REPORT

RECOMMENDATION REPORT NUMBER

V101/2000

HEARING REPORT NUMBER V101/1000

HEARING DATES 10. 11. 17 December 2008

HEARING PANEL Harry Bhana – Chairman

Les Simmons – Commissioner

APPROVED BY Peter Vari – Manager Environmental Policy and Planning

SIGNATURE

SUBJECT PROPOSED DISTRICT PLAN 2000 –

COMMISSIONERS REPORT FOR DISTRICT PLAN AND REGULATORY COMMITTEE – VARIATION 101 – OREWA EAST

FILE REF TP/14/4/101

PARTS OF PLAN AFFECTED Chapter 3 – Definitions Chapter 8 - Residential Chapter 9 – Business Chapter 16 – General Rules Chapter 21 – Transportation and Access Chapter 22 – Financial Contributions and Works Planning Maps 1.0 INTRODUCTION General Proposed Variation 101 introduced a number of changes to the Proposed District Plan 2000 to implement the land use proposals in the Orewa East Structure Plan. Changes included the introduction of the following new zones;

- Orewa Beachfront Residential Zone

- Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone

- Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone.

It also introduced a number of changes to the rules regarding buildings and building heights in the Orewa Town Centre, and building height in the residential zones within the Orewa East Structure Plan area. The Orewa Beachfront Residential Zone The Orewa Beachfront Residential Zone was located to the north of the Orewa Town Centre between the Hibiscus Coast Highway and the Orewa Beachfront. This zone applied to the narrow area indicated on Planning Maps 72 and 75 between the Hibiscus Coast Highway and Orewa Beach north of the town centre and provided for a similar built environment to Medium Intensity Residential whilst enabling increased intensity of use of the buildings in the zone. The Variation also rezoned a number of sites fronting the western side of Centreway Road between Florence Avenue and Riverside Road from Residential H (High Intensity) to Mixed Business Zone. A number of sites between 226 and 250 Centreway Road were rezoned from Residential M (Medium Intensity) to Residential H (High Intensity).

The High Intensity Variable Height Zone The Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone was an overlay zone applied to the area south of the Orewa Town Centre defined in Map 75 and was intended to result in high quality development within a landscaped setting The key elements of the Zone were:

- Residential development requires a site of at least 5000m2.

- Buildings require consent as a Restricted Discretionary Activity.

- The zone provides for buildings on each site to be of a variety of heights up to 7 storeys.

- Site coverage is a maximum of 30%.

- A significant proportion of the site is required to be landscaped.

Changes in Height Limits for Residential Zones in the Orewa East Structure Plan Area The Variation also introduced a change in building height for all the land in residential zones within the Orewa East Structure Plan boundary. The maximum height for residential buildings was increased from 9 metres to 11.5 metres to allow for more traditional roof forms (e.g. pitched roofs for residential buildings). Changes in the Retail Service Zone There were also changes to the existing Retail Service Zones applying in central Orewa, in relation to taller buildings. In particular the minimum site size for taller buildings of up to 30 metres was increased from 2700m2 to 5000m2. A related change was that the maximum height of the podium of the podium/tower for taller buildings in the town centre, as set out in rule 9.10.7.3 was increased from 10.5 to 12.5 metres. The Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone The Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone was applied to 8 sites on the Orewa beachfront side of the State Highway One in Orewa between Florence Avenue and Moenui Avenue and was intended to create an opportunity to support and add to the retail and visitor interest of Orewa Town Centre. In concert with anticipated improvements to the State Highway to slow vehicle speeds the new zone was intended to create opportunities for additional pavement cafés both facing onto the State Highway and also conceivably the beach front. An important aspect of the zone was that to take advantage of the commercial opportunities, land facing onto the beach had to be vested into the Council’s ownership for the creation of a beachfront boardwalk. In addition to retail and café facilities at ground floor residential accommodation was to be allowed above the commercial units to create a mixed use zone. Office uses would only be allowed at first floor level and above. Ground floor uses and activities would be restricted to small scale shops and café uses. Due to the constraints of providing twin frontages, access to the beach front, relatively small sites and the need for high levels of amenity, carparking was not required in this zone. However, a financial contribution was to be required to assist in providing public car parking elsewhere in the Orewa Town Centre area. 2.0 PROCEDURAL ISSUES During the hearing of the submission by Orewa Land Ltd we were advised that a detailed analysis of the economic viability of the alternative building typology proposed in that submission and demonstrated in the evidence presented by reference to an example building site would be made available to us. After we had adjourned the hearing a document was presented to the chairman and the Panel noted that it was marked "confidential". That document was returned to the submitter with the advice that the Panel could not accept the document on the basis of it remaining confidential. Subsequently a further analysis of the financial viability of the alternative typology proposed was submitted through Council officers. However at that stage the hearing had closed and the Panel decided that it would not accept that additional information at that stage of the process.

3.0 THE PRINCIPAL ISSUES THAT WERE IN CONTENTION: ISSUES RELATING TO COMMERCIAL ZONE CHANGES The principal issues that were in contention in respect of proposed Commercial Zone changes were as follows:

1. Whether the future role of the Orewa Town Centre is likely to fit within the structure of “Sub-Regional Centre” as proposed in the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy and whether the employment and residential densities which the ARGS targets for such centres remain an appropriate basis for predicting and controlling the nature and form of development for the Orewa Town Centre.

2. Whether adequate consideration had been given to transport related matters and in particular whether an Integrated Transport Assessment, (as defined under the Auckland Regional Land Transport Strategy) should be undertaken before any further decisions are taken on the Proposed Variation.

3. Whether it was appropriate or necessary for development in the Commercial zoned areas to exceed current height limits.

4. Whether car parking issues in Orewa Town Centre should be resolved as part of Variation 101.

5. Whether a standard parking rate should be applied so as to enable changes in permitted uses in existing structures without re-evaluation of car parking requirements.

6. Whether the bulk and location format for multi-storey development in the commercial area enabled an economically viable building outcome.

7. Whether bonus incentives should be provided to encourage good-quality urban design outcomes in town centre developments particularly in terms of pedestrian amenities.

8. Whether development controls should encourage non-retail commercial accommodation in upper floors rather than enabling development above ground floor to comprise mainly residential accommodation.

ISSUES RELATING TO PROPOSED REZONING OF LAND TO BEACHFRONT COMMERCIAL The principal issues that were in contention in respect of proposed re-zoning of Residential sites to Beachfront Commercial were as follows:

9. Whether the Beachfront Commercial Zone provisions would enable appropriate development of the kind envisaged by the Policy Planners (subject to the changes recommended at the hearing) or whether the land concerned should remain zoned residential.

10. Whether the effects of piecemeal development of the kind enabled by the re-zoning would result in unacceptable adverse effects on amenity values of remaining owners and occupants of residential properties in the zone.

ISSUES RELATING TO RESIDENTIAL ZONE CHANGES The principal issues that were in contention in respect of proposed Residential Zone changes were as follows:

11. Whether it was appropriate or necessary for development in the Residential zoned areas to exceed current height limits.

12. Whether the form of development enabled by the provisions for the Variable Height Residential Zone should be amended so as to provide for slimmer tower development rather than 5 to 7 storey slab development.

13. Whether the Variable Height Residential Zone should be extended to include the land bounded by Weiti Road, Hibiscus Coast Highway, Loop Road, Centreway Road and Milton Road.

OTHER ISSUES A very large number of smaller issues (or in some cases issues relating to the detail of the provisions of the Proposed Variation) were raised by submitters. These have been dealt with in the recommendation section of this decision where the response to each of the changes requested in the submissions is recorded. 4.0 SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE HEARD: EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL JASON EVANS – SENIOR POLICY PLANNER ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL: Mr Evans provided a PowerPoint presentation in which he referred the Panel to the various processes and works undertaken in preparation of Variation 101. This included references to the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy however he emphasised that the final form of the Variation was driven by the public consultation process including the planning and design workshops which provided 6 weeks of public consultation and feedback. He discussed the Orewa East Structure Plan and the various policy directions which that plan had advanced. He also pointed out that the area encompassed by the Orewa East Structure Plan comprised flat land which already contained development whereas Orewa West and Silverdale North were “green-field” locations which would provide further residential and employment opportunities (in line with the Regional Growth Strategy intentions) in close proximity to the Town Centre. He then described the major amendments proposed by Variation 101 and the expected outcomes that were intended. MR DAVID WREN PLANNING CONSULTANT TO THE COUNCIL: David Wren advised the following:

- Height to boundary requirements – There was no rule in the High Intensity Variable Height zone, but an 8m yard was required. Some sites did not have enough land to have a variable height. The Variation as notified required that buildings of different heights in this zone were to be separate structures, however if buildings were able to be joined together a height to boundary rule would be reasonable. The ratio was normally 3 metres x 45°.

- Orewa Beachfront Commercial zone – The zone allowed development, but could not require it. People who chose to keep their existing houses (in the zone) would have existing use rights.

- Concern about loss of amenity for existing houses in Beachfront Commercial zones where neighbouring properties became commercial – There would be no piecemeal development as the minimum site size would be 2,5002, which would require a number of sites to be amalgamated. There would be some gaps between 2,5002sites.

- “Blackout provisions” on activity tables 9.2.2 and 9.12.4 – These would have to be removed to allow for higher buildings than were currently provided for and the submissions made would enable this too be done as part of the decision process.

SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE SUBMITTERS SUBMISSION BY MARTIN WILLIAM EMERY ON BEHALF OF THE OREWA RATEPAYERS AND RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INC. Mr Emery advised the Panel that a large number of people in the community were opposed to the Variation and did not believe that there was any statutory requirement for the Rodney District Council to follow the directions of the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy. He said that his Association considered that the consultation process did not provide for effective consultation. He said the community would be overpowered by the adverse effects of buildings of the scale proposed. His Association wished to see the Variation rejected because of the effects of high-rise buildings on the amenity values of the area. His Association requested that a new genuine and independent consultative process be undertaken to determine realistic population numbers or Orewa East. SUBMISSION BY GORDON MILLER Mr Miller was concerned that the proposed variation would create a "concrete curtain" obstructing the sea view enjoyed by many residents. He pointed out that in the Auckland area this type of development had been placed on ridges where it did not obstruct outlooks. He noted also that in similar coastal locations on the North Shore high-rise was not permitted on the sea frontage. He considered that if high-rise development was justified in the future it should be similarly located on ridge lines around Orewa.

SUBMISSION BY MRS JEANNE PAMELA EMERY Mrs Emery pointed out that many of the submissions had come from only 200 individuals of whom only 24% lived in Orewa. She said that the Rodney Economic Development Trust had failed to notify those persons whose submissions they had opposed. She disagreed with the Hearing Report regarding the effect of tall buildings expressing her view that a wall of concrete and glass reaching 30 to 36 m into the sky would be intrusive and oppressive in a small coastal community isolating the rest of the town from the beach. She provided a drawing indicating how these effects would arise. She was concerned about the adverse effects on the amenity values of people living close to the towers including loss of sunlight and daylight, and the effects of noise and traffic. Mrs Emery also expressed concern about the proposal to increase the permitted maximum height of buildings in the Orewa East Structure Plan area from 9 m to 11.5 m. She considered that changes of this kind should not take place in established residential areas. SUBMISSION BY DESMOND GRIFFIN Mr Griffin advised the Panel of the considerable public opposition which he considered had been evident to the proposed Variation. In his view further increases in the population density in this area were unnecessary and not required to meet ARC policies. He advised that parking was already difficult and many people in the area preferred to shop in Albany rather than Orewa. SUBMISSION BY ALEX SAYWELL AND TOM MAYNE ON BEHALF OF THE MAYGROVE RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INC Mr Saywell presented a written submission. Generally the residents of this Association supported the changes proposed in the Variation and were supportive of the consultation process which had occurred. However it was noted that support for the Variable Height Residential Zone related to the maximum height limit of 7 storeys (as notified) and a preference to 3 to 5 storeys as a maximum was expressed. In relation to the Retail Service zone he said that the Association preferred that the 5000 m² minimum site area for buildings over 11.0m should be retained. In general the Association supported the confirmation and approval of Variation 101. SUBMISSION BY ROGER GILBERTSON Mr Gilbertson advised the Panel that he owned one of the properties that the Variation proposed to be rezoned to Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone. He was critical of the consultation process and considered that the rezoning compromised existing property rights and did not provide equitable value in exchange for the loss of the 20 m foreshore setback. He said that if the land in the proposed zone was identified as commercial the opportunity to purchase and increase the foreshore reserve areas would be lost forever. He considered that rather than rezone the sites included in the Beachfront Commercial Zone, the Council should actively seek to purchase them to create a public reserve on the beachfront. SUBMISSION BY ANN AND PETER WILLIS Mr and Mrs Willis advised that they were concerned about the adequacy of the infrastructure particularly sewerage and stormwater services to accommodate the proposed population increases. They noted that the area was a floodplain and the infrastructure did not cope adequately with the stormwater flows at present pointing out that flooding occurred at the end of the beach. SUBMISSION BY CLAIRE KIRMAN ON BEHALF OF DESTINATION OREWA BEACH Ms Kirman’s submission focused primarily on car parking requirements. She noted the effect of the new motorway in relieving pressure on the Ibis that Coast Highway and development of a more pedestrian focused town centre. However she pointed out that in order for the Town Centre to function as a viable commercial destination it needed to have adequate provisions the car parking. She expressed concern that the Variation did not deal adequately with car parking and advised that Destination Orewa supported the submission of the National Trading Company of New Zealand Ltd that there be provision within the Orewa Town Centre of an appropriately located Council parking facility and the introduction of street parking charges. SUBMISSION BY LEANNE SMITH ON BEHALF OF DESTINATION OREWA Ms Smith spoke to the written submission had been lodged by Destination Orewa Ltd. She pointed out that the submitter was opposed to the staging of the zoning of the Variable Height Residential Zone pointing out that delay and costs associated with staging should be avoided. The submitter requested that all restricted discretionary and controlled activities be considered on a non-notified basis. Smith placed considerable emphasis on the need for analysis of the economic viability of the development that would be enabled by the new zone provisions. The submission pointed out that incentives should have been provided in order to encourage better planning outcomes in terms of urban design architecture and public amenity standards. Ms Smith advised the Panel that the submitter considered that the standards for parking in the Orewa Town Centre should be lowered to encourage more use of public transport and said that a parking building should be located within 400

m of the main shopping centre. Destination Orewa Beach Ltd recommended a parking ratio of one car park for 35 m² of gross floor area for all development other than supermarkets for which a ratio of one car parking space at 20 m² should be required. It was further suggested that where existing buildings are were modified or land uses changed without additional floor area being added in no additional parking should be required. On behalf of the submitter Ms Smith noted that the current financial contributions to car parking were too high and we're resulting in a disincentive for redevelopment in the Town Centre. In regard to the proposed Beachfront Commercial Zone Ms Smith submitted that the commercial development of those properties may not be economically viable however the submitter supported the purchase of properties for a reserve along the foreshore and considered it should be a priority for gradual expansion of the reserve areas. In regard to the Variable Height Residential Zone the submitter questioned the viability of the proposed maximum 7 storey building height and recommended additional building height with less bulk and greater building separations. In regard to the Orewa Beach Front Residential zone Ms Smith recommended that the minimum site area be reduced from 2000m² to 1800m² in recognition of the amount of land that had been acquired for widening of the highway in that area. SUBMISSION BY SANDRA COOPER Mrs Cooper expressed concern about the potential for a decrease in the quality of life arising from increased intensity of development in Orewa. She produced statistics from the 2006 Census of Population establishing that 42.3% of the district households encompass families with children and only 20% comprised single person households. She said that although 33.7% of households in the District comprised couples without children some of these would be retired couples who would prefer to live in retirement villages. She said that there would be little demand for the accommodation provided in apartment blocks. She concluded her evidence with a request that the district plan provisions be implemented more stringently citing examples were additional development had been permitted. SUBMISSION BY RON COOPER Mr Cooper raised concerns about the potential adverse effects of high-rise buildings including wind effects and shading and the creation of a barrier between the town and the beach. He said that the long-term population growth forecasts used as a justification for the development of high-rise towers would not be satisfied if apartments were in fact used for short-term accommodation. He advised the Panel that the Nautilus was being used for short-term residential purposes rather than permanent accommodation. Mr Cooper also raised concerns regarding the potential inundation of the areas in which further intensive development was proposed as a result of rising sea levels. He referred to the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report regarding effects of sea level rise and associated coastal flooding. SUBMISSION BY MIKE SMITH ON BEHALF OF THE RODNEY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TRUST Mr Smith referred to the potential downturn in business turnover arising as a result of the diversion of traffic along the new motorway. He said that the Trust considered that the higher density development now proposed would provide a support base for businesses within the Town Centre and allow the Orewa businesses to be partly isolated from the aggressive bulk retailers to the south. He emphasised that the submission from the Trust had proposed the use of incentives for high-quality environmental outcomes and the provision of additional parking noting that those approaches had been taken in Tauranga City. He expressed concern on behalf of the Trust that car parking standards may well frustrate development rather than encourage it. He believed that changes in use in existing buildings should be permitted to proceed with minimum regulation. He said that the Trust would be concerned if developers were forced to provide levels of office space in towers within the commercial zone rather than being allowed to use them for residential purposes. Mr Smith said the Trust opposed the submission by Land Transport New Zealand which had opposed the variation on the basis of lack of information on traffic effects on the road network. SUBMISSION BY ROME PARKER Ms Parker said that Orewa should be treated as a special case - it was a coastal village and not a city. She said the district plan rules for development and change need to address community needs and that Variation 101 would destroy the village quality. The Nautilus development had not benefited Orewa it had significant adverse effects on sunlight access and was used for transient accommodation. She questioned the benefits of the development that Variation 101 would enable

and stated that in her view increased intensity would lead to greater crime and general community instability. SUBMISSION BY JOHN DRURY Mr Drury advised that he was the President of the Orewa Ratepayers and Residents Association Inc. He advised the Panel that the Nexus Survey commissioned by the Council in 2004 showed the majority of the population was not in favour of high-rise development. He expressed concern about the outcome of consultation, the submission of questionnaires and referred to other evidence of community opposition to proposals for high-rise development in Orewa. He considered that the suitability of this form of development should be tested by a binding referendum in which only the residents of Orewa would take part. He stated that in his view a referendum provided a much more accessible means of people expressing their views on such matters than the more complicated processes involved in making submissions. SUBMISSION BY SPENCER DRINKWATER Mr Drinkwater was concerned about the potential blocking of views and shading of beach areas as a result of the 2.5 m increase in maximum height proposed under the variation. He produced various diagrams to support his concerns. EVIDENCE OF BRIAN WADDELL PLANNING CONSULTANT ON BEHALF OF THE AUCKLAND REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY IS Mr Waddell outlined ARTA's role in the region's transport environment, describing its particular role in promotion, coordination, funding and planning for all forms of transport within the region. It was concerned about ensuring better integration of land use and transport and that had been the basis for the submission to Variation 101. He described the ARTA plans and programmes and referred to the statutory requirements applicable to the Variation under the RMA and the requirement for the Council to give effect to the RPS. He stated that ARTA supported the Variation in general but was concerned that an Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) had not been carried out and considered that these matters should be addressed as well as the related issue of determining appropriate car parking requirements for the development which would be enabled under the new Variation. He pointed to the various advantages that would accrue from a wider assessment of transport matters including a better assessment of, and provision for, the needs of pedestrians and cyclists. In regard to the Variable Height Residential Zone he pointed to the dangers of staging the zoning through continued infill development on the land not immediately included in the new zone. Mr Waddell discussed the need for increased intensity of employment within the commercial centre noting that the RPS placed emphasis on both residential and employment densities. He considered a lack of employment opportunities in Orewa Town Centre would result in increasing commuter flows to the North Shore and beyond and such an outcome would be contrary to many of the objectives of the Regional Land Transport Strategy. He considered that the Variation should not be passive on the matter of mixed-use nor on how to achieve it. In conclusion Mr Waddell expressed the view that the proposed Variation had not addressed transport issues appropriately and considered that the Variation should be put on hold until a full and comprehensive ITA had been completed. Without the further work he said it would be difficult for Commissioners to conclude that the Variation integrates with the transport system in a sustainable manner and has effective regard to the RPS and to Variation 22. In response to questions Mr Waddell advised the Panel that Orewa did not fit the same mould as other centres identified in the RGS as future "sub-regional centres" such as Henderson and Manukau. He advised that a reclassification process was under way and drew our attention to a study entitled "Growing Smarter - Regional Classification Project - Making the most of Auckland's Centres, Business Areas and Corridors into the future - Officer Working Paper on Centres" dated March 2008. That study was carried out by the Centre's Specialist Group, a group specifically set up by the Regional and Territorial Authorities to progress the understanding of the current role, function and future potential of centres in Auckland. The study concluded that Orewa would not be likely to achieve “Sub-Regional” status (and the associated levels of employment density, residential density etc) and the Report had recommended that it be given a new classification of “Principal Centre”. However those changes were not yet incorporated in major policy documents and in any event an ITA would still be required. He considered that increases in employment densities should still be actively pursued and referenced Massey North as an example where development of further retail was contingent on the requirement that a specific level of office space was provided in order to achieve the intensification goals of the RGS.

EVIDENCE BY YOLANDE WONG SENIOR POLICY PLANNER ON BEHALF THE AUCKLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL Ms Wong concurred with the recommendation of the RDC Officer’s report that the Proposed Variation should be approved with some amendments. She described the intent of Chapter 2 of the Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS) which seeks to promote a compact urban form with development primarily focused within the existing metropolitan urban area. She referred to Proposed Change 6 to the ARPS which she said gave statutory effect to the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy (ARGS) to achieve better integration between transport infrastructure and land uses by encouraging intensification within existing identified centres and business areas. She said that work undertaken by the RDC including the proposed Variation was critical to implementing the Growth Concept of the ARGS. She said that the Variation needed to include assessment criteria to address issues of coastal inundation under the RMA. She expressed concern that the balance of business and residential activities provided for in the Proposed Variation may result in Orewa becoming a predominantly residential suburb rather than a business and community centre. Accordingly she advised that the Regional Council suggested limits or incentives to ensure a balance of residential and office uses in any new development in the Retail Service Zone. She was of the opinion that an appropriate mix of residential and business activities was a key feature of solutions to ensure that business centres were successful and vibrant. She referred to traffic and parking and recommended that the minimum number of parking spaces required for activities in the Retail Service, Mixed Use and Beachfront Commercial Zones be reduced. She disagreed with the RDC officer's report that car parking requirements should be addressed separately in a later variation. She said that approach would not meet the intentions of the ARPS and Proposed Change 6 to achieve better integration between transport and land use activities. Ms Wong recommended that two World War II Pill Boxes be included in the District Plan as protected items. She produced evidence of the historic and other significance of these items. In response to questions she said that:

- Ms Wong disagreed with the statement that Orewa was not a suitable location for higher intensity development, in light of inundation issues, and said that if design details were appropriate, then it would be satisfactory.

- Orewa’s importance to implementation of the Regional Growth Concept was under review. Further refining work was being done on classification of centres in the region, including Orewa. However even if Orewa received a lower classification (than sub-regional centre), planning was still needed.

EVIDENCE BY HELEN KERR CONSULTANT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ON BEHALF OF THE AUCKLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL Ms Kerr's evidence addressed urban design issues raised in the submission by the Auckland Regional Council. She said that although Orewa has a distinctive coastal landscape character it has not yet developed a distinctive urban character. She supported proposed amendments that would facilitate good urban design outcomes for intensification. She generally concurred with the amendments proposed in the RDC officer's report to address the issue of building height and bulk. She recommended that assessment criteria be added which require car parking on any level above ground level on street frontages to be sleeved with uses such as office or residential units to achieve visual amenity and good urban design outcome adjacent to the street frontage. She recommended a maximum shop frontage of 10 to 15 m, to ensure variety, interest and amenity for pedestrians at street level. She considered it was necessary to introduce controls which require mid block linkages on the larger blocks to allow narrow streets or lane ways to be provided for pedestrians. Ms Kerr generally concurred with a number of amendments and recommendations in the RDC officer's report for the Variable Height Residential Zone. However she expressed concern that the current proposals would not ensure that buildings in the zone adequately addressed the Street. She referred to the "Good Solutions Guide for Apartments" prepared by North Shore City Council. She recommended that at least one building within each site should be orientated so that the longest dimension was parallel with the main street frontage. She was opposed to the concept of the Variable Height Residential Zone being an overlay zone to the existing Residential H. zone because she was concerned that development on smaller sites could break up the consistency of the urban form and limit the viability of amalgamating sites. She also proposed that the western boundary of the zone be redefined to allow street connections between Pine Road and Riverside Road and from Riverside Road through to Moenui Avenue. In regard to the Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone she said that her preference would be for the land to be zoned open space to offset the built form of the town centre. She said that smaller pavilion buildings could be inserted comfortably within an open space environment in which beach related commercial activity could be accommodated. She did not consider the proposed rules for the Beachfront Commercial Zone would provide an appropriate outcome. In particular she raised the following concerns:

- there was no certainty that a strong visual connection would be achieved between the town and the beach;

- a perimeter block building typology would be difficult to achieve given the narrow depth of the zone;

- it was not clear would how the proposed boardwalk would relate to the existing beach and in her opinion would be an overly urban edge;

- the proposed mix of business and residential activity would detract from the public use and enjoyment of the beach;

- it was unlikely that the controls proposed could be effectively retrofitted to accommodate small-scale pavilion buildings within a larger quantum of open space, in her view, the most appropriate building type for this area.

Ms Kerr noted that amendment of the zone provisions to accommodate the concerns she had raised would require further investigation by the Council. SUBMISSION BY DAVID MCGREGOR LEGAL COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF OREWA BEACH RESIDENTS GROUP Mr McGregor advised that the Group comprised all of the land owners affected by the proposed Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone. He said that they sought deletion of the zone in its entirety along with all references to the proposed boardwalk. He summarised the Group's key concerns about the proposed Zone and the proposed boardwalk as follows:

- the RDC had not carried out any consultation focused specifically on the zone and the boardwalk;

- the Council had not given adequate consideration to alternate that means of achieving the objectives of the Zone;

- the Council has not carried out an adequate assessment of the potential adverse effects of the commercial activities provided for under the zone and of the boardwalk, on neighbouring residents which are likely to include: noise; light spillage; shadowing; loss of

privacy; and increase in anti-social behaviour; and, the isolation of residential properties from one another undermining the present sense of community.

- The Council has not carried out an adequate assessment of the potential adverse effects of the commercial activities and boardwalk on the beach environment;

- the Council has not carried out an adequate assessment of the commercial activities on the existing commercial centre;

- the Council has not identified any means of avoiding, remedying or mitigating the above adverse effects; and

- the Council has not taken into account or given effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement as required by the Resource Management Act 1991.

Mr McGregor referred to the decision of the Environment Court in "Long Bay - Okura Great Park Society Incorporated and Others v North Shore City Council” (A078/2008) (the Long Bay decision) which summarised the relevant considerations in the context of a plan change or variation. He said that the Council had failed to have regard to the actual or potential effects of the activities on the environment noting that the section 32 analysis did not make any reference to the existing land uses on the subject land; did not recognize the likelihood that commercial uses would be "pepper potted" between residential properties for many years; did not identify the potential adverse effects of the scenario on residents; and, did not identify any means of avoiding, remedying or mitigating those effects. He submitted the adverse effects of the zone and boardwalk would be likely to be significant for residents. He said that the extent of works necessary to establish the proposed boardwalk, the impact of it and the proposed commercial activities on the natural character of the beach had not been identified nor had there been sufficient analysis to substantiate the view that the zone would complement rather than undermine the existing commercial centre. He referred to the evidence to be given by Mr Hook which in his view confirmed the Variation would be inconsistent with the ARPS, and with the Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal. He said that the provisions of the NZCPS appeared to have been completely overlooked. He submitted on behalf of the Group that neither the zone nor the boardwalk should proceed. EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS BY LYNETTE THWAITES, LYNETTE JONES, SENKA MARSIC - MEMBERS OF OREWA BEACHFRONT RESIDENTS’ GROUP The evidence from this group of residents emphasised the concerns that they had about the adverse effects of piecemeal commercial development and problems which currently arise through antisocial behaviour occurring on adjacent reserve land. They considered this behaviour would be exacerbated if the development enabled by the zone was to occur. Evidence was given of the very substantial values of these residential properties with one in particular exceeding $2.5 million. All were concerned about the potential scattering of commercial activities in amongst residential homes and the resultant adverse effects for those who remained in residence. EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSION BY NEVILLE HEGLEY - MEMBER OF OREWA BEACHFRONT RESIDENTS’ GROUP Mr Hegley is an experienced acoustic consultant but emphasised that he was giving evidence as a concerned resident in this case. He explained why, in his view, there were effects which would become a major problem as a result of cafes/bars located in the vicinity of residential accommodation. He said the management of noise affects in mixed commercial and residential zones was not specifically addressed in the Proposed Variation or in the Proposed District Plan. He considered that noise levels would likely be well above the district plan provisions for residential zones and in his view it would be inappropriate to zone for the proposed developments in the knowledge that compliance with district plan noise levels could not be achieved. He said the noise from bars (where alcohol is served) would be significantly louder than noise from cafes and would be totally incompatible with any adjacent residential activity. He said that the construction of the boardwalk past the property owned by his family would mean either removing the house to get the distance required or reclaiming part of the beach. He considered the boardwalk would only be necessary at full tide with a breaking surf and at other times would be unnecessary.

EVIDENCE BY JAMES RONALD HOOK PLANNING CONSULTANT ON BEHALF OF OREWA BEACHFRONT RESIDENTS’ GROUP Mr Hook described the existing development of the sites proposed to be included in the Beachfront Commercial Zone noting the area has high to very high amenity standards and the majority of properties enjoy an elevated building platform adjacent to Orewa Beach with extensive coastal views and direct beach access. Mr Hook referred to the Long Bay decision of the Environment Court and set out his reasons why he considered the directions referred to in that decision had not been followed in respect of the zoning of the Beachfront Commercial Zone under Variation 101. He said that the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 1994 (NZCPS) did not appear to have been given particular consideration and was not addressed in the RDC officer's report. He considered the proposed variation had the potential to reduce the remaining natural character of the beach and to diminish the experience of and enjoyment of the beach environment and that those matters would be contrary to Policy 1.1.1 of the NZCPS. He was critical of the lack of detail for the proposed development of the boardwalk, indicating that in his view a sea wall would be necessary to protect the seaward edge. He was concerned that the proposed rezoning would adversely affect the amenity values of the existing beachside Residential M zoned properties. He considered that there was no functional need for the commercial development adjacent to Orewa Beach, that if a boardwalk was proposed coastal protection works would be necessary and that the redevelopment of sites would not result in an efficient use of existing physical resources. He considered that any increase in accessibility to the beach arising from redevelopment would be slow to develop and would not resolve the tidal limitation on the beach itself. He considered that the proposed rezoning conflicted with, or failed to give effect to, policy requirements under the ARPS relating to the protection of the coastal environment. He considered that similar criticisms applied to compliance with the Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal and with the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000. Mr Hook considered that the new zone would not enhance amenity values in the existing Orewa Town Centre and may adversely affect the financial viability of similar activities within the existing Town Centre. He considered a lower impact extension of retail activities could be implemented by allowing caravan/kiosk activities on the existing reserved to provide cafe style food and beverages. Mr Hook reviewed the proposed policies for the Beachfront Commercial Zone concluding that they did not represent the most appropriate method for achieving the objectives or of achieving the sustainable management purposes of the Act. He considered the development controls concluding that the outcome would give rise to a series of adverse environmental effects including adverse effects on the amenity of existing residents which he summarised as including adverse visual amenity effects and potential for conflict between long-standing residential activities and new commercial activities. He considered these adverse effects outweighed any beneficial effects that might arise he noted in particular the potential adverse effects fell primarily on a small group of existing landowners and on recreational users of the beach. In response to questions Mr Hook advised that 60% of the dwellings affected by the re-zoning were not permanently occupied but he expected that would change as various owners of the sites intended to use their Orewa properties as retirement homes. SUBMISSION BY PETER HOLST ON BEHALF OF PETER AND ALISON HOLST Mr Holst described his concerns about the effects of the proposed rezoning. He considered that the commercial activities would be incompatible with the existing residential uses and that there would be only negligible countervailing benefits. In particular he did not consider that there would be enhanced access or enjoyment of the beach arising from the rezoning. He requested that the proposed rezoning be abandoned but if it was not completely abandoned either the properties at 285, 289 and 291 Hibiscus Coast Highway be excluded or finally that his property at 285 Hibiscus Coast Highway (where the beachfront land is already vested in the Rodney District Council) be excluded from the rezoning. EVIDENCE BY MICHELE CARR ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL TRADING COMPANY OF NEW ZEALAND LTD Ms Carr supported the general intention of the variation to provide for intensification and to control the built form. She considered that more intensive development within the town centre area and along the Hibiscus Coast Highway was particularly appropriate and accordingly supported the provision for intensification to the level proposed in the Variation and also any further increase to meet regional directions.

She considered that development controls for the Retail Service Zone should allow a variety of pitched roof forms. She supported the changes recommended in the Council officer's report to lower the minimum site thresholds and thereby increase the development yield. She considered that there should be greater range of building typologies particularly in terms of podium design. She supported an increase in site coverage on sites of less than 1000 square metres from 90% to 100%. She also supported the National Trading Company submission regarding the inconsistency between rule 9.10.7.1(h) and 9.10.7.1(b). In relation to the Beachfront Commercial Zone she supported the recommendations of the Council Officer's Report recommending deletion of provision for drive-through activities and a reduction in the GFA threshold to 200m2 and suggested some amendments to clarify potential inconsistencies. Ms Carr supported the concept of a park and ride facility for public transport users but did not consider that this would meet the needs for additional parking to serve the shopping area. She concurred with the officer's report which recommended that the zoned extent of the Retail Services Zone not be increased. SUBMISSION BY ZANE TAYLOR ON BEHALF OF THE OREWA BEACH REEF CHARITABLE TRUST Mr Taylor explained the background to the Trust project which was proposed to address the ongoing issues of erosion and sand loss on Orewa Beach. He explained that the purpose of the Trust submission was to request reference to the Reef Project within the Proposed District Plan. The reasons advanced for the inclusion of specific reference to the project in the Plan were as follows:

- the Reef Project relates to the necessity for maintaining the sustainability and viability of the beach which is a vital and essential element of the Orewa coastal environment and an essential component of the landscape of the zones that front the beach;

- the community considers that the health of the beach is critical to the future of the township;

- the project has been the subject of considerable public consultation and has significant community support;

- the outcomes of the project, in terms of beach replenishment would impact the location of mean high water springs and thereby positively affect the boundary of the District for the purposes of the Resource Management Act.

Mr Taylor noted that the construction work in the Coastal Marine Area that is required to create the reefs which he had described had yet to receive the necessary consents from the Regional Council. He emphasised that the Trust fully understood that the necessary consents for the construction activity would need to be obtained regardless of the outcome of the submission to Variation 101. SUBMISSION BY WENDELL PHILIPS ON BEHALF OF OREWA LAND LIMITED Mr Phillips explained to the Panel the involvement of Orewa Land Ltd in the background work leading up to the introduction of Variation 101. He explained that the company owned in excess of 40 properties in the Orewa area and had instructed Transurban Ltd a firm of urban design and planning consultants to carry out analysis of suitable design forms to provide for high-intensity residential development in the area to the south of the Town Centre. However the submitter did not agree with the design typology for the Variable Height Residential Zone in the notified version of Variation 101. The evidence to be presented would establish a provision for taller slimmer buildings would better achieve the purpose of the zone and would provide a form that was economically viable. SUBMISSION BY STAN WEST OF RDT PACIFIC ON BEHALF OF OREWA LAND LTD Mr West advised that he had previously been involved in the assessment of the economic viability of different forms of building development during the earlier stages of the Orewa East Structure Plan development. He had analysed the potential economic viability of building development in the VHRZ comparing a form of building enabled by the notified variation with a form enabled by the alternative typology proposed by the submitter. He had carried out the analysis on the basis of two alternative forms of residential development designed in accordance with the notified Variation rules and the alternative Orewa Land typology respectively, in each case applied to a specific site owned by the submitter which fronted Hibiscus Coast Highway, Weiti Road and Pine Road. He was satisfied that the building development enabled by the alternative model was economically viable whereas the development enabled by the Variation as notified was not. He said that the reason was that two thirds of the apartments resulting from the notified variation would face onto areas without views but would cost the same to produce. He said that the long-awaited building forms would be more expensive to service than single core structures.

He produced a cost analysis of the example arising from the notified Variation rules to establish that it was uneconomic and said that the alternative building development using the submitter’s alternative typology was viable. He offered to produce (at a later time) a cost analysis of the alternative development for comparison. (See “Procedural Issues” above) SUBMISSION BY NICHOLAS RAE -LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND URBAN DESIGNER ON BEHALF OF OREWA LAND LIMITED Mr Rae advised the Panel that his company, Transurban Ltd, had been working with Orewa Land Ltd since January 2004 to assist with the policy and direction of built form in Orewa. His evidence specifically addressed the Variable Height Residential Zone and described the alternative typology which the submitter promoted and compared these to the typology which arose from the specific provisions for the VHRZ in Variation 101. He said that the reasons for the submission by Orewa Land Ltd were that the proposed variation

- would not promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources in the District;

- did not promote the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources in the District;

- would not maintain and enhance amenity values;

- would not maintain and enhance the quality of the environment;

- was contrary to good resource management practice;

- was contrary to good urban design practice;

- was not supported by an economic analysis to confirm the economic viability of the urban form promoted by the Variation.

Mr Rae advised that the submitter opposed the staged release of land for the VHRZ pointing out that there were only two sites in the first stage of the proposed rezoning which could potentially be developed in the immediate future but the northernmost potential site was unlikely to be economically viable because of the nature of existing development. He said that the future stage to the south currently had sites in common ownership which could easily be amalgamated to provide for further development. He supported the submitter's concerns regarding the wording of policies as rules. He pointed out that in the number of places the policies related to the achievement of specific development controls such as 30% site coverage. He referred the Panel to the list of tracked changes attached to the submission lodged by Orewa Land Ltd. He also supported the submitter's proposal that non-compliance with specific development controls should lead to a status of restricted discretionary activity rather than non-complying activity status. He did however support that any exceedance of the maximum building height control should result in a non-complying activity consent requirement. Mr Rae supported the submitter’s request to a change to Rule 8.9.3.3 to allow "through" sites or "rear" sites to be developed if they achieved a total of at least 5000m2 in area. He demonstrated in his evidence that most amalgamations of sites to achieve that minimum would result in the creation of "through" sites. He also supported the submission which opposed the 100m2 minimum floor space requirement for apartments. He considered the minimum of 100m2 was excessive for a permanent home with less than three bedrooms. In relation to development controls and performance standards he emphasised that there were a number of interrelated submissions by Orewa Land Ltd which were all part of the proposed alternative typology involving taller slimmer towers spaced at greater intervals. He demonstrated the effects of the alternative typology using a "site" comprising land owned by the submitter with frontage to Hibiscus Coast Highway, Weiti Road and Pine Road. He considered that the typology promoted by Variation 101 had the following shortcomings;

- the open space of the site is not maximised;

- number size and species of trees is limited;

- buildings do not relate to each other;

- outlook from individual apartments is not maximised;

- views through the site obstructed more than necessary;

- towers not sufficiently separated.

To overcome these shortcomings the alternative typology proposed provided for a three level "base" development adjoining and consistent with neighbouring smaller lots with towers limited by footprint size and separation distance. Variability could be achieved within three level developments by not requiring a height restriction for three levels. The concept also reduces the maximum tower bulk to a footprint of 24 m by 24 m. In relation to the Variation 101 proposed increase in maximum building height from 9 m to 11.5 m Mr Rae suggested that the reference to "traditional pitched roofs" was imprecise and contrary to the intention that a "variety of roof forms is appropriate". He made a number of recommendations to clarify the application of the rules. Mr Rae also produced evidence analysing the effects of shadowing on the beach and associated reserve areas and on adjoining properties comparing the likely shadowing effects of the typology promoted by Variation 101 and that promoted by the alternative typology recommended by the submitter. It was his opinion that the alternative typology delivered a better outcome as there was more variation to the shadow cast and sun penetrated areas which were otherwise in shadow from building forms promoted by Variation 101. He supported the submitter's request for a change to the maximum building height to allow a maximum of 12 storeys and an average of 10 storeys. He produced evidence to demonstrate the effects of the submitters request concluding that the alternative typology was considered more appropriate from a visual perspective and for those people at ground level in and around this type of development. He considered that the proposed alternative typology would produce a good urban form which would significantly contribute to the identity of Orewa and further enhance its linear urban form along the beach, providing good amenity for residents and visitors alike. Mr Rae discussed the request by Orewa Land Ltd to amend Rule 8.10.2 to apply the existing height in relation to boundary rule for buildings up to three storeys and a side and rear yard distance of 12.5 m for buildings over three storeys. He pointed to inconsistencies in Rule 8.10.3.1 (Bulk in Relation to Boundary Rule) and the requirement for a minimum 8 m yard under Rule 8.10.5. He referred to site coverage issues noting that the 30% net site area allowed under Variation 101 did not include the allowance for additional balcony coverage and considered that this created a level of design rigidity which could be avoided by including balcony coverage and raising the maximum net site coverage to 35%. He considered this would allow for recessed balconies and would not affect the extent of effective open space. Mr Rae supported the submission seeking that site coverage be further limited by applying a maximum of 17.5% to buildings of more than three storeys in height and a maximum of 17.5% to buildings of three storeys in height or less. He considered that the control in conjunction with boundary setbacks and maximum tower heights referred to in his evidence would result in variation in building height, varying forms of roof structure, and the promotion of open space areas to maintain amenity on site. He further recommended that the yard requirements for the Residential H Zone be applied to buildings of three storeys or less and that a 12.5 m setback apply to buildings over three storeys in height. Mr Rae recommended that fences between open spaces in a front yard should have a maximum height of solid fence of 1.4 m with a further 0.4 m permitted to be of a permeable material. In relation to balcony requirements he recommended that the 20m2 minimum balcony space per unit be split to allow a main balcony with a minimum dimension of 3m by 4m. He made recommendations in respect of street trees and on site tree planting which he considered would achieve a better visual amenity outcome than the provisions contained in the Variation. Mr Rae supported the submissions request for a reduction in car parking requirements to 1.5 spaces per household unit in the VHRZ. However, he suggested that in the event that the Council officer's recommendation for further research into car parking requirements was to be adopted that the provisions for car parking applicable to “Household Units in the Orewa Retail Service Zone" be applied as an interim measure. Mr Rae concluded by recommending the alternative typology which he considered would have the following advantages:

- it would assist with providing high-quality amenity to private residences and public spaces;

- it would define the street edge with a consistent built form;

- it would provide good surveillance of public spaces especially the beachfront reserve;

- it would provide for adequate private open space with provision for large trees and a strong tree canopy;

- it would enable semi private open space to be maximised for uses such as swimming pools tennis courts and lawns;

- the separation of powers would ensure good privacy for residents in the development and on adjacent sites;

- it would provide a range of unit sizes to suit various people;

- the increase in height is not as relevant as building bulk and the alternative typology proposed would provide a better outcome and amenity for people in Orewa.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY COUNCIL OFFICERS AND CONSULTANTS IN RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING SENIOR POLICY PLANNER, JASON EVANS In relation to the evidence presented by Barry Rae on behalf of Orewa Land Limited, Mr Evans made the following comments:

- Page 7 fig. 3 – The alternative typology block model had been around for a significant time.

- Pages 8-13 – The photographs showed buildings of various heights, most with exterior balconies.

- Page 18 – The Council had accepted that it was desirable to have some connectivity between building elements.

- Paragraph 62, page 29 – relating to minimum floor areas of apartments: During Council deliberations on the Variation, concern had been expressed that houses should be for full time occupation, not small apartments.

- Para 99 page 37 – 5th bullet point relating to transition from taller to shorter buildings: The Council typology of a mix of 3, 5 and 7 storeys was a better mix than the Orewa Land typology of 10 & 3 and 12 & 3 storeys.

- Page 39 – The intent of the Variation was to allow for a variety of pitched roof forms.

- Page 50 – The effects of shadowing had been studied extensively and the Orewa East Structure Plan contained an extensive analysis of various height options. Councillors in their deliberations had been very mindful of shadowing effects.

- Paragraph 132 page 50 – The diagrams showed taller buildings of the Council model towards both the back and the front of sites, while the Orewa Land taller buildings were only towards the front.

Resource Management Consultant for the Council, David Wren, commented on Orewa Land Limited’s evidence as follows:

- Page 28 – Relating to the detailed nature of objectives and policies: It was important to strike a balance between policies which said what they meant and with those that did not say anything. The objectives and policies in the Variation were consistent with those in the Proposed District Plan. He conceded that they could have fewer numbers.

- Page 30 – Mr Wren was happy to include through sites with those that could be developed to 5,000m2 in the Variable Height Zone.

- Page 32 – Jason Evans’ comments about varied apartment sizes were endorsed. It was not appropriate to translate Auckland CBD provisions to Orewa, but their rules could be adapted if a small amount of flexibility (in floor sizes) was appropriate.

- Assessment criteria for pitched roofs would work in the Variable Height Zone. However, pitched roofs applied throughout the area and for permitted activities. The word “traditional” could be removed, but the question of how to define “pitched” would remain. The degree of pitch would need to be considered, or an alternative statement excluding flat roofs.

- Pages 54-55 - Building height in relation to boundary controls: These would work for seven storey buildings, but not on 12 storey tower buildings.

- Balcony provisions – The Variation was neutral about whether these should be internal or external. They could be included as part of the open space. The term “balcony” was not defined.

- Page 60 – Fences: Mr Wren concurred with the submitter’s comments. The reference in the hearing report to fences of 1.8m along the street boundary had been a typographical error.

- Pages 64-65 – Carparking provisions: If the minimum floor size for apartments remained at 100m2 no change was necessary, but if a range of floors sizes was permitted, the suggested provisions on page 65 could be appropriate.

- Page 66 – Commercial activities in the ResVR Zone: Activity Table 8.9.2 did not specify activities, but was effects based. A consent order allowed dairies and restaurants as discretionary activities. There was no need to increase the range of activities as this would bring town centre activities out.

David Wren tabled, circulated and read a supplementary report. In relation to the submissions regarding the Beachfront Commercial Zone he pointed out that the proposed reduction in the area of the zone recommended in the hearing report would reduce the effects on remaining residents. He considered that adequate consultation had been carried out and referred to documents and workshops that had been produced and have taken place over the past 10 years. He considered that the change recommended in the hearing report to require a site of the least 2500m2 assisted in overcoming the issues raised by residents. He considered that the proposed rezoning was consistent with the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and with the Operative Auckland Regional Policy Statement and gave reasons for those views. In relation to Mr Hegley's concerns regarding adverse noise affects arising from activities of those using the Beachfront Commercial premises he considered that any new residential units to be erected in the zone would need to comply with new noise standards for household units in business zones. He considered that the Council would be able to adequately manage the use of the esplanade area including the boardwalk to overcome any nuisance. In regard to the submissions relating to the Variable Height Zone he explained that taller buildings could only cover an area equal to 16.5% of the area of the site and accordingly the taller buildings would not create an effective barrier to views. He also expressed a number of concerns regarding the ARC submission. He did not agree with the recommendation that at least one building be aligned to the street because of the potential effects on views from properties to the west. He did not consider that the front yard fence would affect the streetscape and did not consider that it would be appropriate to provide an incentive to allow additional coverage. In regard to the Orewa Reef Project Mr Wren recommended a specific reference to the project within Chapter 5 - Natural Hazards. KIM BUCHANAN MANAGER: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSETS AND PROGRAMMES, RE STORMWATER AND INUNDATION ISSUES IN OREWA. In answer to questions Ms Buchanan commented as follows:

- There was always a ponding risk in Orewa when there were very extreme weather events. However, people were not likely to be out and about in such conditions.

- The level of site coverage allowed in the Variation provided sufficient overland flow paths, as the flow paths would direct the water towards the street, where the inlets were.

- If basement carparking was permitted very careful design would be necessary, which included fully tanked basements, sumps and French drains to direct the flow away from carparks.

JENNY WARREN - WASTEWATER CONSULTANT FOR THE COUNCIL, Ms Warren confirmed that wastewater infrastructure provided for in the structure plan could cope with the increased development. DAVID MITCHELL - TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANT FOR THE COUNCIL Mr Mitchell made the following points:

- Orewa roads were currently operating below their possible levels, and ALPURT B2 and the boulevard project would decrease traffic flow further.

- Integrated traffic assessments, as requested by ARTA, involved detailed traffic modelling and might show an overall strategy, but not the staging of development. Individual development changes were localised and were dealt with as part of the resource consent process.

- Parking areas – The Council has looked at reducing parking requirements and there was room for developers to make a case for this. Orewa was taking on a more pedestrian and cyclist focus, with the changes in traffic patterns. There was still plenty of capacity in the existing networks.

In answer to questions, David Mitchell advised that anticipated traffic flows on the Hibiscus Coast Highway after the opening of ALPURT B2 were projected to be of the following order

- The existing flow of 16 – 22,000 on Hibiscus Coast Highway would reduce by 2,000 – 4000 vehicles per day.

- 14,000 vehicles per day would go from Grand Drive, reducing from 18,000 to 4-5,000 vehicles per day.

- South of Grand Drive there would be a reduction of 2000 - 3,000 vehicles per day.

RESPONSES TO PANEL QUESTIONS OF JASON EVANS AND DAVID WREN In answer to further questions Jason Evans and David Wren replied as follows:

- The “blacked out” rules in the Proposed District Plan had been placed there pending a financial contribution regime being set in place. They could only be removed by way of a Variation and could be removed in response to submissions. The submissions to Variation 101 provided an appropriate basis for the removal of the “blacked out” provisions in the Rules affected by the Variation There were no outstanding appeals to the Proposed District Plan relating to podium and tower buildings.

- Employment figure calculations –Two different reports on retail figures had been prepared: the Tansley report for the Council, and the Property Economics report, for Destination Orewa Beach. However, there were reservations about the latter report. The Orewa East Structure Plan had been based on measurements taken from gross development areas.

- Orewa Land Limited’s concern that parts of its submission had been misunderstood or not included in the hearing report – It was a matter of deciding which typology to accept and details would flow from that. Some details might not have been commented on in the report as it was recommended to reject in general terms the typology proposed by the submitter.

- ARTA and the ARC’s comments that Orewa’s classification might be reconsidered / renegotiation of the North/West Sectors Agreement and the possible affects on population forecasts – The figure had originally been 19,000 by 2050, but this had been reduced to 12,000 for the Variation. However, the process was governed by the uniqueness of Orewa, not by higher level population forecasts.

