provides 77ha for research and innovation activities, allowing for the expansion of the existing Waikato Innovation Park and maximising opportunities for connectivity and interaction between the University of Waikato and AgResearch. 3.7 Ruakura, clause 3.7 f) Support in Part Clause 3.7f should reflect the fact that the open space areas and infrastructure are indicative only, as is referenced in other provisions. Amend 3.7 f) as follows: f) The relevant Ruakura Structure Plan Figures in Appendix 2 indicate the eventual pattern of development within Ruakura and include: i. Figure 2-14 Ruakura Structure Plan which shows the land use zoning and indicative open space areas; ii. Figures 2-15 A and B Ruakura Strategic Infrastructure; A. Which shows the indicative locations of strategic infrastructure for the transport network within the Ruakura Structure Plan B. Which shows the indicative locations of strategic three waters network within the Ruakura Structure Plan 2

14 3.7 Ruakura, clause 3.7 i) Support in Part A minor amendment is required to Clause 3.7i to update to refer to Ruakura Industrial Park. iii. Figure 2-16 Ruakura Land Development Plan Areas which shows the different areas for staged development within the Ruakura Structure Plan; iii iv. Figure 2-17 Inland Port Building Setbacks and Landscape Controls which shows the setbacks and controls for the Inland Port; and v. Figure 2-18 Cyclist and Pedestrian Network Plan which shows the connectivity of the indicative locations of proposed and existing cycle and pedestrian network within the Ruakura Structure Plan and to surrounding areas. Amend 3.7 i as follows: ii. The 405ha identified above comprises the Ruakura Inland Port and logistics zone (approximately 195ha) and general industrial Ruakura Industrial Park zone land (approximately 210 ha). The staging and timing identified provides for Stage 1 of the Inland Port and logistics zone (shown as A on Figure 2-16 Ruakura Land Development Plan Areas) and up to 30 hectares of 3

15 Residential Zones Support in Part The clause has a reference to affordable housing. While the provision of housing choice can provide for more affordable options, affordability is a not an emphasis of the zone. general industrial development to The Ruakura Structure Plan is linked to the development of Hamilton section of the Waikato Expressway. Further development beyond the initial 80ha identified for the period should not occur until the Hamilton section of the Waikato Expressway is completed and connected to the Ruakura land in a manner that does not undermine the efficient functioning and safety of the transport network, or another infrastructure solution has been demonstrated to satisfy the relevant criteria for alternative land release in Method of the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement. Amend a) as follows: a) The Ruakura residential area provides for a mixture of development that aligns accords with the densities proposed for General Residential, Medium- Density Residential and Large Lot Residential Zones. The intention is to provide an area with various housing choices, including site size and housing typologies, including 4

16 Residential Zones Support in Part The continuation of the Ryburn- Percival enclave as Large Lot Residential is contrary to the Regional Policy Statement as the land is required to have a Industrial/Logistics zoning to meet the 405ha Industrial land requirement identified for Ruakura in the RPS. The Large Lot Residential zoning also precludes efficient use of land by limiting industrial land on the immediate northern site of the East Coast Main Trunk Rail Line. Clause refers to the interim method to deal with the requirements of the RPS through an emphasis on affordable housing. Residential development in the General Residential and Medium- Density Residential Zones is positioned to maximise existing connectivity from Fairview Downs and the Hamilton Ring Road. One Integrated Retail Development is provided for within the Ruakura Medium Density Residential Zone to serve the surrounding catchment (see Figure 2-16 in Appendix 2). Amend as follows: b) The area bounded by Percival and Ryburn Roads and the Waikato Expressway is identified on the structure plan for logistics, to ensure the utilisation of existing and future planned infrastructure Regional Policy Statement s industrial land allocation requirements can be given effect to. There are a number of existing dwellings within this area, and as the staging identifies that development will noton t be required until at least 2021 a Large Lot Residential Zone has been put in place to retain amenity provisions within this area until such time as a future plan change rezones 5

