Chapter 3 Structure Plans and Appendix 2 Decisions

Decisions Report – Chapter 3 Structure Plans, 9 July 2014

Page 1 of 63

Chapter 3 Structure Plans and Appendix 2 Decisions

Structure Plans – General

Sub. Name FS. Name

Sub. Point FS. Point

Plan Provision

Sub. Type Summary Decision Reasoning

Wilson David Jolly

1244.001 3 Structure Plans

Support in part

Undertake a Structure Planning exercise for the area surrounding Temple View village. Amend Volume 1 – Section 3 – Structure Plans as follows: Add a new section 3.8 – Temple View with chapter headings of a similar nature to those that apply to Peacocke, Rototuna, Rotokauri and Ruakura as follows: Introduction Vision Objectives and Policies Structure Plan components

Reject The undertaking a structure planning exercise for the Temple View area is supported. However, such a process must be undertaken in an integrated and collaborative manner that is best achieved through a separate First Schedule process.

WJ & MR Laverty (Feathers Planning Limited)

FS8.003

Support Reject

Further submissions 8.003, 9.002 and 180.009 are rejected as 1244.001 have been rejected.

WR & JM FALCONER (Feathers Planning Limited)

FS9.002

Support Reject

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board

FS180.009

Support Reject

Simon Dyke Farms Ltd

1245.001 Support in part

Undertake a Structure Planning process for the area surrounding Temple View village. Amend Volume 1 – Section 3 – Structure Plans as follows: Add a new section 3.8 – Temple View with chapter headings of a similar nature to those that apply to Peacocke, Rototuna, Rotokauri and Ruakura as follows: Introduction Vision Objectives and Policies Structure Plan components



FS8.002

Support Reject

Further submissions 8.002, 9.003 and 180.01 are rejected as 1245.001 have been rejected. WR & JM FALCONER (Feathers Planning Limited)

FS9.003

Support Reject

The Church of FS180.01 Support Reject


Page 2 of 63

Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board

Jon Francis & Elizabeth Howie Jarvis


Undertake a Structure Plan exercise for the area surrounding Temple View village. Amend Volume 1 – Section 3 – Structure Plans as follows: Add a new section 3.8 – Temple View with chapter headings of a similar nature to those that apply to Peacocke, Rototuna, Rotokauri and Ruakura as follows: Introduction Vision Objectives and Policies Structure Plan components



FS8.001

Support Reject

Further submissions 8.001, 9.004 and 180.011 are rejected as 1254.001 have been rejected.

WR & JM FALCONER (Feathers Planning Limited)

FS9.004

Support Reject


FS180.011

Support Reject

W.J. & M.R. Laverty


Include a Structure Plan for Temple View in Section 3- Structure Plans as set out in the submission.



FS180.007

Support Reject Further submission 180.007 is rejected as 313.001 has been rejected.

W.R & J.M Falconer


A Structure Plan for Temple View is developed for inclusion in Section 3 - Structure Plans.

Reject The idea of undertaking a structure planning exercise for the Temple View area is supported. However, such a process must be undertaken in an integrated and collaborative manner that is best achieved through a separate First Schedule process.


FS180.008

Support Reject Further submission 180.008 is rejected as 360.001 has been rejected.



Amend Chapter 3 Structure Plans to include Temple View via a formal structure planning exercise as set out in the submission.



FS8.004

Support Reject

Further submission 8.004 and 9.001 are rejected as submission 1201.001 has been rejected. WR & JM FALCONER (Feathers Planning Limited)

FS9.001

Support Reject

Meiana Jenelle Nin

FS27.002

Oppose Accept Further submission 27.002 is accepted as submission 1201.001 has been rejected.


Page 3 of 63

Rakaipaka Puriri FS275.001

Oppose Reject This submission is not related to the matters contained in 1201.001.

Jodhi Ponga FS279.001

Support Reject

Further submission 279.001 and 284.001 are rejected as submission 1201.001 has been rejected. Temple View Heritage Society

FS284.001

Support Reject

Robert W. Belbin 291.003 Support in part

Include a section for Temple View within Rule 3.0 Structure Plans. Reject The undertaking a structure planning exercise for the Temple View area is supported. However, such a process must be undertaken in an integrated and collaborative manner that is best achieved through a separate First Schedule process.


FS180.005

Support Reject

Further submission 180.005 and 180.006 are rejected as submission 291.003 has been rejected. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board

FS180.006

Support Reject



Amend Appendix 2 Structure Plans to include Temple View as a structure plan area.

Reject

The undertaking of a structure planning exercise for the Temple View area is supported. However, such a process must be undertaken in an integrated and collaborative manner that is best achieved through a separate First Schedule process.This would involve a separate variation or plan change to the district plan.

Meiana Jenelle Nin

FS27.001

Oppose Accept Further submission 27.001 is accepted as submission 1201.002 has been rejected

Rakaipaka Puriri FS275.001

Oppose Reject This submission is not related to the matters contained in 1201.002.

Jodhi Ponga FS279.001

Support Reject

Further submission 279.001 and 284.002 are rejected as submission 1201.002 has been rejected Temple View Heritage Society

FS284.002

Support Reject

Wilson David Jolly


Amend Volume 2, Appendix 2 – Structure Plans Locality Guide by adding an additional legend to depict the Temple View Structure Plan. Further amendments are required by adding additional Figures 2-20, 2-21 and 2-22 as required. Any other consequential and related amendments to other rules as required.

Reject The undertaking of a structure planning exercise for the Temple View area is supported. However, such a process must be undertaken in an integrated and collaborative manner that is best achieved through a separate First Schedule process.This would involve a separate variation or plan change to the district plan.


FS180.09

Support Reject Further submission 180.09 is rejected as submission 1244.002 has been rejected

Simon Dyke Farms Ltd


Amend Volume 2, Appendix 2 – Structure Plans Locality Guide by adding an additional legend to depict the Temple View Structure Plan. Further amendments are required by adding additional Figures 2-20, 2-21 and 2-22 as required. Any other consequential and related amendments to other rules as required.



FS180.091

Support Reject Further submission 180.091 is rejected as submission 1244.002 has been rejected

Jon Francis & Elizabeth Howie Jarvis


Amend Volume 2, Appendix 2 – Structure Plans Locality Guide by adding an additional legend to depict the Temple View Structure Plan. Further amendments are required by adding additional Figures 2-20, 2-21 and 2-22 as required.



Page 4 of 63

Any other consequential and related amendments to other rules as required.

Hounsell Holdings Ltd

1104.003 Oppose Figures relating to the Rotokauri Structure Plan (Figure 3.6.2a, b, c, d, e, f, and g) should be included in the Appendix 2.

Reject Figures 3.6.2a to 3.6.2g are directly related to the structure plan text and their placement within chapter 3 will assist in the clarity and understanding and usability of the Plan. It is not considered appropriate to relocate the figures to Appendix 2 as part of the Rotokauri Structure Plan.

Porter Properties Ltd



Hamilton JV Investment Company Ltd




1104.004 Appendix 2 Structure Plans

Oppose (Figures 3.6.2a, 3.6.2b, 3.6.2c, 3.6.2d, 3.6.2e, 3.6.2f, and 3.6.2g relating to the Rotokauri Structure Plan should be included in the Appendix 2.



1164.004 Oppose Figures 3.6.2a, 3.6.2b, 3.6.2c, 3.6.2d, 3.6.2e, 3.6.2f, and 3.6.2g relating to the Rotokauri Structure Plan should be included in the Appendix 2.



1170.004 Oppose Figures 3.6.2a, 3.6.2b, 3.6.2c, 3.6.2d, 3.6.2e, 3.6.2f, and 3.6.2g relating to the Rotokauri Structure Plan should be included in the Appendix 2.


Structure Plan 3.1 Purpose

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision


Deborah June Fisher

282.001 3.1 Purpose Oppose Prior to a Structure Plan being included in the District Plan require the following: 1. Structure Plans to publicly provide an Environmental Impact Report prior to their inclusion in the District Plan. 2. Details of proposed adverse environment effects and the level of those effects. 3. Evidence of Open Consultation with anyone potentially affected by a Structure Plan. 4. Removal of current structure plans from the Proposed District Plan that has not met these conditions. 5. Require Industrial Structure Plans to provide a "Noise Management Plan" similar to that of Appendix 1-5-21 prior to inclusion.

Reject The structure plans (apart from the Ruakura Structure Plan) included in the Plan have all passed through the 1st

Schedule RMA process and outline the future growth and development expectations of the city in line with the PRPS and HUGS. The structure plans included within the Plan have been transferred from the Operative District Plan (ODP). Prior to their adoption within the ODP, they were all processed under the first schedule of the RMA, 1991 (Variation 18 – Rotokauri, Variation 12 – Rototuna and Variation 14 – Peacockes). As such and in accordance with the Act, each variation was subject to extensive public consultation and input, including the preparation of a number of background analysis and specialist reports covering a wide range of topics such as ecological and landscape assessments, roading and infrastructure. As such, full consideration was been given to aspects such as the type and location of land uses with the aim of identifying the optimum spatial pattern taking into account the efficient use of land, environmental protection, amenity, the need to support and protect appropriate existing land use and opportunities for economic development. The structure plans have been retained in the plan as it would reduce the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies if they were removed


FS180.001

Oppose Accept FS180.001 is accepted as submission 282.001 has been rejected.

Future Proof Implementation Committee

608.005 Support Future Proof supports 3.1 Purpose and 3.2 Principles set out in the Structure Plan chapter and seeks the retention of those sections as notified.

Accept in Part

This submission is in support of 3.1 and 3.2. and is accepted in part as the provisions that the submission seeks to retain have been amended in response to other submissions See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3.

Lynette Joyce Williams

1050.001 Support Retain the flow chart in 3.1 Purpose of Structure Plans. Accept in Part

These submissions support the flow chart (3.1 a). They are accepted in part as the provision that the submissions seek to retain has been amended in response to other submissions See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3.

Niall Baker 1158.001 Support Retain the flow chart in section 3.1 (Structure Plan Purpose).

Accept in Part

Waikato Regional Council


3.1 Purpose (Structure Plans). Amend the diagram in 3.1a) to include reference to Strategic Framework objectives and policies.

Accept This submission supports 3.1. The proposed amendments will improve the:

Internal consistency of the Plan

Clarity of the Plan for users See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3


Page 5 of 63

Chedworth Properties Ltd


Supports intent of 3.1 d) (Structure Plans - Purpose) - seeks amendments, as set out in the submission in respect of the land use pattern, and recognising the need to provide for staging but in a way that recognises the uncertainties associated with long term growth.

Accept in Part

The submissions support 3.1 (Purpose). They are accepted in part as that part of the submission relating to:

3.1 d) ii and iii are accepted as this will improve the effectiveness of the Plan in achieving the objective of integrated planning.

3.1 d) v has been amendment in response to another submission

See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3.

Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc


Amendments are sought, as set out in the submission, to the provisions in 3.1 (d) (Structure Plans Purpose) relating to the purpose of a Structure Plan in order to strengthen the policy in respect of the land use pattern and recognise the need to provide for staging but in a way that recognises the uncertainties associated with long term growth.

Tainui Group Holdings Ltd


Retain the Purpose of the Structure Plan Chapter with amendments to include reference to future land use patterns, staging of development and fiscal/financial/commercial feasibility, as set out in the submission.

William Cornelis Engelander

FS160.001

Oppose Reject The further submissions are not related to the matters contained in 913.007.

James Hely and Heather Montgomerie -

FS161.001

Oppose

New Zealand Transport Agency


Amend 3.1 d) v. to read as follows "Identifying the financial feasibility of the development from a Council, infrastructure provider and landowner perspective".

Accept The submission supports 3.1 and the amendments will assist in the clarity, understanding and administration of the Plan.

Tainui Group Holdings Limited

FS196.015

Support Accept FS196.015 is accepted as submission 924.009 has been accepted.

Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd

1200.007 Oppose Amend 3.1g) (Structure Plans - Purpose) to recognise that future structure plans or similar approaches could be promoted through a resource consent process.

Reject In accordance with the provisions of the RMA 1991, the resource consenting process is not the appropriate method to advance future structure plans or strategic planning frameworks for a particular area or growth cell.


FS181.003

Oppose Accept FS181.003 and 270.026 are accepted as 1200.007 has been rejected.


FS270.026

Oppose Accept

The Adare Company Ltd

FS272.032

Support Reject FS272.032 is rejected as submission 1200.007 has been rejected.

3.2 Principles

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision



608.006 3.2 Principles

Support Supports the retention of the purpose and principles set out in the Structure Plan chapter. Accept in

Part

The submissions support 3.2 and are accepted in part as amendments have been made in response to other submissions See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3. New Zealand

Transport Agency 924.010 Support Retain 3.2 Principles as notified.

Deborah June Fisher


Require structure plans to identify potential effects, positive and negative on the surrounding environment and how these will be mitigated or managed.

Reject In accordance with the RMA and the principles in 3.2, all structure plans would need to demonstrate an understanding of the surrounding context including an understanding of the potential effects that the proposals may have on the surrounding area.



Amend 3.2 (Structure Plan Principles) to also refer to other appropriate strategic planning methods.

Reject In accordance with the provisions of the RMA 1991, the resource consenting process is not considered to be the appropriate method to advance future structure plans or strategic planning frameworks for a particular area or growth cell.



a) Add an introductory paragraph explaining how the principles are to be taken account of and implemented. b) Add a principle to 3.2(a) as follows: 'How existing values, and valued features of the area (including

Accept in Part

The submission supports 3.2 and is accepted in part as that part of the submission relating to:

Changes to the introductory paragraph have been rejected as the current wording is considered appropriate.

The addition of a new principle to 3.2 a) is accepted as the amendments will improve the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objective for structure plans

See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3.


Page 6 of 63

amenity, landscape, natural character, ecological and heritage values, water bodies, high class soils and view catchments), will be managed'



Principles - Structure Plans - 3.2 a) i. - Replace ‘any land-use constraints and opportunities’ within this paragraph with ‘any land-use considerations’. Support

in Part

The terminology used is consistent with the approach to planning in general and is considered appropriate in the context of chapter 3. In order to ensure an area is properly understood it is neccessary for an analysis to be undertaken of the various strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and constraints that exist. This analysis is then used to inform the development of the plan itself. Furthermore, the Plan actively promotes the preservation and enhancement of heritage sites both built and natural in a number of ways and through the provisions of chapter 19 in accordance with the RMA.

Niall Baker 1158.002 Support in part

3.2 Principles 3.2a) i. delete the text "any land-use constraints and opportunities" and replace with ‘any land-use considerations’.

3.3 Objectives and Policies - General

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision



608.007 3.3 Objectives and Policies Structure Plans

Support Retain the Objectives and Policies under 3.3 Structure Plans Accept in Part

This submission is in support of 3.3. It is accepted in part as the provisions that the submission seeks to retain have been amended in response to other submissions See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3.



3.3 Objectives and Policies Structure Plans - amend introductory sentence as set out in submission by deleting the work "must" and replacing with 'shall'; and to incorporate the concept of 'general accordance'. Accept in

Part

The introductory paragraph to Rule 3.3 I has been amended so as to not be in conflict with the RMA and that consent applications “consider” the relevant objectives and policies See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3. Tainui Group

Holdings Ltd 913.008 Support in

part Amend the introduction for 3.3 Objectives and Policies Structure Plans by deleting the word 'must' and replace with 'shall' and add the word 'general' as set out in the submission.


FS160.001

Oppose Reject

Further submissions 160.001 and 161.001 are not related to the matters contained in 913.008. James Hely and Heather Montgomerie -

FS161.001

Oppose Reject


FS270.018

Oppose Reject FS270.018 is rejected as 913.008 has been accepted in part.

PRS Planning Services Limited

929.012 Oppose Amend the introductory paragraph to Rule 3.3 (Objectives and Policies, Structure Plans) to be consistent with that used in Rule 2.2 (as sought to be amended by this submission).

Accept The introductory paragraph to Rule 3.3 is amended so as to not be in conflict with the RMA and that consent applications “consider” the relevant objectives and policies This issue has been submitted on in other chapters of the Plan, for example chapter 2 (Strategic Framework). In line with the approach taken there, it is accepted that the introduction paragraph set a higher threshold than s104D of the RMA, 1991 and it is appropriate to amend the rule so that all consents within a structure plan area ‘consider where relevant’ the objectives and policies of the Plan See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3.

McCracken Surveys Limited

1206.013 Oppose That the introductory sentence to Rule 3.3 is amended as follows: “Any discretionary or non‐complying activity should not be contrary to the objectives and policies below”.

Accept in Part

Amendments to the wording of the paragraph limiting the consideration of the objectives and policies to discretionary and non‐complying activities only is not supported as this would exclude controlled or restricted discretionary consents.

Property Council New Zealand

938.011 Oppose Amend 3.3 (Objectives and Policies - Structure Plans) so that “Any discretionary or non-complying activity should not be contrary to the objectives and policies below”.

Accept in Part

The introductory paragraph to Rule 3.3 is amended so as to not be in conflict with the RMA and that consent applications “consider” the relevant objectives and policies This issue has been submitted on in other chapters of the Plan, for example Chapter 2 (Strategic Framework). In line with the approach taken there, it is accepted that the introduction paragraph set a higher threshold than s104D of the RMA, 1991 and it is appropriate to amend the rule so that all consents within a structure plan area ‘consider where relevant’ the objectives and policies of the Plan See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3.

Andrew Yeoman FS2.012

Support Reject FS2.012 is not related to the matters contained in 913.011.

Peter John Findlay et al (Baruchel Developments

FS242.001

Support Accept in Part

FS242.001 and FS277.001 are accepted in part as 938.011 is accepted in part.


Page 7 of 63

Ltd)

Peter John Findlay et al (Peter Findlay, Peter Findlay & Associates Ltd)

FS277.001

Support

Waikato District Council


Include new objective and policy framework to support the establishment of business and industrial activities and development within structure plan areas that is also consistent with the industrial land allocation and the hierarchy of major commercial centres for Hamilton City provided for in the Proposed Regional Policy Statement.

Reject An additional set of objectives and policies to support the establishment of business and industrial activities is considered to be an unnecessary duplication of objectives and policies elsewhere in the Plan. The establishment of a centres hierarchy is an important theme and approach advocated by the Plan. Chapters 2 and 6 set the policy framework for this and in particular objective 2.2.4 and related policies promote the hierarchy of major commercial centres including the land allocation for industrial activity, consistent with the provisions of the PRPS. Whilst a Structure Plan is not a full zoning plan, it does provide overall direction and the expectation is that any proposal for a new business or industrial node within an existing or proposed structure plan will need to be aligned with the policy framework of the Plan and with documents such as HUGS, Future Proof and the PRPS.

Objective 3.3.1 and Policies a-d

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision



714.006 3.3.1 Objective and Policies

Support Retain the Objectives and Policies under 3.3.1 Structure Plans Accept in Part

This submission supports 3.3.1 and associated policies. It is only accepted in part as the provisions that the submission seeks to retain have been amended in response to other submissions See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3


771.011 Support Support the Structure Planning Objective 3.3.1 “Optimised, long-term, positive, environmental, economic social and cultural effects of Greenfield development”.

Accept This submission supports 3.3.1 and is accepted because there are no other submissions seeking amendments to the objective.

Deborah June Fisher


Objective 3-3-1 to be amended to provide for any positive effect or adverse effects.

Reject The objective (3.3.1) has been formulated with the purpose of ensuring that cumulatively, development is carried out in a sustainable, responsible manner. Both the objective and policies have been developed to ensure adverse effects are avoided where possible.


FS180.003

Oppose Accept FS180.003 is accepted as submission 282.021 has been rejected.



Amend Policy 3.3.1a to remove the word ‘general’ so that it reads 'in accordance with the relevant structure plan'. This should apply throughout the Plan.

Reject A structure plan does not represent a ‘blueprint’ for an area and is intended to guide and illustrate a possible future development pattern. The very nature of structure planning requires that there is a degree of flexibility built into the various elements and provisions. The use of the phrase ‘in general accordance’ is considered to be the correct approach acknowledging the uncertainty that comes with the implementation of longer term planning proposals.


FS196.014

Oppose

Accept Further submissions 196.014, 249.004 and 272.029 are accepted as submission 924.011 is rejected. Property Council New Zealand

FS249.004


FS272.029

Mark Thomson Mitchell

709.001 Oppose Delete Policy 3.3.1b (Objectives and Policies - Structure Plans - housing densities)

Reject This submission is rejected because the deletion of these policies will reduce the effectiveness of the plan in terms of achieving compliance with PRPS. As reflected in the s42A reports the Plan has been drafted in response to the density targets of the Future Proof sub-regional growth management strategy and the PRPS. The strategic approach is a blend of compact settlement and concentrated growth. The Plan supports the fundamental shift in growth management from focusing largely on accommodating low-density suburban residential development to supporting a more compact urban form. It recognises the benefits of a compact urban environment. The PRPS sets out dwelling targets that will be achieved through management of lot sizes in existing residential areas and yield limits in structure plan areas. This objective and its policies set the manner in which residential densities targets are to be achieved and also set out the policy framework of controlling density to reinforce a compact and sustainable city.



Retain Structure 3.3.1 Objective and Policies with amendments to recognise that housing density targets will be achieved over time and will exclude roads and open space zoned land. Include an explanation of achieving higher densities (as set out in the submission).

Accept in Part

This submission is accepted in part as other submitters have also sought amendments to Policy 3.3.1b and collectively amendments have been made. See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3.


Page 8 of 63

Make amendments to policy for interim land use to allow low density residential development and to focus on future land use patterns rather than the long term vision.

The amendments will assist in aligning the policy framework with the RPS and will improve the internal consistency, understanding and administration of the Plan.


FS160.001

Oppose

Reject Further submissions 160.001 and 161.001 are not related to the matters contained in 913.009. James Hely and Heather Montgomerie -

FS161.001

Oppose


FS272.015


FS272.015 is accepted in part as 913.009 is accepted in part.


929.013 Oppose 3.3.1Objectives and Policies - Structure Plans: Amend Policy 3.3.1bi. to reflect the intention that densities per hectare are to be achieved exclusive of roads by rewording (new text in brackets) as follows: '16 dwellings per hectare (excluding land to be vested as roads and reserve) for greenfield development.' Delete Policy 3.3.1b ii) in its entirety.

Accept in part

These submissions are accepted in part as other submitters have also sought amendments to Policy 3.3.1b and collectively amendments have been accepted (see Tracked Changes for Chapter 3). The amendments will assist in aligning the policy framework with the RPS and will improve the internal consistency, understanding and administration of the Plan.


938.012 Oppose Amend Policy 3.3.1b to read: “Housing densities in greenfield locations should achieve over time a gross density excluding roads of 16 dwellings per hectare”


Support Reject FS2.012 is not related to the matters contained in 938.

Peter John Findlay et al (Baruchel Developments Ltd)

FS242.001

Support

Accept in Part

FS242.001 and FS277.001 are accepted in part as 938.012 is accepted in part. Peter John

Findlay et al (Peter Findlay, Peter Findlay & Associates Ltd)

FS277.001

Support

Rotokauri Developments Ltd

1015.001 Oppose Amend Policy 3.3.1b to recognise average gross density targets can be achieved over time: 'Housing densities in greenfield locations should achieve over time an average gross density target, excluding roads and Open Space zoned land of 16 dwellings per hectare.'