RESPONSES TO PANEL QUESTIONS BY MANAGER: DISTRICT PLANNING, PETER VARI, - The Regional Policy Statement capacities were just that, the North/West Sectors

Agreement had been signed on the basis of flexibility for Rodney District to determine the nature of development in its centres. Analysis was undertaken under the provisions of the RMA for the Orewa East Structure Plan and the Variation and the level of population was considered to be right.

- Council staff had been given a mandate to find more business land, to ensure that Orewa did not remain a commuter area. Whatever happened in Orewa, there would be higher work opportunities than at present.

- The possibility of a Knowledge Economy zone for Orewa/Silverdale – This had been part of Variation 52, for which the Environment Court process was almost finished. This would allow a wider range of activities in Silverdale West.

5.0 THE MAIN FINDINGS OF FACT: BASIS The main findings of fact determined by the Hearing Panel that have led to the above recommendation and the reasons for that recommendation are set out below. They have been reached after visiting and inspecting the area, considering the various documents and evidence on which the Variation was based, the evidence and submissions heard at the hearing, all the relevant statutory and planning provisions, as well as the principal issues that were in contention. CHANGES TO HEIGHT LIMITS FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONES (RULE 8.10.1.3) We are generally satisfied on the basis of the evidence that this change should proceed as proposed with the exception of the second paragraph of the amended rule which presently reads as follows: With the exception of the following prescribed zones within the Orewa East Structure Plan Area, a maximum height of any building or structure shall be 9 m and contain no more than 3 storeys of living space above ground level. Except that an additional 2.5 m of non-occupied space to roof ridge may be provided where traditional pitched roofs are used in the maximum height shall be 11.5 m We accept the evidence of Nicholas Rae that some fine tuning would be appropriate and recommend that this part of the rule be amended so that it reads as follows: With the exception of the following prescribed zones within the Orewa East Structure Plan Area, a maximum height of any building or structure shall be 9 m and contain no more than 3 storeys of living space above ground level, except that a maximum height of 11.5 m may be provided to accommodate a roof with a pitch of not less than 200 provided that the additional space provided above 9m is not used to create additional habitable floorspace. REZONING OF SITES FROM RESIDENTIAL M TO RESIDENTIAL H We are satisfied that there are no significant issues in respect of this rezoning and recommend that it should proceed.

REZONING OF SITES FRONTING WESTERN SIDE OF CENTREWAY ROAD FROM RESIDENTIAL H TO MIXED BUSINESS ZONE We are satisfied that there are no significant issues in respect of this rezoning and recommend that it should proceed.

THE VARIABLE HEIGHT RESIDENTIAL ZONE We are satisfied that the evidence established that the general principle of permitting increased intensity and height of residential buildings in this part of Orewa was appropriate and would enable the intent of the Regional Growth Strategy to be achieved in a manner which was appropriate to the context of Orewa. We accept that it would enable the development of high-quality residential accommodation without unduly impacting on the amenities of properties to the east on the basis of the evidence that the flatness of the land means that sites to the east do not have views of the sea and that the bulk and location requirements proposed ensure that other amenity values (such as access to sunlight and daylight) will not be compromised by the development proposed to be enabled by the new zone. However we also accept the evidence and submissions on behalf of Orewa Land Ltd that the form of development proposed by the variation and some of the proposed provisions require adjustment and we accordingly recommend that the following amendments are made.

1. Staging of Zoning -we agree that the block bounded by Weiti Road, Hibiscus Coast Highway, Loop Road, Centreway Road and Milton Road be included within the area to be rezoned rather than held for a later stage. We consider that this approach will provide greater certainty to landowners and encourage regeneration and enhancement of this area.’

2. Changes to wordings of objectives and policies. We accept the submission of Orewa Land Ltd that a number of the policies are worded in the manner of rules and agree with the proposed re-wording of the objectives and policies contained in the Company’s submission.

3. Changes to status of development not meeting development standards. We agree that proposals not meeting development controls (other than maximum height) should be assessed as discretionary activities rather than non-complying activities.

4. Inclusion of Through Sites and Rear Sites as qualifying for development under Rule 8.9.3.3. We agree that” through sites” should be included as qualifying sites.

5. Net Usable Floor space of 100m2. We do not accept that any change to this provision is required.

6. Development Controls and Performance Standards. We agree with the alternative building typology advanced in the submissions of Orewa Land Ltd arising from proposed amendments to the development controls including maximum height, height in relation to boundary, bulk in relation to boundary and building coverage, and have recommended that these are incorporated in the Variation.

7. Fences in the Front Yard. We accept the proposed amendment set out at paragraph 181 of Mr Rae’s evidence.

8. Balconies. We agree with the submitter that the minimum size of any balcony should be 3m x 4m and that a total of 20m2 of balcony floor space is provided for each unit.

9. Street Trees and on site trees. We accept the submissions of Orewa Land Ltd in this regard.

10. Separation between Buildings and maximum floor plate of towers. We accept the submissions of Orewa Land Ltd in this regard.

11. Car Parking. The Panel recommends that a standard of 2 spaces per unit be provided, noting that there may well be a review of the parking requirements at some time in the future. We do not consider that the situation has yet been reached where public transport to and from, and within, Rodney District is such that the rate for residential parking in good quality apartment developments can be reduced. The Panel does not agree that Orewa Commercial zone provisions would be appropriate as there is less likely to be potential for overlapping of parking usage in the VHRZ.

12. Amendments to Rule 8.12.3. We accept the amendments proposed in Appendix 4 of the submission by Orewa Land Ltd.

BEACHFRONT COMMERCIAL ZONE We do not consider that the proposed rezoning of these sites to Beachfront Commercial is appropriate. Despite the suggested amendments by the reporting planner to increase the minimum site size we consider that the concerns of the landowner submitters regarding potential adverse effects on amenity values are justified. Furthermore given the land values disclosed by the landowners we were not convinced of the viability of the land use changes that the rezoning seeks to enable. We recommend that this proposed rezoning does not proceed. CHANGES TO THE OREWA RETAIL SERVICE ZONE This part of the proposed variation gave us the greatest concern. The Auckland Regional Growth Strategy identified Orewa as a sub regional centre and directed that planning provisions be made for growth according to the sub regional model that document espoused. The Northern and Western Sector Agreements provided a further framework for the implementation of the sub-regional classification of the Town Centre. We accept the evidence of Mr Vari and Mr Evans that the intensification proposed did not depend on the various ARC growth projections for Orewa and that the levels of intensification proposed in Variation 101 were driven primarily by the detailed structure planning process and the extensive public consultation which that had entailed. The ARC submission in respect of Variation 101 pointed out that the form of development likely to arise as a result of Variation 101 would consist of retail and residential development with most of development above ground floor used for residential purposes. That outcome would not fit with the RGS intention that sub-regional centres contain a balance of employment and residential occupation. The reporting planner pointed out that there was little demand for non-retail commercial development in the centre and any requirement that non-retail commercial activities comprise a significant part of new building development would likely hinder the redevelopment of the centre. Mr Brian Waddell presented a statement of evidence on behalf of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. The Panel questioned Mr Waddell as to the likely future status of Orewa as a sub regional centre. In response Mr Waddell referred to the findings a study entitled "Growing Smarter - Regional Classification Project - Making the most of Auckland's Centres, Business Areas and Corridors into the future - Officer Working Paper on Centres" dated March 2008. (See summary of evidence of Mr Waddell above.) The study group applied a multi-criteria analysis to a range of commercial centres in the region, based on future attributes including:

- the ability to accommodate future residential and employment growth;

- future rapid transit access, role as a Public Transport interchange and riding accessibility;

- social and civic infrastructure and function;

- the likely future market catchments and diversity of employment.

The results of that analysis shown in Figure 7 on page 33 of the document indicate that the Future Potential of Orewa Town Centre is on a par with Browns Bay, Devonport, Highbury, Milford, and Northcote. These results support the view of Mark Tansley & Associates in a report entitled “Prognosis for the Orewa Centre” dated April 2006. That study was referred to in the officer's report and made available to the Panel. While the study primarily focused on retail and commercial services, the conclusion was that there would be little short term change in the extent and nature of the Orewa Town Centre because:

- the current and historical patterns of retail trading demonstrate that shoppers are drawn to large format stores and organised retail precincts (mainly in combination) and that style of shopping cannot be accommodated within the Orewa Town Centre.

- quality comparison retailing environments in a "Main Street" configuration will not be as attractive as those contained within a purpose-built retail mall.

- expansion of the Orewa Town Centre would be hindered because it is surrounded by residential land with escalating values;

The Tansley report expected the gradual "gentrification" of both the suburb and the centre would occur, with the Centre's retail and commercial future being one of changing style and emphasis, not one of increasing retail importance. The report also noted that redevelopment through high-rise buildings would not give rise to a high quality retail precinct at the street level because retail styled space within/under high-rise structures is diminished in its effectiveness by the size and grid like pattern of structural elements of tall buildings, by lobbies and by other non-commercial frontage intrusions. We agree with Mr Tansley’s assessment of the likely future of the Centre, noting that it is supported by the work of the Centre’s Study Group and believe that it underscores the need for much greater emphasis on ensuring quality pedestrian spaces, with adequate comfortable and convenient linkages as recommended in the evidence of Michelle Carr and Helen Kerr. In response to questions from the Panel the policy planners confirmed that other employment options in the vicinity of Orewa were being actively pursued by the Council and are likely to involve developments within the Silverdale North area and in the vicinity of the Northern motorway and associated interchanges. It is not appropriate to pursue a detailed discussion of proposals which are still at an early stage, nevertheless there is an acknowledged need to provide further employment opportunities within this general area in order to minimise commuting and ensure a better distribution of services to the community. This will inevitably create competing opportunities for the development of commercial floorspace and this is likely to further limit demand for such floorspace within the Town Centre. Despite the questions raised about the future role of the Orewa Town Centre, we do not consider that we are entitled to disregard the concepts of the Regional Growth Strategy and note the Auckland Regional Council concern that if intensification is to proceed in the Orewa Town Centre then the "mixed use" character that the Growth Strategy seeks to secure will not be achieved if sites in the Town Centre are developed on the basis of ground floor retail and the majority of (or all of) upper floors being utilised for residential accommodation. We have given consideration to the ARC and ARTA and to other submissions that oppose the lack of a requirement or rule that new buildings in the Retail Service Zone (particularly tower blocks) should provide for employment related activities as well as residential activities in above ground floors. We note Mr Vari’s evidence that, at this time, the Rodney District Council has agreed that the RGS proposals in terms of intensive mixed uses in its major centres are to be regarded as a non-mandatory guideline for development. We conclude that the Council is not required (in terms of any statutory requirement or contractual agreement with the ARC) to provide for a mix of commercial and residential activities above ground floor level but also note that the Council would nevertheless have regard to the provisions of the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) and Plan Change 6 to the ARPS in determining an appropriate mix of intensive commercial and residential development in major centres. Obviously as Plan Change 6 progresses through the RMA processes the detail of what is proposed, what is agreed, and what is required in terms of these matters may well change. We observe that the Hearing Panel in its decision on Change 6 to the ARPS and on the various associated District Plan changes, including Variation 22, noted that further changes to the District Plans may become necessary once the final details of Plan Change 6 have been resolved. We accordingly recommend that a new policy (as set out below) be inserted as Policy 9.8.1.2.3 (and following policies be numbered).

Policy 9.8.1.2.3

Any new building or redevelopment of an existing building, within the Orewa Town Centre Policy Area which exceeds a height of 12.5m should provide for a mix of activities that demonstrate consistency with the relevant objectives and policies of the Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS), (for avoidance of doubt - including any operative amendments to the ARPS), and reflect an appropriate regard for other non-statutory regional documents in regard to the intensity and mixture of uses that are to be provided.

We believe that the insertion of the above policy would address the concerns of both the Auckland Regional Council and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority regarding the relative mix of uses in new buildings in the Retail Service Zone, in a way that would reflect any changes in regional policy that may arise as a result of the evolving understanding of the likely future role of the Orewa Town Centre and the eventual determination of Plan Change 6. At the same time it will enable any interim proposals for development to be dealt with effectively and in a way that appropriately reflects the requirements of the statute. In due course the provisions of the District Plan will themselves provide for consistency with the ARPS. In regard to the bulk and location of taller structures in the Town Centre we consider that it would be better to proceed on a cautious basis given that the present economic situation provides time and scope for further refinement of these provisions if that proves warranted. On that basis we recommend that provision for taller structures in the Town Centre should be subject to the notified bulk and location requirements rather than the amendments suggested in the Hearing Report. However we have also noted that within the frontage of the Hibiscus Coast Highway there are 3 sites that, while not meeting the notified minimum site size, are all in a single ownership, have good shape characteristics and given their relationship to the Highway would provide development opportunities that would have minimal effect on other properties. We recommend that those 3 sites be identified as sites that are not required to meet the minimum site size of 5000m2. We have further recommended that in any redevelopment that is subject to restricted discretionary or discretionary approval the Council should retain and apply its discretion to assess whether adequate provision is made for good quality pedestrian amenities at ground floor level including pedestrian linkages to other sites and other public areas.

6.0 GENERAL – EXPLANATION AND STRATEGY 6.1 Submissions Rodney District Council 1421/2 Chapter 8, Strategy - Oppose

Strategy 8.5 does not indicate that high intensity development provided for in the Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone is in a policy area and that it does not replace the underlying Residential H Zone entitlements.

Rodney District Council 1421/3 Explanation - Oppose * The explanation to

Variation 101 states that "the Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone is applied to 11 sites on the Orewa beachfront side of the State Highway One in Orewa between Florence Avenue and Moenui Avenue", there are in fact 15 sites between Florence Avenue and Moenui Avenue, not 11 sites.

* The explanation does not clearly identify that land in residential zones within the Orewa East Structure Plan boundary should be viewed as a Policy Area or Overlay Zone upon the underlying Residential H provisions. This should be made clear in the explanation to add clarity to the Plan.

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/1 Explanation (Page 1 - 3). We are of the view the explanation should make reference to the LGAAA, Auckland Regional Growth Strategy, Vision Rodney and Variation 22.

Auckland Regional Council FS1536/31 Supports submission 1585/1 Destination Orewa Beach FS1545/19 Supports submission 1585/1 Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/2 Ch 8 - Objective 8.3.5. The words "appropriate location" could provide an opportunity for legal challenge even if the building meets the rules and objectives and was located in the correct zone. Amend: To allow higher intensity development in zones which amongst other things, etc.

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/3 Change "Buildings that are out of scale with neighbouring ..... and Amend to "Buildings could be out of scale compared to those existing but the building design code will to a large extent mitigate the effects on existing neighbours. Localised flooding may occur in some areas and permeable ground cover should be provided where possible to limit this effect"

Auckland Regional Council FS1536/33 Opposes submission 1585/3 Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/4 Ch 8 - Strategy 8.5 - third paragraph "In addition ..... identified in the Orewa Community master plan" Amend : Remove Orewa Community Master Plan and change to "Orewa East Structure Plan." "The first is a special high intensity variable ......" Amend: "The first is a special high intensity open space high intensity variable height zone enabling residential development on large sites with a variety of building heights not exceeding ten storeys. Up to two additional floors will be allowed one for good design and one for implementing the recommendations of the environmental outcomes identified by the Building Standards".

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/5 Chapter 8 (page 6). (f) Support the change, however do not think goes far enough to support the LGAAA. Amend - Add: "and acknowledges the need to support for and have access to multi modal transport options to minimise the use of cars and encourage the use of public transport."

Auckland Regional Council FS1536/32 Supports submission 1585/5 Herbert F & Joy Henley 1577/6 Continue to keep PEOPLE

uppermost in mind in all planning decisions.

Jennifer H Kipfer 1532/6 Continue to keep PEOPLE uppermost in mind in all planning decisions

Leanne Smith 1542/3 Retail / Mixed use zone and High Intensity Variable Height Zone - Council ensures sources prepare feasibility studies for each of the zones.

The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

1582/2 Amend the Variation to ensure that projected growth within the Regional Growth Strategy can be accommodated in Orewa and in an appropriate manner to ensure a high quality environment can be achieved

with this population increase. Auckland Regional Council FS1536/29 Support in parts submission

1582/2 Progressive Enterprises Limited (all Progressive further submissions withdrawn)

FS1629/14 Support in parts submission 1582/2

Land Transport NZ 1602/2 Amend wording as follows: "To allow higher intensity development in appropriate ............such as passenger transport, walking, and cycling and complementary parking measures.

6.2 Rodney District Council (1421/2), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/4). 6.2.1 Decision

(i) That submission (1421/2) be accepted

(ii) That submission (1585/4) be accepted in part

6.2.2 Reasons for Decision

The submission from Rodney District Council (RDC) requested that the residential strategy be amended to clarify that the Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone (OHIVHZ) does not replace the underlying Residential H entitlements. The submission from the Rodney Economic Development trust (REDT) requested some amendments to the new third paragraph of the Strategy. The first amendment relates to correcting a reference to the Orewa Community Master Plan – while the second amendment relates to changes proposed to the height and structure of buildings in the OHIVHZ.

In respect of the submission from RDC the commissioners consider that the clarification sought will assist in the interpretation of the Proposed Variation. Therefore the submission should be accepted. The clarification sought by the REDT in regard to the reference to the Orewa Community Master Plan is correct and the reference should be to the “Orewa East Structure Plan”. This part of the submission should therefore be accepted. The amendments sought by the REDT relate chiefly to other parts of their submission. The substantial submission is discussed in section 5.3 to follow.

6.2.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

Amend 8.5 Strategy by altering the fourth paragraph as follows; (additions underlined – deletions struck through).

In addition in Orewa two Special Purpose Residential Zones are applied to achieve the outcomes identified in the Orewa East Structure Plan. The first is a special high intensity variable height overlay zone enabling residential development on large sites with a variety of building heights of up to seven storeys, complemented by extensive open space. This overlay zone applies to a limited area at the southern end of Orewa beach, directly opposite extensive beachfront reserve. The second Special Purpose Zone is a zone applying to the beachfront strip north of the town centre. It enables high intensity development but maintains the same built form as determined by development controls (including site coverage and yards) as the medium intensity zone

6.3 Rodney District Council (1421/3), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/1), Auckland Regional Council (FS1536/31), Destination Orewa Beach (FS1545/19).

6.3.1 Decision

(i) That submission (1421/3) be accepted in part

(ii) That submissions (1585/1), (FS1536/31) and (FS1545/19) be rejected

6.3.2 Reasons for Decision

The submission from RDC requests a number of changes to the explanation to the Proposed Variation. The first clarifies that the Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone applies to 15 sites rather than 11 and that the residential zones within the Orewa East Structure Plan area should be viewed as overlays or policy areas. The REDT requests that the explanation should make reference to the Local Government Auckland Amendment Act (LGAAA), the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy, Vision Rodney and Variation 22.

The clarification sought by the RDC in respect of the nature of policy areas have been discussed in section 2.2.1 above. The clarification over the number of sites subject to the Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone should be rejected as a consequence of the deletion of that zone. The documents set out in the REDT submissions all relate to regional growth management. These documents are addressed in the Orewa East Structure Plan (i.e. table 1 on page 10). It is not necessary to include references to all the relevant documents within the explanation. The purpose of the explanation is to provide a brief explanation of how the Plan Variation operates and what it is intended to achieve. The addition of references to documents does not assist in explaining how the Variation works.

6.3.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

(i) Amend the first sentence of paragraph 8 of the explanation by adding the following (additions underlined);

The Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone is an overlay policy area that applies to the area south of the Orewa town centre defined in Map 75 and is intended to result in high quality development with a landscaped setting.

6.4 Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/2), Rodney Economic Development Trust

(1585/3), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/5) Auckland Regional Council (FS1536/32), Land Transport NZ (1602/2).

6.4.1 Decision

(i) That submissions (1585/2), (1602/2) and (1585/3) be rejected.

(ii) That submissions (1585/5) and (FS1536/32) be accepted.

6.4.2 Reason for Decision

The REDT requested that the direction in Objective 8.3.5 to locate High Intensity development in appropriate locations be removed. The submitter also requests changes to the explanation to Policy 8.4.2 concerning the scale of buildings. It also seeks changes to 8.7 “Anticipated Environmental Results” by providing a reference to the provision of passenger transport. This submission is supported by the ARC. LTNZ requested that parking matters be added to Objective 8.3.5.

The changes requested to Objective 8.3.5 would have the effect of removing locational constraints on higher intensity development in the District. To do this would be contrary to the provisions of the Auckland Regional Policy Statement, the Regional Growth Strategy and the Northern and Western Sector Agreement which all seek to achieve higher intensity development in nodes and in close proximity to passenger transport routes. The submitter also sought to introduce the concept of zones into the objective. The Commissioners consider this to be contrary to good practice as any use of zones should be developed as a response to the objective but should not be determined by the objective. Accordingly it is recommended that there be no change to Objective 8.3.5 as a result of this submission.

The changes requested by the submitter to the explanation to Policy 8.4.2 would again tend to explain a particular means of achieving the policy rather than the reason for the policy. Accordingly it is recommended that there be no change to Policy 8.4.2 as a result of this submission The submitter also requests that additional words concerning access to passenger transport be added to anticipated environmental outcome 8.7(f). It is considered that the result requested is capable of being achieved by the objectives and policies the clause relates to, and the addition would assist in explaining the District Plan. However it is considered that the clause would be better under its own separate point rather than being added to clause (f) as it is considered to be better practice to express each concept in separate clauses. Objective 8.3.5 is a general objective for all residential zones concerning the location of higher intensity development. It is considered by the Commissioners that the request by LTNZ is out of place in the context of the objective as parking is not an alternative transport node and the detail within the objective will be excessive.

6.4.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

(i) Amend Chapter 8 by adding the following to Anticipated Environmental Results 8.7 (additions underlined);

(g) That high intensity residential developments provide support for and have access

to transport options that minimise the use of cars and encourage the use of public transport.

6.5 Herbert F & Joy Henley (1577/6), Jennifer H Kipfer (1532/6), Leanne Smith (1542/3), The

National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (1582/2), Auckland Regional Council (FS1536/29). 6.5.1 Decision

(i) That submissions (1577/6), (1532/6), (1542/3), (1582/2), and (FS1536/29) be rejected.

6.5.2 Reasons for Decision

The submissions from the H and J Henley and J Kipfer seek that the Council continues to keep people uppermost in mind in all planning decisions. The submission from L Smith seeks that the Council prepares economic feasibility studies for each of the zones subject to the Proposed Variation. The National Trading Company seeks that the variation be amended to ensure that the projected growth within the RGS can be accommodated within Orewa. This submission is supported by the ARC.

In respect of the submission seeking that people be put uppermost in the Council’s mind it is difficult to provide a response in the context of this decision. The Council is required by the RMA to consider a number of different aspects including people and the needs of future generations, but it is also required to consider a range of other matters. The RMA determines the priorities to be applied in any particular circumstances. These matters have been considered by the Commissioners. As part of the Orewa East Structure Plan process the Council commissioned a number of economic reports on Orewa including the reports listed in Table 1 of the Orewa East Structure Plan. These included some economic studies. The Commissioners noted that the submitter confirmed at the hearing that the type of study she was requesting was exemplified by the analysis carried out by Stan West. Mr West produced such an analysis in the evidence in support of the Orewa Land Ltd submissions on the Variable Height Residential Zone. We note that such studies rely on variable rates of land values, building costs, lending costs and estimates of rental or sales returns. Given current uncertainty in regard to all of these inputs we do not believe that such analysis would be particularly helpful. On the other hand we consider that there are other examples of building forms of a similar kind that have been successfully developed and marketed in the Auckland area. We consider that the building typology proposed in these recommendations will provide a good balance between what is

likely to be a viable building form and one which will provide adequate mitigation of any adverse effects on the immediate neighbourhood and on the amenity values of the Orewa Town Centre. The Orewa East Structure Plan notes that the changes will result in a population within the Structure Plan area of 12,000 people. This compares with a Growth Strategy number of 19,500. The Structure Plan (in section 8.1) notes that a wide range of priorities were raised in the community consultation during the development of the structure plan and the plan has been refined to reflect these. This has resulted in the proposed form of development contained in the Proposed Variation which seeks to achieve a number of ends. It is the need to respond to all of the competing priorities that has lead to the capacity of 12,000 people. The Council has also consulted with the Auckland Regional Council over the level of development proposed in this Variation. The ARC noted the difference but did not raise any concerns about this, presumably because the 19,500 figure is for the 2050 year and this Variation is simply a step in achieving intensification over a much longer time frame than provided for at this time. It also needs to be seen in the context of greater population that originally contemplated in the wider Orewa area, as a result of the Orewa West Structure Plan. This revision currently ongoing is indicating that physical constraints on some land can be overcome, thereby increasing intensity and overall population numbers in the area. Accordingly it is considered that because of the various priorities that the Council has been required to look at, and because the 19,500 population target is a longer term target, the Proposed Variation does not preclude that target being achieved in the future.

6.5.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation No amendments resulting from this decision.

7.0 SUPPORT VARIATION 7.1 Submissions Auckland Regional Council 1536/8 Retain the areas rezoned to

High Intensity Residential Zone and Orewa Beachfront Residential Zone as notified.

James B Davies 1606/1 Support in principle. Jennifer H Kipfer 1532/4 Continue to develop Orewa

using the proposed multiple zones.

Maygrove Residents Assoc. Inc.

1479/1 That this Orewa East Structure Plan proceeds through the statutory process to become an active template for growth in Orewa.

McDonalds Restaurants (NZ) Ltd

1423/1 Supports whole variation in principle.

Herbert F & Joy Henley 1577/4 To continue to develop Orewa using the proposed multiple zones.

7.2 Auckland Regional Council (1536/8), James B Davies (1606/1), Jennifer H Kipfer (1532/4), Maygrove Residents Assoc. Inc. (1479/1), McDonalds Restaurants (NZ) Ltd (1423/1), Herbert F & Joy Henley (1577/4).

7.2.1 Decision

(i) That submissions (1536/8), (1606/1), (1532/4), (1479/1), (1577/4) and (1423/1) be accepted in part.

7.2.2 Reasons for Decision

The submitters all provide support in principle to the Proposed Variation.

To the extent that the Commissioners have accepted the Proposed Variation as set out in this report these submissions should be accepted.

7.2.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation No amendments resulting from this decision.

8.0 WITHDRAW VARIATION 8.1 Submissions See Appendix 1 for list of submissions and further submissions. 8.2 See Appendix 1 8.2.1 Decision

(i) That the submissions listed in Appendix 1 that seek to have the Proposed Variation be withdrawn be rejected.

(ii) That the submissions listed in Appendix 1 that oppose the submissions that seek to

have the Proposed Variation be withdrawn be accepted. 8.2.2 Reasons for Decision

There are a large number of submissions that have expressed the view that the entire Proposed Variation should be withdrawn. The reasons put forward in most of these submissions are as follows; • The maximum height in residential areas should remain at 9m. • It is not sustainable to develop intensely in the Orewa area due to constraints such as

coastal inundation and inadequate infrastructure. • High buildings will shade the beach. • High buildings will create a block between the town and the beach. The majority of these submissions are opposed by the REDT.

The Auckland Regional Growth Strategy, the ARPS and the Northern and Western Sector Agreement require that the District Plan make appropriate provision for intensification of residential development in Orewa. . Physically Orewa is one of the most suitable areas in the district for intensification of some form. We have commented that there may well be some further refinement in the role that Orewa will play in accommodating future regional growth and we note that the Proposed Variation provides for less growth (in the short term) than is indicated as desirable in the Regional documents. This means that there is inbuilt flexibility to deal with future adjustments to the extent of growth that Orewa accommodates. Nevertheless the Commissioners consider that it is not possible to retain the existing densities and building heights within Orewa and that a degree of intensification within Orewa is inevitable. Intensification of population in Orewa will require larger and higher buildings. The Commissioners also consider that the Structure Plan process has allowed significant consultation on the future form of Orewa and that the Variation process has continued the opportunity of hearing and weighing opinions and evidence on the subject within the formal framework set down by Parliament. These submissions also raise issues of infrastructure and inundation. These issues are addressed in some detail in section 3.5 of the Orewa East Structure Plan document. This shows that wastewater and waster supply are adequately provided for subject to adequate controls on impermeable surfaces and provided that a number of recommended works are undertaken to improve stormwater management. The Commissioners accept this evidence and consider that the Variation adequately provides for these matters. In respect of the potential of high buildings shading the beach the Commissioners consider that the evidence presented at the hearing shows that such shading is minor. It is considered that the urban design issues raised in the submissions have been addressed by the Proposed Variation and this decision which provides for significant breaks between buildings and for urban design consideration of the design of buildings and their relationship to each other and the street. The Commissioners note that view shaft diagrams prepared by

Council staff indicate that tall buildings in the southern areas will not affect views to a greater extent than lower buildings due to the generally flat topography of Orewa and the northern location of the hill to the west, It is therefore considered that the Proposed Variation should not be withdrawn for the reasons raised in these submissions.

8.2.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

No amendments resulting from this decision. 9.0 11.5 m RULE 9.1 Submissions Auckland Regional Council 1536/2 General building height: The

increase in max building height throughout town centre areas, intended to encourage pitched roofs, is supported, so long as it does not result in an increased number of storeys. Considered this amendment will encourage a better townscape aesthetic.

The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

FS1582/22 Supports submission 1536/2

F W Friis 1171/4 Adopt proposed amendments to Rule 8.10.1.3, increasing maximum height of buildings from 9 metres to 11.5 metres.

Herbert F & Joy Henley 1577/1 Retain upper limit of residential buildings to a maximum exterior height of 9 metres.

Jennifer H Kipfer 1532/1 Retain upper limit of residential buildings to a maximum exterior height of 9 metres.

Gordon Miller 1072/1 Restrict entire Orewa East area to maximum building height of 9 metres. SEE SUBMISSION

Alan S Morton-Jones 1608/2 Preserve the existing residential height limits in all other areas of Orewa. High rise development will invigorate and improve commercial hub of Orewa, but this should not be allowed to intrude on existing residential areas and should not in any way affect Orewa Beach or any beach reserves.

Philna Victor & Paul Nickel 1006/3 Adopt proposed amendments to Rule 8.10.1.3, increasing maximum height of buildings from 9 metres to 11.5 metres.

Carol Adams FS1638/6 Opposes submission 1006/3 Danny Adams FS1639/26 Opposes submission 1006/3 Adam Boot FS1636/9 Opposes submission 1006/3 Christina Boot FS1239/19 Opposes submission 1006/3 Ingrid Boot FS1314/3 Opposes submission 1006/3 Louise Boot FS1637/26 Opposes submission 1006/3 Carol Burton FS1635/9 Opposes submission 1006/3 I H Burton FS1634/5 Opposes submission 1006/3 Mrs G Burton FS1633/3 Opposes submission 1006/3 John Colligan FS1640/8 Opposes submission 1006/3 Mr R Cooper FS1322/14 Opposes submission 1006/3 John Drury FS1500/19 Opposes submission 1006/3

Mr Martin William Emery FS1512/41 Opposes submission 1006/3 Mrs Jeanne P Emery FS1486/19 Opposes submission 1006/3 Mrs Maria Patricia Garrett FS1305/15 Opposes submission 1006/3 Desmond H Griffin FS1436/15 Opposes submission 1006/3 Robert Griffin FS1651/25 Opposes submission 1006/3 Nola & Reginald Hardy FS1111/7 Opposes submission 1006/3 Ray Howard FS1307/19 Opposes submission 1006/3 Raywyn L Howard FS1306/21 Opposes submission 1006/3 Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc)

FS1499/11 Opposes submission 1006/3

Frank Stanton FS1407/19 Opposes submission 1006/3 Maggie Stanton FS1372/6 Opposes submission 1006/3 Kate Templeton FS1650/4 Opposes submission 1006/3 Mr T O & Mrs K Templeton FS1304/7 Opposes submission 1006/3 The Reaction Trust FS1408/9 Opposes submission 1006/3 Eleanor Wenman FS1315/14 Opposes submission 1006/3 Brian Wonnacott FS1642/3 Opposes submission 1006/3 Paula Wonnacott FS1641/7 Opposes submission 1006/3 C J Zwart FS1630/12 Opposes submission 1006/3 L W Zwart FS1631/15 Opposes submission 1006/3 Orewa Land Ltd 1586/10 Supports allowance for

increased height to allow for roof structures as provided by Rule 8.10.1.3 However, Amend to allow for a maximum building height of 11.5m limited to 3 storeys of development. Clarify that any structure that acts as a floor, such as a mezzanine, is to be counted as a building storey. Clarify that a building storey may be no more than 4m in height for the purpose of establishing number of storeys.

Albany Scaffolding Ltd FS1656/10 Supports submission 1586/10 William S & Yvonne M Ambler FS1426/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Dr Simon Baker FS1528/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Ian Bartlett FS1623/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Robert W Bartlett FS1732/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Nancy Baulcomb FS1699/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Philip Baulcomb FS1698/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Christopher W Bisman FS1683/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Mrs Mavis Anne Brackebush FS1700/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Fred Bradley FS1714/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Patricia L Bradley FS1701/10 Supports submission 1586/10 John Bretnall FS1564/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Lorraine Bretnall FS1554/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Timothy R Brooks FS1549/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Heather Burns FS1702/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Andrew Chambers FS1613/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Stuart Chambers FS1730/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Peter McKenzie Clark FS1735/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Robyn Clark FS1733/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Coastal Properties Ltd FS1559/12 Supports submission 1586/10 Coastal Scaffolding Ltd FS1696/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Annalise Coghlan FS1556/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Brendon Coghlan FS1734/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Claudia Coghlan FS1671/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Karlene E Coghlan FS1455/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Madison Coghlan FS1664/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Kim & Lyn Corbett FS1728/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Irene Coussons FS1660/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Robert Coussons FS1659/10 Supports submission 1586/10 James McLellan Coxhead FS1722/10 Supports submission 1586/10

Jeanene G Davis FS1434/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Paul John Davis FS1435/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Les Downes FS1490/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Maree Downes FS1489/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Colin L Dryland FS1625/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Tony Edward FS1749/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Dennis Ellwood FS1508/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Susan Ellwood FS1446/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Deirdre F Evans FS1658/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Carolyn Fletcher FS1680/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Stuart Fluker FS1725/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Jill Flyger FS1746/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Neil Flyger FS1758/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Steve Franich FS1448/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Karen Franklin FS1520/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Benjamin Thomas Fraser Pain FS1621/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Deborah Fromich FS1741/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Wayne Fromich FS1742/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Paul Fry FS1653/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Sarah Fry FS1654/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Lance Gilbertson FS1752/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Doug Godfrey FS1675/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Miriam Godfrey FS1676/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Timothy A Green FS1677/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Andrew Alistair Grey FS1614/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Ben Grooten FS1674/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Eddie Grooten FS1669/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Erika Grooten FS1670/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Cushla Hackett FS1747/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Malcolm James Haggerty FS1627/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Andrew F Hansen FS1682/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Jane Hansen FS1665/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Tony Harden FS1751/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Ross A Hemi FS1458/11 Supports submission 1586/10 D C Henshaw FS1707/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Reti Hick FS1459/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Dorothea M Hodgson FS1488/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Gwen Hopper FS1666/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Shana Hopper FS1617/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Kay Hough FS1710/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Nick D Humphreys FS1721/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Dianne Jackson FS1736/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Francis Jackson FS1737/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Lauren Jenkins FS1622/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Sarah Josephs FS1712/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Shane Josephs FS1713/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Jordon Kibblewhite FS1740/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Michael Kibblewhite FS1744/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Peter A Kibblewhite FS1477/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Thomas Kibblewhite FS1745/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Yvonne Kibblewhite FS1478/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Thalla Esme King FS1697/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Guenther Lammer FS1689/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Margareta Lammer FS1739/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Clive Lovell Lasenby FS1073/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Diane M Lasenby FS1074/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Suzanne C Lasenby FS1009/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Dean A Lawson FS1444/12 Supports submission 1586/10 Jane Lawson FS1757/10 Supports submission 1586/10 William S Lawson FS1738/10 Supports submission 1586/10 T & A Lees FS1729/10 Supports submission 1586/10 A K Leigh FS1668/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Jack Leonard FS1706/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Mary Leonard FS1684/10 Supports submission 1586/10

Brendan Lindsay FS1685/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Jo Lindsay FS1686/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Elaine Magill FS1465/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Kenneth J Magill FS1467/11 Supports submission 1586/10 John L Mallett FS1010/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Lisa Mallett FS1562/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Kathryn J Manihera FS1496/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Mark D Manihera FS1460/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Corban J Martin FS1447/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Elliott R Martin FS1439/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Kendall Martin FS1672/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Kiri Angela Martin FS1462/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Munroe Martin FS1678/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Wayne H Martin FS1461/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Peter Martinovich FS1709/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Julieann McCathie FS1504/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Nevis Robert McDougall FS1618/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Nola E McGowan FS1501/11 Supports submission 1586/10 P & M McKinney FS1059/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Keith McMillan FS1719/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Ian & Rosemary McPherson FS1726/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Marilyn Mills FS1753/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Cheryl M Milton FS1491/9 Supports submission 1586/10 Cheryl M Milton FS1491/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Larry C Mingins FS1506/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Mary C Mingins FS1507/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Lyndelle Mitchell FS1619/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Ernest A Moffat FS1718/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Eileen Lorraine Moloney FS1657/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Craig Morris FS1454/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Marcia L Morris FS1453/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Verity Norton FS1723/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Orewa Carparking FS1560/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Bevan Philip FS1720/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Bailey Phillips FS1525/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Courtney Phillips FS1495/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Ella F Phillips FS1679/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Margaret Phillips FS1529/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Wendell Phillips FS1524/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Wendell Craig Phillips FS1681/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Kieran Price FS1615/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Beverly Rose Prince FS1628/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Kaye Procter FS1748/10 Supports submission 1586/10 H M Rishworth FS1652/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Brian Rutter FS1412/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Janine L Rutter FS1661/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Judith Helen Rutter FS1717/10 Supports submission 1586/10 T E & J H Rutter FS1575/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Margarita Ryjkova FS1655/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Janette Sadgrove FS1694/10 Supports submission 1586/10 John Sadgrove FS1693/10 Supports submission 1586/10 M B & M Saunders FS1727/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Jacqueline L Schieb FS1471/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Mark A Schieb FS1472/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Rodger Scott FS1692/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Rueben Scott FS1724/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Sandra Scott FS1708/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Helen M Sellars FS1452/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Raymond A Sellars FS1498/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Melanie Sharplin FS1750/10 Supports submission 1586/10 John Charles Shattock FS1687/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Julie Lorraine Shattock FS1688/10 Opposes submission 1586/10 John Smart FS1711/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Bev Smith FS1755/10 Supports submission 1586/10

Craig Smith FS1756/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Dillon J Smith FS1624/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Hephzibah Smith FS1760/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Lance Smith FS1759/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Lukas Smith FS1754/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Michael P Smith FS1503/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Suzanne I Smith FS1502/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Matt Symons FS1626/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Ellie ter Haar FS1518/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Sam ter Haar FS1463/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Barry ter Hao FS1667/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Margaret Trowbridge FS1474/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Philip D Trowbridge FS1473/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Owen Tucker FS1705/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Pat Tucker FS1704/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Rod F Turner FS1691/10 Supports submission 1586/10 John Van der Sluis FS1663/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Leonardine Van der Sluis FS1662/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Ronald Vince FS1731/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Anthony W M Waring FS1716/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Audrey L Waring FS1715/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Antony Wentworth FS1703/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Jules G Were FS1690/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Suzi Were FS1673/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Dave White FS1695/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Kim White FS1743/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Bruce H Whitehead FS1440/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Kate Wilson FS1620/10 Supports submission 1586/10 Garth C Wiltshire FS1566/11 Supports submission 1586/10 J R Wiltshire FS1565/11 Supports submission 1586/10 Milton B Wylie FS1437/11 Supports submission 1586/10 R S & J Ford Family Trust 1578/2 This lacks sufficient detail -

question necessity for nine metre limit to be changed.

Chris Hill & Natasha Rodley 1531/3 Adopt proposed amendments to Rule 8.10.1.3, increasing maximum height of buildings from 9 metres to 11.5 metres.

Wayne A Kampjes 1605/3 Adopt proposed amendments to Rule 8.10.1.3, increasing maximum height of buildings from 9 metres to 11.5 metres.

Mr Martin William Emery 1512/2 Should be deleted because of impact on existing residents.

Mr Martin William Emery 1512/11 Amend "...subject to specific community master planning". Delete the word "community" Amend "... Except that an additional 2.5m ------and the maximum height shall be 11.5m. Delete this sentence entirely.

Henry C & Ann E Turner 1005/3 Adopt proposed amendments to Rule 8.10.1.3, increasing maximum height of buildings from 9 metres to 11.5 metres.

9.2 Auckland Regional Council (1536/2), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

(FS1582/22), F W Friis (1171/4), Herbert F & Joy Henley (1577/1), Jennifer H Kipfer (1532/1), Gordon Miller (1072/1), Alan S Morton-Jones (1608/2), Philna Victor & Paul Nickel (1006/3), Carol Adams (FS1638/6), Danny Adams (FS1639/26), Adam Boot (FS1636/9), Christina Boot (FS1239/19), Ingrid Boot (FS1314/3), Louise Boot (FS1637/26), Carol Burton (FS1635/9), I H Burton (FS1634/5), Mrs G Burton (FS1633/3), John Colligan (FS1640/8), Mr R Cooper (FS1322/14), John Drury (FS1500/19), Mr Martin William Emery (FS1512/41), Mrs Jeanne P Emery (FS1486/19), Mrs Maria Patricia

Garrett (FS1305/15), Desmond H Griffin (FS1436/15), Robert Griffin (FS1651/25), Nola & Reginald Hardy (FS1111/7), Ray Howard (FS1307/19), Raywyn L Howard (FS1306/21), Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc) (FS1499/11), Frank Stanton (FS1407/19), Maggie Stanton (FS1372/6), Kate Templeton (FS1650/4), Mr T O & Mrs K Templeton (FS1304/7), The Reaction Trust (FS1408/9), Eleanor Wenman (FS1315/14), Brian Wonnacott (FS1642/3), Paula Wonnacott (FS1641/7), C J Zwart (FS1630/12), L W Zwart (FS1631/15), Orewa Land Ltd (1586/10), Albany Scaffolding Ltd (FS1656/10), William S & Yvonne M Ambler (FS1426/11), Dr Simon Baker (FS1528/11), Ian Bartlett (FS1623/10), Robert W Bartlett (FS1732/10), Nancy Baulcomb (FS1699/10), Philip Baulcomb (FS1698/10), Christopher W Bisman (FS1683/10), Mrs Mavis Anne Brackebush (FS1700/10), Fred Bradley (FS1714/10), Patricia L Bradley (FS1701/10), John Bretnall (FS1564/11), Lorraine Bretnall (FS1554/11), Timothy R Brooks (FS1549/11), Heather Burns (FS1702/10), Andrew Chambers (FS1613/10), Stuart Chambers (FS1730/10), Peter McKenzie Clark (FS1735/10), Robyn Clark (FS1733/10), Coastal Properties Ltd (FS1559/12), Coastal Scaffolding Ltd (FS1696/10), Annalise Coghlan (FS1556/11), Brendon Coghlan (FS1734/10), Claudia Coghlan (FS1671/10), Karlene E Coghlan (FS1455/11), Madison Coghlan (FS1664/10), Kim & Lyn Corbett (FS1728/10), Irene Coussons (FS1660/10), Robert Coussons (FS1659/10), James McLellan Coxhead (FS1722/10), Jeanene G Davis (FS1434/11), Paul John Davis (FS1435/11), Les Downes (FS1490/11), Maree Downes (FS1489/11), Colin L Dryland (FS1625/10), Tony Edward (FS1749/10), Dennis Ellwood (FS1508/11), Susan Ellwood (FS1446/11), Deirdre F Evans (FS1658/10), Carolyn Fletcher (FS1680/10), Stuart Fluker (FS1725/10), Jill Flyger (FS1746/10), Neil Flyger (FS1758/10), Steve Franich (FS1448/11), Karen Franklin (FS1520/11), Benjamin Thomas Fraser Pain (FS1621/10), Deborah Fromich (FS1741/10), Wayne Fromich (FS1742/10), Paul Fry (FS1653/10), Sarah Fry (FS1654/10), Lance Gilbertson (FS1752/10), Doug Godfrey (FS1675/10), Miriam Godfrey (FS1676/10), Timothy A Green (FS1677/10), Andrew Alistair Grey (FS1614/10), Ben Grooten (FS1674/10), Eddie Grooten (FS1669/10), Erika Grooten (FS1670/10), Cushla Hackett (FS1747/10), Malcolm James Haggerty (FS1627/10), Andrew F Hansen (FS1682/10), Jane Hansen (FS1665/10), Tony Harden (FS1751/10), Ross A Hemi (FS1458/11), D C Henshaw (FS1707/10), Reti Hick (FS1459/11), Dorothea M Hodgson (FS1488/11), Gwen Hopper (FS1666/10), Shana Hopper (FS1617/10), Kay Hough (FS1710/10), Nick D Humphreys (FS1721/10), Dianne Jackson (FS1736/10), Francis Jackson (FS1737/10), Lauren Jenkins (FS1622/10), Sarah Josephs (FS1712/10), Shane Josephs (FS1713/10), Jordon Kibblewhite (FS1740/10), Michael Kibblewhite (FS1744/10), Peter A Kibblewhite (FS1477/11), Thomas Kibblewhite (FS1745/10), Yvonne Kibblewhite (FS1478/11), Thalla Esme King (FS1697/10), Guenther Lammer (FS1689/10), Margareta Lammer (FS1739/10), Clive Lovell Lasenby (FS1073/11), Diane M Lasenby (FS1074/11), Suzanne C Lasenby (FS1009/11), Dean A Lawson (FS1444/12), Jane Lawson (FS1757/10), William S Lawson (FS1738/10), T & A Lees (FS1729/10), A K Leigh (FS1668/10), Jack Leonard (FS1706/10), Mary Leonard (FS1684/10), Brendan Lindsay (FS1685/10), Jo Lindsay (FS1686/10), Elaine Magill (FS1465/11), Kenneth J Magill (FS1467/11), John L Mallett (FS1010/11), Lisa Mallett (FS1562/11), Kathryn J Manihera (FS1496/11), Mark D Manihera (FS1460/11), Corban J Martin (FS1447/11), Elliott R Martin (FS1439/11), Kendall Martin (FS1672/10), Kiri Angela Martin (FS1462/11), Munroe Martin (FS1678/10), Wayne H Martin (FS1461/11), Peter Martinovich (FS1709/10), Julieann McCathie (FS1504/11), Nevis Robert McDougall (FS1618/10), Nola E McGowan (FS1501/11), P & M McKinney (FS1059/11), Keith McMillan (FS1719/10), Ian & Rosemary McPherson (FS1726/10), Marilyn Mills (FS1753/10), Cheryl M Milton (FS1491/9), Cheryl M Milton (FS1491/11), Larry C Mingins (FS1506/11), Mary C Mingins (FS1507/10), Lyndelle Mitchell (FS1619/10), Ernest A Moffat (FS1718/10), Eileen Lorraine Moloney (FS1657/10), Craig Morris (FS1454/11), Marcia L Morris (FS1453/11), Verity Norton (FS1723/10), Orewa Carparking (FS1560/11), Bevan Philip (FS1720/10), Bailey Phillips (FS1525/11), Courtney Phillips (FS1495/11), Ella F Phillips (FS1679/10), Margaret Phillips (FS1529/11), Wendell Phillips (FS1524/11), Wendell Craig Phillips (FS1681/10), Kieran Price (FS1615/10), Beverly Rose Prince (FS1628/10), Kaye Procter (FS1748/10), H M Rishworth (FS1652/10), Brian Rutter (FS1412/11), Janine L Rutter (FS1661/10), Judith Helen Rutter (FS1717/10), T E & J H Rutter (FS1575/11), Margarita Ryjkova (FS1655/10), Janette Sadgrove (FS1694/10), John Sadgrove (FS1693/10), M B & M Saunders (FS1727/10), Jacqueline L Schieb (FS1471/11), Mark A Schieb (FS1472/11), Rodger Scott (FS1692/10), Rueben Scott (FS1724/10), Sandra Scott (FS1708/10), Helen M Sellars (FS1452/11), Raymond A Sellars (FS1498/11), Melanie Sharplin (FS1750/10), John Charles Shattock (FS1687/10), Julie Lorraine Shattock (FS1688/10), John Smart (FS1711/10), Bev Smith (FS1755/10), Craig Smith (FS1756/10), Dillon J Smith (FS1624/10), Hephzibah Smith (FS1760/10), Lance Smith (FS1759/10), Lukas Smith (FS1754/10), Michael P Smith (FS1503/11), Suzanne I Smith (FS1502/11), Matt Symons

(FS1626/10), Ellie ter Haar (FS1518/11), Sam ter Haar (FS1463/11), Barry ter Hao (FS1667/10), Margaret Trowbridge (FS1474/11), Philip D Trowbridge (FS1473/11), Owen Tucker (FS1705/10), Pat Tucker(FS1704/10), Rod F Turner (FS1691/10), John Van der Sluis (FS1663/10), Leonardine Van der Sluis (FS1662/10), Ronald Vince (FS1731/10), Anthony W M Waring (FS1716/10), Audrey L Waring (FS1715/10), Antony Wentworth (FS1703/10), Jules G Were (FS1690/10), Suzi Were (FS1673/10), Dave White (FS1695/10), Kim White (FS1743/10), Bruce H Whitehead (FS1440/11), Kate Wilson (FS1620/10), Garth C Wiltshire (FS1566/11), J R Wiltshire (FS1565/11), Milton B Wylie (FS1437/11), R S & J Ford Family Trust (1578/2), Chris Hill & Natasha Rodley (1531/3), Wayne A Kampjes (1605/3), Mr Martin William Emery (1512/2), Mr Martin William Emery (1512/11), Henry C & Ann E Turner (1005/3).

