Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Appendix 13: Summary Submissions Report on PDP
Ruakura Private Plan Change | Assessment of Environmental Effects
Appendix 13: Summary Submissions Report on PDP
PDP Submissions AnalysisPrepared for
Tainui Group Holdings Limited and Chedworth Properties Limited
13 June 2013
Document Quality Assurance
Bibliographic reference for citation: Boffa Miskell Limited 2013. PDP Submissions Analysis: Report prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited for Tainui Group Holdings Limited and Chedworth Properties Limited.
Prepared by: John Carter Senior Planner Boffa Miskell Limited
Reviewed by: Phil Stickney Associate Director/Planner Boffa Miskell Limited
Status: Final Revision / version: 3 Issue date: 13 June 2013
Use and Reliance This report has been prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited on the specific instructions of our Client. It is solely for our Client’s use for the purpose for which it is intended in accordance with the agreed scope of work. Boffa Miskell does not accept any liability or responsibility in relation to the use of this report contrary to the above, or to any person other than the Client. Any use or reliance by a third party is at that party's own risk. Where information has been supplied by the Client or obtained from other external sources, it has been assumed that it is accurate, without independent verification, unless otherwise indicated. No liability or responsibility is accepted by Boffa Miskell Limited for any errors or omissions to the extent that they arise from inaccurate information provided by the Client or any external source.
Template revision: 20120910 0000
File ref: A08274_9000_Submsissions-Analysis_JCFurther edits.docx
\\bmlfp2\design\2013\A13090_PSt_Ruakura_EPA\Documents\Plan Change\AEE_Appendices\12_SummarySubmissionsReport\A08274_9000_Submsissions-Analysis_JCFurther edits.docx
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Submissions 2
2.1 Institutional Submitters 2 Waikato University 2 AgResearch 2 Waikato Innovation Park 3 Future Proof 3 New Zealand Transport Agency 3 KiwiRail 4 The Property Council 4 Waikato Chamber of Commerce 4 Hamilton City Council 4 Waikato District Council 4 Waikato Regional Council 5 Transpower 5 Fonterra 5 2.2 Percival/Ryburn Road Residents 5 2.3 Submission to the East of the Expressway Designation 7 2.4 Southern area (Silverdale North) Residents 8 2.5 Panhandle Large Lot Residential Area 10 2.6 Silverdale Southwest Residents 10 2.7 Fairview Downs Residents 11 2.8 Wairere Drive 12 2.9 Enderley Residents 13 2.10 Submissions on Residential Chapters 13
3.0 Conclusion 14 Appendices Appendix 1: Ruakura Submissions Map
PDP Submissions Analysis 1
1.0 Introduction
This paper sets out a brief summary of submissions relating to the district plan chapters relevant to the Ruakura Structure Plan Area. A plan showing the location of submitter addresses for the business and structure plan chapters is attached as Appendix 1.
It is noted that more detailed summaries of submission points have been produced by Boffa Miskell and the Hamilton City Council summary was provided on 31 May. Copies of submissions can be found at http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/PDPSubmissions2013.pdf
Overall submissions relevant to the business zones at were received from 56 addresses, although in some cases numerous submissions were received from the same address. In addition we also had a number of submissions from institutional or non-locational specific submitters including Hamilton City Council, Fonterra, NZTA, Kiwi Rail, Transpower and Future Proof.
2 PDP Submissions Analysis
2.0 Submissions
2.1 Institutional Submitters
Waikato University
http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/Proposed%20District%20Plan%20Submission%201059.pdf
- Map reference 26
- The submission from the University primarily relates to the Knowledge Zone provisions specific to the University which do not directly affect the greenfield innovation area
- Supports 45% building coverage
- There are some comments in relation to finding the appropriate balance between promoting the Rukura proposal and maintaining the environmental and social objectives of existing facilities and neighbourhoods
- Amend Objective 10.2.2 as follows (or similar wording); To optimise the long term economic benefits of the logistics hub while ensuring that development proceeds in a manner which does not compromise the amenity and social values of surrounding neighbourhoods and facilities. To optimise the long-term positive environmental, economic and social effects of the logistics hub.