17 future re-zoning. Until this rezoning occurs, careful management of use, development and subdivision in this residential area is required to manage further residential intensification and reverse sensitivity effects on the establishment and operation of industrial and logistics activities at Ruakura. The zoning of the Ryburn-Percival enclave as Large Lot Residential adjacent to future Industrial and Logistics land establishes reverse sensitivity effects which require careful management to ensure the urbanisation objectives of the R1 area are achieved, including enabling the development of industrial and logistics land and its associated infrastructure. the land for logistics purposes. Mitigation measures controls apply to the Inland Port and the Logistics Zone to also assist in retaining mitigating significant adverse effects on the amenity of this area in the interim. Any further fragmentation of the land is discouraged. Measures also apply to the Large Lot Residential Zone to manage reverse sensitivity effects on the development and operation of the Inland Port and the Logistics Zone. Any further fragmentation of the Large Lot Residential land is discouraged. These factors should be recognised in clause Transportation network Support in Part Clause requires a diagram to clearly define the extent of the road sections described. Otherwise it lacks precision. Add a diagram to clearly define the extent of the road sections described in , including urban sections. Amend as follows: 6

18 Generally, the clause is too prescriptive in respect to the location of Strategic water and wastewater infrastructure, which should be details determined by LDPs. Reference to ground level for the Spine Road (south) is unclear as to intent. Specifying the width of the bridge is unnecessary. Ruakura Road West has unnecessary duplication Transportation Network a) The Waikato Expressway forms the eastern boundary of the Structure Plan area. Possible interchanges to this Expressway are located in the Structure Plan area. The objective of those interchanges is to provide connectivity with the City s strategic transport network and access to the inland port and industrial areas. b) Adjacent to the spine road corridor is an open space corridor of a similar width which incorporates a range of functions, including stormwater reserve, walkways and cycleways. The transport network to service the Structure Plan area is comprisesd of the following hierarchy, which describes the form and function of the various routes: a) The Waikato Expressway forms the eastern boundary of the Structure Plan area. There are two interchanges to the Waikato Expressway connecting to major arterials within the City s network at the Greenhill Link Road 7

19 interchange in the north, and the realigned Ruakura Road interchange in the south. b) Greenhill Link Road will initially be two-lane with provision for a four-lane major arterial City Gateway route connecting the Waikato Expressway to the City s Ring Road at Wairere Drive/Crosby Road roundabout. Access is provided via the Spine Road intersection. Strategic water and wastewater infrastructure will can colocate in this corridor. c) The Spine Road North is a minor arterial to the north of Greenhill Link Road and provides strategic connectivity to the future residential development in the north. This will be a two-lane minor arterial road, with direct property access on the western side and intersection only access on the eastern side of the Spine Road. The corridor will provide for public transport, on-street parking, a shared walking and cycle path and swales for stormwater management. Strategic wastewater and water infrastructure will can co-locate within the corridor, coupled with the underground 110kv Transpower transmission line. 8

20 d) The Spine Road (central) will initially be a two-lane minor arterial collector road south of Greenhill Link Road to the Fifth Avenue extension. The form and function of this road is to primarily service residential and industrial development through intersection access. The corridor will likely provides for public transport, parking, shared footpath and cycle path and a swale area for stormwater management. Strategic wastewater and water infrastructure will can co-locate within this corridor, coupled with the underground 110kv Transpower transmission line. e) Fifth Avenue Extension will initially be two-lane with provision for a fourlane major arterial road extending the Cross City Connector arterial network from Wairere Drive to the Spine Road. The corridor provides for public transport, a shared walking and cycle path and a swale area for stormwater management. f) The Spine Road (south) will initially be two-lane with provision for a fourlane major arterial road from Fifth Avenue south to Ruakura Road West. 9

21 This extends the Cross City Connector arterial to the Ruakura Industrial Park area. This section includes a four-lane road bridge over the East Coast Main Trunk Railway. At ground level, the The corridor provides for public transport, shared footpath and cycleway and a swale area for stormwater management. Strategic wastewater and water infrastructure will co-locate within the corridor. g) Ruakura Road (urban) will continue to function as a two-lane minor arterial road between the Wairere Drive Ring Road and the Spine Road. The corridor provides for public transport and shared footpath and cycle path. h) Ruakura Road West will initially be a two-lane minor arterial road with provision for a four-lane major arterial City Gateway route, connecting the Spine Road major arterial to the Waikato Expressway. A series of signalised intersections will provide access to the Inland Port and Ruakura Logistics Zone north. A signalised intersection also provides access to the Ruakura 10