9.2.1 Decision

(i) That submissions (1005/3), (1536/20, (FS1582/22), (1171/4), (1006/3), (1531/3), (1605/3), (1586/10), (FS1656/10), (FS1426/11), (FS1528/11), (FS1623/10), (FS1732/10), (FS1699/10), (FS1698/10), (FS1683/10), (FS1700/10), (FS1714/10), (FS1701/10), (FS1564/11), (FS1554/11), (FS1549/11), (FS1702/10), (FS1613/10), (FS1730/10), (FS1735/10), (FS1733/10), (FS1559/12), (FS1696/10), (FS1556/11), (FS1734/10), (FS1671/10), (FS1455/11), (FS1664/10), (FS1728/10), (FS1660/10), (FS1659/10), (FS1722/10), (FS1434/11), (FS1435/11), (FS1490/11), (FS1489/11), (FS1625/10), (FS1749/10), (FS1508/11), (FS1446/11), (FS1658/10), (FS1680/10), (FS1725/10), (FS1746/10), (FS1758/10), (FS1448/11), (FS1520/11), (FS1621/10), (FS1741/10), (FS1742/10), (FS1653/10), (FS1654/10), (FS1752/10), (FS1675/10), (FS1676/10), (FS1677/10), (FS1614/10), (FS1674/10), (FS1669/10), (FS1670/10), (FS1747/10), (FS1627/10), (FS1682/10), (FS1665/10), (FS1751/10), (FS1458/11), (FS1707/10), (FS1459/11), (FS1488/11), (FS1666/10), (FS1617/10), (FS1710/10), (FS1721/10), (FS1736/10), (FS1737/10), (FS1622/10), (FS1712/10), (FS1713/10), (FS1740/10), (FS1744/10), (FS1477/11), (FS1745/10), (FS1478/11), (FS1697/10), (FS1689/10), (FS1739/10), (FS1073/11), (FS1074/11), (FS1009/11), (FS1444/12), (FS1757/10), (FS1738/10), (FS1729/10), (FS1668/10), (FS1706/10), (FS1684/10), (FS1685/10), (FS1686/10), (FS1465/11), (FS1467/11), (FS1010/11), (FS1562/11), (FS1496/11), (FS1460/11), (FS1447/11), (FS1439/11), (FS1672/10), (FS1462/11), (FS1678/10), (FS1461/11), (FS1709/10), (FS1504/11), (FS1618/10), (FS1501/11), (FS1059/11), (FS1719/10), (FS1726/10), (FS1753/10), (FS1491/9), (FS1491/11), (FS1506/11), (FS1507/10), (FS1619/10), (FS1718/10), (FS1657/10), (FS1454/11), (FS1453/11), (FS1723/10), (FS1560/11), (FS1720/10), (FS1525/11), (FS1495/11), (FS1679/10), (FS1529/11), (FS1524/11), (FS1681/10), (FS1615/10), (FS1628/10), (FS1748/10), (FS1652/10), (FS1412/11), (FS1661/10), (FS1717/10), (FS1575/11), (FS1655/10), (FS1694/10), (FS1693/10), (FS1727/10), (FS1471/11), (FS1472/11), (FS1692/10), (FS1724/10), (FS1708/10), (FS1452/11), (FS1498/11), (FS1750/10), (FS1687/10), (FS1688/10), (FS1711/10), (FS1755/10), (FS1756/10), (FS1624/10), (FS1760/10), (FS1759/10), (FS1754/10), (FS1503/11), (FS1502/11), (FS1626/10), (FS1518/11), (FS1463/11), (FS1667/10), (FS1474/11), (FS1473/11), (FS1705/10), (FS1704/10), (FS1691/10), (FS1663/10), (FS1662/10), (FS1731/10), (FS1716/10), (FS1715/10), (FS1703/10), (FS1690/10), (FS1673/10), (FS1695/10), (FS1743/10), (FS1440/11), (FS1620/10), (FS1566/11), (FS1565/11) and (FS1437/11) be accepted in part to the extent set out in 8.2.3.

(iii) That the submissions (1577/1), (1532/1), (1072/1), (1608/2) (FS1638/6),

(FS1639/26), (FS1636/9), (FS1239/19), (FS1314/3), (FS1637/26), (FS1635/9), (FS1634/5), (FS1633/3), (FS1640/8), (FS1322/14), (FS1500/19), (FS1512/41), (FS1486/19), (FS1305/15), (FS1436/15), (FS1651/25), (FS1111/7), (FS1307/19), (FS1306/21), (FS1499/11), (FS1407/19), (FS1372/6), (FS1650/4), (FS1304/7), (FS1408/9), (FS1315/14), (FS1642/3), (FS1641/7), (FS1630/12), (1512/2), (1512/11) and (FS1631/15) be rejected.

9.2.2 Reasons for Decision

Proposed Rule 8.10.1.3 provides that within the Orewa East Structure Plan area the maximum height in residential zones (apart from the Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone) shall be 9m and contain no more than 3 storeys except that an additional 2.5m of non-occupied space may be provided up to 11.5m to allow traditional peaked roof shapes.

A number of submissions support this change as being beneficial to the townscape. Some express concern that the non-habitable rule be strictly enforced. Some submissions also seek further clarification over the definition of a storey. Other submitters request that the 9m rule remain. One submission seeks further information about how the rule will work.

We consider that this rule should be retained subject to some alteration in wording for the reasons set out in section 5 of this report

9.2.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation Amend Rule 8.10.1.3 Orewa East Structure Plan by amending second paragraph as follows (additions underlined deletions struck through).

With the exception of the following prescribed zones within the Orewa East Structure Plan Area, the maximum height of any building or structure shall be 9m and contain no more than 3 storeys of living space above ground level. Except that an additional 2.5m of non-occupied space to roof ridge may be provided where traditional pitched roofs are used and the maximum height shall be 11.5m. , except that a maximum height of 11.5m may be provided to accommodate a roof with a pitch of not less than 20o provided that the additional space provided above 9m is not used to create additional habitable floor space.

10.0 FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS 10.1 Submissions Herbert F & Joy Henley 1577/12 Urgently instigate the

construction of carpark buildings within the Orewa Commercial district and subsequently require development contributions towards the cost of borrowing to achieve a sustainable level of carparking provision.

Herbert F & Joy Henley 1577/2 Urgently instigate the construction of carpark buildings within the Orewa Commercial district and subsequently require development contributions towards the cost of borrowing to achieve a sustainable level of carparking provision.

L W & J L Barker Family Trust 1553/10 Money levied for new reserves from the VHZ should be spent in the area.

McDonalds Restaurants (NZ) Ltd

1423/9 Delete Amendments 57 - 59 Financial Contributions and Works (Parking in Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone) and amend the Variation to make it clear that parking will be required for all activities within the zone in accordance with Table 1 Appendix 21B.

Rodney District Council 1421/12 Chapter 22 Rule 22.17 - Oppose Relating to the calculation of ‘in lieu’ payments and threshold calculations regarding amounts of parking to be required in Orewa is in need of review. The amount of parking required in many cases coupled with the present formula for calculating a

financial contribution can have a frustrating effect in delivering other objectives of the Plan and ultimately the renewal of Orewa envisaged by the Orewa East Structure Plan.

Destination Orewa Beach FS1545/4 Supports submission 1421/12 Rodney District Council 1421/24 Amend Chapter 22 by:

* Review the formula for calculating payments based upon m2 and values outside of the designated Orewa retail zone * Review ratio requirements to reflect ‘sharing value’ between complementary uses.

Destination Orewa Beach FS1545/5 Supports submission 1421/24 10.2 Herbert F & Joy Henley (1577/12), Herbert F & Joy Henley (1577/2), L W & J L Barker

Family Trust (1553/10), McDonalds Restaurants (NZ) Ltd (1423/9), Rodney District Council (1421/12), Destination Orewa Beach (FS1545/4), Rodney District Council (1421/24), Destination Orewa Beach (FS1545/5).

10.2.1 Decision

(i) That submissions (1577/12), (1577/2), (1553/10), (1423/9), (1421/12), (FS1545/4), (1421/24), (FS1545/5), be rejected.

10.2.2 Reasons for Decision

The Henley submission seeks that the Council construct a car parking building in Orewa and that this be paid for by development or financial contributions within the area. The Barker submission seeks that reserve contributions levied within the ResVR zone should be spent within that area. McDonalds requests that the new provisions relating to financial contributions for the Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone be deleted. Rodney District Council seeks that the financial contribution provisions be reviewed but provides little detail about what the review should include.

In respect of the Henley submission we consider that this is a matter that is beyond the scope of this Variation as the implementation of works is a matter for the LTCCP or Annual Plan. If the car parking building is included in the LTCCP then the financial contributions levied in Orewa can be applied to the construction of the car park. Chapter 22 of the Proposed Plan provides that financial contributions are spent within general areas of benefit. The Barker submission requests that financial contributions within the ResVR zone be spent within that zone. The Commissioners consider that this is not appropriate as people living within the zone will place demand on services and reserves in the wider Orewa area and not just within the zone. The McDonalds submission follows on from the request to require car parking in the OBCZone. As this decision recommends the zone be deleted the matter of financial contributions does not arise. Under the present car parking rules there is no allowance for parking to be provided for commercial purposes as part of any town centre redevelopment. The regime calculates cash in lieu payment (calculated by prescribed formula) whereby the developer is required to pay the Council for the necessary car parks. The Council in turn is then committed to providing those spaces in a car park building. This system has in effect yielded poor results and because of the basis of the financial formula to calculate payment it has proved onerous to the development industry. We recommend that the current method should be reviewed by the Council and a Plan Change or Variation be introduced to implement that review.

10.2.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

No amendments resulting from this decision. 11.0 APPLY RES H TO OTHER SITES 11.1 Submissions F W Friis 1171/2 Oppose retention of existing

Residential M Medium Intensity Zone over other properties as shown on Planning Map 75 and seek rezoning to Residential H High Intensity Zone, as medium is no longer appropriate to changing nature of Orewa. Support change in building height for all land in residential zones within the Orewa East Structure Plan boundary from 9 metres to 11.5 metres.

F W Friis 1171/3 Amend Planning Map 75 (shown attached to submission) to show Residential H High Intensity Residential Zone over the listed residential properties in Riverside Road.

Gladys Olive Mason 1001/1 Support Council's proposal to rezone Residential M to Residential H Intensity zone between 226 to 250 Centreway Road.

Philna Victor & Paul Nickel 1006/1 Oppose retention of existing Residential M Medium Intensity Zone over other properties as shown on Planning Map 75 and seek rezoning to Residential H High Intensity Zone, as medium is no longer appropriate to changing nature of Orewa. Support change in building height for all land in residential zones within the Orewa East Structure Plan boundary from 9 metres to 11.5 metres.

Carol Adams FS1638/4 Opposes submission 1006/1 Danny Adams FS1639/24 Opposes submission 1006/1 Adam Boot FS1636/8 Opposes submission 1006/1 Christina Boot FS1239/18 Opposes submission 1006/1 Ingrid Boot FS1314/2 Opposes submission 1006/1 Louise Boot FS1637/24 Opposes submission 1006/1 Carol Burton FS1635/8 Opposes submission 1006/1 I H Burton FS1634/4 Opposes submission 1006/1 Mrs G Burton FS1633/2 Opposes submission 1006/1 John Colligan FS1640/6 Opposes submission 1006/1 Mr R Cooper FS1322/12 Opposes submission 1006/1 Sandra Cooper FS1526/5 Opposes submission 1006/1 Sandra Cooper FS1526/6 Opposes submission 1006/1 John Drury FS1500/17 Opposes submission 1006/1 Mr Martin William Emery FS1512/39 Opposes submission 1006/1 Mr Martin William Emery FS1512/40 Opposes submission 1006/1 Mrs Jeanne P Emery FS1486/17 Opposes submission 1006/1 Mrs Maria Patricia Garrett FS1305/13 Opposes submission 1006/1 Desmond H Griffin FS1436/13 Opposes submission 1006/1

Robert Griffin FS1651/23 Opposes submission 1006/1 Nola & Reginald Hardy FS1111/5 Opposes submission 1006/1 Ray Howard FS1307/17 Opposes submission 1006/1 Raywyn L Howard FS1306/19 Opposes submission 1006/1 Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc)

FS1499/10 Opposes submission 1006/1

Frank Stanton FS1407/17 Opposes submission 1006/1 Maggie Stanton FS1372/4 Opposes submission 1006/1 Kate Templeton FS1650/2 Opposes submission 1006/1 Mr T O & Mrs K Templeton FS1304/5 Opposes submission 1006/1 The Reaction Trust FS1408/7 Opposes submission 1006/1 Eleanor Wenman FS1315/12 Opposes submission 1006/1 Brian Wonnacott FS1642/1 Opposes submission 1006/1 Paula Wonnacott FS1641/5 Opposes submission 1006/1 C J Zwart FS1630/11 Opposes submission 1006/1 L W Zwart FS1631/14 Opposes submission 1006/1 Philna Victor & Paul Nickel 1006/2 Amend Planning Map 75 (shown

attached to submission) to show Residential H High Intensity Residential Zone over the listed residential properties in Riverside Road.

Carol Adams FS1638/5 Opposes submission 1006/2 Danny Adams FS1639/25 Opposes submission 1006/2 Adam Boot FS1636/25 Opposes submission 1006/2 Christina Boot FS1239/25 Opposes submission 1006/2 Ingrid Boot FS1314/25 Opposes submission 1006/2 Louise Boot FS1637/25 Opposes submission 1006/2 Carol Burton FS1635/12 Opposes submission 1006/2 I H Burton FS1634/10 Opposes submission 1006/2 Mrs G Burton FS1633/10 Opposes submission 1006/2 John Colligan FS1640/7 Opposes submission 1006/2 Mr R Cooper FS1322/13 Opposes submission 1006/2 Sandra Cooper FS1526/7 Opposes submission 1006/2 John Drury FS1500/18 Opposes submission 1006/2 Mrs Jeanne P Emery FS1486/18 Opposes submission 1006/2 Mrs Maria Patricia Garrett FS1305/14 Opposes submission 1006/2 Desmond H Griffin FS1436/14 Opposes submission 1006/2 Robert Griffin FS1651/24 Opposes submission 1006/2 Nola & Reginald Hardy FS1111/6 Opposes submission 1006/2 Ray Howard FS1307/18 Opposes submission 1006/2 Raywyn L Howard FS1306/20 Opposes submission 1006/2 Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc)

FS1499/29 Opposes submission 1006/2

Frank Stanton FS1407/18 Opposes submission 1006/2 Maggie Stanton FS1372/5 Opposes submission 1006/2 Kate Templeton FS1650/3 Opposes submission 1006/2 Mr T O & Mrs K Templeton FS1304/6 Opposes submission 1006/2 The Reaction Trust FS1408/8 Opposes submission 1006/2 Eleanor Wenman FS1315/13 Opposes submission 1006/2 Brian Wonnacott FS1642/2 Opposes submission 1006/2 Paula Wonnacott FS1641/6 Opposes submission 1006/2 C J Zwart FS1630/22 Opposes submission 1006/2 L W Zwart FS1631/26 Opposes submission 1006/2 Chris Hill & Natasha Rodley 1531/1 Oppose retention of existing

Residential M Medium Intensity Zone over other properties as shown on Planning Map 75 and seek rezoning to Residential H High Intensity Zone, as medium is no longer appropriate to changing nature of Orewa. Support change in building height for all land in residential

zones within the Orewa East Structure Plan boundary from 9 metres to 11.5 metres.

Chris Hill & Natasha Rodley 1531/2 Amend Planning Map 75 (shown attached to submission) to show Residential H High Intensity Residential Zone over the listed residential properties in Riverside Road.

Henry C & Ann E Turner 1005/1 Oppose retention of existing Residential M Medium Intensity Zone over other properties as shown on Planning Map 75 and seek rezoning to Residential H High Intensity Zone, as medium is no longer appropriate to changing nature of Orewa. Support change in building height for all land in residential zones within the Orewa East Structure Plan boundary from 9 metres to 11.5 metres.

Henry C & Ann E Turner 1005/2 Amend Planning Map 75 (shown attached to submission) to show Residential H High Intensity Residential Zone over the listed residential properties in Riverside Road.

Wayne A Kampjes 1605/1 Oppose retention of existing Residential M Medium Intensity Zone over other properties as shown on Planning Map 75 and seek rezoning to Residential H High Intensity Zone, as medium is no longer appropriate to changing nature of Orewa. Support change in building height for all land in residential zones within the Orewa East Structure Plan boundary from 9 metres to 11.5 metres.

Wayne A Kampjes 1605/2 Amend Planning Map 75 (shown attached to submission) to show Residential H High Intensity Residential Zone over the listed residential properties in Riverside Road.

Herbert F & Joy Henley 1577/13 Support retention of triangular section of residential sites adjacent to Orewa College, bordered by the river and accessed via Riverside Rd, shown on planning map 75 and being those properties South of Riverside Road, being 56 - 74 Riverside Road and Pt Lot 1 DP 41186 (Orewa College parking), as MEDIUM density residential zoning.

11.2 F W Friis (1171/2), F W Friis (1171/3), Gladys Olive Mason (1001/1), Philna Victor & Paul

Nickel (1006/1), Carol Adams (FS1638/4), Danny Adams (FS1639/24), Adam Boot (FS1636/8), Christina Boot (FS1239/18), Ingrid Boot (FS1314/2), Louise Boot (FS1637/24), Carol Burton (FS1635/8), I H Burton (FS1634/4), Mrs G Burton (FS1633/2), John Colligan (FS1640/6), Mr R Cooper (FS1322/12), Sandra Cooper (FS1526/5), Sandra Cooper (FS1526/6), John Drury (FS1500/17), Mr Martin William Emery (FS1512/39), Mr

Martin William Emery (FS1512/40), Mrs Jeanne P Emery (FS1486/17), Mrs Maria Patricia Garrett (FS1305/13), Desmond H Griffin (FS1436/13), Robert Griffin (FS1651/23), Nola & Reginald Hardy (FS1111/5), Ray Howard (FS1307/17), Raywyn L Howard (FS1306/19), Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc) (FS1499/10), Frank Stanton (FS1407/17), Maggie Stanton (FS1372/4), Kate Templeton (FS1650/2), Mr T O & Mrs K Templeton (FS1304/5), The Reaction Trust (FS1408/7), Eleanor Wenman (FS1315/12), Brian Wonnacott (FS1642/1), Paula Wonnacott (FS1641/5), C J Zwart (FS1630/11), L W Zwart (FS1631/14), Philna Victor & Paul Nickel (1006/2), Carol Adams (FS1638/5), Danny Adams (FS1639/25), Adam Boot (FS1636/25), Christina Boot (FS1239/25), Ingrid Boot (FS1314/25), Louise Boot (FS1637/25), Carol Burton (FS1635/12), I H Burton (FS1634/10), Mrs G Burton (FS1633/10), John Colligan (FS1640/7), Mr R Cooper (FS1322/13), Sandra Cooper (FS1526/7), John Drury (FS1500/18), Mrs Jeanne P Emery (FS1486/18), Mrs Maria Patricia Garrett (FS1305/14), Desmond H Griffin (FS1436/14), Robert Griffin (FS1651/24), Nola & Reginald Hardy (FS1111/6), Ray Howard (FS1307/18), Raywyn L Howard (FS1306/20), Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc) (FS1499/29), Frank Stanton (FS1407/18), Maggie Stanton (FS1372/5), Kate Templeton (FS1650/3), Mr T O & Mrs K Templeton (FS1304/6), The Reaction Trust (FS1408/8), Eleanor Wenman (FS1315/13), Brian Wonnacott (FS1642/2), Paula Wonnacott (FS1641/6), C J Zwart (FS1630/22), L W Zwart (FS1631/26), Chris Hill & Natasha Rodley (1531/1), Chris Hill & Natasha Rodley (1531/2), Henry C & Ann E Turner (1005/1), Henry C & Ann E Turner (1005/2), Wayne A Kampjes (1605/1), Wayne A Kampjes (1605/2), Herbert F & Joy Henley (1577/13).

11.2.1 Decision

(i) That submissions (1001/1), (FS1638/5), (FS1639/25), (FS1636/25), (FS1239/25), (FS1314/25), (FS1637/25), (FS1635/12), (FS1634/10), (FS1633/10), (FS1640/7), (FS1322/13), (FS1526/7), (FS1500/18), (FS1486/18), (FS1305/14), (FS1436/14), (FS1651/24), (FS1111/6), (FS1307/18), (FS1306/20), (FS1499/29), (FS1407/18), (FS1372/5), (FS1650/3), (FS1304/6), (FS1408/8), (FS1315/13), (FS1642/2), (FS1641/6), (FS1630/22), (1577/13) and (FS1631/26) be accepted.

(ii) That submissions (1171/2), (1006/1), (FS1638/4), (FS1639/24), (FS1636/8),

(FS1239/18), (FS1314/2), (FS1637/24), (FS1635/8), (FS1634/4), (FS1633/2), (FS1640/6), (FS1322/12), (FS1526/5), (FS1526/6), (FS1500/17), (FS1512/39), (FS1512/40), (FS1486/17), (FS1305/13), (FS1436/13), (FS1651/23), (FS1111/5), (FS1307/17), (FS1306/19), (FS1499/10), (FS1407/17), (FS1372/4), (FS1650/2), (FS1304/5), (FS1408/7), (FS1315/12), (FS1642/1), (FS1641/5), (FS1630/11), (FS1631/14), (1531/1), (1005/1) and (1605/1) be accepted in part to the extent that the 11.5m maximum height rule be retained to the extent set out in 9.2.3.

(iii) That submissions (1171/3), (1006/2), (1531/2), (1005/2) and (1605/2) be rejected.

11.2.2 Reason for Decision

The submissions seek the rezoning of 12 sites from ResM to ResH. These sites are located on the south side of Riverside Drive and between the Orewa Estuary and Orewa College. The Orewa East Structure Plan process did not specifically address the potential for rezoning this land. It is noted however that the Structure Plan process does rezone land some ResM zone to ResH along the edges of Victor Eaves Park. The reasons set out in the submissions include consistency with the strategy and objectives and policies, and that the land has similar characteristics to the land adjoining Victor Eaves Park. While the land is located adjacent to the estuary and near a large park and adjoining the school it is located in an area that is prone to flooding and may be subject to inundation in the future. We consider that this makes it less suitable for more intensive development. The land subject to the submission is roughly triangular in shape and includes a number of rear sites. This makes the land less suitable for high intensity development where long street frontages are needed to provide open space and outlook for more tightly packed houses. While a satisfactory development may be appropriate should all the land be developed as a single site (which could include new streets) we consider that the fragmented ownership pattern makes this unlikely to occur. This situation can be distinguished from the land adjoining Victor Eaves Park as that land is typically one site deep with all sites having good street frontages.

Accordingly we recommend that the existing zoning of land in this area remain unchanged. The aspects of the submissions concerning building height in the Orewa Structure Plan Area have been discussed in Section 9 of this report and accordingly that aspect of the submissions should be accepted. The submission from Gladys Mason supports the rezoning of other land included within the Proposed Variation that has not been opposed. Accordingly that submission should be accepted.

11.2.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

No amendments resulting from this decision.

12.0 APPLY VARIABLE HEIGHT TO OTHER SITES 12.1 Submissions Harbourcity Developments & Construction Ltd

1513/1 Orewa VHRZ. Approve proposed zone, but extend the area covered by this provision. Allow for proposed building heights to reflect floor area ratios and encourage underground parking.

Orewa Land Ltd FS1586/44 Supports submission 1513/1 The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

FS1582/16 Opposes submission 1513/1

Nick Hindson 1548/1 That the area between Hibiscus Coast Hwy and Centreway Road south of CBD all be rezoned to the proposed "Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone", but this proposed zone be changed to allow tower buildings up to a maximum of 12 levels.

Orewa Land Ltd FS1586/30 Supports submission 1548/1 Kensington Properties Ltd 1451/2 Amend Content in 8.8.8 to

include the Kensington site into the Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone.

Carol Adams FS1638/18 Opposes submission 1451/2 Danny Adams FS1639/20 Opposes submission 1451/2 T J Anderson FS1263/24 Opposes submission 1451/2 Adam Boot FS1636/26 Opposes submission 1451/2 Christina Boot FS1239/24 Opposes submission 1451/2 Ingrid Boot FS1314/27 Opposes submission 1451/2 Louise Boot FS1637/18 Opposes submission 1451/2 Carol Burton FS1635/10 Opposes submission 1451/2 I H Burton FS1634/12 Opposes submission 1451/2 Mrs G Burton FS1633/12 Opposes submission 1451/2 John Colligan FS1640/24 Opposes submission 1451/2 Mr R Cooper FS1322/22 Opposes submission 1451/2 Sandra Cooper FS1526/21 Opposes submission 1451/2 John Drury FS1500/27 Opposes submission 1451/2 Mr Martin William Emery FS1512/33 Opposes submission 1451/2 Mrs Jeanne P Emery FS1486/21 Opposes submission 1451/2 Mrs Maria Patricia Garrett FS1305/10 Opposes submission 1451/2 Desmond H Griffin FS1436/29 Opposes submission 1451/2 Robert Griffin FS1651/14 Opposes submission 1451/2 Nola & Reginald Hardy FS1111/3 Opposes submission 1451/2 Gary Hawkins FS1058/23 Opposes submission 1451/2 Ray Howard FS1307/26 Opposes submission 1451/2

Raywyn L Howard FS1306/27 Opposes submission 1451/2 Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc)

FS1499/30 Opposes submission 1451/2

Frank Stanton FS1407/25 Opposes submission 1451/2 Maggie Stanton FS1372/25 Opposes submission 1451/2 Kate Templeton FS1650/10 Opposes submission 1451/2 Mr T O & Mrs K Templeton FS1304/11 Opposes submission 1451/2 The Reaction Trust FS1408/26 Opposes submission 1451/2 Eleanor Wenman FS1315/23 Opposes submission 1451/2 Brian Wonnacott FS1642/6 Opposes submission 1451/2 Paula Wonnacott FS1641/10 Opposes submission 1451/2 C J Zwart FS1630/24 Opposes submission 1451/2 L W Zwart FS1631/25 Opposes submission 1451/2 Kensington Properties Ltd 1451/3 Amend Planning Map 75 to

include the Kensington site within the High Intensity Variable Height Zone.

Carol Adams FS1638/19 Opposes submission 1451/3 Danny Adams FS1639/21 Opposes submission 1451/3 T J Anderson FS1263/25 Opposes submission 1451/3 Adam Boot FS1636/12 Opposes submission 1451/3 Christina Boot FS1239/12 Opposes submission 1451/3 Ingrid Boot FS1314/19 Opposes submission 1451/3 Louise Boot FS1637/19 Opposes submission 1451/3 Carol Burton FS1635/3 Opposes submission 1451/3 I H Burton FS1634/9 Opposes submission 1451/3 Mrs G Burton FS1633/8 Opposes submission 1451/3 John Colligan FS1640/25 Opposes submission 1451/3 Mr R Cooper FS1322/23 Opposes submission 1451/3 Sandra Cooper FS1526/22 Opposes submission 1451/3 John Drury FS1500/28 Opposes submission 1451/3 Mr Martin William Emery FS1512/34 Opposes submission 1451/3 Mrs Jeanne P Emery FS1486/22 Opposes submission 1451/3 Mrs Maria Patricia Garrett FS1305/11 Opposes submission 1451/3 Desmond H Griffin FS1436/30 Opposes submission 1451/3 Robert Griffin FS1651/15 Opposes submission 1451/3 Nola & Reginald Hardy FS1111/4 Opposes submission 1451/3 Gary Hawkins FS1058/24 Opposes submission 1451/3 Ray Howard FS1307/27 Opposes submission 1451/3 Raywyn L Howard FS1306/28 Opposes submission 1451/3 Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc)

FS1499/7 Opposes submission 1451/3

Frank Stanton FS1407/26 Opposes submission 1451/3 Maggie Stanton FS1372/26 Opposes submission 1451/3 Kate Templeton FS1650/11 Opposes submission 1451/3 Mr T O & Mrs K Templeton FS1304/12 Opposes submission 1451/3 The Reaction Trust FS1408/27 Opposes submission 1451/3 Eleanor Wenman FS1315/24 Opposes submission 1451/3 Brian Wonnacott FS1642/7 Opposes submission 1451/3 Paula Wonnacott FS1641/11 Opposes submission 1451/3 C J Zwart FS1630/19 Opposes submission 1451/3 L W Zwart FS1631/23 Opposes submission 1451/3 Jennifer H Kipfer 1532/13 To allow no change in zoning for

the area described in submission.

Orewa Land Ltd 1586/2 Extend the Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone further to the south, consistent with the full extent of the zone as identified in the Orewa East Structure Plan (Appendix 5), and as shown on the attached Planning Maps 75 and 78 (refer Annexure 3). This will maximise the

opportunity to fulfil Council's growth obligations under the Regional Growth Strategy and sector agreements.

Albany Scaffolding Ltd FS1656/2 Supports submission 1586/2 William S & Yvonne M Ambler FS1426/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Auckland Regional Council FS1536/25 Support in parts submission

1586/2 Dr Simon Baker FS1528/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Ian Bartlett FS1623/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Robert W Bartlett FS1732/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Nancy Baulcomb FS1699/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Philip Baulcomb FS1698/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Christopher W Bisman FS1683/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Mrs Mavis Anne Brackebush FS1700/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Fred Bradley FS1714/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Patricia L Bradley FS1701/2 Supports submission 1586/2 John Bretnall FS1564/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Lorraine Bretnall FS1554/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Timothy R Brooks FS1549/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Heather Burns FS1702/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Andrew Chambers FS1613/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Stuart Chambers FS1730/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Peter McKenzie Clark FS1735/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Robyn Clark FS1733/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Coastal Properties Ltd FS1559/4 Supports submission 1586/2 Coastal Scaffolding Ltd FS1696/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Annalise Coghlan FS1556/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Brendon Coghlan FS1734/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Claudia Coghlan FS1671/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Karlene E Coghlan FS1455/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Madison Coghlan FS1664/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Kim & Lyn Corbett FS1728/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Irene Coussons FS1660/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Robert Coussons FS1659/2 Supports submission 1586/2 James McLellan Coxhead FS1722/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Jeanene G Davis FS1434/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Paul John Davis FS1435/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Les Downes FS1490/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Maree Downes FS1489/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Colin L Dryland FS1625/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Tony Edward FS1749/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Dennis Ellwood FS1508/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Susan Ellwood FS1446/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Deirdre F Evans FS1658/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Carolyn Fletcher FS1680/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Stuart Fluker FS1725/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Jill Flyger FS1746/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Neil Flyger FS1758/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Steve Franich FS1448/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Karen Franklin FS1520/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Benjamin Thomas Fraser Pain FS1621/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Deborah Fromich FS1741/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Wayne Fromich FS1742/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Paul Fry FS1653/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Sarah Fry FS1654/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Lance Gilbertson FS1752/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Doug Godfrey FS1675/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Miriam Godfrey FS1676/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Timothy A Green FS1677/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Andrew Alistair Grey FS1614/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Ben Grooten FS1674/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Eddie Grooten FS1669/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Erika Grooten FS1670/2 Supports submission 1586/2

Cushla Hackett FS1747/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Malcolm James Haggerty FS1627/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Andrew F Hansen FS1682/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Jane Hansen FS1665/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Tony Harden FS1751/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Ross A Hemi FS1458/3 Supports submission 1586/2 D C Henshaw FS1707/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Reti Hick FS1459/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Dorothea M Hodgson FS1488/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Gwen Hopper FS1666/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Shana Hopper FS1617/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Kay Hough FS1710/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Nick D Humphreys FS1721/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Dianne Jackson FS1736/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Francis Jackson FS1737/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Lauren Jenkins FS1622/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Sarah Josephs FS1712/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Shane Josephs FS1713/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Jordon Kibblewhite FS1740/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Michael Kibblewhite FS1744/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Peter A Kibblewhite FS1477/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Thomas Kibblewhite FS1745/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Yvonne Kibblewhite FS1478/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Thalla Esme King FS1697/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Guenther Lammer FS1689/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Margareta Lammer FS1739/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Clive Lovell Lasenby FS1073/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Diane M Lasenby FS1074/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Suzanne C Lasenby FS1009/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Dean A Lawson FS1444/4 Supports submission 1586/2 Jane Lawson FS1757/2 Supports submission 1586/2 William S Lawson FS1738/2 Supports submission 1586/2 T & A Lees FS1729/2 Supports submission 1586/2 A K Leigh FS1668/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Jack Leonard FS1706/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Mary Leonard FS1684/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Brendan Lindsay FS1685/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Jo Lindsay FS1686/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Elaine Magill FS1465/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Kenneth J Magill FS1467/3 Supports submission 1586/2 John L Mallett FS1010/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Lisa Mallett FS1562/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Kathryn J Manihera FS1496/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Mark D Manihera FS1460/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Corban J Martin FS1447/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Elliott R Martin FS1439/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Kendall Martin FS1672/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Kiri Angela Martin FS1462/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Munroe Martin FS1678/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Wayne H Martin FS1461/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Peter Martinovich FS1709/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Julieann McCathie FS1504/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Nevis Robert McDougall FS1618/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Nola E McGowan FS1501/3 Supports submission 1586/2 P & M McKinney FS1059/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Keith McMillan FS1719/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Ian & Rosemary McPherson FS1726/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Marilyn Mills FS1753/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Cheryl M Milton FS1491/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Larry C Mingins FS1506/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Mary C Mingins FS1507/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Lyndelle Mitchell FS1619/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Ernest A Moffat FS1718/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Eileen Lorraine Moloney FS1657/2 Supports submission 1586/2

Craig Morris FS1454/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Marcia L Morris FS1453/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Verity Norton FS1723/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Orewa Carparking FS1560/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Bevan Philip FS1720/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Bailey Phillips FS1525/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Courtney Phillips FS1495/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Ella F Phillips FS1679/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Margaret Phillips FS1529/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Wendell Phillips FS1524/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Wendell Craig Phillips FS1681/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Kieran Price FS1615/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Beverly Rose Prince FS1628/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Kaye Procter FS1748/2 Supports submission 1586/2 H M Rishworth FS1652/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Brian Rutter FS1412/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Janine L Rutter FS1661/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Judith Helen Rutter FS1717/2 Supports submission 1586/2 T E & J H Rutter FS1575/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Margarita Ryjkova FS1655/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Janette Sadgrove FS1694/2 Supports submission 1586/2 John Sadgrove FS1693/2 Supports submission 1586/2 M B & M Saunders FS1727/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Jacqueline L Schieb FS1471/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Mark A Schieb FS1472/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Rodger Scott FS1692/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Rueben Scott FS1724/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Sandra Scott FS1708/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Helen M Sellars FS1452/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Raymond A Sellars FS1498/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Melanie Sharplin FS1750/2 Supports submission 1586/2 John Charles Shattock FS1687/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Julie Lorraine Shattock FS1688/2 Supports submission 1586/2 John Smart FS1711/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Bev Smith FS1755/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Craig Smith FS1756/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Dillon J Smith FS1624/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Hephzibah Smith FS1760/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Lance Smith FS1759/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Lukas Smith FS1754/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Michael P Smith FS1503/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Suzanne I Smith FS1502/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Matt Symons FS1626/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Ellie ter Haar FS1518/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Sam ter Haar FS1463/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Barry ter Hao FS1667/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Margaret Trowbridge FS1474/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Philip D Trowbridge FS1473/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Owen Tucker FS1705/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Pat Tucker FS1704/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Rod F Turner FS1691/2 Supports submission 1586/2 John Van der Sluis FS1663/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Leonardine Van der Sluis FS1662/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Ronald Vince FS1731/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Anthony W M Waring FS1716/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Audrey L Waring FS1715/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Antony Wentworth FS1703/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Jules G Were FS1690/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Suzi Were FS1673/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Dave White FS1695/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Kim White FS1743/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Bruce H Whitehead FS1440/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Kate Wilson FS1620/2 Supports submission 1586/2 Garth C Wiltshire FS1566/3 Supports submission 1586/2

J R Wiltshire FS1565/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Milton B Wylie FS1437/3 Supports submission 1586/2 Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/7 We accept the policy statement but disagree with the area indicated on the planning map 75. We have dealt with zone areas through map amendments.

Ryman Healthcare Ltd 1534/1 Amend Rule 8.10.1.3 in V 101 to permit a more variable height limit in respect of Lot 2 DP 208382 (the Ryman Healthcare Retirement Village site), but acknowledging an overall maximum height of 16 metres.

Carol Adams FS1638/20 Opposes submission 1534/1 Danny Adams FS1639/3 Opposes submission 1534/1 T J Anderson FS1263/4 Opposes submission 1534/1 Adam Boot FS1636/2 Opposes submission 1534/1 Christina Boot FS1239/2 Opposes submission 1534/1 Ingrid Boot FS1314/16 Opposes submission 1534/1 Louise Boot FS1637/20 Opposes submission 1534/1 Carol Burton FS1635/6 Opposes submission 1534/1 I H Burton FS1634/6 Opposes submission 1534/1 Mrs G Burton FS1633/4 Opposes submission 1534/1 John Colligan FS1640/3 Opposes submission 1534/1 Mr R Cooper FS1322/18 Opposes submission 1534/1 Sandra Cooper FS1526/26 Opposes submission 1534/1 John Drury FS1500/12 Opposes submission 1534/1 Mr Martin William Emery FS1512/42 Opposes submission 1534/1 Mrs Jeanne P Emery FS1486/23 Opposes submission 1534/1 Mrs Maria Patricia Garrett FS1305/2 Opposes submission 1534/1 Desmond H Griffin FS1436/10 Opposes submission 1534/1 Robert Griffin FS1651/18 Opposes submission 1534/1 Nola & Reginald Hardy FS1111/22 Opposes submission 1534/1 Gary Hawkins FS1058/14 Opposes submission 1534/1 Ray Howard FS1307/13 Opposes submission 1534/1 Raywyn L Howard FS1306/16 Opposes submission 1534/1 Gordon Miller FS1072/2 Opposes submission 1534/1 Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc)

FS1499/8 Opposes submission 1534/1

Orewa Residents Group FS1616/1 Opposes submission 1534/1 Frank Stanton FS1407/7 Opposes submission 1534/1 Maggie Stanton FS1372/17 Opposes submission 1534/1 Mr T O & Mrs K Templeton FS1304/2 Opposes submission 1534/1 The Reaction Trust FS1408/11 Opposes submission 1534/1 Eleanor Wenman FS1315/19 Opposes submission 1534/1 Brian Wonnacott FS1642/9 Opposes submission 1534/1 Paula Wonnacott FS1641/1 Opposes submission 1534/1 C J Zwart FS1630/14 Opposes submission 1534/1 L W Zwart FS1631/18 Opposes submission 1534/1 Ryman Healthcare Ltd 1534/2 That such other consequential

amendments be made to the variation to allow for the specific characteristics of an integrated retirement village on the site at 30 Ambassador Glade in Orewa.

Carol Adams FS1638/21 Opposes submission 1534/2 Danny Adams FS1639/4 Opposes submission 1534/2 T J Anderson FS1263/5 Opposes submission 1534/2 Adam Boot FS1636/24 Opposes submission 1534/2 Christina Boot FS1239/23 Opposes submission 1534/2 Ingrid Boot FS1314/26 Opposes submission 1534/2

Louise Boot FS1637/21 Opposes submission 1534/2 Carol Burton FS1635/11 Opposes submission 1534/2 I H Burton FS1634/11 Opposes submission 1534/2 Mrs G Burton FS1633/11 Opposes submission 1534/2 John Colligan FS1640/4 Opposes submission 1534/2 Mr R Cooper FS1322/19 Opposes submission 1534/2 Sandra Cooper FS1526/27 Opposes submission 1534/2 John Drury FS1500/13 Opposes submission 1534/2 Mr Martin William Emery FS1512/43 Opposes submission 1534/2 Mrs Jeanne P Emery FS1486/24 Opposes submission 1534/2 Mrs Maria Patricia Garrett FS1305/3 Opposes submission 1534/2 Desmond H Griffin FS1436/11 Opposes submission 1534/2 Robert Griffin FS1651/19 Opposes submission 1534/2 Nola & Reginald Hardy FS1111/23 Opposes submission 1534/2 Gary Hawkins FS1058/15 Opposes submission 1534/2 Ray Howard FS1307/14 Opposes submission 1534/2 Raywyn L Howard FS1306/17 Opposes submission 1534/2 Gordon Miller FS1072/3 Opposes submission 1534/2 Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc)

FS1499/28 Opposes submission 1534/2

Orewa Residents Group FS1616/2 Opposes submission 1534/2 Frank Stanton FS1407/8 Opposes submission 1534/2 Maggie Stanton FS1372/18 Opposes submission 1534/2 Mr T O & Mrs K Templeton FS1304/3 Opposes submission 1534/2 The Reaction Trust FS1408/12 Opposes submission 1534/2 Eleanor Wenman FS1315/20 Opposes submission 1534/2 Brian Wonnacott FS1642/10 Opposes submission 1534/2 Paula Wonnacott FS1641/2 Opposes submission 1534/2 C J Zwart FS1630/23 Opposes submission 1534/2 L W Zwart FS1631/24 Opposes submission 1534/2 Ryman Healthcare Ltd 1534/3 Alternative - the application of

the Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zoning to the site at 30 Ambassador Glade in Orewa, with the necessary modifications.

Carol Adams FS1638/22 Opposes submission 1534/3 Danny Adams FS1639/5 Opposes submission 1534/3 T J Anderson FS1263/6 Opposes submission 1534/3 Adam Boot FS1636/3 Opposes submission 1534/3 Christina Boot FS1239/3 Opposes submission 1534/3 Ingrid Boot FS1314/17 Opposes submission 1534/3 Louise Boot FS1637/22 Opposes submission 1534/3 Carol Burton FS1635/7 Opposes submission 1534/3 I H Burton FS1634/7 Opposes submission 1534/3 Mrs G Burton FS1633/5 Opposes submission 1534/3 John Colligan FS1640/5 Opposes submission 1534/3 Mr R Cooper FS1322/20 Opposes submission 1534/3 Sandra Cooper FS1526/28 Opposes submission 1534/3 John Drury FS1500/14 Opposes submission 1534/3 Mr Martin William Emery FS1512/44 Opposes submission 1534/3 Mrs Jeanne P Emery FS1486/25 Opposes submission 1534/3 Mrs Maria Patricia Garrett FS1305/4 Opposes submission 1534/3 Desmond H Griffin FS1436/12 Opposes submission 1534/3 Robert Griffin FS1651/20 Opposes submission 1534/3 Nola & Reginald Hardy FS1111/24 Opposes submission 1534/3 Gary Hawkins FS1058/16 Opposes submission 1534/3 Ray Howard FS1307/15 Opposes submission 1534/3 Raywyn L Howard FS1306/18 Opposes submission 1534/3 Gordon Miller FS1072/4 Opposes submission 1534/3 Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc)

FS1499/9 Opposes submission 1534/3

Orewa Residents Group FS1616/3 Opposes submission 1534/3 Frank Stanton FS1407/9 Opposes submission 1534/3

Maggie Stanton FS1372/19 Opposes submission 1534/3 Mr T O & Mrs K Templeton FS1304/4 Opposes submission 1534/3 The Reaction Trust FS1408/13 Opposes submission 1534/3 Eleanor Wenman FS1315/21 Opposes submission 1534/3 Brian Wonnacott FS1642/11 Opposes submission 1534/3 Paula Wonnacott FS1641/3 Opposes submission 1534/3 C J Zwart FS1630/15 Opposes submission 1534/3 L W Zwart FS1631/19 Opposes submission 1534/3 VIL Investment Trust Ltd 1422/1 Oppose the limitation of this

Policy to restrict the Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone to the south of the town centre facing onto the Hibiscus Coast Highway and seeks that the policy be amended to enable other suitable sites with the same attributes described in submission by the purpose of the zone to be zoned as Res VR. Various relief sought.

Kensington Properties Ltd FS1451/4 Supports submission 1422/1 Timothy R Brooks 1549/1 Support in general.

Changes: That the Residential H zone be extended to include Orewa South bounded by Moenui Ave, Centreway Road and Hibiscus Coast Highway - this will allow reasonable scope for developments to occur given the 5000 sq.m. quality criteria. That the allowable height in the Variable Height Zone be extended to twelve levels to allow more development to meet economic viability requirements, without altering the aesthetic and environmental benefits of the Variable Height proposal.

Orewa Land Ltd FS1586/31 Supports submission 1549/1 Christina E Louis 1607/1 Permit building of high rise,

commercial and residential in area bound by northern side Florence Ave and northern side of Moenui Road and Hibiscus Coast Highway, back to eastern side of Centreway Road, but nowhere else - Modernise central Orewa, encourage business and increase residential opportunity without depriving existing residents of their present residential benefits.

Destination Orewa Beach (Orewa Bus Assoc)

1587/2 We do not support any staged release of land within zones. Market demand should determine the appropriate development of all area zones and will fulfil Council's obligations under the Regional Growth Strategy and sector agreements. It is a costly exercise to continually re-consult to release more land.

Auckland Regional Council FS1536/26 Support in parts submission 1587/2

Orewa Land Ltd FS1586/45 Supports submission 1587/2 12.2 Harbourcity Developments & Construction Ltd (1513/1), Orewa Land Ltd (FS1586/44),

The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (FS1582/16), Nick Hindson (1548/1), Orewa Land Ltd (1586/2), Albany Scaffolding Ltd (FS1656/2), William S & Yvonne M Ambler (FS1426/3), Auckland Regional Council (FS1536/25), Dr Simon Baker (FS1528/3), Ian Bartlett (FS1623/2), Robert W Bartlett (FS1732/2), Nancy Baulcomb (FS1699/2), Philip Baulcomb (FS1698/2), Christopher W Bisman (FS1683/2), Mrs Mavis Anne Brackebush (FS1700/2), Fred Bradley (FS1714/2), Patricia L Bradley (FS1701/2), John Bretnall (FS1564/3), Lorraine Bretnall (FS1554/3), Timothy R Brooks (FS1549/3), Heather Burns (FS1702/2), Andrew Chambers (FS1613/2), Stuart Chambers (FS1730/2), Peter McKenzie Clark (FS1735/2), Robyn Clark (FS1733/2), Coastal Properties Ltd (FS1559/4), Coastal Scaffolding Ltd (FS1696/2), Annalise Coghlan (FS1556/3), Brendon Coghlan (FS1734/2), Claudia Coghlan (FS1671/2), Karlene E Coghlan (FS1455/3), Madison Coghlan (FS1664/2), Kim & Lyn Corbett (FS1728/2), Irene Coussons (FS1660/2), Robert Coussons (FS1659/2), James McLellan Coxhead (FS1722/2), Jeanene G Davis (FS1434/3), Paul John Davis (FS1435/3), Les Downes (FS1490/3), Maree Downes (FS1489/3), Colin L Dryland (FS1625/2), Tony Edward (FS1749/2), Dennis Ellwood (FS1508/3), Susan Ellwood (FS1446/3), Deirdre F Evans (FS1658/2), Carolyn Fletcher (FS1680/2), Stuart Fluker (FS1725/2), Jill Flyger (FS1746/2), Neil Flyger (FS1758/2), Steve Franich (FS1448/3), Karen Franklin (FS1520/3), Benjamin Thomas Fraser Pain (FS1621/2), Deborah Fromich (FS1741/2), Wayne Fromich (FS1742/2), Paul Fry (FS1653/2), Sarah Fry (FS1654/2), Lance Gilbertson (FS1752/2), Doug Godfrey (FS1675/2), Miriam Godfrey (FS1676/2), Timothy A Green (FS1677/2), Andrew Alistair Grey (FS1614/2), Ben Grooten (FS1674/2), Eddie Grooten (FS1669/2), Erika Grooten (FS1670/2), Cushla Hackett (FS1747/2), Malcolm James Haggerty (FS1627/2), Andrew F Hansen (FS1682/2), Jane Hansen (FS1665/2), Tony Harden (FS1751/2), Ross A Hemi (FS1458/3), D C Henshaw (FS1707/2), Reti Hick (FS1459/3), Dorothea M Hodgson (FS1488/3), Gwen Hopper (FS1666/2), Shana Hopper (FS1617/2), Kay Hough (FS1710/2), Nick D Humphreys (FS1721/2), Dianne Jackson (FS1736/2), Francis Jackson (FS1737/2), Lauren Jenkins (FS1622/2), Sarah Josephs (FS1712/2), Shane Josephs (FS1713/2), Jordon Kibblewhite (FS1740/2), Michael Kibblewhite (FS1744/2), Peter A Kibblewhite (FS1477/3), Thomas Kibblewhite (FS1745/2), Yvonne Kibblewhite (FS1478/3), Thalla Esme King (FS1697/2), Guenther Lammer (FS1689/2), Margareta Lammer (FS1739/2), Clive Lovell Lasenby (FS1073/3), Diane M Lasenby (FS1074/3), Suzanne C Lasenby (FS1009/3), Dean A Lawson (FS1444/4), Jane Lawson (FS1757/2), William S Lawson (FS1738/2), T & A Lees (FS1729/2), A K Leigh (FS1668/2), Jack Leonard (FS1706/2), Mary Leonard (FS1684/2), Brendan Lindsay (FS1685/2), Jo Lindsay (FS1686/2), Elaine Magill (FS1465/3), Kenneth J Magill (FS1467/3), John L Mallett (FS1010/3), Lisa Mallett (FS1562/3), Kathryn J Manihera (FS1496/3), Mark D Manihera (FS1460/3), Corban J Martin (FS1447/3), Elliott R Martin (FS1439/3), Kendall Martin (FS1672/2), Kiri Angela Martin (FS1462/3), Munroe Martin (FS1678/2), Wayne H Martin (FS1461/3), Peter Martinovich (FS1709/2), Julieann McCathie (FS1504/3), Nevis Robert McDougall (FS1618/2), Nola E McGowan (FS1501/3), P & M McKinney (FS1059/3), Keith McMillan (FS1719/2), Ian & Rosemary McPherson (FS1726/2), Marilyn Mills (FS1753/2), Cheryl M Milton (FS1491/3), Larry C Mingins (FS1506/3), Mary C Mingins (FS1507/2), Lyndelle Mitchell (FS1619/2), Ernest A Moffat (FS1718/2), Eileen Lorraine Moloney (FS1657/2), Craig Morris (FS1454/3), Marcia L Morris (FS1453/3), Verity Norton (FS1723/2), Orewa Carparking (FS1560/3), Bevan Philip (FS1720/2), Bailey Phillips (FS1525/3), Courtney Phillips (FS1495/3), Ella F Phillips (FS1679/2), Margaret Phillips (FS1529/3), Wendell Phillips (FS1524/3), Wendell Craig Phillips (FS1681/2), Kieran Price (FS1615/2), Beverly Rose Prince (FS1628/2), Kaye Procter (FS1748/2), H M Rishworth (FS1652/2), Brian Rutter (FS1412/3), Janine L Rutter (FS1661/2), Judith Helen Rutter (FS1717/2), T E & J H Rutter (FS1575/3), Margarita Ryjkova (FS1655/2), Janette Sadgrove (FS1694/2), John Sadgrove (FS1693/2), M B & M Saunders (FS1727/2), Jacqueline L Schieb (FS1471/3), Mark A Schieb (FS1472/3), Rodger Scott (FS1692/2), Rueben Scott (FS1724/2), Sandra Scott (FS1708/2), Helen M Sellars (FS1452/3), Raymond A Sellars (FS1498/3), Melanie Sharplin (FS1750/2), John Charles Shattock (FS1687/2), Julie Lorraine Shattock (FS1688/2), John Smart (FS1711/2), Bev Smith (FS1755/2), Craig Smith (FS1756/2), Dillon J Smith (FS1624/2), Hephzibah Smith (FS1760/2), Lance Smith (FS1759/2), Lukas Smith (FS1754/2), Michael P Smith (FS1503/3), Suzanne I Smith (FS1502/3), Matt Symons (FS1626/2), Ellie ter Haar (FS1518/3), Sam ter Haar (FS1463/3), Barry ter Haar (FS1667/2), Margaret Trowbridge (FS1474/3), Philip D Trowbridge (FS1473/3), Owen Tucker (FS1705/2), Pat Tucker (FS1704/2), Rod F Turner (FS1691/2), John Van der Sluis (FS1663/2), Leonardine Van der Sluis (FS1662/2), Ronald Vince (FS1731/2), Anthony W M Waring (FS1716/2),

Audrey L Waring (FS1715/2), Antony Wentworth (FS1703/2), Jules G Were (FS1690/2), Suzi Were (FS1673/2), Dave White (FS1695/2), Kim White (FS1743/2), Bruce H Whitehead (FS1440/3), Kate Wilson (FS1620/2), Garth C Wiltshire (FS1566/3), J R Wiltshire (FS1565/3), Milton B Wylie (FS1437/3), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/7), VIL Investment Trust Ltd (1422/1), (Kensington Properties Ltd (FS1451/4), Timothy R Brooks (1549/1), Orewa Land Ltd (FS1586/31), Christina E Louis (1607/1), Destination Orewa Beach (Orewa Bus Assoc) (1587/2), Auckland Regional Council (FS1536/26), Orewa Land Ltd (FS1586/45).