Accept in Part

These submissions are accepted in part as other submitters have also sought amendments to Policy 3.3.1b and collectively amendments have been accepted (see Tracked changes for Chapter 3). The amendments will assist in aligning the policy framework with the RPS and will improve the internal consistency, understanding and administration of the Plan


1104.005 Oppose 3.3.1 (b) Objective and Policies - Structure Plans. Reword 3.3.1 (b) to include the word 'progressively' so that the first line reads "Housing densities should progressively achieve."

Barry Harris (Hamilton City Council)


Amend Policy 3.3.1b i., as set out in the submission, to reflect the intention that densities are an overall target for the Structure Plan Area as opposed to an absolute requirement for every individual development. Delete policy 3.3.1b ii.


1170.005 Oppose 3.3.1 Objective and Policies - Structure Plans. Amend Policy 3.3.1bas set out in submission by rewording the first sentence "Housing densities should progressively achieve:" to ensure density is expressed as an intention to be met progressively and through a range of policy measures.



Amend Policy 3.3.1 b and the Explanation to that policy (Structure Plans - Housing densities) as set out in submission to delete the words 'should achieve' and add the words 'shall seek to achieve over time the


Page 9 of 63

following average gross density targets excluding roads and Open Space zoned land', and add explanatory text as set out in the submission.


1206.014 Oppose Amend Policy 3.3.1b to read: “Housing densities in greenfield locations should achieve over time a gross density excluding roads of 16 dwellings per hectare”


482.004 Oppose Remove Policy 3.3.1(b) (Structure Plans - Housing densities) as it relates to greenfield development of the Peacocke area and rely on the Master Plan exercise and minimum net site area subdivision provisions for the Peacocke Character Areas to determine the appropriate density. Any consequential and/or similar amendments that would have the same effect.

ANG & SL Clarke 951.006 Oppose Exclude the Large Lot Residential Zone from Policy 3.3.1b (Objectives and Policies - Structure Plans - housing density)

Accept The submission supports 3.3 and is accepted in part as that part of the submission relating to:

Retention of 3.3.1 Objective is accepted Amendments to the policies; an increase in the required density from 16 to 18 dwellings per hectare for greenfield development; and the amendments to 3.3.1c are rejected because the amendments will reduce the effectiveness of the plan in terms of achieving compliance with Future Proof, HUGS and the PRPS.



Retain 3.3.1 Objective and Policies with amendments to: remove reference to the word 'general' in both 3.3.1 and elsewhere in the district plan; to increase the required density from 16 to 18 dwellings per hectare for greenfield development; to remove reference to development providing population density to support passenger transport and amend to support integrated and efficient passenger transport.

Accept in part

The submission supports 3.3 and is accepted in part as that part of the submission relating to:

Retention of 3.3.1 Objective is accepted Amendments to the policies; an increase the required density from 16 to 18 dwellings per hectare for greenfield development; and the amendments to 3.3.1c are rejected because the amendments will reduce the effectiveness of the plan in terms of achieving compliance with Future Proof, HUGS and the PRPS.

Objective 3.3.2 and Policies a-e

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision


Population Health, Waikato DHB


Support Retain and adopt the Objectives and Policies under 3.3.2 Structure Plans as notified.

Accept in Part

This submission supports 3.3.2 and is accepted in part as amendments to the policies have been made in response to other submissions See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3



3.3.2 Objective and Policies - Structure Plans - Clarify at what stage and by whom social infrastructure will be provided.

Reject The clarification sought by the submitter is already provided for by the explanation text under objective 3.3.2. Social infrastructure (including libraries, pools and community halls) programmes are captured in both the Long Term and Annual Plans. Where development occurs outside of this programme, it is anticipated that the developer will bear the initial cost of infrastructure provision. The recovery of this cost is dependent on the specifics of each agreement entered into with Council, which may differ from project to project. Whilst there are a number of variables at play, delivery is ultimately dependent on the needs of an established resident community who will use the facilities on a day to day basis.



Retain Objective 3.3.2 under Structure Plans with amendment to Policy 3.3.2c to ensure connection of transport modes, connectivity of industrial areas to the transport network, integration of transport networks over district boundaries and to ensure development does not hinder future infrastructure requirements.

Accept in Part

The submission support 3.3.2. It is accepted in part as that part of the submission relating to:

The retention of objective 3.3.2 is accepted

The amendment of policy 3.3.2c has been rejected. The addition of a number of policies relating to the transportation network is considered an unnecessary duplication of objectives and policies elsewhere in the Plan.


FS181.008


FS181.008 and FS270.011 are accepted in part as 714.007 is accepted in part. New Zealand

Transport Agency

FS270.011




Amend Policy 3.3.2(a) (Structure Plans) and associated Explanation to ensure they apply to a broader range of infrastructure than that for which Council is responsible by making amendments as set out in the submission.

Accept in Part

This submission supports 3.3.2. The proposed amendments will improve the:

Internal consistency of the Plan

Clarity of the Plan for users See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3


Page 10 of 63

Reference to effects on Council’s planned infrastructure is unnecessary, and a broadening of the scope of the policy will assist in the implementation of objective 3.3.2.



Amend Policy 3.3.2a to delete reference to ensuring the servicing of the land does not compromise the efficiency and sustainability of Council’s planned infrastructure.

Reject The submission points seek amendments that would reduce consistency of the Plan with the PRPS in terms of the enhancement of the safe and efficient functioning of existing or planned infrastructure. Whilst ‘efficiency’ and ‘sustainability’ are not defined by the Plan, they reinforce the approach that the provision of infrastructure needs to be coordinated and delivered in a sustainable manner. The proposed amendments would not change the general approach that developers are responsible for mitigating effects generated by their development.


FS181.004

Oppose Accept FS181.004 is accepted as submission 1200.009 is rejected.


FS272.033

Support Reject FS272.033 is rejected 1200.009 has been rejected.



3.3.2 Objective and Policies (Structure Plans) - Amend Policies 3.3.2a and 3.3.2e as set out in the submission; Delete Policy 3.3.2d to ensure consistency with the Proposed Regional Policy Statement.

Accept in part

The submissions support 3.3.2. They have only been accepted in part as other submissions sought amendments to the provisions that this submission relates to. The proposed amendments will improve the:

Consistency of the Plan with the PRPS in terms of the enhancement of the safe and efficient functioning of existing or planned infrastructure.

Internal consistency and clarity of the Plan for users See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3



Amend Policy 3.3.2a and delete Policy 3.3.2d to regarding infrastructure requirements for development. Amend Policy 3.3.2e so that the staging and sequencing of development only has to be in general accordance with staging indicated on the relevant structure plan.

Accept in Part

University of Waikato

FS47.002

Oppose Reject FS47.002 is rejected as 913.010 is accepted in part.


FS160.001

Oppose

Reject FS160.001 and 161.001 do not relate to the matters in 913.010. James Hely and Heather Montgomerie -

FS161.001

Oppose


FS272.016

Support Accept in part

FS272.016 is accepted in part as 913.010 has been accepted in part.

ANG & SL Clarke 951.006 Oppose Add new objectives and policies to 3.3.2 for Large Lot Residential and Future Urban zoned areas where reticulated infrastructure is not available as the current objectives and policies are more relevant to urban development with reticulated services.

Reject The provision of on-site infrastructure solutions is a detail issue that is not dealt with or considered by chapter 3. Objectives and Policies for these zones are provided in chapters 4 and 14 of the Plan. A structure plan only provides overall guidance on the provision of infrastructure. The detailed design of reticulation solutions is discussed and managed through the resource consenting process.

Objective 3.3.3 and Policies a and b

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision


Population Health, Waikato DHB


Support Retain and adopt Objectives and Policies under 3.3.3 Structure Plans as notified.

Accept in part

This submission supports 3.3.3 and is accepted in part as amendments have been made in response to other submissions. See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3



Retain Objective and Policies under 3.3.3 Structure Plans with amendments to include the safeguarding and enhancement of freshwater bodies and additions to the list of matters under policy 3.3.3b for Integrated Catchment Management Plans.


929.015 Oppose Amend Policy 3.3.3b: (Objectives and Policies - Structure Plans) to clearly identify when Integrated Catchment Management Plans are required.

Robert Gordon Bell


Retain Structure Plans 3.3.3 Objective and Policies with amendments to require Integrated Catchment Management Plans before Policies and Rules are set.

Objective 3.3.4 and Policies a-g

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision


Population Health, Waikato

1273.006 3.3.4 Objective

Support Retain and adopt Objectives and Policies under 3.3.4 Structure Plans as notified.

Accept in part

This submission supports 3.3.4 and is accepted in part as amendments have been made in response to other submissions See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3


Page 11 of 63

DHB and Policies



Retain Objective and Policies under 3.3.4 Structure Plans with amendments, as set out in the submission, to include the improvement of safety of the transportation network under policy 3.3.4g and to clarify that adverse effects from building new transport infrastructure need to be avoided, as well as minimised in 3.3.4f.

Accept in part

The submission supports 3.3.4. It is accepted in part as that part of the submission relating to:

The retention of objective 3.3.4 is accepted

The amendment to 3.3.4f is rejected as it is considered that the relief sought is inconsistent with the objectives of the Plan.

The amendment to 3.3.4g is accepted as the provision of safe transportation networks is supported by the Plan See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3


FS270.012





Amend Objective 3.3.4 by deleting the word "Council". Amend Policy 3.3.4a: as set out in the submission to also refer to the defined range of considerations included in a ‘Broad Integrated Transport Assessment’ as set out in the definitions in Part 2. The Explanation will also require amending to reflect this requested change. Amend Policy 3.3.4b: to also refer to the defined range of considerations included in a ‘Broad Integrated Transport Assessment’ as set out in the definitions in Part 2. The Explanation will also require amending to reflect this requested change. Amend this policy as requested to promote clarity and ensure that the policy is consistent with the subsequent Explanation. Insert a new policy as set out in the submission, to ensure that financial impacts are minimised alongside environmental considerations.

Accept in part


The amendment of Objective 3.3.4 is accepted as this will improve the internal consistency of the Plan.

The amendments to policies 3.3.4a, 3.3.4b are rejected. In terms of this matter, Integrated Transport Assessments (ITA) are carried out to determine the impact of a specific development on the transportation network and are a factor in assessing whether a consent should be granted or not. In the context of chapter 3, which is concerned with the overall network efficiency, it is considered unnecessary for the policies to reference ITA’s. However, it is considered that there is merit in broadening the explanation text as this will improve the integration, internal consistency and cross referencing within the Plan.

The amendment to the associated explanation text is accepted in part as this will improve the cross referencing within the Plan.

The amendment of policy 3.3.4b is rejected as this is an unnecessary duplication of the provisions elsewhere in the Plan.


929.016 Oppose 3.3.4 Objective and Policies (Structure Plans) That Policies 3.3.4a and 3.3.4b be deleted

Reject

The deletion of policies 3.3.4a and 3.3.4b is rejected. In terms of this matter, Integrated Transport Assessments (ITA) are carried out to determine the impact of a specific development on the transportation network and are a factor in assessing whether a consent should be granted or not. In the context of chapter 3, which is concerned with the overall network efficiency, it is considered unnecessary for the policies to reference ITA’s. However, it is considered that there is merit in broadening the explanation text as this will improve the integration, internal consistency and cross referencing within the Plan.


1171.010 Oppose Delete policy 3.3.4b (Policy - Structure Plans).


913.011 Oppose Delete Policy 3.3.4b


FS160.001

Oppose

Reject FS 160.001 and 161.001 are not related to the matters contained in 913.011. James Hely and Heather Montgomerie -

FS161.001

Oppose


FS272.017 Support Reject FS272.017 is rejected as 1171.010 has been rejected.

Objective 3.3.5 and Policies a and b

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision


Deborah June Fisher


Oppose Policies 3.3.5a) and b) to be amended to "avoid" adverse effects Reject The submission seeks amendments that would reduce the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies. Policy 3.3.5a relates to methods that can be used to manage reverse sensitivity along zone boundaries and it is applicable to both structures and activities. In the context of chapter 3, the policy is considered to be correctly worded. Further detail provisions to ensure that reverse sensitivity is properly managed, are provided in other chapters through the Plan.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day

FS180.004

Oppose Accept FS180.004 is accepted as 282.022 has been rejected.


Page 12 of 63

Saints Trust Board



Amend Policy 3.3.5b by adding 'and regionally significant industry' Reject The policy is considered to be correctly worded and the proposed amendment is too narrowly focused on industrial activity.



Amend Policy 3.3.5b by deleting the word 'Sensitive' so that it reads as follows: "Land uses shall avoid effects on and from regionally significant infrastructure".

Reject The submission seeks amendments that would reduce the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies in terms of managing the adverse effects that buildings and activities can have on each other.


FS196.017

Oppose

Accept FS196.017 and FS249.028 are accepted as 924.014 has been rejected. Property Council

New Zealand FS249.028

Oppose

Transpower New Zealand Ltd


3.3.5 Objective and Policies - Amend 3.3.5b by inserting the word 'adverse' as set out in the submission: 'Sensitive land uses shall avoid adverse effects on and from regionally significant infrastructure'. Insert a new Policy 3.3.5c 'Manage subdivision, use and development to avoid adverse effects on the safe, efficient and effective operation and use of existing or planned infrastructure'. Adopt any other such relief, including additions, deletions or consequential amendments necessary as a result of the matters raised in these submissions, as necessary to give effect to this submission.

Accept in Part


The amendment to 3.3.5b is accepted

The addition of a new policy 3.3.5c is accepted in part. See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3 The amendments will assist in the clarity, understanding and administration of the Plan The addition of a new policy is supported (albeit with minor changes to the wording for clarity only) as this would help ensure that development within a structure plan area is integrated with existing and planned regionally significant infrastructure.


FS270.024


FS270.024 is accepted in part as submission 1083.006 has been accepted in part.



3.3.5 Objective and Policies - Structure Plans. Amend the last paragraph of the explanation as set out in the submission to include reference to 'other sensitive' land uses.

Accept The minor amendments are necessary and will assist in the clarity, understanding and administration of the Plan.

Objective 3.3.6 and Policies a-d

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision

Sub. Type Summary

Decision Reasoning

Deborah June Fisher


Support in part

Add policy to recognise "adjoining land uses" Accept in Part

As this is specifically mentioned within Objective 3.3.6 and the associated explanation text, the submission is accepted but rather than the addition of a new policy as proposed by the submitter, an amendment to the wording of 3.3.6d has been made to deal with the concerns raised.



a) Amend Policy 3.3.6a so that loss of SNAs is avoided, and opportunities for restoration and enhancement of indigenous vegetation are sought wherever possible. b) Amend Policy 3.3.6c to delete the words 'where practicable'. c) Add a new policy 3.3.6e that recognises the importance of, and provides for, well connected and ecologically functioning natural systems, based around the core ecological framework of the Waikato River and gully system. d) Add a policy on biodiversity restoration and enhancement through structure plans as follows: “Develop constructed wetlands and other green infrastructure in new growth areas to deal with urban stormwater issues and to provide for increased habitat and ecosystems.”

Reject

It is considered that the existing policy wording achieves the stated objective whilst ensuring there is a degree of flexibility. The concerns raised by the submitter are therefore unfounded. On this basis, the amendments to both policies are not supported. Whilst WRC sought additional new policies to 3.3.6, it is considered that the intent of the submission and the concerns raised, are managed in other chapters of the Plan, namely, chapter 21 regarding the River and Gully system and chapter 25 (25.13, Three Waters) regarding appropriate policies addressing stormwater. The introduction of two new policies is therefore considered an unnecessary duplication.


1104.006 Oppose 3.3.6(b) Objective and Policies - Structure Plans: Reword Policy 3.3.6(b) to include the wording "..Retains features of the landscape identified on structure plans".

Accept The minor amendments are necessary and will assist in the clarity, understanding and administration of the Plan


Page 13 of 63


1164.005 Oppose Amend Policy 3.3.6b in Objective and Policies for Structure Plans to clarify "identified features" will be identified on structure plans


1170.006 Oppose 3.3.6 Objective and Policies - Structure Plans Amend Policy 3.3.6b) by rewording as set out in submission to insert text "retain features of the landscape identified on structure plans".



3.3.6 Objective and Policies - Structure Plans - Insert an additional policy statement in regard to the recognition and protection of heritage features.

Reject The addition of a policy statement in regard to the recognition and protection of heritage features is considered an unnecessary duplication of policies identified elsewhere in the Plan. Niall Baker 1158.003 Support in

part 3.3.6 Objective and Policies - Structure Plans. Insert an additional policy statement in regard to the recognition and protection of heritage features.

Objective 3.3.7 and Policies a-c

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision



924.015 Support Retain 3.3.7 Objective and Policies - Structure Plans as notified. Accept in part

This submission supports 3.3.7 objective and policies. It is only accepted in part as the provisions that the submission supports have been amended in response to other submissions See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3.


929.019 Oppose Amend 3.3.7 Objective and Policies (Structure Plans) to clarify the status of the referenced Open Space Plan/Strategy. If this is unavailable then the Policy should be deleted or replaced with one that references the future reserves identified on the relevant structure plan.

Accept An additional reference to the Hamilton City Open Space Plan is considered beneficial and will assist in the clarity and understanding of the Plan.



Support in part

3.3.7 Objective and Policies (Structure Plans). Amend Policy 3.3.7b iv. by deleting the words 'Significant Natural Areas' and replacing with the words: "areas where recreation use is compatible with conservation values".

Reject

The submission points seek amendments that would reduce the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies. Policy 3.3.7b is not an absolute requirement and will not imply the damage to or that cultural or natural heritage values would be sacrificed to the advantage of other requirements. It only alludes to a certain principles that should be considered at the structure plan level. A structure plan only provides the broad direction and overarching proposals with regard to a number of issues including the identification and provision of community facilities and areas with natural and built heritage value that can be used to support local identity, changes to more intensive forms of development and the land required for active or passive recreation and public access to water. The co-location of recreational activities with cultural and heritage sites is something that should only be considered. Before a final decision is made a number factors would need to be evaluated and considered, such as the potential for this to damage or destroy archaeological sites. Seen against the backdrop of chapter 3, it is considered that the policy is appropriately worded.


1050.004 Oppose 3.3.7 Objective and Policies - Structure Plans: Policy 3.3.7b - Review this section to ensure cultural heritage values are not to be sacrificed to open space requirements.

Niall Baker 1158.004 Oppose Review section 3.3.7 Objectives and Policies - Structure Plans - to ensure cultural heritage values are not to be sacrificed to open space requirements.

Submissions regarding Shall vs. Should

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision

Sub. Type Summary

Decision Reasoning


929.014 3.3.2 Objectives and Policies

Oppose That the word "shall" in Policies 3.3.2a, 3.3.2b, 3.3.2c, 3.3.2e (Structure Plans) be replaced with the word "should".

Accept in part

The deletion of the word ‘shall’ provides for better objectives and policies for the plans framework and workability. These submissions are accepted in part and the changes to the policies reflect the consistent approach taken through this submission process See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3.

Waikato Chamber of Commerce


3.3.2 Objectives and Policies - Amend Policies 3.3.2b, 3.3.2c and 3.3.2e by deleting the word 'shall' and replacing with 'must have regard to'.


1206.015 Oppose 3.3.2 Objective and Policies - Structure Plans: Replace reference to 'shall' with 'should' in Policies 3.3.2b, 3.3.2c and 3.3.2e.


938.013 Oppose Amend Policies 3.3.2b, 3.3.2c, and 3.3.2e by replacing the word 'shall' with 'should'.


Support

Reject FS2.012 and FS242.001 are not related to the matters contained in 938.013 Peter John Findlay et al (Baruchel Developments Ltd)

FS242.001

Support

Peter John Findlay et al (Baruchel

FS242.012




Page 14 of 63

Developments Ltd)


FS277.001

Support Reject FS277.001 is not related to the matters contained in 938.013


FS277.012





Oppose 3.3.4 Objective and Policies - Structure Plans. Replace reference to 'shall' with 'should' in Policies 3.3.4a, 3.3.4b, 3.3.4c, 3.3.4e, 3.3.4f, 3.3.4g

Accept in part

The deletion of the word ‘shall’ provides for better objectives and policies for the plans framework and workability. These submissions are accepted in part and the changes to the policies reflect the consistent approach taken through this submission process. See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3.


929.016 Oppose 3.3.4 Objective and Policies (Structure Plans) That the word "shall" in Policies 3.3.4c, 3.3.4d, 3.3.4e, 3.3.4f, and 3.3.4g are replaced with the word "should".


938.014 Oppose Amend Policies 3.3.4a to 3.3.4c and 3.3.4e, to 3.3.4g by replacing the word “shall” with “should”.


Support


FS242.001

Support


FS242.013




FS277.001



FS277.013




1206.017 3.3.5 objectives and Policies

Oppose 3.3.5 Objective and Policies - Structure Plans. Replace reference to “shall” with “should” in Policies 3.3.5a and 3.3.5b.

Accept in part

The deletion of the word ‘shall’ provides for better objectives and policies for the plans framework and workability. These submissions are accepted in part and the changes to the policies reflect the consistent approach taken through this submission process See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3


929.017 Oppose 3.3.5 Objective and Policies (Structure Plans): That the word "shall" in Policies3.3.5a, 3.3.5b be replaced with the word "should".


938.015 Oppose Amend Policies 3.3.5a and 3.3.5b by replacing the word “shall” with “should”.


Support

Reject FS2.012 and FS242.001 are not related to the matters contained in 938.015. Peter John Findlay et al (Baruchel

FS242.001

Support


Page 15 of 63

Developments Ltd)

Peter John Findlay et al Ltd)

FS242.014




FS277.001



FS277.014





Oppose 3.3.6 Objective and Policies - Structure Plans - Replace reference to “shall” with “should” in Policies 3.3.6a, 3.3.6b, 3.3.6c, and 3.3.6d.

Accept in part

The deletion of the word ‘shall’ provides for better objectives and policies for the plans framework and workability. These submissions are accepted in part and the changes to the policies reflect the consistent approach taken through this submission process See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3.


929.018 Oppose 3.3.6 Objective and Policies (Structure Plans): That the word 'shall' in Policies 3.3.6a, 3.3.6b, 3.3.6c, 3.3.6d be replaced with the word 'should'.


938.016 Oppose Amend Policies 3.3.6a to 3.3.6d by replacing the word “shall” with “should”.


Support


FS242.001

Support


FS242.015




FS277.001



FS277.015





Oppose 3.3.7 Objective and Policies - Structure Plans - Replace reference to “shall” with “should” in Policies 3.3.7a and 3.3.7b.

Accept in part

The deletion of the word ‘shall’ provides for better objectives and policies for the plans framework and workability. These submissions are accepted in part and the changes to the policies reflect the consistent approach taken through this submission process. See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3.


938.017 Oppose Amend Policies 3.3.7a and 3.3.7b by replacing the word “shall” with “should”.




FS242.001


Peter John Findlay et al

FS242.016




Page 16 of 63

(Baruchel Developments Ltd)


FS277.001



FS277.016



Submissions regarding Safety

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision


Starship Trauma Service

182.009 3.2 Principles

Support in part

Submitter seeks an additional Key Principle in Section 3.2 (Principles for Structure Plans) as follows: "Safety: The layout of any future residential development considers the physical safety of children. This design will include vehicular access in relation to the dwelling and any adjacent garden area to minimise the risk of injury/fatality from causes such as child driveway run overs".