22 Logistics and Ruakura Industrial Park Zones and the proposed service centre to the south. A series of signalised intersections will provide access to the Inland Port, Ruakura Logistics Zone, Ruakura Industrial Park Zone and the proposed service centre to the south. The corridor provides for public transport, shared footpath and cycle path and swale area for stormwater management. The Collector road network below serving the arterial network shows indicative connections but will be assessed at each Land Development Plan stage to ensure transport connectivity between development areas and the greater structure plan Open Space Network Support in Part Figure 2-14 only shows the indicative location and extent of the Ruakura open space network, with its precise location and extent to be determined by subsequent LDP consents. Clause should be amended accordingly. Amend as follows: Open Space Network Figure 2-14 shows the indicative location and extent of the Ruakura open space network. This is intended to accommodate and provide for a range of functions including stormwater and ecological management, a well-connected 11

23 Water and Wastewater Oppose Clause Water and Wastewater is unnecessarily prescriptive and does not provide sufficient flexibility. The clause reads in part as a rule rather than a description of anticipated outcomes. It includes for example a requirement at d) that provision shall be made to extend the wastewater interceptor across the Waikato River and into the Peacocke Structure Plan area in a manner envisaged by Council s Wastewater Master Plan. pedestrian and cycleway network linking open space land, neighbourhood reserves for passive and informal recreation, and amenity strips between different activity zones. The following are key components of the open space network:. Delete Water and Wastewater Delete consequential cross references to these provisions. Water and Wastewater provision should be determined by mechanisms such as Private Development Agreements and not prescribed in the District Plan. 12

24 Indicative Infrastructure Development Programme Support in Part Clause which follows correctly records that the Infrastructure Development Programme is indicative and that Land Development Plans are expected to further refine these transportation and three waters infrastructure needs. This renders the preceding descriptions unnecessary. Outcomes such as vesting of threewaters infrastructure and its location within road corridors and whether it is protected by easements over private land should be determined by mechanisms such as the LDPs and Private Development Agreements and not prescribed in the District Plan. Clause should be amended accordingly. The objective should be to promote the efficient use of resources and ensure that the provision of infrastructure is directly related to effects. The provisions should not therefore require infrastructure provision Indicative Infrastructure Development Programme a) Figures 2-15A and B illustrate the Ruakura Strategic Infrastructure necessary to support the city and growth cell. Rules and detail the nature and staging of transportation and three waters infrastructure requirements. Land Development Plans are expected to further refine these transportation and three waters infrastructure needs. It is expected that the provision of the planned strategic three waters infrastructure network would be integrated, and constructed and vested concurrently with the development of the transport network (in particular the incremental 13

25 ahead of time or sized beyond requirements. Construction should not be referred to in the clause. Should the Council want it built ahead of anticipated effects then it should meet a fair and equitable share of this cost based on the respective capacity required by current and future developers. development of the Spine Road) Land Development Plan areas. b) Where strategic infrastructure is developed on land not held by Council, easements in gross in favour of Hamilton City Council will be required to secure access to any public infrastructure. It is Council s expectation that all Ruakura Strategic Infrastructure will be vested in Council Connections to Ruakura Strategic Infrastructure Objective and Policies a f Oppose Support in part Clause is unnecessarily prescriptive and does not provide sufficient flexibility. The clause reads in part as a rule rather than a description of anticipated outcomes. The proposed amendments to Objective and Policies appropriately record that Land within the Ruakura Structure Plan Area will be developed in general accordance with the vision for the Ruakura Structure Plan and the importance of the Structure Plan area, including to: provide a significant new employment area based Delete Connections to Ruakura Strategic Infrastructure Amend Policy d as follows: d Develop comprehensively planned areas of residential housing connecting with Fairview Downs, providing a range of housing choice and affordability. 14