12.2.1 Decision

(i) That submission (FS1582/16) be rejected

(ii) That submissions (1513/1), (FS1586/44), (1586/2), (FS1656/2), (FS1426/3), (FS1536/25), (FS1528/3), (FS1623/2), (FS1732/2), (FS1699/2), (FS1698/2), (FS1683/2), (FS1700/2), (FS1714/2), (FS1701/2), (FS1564/3), (FS1554/3), (FS1549/3), (FS1702/2), (FS1613/2), (FS1730/2), (FS1735/2), (FS1733/2), (FS1559/4), (FS1696/2), (FS1556/3), (FS1734/2), (FS1671/2), (FS1455/3), (FS1664/2), (FS1728/2), (FS1660/2), (FS1659/2), (FS1722/2), (FS1434/3), (FS1435/3), (FS1490/3), (FS1489/3), (FS1625/2), (FS1749/2), (FS1508/3), (FS1446/3), (FS1658/2), (FS1680/2), (FS1725/2), (FS1746/2), (FS1758/2), (FS1448/3), (FS1520/3), (FS1621/2), (FS1741/2), (FS1742/2), (FS1653/2), (FS1654/2), (FS1752/2), (FS1675/2), (FS1676/2), (FS1677/2), (FS1614/2), (FS1674/2), (FS1669/2), (FS1670/2), (FS1747/2), (FS1627/2), (FS1682/2), (FS1665/2), (FS1751/2), (FS1458/3), (FS1707/2), (FS1459/3), (FS1488/3), (FS1666/2), (FS1617/2), (FS1710/2), (FS1721/2), (FS1736/2), (FS1737/2), (FS1622/2), (FS1712/2), (FS1713/2), (FS1740/2), (FS1744/2), (FS1477/3), (FS1745/2), (FS1478/3), (FS1697/2), (FS1689/2), (FS1739/2), (FS1073/3), (FS1074/3), (FS1009/3), (FS1444/4), (FS1757/2), (FS1738/2), (FS1729/2), (FS1668/2), (FS1706/2), (FS1684/2), (FS1685/2), (FS1686/2), (FS1465/3), (FS1467/3), (FS1010/3), (FS1562/3), (FS1496/3), (FS1460/3), (FS1447/3), (FS1439/3), (FS1672/2), (FS1462/3), (FS1678/2), (FS1461/3), (FS1709/2), (FS1504/3), (FS1618/2), (FS1501/3), (FS1059/3), (FS1719/2), (FS1726/2), (FS1753/2), (FS1491/3), (FS1506/3), (FS1507/2), (FS1619/2), (FS1718/2), (FS1657/2), (FS1454/3), (FS1453/3), (FS1723/2), (FS1560/3), (FS1720/2), (FS1525/3), (FS1495/3), (FS1679/2), (FS1529/3), (FS1524/3), (FS1681/2), (FS1615/2), (FS1628/2), (FS1748/2), (FS1652/2), (FS1412/3), (FS1661/2), (FS1717/2), (FS1575/3), (FS1655/2), (FS1694/2), (FS1693/2), (FS1727/2), (FS1471/3), (FS1472/3), (FS1692/2), (FS1724/2), (FS1708/2), (FS1452/3), (FS1498/3), (FS1750/2), (FS1687/2), (FS1688/2), (FS1711/2), (FS1755/2), (FS1756/2), (FS1624/2), (FS1760/2), (FS1759/2), (FS1754/2), (FS1503/3), (FS1502/3), (FS1626/2), (FS1518/3), (FS1463/3), (FS1667/2), (FS1474/3), (FS1473/3), (FS1705/2), (FS1704/2), (FS1691/2), (FS1663/2), (FS1662/2), (FS1731/2), (FS1716/2), (FS1715/2), (FS1703/2), (FS1690/2), (FS1673/2), (FS1695/2), (FS1743/2), (FS1440/3), (FS1620/2), (FS1566/3), (FS1565/3), (FS1437/3), (1585/7), (1422/1) (1549/1), (FS1586/31), (1607/1), (1587/2), (FS1536/26), (FS1586/45) and (FS1451/4) be accepted.

(iii) That submissions (1548/1) and (FS1586/30) be accepted in part to the extent set

out in 12.2.3. 12.2.2 Reasons for Decision

The submitters largely request that the OVHRZ be applied to additional land to south and in the case of the submission from Nick Hindson to the entire area between HBC Highway and Centreway Road south of the CBD.

As set out in section 5 of this decision we agree that the block bounded by Weiti Road, Hibiscus Coast Highway, Loop Road, Centreway Road and Milton Road should be included within the area to be rezoned OVHRZ.

12.2.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

Amend the planning Map75 to show the area bounded by Weiti Road, Hibiscus Coast Highway, Loop Road, Centreway Road and Milton Road as OVHRZ as set out in Appendix 2.

121.3 Kensington Properties Ltd (1451/2), Carol Adams (FS1638/18), Danny Adams

(FS1639/20), T J Anderson (FS1263/24), Adam Boot (FS1636/26), Christina Boot (FS1239/24), Ingrid Boot (FS1314/27), Louise Boot (FS1637/18), Carol Burton (FS1635/10), I H Burton (FS1634/12), Mrs G Burton (FS1633/12), John Colligan (FS1640/24), Mr R Cooper (FS1322/22), Sandra Cooper (FS1526/21), John Drury (FS1500/27), Mr Martin William Emery (FS1512/33), Mrs Jeanne P Emery (FS1486/21), Mrs Maria Patricia Garrett (FS1305/10), Desmond H Griffin (FS1436/29), Robert Griffin (FS1651/14), Nola & Reginald Hardy (FS1111/3), Gary Hawkins (FS1058/23), Ray Howard (FS1307/26), Raywyn L Howard (FS1306/27), Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc) (FS1499/30), Frank Stanton (FS1407/25), Maggie Stanton (FS1372/25), Kate Templeton (FS1650/10), Mr T O & Mrs K Templeton (FS1304/11), The Reaction Trust (FS1408/26), Eleanor Wenman (FS1315/23), Brian Wonnacott (FS1642/6), Paula Wonnacott (FS1641/10), C J Zwart (FS1630/24), L W Zwart (FS1631/25), Kensington Properties Ltd (1451/3), Carol Adams (FS1638/19), Danny Adams (FS1639/21), T J Anderson (FS1263/25), Adam Boot (FS1636/12), Christina Boot (FS1239/12), Ingrid Boot (FS1314/19), Louise Boot (FS1637/19), Carol Burton (FS1635/3), I H Burton (FS1634/9), Mrs G Burton (FS1633/8), John Colligan (FS1640/25), Mr R Cooper (FS1322/23), Sandra Cooper (FS1526/22), John Drury (FS1500/28), Mr Martin William Emery (FS1512/34), Mrs Jeanne P Emery (FS1486/22), Mrs Maria Patricia Garrett (FS1305/11), Desmond H Griffin (FS1436/30), Robert Griffin (FS1651/15), Nola & Reginald Hardy (FS1111/4), Gary Hawkins (FS1058/24), Ray Howard (FS1307/27), Raywyn L Howard (FS1306/28), Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc) (FS1499/7), Frank Stanton (FS1407/26), Maggie Stanton (FS1372/26), Kate Templeton (FS1650/11), Mr T O & Mrs K Templeton (FS1304/12), The Reaction Trust (FS1408/27), Eleanor Wenman (FS1315/24), Brian Wonnacott (FS1642/7), Paula Wonnacott (FS1641/11), C J Zwart (FS1630/19), L W Zwart (FS1631/23).

12.3.1 Decision

(i) That submissions (1451/2) and (1451/3) be rejected.

(ii) That submissions (FS1638/18), (FS1639/20), (FS1263/24), (FS1636/26), (FS1239/24), (FS1314/27), (FS1637/18), (FS1635/10), (FS1634/12), (FS1633/12), (FS1640/24), (FS1322/22), (FS1526/21), (FS1500/27), (FS1512/33), (FS1486/21), (FS1305/10), (FS1436/29), (FS1651/14), (FS1111/3), (FS1058/23), (FS1307/26), (FS1306/27), (FS1499/30), (FS1407/25), (FS1372/25), (FS1650/10), (FS1304/11), (FS1408/26), (FS1315/23), (FS1642/6), (FS1641/10), (FS1630/24), (FS1631/25), (FS1638/19), (FS1639/21), (FS1263/25), (FS1636/12), (FS1239/12), (FS1314/19), (FS1637/19), (FS1635/3), (FS1634/9), (FS1633/8), (FS1640/25), (FS1322/23), (FS1526/22), (FS1500/28), (FS1512/34), (FS1486/22), (FS1305/11), (FS1436/30), (FS1651/15), (FS1111/4), (FS1058/24), (FS1307/27), (FS1306/28), (FS1499/7), (FS1407/26), (FS1372/26), (FS1650/11), (FS1304/12), (FS1408/27), (FS1315/24), (FS1642/7), (FS1641/11), (FS1630/19) and (FS1631/23) be accepted.

12.3.2 Reasons for Decision

The submission from Kensington Properties Ltd request that the Kensington Properties site (16ha) at 290 Centreway Road be zoned OVHRZ and appropriate changes be made to the objectives and policies to support this. The submissions are opposed by the further submissions.

The Orewa Structure Plan document notes that any proposal for the Variable Height Zone development on this site is based more on the characteristics of the site rather than the relationship of the site to the town centre. We consider that the site is located too far from the Orewa Centre for the site to take advantage of the proximity of public transport facilities and walk ability created by locating higher intensity development close to town centres and public transport centre. This is acknowledged by the submission which notes that the site is located outside the 800m catchment of a sub-regional centre.

The Structure Plan (also notes that there may be opportunities for higher buildings on this site but not on all parts of the site. We consider that higher buildings on parts of the site may adversely affect views of residential areas to the west especially. The structure plan notes that a detailed site appraisal will be required before higher buildings could be allowed on this site. No such appraisal was presented at the hearing.

12.3.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

No amendments resulting from this decision.

12.4 Ryman Healthcare Ltd (1534/1), Carol Adams (FS1638/20), Danny Adams (FS1639/3), T

J Anderson (FS1263/4), Adam Boot (FS1636/2), Christina Boot (FS1239/2), Ingrid Boot (FS1314/16), Louise Boot (FS1637/20), Carol Burton (FS1635/6), I H Burton (FS1634/6), Mrs G Burton (FS1633/4), John Colligan (FS1640/3), Mr R Cooper (FS1322/18), Sandra Cooper (FS1526/26), John Drury (FS1500/12), Mr Martin William Emery (FS1512/42), Mrs Jeanne P Emery (FS1486/23), Mrs Maria Patricia Garrett (FS1305/2), Desmond H Griffin (FS1436/10), Robert Griffin (FS1651/18), Nola & Reginald Hardy (FS1111/22), Gary Hawkins (FS1058/14), Ray Howard (FS1307/13), Raywyn L Howard (FS1306/16), Gordon Miller (FS1072/2), Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc) (FS1499/8), Orewa Residents Group (FS1616/1), Frank Stanton (FS1407/7), Maggie Stanton (FS1372/17), Mr T O & Mrs K Templeton (FS1304/2), The Reaction Trust (FS1408/11), Eleanor Wenman (FS1315/19), Brian Wonnacott (FS1642/9), Paula Wonnacott (FS1641/1), C J Zwart (FS1630/14), L W Zwart (FS1631/18), Ryman Healthcare Ltd (1534/2), Carol Adams (FS1638/21), Danny Adams (FS1639/4), T J Anderson (FS1263/5), Adam Boot (FS1636/24), Christina Boot (FS1239/23), Ingrid Boot (FS1314/26), Louise Boot (FS1637/21), Carol Burton (FS1635/11), I H Burton (FS1634/11), Mrs G Burton (FS1633/11), John Colligan (FS1640/4), Mr R Cooper (FS1322/19), Sandra Cooper (FS1526/27), John Drury (FS1500/13), Mr Martin William Emery (FS1512/43), Mrs Jeanne P Emery (FS1486/24), Mrs Maria Patricia Garrett (FS1305/3), Desmond H Griffin (FS1436/11), Robert Griffin (FS1651/19), Nola & Reginald Hardy (FS1111/23), Gary Hawkins (FS1058/15), Ray Howard (FS1307/14), Raywyn L Howard (FS1306/17), Gordon Miller (FS1072/3), Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc) (FS1499/28), Orewa Residents Group (FS1616/2), Frank Stanton (FS1407/8), Maggie Stanton (FS1372/18), Mr T O & Mrs K Templeton (FS1304/3), The Reaction Trust (FS1408/12), Eleanor Wenman (FS1315/20), Brian Wonnacott (FS1642/10), Paula Wonnacott (FS1641/2), C J Zwart (FS1630/23), L W Zwart (FS1631/24), Ryman Healthcare Ltd (1534/3), Carol Adams (FS1638/22), Danny Adams (FS1639/5), T J Anderson (FS1263/6), Adam Boot (FS1636/3), Christina Boot (FS1239/3), Ingrid Boot (FS1314/17), Louise Boot (FS1637/22), Carol Burton (FS1635/7), I H Burton (FS1634/7), Mrs G Burton (FS1633/5), John Colligan (FS1640/5), Mr R Cooper (FS1322/20), Sandra Cooper (FS1526/28), John Drury (FS1500/14), Mr Martin William Emery (FS1512/44), Mrs Jeanne P Emery (FS1486/25), Mrs Maria Patricia Garrett (FS1305/4), Desmond H Griffin (FS1436/12), Robert Griffin (FS1651/20), Nola & Reginald Hardy (FS1111/24), Gary Hawkins (FS1058/16), Ray Howard (FS1307/15), Raywyn L Howard (FS1306/18), Gordon Miller (FS1072/4), Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc) (FS1499/9), Orewa Residents Group (FS1616/3), Frank Stanton (FS1407/9), Maggie Stanton (FS1372/19), Mr T O & Mrs K Templeton (FS1304/4), The Reaction Trust (FS1408/13), Eleanor Wenman (FS1315/21), Brian Wonnacott (FS1642/11), Paula Wonnacott (FS1641/3), C J Zwart (FS1630/15), L W Zwart (FS1631/19).

12.4.1 Decision

(i) That submissions (1534/1), (1534/2) and (1534/3) be rejected.

(ii) That submissions (FS1638/20), (FS1639/3), (FS1263/4), (FS1636/2), (FS1239/2), (FS1314/16), (FS1637/20), (FS1635/6), (FS1634/6), (FS1633/4), (FS1640/3), (FS1322/18), (FS1526/26), (FS1500/12), (FS1512/42), (FS1486/23), (FS1305/2), (FS1436/10), (FS1651/18), (FS1111/22), (FS1058/14), (FS1307/13), (FS1306/16), (FS1072/2), (FS1499/8), (FS1616/1), (FS1407/7), (FS1372/17), (FS1304/2), (FS1408/11), (FS1315/19), (FS1642/9), (FS1641/1), (FS1630/14), (FS1631/18), (FS1638/21), (FS1639/4), (FS1263/5), (FS1636/24), (FS1239/23), (FS1314/26), (FS1637/21), (FS1635/11), (FS1634/11), (FS1633/11), (FS1640/4), (FS1322/19), (FS1526/27), (FS1500/13), (FS1512/43), (FS1486/24), (FS1305/3), (FS1436/11), (FS1651/19), (FS1111/23), (FS1058/15), (FS1307/14), (FS1306/17), (FS1072/3), (FS1499/28), (FS1616/2), (FS1407/8), (FS1372/18), (FS1304/3), (FS1408/12), (FS1315/20), (FS1642/10), (FS1641/2), (FS1630/23), (FS1631/24), (FS1638/22), (FS1639/5), (FS1263/6), (FS1636/3), (FS1239/3), (FS1314/17), (FS1637/22), (FS1635/7), (FS1634/7), (FS1633/5), (FS1640/5), (FS1322/20), (FS1526/28), (FS1500/14), (FS1512/44), (FS1486/25), (FS1305/4), (FS1436/12), (FS1651/20), (FS1111/24), (FS1058/16), (FS1307/15), (FS1306/18), (FS1072/4), (FS1499/9), (FS1616/3), (FS1407/9), (FS1372/19), (FS1304/4), (FS1408/13), (FS1315/21), (FS1642/11), (FS1641/3), (FS1630/15) and (FS1631/19) be accepted

12.4.2 Reasons for Decision

The submission seeks that a more variable height limit of up to 16m or alternatively that the Orewa Variable Height Zone be applied to the site. This is opposed by the further submitters.

The Orewa East Structure Plan considers this site and whether it should be zoned for higher intensity development. The Structure Plan concludes that the boundary created by West Hoe Road and the surrounding land is such that the site should not be zoned for higher intensity development. Given the location of the park acts to separate the land from the Orewa town centre we consider that this land is not a good candidate for higher intensity residential development. The site is also located immediately to the east of existing residential development that rises above the site (which is relatively flat). Development of relatively high buildings on this land has the potential to adversely affect existing and expected views from that land. This type of effect has not been addressed in detail within the submission. Without such an assessment it we consider that it is not appropriate to allow higher development on this site. We also note that one of the reasons that the OVHRZ is located to the south of the Orewa centre is that high buildings in that area will not adversely affect views as land to the west of that area is also relatively flat and views are not obstructed in the same manner as higher buildings on this site may. While the open space in Victor Eaves Park may act to absorb the effects of higher buildings the effects on sites to the west are by no means certain. Accordingly we consider that the submitters land should retain the existing (11.5m) height limit and the ResM zoning.

12.4.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation No amendments resulting from this decision.

13.0 SUPPORT VARIABLE HEIGHT BUT TALLER BUILDINGS 13.1 Submissions Yvonne Muriel Ambler 1424/1 Support Variable Height Zone,

but amend to allow for taller, slim buildings with only 15% site coverage.

Jacques Ata 1505/1 Increase maximum height to 10 levels - greater separation between towers and a plan for planting of appropriate trees.

Robyn Board 1557/1 Support VHZ but allow taller, slender buildings with reduced footprint and greater separation.

John Bretnall 1564/1 Change to allow for taller, slender buildings which would allow for more useable land around the buildings for landscaping and other amenities.

Lorraine Bretnall 1554/1 Support new variable height zone but would like zone changed to allow for taller, slender buildings as this will allow more green spaces, be more aesthetically pleasing.

Claudia Cochlan 1555/1 Support new variable height zone but would like zone changed to allow for taller, slender buildings as this will allow more green spaces, be more aesthetically pleasing. Good to have nice buildings in Orewa.

Annalise Coghlan 1556/1 Support new variable height zone - allow taller, slender buildings - creates a higher degree of architecture, increases privacy, increases design initiatives. Will bring younger people into Orewa and create a more balanced demographic.

Karlene E Coghlan 1455/1 Support Orewa Land's submission - taller, slender buildings.

Todd Cooper 1563/1 Taller, slender buildings should have a reduced footprint to allow greater separation and privacy.

Jeanene G Davis 1434/1 Variable Height Zone be changed allowing for taller, slimmer buildings, thus reducing shadow effect on buildings/green areas. This would also reduce cold wind tunnels between buildings.

Paul John Davis 1435/1 Variable Height Zone be changed allowing for taller, narrower buildings so as to reduce shadow effect on buildings, yards and green areas. This would also reduce wind effect between buildings and areas where youth may

congregate. Destination Orewa Beach (Orewa Bus Assoc)

1587/9 Orewa Variable Height Residential Zone: * Amend Orewa Variable Height Zone to achieve taller slimmer buildings with suitable separation distances between towers. * Oppose additional commercial development within the zone.

Orewa Land Ltd FS1586/46 Opposes submission 1587/9 Murray Dobson 1457/1 Support Orewa Land's

submission - taller, slender buildings.

Carol Adams FS1638/8 Opposes submission 1457/1 Danny Adams FS1639/12 Opposes submission 1457/1 T J Anderson FS1263/9 Opposes submission 1457/1 Adam Boot FS1636/15 Opposes submission 1457/1 Christina Boot FS1239/22 Opposes submission 1457/1 Ingrid Boot FS1314/14 Opposes submission 1457/1 Louise Boot FS1637/16 Opposes submission 1457/1 John Colligan FS1640/13 Opposes submission 1457/1 Mr R Cooper FS1322/3 Opposes submission 1457/1 Sandra Cooper FS1526/8 Opposes submission 1457/1 John Drury FS1500/24 Opposes submission 1457/1 Mr Martin William Emery FS1512/23 Opposes submission 1457/1 Mrs Jeanne P Emery FS1486/6 Opposes submission 1457/1 Desmond H Griffin FS1436/2 Opposes submission 1457/1 Robert Griffin FS1651/1 Opposes submission 1457/1 Nola & Reginald Hardy FS1111/15 Opposes submission 1457/1 Gary Hawkins FS1058/6 Opposes submission 1457/1 Ray Howard FS1307/3 Opposes submission 1457/1 Raywyn L Howard FS1306/2 Opposes submission 1457/1 Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc)

FS1499/13 Opposes submission 1457/1

Frank Stanton FS1407/13 Opposes submission 1457/1 Maggie Stanton FS1372/9 Opposes submission 1457/1 Eleanor Wenman FS1315/15 Opposes submission 1457/1 C J Zwart FS1630/16 Opposes submission 1457/1 L W Zwart FS1631/5 Opposes submission 1457/1 Les Downes 1490/1 That Council allow VHZ to be

changed to allow for taller, more slender buildings, keeping them architecturally superior and therefore encouraging population who will contribute financially and positively to our community.

Maree Downes 1489/1 Changes to high density building to ensure world class, stand out buildings are more beneficial all round - do not want short squat ugly buildings surrounded by carparking spaces.

Dennis Ellwood 1508/1 Council increase max. height to 10 levels - have structure plan in place to replace trees and "green" areas to Orewa on these sites. Do not want masses of concrete.

Susan Ellwood 1446/1 Council go ahead with VHZ and allow development of up to 10 levels. These taller, skinnier towers are preferable to short

squat blocks that will become uglier with time.

Debra L Franich 1442/1 Variable Height Zone be changed to allow for taller, more slender buildings - this will provide for a good quality construction, providing a mid-high range of accommodation - growth for Orewa.

Helen Franich 1449/1 That Council pass the Variation and we got on with it. Taller towers that offer a variety of living styles. Encourage positive population growth to the area and make this area visually appealing.

Jediah W Franich 1441/1 Variable Height Zone be changed to allow for more slender buildings, greater spacing between buildings, less sun obstruction, narrower shadow, more privacy between buildings.

Steve Franich 1448/1 That Council go ahead with VHZ increasing maximum height to up to 10 levels. Orewa desperately needs growth and a plan to support growth is progress. High rise, if done property, is the way to go.

Wayne A Franich 1443/1 Variable Height Zone be changed to allow for more slender buildings, greater spacing between buildings, less sun obstruction, narrower shadow, more privacy between buildings.

Karen Franklin 1520/1 Council should allow VHZ as it would mean fewer buildings (taller) and provide more green space.

Annette Gowling 1115/1 Support, but Variable Height Zone be changed to allow for taller, but slender buildings suggested by Orewa Land Ltd. More interesting and diverse landscape. Also environmental benefits, e.g. solar energy in buildings, less storm water because of less site coverage.

Carol Adams FS1638/13 Opposes submission 1115/1 Danny Adams FS1639/9 Opposes submission 1115/1 T J Anderson FS1263/2 Opposes submission 1115/1 Adam Boot FS1636/4 Opposes submission 1115/1 Christina Boot FS1239/6 Opposes submission 1115/1 Ingrid Boot FS1314/5 Opposes submission 1115/1 Louise Boot FS1637/23 Opposes submission 1115/1 John Colligan FS1640/20 Opposes submission 1115/1 Mr R Cooper FS1322/25 Opposes submission 1115/1 Sandra Cooper FS1526/16 Opposes submission 1115/1 John Drury FS1500/6 Opposes submission 1115/1 Mr Martin William Emery FS1512/35 Opposes submission 1115/1 Mrs Jeanne P Emery FS1486/14 Opposes submission 1115/1 Mrs Maria Patricia Garrett FS1305/8 Opposes submission 1115/1 Desmond H Griffin FS1436/8 Opposes submission 1115/1

Robert Griffin FS1651/10 Opposes submission 1115/1 Nola & Reginald Hardy FS1111/19 Opposes submission 1115/1 Gary Hawkins FS1058/20 Opposes submission 1115/1 Ray Howard FS1307/4 Opposes submission 1115/1 Raywyn L Howard FS1306/6 Opposes submission 1115/1 Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc)

FS1499/14 Opposes submission 1115/1

Frank Stanton FS1407/6 Opposes submission 1115/1 Maggie Stanton FS1372/23 Opposes submission 1115/1 The Reaction Trust FS1408/2 Opposes submission 1115/1 Eleanor Wenman FS1315/3 Opposes submission 1115/1 C J Zwart FS1630/5 Opposes submission 1115/1 L W Zwart FS1631/11 Opposes submission 1115/1 James Gowling 1114/1 Support, but Variable Height

Zone be changed to allow for taller, but slender buildings suggested by Orewa Land Ltd. More visually pleasing / environmental benefits / site coverage means less storm water.

Ian T Gravatt 1522/1 As a local business owner, the VHZ must change to allow taller buildings to exist. Decisions for managed quality development must be made NOW to avoid demise of small business opportunities in Orewa.

Jane Haggerty 1494/1 Support Orewa Land's submission, however must be greater separation between taller buildings and greater green areas.

Carol Adams FS1638/12 Opposes submission 1494/1 Danny Adams FS1639/18 Opposes submission 1494/1 Adam Boot FS1636/7 Opposes submission 1494/1 Christina Boot FS1239/10 Opposes submission 1494/1 Ingrid Boot FS1314/4 Opposes submission 1494/1 Louise Boot FS1637/14 Opposes submission 1494/1 Carol Burton FS1635/5 Opposes submission 1494/1 John Colligan FS1640/22 Opposes submission 1494/1 Mr R Cooper FS1322/16 Opposes submission 1494/1 Sandra Cooper FS1526/13 Opposes submission 1494/1 John Drury FS1500/3 Opposes submission 1494/1 Mr Martin William Emery FS1512/29 Opposes submission 1494/1 Mrs Jeanne P Emery FS1486/13 Opposes submission 1494/1 Desmond H Griffin FS1436/23 Opposes submission 1494/1 Robert Griffin FS1651/2 Opposes submission 1494/1 Nola & Reginald Hardy FS1111/14 Opposes submission 1494/1 Gary Hawkins FS1058/4 Opposes submission 1494/1 Ray Howard FS1307/5 Opposes submission 1494/1 Raywyn L Howard FS1306/3 Opposes submission 1494/1 Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc)

FS1499/16 Opposes submission 1494/1

Frank Stanton FS1407/14 Opposes submission 1494/1 Maggie Stanton FS1372/11 Opposes submission 1494/1 Mr T O & Mrs K Templeton FS1304/9 Opposes submission 1494/1 The Reaction Trust FS1408/4 Opposes submission 1494/1 Eleanor Wenman FS1315/5 Opposes submission 1494/1 C J Zwart FS1630/3 Opposes submission 1494/1 L W Zwart FS1631/8 Opposes submission 1494/1 Malcolm Haggerty 1493/1 Support Orewa Land's

submission - should be taller towers, greater separation, and more areas of green, not

concrete. Ross A Hemi 1458/1 Support Orewa Land's

submission - taller, slender buildings.

Carol Adams FS1638/11 Opposes submission 1458/1 Danny Adams FS1639/14 Opposes submission 1458/1 T J Anderson FS1263/14 Opposes submission 1458/1 Adam Boot FS1636/18 Opposes submission 1458/1 Christina Boot FS1239/16 Opposes submission 1458/1 Ingrid Boot FS1314/21 Opposes submission 1458/1 Louise Boot FS1637/6 Opposes submission 1458/1 John Colligan FS1640/21 Opposes submission 1458/1 Mr R Cooper FS1322/2 Opposes submission 1458/1 Sandra Cooper FS1526/19 Opposes submission 1458/1 John Drury FS1500/2 Opposes submission 1458/1 Mr Martin William Emery FS1512/25 Opposes submission 1458/1 Mrs Jeanne P Emery FS1486/8 Opposes submission 1458/1 Mrs Maria Patricia Garrett FS1305/12 Opposes submission 1458/1 Desmond H Griffin FS1436/9 Opposes submission 1458/1 Robert Griffin FS1651/4 Opposes submission 1458/1 Nola & Reginald Hardy FS1111/17 Opposes submission 1458/1 Gary Hawkins FS1058/13 Opposes submission 1458/1 Ray Howard FS1307/21 Opposes submission 1458/1 Raywyn L Howard FS1306/5 Opposes submission 1458/1 Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc)

FS1499/17 Opposes submission 1458/1

Frank Stanton FS1407/15 Opposes submission 1458/1 Maggie Stanton FS1372/12 Opposes submission 1458/1 Kate Templeton FS1650/12 Opposes submission 1458/1 The Reaction Trust FS1408/29 Opposes submission 1458/1 Eleanor Wenman FS1315/4 Opposes submission 1458/1 L W Zwart FS1631/9 Opposes submission 1458/1 Reti Hick 1459/1 Support Orewa Land's

submission - taller, sleek buildings.

Carol Adams FS1638/2 Opposes submission 1459/1 Danny Adams FS1639/11 Opposes submission 1459/1 T J Anderson FS1263/11 Opposes submission 1459/1 Adam Boot FS1636/16 Opposes submission 1459/1 Christina Boot FS1239/7 Opposes submission 1459/1 Ingrid Boot FS1314/11 Opposes submission 1459/1 Louise Boot FS1637/8 Opposes submission 1459/1 John Colligan FS1640/19 Opposes submission 1459/1 Mr R Cooper FS1322/8 Opposes submission 1459/1 Sandra Cooper FS1526/3 Opposes submission 1459/1 John Drury FS1500/11 Opposes submission 1459/1 Mr Martin William Emery FS1512/46 Opposes submission 1459/1 Mrs Jeanne P Emery FS1486/26 Opposes submission 1459/1 Mrs Maria Patricia Garrett FS1305/16 Opposes submission 1459/1 Desmond H Griffin FS1436/3 Opposes submission 1459/1 Robert Griffin FS1651/26 Opposes submission 1459/1 Nola & Reginald Hardy FS1111/27 Opposes submission 1459/1 Gary Hawkins FS1058/3 Opposes submission 1459/1 Ray Howard FS1307/23 Opposes submission 1459/1 Raywyn L Howard FS1306/29 Opposes submission 1459/1 Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc)

FS1499/18 Opposes submission 1459/1

Frank Stanton FS1407/3 Opposes submission 1459/1 Maggie Stanton FS1372/20 Opposes submission 1459/1 The Reaction Trust FS1408/28 Opposes submission 1459/1 Eleanor Wenman FS1315/10 Opposes submission 1459/1 C J Zwart FS1630/9 Opposes submission 1459/1 L W Zwart FS1631/2 Opposes submission 1459/1 Steve Hick 1456/1 Support Orewa Land's

submission - taller, slender buildings.

Dorothea M Hodgson 1488/1 VHZ be changed to allow for taller, more slender buildings - diversity of building constructions are more appealing for today's busy lifestyle.

Gillian D Howard 1470/1 Support Orewa Land's submission - but changes made to allow taller, more slender buildings, more visually appealing. Architecture needs to be first-class.

Carol Adams FS1638/23 Opposes submission 1470/1 Danny Adams FS1639/17 Opposes submission 1470/1 T J Anderson FS1263/15 Opposes submission 1470/1 Adam Boot FS1636/5 Opposes submission 1470/1 Christina Boot FS1239/9 Opposes submission 1470/1 Ingrid Boot FS1314/10 Opposes submission 1470/1 Louise Boot FS1637/1 Opposes submission 1470/1 John Colligan FS1640/17 Opposes submission 1470/1 Mr R Cooper FS1322/28 Opposes submission 1470/1 Sandra Cooper FS1526/30 Opposes submission 1470/1 John Drury FS1500/29 Opposes submission 1470/1 Mr Martin William Emery FS1512/36 Opposes submission 1470/1 Mrs Jeanne P Emery FS1486/28 Opposes submission 1470/1 Desmond H Griffin FS1436/5 Opposes submission 1470/1 Robert Griffin FS1651/16 Opposes submission 1470/1 Nola & Reginald Hardy FS1111/18 Opposes submission 1470/1 Gary Hawkins FS1058/18 Opposes submission 1470/1 Ray Howard FS1307/7 Opposes submission 1470/1 Raywyn L Howard FS1306/8 Opposes submission 1470/1 Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc)

FS1499/19 Opposes submission 1470/1

Frank Stanton FS1407/23 Opposes submission 1470/1 Maggie Stanton FS1372/21 Opposes submission 1470/1 The Reaction Trust FS1408/18 Opposes submission 1470/1 Eleanor Wenman FS1315/9 Opposes submission 1470/1 Paula Wonnacott FS1641/12 Opposes submission 1470/1 C J Zwart FS1630/2 Opposes submission 1470/1 L W Zwart FS1631/21 Opposes submission 1470/1 Greg Howard 1469/1 Support Orewa Land's

submission - but separation between buildings should be increased and building heights also increased.

Alan Hulse 1429/1 Variable Height zone be changed to allow for taller more slender buildings which would give greater separation between properties maximising view and light corridors.

Paul James Hulse 1430/1 Would like provision changed to see taller, slimmer buildings as this will create more privacy for residents and make for better views.

Susan-Leigh Hulse 1428/1 Support, but Variable Height zone be changed to allow for taller more slender buildings which would look far more visually pleasing and give better separation to neighbours.

Vivienne Sharon Jack 1521/1 VHZ be changed so taller buildings - allow more space between and more light. Need change we have been waiting for a long time.

Deborah Johnston 1509/1 Council approve building heights of up to 10 levels - increase distance between buildings to enhance view and light corridors. Orewa needs to attract permanent residents who will add to our community in a positive way. A variety of housing options should be available to people.

Mike J Johnston 1510/1 Council increase max. height to at least 10 levels. Increases building separation distances - have a positive plan in place to "re-green" Orewa.

Peter A Kibblewhite 1477/1 Council approve High Intensity Variable Height Zone with amendments as suggested by Orewa Land Ltd.

Carol Adams FS1638/1 Opposes submission 1477/1 Danny Adams FS1639/7 Opposes submission 1477/1 T J Anderson FS1263/7 Opposes submission 1477/1 Adam Boot FS1636/13 Opposes submission 1477/1 Christina Boot FS1239/5 Opposes submission 1477/1 Ingrid Boot FS1314/7 Opposes submission 1477/1 Louise Boot FS1637/10 Opposes submission 1477/1 John Colligan FS1640/12 Opposes submission 1477/1 Mr R Cooper FS1322/7 Opposes submission 1477/1 Sandra Cooper FS1526/14 Opposes submission 1477/1 John Drury FS1500/22 Opposes submission 1477/1 Mr Martin William Emery FS1512/18 Opposes submission 1477/1 Mrs Jeanne P Emery FS1486/2 Opposes submission 1477/1 Desmond H Griffin FS1436/4 Opposes submission 1477/1 Robert Griffin FS1651/8 Opposes submission 1477/1 Nola & Reginald Hardy FS1111/8 Opposes submission 1477/1 Gary Hawkins FS1058/2 Opposes submission 1477/1 Ray Howard FS1307/20 Opposes submission 1477/1 Raywyn L Howard FS1306/22 Opposes submission 1477/1 Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc)

FS1499/20 Opposes submission 1477/1

Frank Stanton FS1407/2 Opposes submission 1477/1 Maggie Stanton FS1372/2 Opposes submission 1477/1 The Reaction Trust FS1408/6 Opposes submission 1477/1 Eleanor Wenman FS1315/26 Opposes submission 1477/1 C J Zwart FS1630/1 Opposes submission 1477/1 L W Zwart FS1631/1 Opposes submission 1477/1 Yvonne Kibblewhite 1478/1 Council approve High Intensity

Variable Height Zone with amendments suggested by Orewa Land Ltd.

Clive Lovell Lasenby 1073/1 Support, however would like to see taller, skinnier buildings - will give the area a more attractive and unique character.

Diane M Lasenby 1074/1 Support but would like to see taller, less bulky buildings, underground carparking and more "green areas". Want growth to be as attractive as

possible. Suzanne C Lasenby 1009/1 Support Variable Height but

change provision to allow taller, more slender buildings.

Dean A Lawson 1444/1 Support Orewa Land's submission - their vision is more attractive visually but less obtrusive.

Elaine Magill 1465/1 VHZ to allow for higher, more slender buildings - have more visual effect, underground carparking, less shadowing and green zone.

Kenneth J Magill 1467/1 VHZ to allow higher, more slender buildings for less shadowing, underground parking, visual effect and green zone.

John L Mallett 1010/1 Variable Height zone to be changed to allow taller, slender buildings - will create more open areas to avoid small squat buildings with no open areas.

Lisa Mallett 1562/1 The High Intensity Variable Height zone be changed to allow for taller, slimmer buildings as suggested by Orewa Land Ltd.

Carol Adams FS1638/24 Opposes submission 1562/1 Danny Adams FS1639/13 Opposes submission 1562/1 T J Anderson FS1263/13 Opposes submission 1562/1 Adam Boot FS1636/1 Opposes submission 1562/1 Christina Boot FS1239/8 Opposes submission 1562/1 Ingrid Boot FS1314/22 Opposes submission 1562/1 Louise Boot FS1637/12 Opposes submission 1562/1 John Colligan FS1640/15 Opposes submission 1562/1 Mr R Cooper FS1322/10 Opposes submission 1562/1 Sandra Cooper FS1526/4 Opposes submission 1562/1 John Drury FS1500/25 Opposes submission 1562/1 Mr Martin William Emery FS1512/45 Opposes submission 1562/1 Mrs Jeanne P Emery FS1486/29 Opposes submission 1562/1 Desmond H Griffin FS1436/22 Opposes submission 1562/1 Robert Griffin FS1651/7 Opposes submission 1562/1 Nola & Reginald Hardy FS1111/9 Opposes submission 1562/1 Gary Hawkins FS1058/19 Opposes submission 1562/1 Ray Howard FS1307/24 Opposes submission 1562/1 Raywyn L Howard FS1306/23 Opposes submission 1562/1 Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc)

FS1499/21 Opposes submission 1562/1

Frank Stanton FS1407/22 Opposes submission 1562/1 Maggie Stanton FS1372/22 Opposes submission 1562/1 The Reaction Trust FS1408/5 Opposes submission 1562/1 Eleanor Wenman FS1315/11 Opposes submission 1562/1 Paula Wonnacott FS1641/4 Opposes submission 1562/1 C J Zwart FS1630/20 Opposes submission 1562/1 L W Zwart FS1631/20 Opposes submission 1562/1 Kathryn J Manihera 1496/1 VHZ be changed to allow for

taller, more slender buildings. Would allow for less shadowing and more visually attractive.

Mark D Manihera 1460/1 Support Orewa Land's submission - taller, slender buildings - should be high quality and aesthetically pleasing.

Carol Adams FS1638/7 Opposes submission 1460/1 Danny Adams FS1639/23 Opposes submission 1460/1 T J Anderson FS1263/22 Opposes submission 1460/1 Adam Boot FS1636/22 Opposes submission 1460/1 Christina Boot FS1239/20 Opposes submission 1460/1 Ingrid Boot FS1314/13 Opposes submission 1460/1 Louise Boot FS1637/13 Opposes submission 1460/1 Mrs G Burton FS1633/9 Opposes submission 1460/1 John Colligan FS1640/16 Opposes submission 1460/1 Mr R Cooper FS1322/17 Opposes submission 1460/1 Sandra Cooper FS1526/9 Opposes submission 1460/1 John Drury FS1500/30 Opposes submission 1460/1 Mr Martin William Emery FS1512/22 Opposes submission 1460/1 Mrs Jeanne P Emery FS1486/4 Opposes submission 1460/1 Desmond H Griffin FS1436/17 Opposes submission 1460/1 Robert Griffin FS1651/22 Opposes submission 1460/1 Nola & Reginald Hardy FS1111/26 Opposes submission 1460/1 Gary Hawkins FS1058/11 Opposes submission 1460/1 Ray Howard FS1307/12 Opposes submission 1460/1 Raywyn L Howard FS1306/25 Opposes submission 1460/1 Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc)

FS1499/22 Opposes submission 1460/1

Frank Stanton FS1407/11 Opposes submission 1460/1 Maggie Stanton FS1372/8 Opposes submission 1460/1 The Reaction Trust FS1408/14 Opposes submission 1460/1 Eleanor Wenman FS1315/17 Opposes submission 1460/1 C J Zwart FS1630/10 Opposes submission 1460/1 L W Zwart FS1631/7 Opposes submission 1460/1 Corban J Martin 1447/1 Council to increase height levels

of high rise to at last 10 levels, higher buildings with underground parking mean more areas able to be planted with trees, and garden areas as well as pools, tennis courts, etc.

Elliott R Martin 1439/1 Support Orewa Land's submission to V101

Carol Adams FS1638/3 Opposes submission 1439/1 Danny Adams FS1639/16 Opposes submission 1439/1 T J Anderson FS1263/8 Opposes submission 1439/1 Adam Boot FS1636/19 Opposes submission 1439/1 Christina Boot FS1239/4 Opposes submission 1439/1 Ingrid Boot FS1314/12 Opposes submission 1439/1 Louise Boot FS1637/3 Opposes submission 1439/1 I H Burton FS1634/1 Opposes submission 1439/1 John Colligan FS1640/18 Opposes submission 1439/1 Mr R Cooper FS1322/26 Opposes submission 1439/1 Sandra Cooper FS1526/17 Opposes submission 1439/1 John Drury FS1500/10 Opposes submission 1439/1 Mr Martin William Emery FS1512/30 Opposes submission 1439/1 Mrs Jeanne P Emery FS1486/16 Opposes submission 1439/1 Desmond H Griffin FS1436/19 Opposes submission 1439/1 Robert Griffin FS1651/17 Opposes submission 1439/1 Nola & Reginald Hardy FS1111/21 Opposes submission 1439/1 Gary Hawkins FS1058/9 Opposes submission 1439/1 Ray Howard FS1307/8 Opposes submission 1439/1 Raywyn L Howard FS1306/7 Opposes submission 1439/1 Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc)

FS1499/23 Opposes submission 1439/1

Frank Stanton FS1407/21 Opposes submission 1439/1 Maggie Stanton FS1372/16 Opposes submission 1439/1 The Reaction Trust FS1408/3 Opposes submission 1439/1 Eleanor Wenman FS1315/16 Opposes submission 1439/1 C J Zwart FS1630/8 Opposes submission 1439/1

L W Zwart FS1631/10 Opposes submission 1439/1 Kiri Angela Martin 1462/1 Support Orewa Land's

submission - taller, slender buildings, allowing greater separation and view and light corridors.

Carol Adams FS1638/9 Opposes submission 1462/1 Danny Adams FS1639/15 Opposes submission 1462/1 T J Anderson FS1263/18 Opposes submission 1462/1 Adam Boot FS1636/21 Opposes submission 1462/1 Christina Boot FS1239/17 Opposes submission 1462/1 Ingrid Boot FS1314/23 Opposes submission 1462/1 Louise Boot FS1637/7 Opposes submission 1462/1 Carol Burton FS1635/1 Opposes submission 1462/1 John Colligan FS1640/26 Opposes submission 1462/1 Mr R Cooper FS1322/29 Opposes submission 1462/1 Sandra Cooper FS1526/10 Opposes submission 1462/1 John Drury FS1500/5 Opposes submission 1462/1 Mr Martin William Emery FS1512/37 Opposes submission 1462/1 Mrs Jeanne P Emery FS1486/15 Opposes submission 1462/1 Desmond H Griffin FS1436/7 Opposes submission 1462/1 Robert Griffin FS1651/12 Opposes submission 1462/1 Nola & Reginald Hardy FS1111/11 Opposes submission 1462/1 Gary Hawkins FS1058/7 Opposes submission 1462/1 Ray Howard FS1307/9 Opposes submission 1462/1 Raywyn L Howard FS1306/9 Opposes submission 1462/1 Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc)

FS1499/24 Opposes submission 1462/1

Frank Stanton FS1407/12 Opposes submission 1462/1 Maggie Stanton FS1372/7 Opposes submission 1462/1 The Reaction Trust FS1408/17 Opposes submission 1462/1 Eleanor Wenman FS1315/6 Opposes submission 1462/1 C J Zwart FS1630/4 Opposes submission 1462/1 L W Zwart FS1631/6 Opposes submission 1462/1 Wayne H Martin 1461/1 Support Orewa Land's

submission - taller, slender buildings with underground parking and large trees planted to "green" Orewa.

Julieann McCathie 1504/1 Support Orewa Land's submission - taller and slender buildings - more attractive.

May McKellar 1466/1 VHZ to allow higher, more slender buildings for less shadowing, underground parking, visual effect and green zone.

Cheryl M Milton 1491/1 VHZ be changed to allow for taller, slender buildings - improve visual impact and better carparking facilities.

Jeremy Alan Milton 1487/1 VHZ be changed to allow for taller more slender buildings - improve the visual impact - light and air.

Larry C Mingins 1506/1 Council to increase max. level from 7 to 10. Increase separation between towers - increases light and view corridors.

Mary C Mingins 1507/1 Council to increase max. level from 7 to 10 - increase building separation - insist on planting of tall trees suitable to area.

Craig Morris 1454/1 Support Orewa Land's

submission - taller, slender buildings.

Marcia L Morris 1453/1 Support Orewa Land's submission - taller buildings.

Orewa Care Chemist Ltd 1481/1 Variation is step in right direction. Plan change will need flexibility to make buildings economically viable to construct. Outside commercial area (both north and south) in area running between Hibiscus Highway and Centreway Rd we need to create more biomass by allowing medium rise residential developments, where building height, dimensions, airspace between buildings is traded off against footprint, i.e. 10 storeys should have a maximum footprint of say 25% or 7 storeys has 35% footprint. Also be a mix of multi level and three storey base development, with parking underneath. Infrastructure already in place to accommodate growth.

Brian Rutter 1412/1 Supports variable height zone but would prefer to see taller, more slender buildings. Site coverage up to 80% allowed.

Rodney Economic Development Trust

FS1585/438 Opposes submission 1412/1

Tim Scheib 1516/1 Seek Council to approve the area with changes suggested by Orewa Land Ltd - more slender and taller buildings.

Jacqueline L Schieb 1471/1 Support Orewa Land's submission - but want maximum level of buildings changed to allow for higher but with greater separation.

Mark A Schieb 1472/1 Support Orewa Land's submission - but higher level buildings, greater separation, increasing "green" areas on site.

Carol Adams FS1638/14 Opposes submission 1472/1 Danny Adams FS1639/1 Opposes submission 1472/1 T J Anderson FS1263/10 Opposes submission 1472/1 Adam Boot FS1636/10 Opposes submission 1472/1 Christina Boot FS1239/13 Opposes submission 1472/1 Ingrid Boot FS1314/24 Opposes submission 1472/1 Louise Boot FS1637/15 Opposes submission 1472/1 I H Burton FS1634/3 Opposes submission 1472/1 John Colligan FS1640/10 Opposes submission 1472/1 Mr R Cooper FS1322/30 Opposes submission 1472/1 Sandra Cooper FS1526/2 Opposes submission 1472/1 John Drury FS1500/20 Opposes submission 1472/1 Mr Martin William Emery FS1512/24 Opposes submission 1472/1 Mrs Jeanne P Emery FS1486/7 Opposes submission 1472/1 Desmond H Griffin FS1436/20 Opposes submission 1472/1 Robert Griffin FS1651/9 Opposes submission 1472/1 Nola & Reginald Hardy FS1111/10 Opposes submission 1472/1 Gary Hawkins FS1058/10 Opposes submission 1472/1 Ray Howard FS1307/16 Opposes submission 1472/1

Raywyn L Howard FS1306/30 Opposes submission 1472/1 Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc)

FS1499/25 Opposes submission 1472/1

Frank Stanton FS1407/16 Opposes submission 1472/1 Maggie Stanton FS1372/13 Opposes submission 1472/1 The Reaction Trust FS1408/10 Opposes submission 1472/1 Eleanor Wenman FS1315/7 Opposes submission 1472/1 C J Zwart FS1630/13 Opposes submission 1472/1 L W Zwart FS1631/4 Opposes submission 1472/1 Helen M Sellars 1452/1 The VHZ be changed to allow

for taller, more slender buildings which makes for a more interesting and diverse landscape and more visually appealing. Like option of living in a quality apartment near the beach and close to all amenities.

Raymond A Sellars 1498/1 VHZ to allow for taller more slender buildings to allow more people opportunity to live in town and enjoy view and close to beach - instead of covering more of the green areas around Orewa.

Michael P Smith 1503/1 Support Orewa Land's submission - Get rid of 3/5/7 level development, make provision for up to 10 levels. More attractive and economically viable.

Suzanne I Smith 1502/1 Support Orewa Land's submission - taller, more slender buildings which will be more appealing visually.

Tzarina Smith 1609/1 Support Destination Orewa Beach submission totally.

Alan Stephenson 1433/1 Variation Height zone be changed to allow for taller thinner buildings which will be far more pleasing visually and will cause less problems with bulk shadowing.

Cicely Stephenson 1431/1 Variable Height Zone be changed to allow for taller, thinner buildings which would allow better privacy between sections, better views from properties and cause less shadowing and would be more visually appealing.

Peter Douglas Stephenson 1432/1 Variable Height Zone be changed to allow for taller, thinner buildings that will be far more pleasing visually and will cause fewer problems in bulk shadowing.