Reject

Whilst the concerns are noted, it is not appropriate to reference child safety within chapter 3 dealing with structure planning issues. Structure planning is a valuable way to achieve integrated management of the effects of developing large land areas. It is a way of addressing the sustainable management of natural physical resources, particularly in an urban context. Structure Plans provide an important tool for Council in helping to identify appropriate services, infrastructure, open space, densities, residential and business areas, significant cultural, natural and historic or heritage features and urban design needs for a particular area or locality. Ensuring the safety of the most vulnerable members of the community is most effectively done through a number of other mechanisms and community organizations. At a more detailed level, the Plan identifies ‘safety’ as one of the qualities and attributes important in a residential environment. For example Policy 4.1.5b) which is applicable to all residential zones, focuses specifically on the matters to ensure an enjoyable living environment, which includes the safety of the area. Apart from the proposed amendment to policy 3.3.1c (submission 182.004) the concerns raised are detailed in nature and cannot be managed through the objectives and policies of chapter 3.

Waikato Child and Youth Mortality Review Group


Amend 3.2 regarding Structure Plan Principles to insert a new principle regarding the design of development to maximise child safety.



Support in part

Amend Policy 3.3.1c Structure Plans with amendments to include the maximisation of Child Safety and amend the associated explanation to highlight that density targets will not compromise safety requirements.



Amend policy 3.3.1c to ensure passenger transport is not only efficient by safe by inserting the word 'safe' into the policy text.

Accept This submission seeks amendments that would improve the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies with regard to passenger transport.



Support in part

Amend Policy 3.3.4g as set out in the submission, to ensure that arterial routes do not sever safe access between residential and recreational spaces.

Reject Matters relating to design and layout of future residential or development areas including the design of arterial routes to consider and maximise the physical safety of children is a detailed design matter that cannot be managed through the objectives and policies of Chapter 3.



Support in part

3.3.5 Objectives and Policies - Structure Plans: Amend Policy 3.3.5a by adding a second sentence: "Any increased risk to safety that may result from these adjacent activities should be considered and mitigated against".


1003.018 3.5 Rototuna

Support in part

Section 3.5 (Rototuna) - Amend 3.5 b) and 3.5 c) as per submission to explicitly incorporate the aspect of safety into the plan.



3.5 - Rototuna Amend 3.5 b) and 3.5 c) to explicitly incorporate the aspect of safety into the plan, as set out in submission.



Support in part

3.5.1 Objectives and Policies - Add a new policy to 3.5.1.4 (Objectives and Policies - Structure Plans) as follows: '3.5.1.4d Provide layout that minimises risk to children (such as slow speed run overs).'

Waikato Child and Youth

1003.021 3.6.1 Objectives

Support in part

Add a new sentence to the end of first paragraph under 3.6.1 “subdivision for residential purposes should give full consideration to


Page 17 of 63

Mortality Review Group

and Policies safety such as minimizing risk of driveway run over”.


1003.022 3.6.2.2 Residential

Support in part

3.6.2.2 Residential - Rotokauri. Amend 3.6.2.2a) to read: "residential development is indicated in four distinct residential environments where the layout will maximise safety to all householders while engendering a sense of community" Amend 3.6.2.2.a)i. by inserting the words 'and safe'


1003.008 3.4 Peacocke

Support in part

Amend 3.4 c) Concentration, to add at the end of the sentence: "that considers all aspects of child safety". Amend 3.4 by adding an additional key principle as follows: Safety: The layout of any future residential development considers the physical safety of children. This design will include vehicular access in relation to the dwelling and any adjacent garden area to minimise the risk of injury/fatality, such as through slow driveway run over.

Reject The amendments sought are unnecessary as the matters are:

Inherent in the provisions regarding good urban design and accessibility

Already addressed through other provisions in the Plan that focus on site specific proposals (e.g. Chapter 23 Subdivision, Chapter 4 Residential Zone, Chapter 5 Special Character Zone, Chapter 25.14 Transportation, Chapter 25.15 Urban Design)

Not directly relevant to the matters in the provision which they seek to amend


182.007 3.4 Vision Support in part

Amend the first paragraph of 3.4 to read as follows "The vision for the Peacocke area is that it will become a high quality and safe urban environment that is based on urban design best practice, social well-being, and environmental responsibility."

Reject

The amendments sought are unnecessary as the matters are:




1003.010 3.4 Vision Support in part

Amend 3.4 to include reference to "safe" urban environment.


182.005 3.4.2.1 Community and Recreation Facilities

Support in part

Amend 3.4.2.1 i) i, and j) by inserting references to child safety and safe pedestrian access principles into the criteria for the location of neighbourhood parks within the Peacocke Structure Plan Area.


1003.012 3.4.2.1 Community and Recreation Facilities

Support in part

Amend 3.4.2.1b), d), and j) to ensure consideration of the need for pedestrian safety.


1003.013 3.4.2.2 Neighbourhoods

Support in part

Amend 3.4.2.2 b) to ensure the safety of children.

Reject




Would be determined as part of the Southern Links notice of requirement


182.011 3.4.3 Transport Network

Support in part

Amend 3.4.3e) to include "The designated arterial routes should not sever safe access to public recreational spaces."



Support in part

Amend 3.4.3 e) to ensure arterial routes do not sever safe access to public recreational space.



Support in part

Amend 3.4.3 e) to ensure arterial routes do not sever safe access to public recreational space.


182.008 3.4.1 Structure Plan Components

Support in part

Amend Figure 3-4a, #6 in the key by adding the following text "that are clearly defined as vehicular access and clearly separated from child play areas (public and private)" as set out in the submission.

Reject




At a level of detail that is considered inappropriate in the context of a strategic structure plan chapter

Waikato Child and Youth

1003.011 3.4.1 Structure

Support in part

Amend Figure 3.4a, #6 to define a separation between vehicle and pedestrian space.


Page 18 of 63

Mortality Review Group

Plan Components


182.013 3.4.4 Interim Subdivision

Support in part

Amend 3.4.4c) to include reference to subdivision layout having consideration to maximise child safety.



Amend 3.4.4c) to include reference to subdivision layout having consideration to maximise child safety.



Support in part

Amend the Objectives and Policies in 3.4.6 to include child safety principles as set out in the submission.


182.015 Peacocke Social Wellbeing

Amend 3.4.6 to include child safety principles and the text as set out in the submission



Support in part

Amend the introduction to 3.4.6.11 Peacocke Social Wellbeing to insert text to ensure safety, with specific reference to children is identified within the residential areas.

Peacock Structure Plan - General

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision



608.008 3.4 Peacocke

Support Retain 3.4 Peacocke. Accept in Part

This submission point supports provisions in 3.4 is accepted in part because amendments have been made in response to other submission points. See 3.4 in Tracked Changes for Chapter 3

Rex Hannam 935.001 Support Retain provisions within the Plan (Parts 3.4, 5.2.8, 5.3-6, 23.3, 23.6 and Appendix 2.2) that manage interim and future development within the Peacocke Structure Plan Area and Peacocke Character Zone.

Accept in Part

This submission point supports provisions in 3.4 is accepted in part because amendments have been made in response to other submission points. See 3.4 in Tracked Changes for Chapter 3


924.016 Support Retain the Peacocke Structure Plan subject to specific amendments requested in the submission.

Accept in Part

This submission point supports in 3.4 and is accepted in part because amendments have been made in response to other submission points and the specific amendments sought by the submitter are addressed separately. See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3.



Support Retain 3.4.3e) Transport Network as notified Accept in Part

This submission point supports 3.4.3e) and is accepted in part because amendments have been made in response to other submission points. See 3.4 in Tracked Chjanges for Chapter 3.

Russelle Knaap 690.013 3.4.3 Transport Network

Oppose Amend 3.4.4 to give priority to motorists in the development of the Peacocke Transport Network.

Reject This submission point is rejected because 3.4.4 is consistent with the:

Purpose and Principles of the RMA

Objectives and policies of the Plan

Proposed Regional Policy Statement

Regional Walking and Cycling Strategy 2009-2015

Regional Land Transport Strategy 2011-2041

Access Hamilton 2010 and its supporting Action Plans (particularly Travel Demand Action Plan and Active Travel Action Plan)

Future Proof Growth Strategy and Implementation Plan 2009 and the Plan already respond to issues related to the safety of public walkways, so no amendments are necessary.

Transpower’s Hamilton Communication Centre

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision



1083.005 Figure 2-1 Peacocke Structure Plan-Land Use

Support in part

Amend Figure 2-1: Peacocke Structure Plan – Land Use to identify Transpower’s Hamilton Communications Centre and remove the indicative transport corridor link from traversing the site.

Accept Amendments have been made to identify the Hamilton Communications Centre on the Peacocke Structure Plan and to move the indicative transport corridor off the site. These amendments:

Improve the clarity and administration of the Plan.

Avoid confusion regarding future transport corridor expectations.

Recognise the Hamilton Communications Centre in the Structure Plan as significant infrastructure and a physical resource critical to providing for the social and economic wellbeing of the country.

See Figure 2-1, Figure 2.2 and Figure 15-5e in Tracked Changes for Chapter 3 (1083.005)


1083.007 3.4.1.1 Natural

Support in part

Amend 3.4.1.1c) to make reference to the Transpower’s National Control Centre in Hall Road.

Reject The amendments sought to 3.4.1.1c) are rejected because they would:

Be out of context as they seek to recognise and protect regionally significant infrastructure, not natural character, which would


Page 19 of 63

Character Areas

reduce the clarity of the Plan.

The provisions of the Plan (Master Plan process, Objective 3.3.5 and Policy 3.3.6b (Structure Plans), Objective 25.7.2.1 and Policies 25.7.2.1b, 25.7.2.1f (Network Utilities and Electricity Transmission Corridors), 23.2.2a x. and xi. (Subdivision) directly address reverse sensitivity effects and adverse effects of subdivision, use and development on network utilities.

Amendments have been made to the Plan in response to other submission points (1083.005) that provide recognition of the Hamilton Communications Centre.


1083.008 Peacocke Built Environment

Support in part

Insert new objectives and policies, as set out in the submission, into 3.4.6.4 Peacocke Built Environment to ensure that existing regionally significant infrastructure is not compromised by the development of the structure plan area.

Reject The amendments sought are rejected because:

The provisions of the Plan (Master Plan process, Objective 3.3.5 and Policy 3.3.6b (Structure Plans), Objective 25.7.2.1 and Policies 25.7.2.1b, 25.7.2.1f (Network Utilities and Electricity Transmission Corridors), 23.2.2a x. and xi. (Subdivision) directly address reverse sensitivity effects and adverse effects of subdivision, use and development on network utilities, so no amendments are necessary.

Amendments have been made to the Plan in response to other submission points (1083.005) that provide recognition of the Hamilton Communications Centre.

3.4.2 Nodes

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision



482.006 3.4.2.3 Commercial Community Nodes

Support in part

Amend 3.4.2.3 to provide flexibility in the number of community nodes within the Peacocke Area.

Reject This submission point is rejected because the amendment would:

Be contrary to Policy 3.3.1a.

Make the Plan internally inconsistent.

Reduce the clarity the Plan.

Create administrative uncertainty. The Master Plan process provides appropriate flexibility to adjust the form and location of the community focal points for those neighborhood areas containing a node.

The Ministry of Education

838.001 3.4.2.3 Commercial Community Nodes

Oppose Amend 3.4.2.3 to remove references and identification of a secondary school site in Peacocke Area.

Reject This submission point is rejected because 3.4.2.3a) i. does not pre-empt any decision by the Ministry of Education on the need, timing or location of any future secondary school and the deletion of the reference would leave no guidance for organisations with interests in providing for educational needs.


FS272.013

Oppose Accept FS272.013 has been accepted because the submission point (838.001) which it opposes has been rejected.

Peacocke Stage 1 - Indicative Collector Transport Corridor

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision


Summerset Villages (Hamilton) Ltd

814.001 3.4 Peacocke

Support in part

Amend the Peacocke Structure Plan to relocate the collector road away from the submitters site or provide flexibility to allow structure plan features to be located in different areas or in modified form from that shown in the structure plan.

Accept in part

It is accepted that the indicative collector road be removed from the Peacocke Structure Plan for the following reasons:

Limited adverse transport effects will be generated as a consequence of its removal

An alternative collector road and local road will provide adequate connectivity within the locality

It is unlikely that the indicative collector road would attract a high enough volume of traffic to justify retaining a collector road status

Whilst the removal of road will necessitate changes to the Goan consent this may present an opportunity to improve aspects of the development layout

Feasible alternate access arrangements can be made

Paul Dermott and Elizabeth Maria Corboy

FS37.001


FS37.001 is acceped in part as submission 814.001 has been accepted in part

Dixon Homes Ltd FS78.001

Oppose Accept in part

FS78.001 is accepted in part as submission 814.001 has been accepted in part

Goan Holdings Ltd

FS80.001



Northview Partnership Ltd

FS163.001





Support in part

Amend Figure 2-1 Peacocke Structure Plan - Land Use to relocate indicative collector road in Stage 1 of Peacocke as set out in the submission.

Accept in part

It is accepted that the indicative collector road be removed from the Peacocke Structure Plan for the following reasons: • Limited adverse transport effects will be generated as a consequence of its removal • An alternative collector road and local road will provide adequate connectivity within the locality • It is unlikely that the indicative collector road would attract a high enough volume of traffic to justify retaining a collector road status • Whilst the removal of road will necessitate changes to the Goan consent this may present an opportunity to improve aspects of the development layout


Page 20 of 63

• Feasible alternate access arrangements can be made


FS37.001


FS37.001 is accepted in part as submission 814.002 is accepted in part.



FS78.002 is rejected as submission 814.003 is accepted in part.

Goan Holdings Ltd

FS80.002




814.003 Figure 2-2 Peacocke Structure Plan-Staging and Transport Network

Support in part

Amend Figure 2-2 Peacocke Structure Plan - Staging and Transport Network to relocate indicative collector road in Stage 1 of Peacocke as set out in the submission.

Accept in part

It is accepted that the indicative collector road be removed from the Peacocke Structure Plan for the following reasons: • Limited adverse transport effects will be generated as a consequence of its removal • An alternative collector road and local road will provide adequate connectivity within the locality • It is unlikely that the indicative collector road would attract a high enough volume of traffic to justify retaining a collector road status • Whilst the removal of road will necessitate changes to the Goan consent this may present an opportunity to improve aspects of the development layout • Feasible alternate access arrangements can be made


FS37.001


FS37.001 is accepted in part as submission 814.003 is accepted in part.




Goan Holdings Ltd

FS80.003




814.004 Figure 2-3 Peacocke Structure Plan-Character Areas and Neighbourhoods

Support in part

Amend Figure 2-3 Peacocke Structure Plan - Character Areas and Neighbourhoods to relocate indicative collector road in Stage 1 of Peacocke as set out in the submission.

Accept in part

It is accepted that the indicative collector road be removed from the Peacocke Structure Plan for the following reasons: • Limited adverse transport effects will be generated as a consequence of its removal • An alternative collector road and local road will provide adequate connectivity within the locality • It is unlikely that the indicative collector road would attract a high enough volume of traffic to justify retaining a collector road status • Whilst the removal of road will necessitate changes to the Goan consent this may present an opportunity to improve aspects of the development layout • Feasible alternate access arrangements can be made


FS37.001


FS37.001 is accepted in part as submission 814.004 is accepted in part




Goan Holdings Ltd

FS80.004



Arterial Transport Corridor Protection Area

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision


Rex Hannam 935.008 Figure 2-2 Peacocke Structure Plan-Staging and Transport Network

Oppose Seeks the deletion of provisions in 25.14.3 and 25.14.5 relating to Arterial Transport Corridor Protection Areas and amend Appendix 2 Structure Plans to replace Arterial Transport Corridor Protection Area with designations or Indicative Future Arterial Corridors.

Accept in Part

This submission point has been accepted in part as given the evidence presented, and recognising that a significant portion of the ATCPA is no longer necessary given the protection afforded by lodged notices of requirement and that the remaining ATCPA is mostly on land zoned Future Urban Zone (with limited urban development) or in the majority ownership of a few parties (Ruakura Structure Plan Area) the ATCPA and its associated provisions should be deleted from the Plan. The deletion of Appendix 1.2 B3 is not appropriate however as the criteria is relevant to matters other than the ATCPA. See Tracked Changes for Appendix 1 (definitions) and tracked changes for Chapter 25.14


FS272.024

Oppose Accept in Part

FS270.024 has been accepted in part because the submission point (935.008) which it opposes has been accepted in part.

David John Rushbrooke


Oppose Figure 2-2 Peacocke Structure Plan - Staging and Transport Network: Delete the Arterial Transport Corridor Protection Area from the Proposed District Plan.

Accept in Part

This submission point has been accepted in part as given the evidence presented, and recognising that a significant portion of the ATCPA is no longer necessary given the protection afforded by lodged notices of requirement and that the remaining ATCPA is mostly on land zoned Future Urban Zone (with limited urban development) or in the majority ownership of a few parties (Ruakura Structure Plan Area) the ATCPA and its associated provisions should be deleted from the Plan. The deletion of Appendix 1.2 B3 is not appropriate however as the criteria is relevant to matters other than the ATCPA. See Tracked Changes for Appendix 1 (definitions) and tracked changes for Chapter 25.14


Page 21 of 63



Support in part

Amend Figure 2-2 Peacocke Structure Plan to remove the Arterial Transport Corridor Protection Area (ATCPA) that falls outside the Peacocke Structure Plan Area.

Arterial Transport Corridor alignment and Southern Links

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision


Richard Ward 325.001 Figure 2-2 Peacocke Structure Plan-Staging and Transport Network

Oppose Revert back to the location of the "Eastern Link" Major Arterial Transport Corridors as shown in the Peacocke Structure Plan within the Operative District Plan and use the existing designation for the minor arterial roads.

Reject This submission point is rejected because the location, form and function of the arterial transport corridor network represented in the Peacocke Structure Plan is contingent on the completion of the Southern Links designation project, notices of requirements for which has been lodged.


FS270.081


Richard Ward 325.002 3.4.3 Transport Network

Oppose Amend 3.4.3 to align with the "Eastern Link" within Variation 14. Reject This submission point is rejected because the location, form and function of the arterial transport corridor network represented in the Peacocke Structure Plan is contingent on the completion of the Southern Links designation project, notices of requirements for which has been lodged.


FS272.003

Support Reject FS272.003 has been rejected because the submission point (325.002) which it supports has been rejected.



Oppose Amend 3.4.3 to indicate that the roading layout within Stage 1 may change as a result of the Southern Links Designation process.

Accept in Part

This submission point is accepted in part because:

The location, form and function of the arterial transport corridor network represented in the Peacocke Structure Plan is contingent on the completion of the Southern Links designation project, notices of requirements for which has been lodged.

No amendments to the plan are necessary as the Plan already makes reference to the Southern Links designation process (3.4.3e) and, once confirmed, the designation will be incorporated into the Planning Maps.


FS272.005


FS272.005 has been accepted in part because the submission point (540.001) which it supports has been accepted (in part).

Gillian James 875.001 3.4.3 Transport Network

Oppose Amend 3.4.3 to re-route the Arterial Route shown on the western side of the Mangakotukutuku Gulley as set out in the submission.

Reject These submission points are rejected because the location, form and function of the arterial transport corridor network represented in the Peacocke Structure Plan is contingent on the completion of the Southern Links designation project, notices of requirements for which has been lodged.


Oppose Amend Figure 2-2 Peacocke Structure Plan - Staging and Transport Network to re-route the Major Arterial Transport Corridor Route shown on the western side of the Mangakotukutuku Gulley as set out in the submission.


FS272.014




Support in part

Retain Figure 2-1 Peacocke Structure Plan - Land Use while providing the opportunity for changes to Figures 2-1 to 2-3 to reflect the designated Southern Links alignment.

Accept in Part

These submission points are accepted in part because:



Amendments have been made to Figures 2-1 and Figure 2-2 in response to other submissions See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3


Support in part

Retain Figure 2-2 Peacocke Structure Plan – Staging and Transport Network while providing the opportunity for changes to Figures 2-1 to 2-3 to reflect the designated Southern Links alignment.


Page 22 of 63


Support in part

Retain Figure 2-3 Peacocke Structure Plan – Character Areas and Neighbourhoods while providing the opportunity for changes to Figures 2-1 to 2-3 to reflect the designated Southern Links alignment.

J.C Johnson Family Trust


Support Retain Figure 2-1 Peacocke Structure Plan - Land Use as notified.

Accept in Part

These submission points are accepted in part because:



Amendments have been made to Figures 2-1 and Figure 2-2 in response to other submissions See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3


Support in part

Retain Figure 2-2 Peacocke Structure Plan - Staging and Transport Network as notified.


Support Retain Figure 2-3 Peacocke Structure Plan - Character Areas and Neighbourhoods as notified.

Rex Hannam 935.005 Figure 2-1 Peacocke Structure Plan-Land Use

Oppose Amend Appendices 2.1-3 Peacocke Structure Plan Maps by relocating the Proposed Southern Links Arterial Corridors and amending the neighbourhood and character areas as set out in the submission.

Accept in Part

That part of this submission point seeking amendments to the location of the arterial transport corridor network is rejected because:

The location, form and function of the arterial transport corridor network represented in the Peacocke Structure Plan is contingent on the completion of the Southern Links designation project, notices of requirements for which has been lodged. Once the final alignment is confirmed the designation will be incorporated into the Planning Maps.

That part of this submission point regarding a new neighbourhood area in Figure 2-3 is accepted in part because:

Amendments have been made to Figure 2-3 to identify a new neighbourhood area aligning the boundaries of Neighbourhood Areas 1 and 3 with the arterial transport corridor network in Figure 2.2 and extending the Hills Character Area to align with the the Minor Arterial Transport Corridor to provide a logical boundary .

See Tracked Changes for Appendix 2.


FS272.023 Oppose Accept in Part

FS272.023 has been accepted in part because the submission point (935.005) which it opposes has been accepted in part.

Rex Hannam 935.009 Figure 2-3 Peacocke Structure Plan-Character Areas and Neighbourhoods

Oppose Amend Appendices 2.1-3 Peacocke Structure Plan Maps by relocating the Proposed Southern Links Arterial Corridors and amending the neighbourhood and character areas as set out in the submission

Accept in Part

That part of this submission point seeking amendments to the location of the arterial transport corridor network is rejected because:

The location, form and function of the arterial transport corridor network represented in the Peacocke Structure Plan is contingent on the completion of the Southern Links designation project, notices of requirements for which has been lodged. Once the final alignment is confirmed the designation will be incorporated into the Planning Maps.

That part of this submission point regarding a new neighbourhood area in Figure 2-3 is accepted in part because:

Amendments have been made to Figure 2-3 to identify a new neighbourhood area aligning the boundaries of Neighbourhood Areas 1 and 3 with the arterial transport corridor network in Figure 2.2 and extending the Hills Character Area to align with the the Minor Arterial Transport Corridor to provide a logical boundary .

See Tracked Changes for Appendix 2.


FS272.025 Oppose Accept in Part

FS272.025 has been accepted in part because the submission point (935.009) which it opposes has been accepted (in part). Oppose Rejected in Part FS272.025 has been rejected in part because the submission point (935.009) which it opposes has been accepted (in part).


Page 23 of 63

Infrastructural Development Programme and Residential Development Staging

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision Sub. Type

Summary

Decision Reasoning


924.018 3.4.5 Indicative Infrastructural Development Programme

Support Retain Rule 3.4.5 Indicative Infrastructural Development Programme as notified.

Accept This submission supports Rule 3.4.5 and is accepted because there are no other submissions seeking amendments to this provision.