26 around the development of a regional logistics hub. Maximise the use of existing infrastructure investment; Align land-use patterns with the area s planned infrastructure investment to achieve integrated transport and land use development with an emphasis on logistics and freight; and Develop comprehensively planned areas of residential housing, providing a range of housing choice. The reference to affordability in policy d should be removed. While the provision of housing choice can provide for more affordable options, affordability should not be an outcome prescribed by District Plan policy. 15

27 Objective Support in Part The requirement to protect the amenity values of surrounding communities and facilities cannot be achieved where those amenity values are in part afforded by existing rural activities in the variation area and where the variation promotes the urbanisation of that land. Policy b Support in Part The indicative nature of the figures referred to in policy b require only general accordance and will still achieve the outcomes sought by the structure plan. Other provisions in the variation also ensure key outcomes are met. The policy is inconsistent with rule which requires land use and development within the Ruakura Structure Plan Area shall be in general accordance with the figure specified. Policy e Support in Part The indicative nature of the figures referred to in policy e require only general accordance and will still achieve the outcomes Amend Objective as follows: Development and land use activities in the Ruakura Structure Plan are designed, developed and implemented in a manner which protects avoids significant adverse effects on the amenity values of surrounding communities and facilities, while providing for urbanisation. Amend Policy b as follows: b Land use, subdivision and development of the Ruakura Structure Plan will be undertaken in general accordance with Figures 2-14, 2-15A and B, 2-16, 2-17 and 2-18 outlined in Appendix 2 Structure Plans. Amend Policy e as follows: e 16

28 sought by the structure plan. Other provisions in the variation also ensure key outcomes are met. The policy is inconsistent with rule which requires land use and development within the Ruakura Structure Plan Area shall be in general accordance with the figure specified. Policy f Support in Part Although there is no issue with the general requirement to safeguard the land identified for these purposes in policy f, for the same reasons as stated above the word generally should be included. The policy is inconsistent with rule which requires land use and development within the Ruakura Structure Plan Area shall be in general accordance with the figure specified. Policy a Support in Part Policy a specifies the method by which infrastructure can be committed, namely through commitment through an appropriate legal mechanism. In doing so, other potential methods Logistics, industry, knowledge, residential and open space activities and development will use land allocated and serviced for these purposes in general accordance Figures 2-14, 2-15A and B, 2-16 and 2-17 outlined in Appendix 2 Structure Plans. Amend Policy f as follows: f Logistics, industry, knowledge, residential and open space land generally identified on Figure 2-14 will be safeguarded for these purposes. Amend Policy a as follows: a Land within the Ruakura Structure Plan will not be developed until 17

29 are discounted. This part of the policy should be deleted. Where the Council requires the developer to deliver strategic infrastructure then they should meet a fair and equitable proportion of the cost based on the capacity being provided. Policy c Support in Part Policy c requires LDPs to be supported by development of Strategic Infrastructure. There are circumstances where LDP can be obtained and implemented without the need to build strategic infrastructure. This requirement of the policy should be deleted. Policy b Oppose Policy b requires that the transport network supports efficient passenger transport and walking and cycling, including grade separate facilities on arterial routes. This policy should not be generally applicable and should be deleted as the majority of roads within the variation area will be unable to meet all of the transport outcomes sought. adequate infrastructure is provided to mitigate the effects of development. and a commitment to the development of the Ruakura Strategic Infrastructure by an appropriate legal mechanism. Amend Policy b as follows: c The use and development of land for urban development is inappropriate unless a Land Development Plan has been approved by the Council and is supported by the development of Ruakura Strategic Infrastructure. Delete Policy b 18

30 Policy e Support in Part Policy e requires opportunities to be provided for Grade-separated facilities on arterial routes. Whether facilities should be grade separated is a matter of design and inappropriately specified in the policy. Rule b) Support in Part Consent for Land Development rule b) states that the Ruakura Structure Plan is divided into a number of Land Development Plan Areas (as shown in Figure 2-16 in Appendix 2 Structure Plans). The extent of Land Development Plan areas should be identified at consent stage to ensure proper integrated resource management. The identification of Land Development Plan areas on the Figure is arbitrary and serves no resource management purpose. The part of Rule b) requiring adherence to these areas should be deleted, with consequential amendments made to Figure Amend policy e as follows: e Opportunities for improved safety, accessibility, connectivity and efficiency within the transportation network are provided including grade separated facilities on arterial routes. Amend Rule b) as follows: b) The Ruakura Structure Plan is divided into a number of Land Development Plan Areas (as shown in Figure 2-16 in Appendix 2 Structure Plans). a) Consent for the urbanisation of land involving the activities listed in Rule shall be obtained for the entire or staged section of these areas in entirety or a staged manner prior to land use, subdivision and development under any other rule of the Ruakura Structure Plan. Consequential amendment to Figure 2-16 in Appendix 2 Structure Plans 19