- In addition a submission point requests the reduction of the height of cranes from 35m to 20m outside the inland port. It is noted that this change formed part of the TGHL submission.
- Seeks setbacks from open space increased to 15m.
- Concerns about noise standards
- Seeks amendment to restricted discretionary activity criteria
AgResearch
http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/Proposed%20District%20Plan%
- Map reference 63
- Opposes activities not listed in activity tables defaulting to non-
PDP Submissions Analysis 3
20Submission%20609.pdf
complying activities
- Supports the Ruakura Structure Plan development
- Supports a Suburban Centre within the knowledge zone
- Supports flexibility with the spine road
- Support TGHL’s preferred interchange locations
- Seek increase from 50% to 70% buildings coverage.
- Minimum road frontage (20m) opposed
- Seek amendments to events provisions
- Seek amendments to Radioactive and Hazardous facilities rules
Waikato Innovation Park
http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/Proposed%20District%20Plan%20Submission%201051.pdf
- General alignment in particular the support the suburban centre and the removal of excessive reference to the Central City
- Seek removal of restriction of Greenfield area to post 2041
- Seek permitted activity status for new buildings
- Seek permitted activity status for new buildings.
- Oppose 20m minimum road frontage
Future Proof
http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/Proposed%20District%20Plan%20Submission%20608.pdf
- Supports TGHL’s proposal
- Supports re-zoning of Percival Road Large Lot residential to Ruakura Logistics
- Supports TGHL’s preferred interchange locations
New Zealand Transport Agency
http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/Proposed%20District%20Plan%
- Support the strategic integration of land use and infrastructure
- Supports TGHL’s proposal
- Need to ensure buildings/containers
4 PDP Submissions Analysis
20Submission%20924.pdf
not to high close to expressway
- No advertising signage to be visible from the expressway
- Request a 5m wide landscape planting strip along the expressway
- Supports Logistics zoning for Ryburn/Percival Road
KiwiRail
http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/Proposed%20District%20Plan%20Submission%20366.pdf
- Supports the development of a regional logistic hub at Ruakura
The Property Council
http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/Proposed%20District%20Plan%20Submission%20938.pdf
- Comprehensive submission primarily focussed on the Central city and existing urban areas
- Generally not in-consistent with TGHL submission
- Supports an efficient consent process
Waikato Chamber of Commerce
http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/Proposed%20District%20Plan%20Submission%20698.pdf
- Supports TGHL’s proposal
Hamilton City Council
http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/Proposed%20District%20Plan%20Submission%201146.pdf
- Seeks sewer with sufficient capacity to support not only Structure Plan Area but also other growth areas.
- Various alterations and corrections to provisions.
Waikato District Council
http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/Proposed%20District%20Plan%20Submission%201211.pdf
- Supports TGHL’s proposal
- Seeks 18 dph for Greenfield areas
- Asks for Social infrastructure to be provided for
- Indicates that roads will be stopped and a new underpass provided for Ruakura Road
PDP Submissions Analysis 5
Waikato Regional Council
http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/Proposed%20District%20Plan%20Submission%20714.pdf
- Supports the PRPS and Future Proof growth pattern
- General support for provisions relating to environmental protection including ecological corridors.
- Support for Ruakura and the recognition of the PRPS industrial land allocation table
Transpower
http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/Proposed%20District%20Plan%20Submission%201083.pdf
- Supports the use of land under powerlines for stormwater treatment
- Increase the setbacks from poles from 8m to 12m
- Seeks buildings being non-complying within electricity yard including new dwellings within existing urban areas.
- Seeks the addition of new vertical and horizontal separation standards
- Definition of sensitive land uses to include buildings where people might spend more than 20 hours per week.