FS272.028


FS272.028 has been accepted in part because the submission point (924.018) which it supports has been accepted (in part) and amendments sought by the submission are beyond the scope of the principal submission.

Blue Wallace Surveyors Ltd

32.001 3.4.5.1 Proposed Staging of Residential Development

Oppose Delete Rule 3.4.5.1 b) and c) ii as it relates to staging of residential development for Peacockes Structure Plan

Accept in Part

This submission point is accepted in part because amendments have been made that deletes part of Rule 3.4.5.1b). Complete deletion of Rules 3.4.5.1 b) and c) ii are premature and would reduce the effectiveness of the Plan in relation to mitigating the adverse transportation safety effects caused by the development of Stage 1. See Rule 3.4.5.1b) of Tracked Changes for Chapter 3(32.001)




FS272.031


FS272.031 has been accepted in part because the submission point (32.001) which it opposes has been accepted in part



Support in part

Amend Rule 3.4.5.1 to ensure that the Proposed Staging of Residential Development provisions have the status of a rule. Amend Rule 3.4.5.1 b) ii to clarify that the 80% dwelling trigger for Stage 1b development relates to consented dwellings (not occupied dwellings). Amend Rule 3.4.5.1 c) ii to recognise that the solution for the transport effects on the Dixon Road / State Highway 3 intersection may require works elsewhere.

Accept in part

Amendments have been made that clarifies the status of 3.4.5.1 as a rule which will improve the clarity and administration of the Plan. That part of this submission point regarding Rule 3.4.5.1 c) ii is accepted because:

The amendment proposed to Rule 3.4.5.1 c) ii would provide a level of certainty as to the extent of responsibility for the implementation of the Dixon Road / State Highway 3 intersection solution.

Consistent with the intent of the Variation 14 settlement package. See Rule 3.4.5.1 in Tracked Changes for Chapter 3 (924.019) That part of this submission point regarding Rule 3.4.5.1 b) ii is rejected because:

That part of Rule 3.4.5.1 b) ii has been deleted in response to another submission point.


FS163.002

Oppose Reject FS163.002 has been rejected in part because the submission point (924.019) which it opposes has been accepted



Support in part

Amend 3.4.5.1 b) Proposed Staging of Residential Development i) to refer to 'residential lots' rather than 'dwellings'.

Reject This submission point is rejected because the amendments would exclude residential development not involving subdivision, this would reduce the effectiveness of the Plan in relation to mitigating the adverse transportation safety effects caused by the development of Stage 1.

Future Reserve Land – 217 Peacocke Road

Sub. Name FS. Name



Summary

Decision Reasoning

Jason Hennessey 328.001 Figure 2-1 Peacocke Structure Plan-Land Use

Oppose Remove the 'future reserve' land use from property Lot 2 312185 (217 Peacocke Road) as shown on Figure 2-1 Peacocke Structure Plan - Land Use.

Accept in Part

The amendment to the future reserve will reflect the current situation in relation to proposed roading infrastructure and the existing residential development on the site.


FS272.004


FS272.004 has been accepted in part because the submission point (328.001) which it opposes has been accepted (in part)

Corrections, Cross referencing and Clarifications

Sub. Name FS. Name



Summary Decision Reasoning


1146.006 Peacocke Cultural Environment

Support in part

Amend the numbering of the first Policy of Objective 3.4.6.16 to correct an error.

Accept This is amendment would constitute a minor error under Clause 16(2) of the First Schedule of the Act and will improve the clarity of the Plan.


482.005 3.4.1.1 Natural Character Areas

Support in part

Renumber Figures 3.4a and 3.4b to reflect the section within which they are located (Section 3.4.1).

Accept Amendments have been made that will improve the clarity of the Plan. See 3.4.1, 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 in Tracked Changes for Chapter 3 (482.005)


Page 24 of 63

Objectives and Policies - Natural Environments, Built Environments, and Social Wellbeing

Sub. Name FS. Name






Support in part

Amend 3.4.6 by adding Objectives and Policies for the Peacocke Natural Systems, as set out in the submission and derived from the objectives and policies in Parts 9.2.3a, b and c of the Operative District Plan.

Reject The matters raised in this submission are addressed through other provisions in the Plan, so no amendments are necessary. For example objectives and policies can be found within chapter 25 – Earthworks and Vegetation Removal, Chapter 3 – Structure Plans, Chapter 5 – Special Character Zones, Chapter 23 – Subdivision and Chapter 25 - Transportation.


714.012 Peacocke Natural System

Support in part

Replace Objective 3.4.6.1 with an objective that provides for the protection and enhancement of all remnant natural areas within the growth cell, as well as ecosystem functions and processes (including connectivity), indigenous habitats and species requirements, and natural character. Amend Policy 3.4.6.1a by removing reference to stormwater functions of the Mangakotukutuku Gully and Waikato River margins, and adding references to ecological functions, indigenous biodiversity and habitats. Amend Policy 3.4.6.1b by adding reference to opportunities for ecological and habitat enhancement and for restoration of natural character Amend Policy 3.4.6.1c to provide for the ecological restoration and enhancement (including revegetation with appropriate native species) of gullies and river margins. Amend Policy 3.4.6.1e to enhance riparian and aquatic habitat and control adverse effects on stream water quality and habitat. Add a new Policy to 3.4.6.1 that preserve the natural character of the Mangakotukutuku Gully and Waikato River margins and protect it from inappropriate development and where natural character has already been compromised utilise opportunities to restore and enhance it. Add a new Policy to 3.4.6.1 that provides for a specific ecological restoration fund from financial or development contributions from development adjacent to the river and gully edges. Amend Objective 3.4.6.2 to Maintain and enhance the ecological and open space links to the river provided by the Mangakotukutuku Gully. Amend Policy 3.4.6.2a to Maintain the extent and enhance the quality of ecological (green) corridors of the Mangakotukutuku Gully and Waikato River margins. Amend Policy 3.4.6.2b to ensure the alignment of the roading network maintains and enhances the ecological, physical and visual connections of the Mangakotukutuku Gully system and its connection to the Waikato River. Amend Policy 3.4.6.2c to maintain and enhance the green corridor along the Waikato River to provide for natural character, ecological functions, riparian and aquatic habitat and for public access and amenity. Retain Objective 3.4.6.3 and Policies 3.4.6.3a and 3.4.6.3b Add a new Policy to 3.4.6.3 to protect gully landform, natural feature and landscape elements from modification.

Accept in Part

That part of this submission point: 1. Supporting Objective 3.4.6.3 and Policies 3.4.6.3a and 3.4.6.3b is accepted because while other submissions have sought amendments they have been rejected. 2. Seeking amendments to objectives and policies in 3.4 is rejected because the matters raised in this submission are either already addressed through other provisions in the Plan or have been considered and determined as part of submission points of the submitter to other parts of the Plan.


FS272.009


FS272.009 has been accepted in part because the submission point (714.012) which it opposes has been accepted (in part)

Waikato Regional 714.013 Peacocke Built Oppose Amend Objective 3.4.6.4, as set out in the submission, to include Reject That part of this submission point seeking amendments to objectives and policies in 3.4 is rejected because the matters raised in this


Page 25 of 63

Council Environment reference to maintains or enhances ecological connectivity. Amend Policy 3.4.6.4d to support changes to Objective 3.4.6.4 by avoiding or reducing the impact of movement routes on the ecological functions and connectivity of the Mangakotukutuku Gully and the Waikato River.

submission are either already addressed through other provisions in the Plan or have been considered and determined as part of submission points of the submitter to other parts of the Plan.


FS272.010




Support in part

Amend Policy 3.4.6.13a by inserting the following text into the policy "for enhancement or re-creation of habitats, ecological and physical" as set out in the submission.

Reject That part of this submission point seeking amendments to objectives and policies in 3.4 is rejected because the matters raised in this submission are either already addressed through other provisions in the Plan or have been considered and determined as part of submission points of the submitter to other parts of the Plan.


FS272.011


Mangakotukutuku Stream Care Incorporated Group


Support in part

Amend Objective 3.4.6.1 to maintain connectivity for movement of native animals, including passage for fish and bats" Add a new policy to 3.4.6.1 to ensure unimpeded movement for native animals (e.g. fish and bats) through the stream and gull network, including road crossings; Amend policy 3.4.6.1a by inserting the word 'natural'; Amend policy 3.4.6.1e by inserting the word 'avoid'.

Reject That part of this submission point seeking amendments to objectives and policies in 3.4 is rejected because the matters raised in this submission are either already addressed through other provisions in the Plan or have been considered and determined as part of submission points of the submitter to other parts of the Plan. Chapter 3 provides several guiding principles and strategic objectives, policies, and rules for the staging and development of Structure Plan Areas. It must be read in conjunction with the rest of the Plan as it is not the Plan’s approach to extensively duplicate provisions that exist in other relevant chapters. In the Peacocke Character Zone subdivision to an urban density is a Non-complying activity without an approved Master Plan (see Rule 5.3.2, Appendix 1.5.19). The absence of a Master Plan also affects the activity status of land use and development. The preparation of a Master Plan is a Discretionary Activity (Rule 5.3.2.4 a)), or Non-complying when it proposes a Non-complying activity in the related column of the activity status table (Rule 5.3.2.4). Master Plans specifically require consideration of the natural environment and open space networks. It is considered that the matters raised in these submissions are already appropriately reflected in the provisions of the Plan, including the objectives, policies and rules of the following chapters:

2 Strategic Framework

3 Structure Plans

5 Special Character Zones

15 Open Space Zones

20 Natural Environments

21 Waikato River Corridor and Gully Systems

23 Subdivision

25.2 Earthworks and Vegetation Removal

25.13 Three Waters

Department of Conservation


Support Retain Objectives 3.4.6.1, 3.4.6.2 and 3.4.6.3 and related policies as notified

Accept That part of this submission point supporting Objectives and Policies in 3.4.6.1, 3.4.6.2 and 3.4.6.3 is accepted because while other submissions have sought amendments they have been rejected.

General Submissions

Sub. Name FS. Name



Summary

Decision Reasoning


608.009 3.5 Rototuna Support Future Proof supports the retention as notified of the provisions relating to the Rototuna and Rotokauri Structure Plan.

Accept The submission point supports the retention of the Rototuna Structure Plan.



Amend 3.5 to strengthen the weight given to the provisions (Rototuna Structure Plan).

Reject The amendment sought would not support the purpose of structure plans within the policy framework of the plan. As set out in section 3.1 Purpose a structure plan illustrates the proposed layout of a future development area. As set out in section 3.1d) the purpose of a structure plan is to plan for the future in an integrated manner along with having guiding principles specific to individual structure plan areas along with mapping that shows the intended pattern of development. Under the purpose it clearly indicates that the information is at a high level and does not typically go into such detail. A structure plan does not control development, it indicates future land uses. The actual development of the land areas are managed through the controls of the underlying zones that are set out through the zoning chapters of the Plan. Accordingly, as the whole intent of a structure plan is to set the scene and not to drill down into the final design format, leaving that to the subdivision, land use activities via resource consent the language of section 3.5c) is appropriate


Page 26 of 63

3.5 Vision

Sub. Name FS. Name





924.021 3.5 Vision Support Retain ‘Vision’ for Rototuna in section 3.5 as notified. Accept Submission is accepted as it supports 3.5 Vision.

3.5.1 Objective and Policies

Sub. Name FS. Name




Jacqueline, Steward Charles Jeffery Peters


Support 3.5.1 Rototuna Structure Plan Objectives and Policies. Supports Policy 3.5.1a; Seeks a pedestrian/cycle path at a midway point between where Kay Road and Horsham Downs Road cross the Expressway.

Accept The submission point is accepted as it will:

Support the objectives and policies of the plan;

The inclusion of the pedestrian and cycle network ensures consistency of multi modal transport network through out the Rototuna Structure Plan area.

Kirkdale Investments Limited and Kimbrae Farms Limited

FS178.008

Support Accept The further submission is accepted because the submission point (334.005) to which this further submission relates has been accepted



3.5.1 Objectives and Policies (Rototuna Structure Plan) - Retain objective 3.5.1.3 and policy 3.5.1.3a in relation to ensuring the transport network is managed and developed in a way that provides for all modes of transport in an integrated manner. Add new objective and policies to address landscape features and natural features, ecological corridors, ecological enhancement, retention of existing indigenous vegetation and habitat required to contribute to the viability of ecological fragments.

Accept in Part

The submission point is accepted in part because: The support for the retention of Objective 3.5.1.3 and policy 3.5.1.3a is accepted Addition of a new objective and policies to address viability of ecological fragments in the Rototuna Structure Plan is rejected as there area already adequate policy framework though out the plan to address the concerns.


FS270.013


The further submission is accepted in part as the submission point (714.015) to which this further submission relates has also been accepted in part.


924.022 Support Retain Objective 3.5.1.4 (Rototuna Structure Plan) and policies 3.5.1.4b and 3.5.1.4c as notified.

Accept Submission is accepted as it supports Objective 5.5.1.4.

Structure Plan Components 3.5.2.4 Transportation Network

Sub. Name FS. Name





924.023 3.5.2.4 Transportation Network

Support Retain 3.5.2.4 a), c), d), e), f) and g). Amend the Plan to recognise that a blanket approach to mitigation will not be appropriate for development to the north-east of the Waikato Expressway Designation (aligned with our specific submission points on Chapter 13) and that 3.5.2.4 b) is amended to ensure this is made clear.

Accept in Part

The submission is accepted in part because:

There is support to retain 3.5.2.4a), c), d), e), f) and g)

The relief sought to modify 3.5.2.4b) is rejected.


FS178.011

Oppose Accept The further submission is accepted because the submission point (924.023) pertaining to 3.5.2.4b) to which this further submission relates has been rejected.

Structure Plan Components 3.5.2.5 Stormwater

Sub. Name FS. Name





1146.007 3.5.2.5 Stormwater

Support in part

Amend 3.5.2.5 f) (Stormwater, Rototuna Structure Plan) as set out in the submission to delete reference to the avoidance of attenuation ponds.

Accept The submission point seeking amendment to 3.5.2.5f) be accepted as:

the intent of the Plan is not affected

clear guidance will be provided to plan users

alignment with the anticipated storm water attenuation in the Te Awa o Katapaki Lower Catchment will be achieved


Page 27 of 63

Alignment with the catchment management requirements of the Waikato Regional Council will be achieved.

Structure Plan Components 3.5.2.6 Water and Wastewater

Sub. Name FS. Name





1146.008 3.5.2.6 Water and Wastewater

Support in part

Amend 3.5.2.6 d) (Water and Wastewater - Rototuna Structure Plan) as set out in the submission by adding reference to Council in terms of early interaction with developers.

Accept The submission point seeking amendment to 3.5.2.6d) be accepted as:

the intent of the Plan is not affected

clear guidance will be provided to plan users

Structure Plan Components 3.5.2.7 Schools

Sub. Name FS. Name




The Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Hamilton

953.001 3.5.2.7 Schools Support in part

Retain 3.5.2.7 (a) (Schools in Rototuna Structure Plan area) with amendment to reference future plans of the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Hamilton (RCBDH).

Accept The modifications will provide more clarity for plan users of the expected school to be anticipated in the Rototuna area.

Appendix 2 Figure 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6

Sub. Name FS. Name




Borman Parkside LP

874.001 Figure 2-4 Rototuna Structure Plan-Land Use

Oppose Figure 2-4 Rototuna Structure Plan-Land Use - Seeks the deletion of 'The Transport Corridor' on Figure 2-4 and 'The Local Transport Corridor' on Figure 2-5.

Reject The submission point is rejected as it is fundament for the key development elements of a structure plan to be identified to ensure:

Clarity and guidance to plan users

Alignment with the objective and policy framework of the plan The overarching purpose of a structure plan and all corresponding maps, figures, diagrams is to set the scene of how the area is intended to be developed, and to ensure development is undertaken in a manner to safeguard integrated planning of the area. Key elements of enabling this to occur are via the structure plan identifying nodes, networks and zoning areas. Figure 2-4 of the Rototuna Structure Plan suite identifies the land uses (Figure 2-5 identifies transport networks and Figure 2-6 cycling and walking networks). The transport network is also important to ensure a high level of connectivity is achieved. In addition, the placement of these key elements within both Figure 2-4 and 2-5 have not been altered from that confirmed through the decisions to V12 and are considered to inform developers of the expectations and overall configuration of the networks in which they are to develop within. The submitter also correctly identifies that their property must be developed via a comprehensive development plan. . It is considered appropriate that Figure 2-4 remain unaltered.


924.198 Support Retain Figure 2-4 Rototuna Structure Plan - Land Use as notified, subject to changes requested in the wider submission.

Accept in Part

The submission point is accepted as it supports the retention of Figure 2-4.


1083.003 Support a) Retain Figure 2-4: Rototuna Structure Plan – Land Use in Appendix 2 including the identification of Transpower’s existing electricity transmission lines and the electricity transmission corridor without modification. b) Adopt any other such relief, including additions, deletions or consequential amendments necessary as a result of the matters raised in these submissions, as necessary to give effect to this submission

Accept The submission point is accepted as it supports the retention of Figure 2-4.

Borman Parkside LP

874.002 Figure 2-5 Rototuna Structure Plan-Transport Network

Support in part

Figure 2-5 Rototuna Structure Plan-Transport Network - Seeks the deletion of 'The Transport Corridor' on Figure 2-4 and 'The Local Transport Corridor' on Figure 2-5.

Reject The submission point is rejected as it is fundament for the key development elements of a structure plan to be identified to ensure:

Clarity and guidance to plan users

Alignment with the objective and policy framework of the plan Figure 2-5 identifies transport networks that are important to ensure a high level of connectivity is achieved and as such in a structure plan context is important, along with the other key elements (such as land uses, multimodal transport networks, cycling and walking) are important, and regarded as necessary to include in the Structure Plan. It is unclear as to the submitter’s direct concerns and desire to have Figure 2-5 deleted when support for the notation is indicated. Therefore, without this clarity, and the importance of keeping the transport network information to ensure a completeness of information is available to plan users it is considered that Figure 2-5 remain unaltered.


Page 28 of 63



Amend Figure 2-5 to include proposed/indicative Pubic Transport networks in the Rototuna Structure Plan area transport plan as per the maps in Variation 12 (Plan Change 1, Operative District Plan).

Reject The submission is rejected as the addition of information proposed by the submitter that Council does not have control over would impact on the administration of the plan. The determination of the bus network and route management is the responsibility of the Waikato Regional Council. Nevertheless, the routes, in most cases follow the collector road network set out through the transport hierarchy determined by the City. The retention or modification of these routes is at the sole discretion of the Regional Council as so if that information was also imbedded into the Plan there would be an issue of having to update the Plan. Accordingly, it is not considered appropriate to specifically identify PT network within the Plan.

Borman Parkside LP

874.003 Figure 2-6 Rototuna Cycling and Walking Network

Support Figure 2-6 Rototuna Cycling and Walking Network - In the submitter's view, Figure 2-6 indicates a cycling and walking network path(s) along the north side of Future Reserve. Should these objections not be upheld in their submission, Council as the future owner of the reserve will be expected to provide the major funding for the corridors.

Accept in part

This submission is accepted in part as although there is support for the retention of Figure 2-6, there is also a question raised about funding and who is responsible which is out side of the scope of this First Schedule process.



Amend Figures 2-4 (Rototuna Structure Plan - Land Use), 2-5 (Rototuna Structure Plan - Transport Network), and 2-6 (Rototuna Cycling and Walking Network) to correctly show consistent walking and cycling networks.

Accept The amendments to Figure 4-5 corrects an editorial error and ensures consistency of information that will improve plan administration.

Maps

Sub. Name FS. Name




Rototuna Holdings Ltd

1032.001

Zoning Map 3A

Support in part

Retain the Large Lot Residential zoning for the land on the northern side of the Waikato Expressway, as shown on Maps 3, 4, 5 and 11; Amend Maps 3, 4, 5 and 11 to include a 20m wide strip of Neighbourhood Open Space zone to separate the Large Lot Residential zone and the Waikato Expressway designation; Such other additional or consequential relief as is necessary to achieve consistency with the above and to satisfy the concerns of the submitter.

Accept in part

Whilst the submission sought to retain the large lot residential zone on the northern side of the Waikato Expressway as a consequence of Variation 12 being resolved through the Environment Court agreement has been reached between all the parties to zone the land as Special Character Zone and an open space area will be identified on the Structure Plan.


FS178.001


FS178.001 is accepted in part as submissn 1032.001 is accepted in part

Nancy Cooper

FS255.001



Roland Olliver Cooper

FS281.001




1032.002 Zoning Map 4A

Support in part


Accept in part



FS178.001




Page 29 of 63

Nancy Cooper

FS255.002




FS281.002





Support in part


Accept in part



FS178.001



Nancy Cooper

FS255.003




FS281.003





Support in part


Accept in part



FS178.001



Nancy Cooper

FS255.004




FS270.087




FS281.004



3.6 Rotokauri

Sub. Name FS. Name




Future Proof Implementation

608.010 3.6 Rotokauri Support Retain section 3.6 Rotokauri Structure Plan Accept in part

Other submissions sought amendments or deletions to the provisions that this submission relates to. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated.


Page 30 of 63

Committee


1104.015 3.6 Rotokauri Oppose Provide Rules in all zones so that any activity that compromises the ability to give effect to a structure plan outcome requires consent as a Restricted Discretionary Activity. Discretion would be restricted to matters relating to alternative methods and locations that can avoid adverse effects on structure plan outcomes, and include conditions that limit consent duration.

Accept in Part

Chapter 3 sets out objectives and policies that apply to all Structure Plan areas. When subdivision and/or development are proposed within a Structure Plan area it must be in accordance with these objectives and policies. Under the analysis of submissions to Objective 3.3 in the Objectives and Policies section above, it has been determined that this wording change from being ‘in accordance’ to ‘consider where relevant’. A Structure Plan is not meant to be a blueprint and therefore some flexibility is provided in the way in which the provisions of the Structure Plan are given effect to, particularly if some objectives and policies are not relevant. See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3.


1164.011 3.6 Rotokauri Oppose Amend the Plan so that any activity that compromises the ability to give effect to a structure plan outcome requires consent as a Restricted Discretionary Activity with discretion restricted to matters relating to alternative methods and locations that can avoid adverse effects on structure plan outcomes, and include conditions that limit consent duration.

Accept in Part



1170.015 3.6 Rotokauri Oppose Amend the Plan so that any activity that compromises the ability to give effect to a structure plan outcome requires consent as a Restricted Discretionary Activity with discretion restricted to matters relating to alternative methods and locations that can avoid adverse effects on structure plan outcomes, and include conditions that limit consent duration.

Accept in part


Natural Areas and Lake Waiwhakareke

Sub. Name FS. Name






Support in part

3.6.1 Objectives and Policies (Rotokauri Structure Plan). a) Amend Objective 3.6.1.1 by referencing protection and enhancement of the ecological functioning of key natural areas. b) Add new Policy 3.6.1.1c as follows: 'Subdivision and development provide for the protection and enhancement of ecological connections to, and ecological functioning of, Lake Waiwhakareke'.

Reject This submission point seeks amendments that would duplicate other provisions of the Plan, in particular Objective 20.2.1, and reduce the effectiveness and efficiency of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies and the purpose and principles of the RMA.

It is considered that the objective and policy framework in relation to the Natural Open Space Zone, Natural Environments and Special Character Zones (Special Natural Zone) is sufficient to ensure that subdivision and development recognizes and enhances the natural values of Lake Waiwhakareke, and therefore no changes are madein relation to this submission.