Barry ter Haar 1519/1 Change to allow for taller, slender buildings that would allow space between buildings, less shading, more privacy, more views, more aesthetically

pleasing. Ellie ter Haar 1518/1 Changes would allow more

space between buildings, less shading, privacy, and supply public with choice of the type of housing they want. Encourage financial investment in the area.

Sam ter Haar 1463/1 VHZ to be changed to allow for taller buildings and seek Council to approve this zone in Orewa with amendments suggested by Orewa Land Ltd.

Carol Adams FS1638/15 Opposes submission 1463/1 Danny Adams FS1639/6 Opposes submission 1463/1 T J Anderson FS1263/16 Opposes submission 1463/1 Adam Boot FS1636/20 Opposes submission 1463/1 Christina Boot FS1239/15 Opposes submission 1463/1 Ingrid Boot FS1314/20 Opposes submission 1463/1 Louise Boot FS1637/2 Opposes submission 1463/1 John Colligan FS1640/2 Opposes submission 1463/1 Mr R Cooper FS1322/24 Opposes submission 1463/1 Sandra Cooper FS1526/12 Opposes submission 1463/1 John Drury FS1500/4 Opposes submission 1463/1 Mr Martin William Emery FS1512/21 Opposes submission 1463/1 Mrs Jeanne P Emery FS1486/5 Opposes submission 1463/1 Mrs Maria Patricia Garrett FS1305/5 Opposes submission 1463/1 Desmond H Griffin FS1436/6 Opposes submission 1463/1 Robert Griffin FS1651/6 Opposes submission 1463/1 Nola & Reginald Hardy FS1111/13 Opposes submission 1463/1 Gary Hawkins FS1058/8 Opposes submission 1463/1 Ray Howard FS1307/6 Opposes submission 1463/1 Raywyn L Howard FS1306/4 Opposes submission 1463/1 Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc)

FS1499/15 Opposes submission 1463/1

Frank Stanton FS1407/20 Opposes submission 1463/1 Maggie Stanton FS1372/15 Opposes submission 1463/1 The Reaction Trust FS1408/22 Opposes submission 1463/1 Eleanor Wenman FS1315/8 Opposes submission 1463/1 C J Zwart FS1630/7 Opposes submission 1463/1 L W Zwart FS1631/12 Opposes submission 1463/1 Margaret Trowbridge 1474/1 VHZ to be changed to include

property south as far as Beach Road and west to Centreway. Taller, slimmer buildings with more space between to avoid shadows and give more privacy and greater recreational space. Must support people with vision who wish to inject some innovative and positive change.

Philip D Trowbridge 1473/1 Support but try to construct elegant buildings with plenty of ground space instead of crammed housing - for example, Cornerstone Construction next to Orewa Motor Lodge.

Jacqueline Watson 1450/1 Orewa is very boring, which needs upgrading. Need to keep our youth here and create work. Variable Height Zone to be changed to allow more slender buildings.

Gary Weir 1515/1 Taller buildings will have less impact environmentally, providing more green space,

narrower shadowing and make the space less congested at ground level.

Garth C Wiltshire 1566/1 The High Intensity Variable Height zone be changed to allow for taller, slimmer buildings as suggested by Orewa Land Ltd.

J R Wiltshire 1565/1 The High Intensity Height zone be changed to allow for taller, slimmer buildings as suggested by Orewa Land Ltd.

Coastal Properties Ltd 1558/1 Support VHZ, but allow taller, slimmer buildings. Extend zone to Centreway Road. The first two blocks will not be developed as they are over capitalised with houses making the land too expensive (also petrol station in the middle of a block, plus existing 3 storey apartment building - therefore eliminating this block from redevelopment.)

The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

FS1582/26 Opposes submission 1558/1

13.2 Yvonne Muriel Ambler (1424/1), Jacques Ata (1505/1), Robyn Board (1557/1), John

Bretnall (1564/1), Lorraine Bretnall (1554/1), Claudia Cochlan (1555/1), Annalise Coghlan (1556/1), Karlene E Coghlan (1455/1), Todd Cooper (1563/1), Jeanene G Davis (1434/1), Paul John Davis (1435/1), Destination Orewa Beach (Orewa Bus Assoc) (1587/9), Orewa Land Ltd (FS1586/46), Murray Dobson (1457/1), Carol Adams (FS1638/8), Danny Adams (FS1639/12), T J Anderson (FS1263/9), Adam Boot (FS1636/15), Christina Boot (FS1239/22), Ingrid Boot (FS1314/14), Louise Boot (FS1637/16), John Colligan (FS1640/13), Mr R Cooper (FS1322/3), Sandra Cooper (FS1526/8), John Drury (FS1500/24), Mr Martin William Emery (FS1512/23), Mrs Jeanne P Emery (FS1486/6), Desmond H Griffin (FS1436/2), Robert Griffin (FS1651/1), Nola & Reginald Hardy (FS1111/15), Gary Hawkins (FS1058/6), Ray Howard (FS1307/3), Raywyn L Howard (FS1306/2), Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc) (FS1499/13), Frank Stanton (FS1407/13), Maggie Stanton (FS1372/9), Eleanor Wenman (FS1315/15), C J Zwart (FS1630/16), L W Zwart (FS1631/5), Les Downes (1490/1), Maree Downes (1489/1), Dennis Ellwood (1508/1), Susan Ellwood (1446/1), Debra L Franich (1442/1), Helen Franich (1449/1), Jediah W Franich (1441/1), Steve Franich (1448/1), Wayne A Franich (1443/1), Karen Franklin (1520/1), Annette Gowling (1115/1), Carol Adams (FS1638/13), Danny Adams (FS1639/9), T J Anderson (FS1263/2), Adam Boot (FS1636/4), Christina Boot (FS1239/6), Ingrid Boot (FS1314/5), Louise Boot (FS1637/23), John Colligan (FS1640/20), Mr R Cooper (FS1322/25), Sandra Cooper (FS1526/16), John Drury (FS1500/6), Mr Martin William Emery (FS1512/35), Mrs Jeanne P Emery (FS1486/14), Mrs Maria Patricia Garrett (FS1305/8), Desmond H Griffin (FS1436/8), Robert Griffin (FS1651/10), Nola & Reginald Hardy (FS1111/19), Gary Hawkins (FS1058/20), Ray Howard (FS1307/4), Raywyn L Howard (FS1306/6), Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc) (FS1499/14), Frank Stanton (FS1407/6), Maggie Stanton (FS1372/23), The Reaction Trust (FS1408/2), Eleanor Wenman (FS1315/3), C J Zwart (FS1630/5), L W Zwart (FS1631/11), James Gowling (1114/1), Ian T Gravatt (1522/1), Jane Haggerty (1494/1), Carol Adams (FS1638/12), Danny Adams (FS1639/18), Adam Boot (FS1636/7), Christina Boot (FS1239/10), Ingrid Boot (FS1314/4), Louise Boot (FS1637/14), Carol Burton (FS1635/5), John Colligan (FS1640/22), Mr R Cooper (FS1322/16), Sandra Cooper (FS1526/13), John Drury (FS1500/3), Mr Martin William Emery (FS1512/29), Mrs Jeanne P Emery (FS1486/13), Desmond H Griffin (FS1436/23), Robert Griffin (FS1651/2), Nola & Reginald Hardy (FS1111/14), Gary Hawkins (FS1058/4), Ray Howard (FS1307/5), Raywyn L Howard (FS1306/3), Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc) (FS1499/16), Frank Stanton (FS1407/14), Maggie Stanton (FS1372/11), Mr T O & Mrs K Templeton (FS1304/9), The Reaction Trust (FS1408/4), Eleanor Wenman (FS1315/5), C J Zwart (FS1630/3), L W Zwart (FS1631/8), Malcolm Haggerty (1493/1), Ross A Hemi (1458/1), Carol Adams (FS1638/11), Danny Adams (FS1639/14), T J Anderson (FS1263/14), Adam Boot (FS1636/18), Christina Boot (FS1239/16), Ingrid Boot (FS1314/21), Louise Boot (FS1637/6), John Colligan

(FS1640/21), Mr R Cooper (FS1322/2), Sandra Cooper (FS1526/19), John Drury (FS1500/2), Mr Martin William Emery (FS1512/25), Mrs Jeanne P Emery (FS1486/8), Mrs Maria Patricia Garrett (FS1305/12), Desmond H Griffin (FS1436/9), Robert Griffin (FS1651/4), Nola & Reginald Hardy (FS1111/17), Gary Hawkins (FS1058/13), Ray Howard (FS1307/21), Raywyn L Howard (FS1306/5), Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc) (FS1499/17), Frank Stanton (FS1407/15), Maggie Stanton (FS1372/12), Kate Templeton (FS1650/12), The Reaction Trust (FS1408/29), Eleanor Wenman (FS1315/4), L W Zwart (FS1631/9), Reti Hick (1459/1), Carol Adams (FS1638/2), Danny Adams (FS1639/11), T J Anderson (FS1263/11), Adam Boot (FS1636/16), Christina Boot (FS1239/7), Ingrid Boot (FS1314/11), Louise Boot (FS1637/8), John Colligan (FS1640/19), Mr R Cooper (FS1322/8), Sandra Cooper (FS1526/3), John Drury (FS1500/11), Mr Martin William Emery (FS1512/46), Mrs Jeanne P Emery (FS1486/26), Mrs Maria Patricia Garrett (FS1305/16), Desmond H Griffin (FS1436/3), Robert Griffin (FS1651/26), Nola & Reginald Hardy (FS1111/27), Gary Hawkins (FS1058/3), Ray Howard (FS1307/23), Raywyn L Howard (FS1306/29), Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc) (FS1499/18), Frank Stanton (FS1407/3), Maggie Stanton (FS1372/20), The Reaction Trust (FS1408/28), Eleanor Wenman (FS1315/10), C J Zwart (FS1630/9), L W Zwart (FS1631/2), Steve Hick (1456/1), Dorothea M Hodgson (1488/1), Gillian D Howard (1470/1), Carol Adams (FS1638/23), Danny Adams (FS1639/17), T J Anderson (FS1263/15), Adam Boot (FS1636/5), Christina Boot (FS1239/9), Ingrid Boot (FS1314/10), Louise Boot (FS1637/1), John Colligan (FS1640/17), Mr R Cooper (FS1322/28), Sandra Cooper (FS1526/30), John Drury (FS1500/29), Mr Martin William Emery (FS1512/36), Mrs Jeanne P Emery (FS1486/28), Desmond H Griffin (FS1436/5), Robert Griffin (FS1651/16), Nola & Reginald Hardy (FS1111/18), Gary Hawkins (FS1058/18), Ray Howard (FS1307/7), Raywyn L Howard (FS1306/8), Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc) (FS1499/19), Frank Stanton (FS1407/23), Maggie Stanton (FS1372/21), The Reaction Trust (FS1408/18), Eleanor Wenman (FS1315/9), Paula Wonnacott (FS1641/12), C J Zwart (FS1630/2), L W Zwart (FS1631/21), Greg Howard (1469/1), Alan Hulse (1429/1), Paul James Hulse (1430/1), Susan-Leigh Hulse (1428/1), Vivienne Sharon Jack (1521/1), Deborah Johnston (1509/1), Mike J Johnston (1510/1), Peter A Kibblewhite (1477/1), Carol Adams (FS1638/1), Danny Adams (FS1639/7), T J Anderson (FS1263/7), Adam Boot (FS1636/13), Christina Boot (FS1239/5), Ingrid Boot (FS1314/7), Louise Boot (FS1637/10), John Colligan (FS1640/12), Mr R Cooper (FS1322/7), Sandra Cooper (FS1526/14), John Drury (FS1500/22), Mr Martin William Emery (FS1512/18), Mrs Jeanne P Emery (FS1486/2), Desmond H Griffin (FS1436/4), Robert Griffin (FS1651/8), Nola & Reginald Hardy (FS1111/8), Gary Hawkins (FS1058/2), Ray Howard (FS1307/20), Raywyn L Howard (FS1306/22), Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc) (FS1499/20), Frank Stanton (FS1407/2), Maggie Stanton (FS1372/2), The Reaction Trust (FS1408/6), Eleanor Wenman (FS1315/26), C J Zwart (FS1630/1), L W Zwart (FS1631/1), Yvonne Kibblewhite (1478/1), Clive Lovell Lasenby (1073/1), Diane M Lasenby (1074/1), Suzanne C Lasenby (1009/1), Dean A Lawson (1444/1), Elaine Magill (1465/1), Kenneth J Magill (1467/1), John L Mallett (1010/1), Lisa Mallett (1562/1), Carol Adams (FS1638/24), Danny Adams (FS1639/13), T J Anderson (FS1263/13), Adam Boot (FS1636/1), Christina Boot (FS1239/8), Ingrid Boot (FS1314/22), Louise Boot (FS1637/12), John Colligan (FS1640/15), Mr R Cooper (FS1322/10), Sandra Cooper (FS1526/4), John Drury (FS1500/25), Mr Martin William Emery (FS1512/45), Mrs Jeanne P Emery (FS1486/29), Desmond H Griffin (FS1436/22), Robert Griffin (FS1651/7), Nola & Reginald Hardy (FS1111/9), Gary Hawkins (FS1058/19), Ray Howard (FS1307/24), Raywyn L Howard (FS1306/23), Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc) (FS1499/21), Frank Stanton (FS1407/22), Maggie Stanton (FS1372/22), The Reaction Trust (FS1408/5), Eleanor Wenman (FS1315/11), Paula Wonnacott (FS1641/4), C J Zwart (FS1630/20), L W Zwart (FS1631/20), Kathryn J Manihera (1496/1), Mark D Manihera (1460/1), Carol Adams (FS1638/7), Danny Adams (FS1639/23), T J Anderson (FS1263/22), Adam Boot (FS1636/22), Christina Boot (FS1239/20), Ingrid Boot (FS1314/13), Louise Boot (FS1637/13), Mrs G Burton (FS1633/9), John Colligan (FS1640/16), Mr R Cooper (FS1322/17), Sandra Cooper (FS1526/9), John Drury (FS1500/30), Mr Martin William Emery (FS1512/22), Mrs Jeanne P Emery (FS1486/4), Desmond H Griffin (FS1436/17), Robert Griffin (FS1651/22), Nola & Reginald Hardy (FS1111/26), Gary Hawkins (FS1058/11), Ray Howard (FS1307/12), Raywyn L Howard (FS1306/25), Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc) (FS1499/22), Frank Stanton (FS1407/11), Maggie Stanton (FS1372/8), The Reaction Trust (FS1408/14), Eleanor Wenman (FS1315/17), C J Zwart (FS1630/10), L W Zwart (FS1631/7), Corban J Martin (1447/1), Elliott R Martin (1439/1), Carol Adams (FS1638/3), Danny Adams (FS1639/16), T J Anderson (FS1263/8), Adam Boot (FS1636/19), Christina Boot (FS1239/4), Ingrid Boot (FS1314/12), Louise Boot (FS1637/3), I H Burton (FS1634/1), John Colligan (FS1640/18), Mr R Cooper (FS1322/26), Sandra Cooper (FS1526/17), John Drury (FS1500/10), Mr

Martin William Emery (FS1512/30), Mrs Jeanne P Emery (FS1486/16), Desmond H Griffin (FS1436/19), Robert Griffin (FS1651/17), Nola & Reginald Hardy (FS1111/21), Gary Hawkins (FS1058/9), Ray Howard (FS1307/8), Raywyn L Howard (FS1306/7), Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc) (FS1499/23), Frank Stanton (FS1407/21), Maggie Stanton (FS1372/16), The Reaction Trust (FS1408/3), Eleanor Wenman (FS1315/16), C J Zwart (FS1630/8), L W Zwart (FS1631/10), Kiri Angela Martin (1462/1), Carol Adams (FS1638/9), Danny Adams (FS1639/15), T J Anderson (FS1263/18), Adam Boot (FS1636/21), Christina Boot (FS1239/17), Ingrid Boot (FS1314/23), Louise Boot (FS1637/7), Carol Burton (FS1635/1), John Colligan (FS1640/26), Mr R Cooper (FS1322/29), Sandra Cooper (FS1526/10), John Drury (FS1500/5), Mr Martin William Emery (FS1512/37), Mrs Jeanne P Emery (FS1486/15), Desmond H Griffin (FS1436/7), Robert Griffin (FS1651/12), Nola & Reginald Hardy (FS1111/11), Gary Hawkins (FS1058/7), Ray Howard (FS1307/9), Raywyn L Howard (FS1306/9), Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc) (FS1499/24), Frank Stanton (FS1407/12), Maggie Stanton (FS1372/7), The Reaction Trust (FS1408/17), Eleanor Wenman (FS1315/6), C J Zwart (FS1630/4), L W Zwart (FS1631/6), Wayne H Martin (1461/1), Julieann McCathie (1504/1), May McKellar (1466/1), Cheryl M Milton (1491/1), Jeremy Alan Milton (1487/1), Larry C Mingins (1506/1), Mary C Mingins (1507/1), Craig Morris (1454/1), Marcia L Morris (1453/1), Orewa Care Chemist Ltd (1481/1), Brian Rutter (1412/1), Rodney Economic Development Trust (FS1585/438), Tim Scheib (1516/1), Jacqueline L Schieb (1471/1), Mark A Schieb (1472/1), Carol Adams (FS1638/14), Danny Adams (FS1639/1), T J Anderson (FS1263/10), Adam Boot (FS1636/10), Christina Boot (FS1239/13), Ingrid Boot (FS1314/24), Louise Boot (FS1637/15), I H Burton (FS1634/3), John Colligan (FS1640/10), Mr R Cooper (FS1322/30), Sandra Cooper (FS1526/2), John Drury (FS1500/20), Mr Martin William Emery (FS1512/24), Mrs Jeanne P Emery (FS1486/7), Desmond H Griffin (FS1436/20), Robert Griffin (FS1651/9), Nola & Reginald Hardy (FS1111/10), Gary Hawkins (FS1058/10), Ray Howard (FS1307/16), Raywyn L Howard (FS1306/30), Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc) (FS1499/25), Frank Stanton (FS1407/16), Maggie Stanton (FS1372/13), The Reaction Trust (FS1408/10), Eleanor Wenman (FS1315/7), C J Zwart (FS1630/13), L W Zwart (FS1631/4), Helen M Sellars (1452/1), Raymond A Sellars (1498/1), Michael P Smith (1503/1), Suzanne I Smith (1502/1), Tzarina Smith (1609/1), Alan Stephenson (1433/1), Cicely Stephenson (1431/1), Peter Douglas Stephenson (1432/1), Barry ter Haar (1519/1), Ellie ter Haar (1518/1), Sam ter Haar (1463/1), Carol Adams (FS1638/15), Danny Adams (FS1639/6), T J Anderson (FS1263/16), Adam Boot (FS1636/20), Christina Boot (FS1239/15), Ingrid Boot (FS1314/20), Louise Boot (FS1637/2), John Colligan (FS1640/2), Mr R Cooper (FS1322/24), Sandra Cooper (FS1526/12), John Drury (FS1500/4), Mr Martin William Emery (FS1512/21), Mrs Jeanne P Emery (FS1486/5), Mrs Maria Patricia Garrett (FS1305/5), Desmond H Griffin (FS1436/6), Robert Griffin (FS1651/6), Nola & Reginald Hardy (FS1111/13), Gary Hawkins (FS1058/8), Ray Howard (FS1307/6), Raywyn L Howard (FS1306/4), Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc) (FS1499/15), Frank Stanton (FS1407/20), Maggie Stanton (FS1372/15), The Reaction Trust (FS1408/22), Eleanor Wenman (FS1315/8), C J Zwart (FS1630/7), L W Zwart (FS1631/12), Margaret Trowbridge (1474/1), Philip D Trowbridge (1473/1), Jacqueline Watson (1450/1), Gary Weir (1515/1), Garth C Wiltshire (1566/1), J R Wiltshire (1565/1), Coastal Properties Ltd (1558/1), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (FS1582/26).

13.2.1 Decision

(i) That submissions (FS1586/46), (FS1638/8), (FS1639/12), (FS1263/9), (FS1636/15), (FS1239/22), (FS1314/14), (FS1637/16), (FS1640/13), (FS1322/3), (FS1526/8), (FS1500/24), (FS1512/23), (FS1486/6), (FS1436/2), (FS1651/1), (FS1111/15), (FS1058/6), (FS1307/3), (FS1306/2), (FS1499/13), (FS1407/13), (FS1372/9), (FS1315/15), (FS1630/16), (FS1631/5), (FS1638/13), (FS1639/9), (FS1263/2), (FS1636/4), (FS1239/6), (FS1314/5), (FS1637/23), (FS1640/20), (FS1322/25), (FS1526/16), (FS1500/6), (FS1512/35), (FS1486/14), (FS1305/8), (FS1436/8), (FS1651/10), (FS1111/19), (FS1058/20), (FS1307/4). (FS1306/6), (FS1499/14), (FS1407/6), (FS1372/23), (FS1408/2), (FS1315/3), (FS1630/5), (FS1631/11), (FS1638/12), (FS1639/18), (FS1636/7), (FS1239/10), (FS1314/4), (FS1637/14), (FS1635/5), (FS1640/22), (FS1322/16), (FS1526/13), (FS1500/3), (FS1512/29), (FS1486/13), (FS1436/23), (FS1651/2), (FS1111/14), (FS1058/4), (FS1307/5), (FS1306/3), (FS1499/16), (FS1407/14), (FS1372/11), (FS1304/9), (FS1408/4), (FS1315/5), (FS1630/3), (FS1631/8), (FS1638/11), (FS1639/14), (FS1263/14), (FS1636/18), (FS1239/16), (FS1314/21), (FS1637/6), (FS1640/21), (FS1322/2), (FS1526/19), (FS1500/2), (FS1512/25), (FS1486/8), (FS1305/12), (FS1436/9), (FS1651/4), (FS1111/17), (FS1058/13), (FS1307/21), (FS1306/5), (FS1499/17),

(FS1407/15), (FS1372/12), (FS1650/12), (FS1408/29), (FS1315/4), (FS1631/9), (FS1638/2), (FS1639/11), (FS1263/11), (FS1636/16), (FS1239/7), (FS1314/11), (FS1637/8), (FS1640/19), (FS1322/8), (FS1526/3), (FS1500/11), (FS1512/46), (FS1486/26), (FS1305/16), (FS1436/3), (FS1651/26), (FS1111/27), (FS1058/3), (FS1307/23), (FS1306/29), (FS1499/18), (FS1407/3), (FS1372/20), (FS1408/28), (FS1315/10), (FS1630/9), (FS1631/2), (FS1638/23), (FS1639/17), (FS1263/15), (FS1636/5), (FS1239/9), (FS1314/10), (FS1637/1), (FS1640/17), (FS1322/28), (FS1526/30), (FS1500/29), (FS1512/36), (FS1486/28), (FS1436/5), (FS1651/16), (FS1111/18), (FS1058/18), (FS1307/7), (FS1306/8), (FS1499/19), (FS1407/23), (FS1372/21), (FS1408/18), (FS1315/9), (FS1641/12), (FS1630/2), (FS1631/21), (FS1638/1), (FS1639/7), (FS1263/7), (FS1636/13), (FS1239/5), (FS1314/7), (FS1637/10), (FS1640/12), (FS1322/7), (FS1526/14), (FS1500/22), (FS1512/18), (FS1486/2), (FS1436/4), (FS1651/8), (FS1111/8), (FS1058/2), (FS1307/20), (FS1306/22), (FS1499/20), (FS1407/2), (FS1372/2), (FS1408/6), (FS1315/26), (FS1630/1), (FS1631/1), (FS1638/24), (FS1639/13), (FS1263/13), (FS1636/1), (FS1239/8), (FS1314/22), (FS1637/12), (FS1640/15), (FS1322/10), (FS1526/4), (FS1500/25), (FS1512/45), (FS1486/29), (FS1436/22), (FS1651/7), (FS1111/9), (FS1058/19), (FS1307/24), (FS1306/23), (FS1499/21), (FS1407/22), (FS1372/22), (FS1408/5), (FS1315/11), (FS1641/4), (FS1630/20), (FS1631/20), (FS1638/7), (FS1639/23), (FS1263/22), (FS1636/22), (FS1239/20), (FS1314/13), (FS1637/13), (FS1633/9), (FS1640/16), (FS1322/17), (FS1526/9), (FS1500/30), (FS1512/22), (FS1486/4), (FS1436/17), (FS1651/22), (FS1111/26), (FS1058/11), (FS1307/12), (FS1306/25), (FS1499/22), (FS1407/11), (FS1372/8), (FS1408/14), (FS1315/17), (FS1630/10), (FS1631/7), (FS1638/3), (FS1639/16), (FS1263/8), (FS1636/19), (FS1239/4), (FS1314/12), (FS1637/3), (FS1634/1), (FS1640/18), (FS1322/26), (FS1526/17), (FS1500/10), (FS1512/30), (FS1486/16), (FS1436/19), (FS1651/17), (FS1111/21), (FS1058/9), (FS1307/8), (FS1306/7), (FS1499/23), (FS1407/21), (FS1372/16), (FS1408/3), (FS1315/16), (FS1630/8), (FS1631/10), (FS1638/9), (FS1639/15), (FS1263/18), (FS1636/21), (FS1239/17), (FS1314/23), (FS1637/7), (FS1635/1), (FS1640/26), (FS1322/29), (FS1526/10), (FS1500/5), (FS1512/37), (FS1486/15), (FS1436/7), (FS1651/12), (FS1111/11), (FS1058/7), (FS1307/9), (FS1306/9), (FS1499/24), (FS1407/12), (FS1372/7), (FS1408/17), (FS1315/6), (FS1630/4), (FS1631/6) (FS1585/438), (FS1638/14), (FS1639/1), (FS1263/10), (FS1636/10), (FS1239/13), (FS1314/24), (FS1637/15), (FS1634/3), (FS1640/10), (FS1322/30), (FS1526/2), (FS1500/20), (FS1512/24), (FS1486/7), (FS1436/20), (FS1651/9), (FS1111/10), (FS1058/10), (FS1307/16), (FS1306/30), (FS1499/25), (FS1407/16), (FS1372/13), (FS1408/10), (FS1315/7), (FS1630/13), (FS1631/4), (FS1638/15), (FS1639/6), (FS1263/16), (FS1636/20), (FS1239/15), (FS1314/20), (FS1637/2), (FS1640/2), (FS1322/24), (FS1526/12), (FS1500/4), (FS1512/21), (FS1486/5), (FS1305/5), (FS1436/6), (FS1651/6), (FS1111/13), (FS1058/8), (FS1307/6), (FS1306/4), (FS1499/15), (FS1407/20), (FS1372/15), (FS1408/22), (FS1315/8), (FS1630/7), (1520/1), (FS1582/26) and (FS1631/12) be rejected.

(ii) That submissions (1505/1), (1564/1), (1455/1), (1563/1), (1434/1), (1435/1), (1587/9),

(1457/1), (1490/1), (1489/1), (1508/1), (1442/1), (1441/1), (1443/1), (1522/1), (1494/1), (1493/1), (1458/1), (1459/1), (1456/1), (1488/1), (1470/1), (1469/1), (1429/1), (1430/1), (1521/1), (1509/1), (1510/1), (1444/1), (1465/1), (1467/1), (1010/1), (1562/1), (1496/1), (1460/1), (1447/1), (1439/1), (1462/1), (1461/1), (1504/1), (1466/1), (1491/1), (1487/1), (1506/1), (1507/1), (1454/1), (1453/1), (1516/1), (1471/1), (1472/1), (1452/1), (1498/1), (1503/1), (1502/1), (1609/1), (1433/1), (1431/1), (1432/1), (1519/1), (1518/1), (1463/1), (1474/1), (1450/1), (1515/1), (1566/1), (1558/1), (1424/1), (1557/1), (1555/1), (1554/1), (1556/1), (1565/1), (1446/1), (1449/1), (1448/1), (1115/1), (1114/1), (1428/1), (1477/1), (1478/1), (1073/1), (1074/1), (1009/1), (1481/1), (1412/1) and (1473/1) be accepted

13.2.3 Reasons for Decision

The majority of the main submissions note support for the ResVR Zone but request that the Zone provide for taller more slender buildings so as to reduce the area of shading. A number of the submissions refer to a maximum height of 10 storeys. These submissions are opposed by the further submissions. We consider that the submissions seeking higher buildings as part of an overall package presented to the hearing by Orewa Land Ltd should be accepted for the reasons set out in section 5 of this report.

13.2.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

That the Orewa Variable Height Residential Zone be amended as set out in Appendix 5 of this decision.

14.0 VARIABLE HEIGHT PROVISIONS 14.1 Submissions William Seth Ambler 1425/1 Support Variable Height Zone,

but amend as follows: * Up to 15% of site covered by buildings plus 2.5% for decks. 3 storey max. * Up to 15% of site covered by buildings plus 2.5% for decks. 10 storeys max. * Total site coverage for buildings to be 35%. * Separation for 3 storey buildings - 10m * Separation for 10 storey buildings - 25m * Buildings over 3 storeys minimum of 15m from adjacent property owners. * Building bulk - 10 storey buildings max. 24m x 24m footprint.

Auckland Regional Council 1536/10 * Retain provisions relating to the Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone that deliver an increase in density. * Amend provisions of Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone so that, on one particular site, built elements of varying height are not required to be separated. * Consider increasing the minimum side yard requirements to better manage interaction between developments. * Amend provisions of Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone to ensure development positively reinforces the street edge and provides an adequate separation of private, semi-private and public realm, possibly by allowing higher site

coverage in certain circumstances and where positive urban design outcomes are promoted.

Destination Orewa Beach FS1545/15 Supports submission 1536/10 Orewa Land Ltd FS1586/28 Supports submission 1536/10 Dr Simon Baker 1528/1 Approve High Intensity VHZ with

amendments suggested by Orewa Land Ltd.

Danny Adams FS1639/8 Opposes submission 1528/1 Adam Boot FS1636/14 Opposes submission 1528/1 Ingrid Boot FS1314/15 Opposes submission 1528/1 Louise Boot FS1637/4 Opposes submission 1528/1 Mrs G Burton FS1633/6 Opposes submission 1528/1 John Colligan FS1640/11 Opposes submission 1528/1 Mr R Cooper FS1322/9 Opposes submission 1528/1 Sandra Cooper FS1526/29 Opposes submission 1528/1 John Drury FS1500/21 Opposes submission 1528/1 Mr Martin William Emery FS1512/20 Opposes submission 1528/1 Mrs Jeanne P Emery FS1486/27 Opposes submission 1528/1 Desmond H Griffin FS1436/18 Opposes submission 1528/1 Robert Griffin FS1651/11 Opposes submission 1528/1 Nola & Reginald Hardy FS1111/12 Opposes submission 1528/1 Gary Hawkins FS1058/17 Opposes submission 1528/1 Ray Howard FS1307/2 Opposes submission 1528/1 Raywyn L Howard FS1306/11 Opposes submission 1528/1 Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc)

FS1499/12 Opposes submission 1528/1

Frank Stanton FS1407/4 Opposes submission 1528/1 Maggie Stanton FS1372/10 Opposes submission 1528/1 Kate Templeton FS1650/5 Opposes submission 1528/1 The Reaction Trust FS1408/23 Opposes submission 1528/1 Eleanor Wenman FS1315/18 Opposes submission 1528/1 C J Zwart FS1630/17 Opposes submission 1528/1 L W Zwart FS1631/3 Opposes submission 1528/1 Jennifer Blyth 1576/2 Seek that formal input from

registered architects be sought in order to experiment with the proposed building ordinances in the Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone to fine tune them to ensure that they create the highest quality of built environment possible.

Auckland Regional Council FS1536/28 Supports submission 1576/2 Jennifer Blyth 1576/4 Seek that mixed use be a

REQUIREMENT of all developments in the Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone, by including spaces for very specific businesses in the ground floor of each building on the street frontage, i.e. cafes, bookshops, delicatessen, etc. etc. .... and on first floor, connected to street by welcoming stairs, should be small offices for people who live locally to run their own businesses.

Orewa Land Ltd FS1586/35 Opposes submission 1576/4 Tanya Alach Brown 1540/4 8.10.4 (b) Variable Height Zone

should have buildings no taller than 12.5m with a 35% site coverage.

Tanya Alach Brown 1540/5 Concerned controls within Variable Height Zone will not protect the amenity of surrounding property if rules are not changed. Town centre should be the location for most opportunities.

Cornerstone Group Ltd 1533/7 Delete new variable height residential zones, but allow a maximum height limit of 13.5 metres (4 storeys) in these areas.

Orewa Land Ltd FS1586/27 Opposes submission 1533/7 Mr Martin William Emery 1512/3 8.8.8.1 Should be deleted.

8.8.8.1.2 Should be amended to include after "environmental effects" - add "or any adverse effect on existing residents".

Mr Martin William Emery 1512/4 Should be amended by to include after "on existing residents", add "this will be achieved by not granting planning permission for any structure that impinges on the coastal view in any way for travellers approaching the town of Orewa from either the south or north. Nor will planning permission be granted for any structure that impinges on the coastal or rural view of any existing residential property. For the purposes of this, the Nautilus will be assumed not to exist".

Mr Martin William Emery 1512/5 8.8.8.2.2(b) Should be amended to include after "Hibiscus Highway", add "this will be achieved by ensuring that no more than 50% of any road frontage shall be occupied by a dwelling of more than 3 storeys, and that across the entire site at least 25% of the road frontage shall provide a visible corridor of open space as viewed from east or west." 8.8.8.2.2(d) Should be amended by including after "of future residents", add "and those immediate neighbours of the development. This will be achieved by limiting the maximum footprint of any structure over 3 stories to a footprint not exceeding 22 x 28m with a maximum diagonal of 30m." 8.8.8.2.2(f) Should be amended by including after "located", add "in or". After "near the zone", add "this will be achieved by ensuring no structure of more than 3 storeys shall be permitted if its height is greater than the distance between it and any

road or site boundary. This to be determined at the extremities of any structure excluding provision for an entranceway that will not exceed 4m in height."

Mr Martin William Emery 1512/6 Add after "street frontage" - "where buildings or structures of more than 3 storeys front the street, the species of tree must be capable of growing to at least 9m high and will not be trimmed or pruned below that height."

Mr Martin William Emery 1512/7 Delete "100 sq.m" and insert "160sq.m."

Mr Martin William Emery 1512/8 Should be amended to read "buildings of up to and including 3 storeys will not be permitted to be longer than 40m and deeper than 20m. Building or structures of 4 storeys and up to and including 7 stories will be limited to a footprint of 22 x 28m with a maximum diagonal of 30m."

Mr Martin William Emery 1512/9 After "....exercises held in Orewa", add "however there remains considerable community concern about what some see as a plan prepared without adequately following the consultation process as evidenced by complaints made by ORRA to the Local Government Minister and the Auditor General"

Mr Martin William Emery 1512/10 (b) Amend to read "deliver household units of a minimum 160 sq.m. Useable floor space".

Mr Martin William Emery 1512/12 Amend "....No part of any building shall be closer than 8m to any boundary (other than the front Boundary)". After "building" add "of up to 3 storeys". After boundary)." No structure of more than 3 storeys shall be permitted if its height is greater than the distance between it and any road or site boundary. This to be determined at the extremities of any structure excluding provision for an entranceway that will not exceed 4m in height." Delete reference to additional 2.5m --- maximum height shall be 11.5m"

Mr Martin William Emery 1512/13 Add to items (i) and (ii) "Separate rules apply to adjoining sites".

Mr Martin William Emery 1512/14 (1) Amend "not less than 100 sq.m" to read "not less than 160 sq.m." (2) 8.12.3.1 Matter for Discretion and 8.12.3.2 Assessment

Criteria. Planning officials need to re-write these sections so that all parties (residents, developers, council staff and so on) know what is expected and that enforcement is going to be a practical proposition. (3) Vehicles and Parking (P34) “Preference given to underground parking". Add after parking, "screening of cars for which underground parking is mandatory for any dwelling exceeding 3 storeys and to be provided at two parking spaces per dwelling." (4) Safety and Security (P37). This issue needs to be properly addressed.

Herbert F & Joy Henley 1577/9 Not to rezone the land to the south of Orewa township to variable height zoning while the Orewa Motor camp continues to operate from the present beachfront site.

Herbert F & Joy Henley 1577/10 To spell out specific provisions for sites of under 5000m2

Herbert F & Joy Henley 1577/11 Oppose 8.8.8.3(g). Not allow development to 7 storeys on beachfront sites. To provide the "stepped" developments, with the lower step being up to 3 storeys at beachfront level.

Jennifer H Kipfer 1532/9 To not rezone the land to the south of Orewa township to variable height zoning while the Orewa Motor camp continues to operate from the present beachfront site.

Jennifer H Kipfer 1532/10 To spell out specific provision for sites of under 5000 m2.

Jennifer H Kipfer 1532/11 8.8.8.3(g). Oppose 7 storey development as inappropriate.

L W & J L Barker Family Trust 1553/1 Variation should make it clear the Variable Height Zone is an overlay zone and does not take away the existing Res H rights.

L W & J L Barker Family Trust 1553/2 8.8.2.2(f): Introduce height to boundary controls for new medium rise development in relation to existing residences.

L W & J L Barker Family Trust 1553/3 Amend 8.8.8.2.4: Suggest introduction of lower threshold 2000m2 to build up to 15m (5 storeys).

Orewa Land Ltd FS1586/32 Opposes submission 1553/3 L W & J L Barker Family Trust 1553/4 Amend 8.8.8.2.9 - Believe

should be reworded to read.... "buildings should generally not have dimensions which exceed 40m x 20m"

L W & J L Barker Family Trust 1553/5 Request quoted explanatory note in 8.104 B be deleted and new wording be written to allow for multiple levels in one

building. Not restricted to separate ones.

L W & J L Barker Family Trust 1553/6 References to height of buildings - are they measured from ground level as existed at November 2007? If not, ground level that the maximum height will be measured from needs to be defined so there is no confusion.

L W & J L Barker Family Trust 1553/7 Rule 8.10.6.1.4(b) - Add: "at least one balcony for each household shall be capable of containing a rectangle measuring 2.4 x 8m."

Orewa Land Ltd FS1586/33 Opposes submission 1553/7 L W & J L Barker Family Trust 1553/8 Suggest Height to Boundary

Formula: Building Height: 11.6m / Set back: 14.5m Building Height: 17.6m / Set back: 20.5m Building Height: 21m / Set back: 24m A 50% reduction to set back distance could be applied with appropriate neighbour consent. In any event, no building shall be closer than 8m to another.

L W & J L Barker Family Trust 1553/9 Rules should be developed for the placement of Private Recreational Facilities on a Development to mitigate nuisance to neighbours.

Orewa Land Ltd FS1586/34 Opposes submission 1553/9 Land Transport NZ 1602/9 Amend assessment criteria

8.12.3.2, safety and security: Ensure the development has logical routes for direct and convenient pedestrian movement and areas of potential entrapment or non overlooked areas are eliminated.

Orewa Land Ltd 1586/3 Amend Objectives 8.8.8.1.1 & 8.8.8.1.2 to reflect 'Objectives' within the Plan.

See Appendix 3 Orewa Land Ltd 1586/4 8.8.8.2.1 - suggested text

changes to role of tall buildings in Orewa Variable Height Zone. 8.8.2.2 - suggested text changes to Orewa Variable Height Zone. 8.8.8.2.3 - Text insert 'or support public life on the beachfront along HBCH' 8.8.8.2.4 - Text insert 'for Integrated Residential Development 8.8.8.2.5 - Delete specified rules relating to footpath coverage 8.8.8.2.6 - Insert increase in height to 12 storeys 8.8.8.2.7 - Delete specified rules detailing % of landscaping

8.8.8.2.8 - Delete specified 100 m2 minimum floor area and introduce more general policy 8.8.8.2.9 - Delete footprint dimensions

See Appendix 3 Orewa Land Ltd 1586/5 Amend Ch 8 - Residential by

amending Rule 8.9.2 Activity Table by adding a new column and rows for the Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone to reflect smaller net floor area for apartments.

See Appendix 3 Orewa Land Ltd 1586/6 Include a clear statement in the

Variation which identifies which Zone provisions would apply in the event that a property is located within the Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone and has a site area less than 5,000m2.

See Appendix 3 Orewa Land Ltd 1586/7 Rule 8.9.3.3 requires a site be

either a front or corner site. Amend Rule 8.9.3.3 as follows: (a) be a front or corner site with have an area of not less than 5,000m2. (b) deliver household units of a minimum of 100m2 net useable floor space of: 35m2 for studio units / 45m2 for 1 bedroom units / 70m2 for 2 bedroom units / 90m2 for units with 3 or more bedrooms

See Appendix 3 Orewa Land Ltd 1586/8 Rule 8.9.3.3 requires a minimum

of 100m2 net useable floor space per household unit must be provided. Amend Rule 8.9.3.3 as follows: (a) be a front or corner site with have an area of not less than 5,000m2. (b) deliver household units of a minimum of 100m2 net useable floor space of: 35m2 for studio units / 45m2 for 1 bedroom units / 70m2 for 2 bedroom units / 90m2 for units with 3 or more bedrooms

See Appendix 3 Orewa Land Ltd 1586/9 Development Controls and

Performance Standards: Amend: Replace and include new development controls in the Plan, as discussed and requested in the submission.

See Appendix 3 Orewa Land Ltd 1586/11 Include a Development Control

which states that the maximum height for the Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone is 10 – 12 storeys.

See Appendix 3

Orewa Land Ltd 1586/12 Clarify in the Plan that the max Height in Relation to Boundary Control (Rule 8.10.2) applies to Integrated Residential Development in the Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone which is 3 storeys (including roof structures) or less in height (i.e. control does not apply to building towers),

See Appendix 3 Orewa Land Ltd 1586/13 Delete Rule 8.10.3 Maximum

Bulk in Relation to Boundary as it applies to the Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone.

See Appendix 3 Orewa Land Ltd 1586/14 Maximum Site Coverage:

Amend site coverage to 35% of net site area for the Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone and clarify that this coverage area includes balconies.

See Appendix 3 Orewa Land Ltd 1586/15 Variation in building height:

Include a control limiting site coverage in relation to building height as follows: * A maximum of 17.5% (including balconies) of the net site area: buildings more than 3 storeys in height. * A maximum of 17.5% (including balconies) of the net site area: buildings of 3 storeys in height or less. *Include an explanation to state that underground car parking is not included as a storey.

See Appendix 3 Orewa Land Ltd 1586/16 Retain a front yard control of 8m

for the Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone - this will create an area for significant landscaping to occur.

See Appendix 3 Orewa Land Ltd 1586/17 Assessment Criteria -

Landscaping and Screening (n): Include provision for fencing between household units on a street frontage, and allow this fencing to a maximum height of 1.4m (consistent with the street frontage fencing control) and allow for fences between household units to be solid (i.e. no requirement to be visually permeable).

See Appendix 3 Orewa Land Ltd 1586/18 Private Open Space: Include

provisions a) to g) to create useable areas of private open space and landscape amenity.

See Appendix 3 Orewa Land Ltd 1586/19 Include a provision which

requires a separation distance between the faces of building

towers (incl. balconies), which is over 3 storeys in height, to be 25m. Include a requirement for the face of towers (including balconies) to be located no less than 12.5m from any side or rear boundary. Include a max. floor plate area dimension for building towers (over 3 storeys in height) of 24m x 24m. Ensure that all relevant Development Controls for Integrated Residential Development in the Orewa High Intensity Residential Zone are listed in Activity Table 8.9.2 and referenced elsewhere in the Plan where appropriate.

See Appendix 3 Orewa Land Ltd 1586/21 Basement Car parking: (b) (iii).

Retain provisions in the variation which allow for basement level parking to extend a maximum distance above ground level of 1.5m. Require appropriate screening and landscaping to ensure that basement parking areas are not visible from streets and adjoining properties.

See Appendix 3 Orewa Land Ltd 1586/22 Amend Rule 8.120.12.3 as

outlined in Annexure 4 of submission to introduce Discretionary Activity status to integrated Residential Development that does not comply with the relevant development controls.

See Appendix 3 Orewa Land Ltd 1586/23 Include in Activity Table 8.9.2

provision for limited commercial and retail activities at ground level fronting on to Hibiscus Coast Highway within the Orewa High Intensity Residential Zone and the Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone which supports residents of the Zone and/or the public life on the beach frontage, as discretionary activities. The provision shall limit the floor area of such activities to no more than 100m gross floor area and list examples of such activities, that are appropriate by type, e.g. cafes, ice cream parlours, surfboard/windsurfing shop, kite shop, beach recreation. Include additional controls/criteria to manage the effect of these activities on adjoining residential development.

See Appendix 3

Bailey Phillips 1517/1 Council to approve VHZ with amendments proposed by Orewa Land Ltd.

Bailey Phillips 1525/1 Seek Council to approve VHZ with changes proposed by Orewa Land Ltd.

Courtney Phillips 1495/1 VHZ be changed to allow for taller buildings - less bulk and greater spaces apart, maximises views, plus light corridors. Council to approve VHZ with amendment suggested by Orewa Land Ltd.

Margaret Phillips 1529/1 Council to approve VHZ with amendments proposed by Orewa Land Ltd

Wendell Phillips 1524/1 Seek Council to approve VHZ with amendments proposed by Orewa Land Ltd.

Rodney District Council 1421/4 Chapter 8, Objective 8.8.8.1.1 - Oppose

The Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone is an ‘overlay zone’ to the existing Residential Height entitlements, and upon the satisfaction of minimum sites size the specific rules to the Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone apply, however this is not made clear in the description to Objective 8.8.8.1.1.

Rodney District Council 1421/5 Rule 8.9.2 Activity Table - Oppose

* To ensure that the objectives that relate to this zone are achieved it is necessary to include a rule that provides for up 3 household units per 600m2 - 1,000m2 in the Orewa Business Zone. * It is not made clear in the Activity Table that Activities in the Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone only applies to sites exceeding 5,000m2

Orewa Land Ltd FS1586/24 Supports submission 1421/5 Rodney District Council 1421/6 Rule 8.12.3.2(a) - Oppose

To ensure that the objectives are achieved it is necessary to substitute blank alienating boundary walls over 1m in height, for walls over 1.4m in height.

Rodney District Council 1421/15 Amend Chapter 8, 8.5 Strategy by: Include the following to the end of paragraph 7: “This zone is a policy area and does not replace the underlying Residential H Zone entitlements but supplements them”

Rodney District Council 1421/16 Amend Chapter 8 Explanation to Orewa High Intensity Variable Height

Zone Objective 8.8.8.1.1 by: Include the following to the end of Objective 8.8.8.1.1: “The zone has been designed as an ‘overlay zone’ to the existing Residential H entitlements. Upon satisfaction of minimum site size the specific rules to the Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone Objectives”.

Rodney District Council 1421/17 Amend Chapter 8 Rule 8.9.2 Activity Table by:

* Amend the column that applies to activities in the ‘Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone as follows: “Orewa High Intensity Variable Height (Res VR) (sites exceeding 5,000m2 only)”.

* Include the following Rule “In the Orewa Business Zone up to 3 HOUSEHOLD UNITS per 600m2 - 1,000m2 subject to satisfying the appropriate assessment criteria is a Permitted Activity.

Rodney District Council 1421/18 Amend Rule 8.1.2.3(n) by:

“…Blank alienating boundary walls 1m 1.4m in height are not acceptable”.

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/8 Partly agree - Amend - add after Height Zone "except where the title adjoins the Hibiscus Coast Highway where on premise food businesses may be located on either the ground floor or the 1st floor to take advantage of sea views. No such establishment shall occupy an interior space more than 80 sq.m. Other conditions shall apply."

Auckland Regional Council FS1536/23 Supports submission 1585/8 Orewa Land Ltd FS1586/41 Supports submission 1585/8 Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/9 Delete policy relating to 16.5% of a site developed above 5 storeys.

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/10 Amend - According to 8.5

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/11 Amend - Add after semi mature tree....... "and or palm". Add "Where the building is adjoining Hibiscus Coast and contains an on premise food business the trees or palms may be located in large containers at intervals of no less than 4 metres apart."

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/12 Explanation and Reasons. Amend - "with buildings of different heights throughout the zone"

Second paragraph: ......improved regional public transport links. Amend - add: "The zone recognises the need to encourage and facilitate the use of public transport, walking and cycling as a way of improving future environmental standards. Its objectives and rules make a huge leap forward in the way we address the issues associated with the use of private motor vehicles."

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/13 Table content: Note that some of the activities are subject to likely changes from other Variations. Amend - "All activities permitted in their associated zones will be a permitted activity. All applications will be considered on a non-notified basis."

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/15 a() - Amend - Be a front or corner site with an area not less than 5000sqm "A tolerance of up to 5% will be allowed to account for any site variations".

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/16 (2nd to last para-page 19). Amend - Include a reference for appropriate forms. 2nd para - Amend - Except that an additional 3m of non-occupied space to roof ridge may be provided.... Add - are subject to minimum site size and other development controls to ensure an appropriate form of development overall while providing building and site incentives for good design and environmental outcomes.

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/18 Second para, last sentence: This is under the Orewa High Intensity Variable Height zone. Should this para fit above in the Orewa Beachfront Residential Zone which is located on the shoreline?

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/19 Add after last sentence (p 25) - Planning outcomes that achieve a higher level of separation will account for part of the criteria in accessing extra building height.

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/21 Assessment Criteria (g) last sentence - Amend - "and be in keeping with the objectives of the zone". (h / i / j) - Words in this assessment criteria which invite legal challenges such as "minor" should be amended.

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/22 (n) last sentence. Amend - "wall over 1.4m are considered appropriate." Add - "Where on premise food

operations are proposed the treatment of the boundary and the footpath will merge to allow outside tables and chairs."

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/23 (g) - Amend - Remove (g) / (r) / (s)

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/24 (a) & (b) - Comment: The legal titles refer to Marine Parade as the front entrance even though marine Parade no longer exists. For these properties (a) should read "the rear yard shall be 6m"

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/25 (w) - Support - does it go far enough to recognise the intent of Variation 22.

Leanne Smith 1542/2 Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone * Building height should be related to floor area ratio and include parking. * Release of land within Variable Height Zone should not be staged. * Oppose 7 storey limit, suggest tower buildings but with less bulk and more set backs and separation distances. * Oppose any additional commercial activities within the zone.

Orewa Land Ltd FS1586/29 Support in parts submission 1542/2

Michael Smith 1485/2 * Reject multiple buildings on site * Have flexibility in number of storeys * Allow some different uses, e.g. cafe / coffee bars facing Hibiscus Coast Highway

Orewa Land Ltd FS1586/25 Supports submission 1485/2 The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

1582/5 Include in Activity Table 8.9.2 provision for limited commercial and retail activities at ground level fronting on to Hibiscus Coast Highway within the Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone and Orewa High Intensity Residential Zone, which support residents of the Zone and/or the public life on the beach frontage, as DISCRETIONARY ACTIVITIES. Also include in Activity Table 8.9.2 provision for drive-through activities fronting on to Hibiscus Coast Highway within the Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone and Orewa High Intensity Residential Zone which support the role of the Highway as a through-route, as DISCRETIONARY ACTIVITIES. Include additional controls/criteria to manage the effect of these activities on

adjoining residential development.