Fonterra
http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/Proposed%20District%20Plan%20Submission%201200.pdf
- Submission point are predominantly related specifically to the Te Rapa Dairy Factory and the Crawford Freight Village
- Restricted to submission points related to infrastructure provision
2.2 Percival/Ryburn Road Residents This area is currently zoned Countryside Living and is located directly adjoining the proposed Waikato Expressway and next to the existing East Coast Main Trunk Line. The Structure Plan seeks a logistics zoning on the land. The proposed plan has however zoned the land Large Lot Residential. TGHL’s submission apposes this zoning as it is located in the middle of a large industrial growth cell.
22 submitter addresses are located in this area
6 PDP Submissions Analysis
Submission No Map Reference No Name Address
1005 20 Alan Frederick and Barbara Winifred Julian
53a Ryburn Road
1006 31 Peter and Barbara Ryan
3 Brighton Grove
1007 19 Bo Han and Maggie Wang -
53C Ryburn Rd
1224 24 Shing-long Lee 134B Percival Rd
238 16 Ross & Leonie Hopkins 352 Ruakura Rd
763 21 Wei Lee 124B Percival Rd
764 22 Ming-San (Arvin) and Meng-Chu (Anna) Tang
51b Ryburn Rd
827 23 Ken Shang and Hong Wang -
51a Ryburn Rd
831 29 Kung-Yao Lin 12 Brighton Grove
835 25 Derrick Ross and Robyn Mary Marsters
134A Percival Rd
861 17 Allan Liang-chitz and Shirley Tzu-ling Wan
45 Ryburn Road
864 59 Raylene Cowie and Saul Spriggs
60a Percival Rd
910 58 Bryce and Natasha Carmichael
6 Brighton Grove
928/1275 30 William Roy Cowie/Ruakura Residents and Ratepayers
60 Percival Road
1277 42 Russell Cooper 318 Ruakura Road
1278 43 David Evan and Karlene Chibnall
124a Percival Road
1279 44 Roland and Wendy Spirig
116 Percival Road
1280 45 David Murray Young & Karen Lee Young
4 Brighton Grove
1281 51 Dr Liz Halsey 130 Percival Road
1257 62 Kerry and Donna Willmott
63 Ryburn Road
PDP Submissions Analysis 7
1004 32 Japara Trust 10 Brighton Grove
180 48 Graeme Ernest Goodwin
23 Ryburn Road
Key issues raised by submitters:
The submitters almost consistently seek the following;
- Large Lot Residential zoning to be retained. Reference to temporary nature of the zone be removed.
- 1 dwelling per 2500m2.
- 100m buffer.
- 100m landscaped area and an 4m high earth bund.
- Larger areas of landscape screening.
In addition other comments included:
- Ryburn road should be offered mitigation.
- 70% uptake of industrial land before Ruakura land made available.
- Oppose logistics hub.
- No freight movements on Percival road.
- City should buy out landowners.
A copy of the Submission from the Ruakura Residents Association can be found at the following link http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/Proposed%20District%20Plan%20Submission%201275.pdf
Current remediation contained in the District Plan:
Container Height: Height of containers limited to 12m within 100m of the northern boundary of the inland port– This formed part of TGHL submission to the District Plan.
Screen Planting– 5m wide 1.5m high landscape planting strip to be established to provide screen of the facility from Ryburn/Percival Road area. Potential to locate this on the road reserve to increase the level of screening ( Proposed Rule 10.4.7)
Noise controls – Amended city wide noise controls proposed.
Lighting Glare controls – 3 lux to be achieved – the same as any other residential zone.
2.3 Submission to the East of the Expressway Designation
Submission No Map Reference No Name Address
238 16 Ross & Leonie Hopkins 352 Ruakura Rd
8 PDP Submissions Analysis
252 49 Alastair Philip Calder 81 Davison Road
911 12 Hugh Goodman and Katie Mayes -
3 Vaile Road
Key issues raised by submitters:
- 70% uptake of industrial land before Ruakura land made available
- Seek Residential/Innovation rather than industrial development
- Oppose land release prior to the expressway being completed
- Adverse effects to residential property
- Support for commercial and general industrial activities being non-complying in the logistics zone.