Barry Laurence Flay

350.005 Figure 2-8 Rotokauri Structure Plan-Land Use

Support Supports the inclusion of Lot 2 D P 425316 as part of the Future Reserves namely the Waiwhakareke Natural Heritage Park.

Defer This matter is deferred and the matter will be reconvened at a later date

Environmental Research Institute, University of Waikato


Support in part

Amend Objective 3.6.1.1 (Rotokauri Structure Plan) to include the protection and enhancement of the ecological functioning of key natural areas.

Reject This submission point seeks amendments that would duplicate provisions of the Plan, in particular Objective 20.2.1 and reduce the effectiveness and efficiency of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies and the purpose and principles of the RMA. It is considered that Objective 20.2.1 already provides for the relief sought by the Environmental Research Institute to the Rotokauri Structure Plan Chapter. The Natural Open Space Zone also contains objectives and policies relating to ecological issues. The submissions are therefore rejected as the matters raised within them are already appropriately dealt with in other sections of the Plan.

Iris & Fred Bryant


Oppose Seeks confirmation of the Future Reserves surrounding Lake Waiwhakareke in its entirety as shown on the Rotokauri Structure Plan and on Zoning Map 33A

Defer This matter is deferred and the matter will be reconvened at a later date

Janice Ann Verran


Oppose Map 24A-Retain land at 173 Rotokauri Road as Residential. Defer This matter is deferred and the matter will be reconvened at a later date

Max Walker Verran


Oppose Map 24A-Retain land at 173 Rotokauri Road as Residential. Defer This matter is deferred and the matter will be reconvened at a later date

Michelle Le Prou


Support Map 33A and Figure 2-10: Rotokauri Structure Plan - Reserve Network - Confirm Future Reserves surrounding Lake Waiwhakareke.

Defer This matter is deferred and the matter will be reconvened at a later date William Wie & Patricia Tekore Moana


Support in part

Map 33A and Rotokauri Structure Plan - Retain the Open Space Zoning surrounding Lake Waiwhakareke.


Page 31 of 63

Barry James Crawshaw


Support Map 33A and Rotokauri Structure Plan - Confirm Future Reserves surrounding Lake Waiwhakareke.

School Notation

Sub. Name FS. Name





1104.008 3.6.2.1 Suburban Centres Concept Plan

Oppose The notation of School on the submitter's land be deleted from Figure 2-11 (Rotokauri Neighbourhood Centre) or is clearly shown as “indicative” in the text and maps. Specific provision be made for a school shown on a Structure Plan as a Permitted Activity.

Accept in Part

Amendments clarify the indicative nature of the location of future school provision in the Rotokauri Structure Plan area. The amendments will improve the internal consistency of the Plan and the clarity of the Plan for users. Amendments to make schools in the Structure Plan area a permitted activity are not accepted as the relief sought is not considered to be a valid resource management approach.


1170.008 3.6.2.1 Suburban Centres Concept Plan

Oppose The notation of School on the submitters land be deleted from Figure 2-11 or is clearly shown as “indicative” in the text and maps. Specific provision be made for a school shown on a Structure Plan as a Permitted Activity.

Accept in Part

Amendments clarify the indicative nature of the location of future school provision in the Rotokauri Structure Plan area. The amendments will improve the internal consistency of the Plan and the clarity of the Plan for users. Amendments to make schools in the Structure Plan area a permitted activity are not accepted as the relief sought is not considered to be a valid resource management approach.

Suburban Centre

Sub. Name FS. Name





1015.016 3.6.2.3 Suburban Centre

Oppose 3.6.2.3 Suburban Centre - Delete 3.6.2.3c

Accept It is accepted that Stage 1 of the Rotokauri Structure Plan is enlarged as the proposed District Plan enables development whereby Development Agreements are provided for if infrastructure is not funded by Council to allow development to proceed.

The Structure plan identified the areas for employment (industrial zone), suburban centre (business 5 Zone), residential and ridgeline character area (Special Natural Zone) and has been carried through to the planning maps.

As part of accepting the expansion of stage 1 it is imperative that a full Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP) be developed prior to any further development of stage 1, which is to involve multiple parties.

Figure 6.1 Rotokauri Stage 1 Comprehensive Development Plan Cell is expanded to show the Employment Area and Figure 15-8a is expanded to apply which requires specific Integrated Transport Requirements by rule 25.14.4.3 (e).

See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3 Structure Plans, Chapter 25.13 Three Waters, and Appendix 6 and 15.



Oppose 3.6.2.3 Suburban Centre - Remove staging from Rotokauri Suburban Centre.


The Structure plan identified the areas for employment (industrial zone), suburban centre (business5 Zone), residential and ridgeline character area (Special Natural Zone) and has been carried through to the planning maps.






Oppose 3.6.2.3 (c). Remove staging from Rotokauri Suburban Centre.






Page 32 of 63



1015.015 Figure 2-9 Rotokauri Structure Plan-Staging and Transport Network

Oppose Figure 2-9 Rotokauri Structure Plan-Staging and Transport Network - Amend Figure 2-9 to include the entire suburban centre zone within Stage 1.






Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited

FS89.001 Oppose Accept FS89.001 is accepted as submission 1015.015 is accepted

Passenger Transport Facility

Sub. Name FS. Name




KiwiRail Holdings Limited

366.002 3.6.2.6 Passenger Transport Facility

Support KiwiRail supports the provision of PT facilities in the Structure Planning for Rotokauri.

Accept Other submissions sought amendments or deletions to the provisions that this submission relates to. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically.



Oppose Amend Figure 2-8 Rotokauri Structure Plan-Land Use in accordance with the new figure attached to the submission, including by: • Adding staging boundaries. • Labelling school sites as “indicative only”. • Accurately reflecting the location of the Passenger Transport Location on Figure 3.6.2b. • Either remove the Future Reserve notation from the submitters land or designate the land. • Show the Tasman Road link remaining to align with Figure 3.6.2b.

Accept in part

The location of the Passenger Transport Location shown on Figure 3.6.2b is not inconsistent with the southern location shown on Figure 2-8 and therefore no change is required. The submitter appears to have incorrectly interpreted the Structure Plan boundary notation, shown as a dashed black line on Figures 2-8 and 2-9 as representing road stopping of part of Tasman Road which is not the case. No changes to Figures 2-8 or 2-9 are required in response to the submissions. The Proposed Plan outlines that a location on Tasman Road, adjacent to The Base has been identified as the preferred site to accommodate the progressive development of a bus-based passenger transport facility (PT Facility) and its longer term integration with rail. It is also stated that there is potential for a second PT facility further north at the junction of Te Kowhai Road and Tasman Road, to integrate the passenger transport network with the surrounding land use activities. Figures 3.6.2a and 3.6.2b illustrate how the establishment of an integrated bus/rail facility could be achieved in the Tasman Road location adjacent to The Base. The illustrations provide for an eventual facility. Both of the illustrated locations would eventually require land outside of the current road and rail reserve. Consequently, it is anticipated that the additional land requirements may need to be safeguarded through the designation process. As identified above it is accepted that the identified area for the suburban centre on the structure plan be included within stage 1. The locations of the public transport facilities were determined via consent order in settlement of an appeal to Variation 18. The location shown on Figure 3.6.2b is not inconsistent with the southern location shown on Figure 2-8 and therefore no change is required The submitter appears to have incorrectly interpreted the Structure Plan boundary notation, shown as a dashed black line on Figures 2-8 and 2-9 as representing road stopping of part of Tasman Road which is not the case. No changes to Figures 2-8 or 2-9 are required in response to the submissions.



Oppose Amend Figure 2-9 Rotokauri Structure Plan-Staging and Transport Network by: • Adding areas to the north and west of the suburban centre as Part of Stage 1 as shown on submission attachments. • Provide an alternative route for the central north south collector that avoids the need for a large cut and overpass. • Show the Tasman Road link remaining to align with Figure 3.6.2b.

Infrastructure

Sub. Name FS. Name





1104.014 3.6.3.1 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Services

Oppose Amend 3.6.3.1 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Services (Rotokauri) to ensure up-to-date commentary that reflects work/studies undertaken to date (i.e. the extension of the wastewater interceptor/stormwater management recent modeling and catchment planning).

Accept

This submission point seeks amendments that would update the provisions to reflect recent developments and would improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies and the purpose and principles of the RMA.



Oppose 3.6.3.1 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Services (Rotokauri). Amend the text to ensure up-to-date commentary on matters relating to Rotokauri, such as the extension of the wastewater interceptor and stormwater management relating to outcomes of recent modelling and catchment planning.

Accept This submission point seeks amendments that would update the provisions to reflect recent developments and would improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies and the purpose and principles of the RMA.

http://www.hamilton.co.nz/our-council/council-publications/districtplans/proposeddistrictplan/chapter3/Pages/3-6-Rotokauri.aspx#362a

http://www.hamilton.co.nz/our-council/council-publications/districtplans/proposeddistrictplan/chapter3/Pages/3-6-Rotokauri.aspx#362b


Page 33 of 63



Oppose 3.6.3.1 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Services (Rotokauri Structure Plan). Update commentary to reflect events that have occurred already at Rotokauri such as the extension of the wastewater interceptor and stormwater management outcomes of recent modelling and catchment planning.



924.025 3.6.3.2 Roading Support in part

Amend 3.6.3.2 d) as set out in the submission to remove reference to the 4-laning on Avalon Drive as this is now complete.



1164.051 Features Map 15B

Oppose Features Map 15B - Designate the collector road between Ruffell Road and Gilchrist Street not covered by an approved CDP

Reject The outcome sought by the submission is beyond the scope of the District Plan submission process. In accordance with the requirements of the RMA any new or altered designation must be initiated by the relevant requiring authority and is subject to sections 166 to 186 of the RMA. Further, Section 3.6.2.7 (d) (Transportation Network) clarifies that Council utilises the designation process for new arterial corridors. This does not include collector roads.



Oppose Amend Features Map 24B by including a designation for the Green Central Corridor. Designate the remaining collector road link between Ruffell Road and Gilchrist Street.

Reject The outcome sought by the submission is beyond the scope of the District Plan submission process. In accordance with the requirements of the RMA any new or altered designation must be initiated by the relevant requiring authority and is subject to sections 166 to 186 of the RMA.



Oppose Amend Features Map 15B by designating the remaining collector road link between Ruffell Road and Gilchrist Street.

Reject The outcome sought by the submission is beyond the scope of the District Plan submission process. In accordance with the requirements of the RMA any new or altered designation must be initiated by the relevant requiring authority and is subject to sections 166 to 186 of the RMA. Further, Section 3.6.2.7 (d) (Transportation Network) clarifies that Council utilises the designation process for new arterial corridors. This does not include collector roads.



Oppose 3.6.2.7 Transportation Network (Rotokauri Structure Plan): Enable use of designation process for protection and acquisition of any transport corridors in order to achieve network outcomes.

Reject The outcome sought by the submission is beyond the scope of the District Plan submission process. In accordance with the requirements of the RMA any new or altered designation must be initiated by the relevant requiring authority and is subject to sections 166 to 186 of the RMA. Further, Section 3.6.2.7 (d) (Transportation Network) already clarifies that Council utilises the designation process for new arterial corridors.



Oppose 3.6.2.7 Transportation Network. Enable use of designation process for protection and acquisition of any transport corridors in order to achieve network outcomes.

Reject The outcome sought by the submission is beyond the scope of the District Plan submission process. In accordance with the requirements of the RMA any new or altered designation must be initiated by the relevant requiring authority and is subject to sections 166 to 186 of the RMA. Further, Section 3.6.2.7 (d) (Transportation Network) already clarifies that Council utilises the designation process for new arterial corridors.



Oppose Features Map 24B - Designate the collector road between Ruffell Road and Gilchrist Street not approved by a CDP.

Reject The outcome sought by the submission is beyond the scope of the District Plan submission process. In accordance with the requirements of the RMA any new or altered designation must be initiated by the relevant requiring authority and is subject to sections 166 to 186 of the RMA. Further Section 3.6.2.7 (d) (Transportation Network) clarifies that Council utilises the designation process for new arterial corridors. This does not include collector roads.



Oppose Amend Figure 2-9 Rotokauri Structure Plan-Staging and Transport Network to: • Remove road loop from structure plan and consider alternative local network layout. • Realign loop road to the east of the north south collector to the layout approved in the Te Kowhai Comprehensive Development Cell Comprehensive Development Plan.

Accept The submission point is accepted and that the collector road from the Te Kowhai Road north to its connection with Ruffell Road is deleted from the structure plan. The removal of the structure plan road is considered appropriate as all of the site that the proposed road was to go through is owned by the submitter and is currently being developed for the submitter’s activities. Removal of the road does not compromise future development as the subject land is in one ownership. The removal of the structure plan road result in the efficient use of the existing resources such as the existing road corridors and associated services located within such corridors.


FS270.086 Oppose Reject The proposed amendment will provide the necessary connectivity and ensure efficient functioning of the transport network.

B.W & I.V Parsons


Oppose That Figure 2-8 (Rotokauri Structure Plan-Land Use) be amended to delete reference to a Transport Corridor crossing Lot 2 DPS 79420 and any other land that is outside of the Rotokauri Structure Plan area.

Reject The collector road is a necessary component of the overall transport network in the area. This submission point seeks amendments that would reduce the effectiveness and efficiency of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies and the purpose and principles of the RMA. Given that there is still development yet to occur in this area, the ability to require a collector road formation to ensure that The Boulevard continues so that it will in time connect to Ruffell Road is an important aspect of the overall network planning. The future collector road is also shown on Figure 15-5B, the Transport Corridor Hierarchy Plan in Appendix 15-5. The requirement under the Structure Plan chapters to be in general accordance with the provisions shown on structure plans is necessary in order to ensure that the Collector Road is developed at such a time as the site is developed. Without a collector road link, The Boulevard remains a cul-de-sac with all traffic movements required to head south to the Te Kowhai Road roundabout. The future collector road is shown on the Rotokauri Structure Plan in the Operative District Plan as a result of its consideration as part of the Rotokauri Structure Plan Variation 18 to the then Proposed District Plan 2001

B.W & I.V Parsons

607.002 Figure 2-9 Rotokauri

Oppose That Figure 2-9 (Rotokauri Structure Plan-Staging and Transport Network) be amended to delete reference to a Collector Transport

Reject The collector road is a necessary component of the overall transport network in the area. This submission point seeks amendments that would reduce the effectiveness and efficiency of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies and the purpose


Page 34 of 63

Structure Plan-Staging and Transport Network

Corridor crossing Lot 2 DPS 79420 and any other land (including those identified as containing a Major Arterial Transport Corridor) that is outside of the Rotokauri Structure Plan area.

and principles of the RMA. Given that there is still development yet to occur in this area, the ability to require a collector road formation to ensure that The Boulevard continues so that it will in time connect to Ruffell Road is an important aspect of the overall network planning. The future collector road is also shown on Figure 15-5B, the Transport Corridor Hierarchy Plan in Appendix 15-5. The requirement under the Structure Plan chapters to be in general accordance with the provisions shown on structure plans is necessary in order to ensure that the Collector Road is developed at such a time as the site is developed. Without a collector road link, The Boulevard remains a cul-de-sac with all traffic movements required to head south to the Te Kowhai Road roundabout. The future collector road is shown on the Rotokauri Structure Plan in the Operative District Plan as a result of its consideration as part of the Rotokauri Structure Plan Variation 18 to the then Proposed District Plan 2001

Wintec

Sub. Name FS. Name




Wintec 707.012 Figure 2-11 Rotokauri Neighbourhood Centre

Oppose Figure 2-11 Rotokauri Neighbourhood Centre. That figure 2-11 be amended as per Appendix 2 attached to the submission. Figure 2-11 shows the “triangle” (Pt Lot 1 DPS 16911) as part of Wintec. This site has been zoned Industrial within the proposed plan and is within the Rotokauri Employment Area. Therefore Figure 2-11 should be amended to reflect this.

Accept The submission would clarify the proposed use of the land and provide consistency between Figure 2-11, Figure 2-8 (Rotokauri Structure Plan – Land Use) and the zoning maps.


1146.116 Figure 2-11 Rotokauri Neighbourhood Centre

Support in part

Amend Figure 2-11 to reflect land use and ownership changes that have occurred in relation to WINTEC and the Employment Area.

Accept The submission would clarify the proposed use of the land and provide consistency between Figure 2-11, Figure 2-8 (Rotokauri Structure Plan – Land Use) and the zoning maps.

Everton Trust 344.003 Figure 2-8 Rotokauri Structure Plan-Land Use

Oppose Amend Figure 2-8 to provide for the intended future use of the property recognised as Lot 1 DP 450285 for Residential purposes.

Accept The submission would clarify the proposed use of the land. There are no sound resource management grounds for excluding Lot 1 from being identified for residential use. The amendment to Figure 2-8 will reflect the decision under 344.001 and 344.002 to re-zone the property to Residential.

Staging - Industrial

Sub. Name FS. Name




Modern Transport Limited


Support Supports land described as Lot 2 DPS 15248 (SA13B/395) at Te Kowhai Road being identified for industrial land uses in the Figure 2-8 Rotokauri Structure Plan - Land Use.

Accept The proposed amendment provides a sensible and practical staging boundary.

Modern Transport Limited


Oppose Requests that Lot 2 DPS 15248 (SA13B/395) at Te Kowhai Road be included within Stage 1 of the Figure 2-9 Rotokauri Structure Plan – Staging and Transport Network.

Accept The proposed amendment provides a sensible and practical staging boundary.


1104.055 Zoning Map 15A Oppose Amend Map 15A to extend Stage 1 Rotokauri to include additional industrial land to the south of the Te Kowhai Road Extension.

Accept in part

Inclusion of the additional land within the Stage 1 boundary is accepted, however the amended Stage 1 boundary should include be amended to include all properties to be re-zoned Industrial as a result of submissions 914.001, 914.002914.001, 914.002, 916.002, 229.002, 323.001, 323.002, and 323.003.


1170.074 Zoning Map 15A Oppose Map 15A- Increase Stage 1 Rotokauri to include additional industrial land to the south of the Te Kowhai Road extension.

Accept in part

Inclusion of the additional land within the Stage 1 boundary is accepted, however the amended Stage 1 boundary should be amended to include all properties to be re-zoned Industrial as a result of submissions 914.001, 914.002914.001, 914.002, 916.002, 229.002, 323.001, 323.002, 323.003.

Proposed New Business 7 Zone

Sub. Name FS. Name





1164.050 Zoning Map 15A Oppose Map 15A-amend by including an additional Business 7 Zone Neighbourhood Centre in the Te Kowhai CPD area.

Accept in Part

It is accepted that Stage 1 of the Rotokauri Structure Plan is enlarged as the proposed District Plan enables development whereby Development Agreements are provided for if infrastructure is not funded by Council to allow development to proceed. The Structure plan identified the areas for employment (Industrial Zone), suburban centre (Business 5 Zone), residential and ridgeline character area (Special Natural Zone) and has been carried through to the planning maps. As part of accepting the expansion of stage 1 it is imperative that a full Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP) be developed prior to any further development of stage 1, which is to involve multiple parties.


Page 35 of 63

Sub. Name FS. Name





924.024 3.6 Rotokauri Support in part

The submission point seeks amendments to Policy 3.6.1.2 (a), sections 3.6.1.2(a), 3.6.2.9(a) and 3.6.3.2 that would accurately reflect the current situation given that the Te Rapa Bypass is open and operational and would assist with the clarity of the Plan for users. An amendment is required to Figure 2-9 to reflect the change in function of the western portion of Koura Drive from minor to major arterial.

Accept The submission point seeks amendments to Policy 3.6.1.2 (a), sections 3.6.1.2(a), 3.6.2.9(a) and 3.6.3.2 that would accurately reflect the current situation given that the Te Rapa Bypass is open and operational and would assist with the clarity of the Plan for users. An amendment is required to Figure 2-9 to reflect the change in function of the western portion of Koura Drive from minor to major arterial.



Oppose The submission point seeks amendments to Policy 3.6.1.2 (a) that would accurately reflect the current situation given that the Te Rapa Bypass is open and operational and would assist with the clarity of the Plan for users.

Accept The submission point seeks amendments to Policy 3.6.1.2 (a) that would accurately reflect the current situation given that the Te Rapa Bypass is open and operational and would assist with the clarity of the Plan for users.


1164.009 3.6.2.9 Staging Oppose The submission point seeks amendments to Policy 3.6.1.2 (a) that would accurately reflect the current situation given that the Te Rapa Bypass is open and operational and would assist with the clarity of the Plan for users.

Accept The submission point seeks amendments to Policy 3.6.1.2 (a) that would accurately reflect the current situation given that the Te Rapa Bypass is open and operational and would assist with the clarity of the Plan for users.

Green Corridor

Sub. Name FS. Name






Oppose 3.6.1 Objectives and Policies (Rotokauri Structure Plan): 3.6.1.1b Clarify terminology and/or identify the location of the central green corridor on Figure 2-10 3.6.1.2a Delete second sentence in policy.

Accept in part

The submission point seeks amendments to Figure 2-10 in relation to the central green corridor that will improve the internal consistency of the Plan, the clarity of the Plan for users and the administration and implementation of the Plan. The submission point seeks amendments to Policy 3.6.1.2 (a) that would accurately reflect the current situation given that the Te Rapa Bypass is open and operational and would assist with the clarity of the Plan for users.



Oppose 3.6.1.1b (Rotokauri Structure Plan) - Clarify terminology and/or identify the location of the central green corridor on Figure 2-10. 3.6.1.2a (Rotokauri Structure Plan) - Delete second sentence in policy as the Te Rapa Bypass is now open and operational.

Accept in part

The submission point seeks amendments to Figure 2-10 in relation to the central green corridor that will improve the internal consistency of the Plan, the clarity of the Plan for users and the administration and implementation of the Plan. The submission point seeks amendments to Policy 3.6.1.2 (a) that would accurately reflect the current situation given that the Te Rapa Bypass is open and operational and would assist with the clarity of the Plan for users.


1164.007 3.6.2.5 Open Space Network

Oppose 3.6.2.5 Open Space Network (Rotokauri) - Seeks the review of the reference to the central green corridor by clarifying terminology and/or identifying the location of the central green corridor on Figure 2-10.

Accept in part

The submission point seeks amendments to Figure 2-10 in relation to the central green corridor that will improve the internal consistency of the Plan, the clarity of the Plan for users and the administration and implementation of the Plan. The submission point seeks amendments to Policy 3.6.1.2 (a) that would accurately reflect the current situation given that the Te Rapa

Figure 6.1 Rotokauri Stage 1 Comprehensive Development Plan Cell is expanded to show the Employment Area and Figure 15-8a is expanded to apply which requires specific Integrated Transport Requirements by rule 25.14.4.3 (e). See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3 Structure Plans, Chapter 25.13 Three Waters, and Appendix 6 and 15.


1170.071 Zoning Map 14A Oppose Map14A-Amend to add a Business 7 Zone Neighbourhood Centre to provide accessible local services to the northern areas within the Rotokauri Structure Plan; amend the extent of Stage 1 Rotokauri Structure Plan to increase.