31 Rule b) inappropriately includes a double requirement for consent to be obtained both for the urbanisation of land activities listed in rule as well as prior to land use, subdivision and development under any other rule of the Structure Plan. This ignores that there are a range of activities provided for in the Structure Plan area which do not require a LDP. Rule c Oppose Rule c) states that land development and new buildings in the absence of a Land Development Plan is Non Complying. Delete Rule c This rule incorrectly imposes an activity status based on the granting of another consent. The rule is unnecessary, given the broad scope of urbanisation activities which require a land development plan. Rule d Oppose Rule d), which specifies that LDP areas may be altered, should be deleted as a consequential amendment to the amendments sought to rule Delete Rule d 20

32 b) to remove reference to these areas. Rule e Support in Part Neither open space provisions nor Ruakura Strategic Infrastructure will be relevant to every LDP and rule e) should be amended accordingly. Rule Oppose The matters set out in Water Impact Assessment are information requirements rather than rules and are better placed in Amend Rule e e) A Land Development Plan shall provide where relevant the following information as detailed in Appendix Information Requirements Land Development Plans: i. General Requirements; ii. Concept Layout Plan; iii. Landscape Concept and Enhancement Plan (including a Native Fish Management Plan and Native Lizard Management Plan as required); iv. Water Impact Assessment; v. Integrated Transport Assessment; vi. Mitigation of Adverse Land Development Effects on Habitats; vii. Medium Density Residential Zone (where relevant); and viii. Open Space Provisions ix. Ruakura Strategic Infrastructure (as shown on Figures 2-15A and B) Delete Rule Water Impact Assessment 21

33 Appendix Information Requirements Land Development Plans Rule Support in Part The activities provided for in Residential Zones as restricted discretionary activities will not give rise to adverse effects on the road controlling authorities set out in Rule that have not already been determined as being appropriate through traffic modelling. Activities in Residential Zones should be exempt from the requirement to obtain written approval from these authorities. Delete consequential cross references to this rule. Amend Rule as follows: Notification Rule a) Except as provided for by sections 95A(2)(b) and (c), 95B(2) and (3) and 95C(1) to (4) of the Act applications for any Restricted Discretionary Activity identified with an asterisk (*) in section of Residential Zones, 8.3.2, and 8.9 of Knowledge Zone, 10.3, 10.6 or 10.7 of Ruakura Logistics Zone or 11.3, 11.6 or 11.7 of Ruakura Industrial Park Zone shall be considered without notification or the need to obtain approval from affected persons except that applications for activities generating 1500 or more vehicle movements per day shall be limited notified to the following unless they have given their affected party approval: New Zealand Transport Agency, Waikato Regional Council and Waikato District Council., provided that the requirement for affected party approval shall not apply to activities 22

34 identified with an asterisk (*) in section Residential Zones. Further to clause (a), all activities within the Inland Port (Sub Area A (Inland Port)) classified as a Restricted Discretionary Activity by Rule a) shall be considered without notification or the need to obtain approval from affected persons. Rule d) Oppose Rule d) Staging and Traffic Requirements to the Spine Road construction trigger. The rule requires the extension of the Spine Road as specified as LDP applications are lodged. The rule also requires that full extent of the Spine Road within each LDP area to be constructed as part of the LDP application. The requirements to extend and construct the Spine Road as part of a resource consent are inappropriate. The rule as drafted appears to specify that these works are required with a Consequential amendments to the specific rule cross references in as necessary. Delete Rule d) Staging and Traffic Requirements Delete consequential cross references to this rule. 23