Auckland Regional Council FS1536/22 Supports submission 1582/5 Orewa Land Ltd FS1586/39 Supports submission 1582/5 Transition Town Orewa/Rodney

1579/3 Seek that mixed use be a REQUIREMENT of all developments in the Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone.

Orewa Land Ltd FS1586/36 Opposes submission 1579/3 Deborah E Wandford 1574/1 Support Orewa Land's

submission on Variable Height Zone.

Bruce H Whitehead 1440/1 Incorporate changes as recommended by Orewa Land Group to V101 - needs to have buildings that enhance the area without infringing on neighbours.

Danny Adams FS1639/22 Opposes submission 1440/1 T J Anderson FS1263/17 Opposes submission 1440/1 Adam Boot FS1636/6 Opposes submission 1440/1 Ingrid Boot FS1314/6 Opposes submission 1440/1 Louise Boot FS1637/9 Opposes submission 1440/1 John Colligan FS1640/9 Opposes submission 1440/1 Mr R Cooper FS1322/15 Opposes submission 1440/1 Sandra Cooper FS1526/18 Opposes submission 1440/1 John Drury FS1500/15 Opposes submission 1440/1 Mr Martin William Emery FS1512/19 Opposes submission 1440/1 Mrs Jeanne P Emery FS1486/3 Opposes submission 1440/1 Mrs Maria Patricia Garrett FS1305/6 Opposes submission 1440/1 Desmond H Griffin FS1436/16 Opposes submission 1440/1 Robert Griffin FS1651/5 Opposes submission 1440/1 Nola & Reginald Hardy FS1111/20 Opposes submission 1440/1 Gary Hawkins FS1058/12 Opposes submission 1440/1 Ray Howard FS1307/11 Opposes submission 1440/1 Raywyn L Howard FS1306/12 Opposes submission 1440/1 Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc)

FS1499/27 Opposes submission 1440/1

Frank Stanton FS1407/5 Opposes submission 1440/1 Maggie Stanton FS1372/3 Opposes submission 1440/1 The Reaction Trust FS1408/15 Opposes submission 1440/1 Eleanor Wenman FS1315/25 Opposes submission 1440/1 Brian Wonnacott FS1642/4 Opposes submission 1440/1 L W Zwart FS1631/13 Opposes submission 1440/1 Milton B Wylie 1437/1 Support Orewa Land's

submission - Council's height and spacing requirements would be uneconomic to build, be unattractive to purchasers, result in loss of privacy to occupants, obstruct view lines and increase sun and wind shadow. Tall, slim, more widely spaced buildings would overcome these problems.

Carol Adams FS1638/16 Opposes submission 1437/1 Danny Adams FS1639/10 Opposes submission 1437/1 T J Anderson FS1263/12 Opposes submission 1437/1 Adam Boot FS1636/17 Opposes submission 1437/1 Christina Boot FS1239/14 Opposes submission 1437/1 Ingrid Boot FS1314/9 Opposes submission 1437/1 Louise Boot FS1637/5 Opposes submission 1437/1 John Colligan FS1640/14 Opposes submission 1437/1 Mr R Cooper FS1322/27 Opposes submission 1437/1 Sandra Cooper FS1526/11 Opposes submission 1437/1

John Drury FS1500/23 Opposes submission 1437/1 Mr Martin William Emery FS1512/38 Opposes submission 1437/1 Mrs Jeanne P Emery FS1486/30 Opposes submission 1437/1 Desmond H Griffin FS1436/21 Opposes submission 1437/1 Robert Griffin FS1651/21 Opposes submission 1437/1 Nola & Reginald Hardy FS1111/25 Opposes submission 1437/1 Gary Hawkins FS1058/21 Opposes submission 1437/1 Ray Howard FS1307/22 Opposes submission 1437/1 Raywyn L Howard FS1306/24 Opposes submission 1437/1 Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc)

FS1499/26 Opposes submission 1437/1

Frank Stanton FS1407/27 Opposes submission 1437/1 Maggie Stanton FS1372/27 Opposes submission 1437/1 The Reaction Trust FS1408/24 Opposes submission 1437/1 Eleanor Wenman FS1315/27 Opposes submission 1437/1 Brian Wonnacott FS1642/8 Opposes submission 1437/1 C J Zwart FS1630/21 Opposes submission 1437/1 L W Zwart FS1631/17 Opposes submission 1437/1 Evans Young 1550/1 Support in general.

Seek Percentage site coverage limits and separation distances rather than maximum footprint dimensions. Approve High Intensity Height Zone in Orewa.

Orewa Land Ltd 1586/1 1. Amend the proposed variation

to incorporate the relief sought in paragraphs 1.0 to 8.0 in submission. 2. Include any other consequential changes to the satisfaction of the submitter to give effect to this submission and to ensure consistency with District Plan provisions.

See Appendix 3 Jeremy White 1573/1 Support relief sought in

Destination Orewa Beach submission.

Lavinia White 1569/1 Support Destination Orewa Beach submission

Jonathan Wright 1541/1 Support Destination Orewa Beach Submission.

Rebecca Wright 1551/1 Support Destination Orewa Beach submission.

Sue Wright 1552/1 Support Destination Orewa Beach submission.

Nola E McGowan 1501/1 Support Orewa Land's

submission - need to move ahead and develop so that entire coast benefits.

Edward Grooten 1539/1 Approve high intensity VHZ with amendments suggested by Orewa Land Ltd

Stuart J Handford 1580/1 Support Orewa Land's submission.

Fleur Heaton 1567/1 Support the Destination Orewa Beach submission.

Lynnette Heaton 1572/1 Support Destination Orewa Beach submission.

Martin Heaton 1571/1 Support Destination Orewa Beach submission.

Olivia Heaton 1570/1 Support Destination Orewa Beach submission

Scott Heaton 1568/1 Support Destination Orewa Beach submission.

Judith Wylie 1438/1 Support Orewa Land's submission - Council's height and spacing requirements would be uneconomic to build, be unattractive to purchasers, result in loss of privacy to occupants, obstruct view lines and increase sun and wind shadow. Tall, slim, more widely spaced buildings would overcome these problems.

14.2 Mr Martin William Emery (1512/3), Mr Martin William Emery (1512/4), Mr Martin William

Emery (1512/5), Herbert F & Joy Henley (1577/11), Jennifer H Kipfer (1532/11), L W & J L Barker Family Trust (1553/2), L W & J L Barker Family Trust (1553/3), Orewa Land Ltd (FS1586/32), L W & J L Barker Family Trust (1553/4), Orewa Land Ltd (1586/3), Orewa Land Ltd (1586/4), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/12) William Seth Ambler (1425/1), Auckland Regional Council (1536/10), Destination Orewa Beach (FS1545/15), Orewa Land Ltd (FS1586/28), Tanya Alach Brown (1540/4), Tanya Alach Brown (1540/5), Mr Martin William Emery (1512/6), Mr Martin William Emery (1512/7), Mr Martin William Emery (1512/8), Mr Martin William Emery (1512/9), Mr Martin William Emery (1512/10), Mr Martin William Emery (1512/12), Mr Martin William Emery (1512/13), Mr Martin William Emery (1512/14), L W & J L Barker Family Trust (1553/5), L W & J L Barker Family Trust (1553/6), L W & J L Barker Family Trust (1553/7), Orewa Land Ltd (FS1586/33), L W & J L Barker Family Trust (1553/8), L W & J L Barker Family Trust (1553/9), Orewa Land Ltd (FS1586/34), Orewa Land Ltd (1586/5), (Note- further submissions for Orewa Land Submissions in Appendix 2) Orewa Land Ltd (1586/7), Orewa Land Ltd (1586/8), Orewa Land Ltd (1586/9), Orewa Land Ltd (1586/11), Orewa Land Ltd (1586/12), Orewa Land Ltd (1586/13), Orewa Land Ltd (1586/14), Orewa Land Ltd (1586/15), Orewa Land Ltd (1586/16), Orewa Land Ltd (1586/17), Orewa Land Ltd (1586/18), Orewa Land Ltd (1586/19), Orewa Land Ltd (1586/21), Rodney District Council (1421/18), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/9), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/10), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/11), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/15), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/16), Leanne Smith (1542/2), Orewa Land Ltd (FS1586/29), Evans Young (1550/1), Orewa Land Ltd (1586/22), Dr Simon Baker (1528/1), Danny Adams (FS1639/8), Adam Boot (FS1636/14), Ingrid Boot (FS1314/15), Louise Boot (FS1637/4), Mrs G Burton (FS1633/6), John Colligan (FS1640/11), Mr R Cooper (FS1322/9), Sandra Cooper (FS1526/29), John Drury (FS1500/21), Mr Martin William Emery (FS1512/20), Mrs Jeanne P Emery (FS1486/27), Desmond H Griffin (FS1436/18), Robert Griffin (FS1651/11), Nola & Reginald Hardy (FS1111/12), Gary Hawkins (FS1058/17), Ray Howard (FS1307/2), Raywyn L Howard (FS1306/11), Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc) (FS1499/12), Frank Stanton (FS1407/4), Maggie Stanton (FS1372/10), Kate Templeton (FS1650/5), The Reaction Trust (FS1408/23), Eleanor Wenman (FS1315/18), C J Zwart (FS1630/17), L W Zwart (FS1631/3), Bailey Phillips (1517/1), Bailey Phillips (1525/1), Courtney Phillips (1495/1), Margaret Phillips (1529/1), Wendell Phillips (1524/1), Deborah E Wandford (1574/1), Bruce H Whitehead (1440/1), Danny Adams (FS1639/22), T J Anderson (FS1263/17), Adam Boot (FS1636/6), Ingrid Boot (FS1314/6), Louise Boot (FS1637/9), John Colligan (FS1640/9), Mr R Cooper (FS1322/15), Sandra Cooper (FS1526/18), John Drury (FS1500/15), Mr Martin William Emery (FS1512/19), Mrs Jeanne P Emery (FS1486/3), Mrs Maria Patricia Garrett (FS1305/6), Desmond H Griffin (FS1436/16), Robert Griffin (FS1651/5), Nola & Reginald Hardy (FS1111/20), Gary Hawkins (FS1058/12), Ray Howard (FS1307/11), Raywyn L Howard (FS1306/12), Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc) (FS1499/27), Frank Stanton (FS1407/5), Maggie Stanton (FS1372/3), The Reaction Trust (FS1408/15), Eleanor Wenman (FS1315/25), Brian Wonnacott (FS1642/4), L W Zwart (FS1631/13), Milton B Wylie (1437/1), Carol Adams (FS1638/16), Danny Adams (FS1639/10), T J Anderson (FS1263/12), Adam Boot (FS1636/17), Christina Boot (FS1239/14), Ingrid Boot (FS1314/9), Louise Boot (FS1637/5), John Colligan (FS1640/14), Mr R Cooper (FS1322/27), Sandra Cooper (FS1526/11), John Drury (FS1500/23), Mr Martin William Emery (FS1512/38), Mrs Jeanne P Emery (FS1486/30), Desmond H Griffin (FS1436/21), Robert Griffin (FS1651/21), Nola & Reginald Hardy (FS1111/25), Gary Hawkins

(FS1058/21), Ray Howard (FS1307/22), Raywyn L Howard (FS1306/24), Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc) (FS1499/26), Frank Stanton (FS1407/27), Maggie Stanton (FS1372/27), The Reaction Trust (FS1408/24), Eleanor Wenman (FS1315/27), Brian Wonnacott (FS1642/8), C J Zwart (FS1630/21), L W Zwart (FS1631/17) Orewa Land Ltd (1586/1), Jeremy White (1573/1), Lavinia White (1569/1), Jonathan Wright (1541/1), Rebecca Wright (1551/1), Sue Wright (1552/1), Nola E McGowan (1501/1), Edward Grooten (1539/1), Stuart J Handford (1580/1), Fleur Heaton (1567/1), Lynnette Heaton (1572/1), Martin Heaton (1571/1), Olivia Heaton (1570/1), Scott Heaton (1568/1), Judith Wylie (1438/1).

. (Please note that there are a large number of further submissions in respect of the submissions from Orewa Land Ltd relevant to this section of the report. These are listed in Appendix 4)

14.2.1 Decision

(i) That submissions (FS1586/32), (1586/3), (1553/5), (FS1586/33), (1586/11), (1586/12), (1586/13), (1586/14), (1586/15), (1586/16), (1586/17), (1586/18), (1586/19), (1586/21) and (1586/22) be accepted.

(ii) That submissions (1421/18), (1586/4), (1425/1), (1536/10), (FS1545/15),

(FS1586/28), (FS1553/9), (1586/9), (1542/2), (FS1586/29), (1528/1), (1550/1), (1517/1), (1525/1), (1495/1), (1529/1), (1524/1), (1574/1), (1440/1) (1586/1), (1573/1), (1569/1), (1541/1), (1551/1), (1552/1), (1501/1), (1539/1), (1580/1), (1567/1), (1572/1), (1571/1), (1570/1), (1568/1), (1438/1) and (1437/1) be accepted in part to the extent outlined in Appendix 5 to this decision report.

(iii) That submissions (1512/3), (1512/4), (1512/5), (1577/11), (1532/11), (1553/2),

(1553/4), (1553/3), (1585/12), (1540/4), (1540/5), (1512/6), (1512/7), (1512/8), (1512/9), (1512/10), (1512/12), (1512/13), (1512/14), (1553/6), (1553/7), (1553/8), (FS1586/34), (1586/5), (1586/7), (1586/8), (1585/9), (1585/10), (1585/11), (1585/15), (1585/16), (FS1639/8), (FS1636/14), (FS1314/15), (FS1637/4), (FS1633/6), (FS1640/11), (FS1322/9), (FS1526/29), (FS1500/21), (FS1512/20), (FS1486/27), (FS1436/18), (FS1651/11), (FS1111/12), (FS1058/17), (FS1307/2), (FS1306/11), (FS1499/12), (FS1407/4), (FS1372/10), (FS1650/5), (FS1408/23), (FS1315/18), (FS1630/17), (FS1631/3), (FS1639/22), (FS1263/17), (FS1636/6), (FS1314/6), (FS1637/9), (FS1640/9), (FS1322/15), (FS1526/18), (FS1500/15), (FS1512/19), (FS1486/3), (FS1305/6), (FS1436/16), (FS1651/5), (FS1111/20), (FS1058/12), (FS1307/11), (FS1306/12), (FS1499/27), (FS1407/5), (FS1372/3), (FS1408/15), (FS1315/25), (FS1642/4), (FS1631/13), (FS1638/16), (FS1639/10), (FS1263/12), (FS1636/17), (FS1239/14), (FS1314/9), (FS1637/5), (FS1640/14), (FS1322/27), (FS1526/11), (FS1500/23), (FS1512/38), (FS1486/30), (FS1436/21), (FS1651/21), (FS1111/25), (FS1058/21), (FS1307/22), (FS1306/24), (FS1499/26), (FS1407/27), (FS1372/27), (FS1408/24), (FS1315/27), (FS1642/8), (FS1630/21) and (FS1631/17) be rejected.

(Please note that there are a large number of further submissions in respect of the submissions from Orewa Land Ltd relevant to this section of the report. These are listed in Appendix 4. These are accepted, accepted in part or rejected accordingly).

14.2.2 Reasons for Decision

These submissions relate to the objectives, policies and rules of the ResVH Zone. The reasons for the decisions are outlined in section 5 of this decision report and centre around our acceptance of the Orewa Land submission. We generally accept the Orewa Land submission as a package and consider that it is not practicable to pick and choose various aspects of the submission. The aspects where we do not accept the Orewa Land submission or where we consider other matters should be considered are outlined below. Apartment Size A number of submissions seek changes to the minimum sizes of apartments provided for in the zone which is currently 100m2. MW Emery requests that this be increased to 160m2 while

Orewa Land Ltd seeks a range of apartment sizes from 35m2 to 90m2 depending on the number of bedrooms in each apartment. Given the context of Orewa as a residential centre we consider that it is necessary to ensure that residential units are provided that are large enough to be permanent homes rather than simply being suitable for short term or holiday use only. Restricting the minimum apartment size to 100m2 allows adequate space for full scale residential living. This is less likely to be the case should apartments of any size be permitted. We note that Mr Phillips, representing Orewa Land Ltd advised the Panel that the submitter did not intend developing units smaller than 100m2 in Orewa. Increasing the minimum apartment size to 160m2 seems unreasonable in that apartments of that size will cost significantly more to provide than could be justified in applying a minimum standard. Location of Outdoor Areas The Barker submission also requests that a rule be included within the Variation that limits the location of outdoor activity areas such as communal swimming pools that may cause nuisance. It is considered that this submission raises a valid area of concern; however we consider that such effects are best dealt with by assessment criteria rather than rules. It is therefore recommended that a new assessment criterion be introduced in to 8.12.3.2. Other Matters The submission from REDT questions the use of the 5000m2 site threshold and seeks that this be given some flexibility. We consider that there is potential for such flexibility to become a de facto standard. An applicant with a smaller site is still able to make a resource consent application to develop that site. We consider therefore that the REDT submission should be rejected.

14.2.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

(i) Due to the large number of amendments contained in the Orewa Land submission the recommended amendments to the ResVH Zone are set out in Appendix 5 of this decision report.

14.3 Rodney District Council (1421/4), Jennifer H Kipfer (1532/10), L W & J L Barker Family

Trust (1553/1), Orewa Land Ltd (1586/6), Albany Scaffolding Ltd (FS1656/6), William S & Yvonne M Ambler (FS1426/7), Dr Simon Baker (FS1528/7), Ian Bartlett (FS1623/6), Robert W Bartlett (FS1732/6), Nancy Baulcomb (FS1699/6), Philip Baulcomb (FS1698/6), Christopher W Bisman (FS1683/6), Mrs Mavis Anne Brackebush (FS1700/6), Fred Bradley (FS1714/6), Patricia L Bradley (FS1701/6), John Bretnall (FS1564/7), Lorraine Bretnall (FS1554/7), Timothy R Brooks (FS1549/7), Heather Burns (FS1702/6), Andrew Chambers (FS1613/6), Stuart Chambers (FS1730/6), Peter McKenzie Clark (FS1735/6), Robyn Clark (FS1733/6), Coastal Properties Ltd (FS1559/8), Coastal Scaffolding Ltd (FS1696/6), Annalise Coghlan (FS1556/7), Brendon Coghlan (FS1734/6), Claudia Coghlan (FS1671/6), Karlene E Coghlan (FS1455/7), Madison Coghlan (FS1664/6), Kim & Lyn Corbett (FS1728/6), Irene Coussons (FS1660/6), Robert Coussons (FS1659/6), James McLellan Coxhead (FS1722/6), Jeanene G Davis (FS1434/7), Paul John Davis (FS1435/7), Les Downes (FS1490/7), Maree Downes (FS1489/7), Colin L Dryland (FS1625/6), Tony Edward (FS1749/6), Dennis Ellwood (FS1508/7), Susan Ellwood (FS1446/7), Deirdre F Evans (FS1658/6), Carolyn Fletcher (FS1680/6), Stuart Fluker (FS1725/6), Neil Flyger (FS1758/6), Steve Franich (FS1448/7), Karen Franklin (FS1520/7), Benjamin Thomas Fraser Pain (FS1621/6), Deborah Fromich (FS1741/6), Wayne Fromich (FS1742/6), Paul Fry (FS1653/6), Sarah Fry (FS1654/6), Lance Gilbertson (FS1752/6), Doug Godfrey (FS1675/6), Miriam Godfrey (FS1676/6), Timothy A Green (FS1677/6), Andrew Alistair Grey (FS1614/6), Ben Grooten (FS1674/6), Eddie Grooten (FS1669/6), Erika Grooten (FS1670/6), Cushla Hackett (FS1747/6), Malcolm James Haggerty (FS1627/6), Andrew F Hansen (FS1682/6), Jane Hansen (FS1665/6), Tony Harden (FS1751/6), Ross A Hemi (FS1458/7), D C Henshaw (FS1707/6), Reti Hick (FS1459/7), Dorothea M Hodgson (FS1488/7), Gwen Hopper (FS1666/6), Shana Hopper (FS1617/6), Kay Hough (FS1710/6), Nick D Humphreys (FS1721/6), Dianne Jackson (FS1736/6), Francis Jackson (FS1737/6), Lauren Jenkins (FS1622/6), Sarah Josephs (FS1712/6), Shane Josephs (FS1713/6), Jordon Kibblewhite (FS1740/6), Michael Kibblewhite (FS1744/6), Peter A Kibblewhite (FS1477/7), Thomas Kibblewhite (FS1745/6), Yvonne Kibblewhite (FS1478/7), Thalla Esme King (FS1697/6), Guenther Lammer (FS1689/6), Margareta Lammer (FS1739/6), Clive Lovell Lasenby (FS1073/7),

Diane M Lasenby (FS1074/7), Suzanne C Lasenby (FS1009/7), Dean A Lawson (FS1444/8), Jane Lawson (FS1757/6), William S Lawson (FS1738/6), T & A Lees (FS1729/6), A K Leigh (FS1668/6), Jack Leonard (FS1706/6), Mary Leonard (FS1684/6), Brendan Lindsay (FS1685/6), Jo Lindsay (FS1686/6), Elaine Magill (FS1465/7), Kenneth J Magill (FS1467/7), John L Mallett (FS1010/7), Lisa Mallett (FS1562/7), Kathryn J Manihera (FS1496/7), Mark D Manihera (FS1460/7), Corban J Martin (FS1447/7), Elliott R Martin (FS1439/7), Kendall Martin (FS1672/6), Kiri Angela Martin (FS1462/7), Munroe Martin (FS1678/6), Wayne H Martin (FS1461/7), Peter Martinovich (FS1709/6), Julieann McCathie (FS1504/7), Nevis Robert McDougall (FS1618/6), Nola E McGowan (FS1501/7), P & M McKinney (FS1059/7), Keith McMillan (FS1719/6), Ian & Rosemary McPherson (FS1726/6), Marilyn Mills (FS1753/6), Cheryl M Milton (FS1491/7), Larry C Mingins (FS1506/7), Mary C Mingins (FS1507/6), Lyndelle Mitchell (FS1619/6), Ernest A Moffat (FS1718/6), Eileen Lorraine Moloney (FS1657/6), Craig Morris (FS1454/7), Marcia L Morris (FS1453/7), Verity Norton (FS1723/6), Orewa Carparking (FS1560/7), Bevan Philip (FS1720/6), Bailey Phillips (FS1525/7), Courtney Phillips (FS1495/7), Ella F Phillips (FS1679/6), Margaret Phillips (FS1529/7), Wendell Phillips (FS1524/7), Wendell Craig Phillips (FS1681/6), Kieran Price (FS1615/6), Beverly Rose Prince (FS1628/6), Kaye Procter (FS1748/6), H M Rishworth (FS1652/6), Brian Rutter (FS1412/7), Brian Rutter (FS1412/8), Janine L Rutter (FS1661/6), Judith Helen Rutter (FS1717/6), T E & J H Rutter (FS1575/7), Margarita Ryjkova (FS1655/6), Janette Sadgrove (FS1694/6), John Sadgrove (FS1693/6), M B & M Saunders (FS1727/6), Jacqueline L Schieb (FS1471/7), Mark A Schieb (FS1472/7), Rodger Scott (FS1692/6), Rueben Scott (FS1724/6), Sandra Scott (FS1708/6), Helen M Sellars (FS1452/7), Raymond A Sellars (FS1498/7), Melanie Sharplin (FS1750/6), John Charles Shattock (FS1687/6), Julie Lorraine Shattock (FS1688/6), John Smart (FS1711/6), Bev Smith (FS1755/6), Craig Smith (FS1756/6), Dillon J Smith (FS1624/6), Hephzibah Smith (FS1760/6), Lance Smith (FS1759/6), Lukas Smith (FS1754/6), Michael P Smith (FS1503/7), Suzanne I Smith (FS1502/7), Matt Symons (FS1626/6), Ellie ter Haar (FS1518/7), Sam ter Haar (FS1463/7), Barry ter Hao (FS1667/6), Margaret Trowbridge (FS1474/7), Philip D Trowbridge (FS1473/7), Owen Tucker (FS1705/6), Pat Tucker (FS1704/6), Rod F Turner (FS1691/6), John Van der Sluis (FS1663/6), Leonardine Van der Sluis (FS1662/6), Ronald Vince (FS1731/6), Anthony W M Waring (FS1716/6), Audrey L Waring (FS1715/6), Antony Wentworth (FS1703/6), Jules G Were (FS1690/6), Suzi Were (FS1673/6), Dave White (FS1695/6), Kim White (FS1743/6), Bruce H Whitehead (FS1440/7), Kate Wilson (FS1620/6), Garth C Wiltshire (FS1566/7), J R Wiltshire (FS1565/7), Milton B Wylie (FS1437/7), Rodney District Council (1421/5), Orewa Land Ltd (FS1586/24), Rodney District Council (1421/15), Rodney District Council (1421/16), Rodney District Council (1421/17), Herbert F & Joy Henley (1577/10).

14.3.1 Decision

(i) That submissions (1421/4), (1532/10), (1553/1), (1586/6), (FS1656/6), (FS1426/7),

(FS1528/7), (FS1623/6), (FS1732/6), (FS1699/6), (FS1698/6), (FS1683/6), (FS1700/6), (FS1714/6), (FS1701/6), (FS1564/7), (FS1554/7), (FS1549/7), (FS1702/6), (FS1613/6), (FS1730/6), (FS1735/6), (FS1733/6), (FS1559/8), (FS1696/6), (FS1556/7), (FS1734/6), (FS1671/6), (FS1455/7), (FS1664/6), (FS1728/6), (FS1660/6), (FS1659/6), (FS1722/6), (FS1434/7), (FS1435/7), (FS1490/7), (FS1489/7), (FS1625/6), (FS1749/6), (FS1508/7), (FS1446/7), (FS1658/6), (FS1680/6), (FS1725/6), (FS1758/6), (FS1448/7), (FS1520/7), (FS1621/6), (FS1741/6), (FS1742/6), (FS1653/6), (FS1654/6), (FS1752/6), (FS1675/6), (FS1676/6), (FS1677/6), (FS1614/6), (FS1674/6), (FS1669/6), (FS1670/6), (FS1747/6), (FS1627/6), (FS1682/6), (FS1665/6), (FS1751/6), (FS1458/7), (FS1707/6), (FS1459/7), (FS1488/7), (FS1666/6), (FS1617/6), (FS1710/6), (FS1721/6), (FS1736/6), (FS1737/6), (FS1622/6), (FS1712/6), (FS1713/6), (FS1740/6), (FS1744/6), (FS1477/7), (FS1745/6), (FS1478/7), (FS1697/6), (FS1689/6), (FS1739/6), (FS1073/7), (FS1074/7), (FS1009/7), (FS1444/8), (FS1757/6), (FS1738/6), (FS1729/6), (FS1668/6), (FS1706/6), (FS1684/6), (FS1685/6), (FS1686/6), (FS1465/7), (FS1467/7), (FS1010/7), (FS1562/7), (FS1496/7), (FS1460/7), (FS1447/7), (FS1439/7), (FS1672/6), (FS1462/7), (FS1678/6), (FS1461/7), (FS1709/6), (FS1504/7), (FS1618/6), (FS1501/7), (FS1059/7), (FS1719/6), (FS1726/6), (FS1753/6), (FS1491/7), (FS1506/7), (FS1507/6), (FS1619/6), (FS1718/6), (FS1657/6), (FS1454/7), (FS1453/7), (FS1723/6), (FS1560/7), (FS1720/6), (FS1525/7), (FS1495/7), (FS1679/6), (FS1529/7), (FS1524/7), (FS1681/6), (FS1615/6), (FS1628/6), (FS1748/6), (FS1652/6), (FS1412/7), (FS1412/8), (FS1661/6), (FS1717/6),

(FS1575/7), (FS1655/6), (FS1694/6), (FS1693/6), (FS1727/6), (FS1471/7), (FS1472/7), (FS1692/6), (FS1724/6), (FS1708/6), (FS1452/7), (FS1498/7), (FS1750/6), (FS1687/6), (FS1688/6), (FS1711/6), (FS1755/6), (FS1756/6), (FS1624/6), (FS1760/6), (FS1759/6), (FS1754/6), (FS1503/7), (FS1502/7), (FS1626/6), (FS1518/7), (FS1463/7), (FS1667/6), (FS1474/7), (FS1473/7), (FS1705/6), (FS1704/6), (FS1691/6), (FS1663/6), (FS1662/6), (FS1731/6), (FS1716/6), (FS1715/6), (FS1703/6), (FS1690/6), (FS1673/6), (FS1695/6), (FS1743/6), (FS1440/7), (FS1620/6), (FS1566/7), (FS1565/7), (FS1437/7), (1421/5), (FS1586/24), (1421/15), (1421/16), (1577/10) and (1421/17) be accepted to the extent set out in 14.3.3 below.

14.3.2 Reasons for Decision.

This group of submitters generally request that the Variation include more specific content concerning the rules that apply to sites less than 5000m2. The further submissions in respect of the Orewa Land Ltd submission all support that submission.

We consider that the Proposed Variation lacks clarity in respect of the provisions that will apply to sites of less than 5000m2. It is clear that the taller buildings provided for in the zone only apply to sites of greater than 5000m2 but the situation that applies to sites of less than 5000m2 is not clear. We consider that due to existing site development patterns there will remain a significant number of sites of less than 5000m2 and suitable provision should be made for these sites. The submission from the Rodney District Council suggests that changes be made that clarify that the Res VHR provisions should only apply to sites over 5000m2 and that the standard Res H Zone should apply to sites of less than 5000m2. It would appear that this solution will also meet the requests of the other submitters and accordingly we recommend that the Variation be amended to include these changes.

14.3.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

(i) Amend Chapter 8, 8.5 Strategy by adding the following to the end of paragraph 7 (additions underlined).

This zone is an overlay zone and does not replace the underlying Residential H Zone entitlements but supplements them.

(ii) Amend Chapter 8 – Explanation to Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone

Objective 8.8.8.1.1 by adding the following to the end of the objective (additions underlined).

The zone has been designed as an ‘overlay zone’ to the existing Residential H entitlements. Upon satisfaction of minimum site size, the specific provisions of rules of the Orewa High Intensity Residential Zone apply.

(iii) Amend Chapter 8 Rule 8.9.2 – Activity Table by amending the column that applies to

activities to the Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone as follows (additions underlined).

Orewa High Intensity Variable Height (Res VR) (sites exceeding 5000m2 only).

(iv) Amend Chapter 8 Rule 8.9.2 – Activity Table by amending the column that applies to

activities to the High Intensity Zone (Res H) as follows (additions underlined).

High Intensity (ResH) (and Res VR sites not exceeding 5000m2) 14.4 Jennifer Blyth (1576/4), Orewa Land Ltd (FS1586/35), Orewa Land Ltd (1586/23), Albany

Scaffolding Ltd (FS1656/23), William S & Yvonne M Ambler (FS1426/24), Dr Simon Baker (FS1528/24), Ian Bartlett (FS1623/23), Robert W Bartlett (FS1732/23), Nancy Baulcomb (FS1699/23), Philip Baulcomb (FS1698/23), Christopher W Bisman (FS1683/23), Mrs Mavis Anne Brackebush (FS1700/23), Fred Bradley (FS1714/23), Patricia L Bradley (FS1701/23), John Bretnall (FS1564/24), Lorraine Bretnall (FS1554/24), Timothy R Brooks (FS1549/24), Heather Burns (FS1702/23), Stuart Chambers (FS1730/23), Peter McKenzie Clark (FS1735/23), Robyn Clark (FS1733/23), Coastal Properties Ltd (FS1559/25), Coastal Scaffolding Ltd (FS1696/23), Annalise

Coghlan (FS1556/24), Brendon Coghlan (FS1734/23), Claudia Coghlan (FS1671/23), Karlene E Coghlan (FS1455/24), Madison Coghlan (FS1664/23), Kim & Lyn Corbett (FS1728/23), Irene Coussons (FS1660/23), Robert Coussons (FS1659/23), James McLellan Coxhead (FS1722/23), Jeanene G Davis (FS1434/24), Paul John Davis (FS1435/24), Les Downes (FS1490/24), Maree Downes (FS1489/24), Colin L Dryland (FS1625/23), Tony Edward (FS1749/23), Dennis Ellwood (FS1508/24), Susan Ellwood (FS1446/24), Deirdre F Evans (FS1658/23), Carolyn Fletcher (FS1680/23), Stuart Fluker (FS1725/23), Jill Flyger (FS1746/23), Neil Flyger (FS1758/23), Steve Franich (FS1448/24), Karen Franklin (FS1520/24), Benjamin Thomas Fraser Pain (FS1621/23), Deborah Fromich (FS1741/23), Wayne Fromich (FS1742/23), Paul Fry (FS1653/23), Sarah Fry (FS1654/23), Lance Gilbertson (FS1752/23), Doug Godfrey (FS1675/23), Miriam Godfrey (FS1676/23), Timothy A Green (FS1677/23), Andrew Alistair Grey (FS1614/23), Ben Grooten (FS1674/23), Eddie Grooten (FS1669/23), Erika Grooten (FS1670/23), Cushla Hackett (FS1747/23), Malcolm James Haggerty (FS1627/23), Andrew F Hansen (FS1682/23), Jane Hansen (FS1665/23), Tony Harden (FS1751/23), Ross A Hemi (FS1458/24), D C Henshaw (FS1707/23), Reti Hick (FS1459/24), Dorothea M Hodgson (FS1488/24), Gwen Hopper (FS1666/23), Shana Hopper (FS1617/23), Kay Hough (FS1710/23), Nick D Humphreys (FS1721/23), Dianne Jackson (FS1736/23), Francis Jackson (FS1737/23), Lauren Jenkins (FS1622/23), Sarah Josephs (FS1712/23), Shane Josephs (FS1713/23), Jordon Kibblewhite (FS1740/23), Michael Kibblewhite (FS1744/23), Thomas Kibblewhite (FS1745/23), Yvonne Kibblewhite (FS1478/24), Thalla Esme King (FS1697/23), Guenther Lammer (FS1689/23), Margareta Lammer (FS1739/23), Clive Lovell Lasenby (FS1073/24), Diane M Lasenby (FS1074/24), Suzanne C Lasenby (FS1009/24), Dean A Lawson (FS1444/25), Jane Lawson (FS1757/23), William S Lawson (FS1738/23), T & A Lees (FS1729/23), A K Leigh (FS1668/23), Jack Leonard (FS1706/23), Mary Leonard (FS1684/23), Brendan Lindsay (FS1685/23), Jo Lindsay (FS1686/23), Elaine Magill (FS1465/24), Kenneth J Magill (FS1467/24), John L Mallett (FS1010/24), Lisa Mallett (FS1562/24), Kathryn J Manihera (FS1496/24), Mark D Manihera (FS1460/24), Corban J Martin (FS1447/24), Elliott R Martin (FS1439/24), Kendall Martin (FS1672/23), Kiri Angela Martin (FS1462/24), Munroe Martin (FS1678/23), Wayne H Martin (FS1461/24), Peter Martinovich (FS1709/23), Julieann McCathie (FS1504/24), Nevis Robert McDougall (FS1618/23), Nola E McGowan (FS1501/24), P & M McKinney (FS1059/24), Keith McMillan (FS1719/23), Ian & Rosemary McPherson (FS1726/23), Marilyn Mills (FS1753/23), Cheryl M Milton (FS1491/24), Larry C Mingins (FS1506/23), Larry C Mingins (FS1506/24), Mary C Mingins (FS1507/24), Lyndelle Mitchell (FS1619/23), Ernest A Moffat (FS1718/23), Eileen Lorraine Moloney (FS1657/23), Craig Morris (FS1454/24), Marcia L Morris (FS1453/24), Verity Norton (FS1723/23), Orewa Carparking (FS1560/24), Bevan Philip (FS1720/23), Bailey Phillips (FS1525/24), Courtney Phillips (FS1495/24), Ella F Phillips (FS1679/23), Margaret Phillips (FS1529/24), Wendell Phillips (FS1524/24), Wendell Craig Phillips (FS1681/23), Kieran Price (FS1615/23), Beverly Rose Prince (FS1628/23), Kaye Procter (FS1748/23), H M Rishworth (FS1652/23), Brian Rutter (FS1412/24), Judith Helen Rutter (FS1717/23), T E & J H Rutter (FS1575/24), Margarita Ryjkova (FS1655/23), Janette Sadgrove (FS1694/23), John Sadgrove (FS1693/23), M B & M Saunders (FS1727/23), Jacqueline L Schieb (FS1471/24), Mark A Schieb (FS1472/24), Rodger Scott (FS1692/23), Rueben Scott (FS1724/23), Sandra Scott (FS1708/23), Helen M Sellars (FS1452/24), Raymond A Sellars (FS1498/24), Melanie Sharplin (FS1750/23), John Charles Shattock (FS1687/23), Julie Lorraine Shattock (FS1688/23), John Smart (FS1711/23), Bev Smith (FS1755/23), Craig Smith (FS1756/23), Dillon J Smith (FS1624/23), Hephzibah Smith (FS1760/23), Lance Smith (FS1759/23), Lukas Smith (FS1754/23), Michael P Smith (FS1503/24), Suzanne I Smith (FS1502/24), Matt Symons (FS1626/23), Ellie ter Haar (FS1518/24), Sam ter Haar (FS1463/24), Barry ter Haar (FS1667/23), Margaret Trowbridge (FS1474/24), Philip D Trowbridge (FS1473/24), Owen Tucker (FS1705/23), Pat Tucker (FS1704/23), Rod F Turner (FS1691/23), John Van der Sluis (FS1663/23), Leonardine Van der Sluis (FS1662/23), Ronald Vince (FS1731/23), Anthony W M Waring (FS1716/23), Audrey L Waring (FS1715/23), Antony Wentworth (FS1703/23), Jules G Were (FS1690/23), Suzi Were (FS1673/23), Dave White (FS1695/23), Kim White (FS1743/23), Bruce H Whitehead (FS1440/24), Kate Wilson (FS1620/23), Garth C Wiltshire (FS1566/24), J R Wiltshire (FS1565/24), Milton B Wylie (FS1437/24), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (1582/5), Auckland Regional Council (FS1536/22), Orewa Land Ltd (FS1586/39), Transition Town Orewa/Rodney (1579/3), Orewa Land Ltd (FS1586/36), Michael Smith (1485/2), Orewa Land Ltd (FS1586/25) Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/8), Auckland Regional Council (FS1536/23), Orewa Land Ltd (FS1586/41).

13.4.1 Decision

(i) That submissions (1576/4), (1586/23), (FS1656/23), (FS1426/24), (FS1528/24), (FS1623/23), (FS1732/23), (FS1699/23), (FS1698/23), (FS1683/23), (FS1700/23), (FS1714/23), (FS1701/23), (FS1564/24), (FS1554/24), (FS1549/24), (FS1702/23), (FS1730/23), (FS1735/23), (FS1733/23), (FS1559/25), (FS1696/23), (FS1556/24), (FS1734/23), (FS1671/23), (FS1455/24), (FS1664/23), (FS1728/23), (FS1660/23), (FS1659/23), (FS1722/23), (FS1434/24), (FS1435/24), (FS1490/24), (FS1489/24), (FS1625/23), (FS1749/23), (FS1508/24), (FS1446/24), (FS1658/23), (FS1680/23), (FS1725/23), (FS1746/23), (FS1758/23), (FS1448/24), (FS1520/24), (FS1621/23), (FS1741/23), (FS1742/23), (FS1653/23), (FS1654/23), (FS1752/23), (FS1675/23), (FS1676/23), (FS1677/23), (FS1614/23), (FS1674/23), (FS1669/23), (FS1670/23), (FS1747/23), (FS1627/23), (FS1682/23), (FS1665/23), (FS1751/23), (FS1458/24), (FS1707/23), (FS1459/24), (FS1488/24), (FS1666/23), (FS1617/23), (FS1710/23), (FS1721/23), (FS1736/23), (FS1737/23), (FS1622/23), (FS1712/23), (FS1713/23), (FS1740/23), (FS1744/23), (FS1745/23), (FS1478/24), (FS1697/23), (FS1689/23), (FS1739/23), (FS1073/24), (FS1074/24), (FS1009/24), (FS1444/25), (FS1757/23), (FS1738/23), (FS1729/23), (FS1668/23), (FS1706/23), (FS1684/23), (FS1685/23), (FS1686/23), (FS1465/24), (FS1467/24), (FS1010/24), (FS1562/24), (FS1496/24), (FS1460/24), (FS1447/24), (FS1439/24), (FS1672/23), (FS1462/24), (FS1678/23), (FS1461/24), (FS1709/23), (FS1504/24), (FS1618/23), (FS1501/24), (FS1059/24), (FS1719/23), (FS1726/23), (FS1753/23), (FS1491/24), (FS1506/23), (FS1506/24), (FS1507/24), (FS1619/23), (FS1718/23), (FS1657/23), (FS1454/24), (FS1453/24), (FS1723/23), (FS1560/24), (FS1720/23), (FS1525/24), (FS1495/24), (FS1679/23), (FS1529/24), (FS1524/24), (FS1681/23), (FS1615/23), (FS1628/23), (FS1748/23), (FS1652/23), (FS1412/24), (FS1717/23), (FS1575/24), (FS1655/23), (FS1694/23), (FS1693/23), (FS1727/23), (FS1471/24), (FS1472/24), (FS1692/23), (FS1724/23), (FS1708/23), (FS1452/24), (FS1498/24), (FS1750/23), (FS1687/23 (FS1688/23), (FS1711/23), (FS1755/23), (FS1756/23), (FS1624/23), (FS1760/23), (FS1759/23), (FS1754/23), (FS1503/24), (FS1502/24), (FS1626/23), (FS1518/24), (FS1463/24), (FS1667/23), (FS1474/24), (FS1473/24), (FS1705/23), (FS1704/23), (FS1691/23), (FS1663/23 (FS1662/23), (FS1731/23), (FS1716/23), (FS1715/23), (FS1703/23), (FS1690/23), (FS1673/23), (FS1695/23), (FS1743/23), (FS1440/24), (FS1620/23), (FS1566/24), (FS1565/24), (FS1437/24), (1582/5), (FS1536/22), (FS1586/39), (1485/2), (FS1586/25) (1585/8), (FS1536/23), (FS1586/41) and (1579/3) be rejected.

(ii) That submissions (FS1586/35) and (FS1586/36) be accepted.

14.4.2 Reasons for Decision

This group of submitters have requested that the Variation be altered to allow a range of retail and commercial activities in the ResVHR Zone. The submission from Transition Town Orewa/Rodney requests that mixed use be made a requirement in the Res VHR Zone.

Currently the Proposed Variation does not provide for commercial type activities other than the standard “other activities” standards in Rule 8.9.4 that applies in all residential zones. These provisions allow for limited commercial activities including restaurants and dairies. Given the location of the area, adjacent to the Orewa Commercial area we consider that there is not a compelling case for the introduction of a mixed use capability or requirement into this area greater than already provided for within the zone. The adjacent commercial zoned areas provide significant opportunities for further commercial development that will assist in serving the demands of developments in the ResVHR Zone in close walking distance of the sites in the Res VHR Zone. We recognise that it may be appropriate for restaurants and convenience stores to be located in close proximity to more intensively developed residential areas but we consider that the existing zone provisions provide ample opportunity for these to establish. At least one restaurant has established in this area in the recent times under the “other activities” provisions that apply in the zone. We considered that the request from the National Trading Company to provide for drive- through activities in the zone is not appropriate given the mainly residential character of the area, the need to provide for high levels of amenity and the amount of traffic such activities are likely to generate.

14.4.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

No amendments resulting from this decision.

14.5 Jennifer Blyth (1576/2), Auckland Regional Council (FS1536/28). 14.5.1 Decision

(i) That submissions (1576/2) and (FS1536/28) be rejected. 14.5.2 Reasons for Decision

The submission requests that formal input be sought from Architects to ensure that the rules create the highest quality of built environment possible. This is supported by the ARC.

The rules included in the proposed variation have been developed in conjunction with architects and urban designers and have been subject to this submission process as well as earlier public consultation. We consider that it is not necessary to take this process further than provided for elsewhere in this decision.

14.5.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

No submissions resulting from this decision. 14.6 Land Transport NZ (1602/9), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/21), Rodney

Economic Development Trust (1585/22), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/23), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/24), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/25) Rodney District Council (1421/6),).

14.6.1 Decision

(i) That submissions (1602/9) and (1421/6) be accepted.

(ii) That submissions (1585/21), (1585/22), (1585/23), (1585/24) and (1585/25) be rejected.

14.6.2 Reasons for Decision

The submission from LTNZ seeks that assessment criteria 8.12.3.2 (aa) bullet point 5 be altered to include the words ‘direct and convenient’. The submission from REDT seeks a number of detailed changes to a number of criteria. The RDC requests that the reference to 1m high front walls in 8.12.3.2(a) be amended to 1.4m so as to be consistent with the associated rule.

We consider that the additional words requested by LTNZ will assist in providing a safer environment within developments and the submission should be accepted. The submissions from the REDT request a number of changes, some of which are not clear (i.e. not using the word minor) and others of which are largely superseded by recommendations on other submissions. We consider that the request by RDC is relatively minor and will ensure better consistency within the Variation.

14.6.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

(i) Amend Chapter 8 – Rule 8.12.3.2 (o) as follows (additions underlined – deletions struck through). Generally the development’s boundary treatment should be perceived as part of the scheme’s overall design and utilise the same or similar materials to those used elsewhere. Location and frequency of entry gates and ratio of solid to void will heavily influence how the development is ‘read’ from the street and as a rule of thumb walls, fences or screens over 1 1.4 m in height adjacent to the street boundary should be transparent e.g. railing atop masonry walls over 1 1.4 m in height are not acceptable.

(ii) Amend Chapter 8 – Rule 8.12.3.2 (ab) bullet point 5 as follows (additions underlined

– deletions struck through).

• Logical and direct routes for pedestrian movement and elimination of areas of potential entrapment or non-overlooked areas.

14.7 Cornerstone Group Ltd (1533/7), Orewa Land Ltd (FS1586/27), Herbert F & Joy Henley

(1577/9), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/13), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/18), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/19).

14.7.1 Decision

(i) That submissions (1533/7), (1577/9), (1585/13), (1585/18) and (1585/19) be rejected.

(ii) That submission (FS1586/27) be accepted.

14.7.2 Reasons for Decision

The submission from Cornerstone requests that the Res VHR zone be deleted but instead a 13.5m height rule be imposed in the area of the zone. The Henley submission requests that the land be not zoned ResVHR while the Orewa Campground is operating. The submissions from REDT request some detailed changes to the wording within the zone.

We consider that based on the structure plan work carried out prior to the Proposed Variation the area is suitable for the proposed zone and that the zone is necessary to assist in meeting the outcomes including population capacities in the various regional and sector documents. We therefore consider that the ResVHR Zone should be retained. We consider that the detailed requests from the REDT were not adequately explained and we are unable to respond to them.

14.7.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

No amendments resulting from this decision.

15.0 LOCATION OF OREWA BEACHFRONT COMMERCIAL 15.1 Submissions Gordon R Cashmore 1427/1 (a) Deletion from proposed

V101 of Orewa Beachfront Com. Zone. (b) Alternative, deletion of 285, 289 and 291 Hibiscus Coast Highway from Zone. (c) Such other amendments or other relief as may be required to give effect to submission.

Coastal Properties Ltd 1559/2 Idea great - would be preferable for RDC to purchase these properties and make this area RESERVE. This variation could be the spark that is needed to bring Orewa out of the 80s and into the new millennium.

Cornerstone Group Ltd 1533/9 Delete all new District Plan provisions that change the zoning on land to the east of Hibiscus Coast Highway (i.e. keep proposed Plan 2000 zoning).

Destination Orewa Beach FS1545/11 Opposes submission 1533/9 Mark David & Alison E Hassall 1537/1 (a) Delete the Orewa Beachfront

Commercial Zone from Variation in its entirety. (b) Concern regarding commercial viability of the zone and potential restrictions on existing use rights. (c) Concern regarding effect of boardwalk on property values. (d) Such other amendments or other relief as may be required to give effect to this submission.

P E Holst 1492/1 Seek the deletion from proposed V 101 of Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone as set out in plans attached to the proposal and coloured red. In the alternative, deletion of our property at 285 Hibiscus Coast Highway from the zone since this property does not face the town centre. An acceptance that the Section 32 analysis presented falls short of the requirement to adequately assess costs and benefits including those of any alternative plans.

Shui Neng & Hsiu-Fang Chien 1601/1 (a) Deletion from proposed V 101 of the Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone. (b) Such other amendments or other relief as may be required to give effect to this submission.

Orewa Beach Residents' Group

1523/1 Delete the Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone and all references to a "beachfront

boardwalk" from the Variation, and such other amendments or other relief as may be required to give effect to this submission.

R S & J Ford Family Trust 1578/1 The Beachfront Reserve is an Orewa community asset. Want visitors to Orewa to see the beach, not have to hunt for it. Urge Council to recognise value of open space on the beachfront. Once gone, can never be replaced.

Rodney District Council 1421/1 Planning Maps, Map 75 - Oppose

* Opposing of Pt Lot 2 DP 39631 which is a residential property on the Hibiscus

Coast Highway zoned as Open Space 3. This site is in private ownership and the

Open Space zoning is inappropriate. Open Space 3 zones are only intended to be

applied to reserves and the range of activities contemplated in the zone does not

include residential activities. It is appropriate to rezone Pt Lot 2 DP 39631 from

Open Space 3 to Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone.

* To add clarity to Map 75 the label indicating sites rezoned from Residential H to Orewa Variable Height Residential Zone, should be amended to show sites in the Orewa Variable Height Residential Zone Policy Area.

Rodney District Council 1421/13 Amend Map 75 of the Proposed District Plan by:

* Rezoning Pt lot 2 DP 39631 from Open Space 3 to Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone, as shown on the attached map.

* Amend map label to read: “Rezone Residential H to Orewa Variable Height Residential Zone Policy Area”.

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/35 * Change Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone to Beachfront Recreational Reserve.

Leanne Smith 1542/4 Orewa Beach Front Commercial Zone - Does not support commercial nature of the zone but suggest property bought for reserve.

Michael Smith 1485/3 Purchase housing when offered for sale and make reserve.

Frederick J & Diane R Felton & Warwick Richard Ayres

1464/1 Withdrawal of V101 as it relates to Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone

Glen John Wright 1483/1 Keep all commercial activity off the Orewa Beachfront and I strongly oppose any change to the zoning to commercial of the beachfront area.

Shirley L Wright 1484/1 Keep commercial activity off the Orewa beachfront. Strongly oppose any change to the zoning to commercial of the Orewa beachfront.