Accept in Part

It is accepted that Stage 1 of the Rotokauri Structure Plan is enlarged as the proposed District Plan enables development whereby Development Agreements are provided for if infrastructure is not funded by Council to allow development to proceed. The Structure plan identified the areas for employment (industrial zone), suburban centre (Business 5 Zone), residential and ridgeline character area (Special Natural Zone) and has been carried through to the planning maps. As part of accepting the expansion of stage 1 it is imperative that a full Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP) be developed prior to any further development of stage 1, which is to involve multiple parties. Figure 6.1 Rotokauri Stage 1 Comprehensive Development Plan Cell is expanded to show the Employment Area and Figure 15-8a is expanded to apply which requires specific Integrated Transport Requirements by rule 25.14.4.3 (e). See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3 Structure Plans, Chapter 25.13 Three Waters, and Appendix 6 and 15.

Te Rapa Bypass


Page 36 of 63

Bypass is open and operational and would assist with the clarity of the Plan for users.


1104.013 3.6.2.8 Industrial

Oppose 3.6.2.8 Industrial (Rotokauri Structure Plan). Clarify terminology and/or identify the location of the central green corridor on Figure 2-10.

Accept in part

The submission point seeks amendments in relation to the central green corridor that will improve the internal consistency of the Plan, the clarity of the Plan for users and the administration and implementation of the Plan.


1170.013 3.6.2.8 Industrial

Oppose 3.6.2.8 Industrial (Rotokauri Structure Plan). Clarify terminology and/or identify the location of the central green corridor on Figure 2-10.

Accept in part

The submission point seeks amendments in relation to the central green corridor that will improve the internal consistency of the Plan, the clarity of the Plan for users and the administration and implementation of the Plan.



Oppose Amend Figure 2-11 Rotokauri Neighbourhood Centre to show the indicative proposal for stormwater drainage through suburban centre including • Stormwater directed to the north of the suburban centre • Neighbourhood green located to the north and having a dual stormwater purpose.

Accept in part

The detailed stormwater solution will be determined by more detailed modeling at such a time as the area was developed. Notating Figure 2-11 (Rotokauri Neighbourhood Centre) as being ‘indicative’ only will provide clarification for Plan users.



Oppose Amend Figure 2-11 Rotokauri Neighbourhood Centre to show the indicative proposal for stormwater drainage through suburban centre including • Stormwater directed to the north of the suburban centre • Neighbourhood green located to the north and having a dual stormwater purpose.

Accept in part



1104.050 Figure 2-13 Rotokauri Suburban Centre Primary Frontages

Oppose Amend Figure 2-13 Rotokauri Suburban Centre Primary Frontages to show the indicative proposal for stormwater drainage through suburban centre including • Stormwater directed to the north of the suburban centre • Neighbourhood green located to the north and having a dual stormwater purpose.

Accept in part



1170.069 Figure 2-13 Rotokauri Suburban Centre Primary Frontages

Oppose Amend Figure 2-13 Rotokauri Suburban Centre Primary Frontages to show the indicative proposal for stormwater drainage through suburban centre including • Stormwater directed to the north of the suburban centre • Neighbourhood green located to the north and having a dual stormwater purpose.

Accept in part



1104.049 Figure 2-12 Rotokauri Interface Areas

Oppose Amend Figure 2-12 Rotokauri Interface Areas to show the indicative proposal for stormwater drainage through suburban centre including • Stormwater directed to the north of the suburban centre • Neighbourhood green located to the north and having a dual stormwater purpose.

Accept in part



1170.068 Figure 2-12 Rotokauri Interface Areas

Oppose Amend Figure 2-12 Rotokauri Interface Areas to show the indicative proposal for stormwater drainage through suburban centre including • Stormwater directed to the north of the suburban centre • Neighbourhood green located to the north and having a dual stormwater purpose.

Accept in part




Oppose Amend Features Map 23B by including a designation for the Green Central Corridor.


Hamilton JV 1170.076 Features Map Oppose Amend Features Map 23B by including a designation for the Green Reject The outcome sought by the submission is beyond the scope of the District Plan submission process. In accordance with the


Page 37 of 63

Investment Company Ltd

23B Central Corridor. requirements of the RMA any new or altered designation must be initiated by the relevant requiring authority and is subject to sections 166 to 186 of the RMA.







Oppose Amend Features Map 24B by including a designation for the Green Central Corridor. Designate the remaining collector road link between Ruffell Road and Gilchrist Street.






Open Space Network

Sub. Name FS. Name






Support in part

3.6.2.5 Open Space Network (Rotokauri): Clarify terminology and/or identify the location of the central green corridor on Figure 2-10. Include policy on the form and function of the “Central North South Collector Transport Corridor”. Clarify terminology and/or identify the location of the central green corridor on Figure 2-10 The reference to the 50m central green corridor requires review given that the stormwater system has proven to be impractical. Add as 3.6.2.5 v) “School sites – sports fields and other informal recreation space available for public use.”

Accept in part

The submission point seeks amendments to Figure 2-10 in relation to the central green corridor that will improve the internal consistency of the Plan, the clarity of the Plan for users and the administration and implementation of the Plan. Amendment to 3.6.2.5(b) to clarify the role of the Central North-South Collector Transport Corridor will assist with the administration and implementation of the Plan. Amendment to 3.6.2.5 (b) to delete reference to the 50 m width of the central green corridor more accurately reflects that the actual width will be determined by more detailed modelling at the time of development. The requested to add reference to school sites to 3.6.2.5 v) is not accepted as school sites are private property and do not contribute to the level of service for open space provision.



Support in part

3.6.2.5 Open Space Network Amend, as set out in submission: Clarify terminology and/or identify the location of the central green corridor on Figure 2-10. Add a policy on the form and function of the “Central North South Collector Transport Corridor”. Clarify terminology and/or identify the location of the central green corridor on Figure 2-10 Add the following to 3.6.2.5a) "v) School sites – sports fields and other informal recreation space available for public use.”

Accept in part

The submission point seeks amendments to Figure 2-10 in relation to the central green corridor that will improve the internal consistency of the Plan, the clarity of the Plan for users and the administration and implementation of the Plan. Amendment to 3.6.2.5(b) to clarify the role of the Central North-South Collector Transport Corridor will assist with the administration and implementation of the Plan. The requested to add reference to school sites to 3.6.2.5 v) is not accepted as school sites are private property and do not contribute to the level of service for open space provision.


1104.047 Figure 2-10 Rotokauri Structure Plan-Reserve Network

Oppose Amend Figure 2-10 Rotokauri Structure Plan-Reserve Network title to 'Open Space Network' to: Show specific location of central green corridor; Show the stormwater drainage pattern that has been developed as part of the Catchment Management Plan for Rotokauri; Show the “recreational nodes” on the Figure and include in the legend with separate symbol. Clarify terminology and/or identify the location of the central green corridor on Figure 2-10. The green central corridor route should be designated.

Accept in part

The submission point seeks amendments to Figure 2-10 in relation to the central green corridor that will improve the internal consistency of the Plan, the clarity of the Plan for users and the administration and implementation of the Plan. Amendment to 3.6.2.5(b) to clarify the role of the Central North-South Collector Transport Corridor will assist with the administration and implementation of the Plan. It is considered appropriate to reflect the provisions of the draft Integrated Catchment Management Plan and the works that have already occurred on Figure 2-8 (Rotokauri Structure Plan – Land Use) and Figure 2-10 (Open Space Network) and delete the previous green drainage corridor shown in that location. Showing recreational nodes on Figure 2-10 would be inconsistent with other Structure Plans and would not accurately reflect the recreational provision in the Structure Plan. It is not considered that a change to Figure 2-10 is required.


Page 38 of 63

Include policy on the form and function of the “Central North South Collector Transport Corridor”.


1170.066 Figure 2-10 Rotokauri Structure Plan-Reserve Network

Oppose Amend Figure 2-10 Rotokauri Structure Plan-Reserve Network by: • Changing the title to “Open Space Network”. • Show specific location of central green corridor. • Show the stormwater drainage pattern that has been developed as part of the Catchment Management Plan for Rotokauri. • Show the “recreational nodes” on the Figure and include in the legend with separate symbol. • Clarify terminology and/or identify the location of the central green corridor on Figure 2-10 and designate the route. Include policy on the form and function of the “Central North South Collector Transport Corridor”.

Accept in part

The change to the title of Figure 2-10 is accepted as the amendment will improve the internal consistency and usability of the Plan. The submission point seeks amendments to Figure 2-10 in relation to the central green corridor that will improve the internal consistency of the Plan, the clarity of the Plan for users and the administration and implementation of the Plan. It is considered appropriate to reflect the provisions of the draft Integrated Catchment Management Plan and the works that have already occurred on Figure 2-8 (Rotokauri Structure Plan – Land Use) and Figure 2-10 (Open Space Network) and delete the previous green drainage corridor shown in that location. Showing recreational nodes on Figure 2-10 would be inconsistent with other Structure Plans and would not accurately reflect the recreational provision in the Structure Plan. It is not considered that a change to Figure 2-10 is required.

Additional residential development in Stage One and general structure plan matters

Sub. Name FS. Name






Oppose Figure 2-8 Rotokauri Structure Plan-Land Use - Amend Figure 2-8 in accordance with the attached Figure set out in the submission to show Medium density residential development extending to the north of the Suburban Centre; and Include staging boundary on Figure 2-8.

Accept in Part

It is accepted that Stage 1 of the Rotokauri Structure Plan is enlarged as the proposed District Plan enables development whereby Development Agreements are provided for if infrastructure is not funded by Council to allow development to proceed. The Structure plan identified the areas for employment (industrial zone), suburban centre (business5 Zone), residential and ridgeline character area (Special Natural Zone) and has been carried through to the planning maps. As part of accepting the expansion of stage 1 it is imperative that a full Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP) be developed prior to any further development of stage 1, which is to involve multiple parties. Figure 6.1 Rotokauri Stage 1 Comprehensive Development Plan Cell is expanded to show the Employment Area and Figure 15-8a is expanded to apply which requires specific Integrated Transport Requirements by rule 25.14.4.3 (e). See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3 Structure Plans, Chapter 25.13 Three Waters, and Appendix 6 and 15.



Oppose Amend Figure 2-9 Rotokauri Structure Plan-Staging and Transport Network to include additional areas to the north and west of the suburban centre as Part of Stage 1 as shown on attachments set out in the submission. Provide an alternative route for the central north south collector that avoids the need for a large cut and overpass.

Accept In Part

It is accepted that Stage 1 of the Rotokauri Structure Plan is enlarged as the proposed District Plan enables development whereby Development Agreements are provided for if infrastructure is not funded by Council to allow development to proceed. The Structure plan identified the areas for employment (industrial zone), suburban centre (business5 Zone), residential and ridgeline character area (Special Natural Zone) and has been carried through to the planning maps. As part of accepting the expansion of stage 1 it is imperative that a full Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP) be developed prior to any further development of stage 1, which is to involve multiple parties. Figure 6.1 Rotokauri Stage 1 Comprehensive Development Plan Cell is expanded to show the Employment Area and Figure 15-8a is expanded to apply which requires specific Integrated Transport Requirements by rule 25.14.4.3 (e). See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3 Structure Plans, Chapter 25.13 Three Waters, and Appendix 6 and 15. The alignment of the central north-south collector is considered to be the best available alternative. The Structure Plan is not a blueprint and the exact alignment of the collector road can change as long as there is a continuous route provided which delivers the required connectivity and outcomes.


1170.012 3.6.2.9 Staging Oppose 3.6.2.9 Staging (Rotokauri Structure Plan) Amend as set out in the submission to: Include reference to where the various cross sections apply (Figures 3.6.2a - g); Delete second sentence in policy; Include additional areas to the north and west of the suburban centre as Part of Stage 1.; Include the text to fully explain the rationale of staging: “The extent of Stage 1 will facilitate efficient development of infrastructure and provide necessary critical mass for the provision of local services. The extent of Stage 1 will facilitate completion of a road

Accept in part

Clarifying the location of the various cross sections will assist Plan users. The submission point seeks amendments to 3.6.2.9 and is accepted it accurately reflects the current situation given that the Te Rapa Bypass is open and operational and would assist with the clarity of the Plan for users. It is accepted that Stage 1 of the Rotokauri Structure Plan is enlarged as the proposed District Plan enables development whereby Development Agreements are provided for if infrastructure is not funded by Council to allow development to proceed. The Structure plan identified the areas for employment (industrial zone), suburban centre (business5 Zone), residential and ridgeline character area (Special Natural Zone) and has been carried through to the planning maps. As part of accepting the expansion of stage 1 it is imperative that a full Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP) be developed


Page 39 of 63

network with a desirable level of connectivity.” prior to any further development of stage 1, which is to involve multiple parties. Figure 6.1 Rotokauri Stage 1 Comprehensive Development Plan Cell is expanded to show the Employment Area and Figure 15-8a is expanded to apply which requires specific Integrated Transport Requirements by rule 25.14.4.3 (e). See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3 Structure Plans, Chapter 25.13 Three Waters, and Appendix 6 and 15.


FS270.025


The submission is only accepted in part because amendments have been made in response to part of the submission 1170.012.


1104.012 3.6.2.9 Staging Oppose 3.6.2.9 Staging (Rotokauri Structure Plan) and Figures 3.6.2a, 3.6.2b, 3.6.2c, 3.6.2d, 3.6.2e, 3.6.2f, and 3.6.2g. For each Figure include reference to where the various cross sections apply. Delete second sentence in policy 3.6.2.9 Include additional areas to the north and west of the suburban centre as Part of Stage 1. Include commentary that fully explains the rationale of staging: “The extent of Stage 1 will facilitate efficient development of infrastructure and provide necessary critical mass for the provision of local services. The extent of Stage 1 will facilitate completion of a road network with a desirable level of connectivity.”

Accept in part

Clarifying the location of the various cross sections will assist Plan users. The submission point seeks amendments to 3.6.2.9 and is accepted as it accurately reflect s the current situation given that the Te Rapa Bypass is open and operational and would assist with the clarity of the Plan for users. The proposed amendment to staging would be inconsistent with the Proposed Regional Policy Statement (Decisions Version November 2012), Future Proof, and the Hamilton Urban Growth Strategy.


1104.054 Zoning Map 24A Oppose Map 24A-increase the extent of Stage 1 to include additional residential areas to the north and west of the existing first stage. Medium density residential zoning to be shown extending to the north of the Suburban Centre. Any loss of employment land can be addressed through an extension to the north of Ruffell Road, which is currently shown outside the structure plan area.

Accept in Part

It is accepted that Stage 1 of the Rotokauri Structure Plan is enlarged as the proposed District Plan enables development whereby Development Agreements are provided for if infrastructure is not funded by Council to allow development to proceed. The Structure plan identified the areas for employment (industrial zone), suburban centre (Business 5 Zone), residential and ridgeline character area (Special Natural Zone) and has been carried through to the planning maps. As part of accepting the expansion of stage 1 it is imperative that a full Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP) be developed prior to any further development of stage 1, which is to involve multiple parties. Figure 6.1 Rotokauri Stage 1 Comprehensive Development Plan Cell is expanded to show the Employment Area and Figure 15-8a is expanded to apply which requires specific Integrated Transport Requirements by rule 25.14.4.3 (e). See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3 Structure Plans, Chapter 25.13 Three Waters, and Appendix 6 and 15.


1170.073 Zoning Map 24A Oppose Map 24A- Extend Stage 1 of Rotokauri Structure Plan. Extend medium density residential zoning. Extend employment land to the north of Ruffell Road. Buffer area adjacent to the Suburban Centre crosses the intended road alignment. The Special Natural Zone/Ridgeline Character Area extends too far down Lee Road. The residential Zone will provide an appropriate transition to medium density residential. Zone all of Commercial centre Business 5.

Accept in Part



1104.053 Zoning Map 23A Oppose Map 23A-increase the area of Stage 1 Rotokauri Structure Plan. The Special Natural Zone/Ridgeline Character Area extends too far down Lee Road. The residential Zone will provide an appropriate transition to medium density residential.

Accept in Part

It is accepted that Stage 1 of the Rotokauri Structure Plan is enlarged as the proposed District Plan enables development whereby Development Agreements are provided for if infrastructure is not funded by Council to allow development to proceed. The Structure plan identified the areas for employment (industrial zone), suburban centre (business5 Zone), residential and ridgeline character area (Special Natural Zone) and has been carried through to the planning maps. As part of accepting the expansion of stage 1 it is imperative that a full Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP) be developed prior to any further development of stage 1, which is to involve multiple parties.


Page 40 of 63

Figure 6.1 Rotokauri Stage 1 Comprehensive Development Plan Cell is expanded to show the Employment Area and Figure 15-8a is expanded to apply which requires specific Integrated Transport Requirements by rule 25.14.4.3 (e). See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3 Structure Plans, Chapter 25.13 Three Waters, and Appendix 6 and 15.


1170.072 Zoning Map 23A Oppose Map 23A- Stage 1 Rotokauri Structure Plan should be increased to include additional residential areas to the north and west of the existing first stage. The Special Natural Zone/Ridgeline Character Area extends too far down Lee Road. The residential Zone will provide an appropriate transition to medium density residential.

Accept in Part



1104.052 Zoning Map 14A Oppose Amend Map 14A to add land to Stage 1 of Rotokauri Structure Plan. Accept in Part




Oppose Amend Figure 2-9 Rotokauri Structure Plan-Staging and Transport Network by: • Adding areas to the north and west of the suburban centre as Part of Stage 1 as shown on submission attachments. • Provide an alternative route for the central north south collector that avoids the need for a large cut and overpass. • Show the Tasman Road link remaining to align with Figure 3.6.2b.

Accept in Part

It is accepted that Stage 1 of the Rotokauri Structure Plan is enlarged as the proposed District Plan enables development whereby Development Agreements are provided for if infrastructure is not funded by Council to allow development to proceed. The Structure plan identified the areas for employment (industrial zone), suburban centre (business5 Zone), residential and ridgeline character area (Special Natural Zone) and has been carried through to the planning maps. As part of accepting the expansion of stage 1 it is imperative that a full Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP) be developed prior to any further development of stage 1, which is to involve multiple parties. Figure 6.1 Rotokauri Stage 1 Comprehensive Development Plan Cell is expanded to show the Employment Area and Figure 15-8a is expanded to apply which requires specific Integrated Transport Requirements by rule 25.14.4.3 (e). See Tracked Changes for Chapter 3 Structure Plans, Chapter 25.13 Three Waters, and Appendix 6 and 15



Oppose Amend Figure 2-8 Rotokauri Structure Plan-Land Use in accordance with the new figure attached to the submission, including by: • Adding staging boundaries. • Labelling school sites as “indicative only”. • Accurately reflecting the location of the Passenger Transport Location on Figure 3.6.2b. • Either remove the Future Reserve notation from the submitters land or designate the land. • Show the Tasman Road link remaining to align with Figure 3.6.2b.

Reject The location of the Passenger Transport Location shown on Figure 3.6.2b is not inconsistent with the southern location shown on Figure 2-8 and therefore no change is required. This submission is therefore rejected. The submitter appears to have incorrectly interpreted the Structure Plan boundary notation, shown as a dashed black line on Figures 2-8 and 2-9 as representing road stopping of part of Tasman Road which is not the case. No changes to Figures 2-8 or 2-9 are required in response to the submission.

Myra Evans-McLeod

219.001 Map 33A Oppose Obtrusive to outlook. Reject This submission point does not clearly state the relief sought.



Support Retain Features Map 25B as notified. Accept This submission supports Features Map 25B and is accepted because there are no other submissions seeking amendments to that Map.


Page 41 of 63

3.7 Ruakura

Sub. Name

FS. Name



Summary

Decision Reasoning

Wei Lee 763.001 3 Structure Plans

Oppose Amend the Plan to a) retain the area as rural residential without reference to any logistics in the future b) Provide a 100m buffer around Percival and Ryburn Roads with a 4m high planted bund c) Ensure freight movements use an alternative road to Percival Road d) Ensure development rights are the same as provided for in the large lot residential zone for the southern end of the Structure Plan

Defer This matter is deferred until the Board of Inquiry issues a decision on the Plan Change Application for Ruakura to the Operative District Plan which is anticipated in September this year and these matters will be heard by the Commissioners at a reconvened hearing .

Ming-San (Arvin) & Meng-Chu (Anna) Tang


Oppose Amend the Plan to a) retain status quo for the area b) Provide a 100m buffer between the area and the Logistics Zone c) Council purchase the properties


Ken & Hong Shang & Wang


Oppose Amend the Plan to a) retain the current rural residential zoning and subdivision rights b) Provide a 100m buffer around Percival and Ryburn Roads


Kung-Yao Lin 831.002 3 Structure Plans

Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) retain the rural residential and development rights including subdivision that exist for the area. b) Provide a 100m buffer around Percival and Ryburn Roads with an earth bund. c) Retain more land around the university for supporting uses. d) concentrate development on land located near existing facilities and industry instead of creating new areas. e) Allow subdivision of the Percival and Ryburn Road area to 1000m2 lots to keep maintain the low density residential lifestyle and quality.


Derrick Ross & Robyn Mary Marsters


Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain the Rural Residential zoning without reference to industrial in the future. b) Provide a 100m buffer around Ryburn and Percival Roads with a 4m high planted bund. c) ensure freight movements use an alternative road to Percival Road. d) ensure the development rights are the same as provided for in the Large Lot Residential Zone for the southern end of the Structure Plan.


Allan Liang-chitz & Shirley Tzu-ling Wan


Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain the rural residential zoning with right to subdivide to 2500m2. b) Provide a 100m buffer around Percival and Ryburn Roads with a 4m high planted bund. c) ensure freight movements use an alternative road to Percival Road. d) Delete reference to any logistics uses in the future.


Raylene & Saul Cowie & Spriggs


Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain the rural residential zoning with right to subdivide to 2500m2. b) Provide a 100m planted buffer and bund around Percival and Ryburn Roads. c) Require that Tainui Group Holdings or Council purchase the property.


Bryce & Natasha Carmichael


Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain as rural residential and development rights b) provide a 100m buffer between large lot residential and logistics/industrial park zones c) remove reference to any logistics in the future d) ensure lighting and vibration does not adversely affect quality of life e) ensure freight movements use an alternative road to Percival Road f) purchase property.


William Roy Cowie


Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Provide a 100m buffer with 4m high planted earth bund. b) Remove the deferred logistics zoning and retain a large lot residential zoning with subdivision to 2500m2.


Deanna - Rose Alexander


Oppose Amend the Plan to ensure no logistics or industrial activities are permitted within 100m of the large lot zone boundary; or purchase property.


Bee Chiew Phee 1004.007 3 Structure Plans

Oppose Purchase the residents property or amend the Plan to: a) retain rural residential zoning and allow subdivision to 2500m2. b) Provide a 100m buffer and planted earth bund. c) Ensure no heavy vehicles access to industrial properties from Percival/Ryburn Roads.


Alan Frederick & 1005.001 3 Structure Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain the rural residential zoning and Defer This matter is deferred until the Board of Inquiry issues a decision on the Plan Change Application for Ruakura to the Operative District


Page 42 of 63

Barbara Winifred Julian

Plans development rights without reference to any logistics in the future. b) Prevent logistics or industrial activities within 100m of the Large Lot Residential Zone. c) Require a 100m buffer and planted earth bund. d) Require screening and buffering for Ryburn Road; or purchase the property.

Plan which is anticipated in September this year and these matters will be heard by the Commissioners at a reconvened hearing .

Peter & Barbara Ryan


Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain the rural residential zoning and development rights without reference to any logistics in the future. b) Prevent logistics or industrial activities within 100m of the Large Lot Residential Zone. c) Require a 100m buffer and planted earth bund. d) Control the use of surrounding land so that nuisance effects are limited to levels that approximate a semi-rural lifestyle area.