35 resource consent application, rather than simply relying on the LDP consent process to impose conditions to this effect where such conditions are necessary. Rules to Support in Part Rules to set out land allocation according to staging triggers. As a result of better understanding of the existing and anticipated traffic environment through LDP applications lodged since Rules to were imposed through the Board of Inquiry decision, the works requirements and triggers of these rules should be updated. Rule Oppose Rule Ruakura Strategic Infrastructure requires the provision of potable water supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure. These requirements should be the subject of LDP application assessment and conditions as necessary to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects rather than specified in this rule. Amend the works requirements and triggers in Rules to as necessary to reflect current and updated knowledge of potential traffic effects. Delete Rule Delete consequential cross references to this rule. 24

36 4 Residential Zones Clause 4.1 f) Oppose Clause 4.1 f) specifies that for Residential Zones, a Land Development Plan in accordance with Rule must be approved by Hamilton City Council before development can occur in the Ruakura Medium Density Residential Zone. This requirement inconsistent with the specific requirements of rule Land Development Plan, and with that rule is unnecessary. Clause Support in Part Clause includes a description of an existing environment at and around Percival/Ryburn Roads which is not appropriate for the District Plan which has a long term horizon. The implication being that this description of the existing environment is intended to remain. This text should be deleted. The zoning of the Ryburn-Percival enclave as Large Lot Residential adjacent to future Industrial and Logistics land establishes reverse sensitivity effects which require careful management to ensure the Delete Clause 4.1 f) Amend Clause Large Lot Residential as follows: ii. Ruakura Structure Plan (Percival/Ryburn Roads) The area bounded by Percival, Ryburn Roads and the designation for the Waikato Expressway, the East Coast Main Trunk railway (ECMT) and the approved inland port (Logistics Zone, Sub Area A), is characterised by a range of large lot residential uses and some rural activities. This area is not serviced and is not intended to be 25

37 urbanisation objectives of the R1 area are achieved, including enabling the development of industrial and logistics land and its associated infrastructure. The continuation of this land as Large Lot Residential is contrary to the Regional Policy Statement as the land is required to have a Industrial/Logistics zoning to meet the 405ha Industrial land requirement identified for Ruakura in the RPS. The Large Lot Residential zoning also precludes efficient use of land by limiting industrial land on the immediate northern site of the East Coast Main Trunk Rail Line. Clause refers to the interim method to deal with the requirements of the RPS through future re-zoning. Until this rezoning occurs, careful management of use, development and subdivision in this residential area is required to manage further residential intensification and reverse sensitivity effects on the establishment and operation of serviced while it retains the Large Lot Residential zoning. There are approximately twenty-three existing houses and a number of subdivided but undeveloped properties in the enclave. The houses and outdoor living areas tend to be oriented to the north and north-east and away from the western leg of Percival Road, and to the north-west and north in relation to the northern leg of Percival Road. Typically the houses are more than 30 metres from the zone boundary. Percival Road has the character of a quiet country road being a cul de sac. It joins to Ruakura Road to provide the sole link to the wider City network and the community facilities in the eastern suburbs. A feature of the area is a more-or-less continuous row of plane trees adjacent to the western leg of Percival Road and a more limited and shorter row of plane trees on the northern leg of Percival Road. 26

38 industrial and logistics activities at Ruakura. The explanation of the Large Lot Residential zone at Clause should be amended accordingly and appropriate methods introduced into the variation to manage further residential intensification and reverse sensitivity effects. The explanation as notified inappropriately focuses on managing the effects of industrial activities on the Large Lot Residential land and limits its consideration to the establishment of a buffer. This area is also planned in the Ruakura Structure Plan to transition to the Ruakura Logistics Zone in future district plans. Future subdivision of this area into further large lot residential lots, therefore, is not encouraged. Future subdivision of this area into further large lot residential lots, therefore, is not encouraged. However, to protect amenity a buffer will be necessary at the interface between the land intended to support the expansion of the inland port and future development in the Industrial Park Zone and the residential area. Interface design control measures are therefore adopted in and to mitigate avoid, remedy or mitigate significant adverse effects on the potential and actual effects on residential amenity resulting from the development of the inland port and related activities adjacent to the enclave. In order to avoid adverse reverse sensitivity effects from the residential area on the establishment and operation of the inland port and the 27