Jocelyn Bullians 1007/1 a) Deletion from proposed V101 of Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone b) Alternatively, deletion of 185, 289 and 291 Hibiscus Coast Highway from Zone c) Such other amendments or other relief as may be required to give effect to this submission.

Destination Orewa Beach (Orewa Bus Assoc)

1587/8 Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone: To enact the Public Works Act 1981 and Reserves Act to acquire properties in Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone when offered for sale and convert to Reserve and parking for beach users.

Carreen D & Harvey A Lockie 1482/1 The deletion from proposed V 101 of the Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone and such other amendments or other relief as may be required to give effect to this submission.

Pamber (Auckland) Ltd 1581/3 Sought that Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone be deleted. Relief also sought in Rule 8.10.2.3, Rule 9.10.10.3.1, Rule 8.10.4, Rule 9.10.7.3 Also all consequential amendments required in order to be consistent with modifications is duly sought.

15.2 Gordon R Cashmore (1427/1), Coastal Properties Ltd (1559/2), Cornerstone Group Ltd

(1533/9), Destination Orewa Beach (FS1545/11), Mark David & Alison E Hassall (1537/1), P E Holst (1492/1), Shui Neng & Hsiu-Fang Chien (1601/1), Orewa Beach Residents' Group (1523/1), R S & J Ford Family Trust (1578/1), Rodney District Council (1421/1), Rodney District Council (1421/13), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/35), Leanne Smith (1542/4), Michael Smith (1485/3), Frederick J & Diane R Felton & Warwick Richard Ayres (1464/1), Glen John Wright (1483/1), Shirley L Wright (1484/1) , Jocelyn Bullians (1007/1), Destination Orewa Beach (Orewa Bus Assoc) (1587/8), Carreen D & Harvey A Lockie (1482/1), Pamber (Auckland) Ltd (1581/3).

15.2.1 Decision

(i) That submissions (1559/2), (1421/1), (FS1545/11) and (1421/13) be rejected.

(ii) That submissions (1427/1), (1533/9), (1492/1), (1601/1), (1523/1), (1578/1), (1464/1), (1483/1), (1007/1) and (1484/1) (1537/1), (1581/3), (1482/1), (1587/8), (1585/35), (1542/4) and (1485/3) be accepted.

15.2.2 Reasons for Decision

We consider that the Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone should be deleted for the reasons set out in Section 5 of this decision. The land should retain its existing ResM zoning.

15.2.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

(i) Amend Variation 101 by deleting the Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone from Chapter 9 and Planning Map 75 and retaining the ResM Zone of the Proposed District Plan 2000.

16.0 BEACHFRONT COMMERCIAL 16.1 Submissions Auckland Regional Council 1536/1 First preference, amend the

zoning of the Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone to Open Space 1 Zone or Open Space 4 Zone. Second preference: *Amend the provisions of the Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone to reduce max. allowable floorspace per building at ground level, to ensure provision of smaller-scale retail and cafe facilities, but retain requirement for dual frontage. *Retain provisions related to esplanade reserve for vesting to RDC for public open space, but add additional detail to clarify when and how these provisions would be implemented, and how coastal erosion will be addressed by the design and area of the reserve. *Identify view shafts between Hibiscus Coast Highway and the beach, to retain visual connections at key locations.

The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

FS1582/21 Supports submission 1536/1

Tanya Alach Brown 1540/2 Support. Tanya Alach Brown 1540/3 Support proposed Boardwalk at

Orewa Beach. McDonalds Restaurants (NZ) Ltd

1423/3 Change activity status of buildings and accessory buildings within the Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone, for any Permitted Activity from "Permitted" to "Controlled" or "Restricted Discretionary".

Auckland Regional Council FS1536/18 Support in parts submission 1423/3

McDonalds Restaurants (NZ) Ltd

1423/4 Introduce a clause identifying the Matters for Control or Discretion for buildings in point (ii) of submission, these being: urban and architectural design, site layout, parking and landscaping with reference to 9.8.4.1 Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone Objectives and 9.8.4.2 Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone Policies.

Auckland Regional Council FS1536/19 Support in parts submission 1423/4

McDonalds Restaurants (NZ) Ltd

1423/5 Ch9 Business Activity Table 9.2.2 - change activity status of Drive Through Activities within the Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone from Restricted Discretionary Activity to Non-Complying.

McDonalds Restaurants (NZ) Ltd

1423/6 Change Rule 9.10.7.4 Buildings within the Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone to Assessment Criteria for Buildings within the Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone, and include as assessment criteria, the matters identified in 9.8.4.1 Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone Objectives and 9.8.4.2 Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone Policies, and renumber as appropriate.

Auckland Regional Council FS1536/20 Support in parts submission 1423/6

McDonalds Restaurants (NZ) Ltd

1423/7 Delete reference to Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone Drive Through Activities in Rule 9.12.7

Rodney District Council 1421/7 Explanation and Reasons relating to Policies 9.8.4.1.1 to 9.8.4.1.2 - Oppose

To be able to achieve the objectives of this Rule it is necessary to substitute commercial activities up to 600m2 for 200m2, in the Explanation and Reasons to better emphasise the overall purpose of the zone to encourage smaller businesses.

The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

FS1582/11 Supports submission 1421/7

Rodney District Council 1421/8 Explanation to Policy 9.8.4.3 - Oppose

The Rule should include the

following sentence “when any resource consent is granted in accordance with the purposes of the zone”. This is to be included into the fourth sentence of the explanation this will add clarity to the policy explanation.

Rodney District Council 1421/10 Chapter 9 Rule 9.10.10.3.1(c)(iv) - Oppose

This rule does not apply to some properties along the beachfront; therefore these sites should be specified to add clarity to the rule.

Destination Orewa Beach FS1545/2 Opposes submission 1421/10 Rodney District Council 1421/19 Amend Chapter 9 Explanation

and Reasons, relating to Policies 9.8.4.1.1 to 9.8.4.1.2 by: “…commercial activities up to 600m2 200m2….”

The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

FS1582/12 Supports submission 1421/19

Rodney District Council 1421/20 Amend Explanation to 9.8.4.3 Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone Description by: “An important aspect of the zone is that in order to take advantage of the commercial opportunities land facing onto the beach must be vested into he Council’s ownership for the creation of a beachfront boardwalk, when any resource consent is granted in accordance with the purpose of the zone”.

Rodney District Council 1421/21 Amend Activity Table 9.2.2 by: * "The ERECTION, addition to or alteration of BUILDINGS and ACCESSORY BUILDINGS for any Permitted Activity in this table" is a Permitted Activity Restricted Discretionary Activity. * "Car parking areas ancillary to a Permitted, Restricted Discretionary or Discretionary Activity is a Discretionary Activity Non-complying Activity. * New Rule - "SHOPS with a ground floor area of 200m2 or less except SHOPS for the sale of Builder's, Tradesmen's, Engineer's, Farmer's and Handymen's Supplies, or Motor Vehicle and Machinery Parts and Tools or SHOPS with OUTDOOR DISPLAY or storage areas in the Retail Service Zone, is a Permitted Activity. * "SHOPS with a ground floor

area of 600m2 or less except SHOPS for the sale of Builder's, Tradesmen’s, Engineer's, Farmer's and Handymen's Supplies, or Motor Vehicle and Machinery Parts and Tools or SHOPS with OUTDOOR DISPLAY or storage areas in the Retail Service Zone, is a Permitted Activity Non-complying Activity.

Destination Orewa Beach FS1545/3 Opposes submission 1421/21 The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

FS1582/14 Supports submission 1421/21

Rodney District Council 1421/22 Amend Chapter 9 Rule 9.10.10.3.1(c)(iv) by: “Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone (measured from the Shoreline property boundary and excluding Lot 1, 2 and 3 DP 71488, and Lot 13 and 44 DP 12795”.

Rodney District Council 1421/11 Rule 9.10.7.4 - Oppose Rule 9.10.7.4(e), substitute 40% for 60%, this will create a pedestrian friendly frontage.

Rodney District Council 1421/23 Amend Chapter 9 Rule 9.10.7.4 by: Rule 9.10.7.4(e) - windows with clear glazing and pedestrian entrances shall comprise no less than 40% 60% of the surface area of the building façade at ground level”.

The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

1582/4 Amend Activity Table to provide for small scale retail/commercial uses in the Beachfront Commercial Zone.

Auckland Regional Council FS1536/21 Supports submission 1582/4 Transition Town Orewa/Rodney

1579/1 We seek the emphasis being put on pedestrians and cyclists be retained and that specific ways in which cars are being reduced in importance and parking removed from high importance areas (such as the Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone) be continued.

Transition Town Orewa/Rodney

1579/2 Seek that Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone have the following changes made: i) Should be no residential or office occupancy permitted. No function which excludes the public should be permitted. ii) Maximum height of buildings in this area should be 9m, with max. of 2 stories permitted. iii) No parking or vehicle access (except in relation to loading zones for deliveries at the back of the building) be permitted. This is to ensure this zone is

entirely focused on pedestrians. Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/32 Item 48 - Calculations on scale. Consider the size of existing titles and whether these match scale of development.

Jennifer Blyth 1576/3 Seek that the Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone have changes made : * No residential or office use should be permitted within the Beachfront Commercial Zone. * Maximum building height should be 9m with a max. of 2 storeys. * Majority of floor areas should be less than 600m2. * No parking within the zone.

Mr Martin William Emery 1512/15 Orewa Beachfront Com. Zone. Consideration should be given to creating an attractive commercial environment as part of the town centre development and possibly linking this to the beach by an overhead walkway. The area that was to be commercial on the beachfront should be used to offer an enhanced amenity value, possibly to appeal to younger adults. There could be a good deal of shade offered, maybe facilities for open-air entertainment and so on.

Herbert F & Joy Henley 1577/3 Not allow development to 7 storeys on beachfront sites. To provide the "stepped" developments, with the lower step being up to 3 storeys at beachfront level.

Herbert F & Joy Henley 1577/7 To not allow development to 7 storeys on beachfront sites. To provide the "stepped" developments, with the lower step being up to 3 storeys at beachfront level.

Jennifer H Kipfer 1532/3 Not allow development to 7 storeys on beachfront sites. To provide for "stepped" developments, with the lower step being up to 3 storeys at beachfront level.

Land Transport NZ 1602/8 Amend wording of policy 9.8.4.2.1 to read as follows: Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone Policies Buildings ..................in respect of: (a) pedestrian accessibility, safety and convenience;

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/26 Item 27 (pg 38). Support the principle...... Recommendation is to acquire property in the Beachfront Commercial Zone to create additional beachfront reserve and.......

Roger H & Susana Gilbertson FS1476/2 Supports submission 1585/26

16.2 Auckland Regional Council (1536/1), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (FS1582/21), Tanya Alach Brown (1540/2), Tanya Alach Brown (1540/3), McDonalds Restaurants (NZ) Ltd (1423/3), Auckland Regional Council (FS1536/18), McDonalds Restaurants (NZ) Ltd (1423/4), Auckland Regional Council (FS1536/19), McDonalds Restaurants (NZ) Ltd (1423/5), McDonalds Restaurants (NZ) Ltd (1423/6), Auckland Regional Council (FS1536/20), McDonalds Restaurants (NZ) Ltd (1423/7), Rodney District Council (1421/19), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (FS1582/12), Rodney District Council (1421/20), Rodney District Council (1421/21), Destination Orewa Beach (FS1545/3), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (FS1582/14), Rodney District Council (1421/22), Rodney District Council (1421/23), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (1582/4), Auckland Regional Council (FS1536/21), Transition Town Orewa/Rodney (1579/1), Transition Town Orewa/Rodney (1579/2), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/32), Jennifer Blyth (1576/3), Mr Martin William Emery (1512/15), Herbert F & Joy Henley (1577/3), Herbert F & Joy Henley (1577/7), Jennifer H Kipfer (1532/3), Land Transport NZ (1602/8), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/26), Roger H & Susana Gilbertson (FS1476/2). Rodney District Council (1421/7), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (FS1582/11), Rodney District Council (1421/8), Rodney District Council (1421/10), Destination Orewa Beach (FS1545/2), Rodney District Council (1421/11).

16.2.1 Decision

(i) That submissions (1536/1) and (FS1582/21), be accepted in part to the extent that the Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone be deleted.

(iii) That submissions (1421/21), (FS1582/14), (1576/3), (1421/22) (1540/2), (1540/3),

(1423/3), (FS1423/3), (FS1536/18), (1423/4), (FS1536/19), (1423/5), (1423/7), (1421/19), (FS1582/12), (1421/20), (1421/23), (1582/4), (FS1536/21), (1602/8), (1585/26), (FS1476/2), (1579/1) (1423/6), (FS1536/20), (FS1545/3), (1585/32), (1512/15), (1577/3), (1532/3), (1577/7) (1421/7), (FS1582/11), (1421/8), (1421/10), (FS1545/2), (1421/11) and (1579/2) be rejected.

16.2.2 Reasons for Decision

These submissions relate to the provisions applying to the Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone. The submitters request a number of changes to the provisions applying within the zone. We have set out in Section 5 of this report our reasons why we recommend that this zone should be deleted from Variation 101. As we consider that the Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone should be deleted it is appropriate that these submissions be rejected as there are no provisions to amend. The exception is the submission from the ARC which requests removal of the zone or changes. This submission and a further submission in support are accepted in part.

16.2.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

No amendments resulting from this decision.

17.0 DELETE OREWA BEACHFRONT RES ZONE 17.1 Submissions Cornerstone Group Ltd 1533/9 Delete all new District Plan

provisions that change the zoning on land to the east of Hibiscus Coast Highway (i.e. keep proposed Plan 2000 zoning).

Destination Orewa Beach FS1545/11 Opposes submission 1533/9 David J & Linley A Quinlan 1543/1 Agree with planned changes in

all areas apart from Orewa Beachfront Residential Zone.

17.2 Cornerstone Group Ltd (1533/9), Destination Orewa Beach (FS1545/11), David J &

Linley A Quinlan (1543/1)

17.2.1 Decision

(i) That submission (FS1545/11) be accepted. (ii) That submissions (1533/9) and (1543/1) be rejected.

17.2.2 Reasons for Decision

The submission from Cornerstone Group appears to relate mainly to the Beachfront Commercial Zone but the wording of the submission relates to the Beachfront Residential Zone as well. No reasons are given in the submission as to why the zone should be deleted and the overall thrust of the submission supports higher density development in Orewa. The submission from D and L Quinlan is concerned about the height limits in the zone. We consider that the overall height rules are appropriate and accordingly the height rule is not considered to be an adequate reason to delete the zone.

17.2.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

No amendments resulting from this decision.

18.0 BEACHFRONT RES PROVISIONS 18.1 Submissions Tanya Alach Brown 1540/1 Support Destination Orewa Beach (Orewa Bus Assoc)

1587/10 Orewa Beachfront Residential: Amend minimum site size for integrated residential development in Orewa Beach Residential Zone to 1800 m2 from 2000 m2 stated in Variation.

Jennifer H Kipfer 1532/7 Oppose intensification of Orewa Beachfront Residential Zone.

Jennifer H Kipfer 1532/8 While being mindful of overall effects, to treat each application as an entity, not allow dispensations according to the possible minimalist approach of neighbour or neighbours.

Malibu Investments Ltd 1475/1 Proposed changes in respect of Orewa Beachfront Residential Zone need to provide for greater flexibility. Amend to reflect: * Up to 1 Household Unit per 150m2 * Increased site coverage to 65% * Increase non permeable surface to 80% of site. * Increase height limit to 15m with no max. number of storeys. * Reduce Beachfront setback to 5m. * Reduce min. front yard to 3m. * Reduce yard facing open space to 3m. * Reduce commercial open space to 20m2 for each household unit.

Orewa Beachfront Apartments Ltd

1527/1 Approve Orewa Beachfront Res Zone with practical amendments as required to reflect appropriate yards and max. building heights above the minimum allowable building floor height in the area. Especially for larger sites, height should be determined by site area and floor levels required on beach front.

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/6 (f) Significant areas of open space and presence of trees. Amend - "Significant areas of open space and presence of trees and or palms over 1.5m in height." Amend - Other rules where the word tree appears by adding and or palms.

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/14 Sites for integrated residential development Beachfront Zone. "(a) Amend - "Be a front, corner or beachfront site with an area of not less than 1800 sm."

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/17 (a) - Amend - add household unit "including the deck area." (b) - Amend - add "access and manoeuvring areas except where permeable surfaces materials are laid or where access driveways are already sealed".

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/20 (P 25/26). Remove - Adequate provision is made within the building code to deal with these issues.

Rodney District Council 1421/17 Amend Chapter 8 Rule 8.9.2 Activity Table by:

* Amend the column that applies to activities in the ‘Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone as follows: “Orewa High Intensity Variable Height (Res VR) (sites exceeding 5,000m2 only)”.

* Include the following Rule “In the Orewa Business Zone up to 3 HOUSEHOLD UNITS per 600m2 - 1,000m2 subject to satisfying the appropriate assessment criteria is a Permitted Activity.

Leanne Smith 1542/5 Orewa Beach Front Res Zone:

* Approve zone with practical amendments as required to reflect appropriate yards and max. allowable building heights above the min allowable building floor height in the area.

18.2 Tanya Alach Brown (1540/1), Destination Orewa Beach (Orewa Bus Assoc) (1587/10),

Jennifer H Kipfer (1532/7), Jennifer H Kipfer (1532/8), Malibu Investments Ltd (1475/1), Orewa Beachfront Apartments Ltd (1527/1), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/6), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/14), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/17), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/20), Leanne Smith (1542/5) Rodney District Council (1421/17).

18.2.1 Decision

(i) That submission (1540/1) be accepted. (ii) That submissions (1587/10), (1532/7), (1532/8), (1475/1), (1527/1), (1585/6),

(1585/14), (1585/17), (1585/20), (1421/17) and (1542/5) be rejected.

18.2.2 Reasons for Decision

These submissions relate to the provisions of the Orewa Beachfront Residential Zone. The majority of the submissions generally support the zone but seek that the density and the permitted building size and coverage be increased. (The submission from Malibu Investments Ltd, Orewa Beachfront Apartments Ltd, and Leanne Smith). With the exception of the Malibu Investments submission the details of what changes are requested are not specified. The submission from T Brown supports the zone while the submission from JH Kipfer opposes intensification of the zone. The submission from Rodney Economic Development Trust seeks a number of detailed changes to the zone.

We consider that the intensity proposed in the Beachfront Residential Zone is appropriate given its location on the beachfront and the effects that higher buildings would have on the beach and the buildings to the west. The intensification sought by the Malibu Investments submission appears excessive for the area and would detract from the objectives and policies of the zone as it would significantly change the existing character of the area and would have the potential to remove the open and spacious living environment in this area. The other submissions requesting more intense development are not sufficiently detailed for us to make a considered response. The submission from J Kipfer opposes the objectives of the zone. In respect of Objective 8.8.7.1.1 the submissions questions whether the existing character can be retained while enabling more intensive development. We consider that the development in this area, with a significant number of motel developments and some apartment buildings, does have a different character than other ResM areas in Orewa. We also consider that the zone will more properly reflect the nature of the area. The submitter is also concerned that Policy 8.8.7.1.2 refers to the average of 1 unit per 600m2 net site will be permitted. The submitter is concerned about the use of the word average. We consider that the actual rule derived from this policy provides greater certainty (in the activity table) and that no change is required. The detailed changes sought by the Rodney Economic Development trust are commented on below. We consider that the specific detailing of the types of trees anticipated in the zone description is an unnecessary level of detail at zone description level. The requests to reduce the size of sites for integrated residential developments in the zone from 2000m2 to 1800m2 is based on an apparent reduction in existing site sizes along HBC highway as a result of road widening. We consider that the site size should be determined by the need to provide for a spacious on site environment and no reduction in site size is warranted. The other area of detail that the submitter opposes is Rule 8.12.2.1.1 which relates to matters for discretion and assessment criteria relating to natural hazards. We consider that these matters are necessary given the nature of the land and the costal location and complement, rather than replace the Building Act.

18.2.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

No amendments resulting from this decision.

19.0 EXTENT OF BUSINESS ZONES 19.1 Submissions Cornerstone Group Ltd 1533/1 Extend the extent of the retail

service zone (and Orewa Town Centre map depictions) south to the northern edge of Riverside Road. Extend extent of retail service zone (and Orewa Town Centre map depictions) north to the northern edge of the mixed business zone on Florence Ave, and run zone line parallel to Florence Ave following the cadastral boundaries so it extends to Centreway Road and SH1.

T J Anderson FS1263/19 Opposes submission 1533/1 Auckland Regional Council FS1536/16 Support in parts submission

1533/1 A Barrett FS1644/1 Opposes submission 1533/1 P Barrett FS1643/1 Opposes submission 1533/1 Iris C Brocks FS1632/1 Opposes submission 1533/1 Noel Browne FS1645/1 Opposes submission 1533/1 Mr R Cooper FS1322/4 Opposes submission 1533/1 Sandra Cooper FS1526/23 Opposes submission 1533/1 John Drury FS1500/7 Opposes submission 1533/1 Mr Martin William Emery FS1512/26 Opposes submission 1533/1 Mrs Jeanne P Emery FS1486/9 Opposes submission 1533/1 Desmond H Griffin FS1436/25 Opposes submission 1533/1 Raywyn L Howard FS1306/13 Opposes submission 1533/1 O T Melrose FS1012/2 Opposes submission 1533/1 Mr Mervyn James O'Connor FS1079/2 Opposes submission 1533/1 Mrs Coral M O'Connor FS1082/2 Opposes submission 1533/1 Joan O'Reilly FS1646/1 Opposes submission 1533/1 Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc)

FS1499/2 Opposes submission 1533/1

Mrs Joan Price FS1159/2 Opposes submission 1533/1 Mrs J I Rhodes FS1033/2 Opposes submission 1533/1 Arthur Ruth FS1648/1 Opposes submission 1533/1 Eleanor Ruth FS1649/1 Opposes submission 1533/1 Mrs Rosanne Smith FS1647/1 Opposes submission 1533/1 Laurie Swan FS1299/2 Opposes submission 1533/1 Kate Templeton FS1650/6 Opposes submission 1533/1 Mr T O & Mrs K Templeton FS1304/13 Opposes submission 1533/1 The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

FS1582/17 Opposes submission 1533/1

The Reaction Trust FS1408/19 Opposes submission 1533/1 Richard Thumath FS1025/2 Opposes submission 1533/1 Destination Orewa Beach (Orewa Bus Assoc)

1587/1 Recommend that all commercial properties within the entire structure plan area should automatically be included as part of the Orewa Mainstreet Zone. This will ensure the continued effectiveness of Orewa's interests are conserved, promoted, advanced and maintain the expanding business, commercial, industrial and community interests in Orewa.

The National Trading Company FS1582/32 Opposes submission 1587/1

of NZ Ltd Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/35 * Change Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone to Beachfront Recreational Reserve. * Amend Orewa Town Centre Policy Area to include all existing commercial properties within the zone. * Remove Orewa Town Centre Policy areas from Tamariki Ave / Moana Ave service lane. * Change Florence Ave (in Commercial Zone) to Retail with special building controls. * Rezone Res H zone to blocks south of Variable Height Zone.

Orewa Land Ltd FS1586/43 Supports submission 1585/35 19.2 Cornerstone Group Ltd (1533/1), T J Anderson (FS1263/19), Auckland Regional Council

(FS1536/16), A Barrett (FS1644/1), P Barrett (FS1643/1), Iris C Brocks (FS1632/1), Noel Browne (FS1645/1), Mr R Cooper (FS1322/4), Sandra Cooper (FS1526/23), John Drury (FS1500/7), Mr Martin William Emery (FS1512/26), Mrs Jeanne P Emery (FS1486/9), Desmond H Griffin (FS1436/25), Raywyn L Howard (FS1306/13), O T Melrose (FS1012/2), Mr Mervyn James O'Connor (FS1079/2), Mrs Coral M O'Connor (FS1082/2), Joan O'Reilly (FS1646/1), Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc) (FS1499/2), Mrs Joan Price (FS1159/2), Mrs J I Rhodes (FS1033/2), Arthur Ruth (FS1648/1), Eleanor Ruth (FS1649/1), Mrs Rosanne Smith (FS1647/1), Laurie Swan (FS1299/2), Kate Templeton (FS1650/6), Mr T O & Mrs K Templeton (FS1304/13), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (FS1582/17), The Reaction Trust (FS1408/19), Richard Thumath (FS1025/2), Destination Orewa Beach (Orewa Bus Assoc) (1587/1), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (FS1582/32), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/35), Orewa Land Ltd (FS1586/43).

19.2.1 Proposed Variation

(i) That submissions (FS1263/19), (FS1644/1), (FS1643/1), (FS1632/1), (FS1645/1), (FS1322/4), (FS1526/23), (FS1500/7), (FS1512/26), (FS1486/9), (FS1436/25), (FS1306/13), (FS1012/2), (FS1079/2), (FS1082/2), (FS1646/1), (FS1499/2), (FS1159/2), (FS1033/2), (FS1648/1), (FS1649/1), (FS1647/1), (FS1299/2), (FS1650/6), (FS1304/13), (FS1582/17), (FS1408/19), (FS1025/2) and (FS1582/32) be accepted.

(ii) That submissions (1533/1), (FS1536/16), (1587/1), (FS1586/43) and (1585/35) be

rejected.

19.2.2 Reasons for Decision

These submissions relate to the location and extent of Business Zoned Land in Orewa. The submission from Cornerstone requests that the Retail Service Zone be extended south to Riverside Ave and north to the north side of the Mixed Business Zone properties in Florence Ave. This submission is opposed by a number of further submissions and supported by one further submission. The submission from The REDT requests a number of changes including changing the Beachfront Commercial Zone to reserve, and other amendments to layout of commercial zones and the notation depicting the Orewa Town Centre Policy area. The submission from Destination Orewa Beach seeks that all the Commercial properties in Orewa should be included within the Orewa Mainstreet Zone.

In respect of the submissions that seek to expand the Retail Service Zone to the north and the south the Structure Plan notes that given the current state of the town centre and objectives of creating a more vibrant town centre it is not considered appropriate now that the zone should be extended. We consider that in maintaining the existing zoning for the town

centre, redevelopment opportunities can be more focussed and as such will bring about more comprehensive renewal. Simply extending the zoning is likely to bring about redevelopment on the edges and not in the existing town centre area. It is envisaged the Mixed Use zoning along Centreway Road will also assist in the redevelopment of the town centre to more intensive Retail Service. By catering for the relocation of the lower order commercial uses in the vicinity of George Lowe Place to the edge of town centre the full benefit of the presently zoned Retail Service land can be realised. With reference to the REDT request that the land included in the Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone should be zoned for reserve, we accept the opinion of the Reporting Planner that given current land values, purchase would not be readily achieved and if the Council were not able to purchase the land, any open space zoning would not be sustainable. The submission from Destination Orewa concerns the Orewa Mainstreet Area. This is outside the scope of the Proposed Variation as it relates to the Council’s other functions.

19.2.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

No amendments resulting from this decision. 20.0 BUSINESS PROVISIONS 20.1 Submissions Auckland Regional Council 1536/7 Introduce provisions to ensure

that commercial office space is promoted and provided for within the town centre area, by: * Allowing residential uses to occupy a maximum amount or percentage of floor space within any building in the town centre; or * Within existing height and massing controls, applying a "bonus control" provision allowing additional floor space for development which incorporates office uses and restricts residential uses. - Retain restrictions preventing residential use at the ground floor level - Retain the additional proposed mixed use zones as notified - Retain the retail and office businesses uses in the town centre area.

Auckland Regional Council 1536/9 * Amend the provisions to retain the existing 2,700m2 minimum site size for taller buildings, but add additional assessment criteria for significant development proposals to ensure that a balance is achieved between building height and bulk which promotes good urban design outcomes. * Clarify at what stage development proposals may reach a level of significance to constitute public notification, related to the amount of floor space provided, the size of the site, and building heights. * Amend the provisions to

require variations in the podium height level for any building accommodating a tower.

Destination Orewa Beach FS1545/14 Opposes submission 1536/9 The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

FS1582/24 Opposes submission 1536/9

Coastal Properties Ltd 1559/1 Virtually impossible to accumulate 5000m2 with so much fractional ownership of property within the zone. Only 3 sites in Orewa large enough for redevelopment, 2 supermarket sites and RDC Mad Butcher site. Rules should be amended to show: Site Area: 1800-2700m2 - Max height 15 storeys / Site Area: 2700 - 5000m2 - Max height 18 storeys / Site Area: 5000m2+ - Max height 21 storeys.

Cornerstone Group Ltd 1533/2 Remove the black line (depicting the sites subject to the frontage controls of Rule 9.10.7.1) from Bakehouse Lane, Keith Morris Lane; and the two "service lanes" from Moenui Ave.

Destination Orewa Beach FS1545/6 Opposes submission 1533/2 Destination Orewa Beach FS1545/7 Opposes submission 1533/2 Cornerstone Group Ltd 1533/3 Amend the table to:

Reduce the site area from 5000m2 to 3000m2 for highrise. Remove maximum floor area ratios for “base only”. Remove minimum tower setbacks. Remove maximum number of towers. Amend maximum heights (and associated diagonal controls) to allow 30m and 65m high buildings. Delete maximum site coverage. Amend maximum FAR for total buildings to 4 (for 30m high) and 6 (for 65m high). Remove requirement to include car parking and manoeuvring areas in FAR calculation.

T J Anderson FS1263/20 Opposes submission 1533/3 A Barrett FS1644/2 Opposes submission 1533/3 P Barrett FS1643/2 Opposes submission 1533/3 Iris C Brocks FS1632/2 Opposes submission 1533/3 Noel Browne FS1645/2 Opposes submission 1533/3 Mr R Cooper FS1322/5 Opposes submission 1533/3 Sandra Cooper FS1526/24 Opposes submission 1533/3 John Drury FS1500/8 Opposes submission 1533/3 Mr Martin William Emery FS1512/27 Opposes submission 1533/3 Mrs Jeanne P Emery FS1486/10 Opposes submission 1533/3 Desmond H Griffin FS1436/26 Opposes submission 1533/3 Raywyn L Howard FS1306/14 Opposes submission 1533/3 O T Melrose FS1012/3 Opposes submission 1533/3 Mr Mervyn James O'Connor FS1079/3 Opposes submission 1533/3 Mrs Coral M O'Connor FS1082/3 Opposes submission 1533/3

Joan O'Reilly FS1646/2 Opposes submission 1533/3 Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc)

FS1499/3 Opposes submission 1533/3

Mrs Joan Price FS1159/3 Opposes submission 1533/3 Mrs J I Rhodes FS1033/3 Opposes submission 1533/3 Arthur Ruth FS1648/2 Opposes submission 1533/3 Eleanor Ruth FS1649/2 Opposes submission 1533/3 Mrs Rosanne Smith FS1647/2 Opposes submission 1533/3 Laurie Swan FS1299/3 Opposes submission 1533/3 Kate Templeton FS1650/7 Opposes submission 1533/3 Mr T O & Mrs K Templeton FS1304/14 Opposes submission 1533/3 The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

FS1582/18 Oppose in parts submission 1533/3

The Reaction Trust FS1408/20 Opposes submission 1533/3 Richard Thumath FS1025/3 Opposes submission 1533/3 Cornerstone Group Ltd 1533/4 Delete Rule 9.10.7.3(b) so

towers can front and relate to the main streets.

Destination Orewa Beach FS1545/8 Opposes submission 1533/4 Cornerstone Group Ltd 1533/5 To maintain reasonable level of

privacy and distance between towers, insert a new rule that requires the main glazing of each non-ground level res. unit to be provided with an outlook area of open space, unimpeded by buildings and immediately adjacent to that glazing. Any outlook area have min. dimension of 10 metres, measured at right angles to the wall of the building within which the glazing is located. Outlook area may comprise the following components: (i) Area of on-site space which must be kept free of structures. (ii) Areas of road reserve.

Orewa Land Ltd FS1586/26 Opposes submission 1533/5 Cornerstone Group Ltd 1533/6 Insert new assessment criteria

for buildings over 12.5 metres in height in the Orewa Town Centre. The assessment criteria should require architectural and urban design excellence to qualify for the additional height.

Destination Orewa Beach FS1545/9 Supports submission 1533/6 The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

FS1582/19 Opposes submission 1533/6

Mr Martin William Emery 1512/16 Amend to read for Less than 1800sq.m and 1800-5000 sq.m. and greater than 5000 sq.m. "Min 6" Max 9". Amend to read Maximum site coverage "85%". Beneath the table or where appropriate add "* This is to provide for a minimum 4m set back on all road frontages to provide a green planting area. Where this area does not equate to 5% of the total site area a further provision for green area is to be incorporated as part of the

public amenity". The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

FS1582/15 Opposes submission 1512/16

Harbourcity Properties Ltd 1514/1 Approve increase in building heights as proposed but delete provisions for site size requirements to increase. Relax the rules relating to car parking requirements in the business zone.

William R Miller 1530/1 Oppose the 2 metre increase in height of podiums and roofs in a segment of a viewing arc to the east of the Nautilus building as this new height would be unfair to Nautilus apartment owners. Believe existing rules regarding height of podiums and roofs quite satisfactory. Request Council pay particular attention to ensure developers are mindful of views and privacy of other apartment owners.

Pamber (Auckland) Ltd 1581/2 Sought that provision for greater redevelopment potential be made. Should be done in recognition of the desirability of achieving a bell shaped urban form which signals and promotes higher intensity of development and of business activity in this zone.

Orewa Land Ltd FS1586/38 Opposes submission 1581/2 Pamber (Auckland) Ltd 1581/4 Minimum widths of site frontage

set out in proposed amendment to Rule 9.14.2.2.1 are unduly onerous and should be reduced to better reflect existing grain set by title widths in affected parts of Orewa.

Pamber (Auckland) Ltd 1581/6 * Relief sought in relation to Rule 8.10.2.3 - use of yard setbacks in Rule 9.10.10.3.1 to be amended to utilise instead a 3m plus 45 degree Height in Relation to Boundary control to apply to the Retail Service Zone and Mixed Use Zone. * In accordance with relief being sought to Rule 8.10.4 and other associated provisions, including relief as outlined above, it is sought that consequential amendments be made to the provisions of the Table in Rule 9.10.7.3 to allow the attainment of a 60m building of a max 20 storeys on a 2000 sq.m. or more min. site size.

The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

FS1582/28 Opposes submission 1581/6

R & R Painters Ltd 1544/1 Support V 101, but do not support having to have 5000 sq.m footprint before going above 3 storeys in the CBD (this would stop any development).

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/27 (ii) Mixed Business Zone 7.5m. Add - Orewa Mixed Business Zone 6m. (b) "minimum side and rear yards" - Add - Orewa Mixed Business Zone.

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/28 Item 34. Last sentence (pg 49) - "The larger side and rear ........ greater adverse effects which therefore need a larger buffer". Amend - Reword to give consideration to the existing buildings and site coverage in Florence Ave.

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/29 Item 39. Last para (b) - Comment: We are not convinced that these set backs provide a sustainable economic outcome with the remaining land available for building. - Requires an assessment as to whether the rule is economically achievable.

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/30 Last para. starting "The Floor Area ....." - Requires an assessment as to whether the rule is economically achievable.

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/31 Item 45 - Last sentence - Poorly considered or architecturally inappropriate roof forms will be resisted by the Council - Suggest making reference from the Design Guide rather than a negative statement.

The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

FS1582/29 Supports submission 1585/31

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/36 * Delete 5000 m2 threshold in Retail Service Zone. * Amend Objectives, Policies and Rules for Orewa Beach Commercial Zone to ensure zone complements the CBD. * An Orewa CBD zone is created to achieve the objectives of REDT's plan for the town centre.

The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

FS1582/31 Opposes submission 1585/36

Owen & Brian Rutter 1468/1 Council to consider increasing height restrictions for buildings on sights less than 5000 m2 - given need to comply with parking requirements. Maximum building “footprint" per site (30%). Extremely restricting for a City Centre.

T E & J H Rutter 1575/1 Support - commercial buildings to cover full site, with carparking inclusive.

The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

FS1582/27 Opposes submission 1575/1

Leanne Smith 1542/1 Retail / Mixed use zone: * Retail Commercial Zone building height calculated as a ratio of site size. * Car parking standards should

be more lenient. * Provide incentive development rights for scheme providing parking on site. * Extend retail zone to include all of Florence and Centreway between Moenui & Florence. * Support mixed use along Centreway to Riverside Road.

Auckland Regional Council FS1536/17 Support in parts submission 1542/1

Leanne Smith 1542/6 General: *Suggest Mad Butcher Block becomes focal point space for town. & Supports parking review and Stage Coach site as potential 'park and ride' location.

Michael Smith 1485/1 * Suggest floor area ratio to determine height. * Provide incentives to developers who provide public parking. * Change Florence Ave to Retail use.

R Smith 1546/1 Pass Variation 101 but suggest an amendment of 5000 m2 in the CBD to 3000 m2.

The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

FS1582/25 Opposes submission 1546/1

Rudolf Struyck 1538/1 No towers allowed on podiums. Podium height to remain at 10.5m No towers above podium height.

Gregory J Tesar 1000/1 A detailed summary of what the Future Business zoning means, i.e. what future buildings are envisaged, how this impacts on current residential owners, height standards, etc.

The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

1582/1 Generally supports intent of Variation, but general concerns regarding degree of flexibility the Variation affords to development within the Orewa Town Centre Retail Service Zone and resultant urban form that is promoted by the Variation. Amend Variation to a) provide appropriate assessment of the urban form and scale of activities within the structure plan area. (b) incorporate the relief sought by the submitter in paragraphs 1.0 to 9.0 of the submission. Also include any other consequential changes to the satisfaction of the submitter to give effect to this submission and ensure consistency with District Plan provisions.

The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

1582/3 9.10.7.3(a) / Rules 9.10.1 and 9.10.2 / Rule 8.10.1.3. Delete the requirement to provide traditional pitched roofs and allow all buildings in the Orewa

Town Centre Policy Area to have a maximum podium height of 12.5m.

The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

1582/7 Remove any required set backs to allow towers to be in line with the face of the podium or set back if desired. Also in Rule 9.10.7.3 - clarify that a podium can be the same plan dimensions as a tower.

The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

1582/8 19.12.4.2 - Delete the wording "Poorly considered or architecturally inappropriate roof forms will be resisted by the Council."

The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

1582/9 Insert a new Rule to require a min. separation distance of 25m between the building faces of towers in the Orewa Town Centre Policy Area. Insert a new Rule to require that any tower in the Orewa Town Centre Policy Area is located a min. distance of 12.5m from any side or rear boundary.

The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

1582/10 Delete Rule 9.10.7.1(h).

Destination Orewa Beach (Orewa Bus Assoc)

1587/7 Retail Service Zone / Mixed Business / Future Business. * Insert new Assessment Criteria for Orewa Town Centre * Orewa Town Centre frontage west of HBC Highway should be enhanced through development and streetscape areas. * Town Centres should be expanded to include all of Florence Ave and Centreway Road between Moenui and Florence Ave. & Support Mixed Use Zone along Centreway Road to Riverside Road. * Amend Orewa Town Centre Policy to include all existing commercial properties in the zone.

The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

FS1582/34 Opposes submission 1587/7

Alan S Morton-Jones 1608/1 Support allowing mixed use commercial and residential high rises in sliding height scale from HBC Highway westwards in an area bordered by the north commercial/industrial area of Florence Ave to the north side of Moenui Ave and HBC Highway westwards to east of Centreway.

20.2 Auckland Regional Council (1536/7). 20.2.1 Decision

(i) That submission (1536/7) be accepted in part. 20.2.2 Submitters Requests

The submission from the ARC requests that residential uses be limited within the Orewa Town Centre and a bonus provision be included that would encourage office uses being established in the town centre. The ARC also requests the retention of other new activity rules.

We have given consideration to submissions by the ARC and ARTA and to other submissions that oppose the lack of requirement or rule that new buildings in the Retail Service Zone (particularly tower blocks) should provide for employment related activities as well as residential activities in above ground floors. We note Mr Vari’s evidence that, at this time, the Rodney District Council has agreed that the RGS proposals in terms of intensive mixed uses in its major centres are to be regarded as a non-mandatory guideline for development. We conclude that the Council is not required (in terms of any statutory requirement or contractual agreement with the ARC) to provide for a mix of commercial and residential activities above ground floor level but also note that the Council would nevertheless have regard to the provisions of the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) and Plan Change 6 to the ARPS in determining an appropriate mix of intensive commercial and residential development in major centres. Obviously as Plan Change 6 progresses through the RMA processes the detail of what is proposed, what is agreed, and what is required in terms of these matters may well change. We observe that the Hearing Panel in its decision on Change 6 to the ARPS and on the various District Plan changes, including Variation 22, noted that further changes to the District Plans may become necessary once the final details of Plan Change 6 have been resolved. We accordingly recommend that a new policy (as set out below in 20.2.3) be inserted as Policy 9.8.1.2.3 (and the following policies be renumbered). We believe that the insertion of the above policy would address the concerns of both the Auckland Regional Council and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority regarding the relative mix of uses in new buildings in the Retail Service Zone, in a way that would reflect any changes in regional policy that may arise as a result of the evolving understanding of the likely future role of the Orewa Town Centre and the eventual determination of Plan Change 6. At the same time it will enable any interim proposals for the development to be dealt with effectively and in a way that appropriately reflects the requirements of the statute. In due course the provisions of the District Plan will themselves provide for consistency with the ARPS.

20.2.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

Amend Chapter 9 – Business by adding a new Policy 9.8.1.2.3 as follows and by renumbering the following policies (additions underlined). Policy 9.8.1.2.3 Any new building, redevelopment of an existing building, within the Orewa Town Centre Policy Area which exceeds a height of 12.5m should provide for a mix of activities that demonstrate consistency with the relevant objectives and policies of the Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS) (for avoidance of doubt – including any operative amendments to the ARPS) and reflect an appropriate regard for other non-statutory regional documents in regard to the intensity and mixture of uses that are to be provided.

20.3 Auckland Regional Council (1536/9), Destination Orewa Beach (FS1545/14), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (FS1582/24), Coastal Properties Ltd (1559/1), Cornerstone Group Ltd (1533/3), T J Anderson (FS1263/20), A Barrett (FS1644/2), P Barrett (FS1643/2), Iris C Brocks (FS1632/2), Noel Browne (FS1645/2), Mr R Cooper (FS1322/5), Sandra Cooper (FS1526/24), John Drury (FS1500/8), Mr Martin William Emery (FS1512/27), Mrs Jeanne P (particularly tower blocks) Emery (FS1486/10), Desmond H Griffin (FS1436/26), Raywyn L Howard (FS1306/14), O T Melrose (FS1012/3), Mr Mervyn James O'Connor (FS1079/3), Mrs Coral M O'Connor (FS1082/3), Joan O'Reilly (FS1646/2), Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc) (FS1499/3), Mrs Joan Price (FS1159/3), Mrs J I Rhodes (FS1033/3), Arthur Ruth (FS1648/2), Eleanor Ruth (FS1649/2), Mrs Rosanne Smith (FS1647/2), Laurie Swan (FS1299/3), Kate Templeton (FS1650/7), Mr T O & Mrs K Templeton (FS1304/14), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (FS1582/18), The Reaction Trust (FS1408/20), Richard Thumath (FS1025/3), Cornerstone Group Ltd (1533/4), Destination Orewa Beach (FS1545/8), Cornerstone

Group Ltd (1533/5), Orewa Land Ltd (FS1586/26), Cornerstone Group Ltd (1533/6), Destination Orewa Beach (FS1545/9), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (FS1582/19), Mr Martin William Emery (1512/16), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (FS1582/15), Harbourcity Properties Ltd (1514/1), William R Miller (1530/1), Pamber (Auckland) Ltd (1581/2), Orewa Land Ltd (FS1586/38), Pamber (Auckland) Ltd (1581/4), Pamber (Auckland) Ltd (1581/6), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (FS1582/28), R & R Painters Ltd (1544/1), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/29), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/30), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/36), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (FS1582/31), Owen & Brian Rutter (1468/1), T E & J H Rutter (1575/1), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (FS1582/27), Leanne Smith (1542/1), Auckland Regional Council (FS1536/17), Michael Smith (1485/1), R Smith (1546/1), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (FS1582/25), Rudolf Struyck (1538/1), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (1582/1), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (1582/3), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (1582/7), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (1582/9), Alan S Morton-Jones (1608/1), Leanne Smith (1542/6).

20.3.1 Decision

(i) That submissions (1536/9), (FS1545/14), (FS1582/24), (1559/1), (1533/3), (FS1263/20), (FS1644/2), (FS1643/2), (FS1632/2), (FS1645/2), (FS1322/5), (FS1526/24), (FS1500/8), (FS1512/27), (FS1486/10), (FS1436/26), (FS1306/14), (FS1012/3), (FS1079/3), (FS1082/3), (FS1646/2), (FS1499/3), (FS1159/3), (FS1033/3), (FS1648/2), (FS1649/2), (FS1647/2), (FS1299/3), (FS1650/7), (FS1304/14), (FS1582/18), (FS1408/20), (FS1025/3), (1533/6), (FS1545/9), (FS1582/19), (1514/1), (1581/2), (FS1586/38), (1581/4), (1585/36), (FS1582/31), (1575/1), (FS1582/27), (1608/1), (1582/1), and (1542/6) be accepted in part to the extent outlined in 20.3.3.

(ii) That submissions (FS1545/8), (FS1586/26), (FS1582/15), (FS1582/28) and

(FS1582/25) be accepted. (iii) That submissions (1533/4), (1533/5), (1512/16), (1530/1), (1581/6), (1544/1),

(1585/29), (1585/30) 1468/1), (1542/1), (FS1536/17), (1485/1), (1546/1) (1538/1), (1582/3), (1582/7), and (1582/9) be rejected.

20.3.2 Reasons for Decision

The reasons for this decision are set out in section 5 of this report.

20.3.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

(i) Amend Chapter 9 – Rule 9.10.7.3 by adding the following to the first column fifth row as follows (Additions underlined)

Greater than 5000m2 or a combined site identified on Map 75 * * For the avoidance of doubt, for a combined site to qualify under this rule all the lots identified within one of the 3 combined sites identified on Map 75 must be combined and any proposal must include all of the combined site. Amend Map 75 to notate combined sites as set out in Appendix 6 to this report

(ii) Amend Chapter 9- Business by removing the “blackout” on the activity table 9.9.2 and

9.12.4 for buildings exceeding 12.5m in the Orewa Town Centre Policy Area. (iii) Amend Chapter 9 – Rule 9.12.2. - Any Permitted or Restricted Activity that Does Not

Comply with Rule 9.10.7.1, Pedestrian Town Centre Area as follows (additions underlined)

Add the following to 9.12.2.1 Matters for Discretion (d) The provision of pedestrian amenities including pedestrian linkages within the

Orewa Town Centre Policy Area.

Add the following to 9.12.2.2 Assessment Criteria (f) Whether, in respect of site in the Orewa Town Centre Policy Area, adequate provision is made for good quality pedestrian amenities at ground floor level including (but not limited to) pedestrian linkages to other sites and other public areas .

(iv) Amend Chapter 9 – Rule 9.12.3. – The Erection, Addition to or Alteration of Buildings

for any Restricted Discretionarily Activity in Activity table 9.9.2 in the as follows (additions underlined).

Add the following to 9.12.3.1 Matters for Discretion (c) The provision of pedestrian amenities including pedestrian linkages within the

Orewa Town Centre Policy Area.

Add the following to 9.12.3.2 Assessment Criteria (c) Whether, in respect of site in the Orewa Town Centre Policy Area, adequate provision is made for good quality pedestrian amenities at ground floor level including (but not limited to) pedestrian linkages to other sites and other public areas .

(v) Amend Chapter 9 – Rule 9.12.4. – The Erection, Addition to or Alteration of Buildings

Exceeding 12.5 metres in the Orewa Town Centre Policy Area shown on the Planning Maps in the as follows (additions underlined)

Add the following to 9.12.4.1 Matters for Discretion (c) The provision of pedestrian amenities including pedestrian linkages within the

Orewa Town Centre Policy Area.

Add the following to 9.12.4.2 Assessment Criteria (j) Whether, in respect of site in the Orewa Town Centre Policy Area, adequate provision is made for good quality pedestrian amenities at ground floor level including (but not limited to) pedestrian linkages to other sites and other public areas .

20.4 Cornerstone Group Ltd (1533/2), Destination Orewa Beach (FS1545/6), Destination

Orewa Beach (FS1545/7), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/27), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/28), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/31), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (FS1582/29), Gregory J Tesar (1000/1), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (1582/8), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (1582/10), Destination Orewa Beach (Orewa Bus Assoc) (1587/7), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (FS1582/34).

20.4.1 Decision

(i) That submissions (1585/27), (1585/28), (1000/1), (1582/10), and (1587/7) be rejected.

(ii) That submissions, (1585/31), (FS1582/29), (1582/8), and (FS1582/34) be accepted (iii) That submissions (1533/2), (FS1545/6) and (FS1545/7) be accepted in part to the

extent outlined in20.4.3 below.

20.4.2 Reasons for Decision

In respect of the Cornerstone submission we consider is appropriate to retain the frontage controls of Rule 9.10.7.1 on the roads and lanes contained in the submission. These roads do, and will provide retail frontages in the future and it is important that these spaces be subject to urban design controls requiring buildings to front the street if the area is to develop into a pleasant urban space. The lanes mentioned all run north south and provide convenient pedestrian access through the town centre.

The pedestrian town centre frontage rule as it applies to the Moenui/Tamariki block is a throw back to the time when the Council sought to secure a through connection by land purchase. This never took place and the route whilst established passes over privately owned land. Given the depth of the site is only in the region of 50m it does not seem reasonable to us to require a north south connection across this land. This position is reflected by Variation 126. The changes requested by the REDT to the yard rules are not required as the Rule already makes reference to the mixed use zone and we consider that no further addition is required. The changes requested to the explanation to Rule 9.12.4.2 by REDT and NTC can be accommodated by rewording the explanation with different language. In respect of the Tesar submission we consider that the Proposed Variation and explanation adequately explains potential building development. If the submitter is unclear about the extent of development possible Council staff can assist in providing further explanations. The change to Rule 9.10.7.1(h) requested by NTC appears to be beyond the scope of the Proposed Variation as this rule is not changed by the Variation other than by its application to the Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone. Regardless it is considered inappropriate to accept the submission as the location of car parking away from street frontages in prime retail areas is consistent with providing for good urban environments and this has been accepted in the Proposed Plan. We consider that the changes sought by Destination Orewa are not needed given the existing set of rules and criteria that already apply in the area that appear to be aimed at achieving similar outcomes.

20.4.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

(i) Amend Chapter 9 Business by altering the final paragraph of the Explanation and Reasons for Assessment Criteria 9.12.4.2 as follows (additions underlined – deletions struck through).