Bo & Meggie Han & Wang


Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain the rural residential zoning and development rights without reference to any logistics in the future. b) Require a 100m landscaped earth bund buffer around the Large Lot Residential Zone. c) Require controls to mitigate light, noise and vibration effects on Ryburn Road.


Shing-long Lee 1224.001 3 Structure Plans

Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain the rural residential zoning and development rights without reference to any logistics in the future. b) Provide a 100m buffer around Percival and Ryburn Roads with a 4m high planted earth bund. c) Ensure freight movements use an alternative road to Percival Road. d) Provide development rights same as provided for in the large lot residential zone for the southern end of the structure plan.


Kerry & Donna Willmott


Oppose Opposes the Ruakura Industrial zone. Either purchase the property or amend the plan to allow semi-commercial use on 63 Ryburn Road


Ruakura Residents Group and William Roy Cowie


Oppose 3 Structure Plans -amend Ruakura Structure Plan Figure 2-14 to identify land as Large Lot residential; remove reference to transitional use of land as large lot residential and future use as Ruakura Logistics; if unacceptable rezone 100m buffer as Open Space.



FS181.013

Oppose


FS196.053

Oppose

David Evan & Karlene Chibnall


Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) retain the existing Rural Residential zoning and associated development rights. b) Provide a 100m buffer around Percival and Ryburn Roads with a planted earth bund. c) ensure continuing vehicle access for commuting; and ensure fair treatment over privately owned land.


Roland & Wendy Spirig


Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain the Large Lot Residential zoning with the addition of a 100m planted buffer. b) restrict the operating hours of the port to daylight hours and provide for a way to lodge noise complaints.


David Murray and Karen Lee Young


Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain the existing Rural Residential Zoning with associated development rights. b) Provide a 100m buffer around Percival and Ryburn Roads with a 4m high planted earth bund. c) Remove the deferred logistics zoning from the proposed plan.


Dennis Roy McLeod

56.001 3.7 Ruakura Oppose Opposes the concept of an Inland Port.


Dennis Roy McLeod

FS3.001

Support


FS181.011

Oppose

Tainui Group FS196.04 Oppose


Page 43 of 63

Holdings Limited

Brett Hopkins (Ruakura Motors Tractorparts Ltd)

234.001 3.7 Ruakura Oppose Delete the Ruakura Structure Plan and undertake consultation with the community to develop innovation precinct and residential areas.

Defer This matter is deferred until the Board of Inquiry issues a decision on the Plan Change Application for Ruakura to the Operative District Plan which is anticipated in September this year and these matters will be heard by the Commissioners at a reconvened hearing . Simon

Travaglia (Waikato Innovation Park Limited)

FS67.034

Oppose

Deborah June Fisher

282.018 3.7 Ruakura Oppose Delete Ruakura Structure Plan until further consideration of the effects on the surrounding area have been investigated and publicly notified. b) ensure a "Noise Management Plan" is completed prior to inclusion of the Structure Plan.


Josina Wilhelmina Maria Ellis

289.001 3.7 Ruakura Support in part

Oppose Inland Port and Ruakura logistics Zone and seeks residential zoning.


KiwiRail Holdings Limited

366.003 3.7 Ruakura Support Supports Ruakura Structure Plan

Defer This matter is deferred until the Board of Inquiry issues a decision on the Plan Change Application for Ruakura to the Operative District Plan which is anticipated in September this year and these matters will be heard by the Commissioners at a reconvened hearing . Tainui Group

Holdings Limited

FS196.008

Support


608.011 3.7 Ruakura Support Supports 3.7 Ruakura Structure Plan and requests it be retained.


William Roy and Raewyn Mary Cowie

FS143.011

Oppose


FS167.002

Oppose


FS196.001

Support

Chedworth Properties Limited

FS197.001

Support

AgResearch Ltd 609.002 3.7 Ruakura Support in part

Amend 3.7b by rewriting to ensure that it is not viewed as compromising the CBD. Delete 3.7h and associated staging rules in Rule 3.7.3.6 as it affects the development of future innovation & research activities and the development of supporting retail & commercial activities.

Defer This matter is deferred until the Board of Inquiry issues a decision on the Plan Change Application for Ruakura to the Operative District Plan which is anticipated in September this year and these matters will be heard by the Commissioners at a reconvened hearing . Simon

Travaglia (Waikato Innovation Park Limited)

FS67.006

Support



Move the Industrial Land Allocation table 3.7f to Chapter 2 Strategic Framework and link the table to relevant parts of the Structure Plan Chapter OR, move the table to the front of the Structure Plan Chapter.



771.012 3.7 Ruakura Support Supports the Ruakura Structure Plan and landuse identified. Defer This matter is deferred until the Board of Inquiry issues a decision on the Plan Change Application for Ruakura to the Operative District Plan which is anticipated in September this year and these matters will be heard by the Commissioners at a reconvened hearing .


Page 44 of 63

James & Heather Hely & Montgomerie


Amend Rules 23.7.3 d),e), f), i), j), k), h) to enable subdivision at 2500m2 in the Large Lot Residential Zone as a Permitted Activity.


Gwyneth Ann Verkerk (and Dr Raymond Thomas Cursons)

FS25.003

Support

Stephen George Bigwood


Amend Chapter 3 or Chapter 11 to add a new rule that classifies development of areas larger than what staging provides for as a non-complying or prohibited activity or, Amend Figure 2-14 to rezone Stages 2 and 3 as 'deferred industrial areas' that can only be development in the years specified. The original submission has been withdrawn therefore no decision is required.


FS270.016

Support

Hugh and Katie Goodman and Mayes

911.003 3.7 Ruakura Oppose Delete Ruakura Structure Plan and requests consultation occurs with the community.




Amend 3.7b to update land area; reword 3.7d to relate to strengthening the CBD. Amend 3.7f footnote provides flexibility if Waikato Expressway not completed; delete 3.7h and associated staging rules in 3.7.3.6.


University of Waikato

FS47.003

Oppose


FS160.001

Oppose


FS161.001

Oppose

Jennifer West FS271.016

Oppose



Retain staging for Ruakura in 3.7 as notified Defer This matter is deferred until the Board of Inquiry issues a decision on the Plan Change Application for Ruakura to the Operative District Plan which is anticipated in September this year and these matters will be heard by the Commissioners at a reconvened hearing .

Titanium Park Joint Venture

945.001 3.7 Ruakura Oppose Amend 3.7(f) to update the table 'Industrial Land Allocation in the Future Proof Area' to take account of the appeal by Titanium Park Joint Venture to the Waikato Regional Policy Statement.


ANG & SL Clarke


Amend 3.7a) to add the Large Lot Residential Zone to the Ruakura Structure Plan vision.


Waikato Innovation Park Limited


Amend 3.7d to identify employment opportunities are centred on "innovation and research". Amend 3.7h to enable development of a suburban centre.

Defer This matter is deferred until the Board of Inquiry issues a decision on the Plan Change Application for Ruakura to the Operative District Plan which is anticipated in September this year and these matters will be heard by the Commissioners at a reconvened hearing. Tainui Group

Holdings Limited

FS196.024

Support



Amend 3.7f) to include a footnote to the Table that advises the Waikato Proposed Regional Policy Statement is subject of appeals.

Defer The submissions relate to elements of the Ruakura Structure Plan. It is appropriate to defer until the Board of Inquiry issues a decision on the private plan change for Ruakura to the Operative District Plan which is anticipated in September this year and these matters will be heard by the Commissioners at a reconvened hearing

Susan Hopkins 1264.003 3.7 Ruakura Oppose Delete 3.7 Ruakura. Withdraw the Ruakura Structure Plan for consultation with the community to occur in order to develop an innovation precinct and residential areas and not a freight and logistics hub.


Ross & Leonie 1265.003 3.7 Ruakura Oppose Delete 3.7 Ruakura Structure Plan and consult with community to Defer This matter is deferred until the Board of Inquiry issues a decision on the Plan Change Application for Ruakura to the Operative District


Page 45 of 63

Hopkins develop an innovation precinct & residential areas. Plan which is anticipated in September this year and these matters will be heard by the Commissioners at a reconvened hearing .

Russell Vincent Cooper

FS240.006

Support

Robert Gordon Bell


Amend 3.7 a)(iii) to move the inland port or increase buffering between the Knowledge Zone and the Ruakura Logistics Zone and Ruakura Industrial Park Zone.


Robert Gordon Bell

1268.002 Policy 3.3.4c Support in part

Policy 3.3.4c has not been followed in determining the road network in Ruakura. Seeks the removal, as set out in the submission, of the through intersection of the Industrial Park street with Silverdale Rd and make it a cul-de-sac with exit through the main entry point at the corner of Silverdale and Ruakura Roads (Figure 2-15 Appendix 2: Structure Plans).

Defer

This matter is deferred until the Board of Inquiry issues a decision on the Plan Change Application for Ruakura to the Operative District Plan which is anticipated in September this year and these matters will be heard by the Commissioners at a reconvened hearing .


FS196.041 Oppose

Kevin Brian Hall 16.001 3.7.1 Structure Plan Components

Support in part

Assurance that no flooding will occur due to Ruakura Structure Plan at the rear of 61A Nevada Rd


Dennis Roy McLeod

56.005 3.7.1.1 Ruakura Logistics Zone – Inland Port

Oppose Concerned at noise levels from trains and other activities associated with an Inland Port.


Nagarajah Manoharan


Support in part

Amend 3.7.1.1 to ensure the Greenbelt for the Inland Port is 200m. Defer This matter is deferred until the Board of Inquiry issues a decision on the Plan Change Application for Ruakura to the Operative District Plan which is anticipated in September this year and these matters will be heard by the Commissioners at a reconvened hearing .

Deborah June Fisher


Oppose Delete the Ruakura Structure Plan until the full impacts have been fully investigated.


Josina Wilhelmina Maria Ellis


Oppose Delete the Inland Port and Ruakura logistics Zone. Defer This matter is deferred until the Board of Inquiry issues a decision on the Plan Change Application for Ruakura to the Operative District Plan which is anticipated in September this year and these matters will be heard by the Commissioners at a reconvened hearing .


1146.009 3.7.1.10 Water and Wastewater

Support in part

Amend 3.7.1.10 b) by replacing the word "sewer" with "wastewater" Defer This matter is deferred until the Board of Inquiry issues a decision on the Plan Change Application for Ruakura to the Operative District Plan which is anticipated in September this year and these matters will be heard by the Commissioners at a reconvened hearing .

Deborah June Fisher

282.004 3.7.1.2 Ruakura Logistics Zone – Logistics

Oppose Delete the Ruakura Structure Plan until the effects on the surrounding environments have been fully investigated.



714.018 3.7.1.2 Ruakura Logistics Zone – Logistics

Support Retain 3.7.1.2.b Structure Plan component of Ruakura Logistics Zone Defer This matter is deferred until the Board of Inquiry issues a decision on the Plan Change Application for Ruakura to the Operative District Plan which is anticipated in September this year and these matters will be heard by the Commissioners at a reconvened hearing .

Deborah June Fisher

282.005 3.7.1.3 Ruakura Industrial Park Zone

Oppose Delete the Ruakura Structure Plan until the effects on the surrounding environments have been fully investigated.


Lance Edward Kendrick


Support in part

Amend 3.7.1.3 to provide very wide buffer strips between the proposed Industrial areas and existing Residential areas.




Support Supports 3.7.1.3 as it indicates outcomes which enable the creation of high quality amenity industrial park zone.

The original submission has been withdrawn therefore no decision is required.

Robert Gordon Bell


Support in part

Amend 3.7.1.3 to prescribe what high standard amenity entails for the Ruakura Industrial park Zone.


Dennis Roy McLeod

56.002 3.7.1.4 Knowledge Zone

Oppose Opposes the concept of an Inland Port.


Future Proof FS181.012 Oppose


Page 46 of 63

Implementation Committee

Deborah June Fisher


Support Retain the Knowledge Zone


Simon Travaglia (Waikato Innovation Park Limited)

FS67.008

Support

AgResearch Ltd 609.004 3.7.1.4 Knowledge Zone

Support in part

Amend Rule 3.7.4.1 to remove the inference that the knowledge zone will compromise the central city.

Defer This matter is deferred until the Board of Inquiry issues a decision on the Plan Change Application for Ruakura to the Operative District Plan which is anticipated in September this year and these matters will be heard by the Commissioners at a reconvened hearing . Waikato

Regional Council

FS72.021

Oppose



Oppose Amend 3.7.1.4b by deleting "in a manner that does not compromise the Central City"



FS72.024

Oppose


FS160.001

Oppose


FS161.001

Oppose



Oppose Amend 3.7.1.4b to delete reference to "in a manner that does not compromise the Central City"



FS72.027

Oppose


FS181.005

Oppose

Robert Gordon Bell


Oppose Amend 3.7.1.4b) to provide justification on how the Inland Port attracts 'world class research and development facilities' or this delete this link


AgResearch Ltd 609.005 3.7.1.5 Neighbourhood Centre

Support in part

Amend Rule 3.7.1.5 to provide for a Suburban Centre rather than a neighbourhood centre.


Regional Council

FS72.022

Oppose


913.014 3.7.1.5 Neighbourhood Centre

Oppose Amend 3.7.1.5 to change the Knowledge Zone Neighbourhood Centre to a Suburban Centre.



FS160.001

Oppose


FS161.001

Oppose


Page 47 of 63



Oppose Amend 3.7.1.5 to relate to a Suburban Centre Defer This matter is deferred until the Board of Inquiry issues a decision on the Plan Change Application for Ruakura to the Operative District Plan which is anticipated in September this year and these matters will be heard by the Commissioners at a reconvened hearing .

Robert Gordon Bell


Support Amend 3.7.1.5 to address the need for better connectivity (specifically across Ruakura Road)


Alexandra Lee Simmons

80.006 3.7.1.6 Residential Zones

Oppose Amend Rule 3.7.1.6. Remove Medium Residential Density zoning and replace with low density residential with the closure of Greenhill Road onto Tramway/Gordonton Roads; and ensure stormwater systems do not utilise local streams as open drains.



FS196.039

Oppose

Chedworth Properties Limited

FS197.004

Oppose

Gwyneth Ann Verkerk

293.001 3.7.1.6 Residential Zones

Oppose Oppose Rule 3.7.1.6, setting the staging of residential development within the Ruakura Structure Plan. A full structure plan should be developed. Defer


Michael John Griffin (n/a)

FS21.001

Support

AgResearch Ltd 609.006 3.7.1.7 Transportation Network

Support in part

Amend 3.7.1.7 Transportation Network to indicate the indicative nature of both the spine road & open space corridor.




Support in part

Amend 3.7.1.7 to create flexibility for the alignment of the transportation network and open space corridor.



FS160.001

Oppose


FS161.001

Oppose

Porter Developments Limited

FS239.002

Support

Porter Properties Limited

FS241.005

Support

Hounsell Holdings Limited

FS248.004

Support

Hamilton JV Investments Limited

FS254.007

Support



Support in part

Amend Ruakura structure plan once the location and number of interchanges to the Waikato Expressway are confirmed.



FS181.007

Support

Wattle Downs Limited

FS280.001

Oppose


1171.011 3.7.1.7 Transportation

Support in part

Amend 3.7.1.7 Transportation Network to allow flexibility in the location of the network and Spine Road with wording amendments and



Page 48 of 63

Network subsequent amendments to Figs 2-14 and 2-15.



Support in part

Amend Figures 2-14 and 2-15 of the Ruakura Structure Plan to identify Greenhill and Ruakura connections to the Waikato Expressway as proposed interchanges and indicate that Powells, Ryburn and Ruakura Roads are being severed and a new underpass to be undertaken at Percival Road. Designation and road stopping procedures to be undertaken Defer



FS280.017

Support

Gwyneth Ann Verkerk


Support in part

Amend Rule 3.7.1.8 to include the southern gully areas, cycleways and provide opportunity within the transmission corridors for community gardens. Defer



FS21.001

Support

Laurence John Denny


Oppose Amend 3.7.1.8 by adding a new paragraph to relate to the open space network near Silverdale being a high level of landscaping and screening.


Alexandra Lee Simmons

80.003 3.7.1.9 Stormwater

Oppose Amend Rule 3.7.19 to ensure no use of streams for stormwater drainage associated with the Ruakura Structure Plan.


Gwyneth Ann Verkerk (and Dr Raymond Thomas Cursons)

FS25.006

Support

Gwyneth Ann Verkerk

293.009 3.7.1.9 Stormwater

Support 3.7.1.9 Stormwater - request Council work with landowners to develop comprehensive plan for gully's ecological amenity.

Defer This matter is deferred until the Board of Inquiry issues a decision on the Plan Change Application for Ruakura to the Operative District Plan which is anticipated in September this year and these matters will be heard by the Commissioners at a reconvened hearing . Michael John

Griffin (n/a) FS21.001

Support


1083.009 3.7.1.9 Stormwater

Support in part

Amend 3.7.1.9 to indicate that other land use could adversely affect transmission lines.


Robert Gordon Bell

1268.009 3.7.1.9 Stormwater

Support in part

Amend 3.7.1.9 to ensure all development and impermeable site coverage are subject to Integrated Catchment Management Plan and stormwater network design.


Deborah June Fisher


Oppose Amend 3.7.2 by inserting additional objectives and policies to protect the environment and amenity values of existing residents.


AgResearch Ltd 609.007 3.7.2 Objectives and Policies

Support in part

Delete Objective 3.7.2.2 and policy 3.7.2.2(a) and amend objective 3.7.2.4 in relation to the Ruakura Structure Plan and ensure there is no inference it would compromise the Central City.


Regional Council

FS72.023

Oppose



Support in part

Retain Policy 3.7.21b, Amend Policy 3.7.2.1e to include reference to ecological corridors. Amend objective 3.7.2.3 to include " that is supported by the effective and efficient transport links" Add new policy to 3.7.2.3c to read: "A well functioning and efficient transport network is developed to support logistics and freight handling activities".

Defer



FS270.014

Support



Support Supports objective 3.7.2.5 and policies 3.7.2.5a and b for the creation of high quality industrial park zone.



Page 49 of 63



Oppose Delete objective 3.7.2.2 and policies 3.7.2.2a, 3.7.2.7a. Amend Objectives and Policies 3.7.2.4, 3.7.2.7 and 3.7.2.7b to remove reference to compromising the Central City, and to replace the Neighbourhood Centre in the Knowledge Zone with a Suburban Centre.



FS72.025

Oppose


FS160.001

Oppose


FS161.001

Oppose


FS181.01

Oppose


FS270.019

Oppose



Support Amend Policy 3.7.2.1b to "optimise" rather than 'maximise' the use of existing infrastructure. Retain Policy 3.7.2.6a as notified.


ANG & SL Clarke


Support in part

Amend 3.7.2 to add objective and policies for the Large Lot Residential zone that enable subdivision and development.




Support in part

Amend Policy 3.7.2.6.c to ensure the aspects of safety is explicitly incorporated.




Oppose Amend objectives and policies to provide for in "general" accordance with the structure plan; Delete Objective 3.7.2.2 and Policy 3.7.2.2a; Amend Objective 3.7.2.4 so as to remove reference to not compromising the Central City; Amend policy 3.7.2.4a to replace the word ‘shall’ with ‘should’ and reference to the Ruakura Knowledge Zone; Amend objective 3.7.2.7 to reference “suburban catchments”, and “goods, service and employment” instead of retail facilities Delete Policy 3.7.2.7a; Amend policy 3.7.2.7b to replace neighbourhood centre with suburban centre and the word ‘shall’ with ‘should’.



FS72.029

Oppose


FS181.006

Oppose


FS270.023

Oppose

Robert Gordon Bell


Support in part

Amend 3.7.2.5a to prescribe what high standard amenity entails for the Ruakura Industrial park Zone. Amend 3.7.2.1c to provide justification on how the Inland Port attracts 'world class research and development



Page 50 of 63

facilities' or this delete this link. Amend 3.7.2.6 to be more realistic to the effects of the Inland Port on the residential environment.


906.012 3.7.3 Rules Support in part

Amend Chapter 3 or Chapter 11 to add a new rule that classifies development of areas larger than what staging provides for as a non-complying or prohibited activity or, Amend Figure 2-14 to rezone Stages 2 and 3 as 'deferred industrial areas' that can only be development in the years specified.

The original submission has been withdrawn therefore no decision is required

Deborah June Fisher

282.009 3.7.3.1 Ruakura Structure Plan Area

Oppose Delete the Ruakura Structure Plan until further investigation into its impacts on surrounding areas has been conducted. b) Amend Map 2-15 to reflect the correct status of the Spine Road as a major arterial.



913.017 3.7.3.3 Infrastructure

Oppose Delete 3.7.3.3 in relation to infrastructure



FS160.001

Oppose


FS161.001

Oppose


FS270.02

Oppose


1171.012 3.7.3.3 Infrastructure

Oppose Delete 3.7.3.3 Infrastructure Defer This matter is deferred until the Board of Inquiry issues a decision on the Plan Change Application for Ruakura to the Operative District Plan which is anticipated in September this year and these matters will be heard by the Commissioners at a reconvened hearing .

AgResearch Ltd 609.008 3.7.3.4 Staging Rules for Ruakura Logistics Zone and Ruakura Industrial Park Zone in the Ruakura Structure Plan Area

Support in part

Amend 3.7.3.4 b)i by rewording to require the Waikato Expressway to be completed and connected to the logistics zone or other suitable means without compromising the transportation network. Delete 3.7.3.4 b) ii and Amend 3.7.3.4 b) iii to ensure the management of development between 2021 & 2041 aligns with the RPS.



FS270.01

Oppose


714.020 3.7.3.4 Staging Rules for Ruakura Logistics Zone and Ruakura Industrial Park Zone in the Ruakura Structure Plan Area

Support Retain staging rules for the Ruakura Structure Plan 3.7.3.4a to 3.7.3.4c



FS181.009

Support


FS270.015

Support

Lance Edward Kendrick

842.002 3.7.3.4 Staging Rules for Ruakura Logistics Zone

Support in part

Amend Rule 3.7.3.4a by reducing the 20ha ratio. Amend Rule 3.7.3.4b stage 2 to reinstate the connections at Greenhill Road and Ruakura Rd.



Page 51 of 63

and Ruakura Industrial Park Zone in the Ruakura Structure Plan Area



Support in part

Amend Rule 3.7.3.4a) v with the removal of the words "or the industrial park area immediately north of the knowledge zone (ie west of the north-south spine road)" or amend Rule 3.7.3.4a) v by adding a proviso that the Fifth Avenue, Five Cross Roads and Boundary Road transport Corridor has been upgraded to four lanes prior to development’


Hugh and Katie Goodman and Mayes


Oppose Delete Rule 3.7.3.4a) and undertake a plan variation once NZTA has made a decision on the location and style of interchange on the Waikato Expressway. Delete Rule 3.7.3.4a) relating to release of 80ha of land in Ruakura prior to 2021. Retain Rule 3.7.3.4 b) which supports the release of land post 2021 on completion of the Hamilton Waikato Expressway.




Support in part

Amend Rule 3.7.3.4a to provide flexibility in relation to the Waikato Regional Policy Statement. Delete 3.7.3.4(a)(ii) to (iv). Amend Rule 3.7.3.4b amend to provide flexibility for development in relation to the completion of the Waikato Expressway.