- Support logistics and freight handling activities being restricted discretionary activities.
- Seek amendments to the permitted activity standard for lighting towers in the Ruakura Logistics Zone so that "Provision and use of artificial lighting, producing an illuminance in excess of 150 lux, measured at any point on the site containing the light source, in a horizontal or vertical plane at ground level" is a discretionary activity.
- Seek a a permitted activity standard in the Ruakura Logistics Zone and Ruakura Industrial Park Zone that prevents glare from buildings as follows: "Buildings shall be designed and built so that the reflectivity of all external surfaces does not exceed 20% of white light. This means that glass and other materials with reflectivity values that exceed 20% may only be used provided they are covered or screened in such a way that the external surfaces will still meet this rule."
2.4 Southern area (Silverdale North) Residents The Industrial Park Zone adjoins this existing residential area. The properties located near to the zone boundary are located on Sheridan and Nevada Street.
9 submitter addresses are located in this area.
Submission No Map Reference No Name Address
16 66 Kevin Brian Hall 61a Nevada Road
184 8 Denis Richard Lauren 57 Nevada Rd
187 15 Robert Alan Mills 70B Nevada Road
249 8 Philippa Jane Gerard 57 Nevada Rd
260 13 Robert James Davies-Colley
76 Nevada Road
PDP Submissions Analysis 9
265 13 Silverdale Residents Group
76 Nevada Road
268 10 Robert Gordon Bell 69 Nevada Rd
270 14 Roberta Lee Farrell 74 Nevada Road
283 14 Roy McIver Daniel FRSNZ
74 Nevada Road
289 7 Josina Wilhelmina Maria Ellis
1 Chelmsford Street
303 11 Silverdale Residents Group
75 Nevada Road
909 9 Jennifer and John West 66 Nevada Road
Key issues raised were;
- Industrial Park Zone is an inappropriate use of land
- Stormwater controls at source should be required
- Impact to local school
- Impact to the Mangaonua Gully
- A buffer of 200m required
- Impact to the Knowledge Zone/Waikato University
- Reduce site coverage (75% max)
- Reduce height of container stacking buildings and light towers
- Increase landscaping from University and Expressway
- Remove low value freight activities
- 40m setback from all Residential and Special Character Zones
- Limit hours of operation
Submission from the residents group can be accessed from the following link
http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/Proposed%20District%20Plan%20Submission%20265.pdf
Current remediation proposed in the District Plan:
- Setbacks – 40m setback from the residential zone, 8m from open space.
- Controls over types of activities - A number of activities that would normally be expected within an Industrial zone have been specifically excluded from consideration. Including any noxious or offensive activity, motor vehicle dismantling and repair, recycling plants, incinerators and fertiliser manufacture.
10 PDP Submissions Analysis
- Design Controls – New buildings within 40m of the public realm require consent as a Controlled Activity. It is noted that all buildings currently require consent although this is opposed in the TGHL submission.
- Noise Controls – amended city wide noise controls proposed.
- Light spill controls – 3 lux city wide control.
- Landscaping – Landscaping required in all yards adjoining public open space ( Proposed Rule 11.4.7) and 2m planting strips required. Open space zoned buffer also provided.
- Building height control – 20m (Proposed Rule 11.4.4).
- Interface standards – No unloading of containers in front yards (Proposed Rule 11.4.9).
2.5 Panhandle Large Lot Residential Area This area is currently zoned rural but is proposed to be rezoned as Large Lot Residential under the Proposed Plan.
3 submitter addresses are located in this area
Submission No Map Reference No Name Address
293 56 Gwyneth Ann Verkerk 161 Morrinsville Rd
832 57 James Hely and Heather Montgomerie
188B Morrinsville Road
951 61 ANG & SL Clarke 187A, SH26, Hamilton
Key issues raised were:
- Generally these submissions support the zoning of the land.