39 Logistics and Industrial Park Zones, requirements for internal acoustic insulation and no-complaints covenants are placed on new residential uses and subdivision in the residential area. Establishment of the buffer Compliance with these rules is a precondition to future development of the inland port in this area and is a requirement of the relevant Land Development Plan. The conversion of the rural residential area to a Logistics zoning will require a change or variation to be made to the District Plan when there is sufficient information and certainty about the timing and need for the new zoning. This is consistent with the staged industrial land allocation provided in the Regional Policy Statement. Objective Support in Part Given the extent of Industrial and Logistics land provided for adjoining the Percival Ryburn Road Large Lot Residential enclave by the Variation (along three edges), a requirement to protect its amenity values is unachievable. A Amend Objective as follows: Protect Avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on the amenity values of the Percival Ryburn Road Large Lot Residential enclave, while 28

40 avoid, remedy or mitigate regime is a more appropriate way to achieve the objectives and the purpose of the Act. Policy b Support in part Policy b is misplaced as it purports to manage effects of other activities on the Percival Ryburn Road Large Lot Residential enclave. Any such policy requirement should be in the adjoining zones rather than the Large Lot Residential. In any event, the focused is incorrect and should be reversed to ensure that subdivision, use and development in the Large Lot Residential enclave avoids adverse reverse sensitivity effects on the establishment and operation of the inland port and the Logistics and Industrial Park Zones. Policy d Oppose Policy d specifies a potential screen planting method to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects, however in doing so limits other methods which may also achieve these outcomes. For this reason the policy is unnecessary and should be deleted. providing for the urbanisation of the balance area consistent with the vision for the Ruakura Structure Plan Area. Delete Policy b and replace as follows: b Minimise future adverse amenity effects on the surrounding environment associated with the development of the inland port and its facilities. Avoid reverse sensitivity effects of existing and future residential use, development and subdivision in the Ryburn-Percival Large Lot enclave on the establishment and operation of industrial and logistics activities (including the inland port) at Ruakura. Delete Policy d 29

41 Policy e Oppose Policy e specifies a potential method to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects, relying on a very specific method of existing planes trees and assuming their ongoing existence. In doing so other methods which may achieve the screen planting method sought are discounted. For this reason the policy is unnecessary and should be deleted Explanation Support in Part The Explanation of Objective is limited to only managing intensity of residential land uses, when for the reasons stated elsewhere in this submission a more comprehensive range of methods should be employed to manage subdivision, use and development of the rural residential enclave. Delete Policy e Amend Explanation as follows: This objective recognises that the area is an established rural residential enclave but that there is a need to manage the intensity its subdivision, use and development of future residential land uses given the area s central location and ultimately as part of an inland port which once completed will be of a scale that will make it a regionally significant facility. 30

42 Rule Support in Part A requirement for no-complaints covenants is necessary to ensure appropriate management of use, development and subdivision in the Percival/ Ryburn Roads residential area to avoid reverse sensitivity effects on the establishment and operation of industrial and logistics activities at Ruakura, including the inland port. In the alternative, a restriction on further intensification of this area is required to ensure additional reverse sensitivity effects are not created. A density limit of 2ha is an effective and efficient method to achieve this outcome. Amend Activity Status Table General Residential Zone, Residential Intensification Zone and Large Lot Residential Zone as follows: The use of buildings for any residential activity in the Percival/ Ryburn Roads Ruakura Structure Plan Area is a permitted activity where the site is subject to a restrictive non-complaint covenant* in favour of adjoining Industrial Park and Logistics Zoned land. The use of buildings for any residential activity in the Percival/ Ryburn Roads Ruakura Structure Plan Area is a discretionary activity where the site is not subject to a restrictive noncomplaint covenant* in favour of adjoining Industrial Park and Logistics Zoned land. * For the purposes of this rule a 'restrictive non-complaint covenant' is defined as a restrictive covenant registered on the Title to the property or a binding agreement to covenant, in favour of the adjoining Industrial Park 31