Regional Council

FS72.026

Oppose


FS160.001

Oppose


FS161.001

Oppose

Susan Hopkins 1264.004 3.7.3.4 Staging Rules for Ruakura Logistics Zone and Ruakura Industrial Park Zone in the Ruakura Structure Plan Area



Ross & Leonie Hopkins

1265.004 3.7.3.4 Staging Rules for Ruakura Logistics Zone

Oppose Delete Rule 3.7.3.4a) and undertake a plan variation once NZTA has made a decision on the location and style of interchange on the Waikato Expressway. Delete Rule 3.7.3.4a) relating to release of 80ha of land in Ruakura prior to 2021.



Page 52 of 63

and Ruakura Industrial Park Zone in the Ruakura Structure Plan Area

Retain Rule 3.7.3.4 b) which supports the release of land post 2021 on completion of the Hamilton Waikato Expressway.


FS240.006

Support

Brett Hopkins (Ruakura Motors Tractorparts Ltd)




Robert Gordon Bell


Support in part

Amend Rule 3.7.3.4 b)(ii) and Fig 2-15 to remove the through intersection of the Industrial Park street with Silverdale Rd and make it a cul-de-sac with exit through the main entry point at the corner of Silverdale and Ruakura Roads.



FS67.01

Oppose

Gwyneth Ann Verkerk

293.007 3.7.3.5 Staging Rules for General Residential Zone and Medium Density Residential Zone in the Ruakura Structure Plan Area

Oppose Review staging rules 3.7.3.5 for the large lot residential zone within the Ruakura Structure Plan



FS21.001

Support



Oppose Delete Rules 3.7.3.5(a) and 3.7.3.5(b) and replace with amended wording to align with the recent decision on the E1 to Cobham Drive, or impacts of the location of connections to the Waikato Expressway.



Page 53 of 63


FS160.001

Oppose


FS161.001

Oppose


FS270.021

Oppose

ANG & SL Clarke


Oppose Amend Rule 3.7.3.5 to enable the immediate release of residential zoned land in the Ruakura Structure Plan areas.




Oppose Amend Rules 3.7.3.5a) and b) so that development of the Spine Rd is not required as part of the residential development.


AgResearch Ltd 609.003 3.7.3.6 Staging Rule for the Innovation Park Precinct of the Knowledge Zone in the Ruakura Structure Plan Area

Oppose Delete staging rule for the Innovation Park Precinct of the Knowledge Zone 3.7.3.6 and 3.7(h)



FS67.007

Oppose


FS196.02

Support


913.020 3.7.3.6 Staging Rule for the Innovation Park Precinct of the Knowledge Zone in the Ruakura Structure Plan Area

Oppose Delete Rule 3.7.3.6 Staging rule for Innovation Park Precinct for the Knowledge Zone.



Page 54 of 63


FS160.001

Oppose


FS161.001

Oppose


FS270.022

Oppose


1051.003 3.7.3.6 Staging Rule for the Innovation Park Precinct of the Knowledge Zone in the Ruakura Structure Plan Area

Oppose Amend staging rules in 3.7.3.6 to enable earlier development of the suburban centre.



FS72.028

Oppose


FS196.025

Support

Deborah June Fisher

282.010 3.7.4 Provisions in Other Chapters

Support in part

Delete Discretionary Assessment Criteria A2 - general criteria.


Gavin Smith 224.001 Appendix 2 Structure Plans

Oppose That Lot: 1 DP: S68406 at Te Rapa East Road be included within Stage 1 of the Rotokauri Structure Plan - Staging and Transport Network.


Gaenor Smith 229.001 Appendix 2 Structure Plans

Support Retain figures 2-8 in Appendix 2 (Structure Plans - Rotokauri) in so far as it identifies an industrial land use for Lot 1: DP: S68406 (Te Kowhai East Road).


Deborah June Fisher


Oppose Remove Ruakura SP until more details are available, an environmental impact report available and the full and future effects on the surrounding environment have been considered.



FS180.002

Oppose

W.J. & M.R. Laverty


Support in part

Include a Structure Plan for Temple View within Appendix 2 - Structure Plans.



FS180.088

Support

W.R & J.M Falconer


Support in part

Amend Volume 2: Appendix 2 - Structure Plans by including a Temple View Structure Plan and make any subsequential changes to other diagrams.



FS180.089

Support

Wei Lee 763.006 Appendix 2 Oppose Amend the Plan to a) retain the area as rural residential without Defer This matter is deferred until the Board of Inquiry issues a decision on the Plan Change Application for Ruakura to the Operative District


Page 55 of 63

Structure Plans reference to any logistics in the future b) Provide a 100m buffer around Percival and Ryburn Roads with a 4m high planted bund c) Ensure freight movements use an alternative road to Percival Road d) Ensure development rights are the same as provided for in the large lot residential zone for the southern end of the Structure Plan


Ming-San (Arvin) & Meng-Chu (Anna) Tang


Oppose Amend the Plan to a) retain status quo for the area b) Provide a 100m buffer between the area and the Logistics Zone c) Council purchase the properties


Ken & Hong Shang & Wang


Oppose Amend the Plan to a) retain the current rural residential zoning and subdivision rights b) Provide a 100m buffer around Percival and Ryburn Roads


Kung-Yao Lin 831.005 Appendix 2 Structure Plans

Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) retain the rural residential and development rights including subdivision that exist for the area. b) Provide a 100m buffer around Percival and Ryburn Roads with an earth bund. c) Retain more land around the university for supporting uses. d) concentrate development on land located near existing facilities and industry instead of creating new areas. e) Allow subdivision of the Percival and Ryburn Road area to 1000m2 lots to keep maintain the low density residential lifestyle and quality.


Derrick Ross & Robyn Mary Marsters


Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain the Rural Residential zoning without reference to industrial in the future. b) Provide a 100m buffer around Ryburn and Percival Roads with a 4m high planted bund. c) ensure freight movements use an alternative road to Percival Road. d) ensure the development rights are the same as provided for in the Large Lot Residential Zone for the southern end of the Structure Plan.


Allan Liang-chitz & Shirley Tzu-ling Wan


Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain the rural residential zoning with right to subdivide to 2500m2. b) Provide a 100m buffer around Percival and Ryburn Roads with a 4m high planted bund. c) ensure freight movements use an alternative road to Percival Road. d) Delete reference to any logistics uses in the future.


Raylene & Saul Cowie & Spriggs


Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain the rural residential zoning with right to subdivide to 2500m2. b) Provide a 100m planted buffer and bund around Percival and Ryburn Roads. c) Require that Tainui Group Holdings or Council purchase the property.


Bryce & Natasha Carmichael


Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain as rural residential and development rights b) provide a 100m buffer between large lot residential and logistics/industrial park zones c) remove reference to any logistics in the future d) ensure lighting and vibration does not adversely affect quality of life e) ensure freight movements use an alternative road to Percival Road f) purchase property.


William Roy Cowie


Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Provide a 100m buffer with 4m high planted earth bund. b) Remove the deferred logistics zoning and retain a large lot residential zoning with subdivision to 2500m2.


Deanna - Rose Alexander


Oppose Amend the Plan to ensure no logistics or industrial activities are permitted within 100m of the large lot zone boundary; or purchase property.


Bee Chiew Phee 1004.005 Appendix 2 Structure Plans

Oppose Purchase the residents property or amend the Plan to: a) retain rural residential zoning and allow subdivision to 2500m2. b) Provide a 100m buffer and planted earth bund. c) Ensure no heavy vehicles access to industrial properties from Percival/Ryburn Roads.


Alan Frederick & Barbara Winifred Julian


Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain the rural residential zoning and development rights without reference to any logistics in the future. b) Prevent logistics or industrial activities within 100m of the Large Lot Residential Zone. c) Require a 100m buffer and planted earth bund. d) Require screening and buffering for Ryburn Road; or purchase the property.



Page 56 of 63

Peter & Barbara Ryan


Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain the rural residential zoning and development rights without reference to any logistics in the future. b) Prevent logistics or industrial activities within 100m of the Large Lot Residential Zone. c) Require a 100m buffer and planted earth bund. d) Control the use of surrounding land so that nuisance effects are limited to levels that approximate a semi-rural lifestyle area.


Bo & Meggie Han & Wang


Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain the rural residential zoning and development rights without reference to any logistics in the future. b) Require a 100m landscaped earth bund buffer around the Large Lot Residential Zone. c) Require controls to mitigate light, noise and vibration effects on Ryburn Road.


Shing-long Lee 1224.006 Appendix 2 Structure Plans

Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain the rural residential zoning and development rights without reference to any logistics in the future. b) Provide a 100m buffer around Percival and Ryburn Roads with a 4m high planted earth bund. c) Ensure freight movements use an alternative road to Percival Road. d) Provide development rights same as provided for in the large lot residential zone for the southern end of the structure plan.


Dennis Roy McLeod

56.003 Figure 2-14 Ruakura Structure Plan-Land Use

Oppose Insufficient green belt identified adjoining dwellings on the Ruakura Structure Plan - landuse plan


Graeme Ernest Goodwin Goodwin


Oppose Requests Ruakura industrial and logistics zone and Inland Port be rezoned to knowledge and rural residential zones or residential



FS67.015

Oppose


FS181.029

Oppose

Pearce Andrew Watson (Wizardsleeve Holdings Limited)


Oppose Requests assurance that adverse effects will be avoided, remedied and mitigated from the Ruakura Industrial Park.


Jennifer Rita Bothwell (Fairview Downs Residents)


Support in part

Relocate residential and commercial areas within the Ruakura Structure Plan to avoid industrial views and noise for existing homes. Retain natural stormwater drainage.




Support in part

Amend Figures 2-14 and 2-15 of the Ruakura Structure Plan to identify Greenhill and Ruakura connections to the Waikato Expressway and indicate that Powells, Ryburn and Ruakura Roads are being severed and a new underpass to be undertaken at Percival Road. Designation and road stopping procedures to be undertaken.

Defer



FS167.006

Oppose


FS240.002

Oppose

New Zealand Transport

FS270.082

Support


Page 57 of 63

Agency


FS280.003

Oppose

AgResearch Ltd 609.024 Figure 2-14 Ruakura Structure Plan-Land Use

Support in part

Ruakura Structure Plan - retain interchanges at Greenhill Road and Ruakura Road and delete all other options; delete "Transport Corridors" within Ruakura Research Centre.

Defer



FS270.083

Support


FS280.004

Oppose



Support in part

Ruakura Structure Plan- Retain possible interchanges until certainty is provided on the locations.



FS280.011

Oppose



Support in part

Ruakura Structure Plan identifies the Greenhill and Ruakura connections as “proposed” interchanges. Remove 5th Avenue and State highway 26.


WEL Networks Limited


Support in part

Amend Ruakura Structure Plan-Land Use to provide for a network utilities corridor from Silverdale Road to the Waikato Expressway designation; request provisions to enable network utility connections to transportation networks.




Support in part

Ruakura Structure Plan amend connections to be consistent with designations; include staging on the map from staging rules; include 20m reserve along Wairere Dr.


AgResearch Limited

FS244.009

Oppose


FS280.012

Oppose



Support in part

Amend Figures 2-14 and 2-15 to identify the Greenhill and Ruakura Waikato Expressway connections as “proposed” interchanges. Remove 5th Avenue and State highway 26 Waikato Expressway connections.

Defer



FS160.001

Oppose


FS161.001

Oppose


FS181.028

Support


Oppose


FS280.006

Oppose



Support in part

Amend Figure 2-14 upon identification of the preferred location and number of connections to the Waikato Expressway.



Page 58 of 63


FS280.002

Oppose

ANG & SL Clarke


Support in part

Retain the Large Lot Residential Zone. Delete the Open Space notation relating to the secondary stormwater flow path in relation to Lot 3 DP 379687.

Accept in part

It is accepted that the Large Lot Residential Zone be retained. The matter in relation to the extent of the Natural Open Space Zone be deferred until the Board of Inquiry issues a decision on the Plan Change Application for Ruakura to the Operative District Plan which is anticipated in September this year and these matters will be heard by the Commissioners at a reconvened hearing.



Oppose Ruakura Structure Plan -Amend Figures 2-14 to 2-18 to identify Local Transport Corridors within Waikato Innovation Park as indicative internal accessways and re-align.




Support Ruakura Structure Plan – Retain Figure 2-14 Defer This matter is deferred until the Board of Inquiry issues a decision on the Plan Change Application for Ruakura to the Operative District Plan which is anticipated in September this year and these matters will be heard by the Commissioners at a reconvened hearing .

Laurence John Denny


Oppose Ruakura Structure Plan - add to 3.7.1.8 Open Space Network a new clause to recognise a high level of landscaping and screening.




Support in part

Ruakura Structure Plan - Amend Figures 2-14 and 2-15 to identify the Greenhill and Ruakura connections as “proposed” interchanges. Remove 5th Avenue and State highway 26

Defer This matter is deferred until the Board of Inquiry issues a decision on the Plan Change Application for Ruakura to the Operative District Plan which is anticipated in September this year and these matters will be heard by the Commissioners at a reconvened hearing . Gwyneth Ann

Verkerk (and Dr Raymond Thomas Cursons)

FS25.002

Oppose


FS280.009

Oppose



Support in part

Amend Figures 2-14 and 2-15 of the Ruakura Structure Plan to identify Greenhill and Ruakura connections to the Waikato Expressway as proposed interchanges and indicate that Powells, Ryburn and Ruakura Roads are being severed and a new underpass to be undertaken at Percival Road. Designation and road stopping procedures to be undertaken.



FS280.018

Support

Kerry & Donna Willmott


Oppose Opposes the Ruakura Industrial zone. Either purchase the property or amend the plan to allow semi-commercial use on 63 Ryburn Road




Oppose Amend Ruakura Structure Plan Figure 2-14 to identify land as Large Lot residential; remove reference to transitional use of land as large lot residential and future use as Ruakura Logistics; if unacceptable rezone 100m buffer as Open Space. Defer



FS181.03

Oppose

David Evan & Karlene Chibnall


Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) retain the existing Rural Residential zoning and associated development rights. b) Provide a 100m buffer around Percival and Ryburn Roads with a planted earth bund. c) ensure continuing vehicle access for commuting; and ensure fair treatment over privately owned land.


Roland & Wendy Spirig

1279.006 Figure 2-14 Ruakura Structure Plan-

Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain the Large Lot Residential zoning with the addition of a 100m planted buffer. b) restrict the operating hours of the port to daylight hours and provide for a way to lodge noise complaints.



Page 59 of 63

Land Use

David Murray and Karen Lee Young


Oppose Amend the Plan to: a) Retain the existing Rural Residential Zoning with associated development rights. b) Provide a 100m buffer around Percival and Ryburn Roads with a 4m high planted earth bund. c) Remove the deferred logistics zoning from the proposed plan.


Dennis Roy McLeod

56.004 Figure 2-15 Ruakura Structure Plan-Transport Network

Oppose Identification of a greenbelt for the mitigation of noise and lighting on the Ruakura Structure Plan - Transport Network Plan


AgResearch Ltd 609.025 Figure 2-15 Ruakura Structure Plan-Transport Network

Oppose Ruakura Structure Plan - Figure 2-15 Delete the “Possible Passenger Transport Route” and delete the "Local Transport Corridor Roads" within AgResearch Centre.




Support in part

Ruakura Structure Plan - Amend Figures 2-14 and 2-15 to identify the Greenhill and Ruakura connections as “proposed” interchanges. Remove 5th Avenue and State highway 26.

Defer This matter is deferred until the Board of Inquiry issues a decision on the Plan Change Application for Ruakura to the Operative District Plan which is anticipated in September this year and these matters will be heard by the Commissioners at a reconvened hearing . Gwyneth Ann

Verkerk (and Dr Raymond Thomas Cursons)

FS25.004

Oppose



Support in part

Ruakura Structure Plan Figures 2-14 to 2-18 amend connections to be consistent with designations;



FS280.013

Oppose



Support in part

Amend Figures 2-14 and 2-15 to identify the Greenhill and Ruakura Waikato Expressway connections as “proposed” interchanges. Remove 5th Avenue and State highway 26 Waikato Expressway connections. Supports Figures 2-15 and 2-19 regarding infrastructure and staging.



FS160.001

Oppose


FS161.001

Oppose


Oppose


FS280.007

Oppose

Parkwood Gateway Limited


Oppose Ruakura Structure Plan - Figure 2-15 amend to delete the Major Arterial Transport Corridor and Arterial Corridor Protection Area from land located outside of the Structure Plan Area.


Portland Park Limited

984.028 Figure 2-15 Ruakura Structure Plan-Transport

Oppose Ruakura Structure Plan - Figure 2.15 amend to delete the Major Arterial Transport Corridor and Arterial Corridor Protection Area from land located outside of the Structure Plan Area.



Page 60 of 63

Network



Oppose Ruakura Structure Plan - Figures 2-14 to 2-18 amend by identifying the Local Transport Corridors within Waikato Innovation Park as indicative internal accessways and re-align Local Transport Corridors; delete cycleways/walkways shown on Figure 2-15 within Waikato Innovation Park.




Support in part




FS280.01

Oppose



Support in part

Amend Figures 2-14 and 2-15 of the Ruakura Structure Plan to identify Greenhill and Ruakura connections to the Waikato Expressway as proposed interchanges and indicate that Powells, Ryburn and Ruakura Roads are being severed and a new underpass to be undertaken at Percival Road. Designation and road stopping procedures to be undertaken



FS280.019

Support

AgResearch Ltd 609.026 Figure 2-16 Ruakura Structure Plan-Water Infrastructure

Oppose Delete the Transport Corridors within the AgResearch Centre on the Ruakura Structure Plan Fig 2-16



771.027 Figure 2-16 Ruakura Structure Plan-Water Infrastructure

Support in part





Support in part

Ruakura Structure Plan - Amend Figs 2-14 to 2-18 to remove possible interchanges which are inconsistent with designations.



FS280.014

Oppose



Support in part

Amend Figures 2-14 and 2-15 to identify the Greenhill and Ruakura Waikato Expressway connections as “proposed” interchanges. Remove 5th Avenue and State highway 26 Waikato Expressway connections. Supports Figures 2-15 and 2-19 regarding infrastructure and staging.

Defer



FS160.001

Oppose


FS161.001

Oppose


FS270.085

Support


Oppose


FS280.008

Oppose


Page 61 of 63



Oppose Ruakura Structure Plan - Figure 2.16 amend to delete Stage 1 interim water connection point A from land located outside of the Structure Plan Area, or alternatively that it be made clear that this notation does not relate to either Lots 1 or 3 DP 444645.




Oppose Ruakura Structure Plan - Figure 2.16 amend to delete Stage 1 interim water connection point A from land located outside of the Structure Plan Area, or alternatively that it be made clear that this notation does not relate to either Lots 1 or 3 DP 444645.




Oppose Ruakura Structure Plan - Figures 2-14 to 2-18 amend by identifying the Local Transport Corridors within Waikato Innovation Park as indicative internal accessways and re-align Local Transport Corridors.




Support in part

Ruakura Structure Plan - Supports infrastructure and staging in Figures 2.15 – 2-19.




Support in part

Ruakura Structure Plan - supports figs 2-15 to 2-19 in relation to the infrastructure and staging.


AgResearch Ltd 609.027 Figure 2-17 Ruakura Structure Plan-Waste Water Infrastructure

Oppose Ruakura Structure Plan Fig 2-17 - Delete the Transport Corridors within the AgResearch Centre.



771.028 Figure 2-17 Ruakura Structure Plan-Waste Water Infrastructure

Support in part

Ruakura Structure Plan - supports the infrastructure and staging in Figures 2.15 – 2-19.




Support in part

Ruakura Structure Plan -amend Figs 2-14 to 2-18 to remove interchange connections inconsistent with designations.

The original submission has been withdrawn therefore no decision is required. Future Proof

Implementation Committee

FS181.031

Oppose


FS280.015

Oppose



Support in part

Supports Figures 2-15 and 2-19 regarding infrastructure and staging.



FS160.001

Oppose


FS161.001

Oppose

Parkwood 977.032 Figure 2-17 Oppose Ruakura Structure Plan - Fig 2-17 delete the Stage 1 interim wastewater Defer This matter is deferred until the Board of Inquiry issues a decision on the Plan Change Application for Ruakura to the Operative District


Page 62 of 63

Gateway Limited

Ruakura Structure Plan-Waste Water Infrastructure

connection points A & B from land located outside the Structure Plan Area, or make it clear these do not relate to either Lots 1 or 3 DP 444645.




Oppose Ruakura Structure Plan - Fig 2-17 delete the Stage 1 interim wastewater connection points A & B from land located outside the Structure Plan Area, or make it clear these do not relate to either Lots 1 or 3 DP 444645.




Oppose Amend Figures 2-14 to 2-18 by identifying the Local Transport Corridors within Waikato Innovation Park as indicative internal accessways and re-alignment of the Local Transport Corridors.




Support in part

Supports Figures 2-15 and 2-19 infrastructure and staging. Defer This matter is deferred until the Board of Inquiry issues a decision on the Plan Change Application for Ruakura to the Operative District Plan which is anticipated in September this year and these matters will be heard by the Commissioners at a reconvened hearing .



Support in part


AgResearch Ltd 609.028 Figure 2-18 Ruakura Structure Plan-Storm Water Infrastructure

Oppose Figure 2-18: delete the “Transport Corridors” located within the Ruakura Research Centre.



771.029 Figure 2-18 Ruakura Structure Plan-Storm Water Infrastructure

Support in part

Amend Figures 2-14 and 2-15 to identify the Greenhill and Ruakura connections as “proposed” interchanges. Remove 5th Avenue and State highway 26.



FS280.005

Oppose



Support in part

Amend Figures 2-14 to 2-18 to remove the possible interchange connections to the Waikato Expressway which are inconsistent with the Waikato Expressway Designation.



FS181.032

Oppose


FS270.084

Oppose


FS280.016

Oppose



Support in part


Defer



FS160.001

Oppose


Page 63 of 63


FS161.001

Oppose



Oppose Figure 2.18 be amended to delete Stage 1 interim stormwater connection point A from land located outside of the Structure Plan Area, or it be made clear this does not relate to either Lots 1 or 3 DP 444645.




Oppose Figure 2.18 be amended to delete Stage 1 interim stormwater connection point A from land located outside of the Structure Plan Area, or it be made clear this does not relate to either Lots 1 or 3 DP 444645.




Oppose Amend Figures 2-14 to 2-18 by identifying the Local Transport Corridors within Waikato Innovation Park as indicative internal accessways and re-alignment of the Local Transport Corridors.




Support in part

Amend Figures 2-14 and 2-15 to identify the Greenhill and Ruakura connections as “proposed” interchanges. Remove 5th Avenue and State highway 26.




Support in part

Amend Figures 2-14 and 2-15 of the Ruakura Structure Plan to identify Greenhill and Ruakura connections to the Waikato Expressway and indicate that Powells, Ryburn and Ruakura Roads are being severed and a new underpass to be undertaken at Percival Road. Designation and road stopping procedures to be undertaken.



FS280.02

Support


771.030 Figure 2-19 Ruakura Residential Staging

Support in part

Supports Figures 2-15 - 2-19 for infrastructure and staging. Defer This matter is deferred until the Board of Inquiry issues a decision on the Plan Change Application for Ruakura to the Operative District Plan which is anticipated in September this year and these matters will be heard by the Commissioners at a reconvened hearing .



Support in part


Defer



FS160.001

Oppose


FS161.001

Oppose



Support in part




Support in part


Documents

Chapter 3 Structure Plans and Appendix 2 Decisions