- The Clarke submission identified stormwater management as a key issue. I have added links to this submission http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/Proposed%20District%20Plan%20Submission%20951.pdf
2.6 Silverdale Southwest Residents This area of residential development is located on Silverdale Road near the University. It is separated by Silverdale Road and an area of open space from the commercial zones.
3 submitter addresses are located in this area
PDP Submissions Analysis 11
Submission No Map Reference No Name Address
1018 28 Gillian Anne Denny 199 Silverdale Road
218 18 Nagarajah Manoharan 103A Silverdale Road
245 27 Dianne Leathwick 197 Silverdale Road
Key issues raised were:
- Impact on the character of the area.
- Farm and associated buildings are heritage sites.
- Minimise impact on residential properties.
- Staging Plans required.
- Impacts to the University.
- Clean Green alternative uses should be found.
Current remediation proposed in the plan:
- Open Space – Open Space zoned Buffer Area provided.
- Design Controls – New buildings within 40m of the public realm require consent as a Controlled Activity. It is noted that all building currently require consent although this is opposed in the TGHL submission.
- Noise Controls – amended city wide noise controls proposed.
- Light spill controls – 3 lux city wide control.
- Interface standards – No unloading of containers in front yards (Proposed Rule 11.4.9).
2.7 Fairview Downs Residents This is an existing area of established residential development previously developed by CPL.
5 submitter addresses are located in this area
Submission No Map Reference No Name Address
282 37 Deborah June Fisher 80 Alderson Road
327 36 Lori Silsbee 10 Ada Place
330 35 David Charles Ferguson 117 Powells Road
338 34 Jennifer Rita Bothwell - Fairview Downs Residents
26 Aldona Place
12 PDP Submissions Analysis
56 39 Dennis Roy McLeod 25 Alderson Rd
Key issues raised:
- Protection required for local residents.
- Removal of the Structure Plan from the Plan.
- Spine road should be shown as an arterial.
- Landscaping 1.5m by 5m is not enough.
- Removal of notification rule.
- 8m and 40m building setbacks setbacks should be increased.
- Request no industrial views.
- Rural outlook.
- 400m greenbelt required.
The submission from the Fairview downs residents can be accessed via the following link
http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/Proposed%20District%20Plan%20Submission%20338.pdf
Submission 35 (David Charles Ferguson) relates to a piece of land that is included within the R1 land but is not owned by the JV partners but has been identified as open space associated with the spine road.
Current remediation proposed in the plan:
- Open Space – Open Space Zoned Buffer Area provided between Rukura Industrial Park Zone and residential.
- Controls over types of activities - A number of activities that would normally be expected within an Industrial zone have been specifically excluded from consideration. Including any noxious or offensive activity, motor vehicle dismantling and repair, recycling plants, incinerators and fertiliser manufacture.
- Design Controls – New buildings within 40m of the public realm require consent as a Controlled Activity. It is noted that all building currently require consent although this is opposed in the TGHL submission.
- Noise Controls – amended city wide noise controls proposed.
- Light spill controls – 3 lux city wide control.
- Interface standards – No unloading of containers in front yards (Proposed Rule 11.4.9).
2.8 Wairere Drive This area is located in the far north-western corner of the Structure Plan Area.
Submission No Map Reference No Name Address
PDP Submissions Analysis 13
80 47 Alexandra Lee Simmons 22 Stoneleigh Drive
977 46 Parkwood Gateway Limited
PRS Planning Services Limited
984 46 Portland Park Limited PRS Planning Services Limited
3 submissions have been received that relate to the northern most extent of the R1 land. Submission 46 relates to area of land currently zoned for a suburban centre in the Hamilton City Operative Plan. The proposed plan zones this as a neighbourhood centre. The submitter seeks to enable a suburban centre on this site. Both submissions 46 and 37 are concerned with wastewater connection in this area.
2.9 Enderley Residents This submission relates to a residential area to the west of AgResearch.
Key issues raised:
- Primarily these submissions relate to areas of proposed residential intensification not related to the R1 growth cell.
- Restrict further industrial development until existing areas are full.
- Minimise use of 5th Ave as a thoroughfare.
- Planting should be provided along Wairere Drive.
- Note submission 906 (Stephen George Bigwood) includes as a submission point that stages 2 and 3 should be rezoned as deferred Industrial Areas.
2.10 Submissions on Residential Chapters A large number of submissions were received in relation to the residential chapters most of these submission are not directly relevant to Ruakura. The following is noted:
- Predominantly submission points related to the specific provisions of the General Residential Zone and various garage gate issues.
- Most Ryburn/Percival Road residents made submission points in relation to the supporting the Large Lot residential Zone on their properties.
- There are only limited submission points that relate to the Medium Density Zone. These relate to minimum dwelling sizes and residential yield. Generally comments are aligned with CPL submission.
- It is noted that Portland Park Limited has challenged the need for an Integrated Retail Development with the Medium Density Zoned land at Ruakura.
14 PDP Submissions Analysis
Further detailed analysis of these issues will be provided once the council release their detailed summary of submissions.
3.0 Conclusion
The following observations are made;
• Overall there were a relatively low number of submissions.
• Residents submissions tend to relate to specific interfaces with the Structure Plan Area. They do not show a ground swell of opposition to the proposal
• Although there are some issues that will need to be resolved overall there appears to be a high level of consistent support for the proposal by key partners.
• One submitter Stephen George Bigwood (submission 906) included as a submission point that stages 2 and 3 should be rezoned as deferred Industrial Areas
Appendix 1: Ruakura Submissions Map
PDP Submissions Analysis
Appendix 1: Ruakura Submissions Map
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
78
910
11
12
13
1415
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2728
29
30
31
34
3536
37
38
39
40
41
46
47
5657
5859
60
61
63
64
65
66
42
43
44
45
51
6232
48
49
5
A08274 Tainui Ruakura
Ruakura Submissions
Date: 24 May 2013 | Revision: 0
Plan Prepared for Tainui Group by Boffa Miskell Limited
Author: [email protected] | Checked: JCa
File Ref: A08274_Submissions.mxd
www.boffamiskell.co.nz
0 500 m
1:20,000 @ A3
Leg
en
d
°Projection: NZGD 2000 New Zealand Transverse Mercator
Data Sources: LINZ Topo250, BML
!( Submitter Location
R1 Boundary
Th
is g
rap
hic
ha
s b
een
pre
pa
red
by
Bo
ffa
Mis
kell
Lim
ite
d o
n t
he
sp
eci
fic
inst
ruct
ion
s o
f o
ur
Cli
en
t. I
t is
so
lely
fo
r o
ur
Cli
ents
use
in a
cco
rda
nce
wit
h t
he
ag
ree
d s
cop
e o
f w
ork
. An
y u
se o
r re
lia
nce
by
a t
hir
d p
art
y is
at
tha
t p
art
ys o
wn
ris
k.
Wh
ere
info
rma
tio
n h
as
be
en
su
pp
lie
d b
y th
e C
lie
nt
or
ob
tain
ed
fro
m o
ther
ex
tern
al s
ou
rce
s, it
ha
s b
een
ass
um
ed
th
at
it is
acc
ura
te. N
o li
ab
ilit
y o
r re
spo
nsi
bil
ity
is a
ccep
ted
by
Bo
ffa
Mis
kell
Lim
ite
d f
or
an
y e
rro
rs o
r o
mis
sio
ns
to t
he
ex
ten
t th
at
the
y a
rise
fro
m in
acc
ura
te in
form
ati
on
pro
vid
ed
by
the
Cli
en
t o
r a
ny
ex
tern
al s
ou
rce
.