The design of the roof line and rooftop facilities such as plant rooms can also create a cluttered appearance and present an awkward transition with the skyline which can adversely affect the visual amenity values of the town and views from places around the Town Centre. Treatment of any proposals roofline will be expected to fully integrate with the design of the proposal and its context. Poorly considered or architecturally inappropriate roof forms will be resisted by the Council should be avoided.

(ii) Amend Planning Map 75 by removing the “Sites with frontages marked are subject to

Rule 9.10.7.1” to the eastern most link between Tamariki Avenue and Moenui Avenue, as set out in Appendix 6.

21.0 TRAFFIC ISSUES GENERAL 21.1 Submissions Auckland Regional Transport Authority

1584/1 Approve the Variation as notified, subject to amendments as outlined: * A traffic impact assessment is undertaken and recommendations prepared on where improvements can be made. * Detailed assessment of non residential parking. * Assessment of passenger transport provision. * Extend Variable Height Zone to incl. areas in Structure Plan. * Amend Variation to enable greater employment potential in the Retail Service Zone.

Auckland Regional Council FS1536/14 Support in parts submission 1584/1

Orewa Land Ltd FS1586/40 Supports submission 1584/1 Jennifer Blyth 1576/6 Seek that more consideration be

given to the impact that the built environment has on whether or not people WANT to walk or cycle through the area. All developments must positively contribute to the walkability of the area, verandas, covered canopies, etc. should be encouraged where appropriate. SEE SUBMISSION

Land Transport NZ 1602/1 Supports in principle the growth management objectives underpinning the Proposed V 101. However given lack of information regarding impacts on transport network, request an adjournment of the variation process.

Auckland Regional Council FS1536/15 Support in parts submission 1602/1

Destination Orewa Beach FS1545/20 Opposes submission 1602/1 Land Transport NZ 1602/3 Amend the wording of strategy

discussion as follows: Higher intensity residential zones will enable concentrations ..........transport system, and provide transport choices, particularly for shorter local based travel, for those who wish to live.......

Land Transport NZ 1602/4 Amend wording under Ch 8, Section 8.7 (b) as follows: Scale, location and design of residential development supports more efficient use is made of infrastructure and other services such as public transport.

Land Transport NZ 1602/5 Amend wording policy 8.8.8.2.10 to read as follows: The area of the zone is well

located in terms ................improved regional public transport links. It is recognised that on-going collaboration with transport authorities is required to provide an appropriate level of passenger transport service as demand increases. For example, the planned extension of the Northern Busway service to Silverdale / Orewa as identified in the Regional Passenger Transport Network Plan.

Land Transport NZ 1602/6 Amend wording of policy 8.8.8.3 to read as follows: Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone Description This special zone applies ....................residential development to: (a) provide ease of access and viability of infrastructure including public transport walking and cycling;

Land Transport NZ 1602/7 Amend wording of objective 9.8.4.1.2 to read as follows: To maintain and enhance the amenity values ....................between the town centre and the beach without compromising the functional role of the Hibiscus Coast Highway (SH1) as a regionally significant transport route.

Land Transport NZ 1602/10 Such other additional and consequential relief as is necessary to satisfy the issues raised by the submitter.

Transit New Zealand 1561/1 Transit does not oppose the Variation in principal, particularly as it is generally aligned with the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy (ARGS) and supports a more compact urban form. Seek additional information to address: 1) Provide an assessment of likely increase in traffic generation as result of re-zoning. 2) Undertake evaluation of traffic distribution on surrounding road network, incl. detailed confirmation of how all distributions have been assumed. 3) Undertake a SIDRA analysis on capacity of key intersections to assess effects of additional traffic through re-zoning. 4) Undertake analysis of traffic volumes on SH1 (Hibiscus Coast Highway) for the before and after ALPURT B2 scenario.

Transit will provide this information unless Council has already undertaken these works and information readily available. 5) Provide further details on proposed car parking arrangement and increase/reduction in number in the Orewa town centre. This should include assessment on likely effects on parking on State highway, recognising its regional function and travel times. 6) Provide further information with regard to safety and access points that may gain access onto the State highway as a result of re-zoning. 7) Provide further information and Councils position on a viable alternative option for the over dimension route that would have the same function as SH1 presently provides through the Orewa township. 8. Defer decision until such time as the above matters have been addressed and consultation occurred. 9. Include vibration and sound insulation rules and criteria for permitted residential developments located adjacent to the State highway. OR The proposed variation is withdrawn.

Auckland Regional Council FS1536/13 Support in parts submission 1561/1

Destination Orewa Beach FS1545/17 Opposes submission 1561/1 Rodney Economic Development Trust

FS1585/38 Opposes submission 1561/1

Transition Town Orewa/Rodney

1579/4 Seek that more consideration be given to the impact that the built environment has on whether or not people WANT to walk or cycle through the area.

21.2 Auckland Regional Transport Authority (1584/1), Auckland Regional Council

(FS1536/14), Orewa Land Ltd (FS1586/40), Land Transport NZ (1602/1), Auckland Regional Council (FS1536/15), Destination Orewa Beach (FS1545/20), Transit New Zealand (1561/1), Auckland Regional Council (FS1536/13), Destination Orewa Beach (FS1545/17), Rodney Economic Development Trust (FS1585/38).

21.2.1 Decision

(i) That submissions (1584/1), (FS1536/14), (FS1586/40), (1602/1), (FS1536/15), (1561/1) and (FS1536/13) be rejected.

(ii) That submissions (FS1545/17), (FS1585/38) and (FS1545/20) be accepted.

21.2.2 Reasons for Decision

The substantive submitters have requested that an Integrated Transport Plan for the area be undertaken for the area covered by the Proposed Variation including an assessment of traffic generation, car parking, distribution, intersection analysis, traffic volume analysis and other safety and reverse sensitivity issues. These submissions are supported and opposed by further submissions.

In preparing the Proposed Variation the Council engaged T2 Traffic Engineers to prepare an Integrated Transportation Assessment for the area. This report was part of the s32 material for the Proposed Variation. After the submissions were received T2 have undertaken additional work on this matter that was presented to the hearing. We are satisfied that the traffic matters relating to the Variation have been addressed sufficiently. In respect of reverse sensitivity issues raised in the submission we consider that these matters are adequately dealt with by Rule 16.9.2.2.1 of the Proposed District Plan 2000 which places special requirements on all new dwellings within 70m of Hibiscus Coast Highway and Centreway Road.

21.2.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation Subject to Hearing and Committee Decision

No amendments resulting from this decision. 21.3 Land Transport NZ (1602/3), Land Transport NZ (1602/4), Land Transport NZ (1602/5),

Land Transport NZ (1602/6), Land Transport NZ (1602/7), Land Transport NZ (1602/10). 21.3.1 Decision

(i) That submission (1602/6) be accepted. (ii) That submissions (1602/3) and be accepted in part to the extent set out in 17.2.2.5

below.

(iii) That submissions (1602/4), (1602/5), (1602/7) and (1602/10) be rejected.

21.3.2 Reasons for Decision

The submitter requests changes to the wording of the overall strategy, anticipated environmental outcomes, policy 8.8.8.2.10, Policy 8.8.8.3 and Objective 9.8.4.1.2. These all seek specific changes related to transport including more specific recognition of passenger transport and walking and cycling. The submission also includes an “additional and consequential relief” clause.

The submission in respect of the strategy reinforces the transport choices available to people and adds another transport benefit resulting from more intensive residential development. We consider that this suggestion assists in understanding of the strategy and should be accepted except for the insertion of the word ‘transport’ before ‘choices’ as this clause refers to more than just transport choices. The change requested to Ch 8, Section 8.7(b) relates to the anticipated environmental results listed in the Residential Chapter. We consider that it is not appropriate to accept the submission that 8.7(b) be altered as it relates to a clause not affected by the Proposed Variation. The submission also seeks changes to the explanation and reasons for policies in the Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone. The submission seeks to add two sentences that recognise that collaboration with transport authorities is needed to provide an appropriate level of passenger transport services. While the sentences requested to be added outline actions that will be needed to ensure good levels of passenger transport are provided in the future, we consider that they are inappropriate in the explanation to the zone policies.

Clause 8.8.8.3 sets out the zone description for the Orewa High Intensity Variable Height Zone. The submission seeks that the words ‘walking and cycling’ be added to clause (a) which refers to ease of access and viability of infrastructure. We consider that the addition is appropriate as it widens the range of infrastructure considered in a way in keeping with the overall intention of the zone. The submission also seeks to add to Objective 9.8.4.1.2 which relates to the Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone and more specifically the connectivity between the town centre and the beach. As we have recommended that the Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone should be deleted it is not appropriate to accept this submission. We consider that no other changes are required as a result of this submission.

21.3.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

(i) Amend the Proposed Variation by altering the ninth paragraph of 8.5 Strategy as follows (additions underlined – deletions struck through).

Higher intensity residential zones will enable concentrations of development that are more likely to support the viability of infrastructural services including an integrated transport system, and provide choices, including for shorter local based travel, or for those who may require smaller land areas.

(ii) Amend the Proposed Variation by altering clause (a) of the Orewa High Variable

Height Zone Description 8.8.8.3 as follows (additions underlined – deletions struck through)..

(a) provide ease of access and viability of infrastructure including public transport

and walking and cycling infrastructure. 21.4 Jennifer Blyth (1576/6), Transition Town Orewa/Rodney (1579/4) 21.4.1 Decision

(i) That submissions (1576/6) and (1579/4) be rejected 21.4.2 Reasons for Decision

The submissions request that more consideration be given to the impact of the built environment on whether people want to walk or cycle through the area. One example given in the submission is the provision of verandahs and canopies.

We consider that the proposed variation does go a good distance towards encouraging walking and cycling and this is complimented by the amendments suggested above. The Proposed Variation does include urban design provisions that are designed to assist the creation of a pedestrian environment. These include restrictions on the height of walls facing the road. We consider it is not practicable to require verandahs in residential areas. Much of the work that will determine the attractiveness of the pedestrian and cycling environment will be related to work that the Council actually carries out in the public realm and not through regulation of private land. This work cannot be directly influenced by this process and is more properly a subject of the annual plan process. We recommend that no changes should result from these submissions.

21.4.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

No amendments resulting from this decision.

22.0 TRANSPORT NODE 21.1 Submissions Auckland Regional Council 1536/5 Transport - Retain the identified

Transport Node on Centreway Road.

22.2 Auckland Regional Council (1536/5) 22.2.1 Decision

(i) That submission (1536/5) is accepted.

22.2.2 Reasons for Decision

The submitter supports the inclusion of the Transport Node in Orewa Masterplan.

As the submitter supports the Masterplan (Structure Plan) we recommend that the submission be accepted.

22.2.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

No amendments resulting from this decision. 23.0 CARPARKING 23.1 Submissions Auckland Regional Council 1536/3 Amend the proposed provisions

to reduce the minimum amount of on-site parking required for activities in the Orewa Retail Service Zone and surrounding Mixed Business Zones.

Destination Orewa Beach FS1545/12 Opposes submission 1536/3 Rodney Economic Development Trust

FS1585/37 Supports submission 1536/3

The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

FS1582/23 Opposes submission 1536/3

Jennifer Blyth 1576/1 8.7 new clause (f) - Seek that emphasis being put on pedestrians and cyclists be retained and that specific ways in which cars are being reduced in importance, and parking removed from high importance areas (such as the Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone) be continued.

Cornerstone Group Ltd 1533/8 Insert new minimum car parking standards for Orewa Town Centre. * 1.25 spaces per res. with up to 2 bed or 65m2. * 2.25 spaces per res. unit for 3 beds or 65m2 +. * Non residential (except Supermarkets): 1 space per 35m2. * Supermarkets - 1 space per 20m2. Change of use for existing buildings: * RESIDENTIAL 1 per res. unit up to 2 bed / 2 per res. unit up to 3 beds +. * NON RESIDENTIAL 1 space per 50m2. * Supermarkets 1 space per 20m2.

Destination Orewa Beach FS1545/10 Opposes submission 1533/8 The National Trading Company FS1582/20 Supports submission 1533/8

of NZ Ltd Destination Orewa Beach 1545/1 Generally supports, however to

the extent that the Variation is inconsistent with this submission, the Variation is opposed for reasons set out in submission. Seek Variation be amended to encourage the provision of adequate parking in the Orewa Town Centre Retail Zone.

McDonalds Restaurants (NZ) Ltd

1423/8 Delete Amendment 56 to Table 1 Appendix 21B (Required Parking Spaces)

Orewa Carparking 1560/1 8.12.3.2(w) - IF any high rise development is undertaken in Orewa, developers should be encouraged to add an extra floor for public carparking and RDC purchase these carparks. This will place shoppers right where they want to be.

Destination Orewa Beach FS1545/16 Supports submission 1560/1 Orewa Land Ltd 1586/20 Carparking Provision: Include a

new car parking requirement in Appendix 21B of Chapter 21, for 1.5 spaces per household unit. This is to provide a parking ratio which allows for flexibility in car parking provision per unit, subject to on-site demand.

Albany Scaffolding Ltd FS1656/20 Supports submission 1586/20 William S & Yvonne M Ambler FS1426/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Dr Simon Baker FS1528/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Ian Bartlett FS1623/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Robert W Bartlett FS1732/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Nancy Baulcomb FS1699/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Philip Baulcomb FS1698/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Christopher W Bisman FS1683/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Mrs Mavis Anne Brackebush FS1700/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Fred Bradley FS1714/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Patricia L Bradley FS1701/20 Supports submission 1586/20 John Bretnall FS1564/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Lorraine Bretnall FS1554/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Timothy R Brooks FS1549/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Heather Burns FS1702/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Andrew Chambers FS1613/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Stuart Chambers FS1730/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Peter McKenzie Clark FS1735/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Robyn Clark FS1733/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Coastal Properties Ltd FS1559/22 Supports submission 1586/20 Coastal Scaffolding Ltd FS1696/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Annalise Coghlan FS1556/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Brendon Coghlan FS1734/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Claudia Coghlan FS1671/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Karlene E Coghlan FS1455/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Madison Coghlan FS1664/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Kim & Lyn Corbett FS1728/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Irene Coussons FS1660/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Robert Coussons FS1659/20 Supports submission 1586/20 James McLellan Coxhead FS1722/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Jeanene G Davis FS1434/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Paul John Davis FS1435/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Les Downes FS1490/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Maree Downes FS1489/21 Supports submission 1586/20

Colin L Dryland FS1625/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Tony Edward FS1749/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Dennis Ellwood FS1508/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Susan Ellwood FS1446/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Deirdre F Evans FS1658/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Carolyn Fletcher FS1680/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Stuart Fluker FS1725/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Jill Flyger FS1746/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Neil Flyger FS1758/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Steve Franich FS1448/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Karen Franklin FS1520/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Benjamin Thomas Fraser Pain FS1621/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Deborah Fromich FS1741/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Wayne Fromich FS1742/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Paul Fry FS1653/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Sarah Fry FS1654/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Lance Gilbertson FS1752/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Doug Godfrey FS1675/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Miriam Godfrey FS1676/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Timothy A Green FS1677/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Andrew Alistair Grey FS1614/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Ben Grooten FS1674/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Eddie Grooten FS1669/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Erika Grooten FS1670/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Cushla Hackett FS1747/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Malcolm James Haggerty FS1627/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Andrew F Hansen FS1682/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Jane Hansen FS1665/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Tony Harden FS1751/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Ross A Hemi FS1458/21 Supports submission 1586/20 D C Henshaw FS1707/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Reti Hick FS1459/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Dorothea M Hodgson FS1488/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Gwen Hopper FS1666/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Shana Hopper FS1617/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Kay Hough FS1710/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Nick D Humphreys FS1721/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Dianne Jackson FS1736/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Francis Jackson FS1737/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Lauren Jenkins FS1622/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Sarah Josephs FS1712/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Shane Josephs FS1713/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Jordon Kibblewhite FS1740/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Michael Kibblewhite FS1744/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Peter A Kibblewhite FS1477/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Thomas Kibblewhite FS1745/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Yvonne Kibblewhite FS1478/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Thalla Esme King FS1697/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Guenther Lammer FS1689/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Margareta Lammer FS1739/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Clive Lovell Lasenby FS1073/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Diane M Lasenby FS1074/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Suzanne C Lasenby FS1009/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Dean A Lawson FS1444/22 Supports submission 1586/20 Jane Lawson FS1757/20 Supports submission 1586/20 William S Lawson FS1738/20 Supports submission 1586/20 T & A Lees FS1729/20 Supports submission 1586/20 A K Leigh FS1668/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Jack Leonard FS1706/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Mary Leonard FS1684/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Brendan Lindsay FS1685/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Jo Lindsay FS1686/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Elaine Magill FS1465/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Kenneth J Magill FS1467/21 Supports submission 1586/20

John L Mallett FS1010/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Lisa Mallett FS1562/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Kathryn J Manihera FS1496/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Mark D Manihera FS1460/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Corban J Martin FS1447/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Elliott R Martin FS1439/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Kendall Martin FS1672/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Kiri Angela Martin FS1462/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Munroe Martin FS1678/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Wayne H Martin FS1461/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Peter Martinovich FS1709/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Julieann McCathie FS1504/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Nevis Robert McDougall FS1618/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Nola E McGowan FS1501/21 Supports submission 1586/20 P & M McKinney FS1059/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Keith McMillan FS1719/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Ian & Rosemary McPherson FS1726/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Marilyn Mills FS1753/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Cheryl M Milton FS1491/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Mary C Mingins FS1507/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Lyndelle Mitchell FS1619/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Ernest A Moffat FS1718/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Eileen Lorraine Moloney FS1657/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Craig Morris FS1454/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Marcia L Morris FS1453/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Verity Norton FS1723/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Orewa Carparking FS1560/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Bevan Philip FS1720/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Bailey Phillips FS1525/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Courtney Phillips FS1495/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Ella F Phillips FS1679/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Margaret Phillips FS1529/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Wendell Phillips FS1524/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Wendell Craig Phillips FS1681/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Kieran Price FS1615/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Beverly Rose Prince FS1628/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Kaye Procter FS1748/20 Supports submission 1586/20 H M Rishworth FS1652/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Brian Rutter FS1412/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Janine L Rutter FS1661/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Judith Helen Rutter FS1717/20 Supports submission 1586/20 T E & J H Rutter FS1575/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Margarita Ryjkova FS1655/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Janette Sadgrove FS1694/20 Supports submission 1586/20 John Sadgrove FS1693/20 Supports submission 1586/20 M B & M Saunders FS1727/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Jacqueline L Schieb FS1471/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Mark A Schieb FS1472/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Rodger Scott FS1692/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Rueben Scott FS1724/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Sandra Scott FS1708/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Helen M Sellars FS1452/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Raymond A Sellars FS1498/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Melanie Sharplin FS1750/20 Supports submission 1586/20 John Charles Shattock FS1687/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Julie Lorraine Shattock FS1688/20 Supports submission 1586/20 John Smart FS1711/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Bev Smith FS1755/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Craig Smith FS1756/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Dillon J Smith FS1624/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Hephzibah Smith FS1760/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Lance Smith FS1759/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Lukas Smith FS1754/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Michael P Smith FS1503/21 Supports submission 1586/20

Suzanne I Smith FS1502/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Matt Symons FS1626/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Ellie ter Haar FS1518/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Sam ter Haar FS1463/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Barry ter Hao FS1667/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Margaret Trowbridge FS1474/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Philip D Trowbridge FS1473/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Owen Tucker FS1705/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Pat Tucker FS1704/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Rod F Turner FS1691/20 Supports submission 1586/20 John Van der Sluis FS1663/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Leonardine Van der Sluis FS1662/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Ronald Vince FS1731/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Anthony W M Waring FS1716/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Audrey L Waring FS1715/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Antony Wentworth FS1703/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Jules G Were FS1690/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Suzi Were FS1673/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Dave White FS1695/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Kim White FS1743/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Bruce H Whitehead FS1440/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Kate Wilson FS1620/20 Supports submission 1586/20 Garth C Wiltshire FS1566/21 Supports submission 1586/20 J R Wiltshire FS1565/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Milton B Wylie FS1437/21 Supports submission 1586/20 Pamber (Auckland) Ltd 1581/1 8.12.3.2(w). parking is

considered a key factor in the short-term sustainability of Orewa, etc. A three-tiered approach is required: 1 carspace per residential unit; 1 carspace per 40 sq.m. of new built non-residential floor space; only 1 carspace per 60 sq.m. of non-residential floorspace where there is predominantly re-use of an existing building.

Destination Orewa Beach FS1545/18 Supports submission 1581/1 Orewa Land Ltd FS1586/37 Supports submission 1581/1 Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/34 * Parking Standards: Business: 1 per 35m2 GFA for new buildings and uses. Change of use which involves no significant alterations will be excluded. Residential in Retail Mixed Use Zone. 1 space per apartment. Each level of additional car parking permitted will entitle 1 additional floor of residential up to a maximum overall height of 19 storeys. * Res. Variable Height Zone: 1 space per apartment. Up to 2 bonus storeys. Max overall height of 12 storeys. * Review parking contributions levy.

Orewa Land Ltd FS1586/42 Supports submission 1585/34 The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

FS1582/30 Supports submission 1585/34

The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

1582/6 8.12.3.2(w) - Provision by the Council of an appropriately located parking facility within the Orewa Town Centre to meet the long and short term parking needs of the community.

William S & Yvonne M Ambler 1426/1 Support Beachfront Commercial Zone, but additional parking required.

Auckland Regional Council FS1536/12 Opposes submission 1426/1 Destination Orewa Beach (Orewa Bus Assoc)

1587/6 Amend to show: New buildings in Retail/Mixed Use Zone 1 per 35m2 GFA. Supermarkets 1 per 20m2 GFA. Existing Buildings No additional requirement for change of use buildings not involving significant structural alterations. New Apartments in Retail/Mixed Zone 1 space per apartment. 1 bonus floor of apartments per storey of parking for public use. * Amend parking levy calculation.

The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

FS1582/33 Supports submission 1587/6

Jennifer H Kipfer 1532/2 Urgently instigate the construction of carpark buildings within the Orewa Commercial district and subsequently require development contributions towards cost of borrowing to achieve a sustainable level of carparking provision.

Jennifer H Kipfer 1532/12 Oppose relaxation of parking standards.

McDonalds Restaurants (NZ) Ltd

1423/2 Withdraw, or amend to state that parking will be required for all activities within the Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone

Auckland Regional Council FS1536/11 Opposes submission 1423/2 Destination Orewa Beach (Orewa Bus Assoc)

1587/11 Support review of parking assessments. Support Reserves being used for public parking. Support budget to promote development within the zone. Support continuation of resolution that all developers contributions remain inside the Structure Plan Area. Oppose the Mad Butcher block and the community centre being developed into open space reserve. This site will resolve a large proportion of the town centre's connectivity issues. Any future development should connect Hillary Square, Orewa Square and Moana Ave and include centralised community facilities ... All community consultation

strongly supported the Stage Coach site in Centreway Road as a parking building - Park 'n' Ride.

23.2 Destination Orewa Beach (1545/1), Orewa Carparking (1560/1), Destination Orewa

Beach (FS1545/16), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (1582/6), Jennifer Blyth (1576/1), Jennifer H Kipfer (1532/2), Destination Orewa Beach (Orewa Bus Assoc) (1587/11).

23.2.1 Decision

(i) That submissions (1587/11), (1532/2), (1545/1), (1560/1), (FS1545/16), and (1582/6) be rejected.

(ii) That submission (1576/1) be accepted.

23.2.2 Reasons for Decision

The submission from Destination Orewa Beach seeks that the Variation encourage the provision of adequate parking in the Orewa Town Centre. Orewa Carparking requests that high rise buildings be encouraged to include an additional floor for public car parking. The submissions from the National Trading Company and J Kipfer seeks the inclusion of a parking facility in the Orewa Town Centre. The submission from Jennifer Blyth seeks that the emphasis within the Proposed Variation in respect of cyclists, pedestrian and parking especially in the beachfront zone be retained.

We consider that the submission from Destination Orewa Beach lacks some clarity about what adequate car parking is considered to be and what sort of car parking should be provided although some additional information was provided at the hearing. The submissions from Orewa Carparking and the National Trading Company offer some potential solutions to the perceived car parking problems in Orewa. While no changes to the car parking regime have been included within the Proposed Variation the Orewa East Structure Plan documents notes that; “The case to provide for additional parking as well as creating a better management regime has been considered by the Council and the following broad strategy has been adopted.

• Make changes to improve the layout and management of existing parking spaces.

• Introduce on street parking charges. • Provide a car parking building. • Where possible and consistent with urban design objectives provide additional at

grade car parks.” This strategy has been implemented in part with certain improvements carried out to the surface parking in the town centre and improved enforcement of timed restrictions. We did not receive any evidence of any changes that could be made to the Variation that were sufficiently detailed for us to recommend further specific changes to parking requirements or provisions. We consider that changes to the car parking regime should be subject to further work by the Council and potentially to a further variation if considered necessary. It is recommended that the submission from Jennifer Blyth be accepted.

23.2.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

No amendments resulting from this decision. 23.3 Auckland Regional Council (1536/3), Destination Orewa Beach (FS1545/12), Rodney

Economic Development Trust (FS1585/37), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

(FS1582/23), Cornerstone Group Ltd (1533/8), Destination Orewa Beach (FS1545/10), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (FS1582/20), McDonalds Restaurants (NZ) Ltd (1423/8), Orewa Land Ltd (1586/20), Albany Scaffolding Ltd (FS1656/20), William S & Yvonne M Ambler (FS1426/21), Dr Simon Baker (FS1528/21), Ian Bartlett (FS1623/20), Robert W Bartlett (FS1732/20), Nancy Baulcomb (FS1699/20), Philip Baulcomb (FS1698/20), Christopher W Bisman (FS1683/20), Mrs Mavis Anne Brackebush (FS1700/20), Fred Bradley (FS1714/20), Patricia L Bradley (FS1701/20), John Bretnall (FS1564/21), Lorraine Bretnall (FS1554/21), Timothy R Brooks (FS1549/21), Heather Burns (FS1702/20), Andrew Chambers (FS1613/21), Stuart Chambers (FS1730/20), Peter McKenzie Clark (FS1735/20), Robyn Clark (FS1733/20), Coastal Properties Ltd (FS1559/22), Coastal Scaffolding Ltd (FS1696/20), Annalise Coghlan (FS1556/21), Brendon Coghlan (FS1734/20), Claudia Coghlan (FS1671/20), Karlene E Coghlan (FS1455/21), Madison Coghlan (FS1664/20), Kim & Lyn Corbett (FS1728/20), Irene Coussons (FS1660/20), Robert Coussons (FS1659/20), James McLellan Coxhead (FS1722/20), Jeanene G Davis (FS1434/21), Paul John Davis (FS1435/21), Les Downes (FS1490/21), Maree Downes (FS1489/21), Colin L Dryland (FS1625/20), Tony Edward (FS1749/20), Dennis Ellwood (FS1508/21), Susan Ellwood (FS1446/21), Deirdre F Evans (FS1658/20), Carolyn Fletcher (FS1680/20), Stuart Fluker (FS1725/20), Jill Flyger (FS1746/20), Neil Flyger (FS1758/20), Steve Franich (FS1448/21), Karen Franklin (FS1520/21), Benjamin Thomas Fraser Pain (FS1621/20), Deborah Fromich (FS1741/20), Wayne Fromich (FS1742/20), Paul Fry (FS1653/20), Sarah Fry (FS1654/20), Lance Gilbertson (FS1752/20), Doug Godfrey (FS1675/20), Miriam Godfrey (FS1676/20), Timothy A Green (FS1677/20), Andrew Alistair Grey (FS1614/20), Ben Grooten (FS1674/20), Eddie Grooten (FS1669/20), Erika Grooten (FS1670/20), Cushla Hackett (FS1747/20), Malcolm James Haggerty (FS1627/20), Andrew F Hansen (FS1682/20), Jane Hansen (FS1665/20), Tony Harden (FS1751/20), Ross A Hemi (FS1458/21), D C Henshaw (FS1707/20), Reti Hick (FS1459/21), Dorothea M Hodgson (FS1488/21), Gwen Hopper (FS1666/20), Shana Hopper (FS1617/20), Kay Hough (FS1710/20), Nick D Humphreys (FS1721/20), Dianne Jackson (FS1736/20), Francis Jackson (FS1737/20), Lauren Jenkins (FS1622/20), Sarah Josephs (FS1712/20), Shane Josephs (FS1713/20), Jordon Kibblewhite (FS1740/20), Michael Kibblewhite (FS1744/20), Peter A Kibblewhite (FS1477/21), Thomas Kibblewhite (FS1745/20), Yvonne Kibblewhite (FS1478/21), Thalla Esme King (FS1697/20), Guenther Lammer (FS1689/20), Margareta Lammer (FS1739/20), Clive Lovell Lasenby (FS1073/21), Diane M Lasenby (FS1074/21), Suzanne C Lasenby (FS1009/21), Dean A Lawson (FS1444/22), Jane Lawson (FS1757/20), William S Lawson (FS1738/20), T & A Lees (FS1729/20), A K Leigh (FS1668/20), Jack Leonard (FS1706/20), Mary Leonard (FS1684/20), Brendan Lindsay (FS1685/20), Jo Lindsay (FS1686/20), Elaine Magill (FS1465/21), Kenneth J Magill (FS1467/21), John L Mallett (FS1010/21), Lisa Mallett (FS1562/21), Kathryn J Manihera (FS1496/21), Mark D Manihera (FS1460/21), Corban J Martin (FS1447/21), Elliott R Martin (FS1439/21), Kendall Martin (FS1672/20), Kiri Angela Martin (FS1462/21), Munroe Martin (FS1678/20), Wayne H Martin (FS1461/21), Peter Martinovich (FS1709/20), Julieann McCathie (FS1504/21), Nevis Robert McDougall (FS1618/20), Nola E McGowan (FS1501/21), P & M McKinney (FS1059/21), Keith McMillan (FS1719/20), Ian & Rosemary McPherson (FS1726/20), Marilyn Mills (FS1753/20), Cheryl M Milton (FS1491/21), Mary C Mingins (FS1507/21), Lyndelle Mitchell (FS1619/20), Ernest A Moffat (FS1718/20), Eileen Lorraine Moloney (FS1657/20), Craig Morris (FS1454/21), Marcia L Morris (FS1453/21), Verity Norton (FS1723/20), Orewa Carparking (FS1560/21), Bevan Philip (FS1720/20), Bailey Phillips (FS1525/21), Courtney Phillips (FS1495/21), Ella F Phillips (FS1679/20), Margaret Phillips (FS1529/21), Wendell Phillips (FS1524/21), Wendell Craig Phillips (FS1681/20), Kieran Price (FS1615/20), Beverly Rose Prince (FS1628/20), Kaye Procter (FS1748/20), H M Rishworth (FS1652/20), Brian Rutter (FS1412/21), Janine L Rutter (FS1661/20), Judith Helen Rutter (FS1717/20), T E & J H Rutter (FS1575/21), Margarita Ryjkova (FS1655/20), Janette Sadgrove (FS1694/20), John Sadgrove (FS1693/20), M B & M Saunders (FS1727/20), Jacqueline L Schieb (FS1471/21), Mark A Schieb (FS1472/21), Rodger Scott (FS1692/20), Rueben Scott (FS1724/20), Sandra Scott (FS1708/20), Helen M Sellars (FS1452/21), Raymond A Sellars (FS1498/21), Melanie Sharplin (FS1750/20), John Charles Shattock (FS1687/20), Julie Lorraine Shattock (FS1688/20), John Smart (FS1711/20), Bev Smith (FS1755/20), Craig Smith (FS1756/20), Dillon J Smith (FS1624/20), Hephzibah Smith (FS1760/20), Lance Smith (FS1759/20), Lukas Smith (FS1754/20), Michael P Smith (FS1503/21), Suzanne I Smith (FS1502/21), Matt Symons (FS1626/20), Ellie ter Haar (FS1518/21), Sam ter Haar (FS1463/21), Barry ter Hao (FS1667/20), Margaret Trowbridge (FS1474/21), Philip D Trowbridge (FS1473/21), Owen Tucker (FS1705/20), Pat Tucker (FS1704/20), Rod F Turner (FS1691/20), John Van der Sluis (FS1663/20), Leonardine Van der Sluis (FS1662/20), Ronald Vince (FS1731/20), Anthony W M Waring (FS1716/20), Audrey L Waring (FS1715/20), Antony Wentworth

(FS1703/20), Jules G Were (FS1690/20), Suzi Were (FS1673/20), Dave White (FS1695/20), Kim White (FS1743/20), Bruce H Whitehead (FS1440/21), Kate Wilson (FS1620/20), Garth C Wiltshire (FS1566/21), J R Wiltshire (FS1565/21), Milton B Wylie (FS1437/21), Pamber (Auckland) Ltd (1581/1), Destination Orewa Beach (FS1545/18), Orewa Land Ltd (FS1586/37), Rodney Economic Development Trust ( 1585/34), Orewa Land Ltd (FS1586/42), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (FS1582/30), William S & Yvonne M Ambler (1426/1), Auckland Regional Council (FS1536/12), Destination Orewa Beach (Orewa Bus Assoc) (1587/6), The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (FS1582/33), Jennifer H Kipfer (1532/12), McDonalds Restaurants (NZ) Ltd (1423/2), Auckland Regional Council (FS1536/11).

23.3 Decision

(i) That submissions (1536/3), (FS1585/37), (1533/8), (FS1582/20), (1423/8), (1586/20), (FS1656/20), (FS1426/21), (FS1528/21), (FS1623/20), (FS1732/20), (FS1699/20), (FS1698/20), (FS1683/20), (FS1700/20), (FS1714/20), (FS1701/20), (FS1564/21), (FS1554/21), (FS1549/21), (FS1702/20), (FS1613/21), (FS1730/20), (FS1735/20), (FS1733/20), (FS1559/22), (FS1696/20), (FS1556/21), (FS1734/20), (FS1671/20), (FS1455/21), (FS1664/20), (FS1728/20), (FS1660/20), (FS1659/20), (FS1722/20), (FS1434/21), FS1435/21), (FS1490/21), (FS1489/21), (FS1625/20), (FS1749/20), (FS1508/21), (FS1446/21), (FS1658/20), (FS1680/20), (FS1725/20), (FS1746/20), (FS1758/20), (FS1448/21), (FS1520/21), (FS1621/20), (FS1741/20), (FS1742/20), (FS1653/20), (FS1654/20), (FS1752/20), (FS1675/20), (FS1676/20), (FS1677/20), (FS1614/20), (FS1674/20), (FS1669/20), (FS1670/20), (FS1747/20), (FS1627/20), (FS1682/20), (FS1665/20), (FS1751/20), (FS1458/21), (FS1707/20), (FS1459/21), (FS1488/21), (FS1666/20), (FS1617/20), (FS1710/20), (FS1721/20), (FS1736/20), (FS1737/20), (FS1622/20), (FS1712/20), (FS1713/20), (FS1740/20), (FS1744/20), (FS1477/21), (FS1745/20), (FS1478/21), (FS1697/20), (FS1689/20), (FS1739/20), (FS1073/21), (FS1074/21), (FS1009/21), (FS1444/22), (FS1757/20), (FS1738/20), (FS1729/20), (FS1668/20), (FS1706/20), (FS1684/20), (FS1685/20), (FS1686/20), (FS1465/21), (FS1467/21), (FS1010/21), (FS1562/21), (FS1496/21), (FS1460/21), (FS1447/21), (FS1439/21), (FS1672/20), (FS1462/21), (FS1678/20), (FS1461/21), (FS1709/20), (FS1504/21), (FS1618/20), (FS1501/21), (FS1059/21), (FS1719/20), (FS1726/20), (FS1753/20), (FS1491/21), (FS1507/21), (FS1619/20), (FS1718/20), (FS1657/20), (FS1454/21), (FS1453/21), (FS1723/20), (FS1560/21), (FS1720/20), (FS1525/21), (FS1495/21), (FS1679/20), (FS1529/21), (FS1524/21), (FS1681/20), (FS1615/20), (FS1628/20), (FS1748/20), (FS1652/20), (FS1412/21), (FS1661/20), (FS1717/20), (FS1575/21), (FS1655/20), (FS1694/20), (FS1693/20), (FS1727/20), (FS1471/21), (FS1472/21), (FS1692/20), (FS1724/20), (FS1708/20), (FS1452/21), (FS1498/21), (FS1750/20), (FS1687/20), (FS1688/20), (FS1711/20), (FS1755/20), (FS1756/20), (FS1624/20), (FS1760/20), (FS1759/20 (FS1754/20), (FS1503/21), (FS1502/21), (FS1626/20), (FS1518/21), (FS1463/21), (FS1667/20 (FS1474/21), (FS1473/21), (FS1705/20), (FS1704/20), (FS1691/20), (FS1663/20), (FS1662/20), (FS1731/20), (FS1716/20), (FS1715/20), (FS1703/20), (FS1690/20), (FS1673/20), (FS1695/20), (FS1743/20), (FS1440/21), (FS1620/20), (FS1566/21), (FS1565/21), (FS1437/21), (1581/1), (FS1545/18), (FS1586/37), (1585/34), (FS1586/42), (FS1582/30), (1426/1), (1587/6), (FS1582/33) and (FS1536/11) be rejected.

(ii) That submissions (1423/2), (FS1545/12), (FS1582/23), (FS1545/10), (FS1536/12)

and (1532/12) be accepted 23.3.1 Reasons for Decision

The submitters request that the car parking requirements applying to Orewa be altered. The submissions mostly contain standards that the submitters consider should be substituted for the existing District Plan provisions. The submission from the McDonalds requests that the non-requirement for car parking in the Orewa Beachfront Commercial Zone be removed. The Ambler submission is similar.

We consider that there may be some merit in revisiting the car parking rules as they apply to Orewa. However it is considered that considerable work will be required to ensure that any new car parking standards are appropriate and that they fit well with standards that apply throughout the rest of the District.

Such work is better focussed on a separate Variation that looks at parking provisions in Orewa and elsewhere in the District rather than through submissions on this Variation. In respect of the submissions relating to car parking in the Beachfront Commercial Zone as we consider that this zone be deleted we consider that MacDonald’s' submission can be accepted while the Ambler submission should be rejected.

23.3.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

No amendments resulting from this decision. 24.0 CULTURAL HERITAGE 24.1 Submissions Auckland Regional Council 1536/4 Scheduling of the two World

War II pill boxes (as noted in the ARC Cultural Heritage database).

24.2 Auckland Regional Council (1536/4) 24.2.1 Decision

(i) That submission (1536/4) be accepted

24.2.2 Reasons for Decision

The submitter requests that two WWII pill boxes, one on 339 HBC Highway (Orewa Beachfront Residential Zone) and another on a reserve opposite the Orewa Centre.

We considered that there is merit in this request given the status of the items on the ARC database and the additional evidence presented at the hearing.

24.2.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

(i) Amend the Proposed District Plan by altering Appendix 17b by adding the two WWII pill boxes, one on 339 HBC Highway (Orewa Beachfront Residential Zone) and another on a reserve opposite the Orewa Centre.

25.0 INUNDATION 25.1 Submissions Auckland Regional Council 1536/6 Amend variation to recognise

the risk of coastal inundation in Orewa by applying appropriate assessment criteria to all new development and public open space within the area covered by Proposed V 101.

Destination Orewa Beach FS1545/13 Opposes submission 1536/6 Kensington Properties Ltd FS1451/5 Opposes submission 1536/6 Mr Martin William Emery 1512/17 This variation does not address

issues such as inundation and how it relates to underground parking, design of foundation work, building design or its impact on existing storm water drainage. This variation should not proceed until a full independent environmental report is prepared that considers the impact of the potential environmental effect of all possible development resulting

from this variation. 25.2 Auckland Regional Council (1536/6), Destination Orewa Beach (FS1545/13), Kensington

Properties Ltd (FS1451/5), Mr Martin William Emery (1512/17).

25.2.1 Decision

(i) That submissions (FS1545/13) and (FS1451/5) be accepted

(ii) That submissions (1536/6) and (1512/17) be rejected.

25.2.2 Reasons for Decision

The submissions from the ARC and MW Emery request that the Proposed Variation addresses inundation. The ARC submission is opposed by the two further submissions.

The Proposed Variation includes assessment criteria designed to address the issues associated with inundation in the residential zones but this is not extended to the business zones. Council research indicates that controls are not required in the business zones as adequate protection is provided by the Building Act. We consider that this adequately addresses the issues raised in the submissions and that no change is required. We also note that buildings/activities are a non-complying activity in the Business zone if they are located in Flood Prone Areas Rule 9.10.6.

25.2.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

No amendments resulting from this decision. 26.0 ARTIFICIAL REEF 26.1 Submissions Dean A Lawson 1444/2 Go ahead with Orewa Reef. Orewa Beach Reef Charitable Trust

1547/1 Support RDC's esplanade enhancement project specifically as it relates to beach boardwalk. Would like to see a formal adoption of the Reef project which is at Resource Consent Stage INTO THE PLAN as a tool to mitigate negative effects of coastal inundation and recognise the social, economic and environmental opportunity and benefits of this project.

Auckland Regional Council FS1536/27 Opposes submission 1547/1 26.2 Dean A Lawson (1444/2), Orewa Beach Reef Charitable Trust (1547/1), Auckland

Regional Council (FS1536/27). 26.2.1 Decision

(i) That submission (FS1536/27) be rejected

(ii) That submissions (1444/2) and (1547/1) be accepted. 26.2.2 Reasons for Decision

These submissions relate to the proposed artificial reef at Orewa. The submission from DA Lawson supports the reef while the submission from the Orewa Beach Reef Charitable Trust supports the esplanade enhancements and requests that the reef project be included within the plan. This is opposed by the ARC.

While the proposed artificial reef is shown in the Orewa East Structure Plan it is not possible to directly include the reef within the District Plan as its proposed location is outside of the District. We do however consider that some reference could be included within the District Plan that recognises the potential of such structures.

We considered this could be included within Chapter 5 – Natural Hazards. Clause 5.1.3 relates specifically to coastal hazards and describes the coastal hazard issue. The following sentence could be added to this clause; “It is also recognised that projects carried out outside the District in the Coastal Marine Area, such as the proposed Orewa Beach Reef Project, may assist in reducing coastal hazards. Measures for the protection, enhancement and maintenance of Orewa Beach are particularly important given the historic, recreational and landscape importance of the beach to the Orewa Township”

26.2.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

(i) Chapter 5 – Natural Hazards Clause 5.1.3 by adding the following (additions underlined).

It is also recognised that projects carried out outside the District in the Coastal Marine Area, such as the proposed Orewa Beach Reef Project, may assist in reducing coastal hazards. Measures for the protection, enhancement and maintenance of Orewa Beach are particularly important given the historic, recreational and landscape importance of the beach to the Orewa”

27.0 MISCELLANEOUS 27.1 Submissions Jennifer Blyth 1576/5 Seek that separate process be

undertaken where the existing High Intensity ordinances be rewritten to make them reflect the T4 zones used in the Community Masterplan process to better reflect what these areas were supposed to be.

Cornerstone Group Ltd 1533/10 Insert new and amend existing objectives, policies, explanations and reasons as necessary to give effect to the requests in submission.

Cornerstone Group Ltd 1533/11 Such other additional or consequential relief as is necessary to achieve consistency with the above and to satisfy the concerns of the submitter. Also, such other alternative relief to satisfy the concerns of the submitter.

T J Anderson FS1263/21 Supports submission 1533/11 Mrs Jeanne P Emery FS1486/11 Opposes submission 1533/11 Desmond H Griffin FS1436/27 Opposes submission 1533/11 Mr T O & Mrs K Templeton FS1304/15 Opposes submission 1533/11 The Reaction Trust FS1408/21 Opposes submission 1533/11 Destination Orewa Beach (Orewa Bus Assoc)

1587/3 Note that some of the activities are subject to likely changes from other Variations. We need development to happen and must address the high cost of compliance, long delays and endless public hearings in respect of consents. Once Variations become operative all activities allowed in the various zones should be permitted. All restricted control and restricted discretionary activity applications should be considered on a non-notified

basis. Auckland Regional Council FS1536/34 Opposes submission 1587/3 Destination Orewa Beach (Orewa Bus Assoc)

1587/5 Building and development incentives: The rules and objectives need to be modified to provide the type of density envisaged in planning strategies stemming from the LGAAA. We are also concerned that building incentives are not recognised as a way of achieving better planning outcomes. Assessment criteria should be tightened to ensure all new developments meet stringent urban design, architecture and public amenity standards. We also have an opportunity to embrace environmentally sustainable building practices through building or site coverage incentives and this has not happened.

Herbert F & Joy Henley 1577/5 Continue to be vigilant and mindful of the environment in all development in Orewa. To include provision for environmental concerns regarding the total area in all planning processes as a matter of course.

Jennifer H Kipfer 1532/5 Continue to be vigilant and mindful of environment in all development in Orewa. Include provision for environmental concerns regarding total area in all planning processes as a matter of course.

Kensington Properties Ltd 1451/1 Amend Rule 8.10.1.3 in its entirety to address the content of this submission as applicable.

Carol Adams FS1638/17 Opposes submission 1451/1 Danny Adams FS1639/19 Opposes submission 1451/1 T J Anderson FS1263/23 Opposes submission 1451/1 Adam Boot FS1636/11 Opposes submission 1451/1 Christina Boot FS1239/11 Opposes submission 1451/1 Ingrid Boot FS1314/18 Opposes submission 1451/1 Louise Boot FS1637/17 Opposes submission 1451/1 Carol Burton FS1635/2 Opposes submission 1451/1 I H Burton FS1634/8 Opposes submission 1451/1 Mrs G Burton FS1633/7 Opposes submission 1451/1 John Colligan FS1640/23 Opposes submission 1451/1 Mr R Cooper FS1322/21 Opposes submission 1451/1 Sandra Cooper FS1526/20 Opposes submission 1451/1 John Drury FS1500/26 Opposes submission 1451/1 Mr Martin William Emery FS1512/32 Opposes submission 1451/1 Mrs Jeanne P Emery FS1486/20 Opposes submission 1451/1 Mrs Maria Patricia Garrett FS1305/9 Opposes submission 1451/1 Desmond H Griffin FS1436/28 Opposes submission 1451/1 Robert Griffin FS1651/13 Opposes submission 1451/1 Nola & Reginald Hardy FS1111/2 Opposes submission 1451/1 Gary Hawkins FS1058/22 Opposes submission 1451/1 Ray Howard FS1307/25 Opposes submission 1451/1 Raywyn L Howard FS1306/26 Opposes submission 1451/1 Orewa Ratepayers & Residents FS1499/6 Opposes submission 1451/1

Association (Inc) Frank Stanton FS1407/24 Opposes submission 1451/1 Maggie Stanton FS1372/24 Opposes submission 1451/1 Kate Templeton FS1650/9 Opposes submission 1451/1 Mr T O & Mrs K Templeton FS1304/10 Opposes submission 1451/1 The Reaction Trust FS1408/25 Opposes submission 1451/1 Eleanor Wenman FS1315/22 Opposes submission 1451/1 Brian Wonnacott FS1642/5 Opposes submission 1451/1 Paula Wonnacott FS1641/9 Opposes submission 1451/1 C J Zwart FS1630/18 Opposes submission 1451/1 L W Zwart FS1631/22 Opposes submission 1451/1 Destination Orewa Beach (Orewa Bus Assoc)

1587/4 Building Heights: To ensure that the forecast total population of the structure area is accommodated and that the process is seen as a fair and just process; we recommend an independent economic build assessment be conducted for the various stated zones by Council to ensure that this structure plan and variation can deliver what the community wants......

Auckland Regional Council FS1536/30 Support in parts submission 1587/4

Herbert F & Joy Henley 1577/8 While being mindful of overall effects, to treat each application as an entity, and not allow dispensations according to the possible minimalist approach of a neighbour or neighbours.

McDonalds Restaurants (NZ) Ltd

1423/10 Any other relief that will give effect to the submission

McDonalds Restaurants (NZ) Ltd

1423/11 Any consequential amendments

Rodney Economic Development Trust

1585/33 Item 52 - The highest part of a building means the highest part of the building and parapets, but excluding........ Comment: Support rule subject to technical data confirming maximum diameter calculation for Broadband connection aerials.

D H & J M Adams 1480/1 Support, but we need: *Extensive landscaping to kick start the re-greening of Orewa. * Radically reduced on-ground building coverage. *Encourage cycling and walking. * Superior urban design and architecture. * Solar hot water and green rated buildings.

27.2 Jennifer Blyth (1576/5), Cornerstone Group Ltd (1533/10), Cornerstone Group Ltd

(1533/11), T J Anderson (FS1263/21), Mrs Jeanne P Emery (FS1486/11), Desmond H Griffin (FS1436/27), Mr T O & Mrs K Templeton (FS1304/15), The Reaction Trust (FS1408/21), Destination Orewa Beach (Orewa Bus Assoc) (1587/3), Auckland Regional Council (FS1536/34), Destination Orewa Beach (Orewa Bus Assoc) (1587/5), Herbert F & Joy Henley (1577/5), Jennifer H Kipfer (1532/5), Kensington Properties Ltd (1451/1), Carol Adams (FS1638/17), Danny Adams (FS1639/19, T J Anderson (FS1263/23), Adam Boot (FS1636/11), Christina Boot (FS1239/11), Ingrid Boot (FS1314/18), Louise Boot (FS1637/17), Carol Burton (FS1635/2), I H Burton (FS1634/8), Mrs G Burton (FS1633/7), John Colligan (FS1640/23), Mr R Cooper (FS1322/21), Sandra Cooper (FS1526/20), John Drury (FS1500/26), Mr Martin William Emery (FS1512/32), Mrs Jeanne P Emery (FS1486/20), Mrs Maria Patricia Garrett (FS1305/9), Desmond H Griffin (FS1436/28),

Robert Griffin (FS1651/13), Nola & Reginald Hardy (FS1111/2), Gary Hawkins (FS1058/22), Ray Howard (FS1307/25), Raywyn L Howard (FS1306/26), Orewa Ratepayers & Residents Association (Inc) (FS1499/6), Frank Stanton (FS1407/24), Maggie Stanton (FS1372/24), Kate Templeton (FS1650/9), Mr T O & Mrs K Templeton (FS1304/10), The Reaction Trust (FS1408/25), Eleanor Wenman (FS1315/22), Brian Wonnacott (FS1642/5), Paula Wonnacott (FS1641/9), C J Zwart (FS1630/18), L W Zwart (FS1631/22), Destination Orewa Beach (Orewa Bus Assoc) (1587/4), Auckland Regional Council (FS1536/30), Herbert F & Joy Henley (1577/8), McDonalds Restaurants (NZ) Ltd (1423/10), McDonalds Restaurants (NZ) Ltd (1423/11), Rodney Economic Development Trust (1585/33), D H & J M Adams (1480/1).

27.2.1 Decision

(i) That submissions (1576/5), (1533/10), (1533/11), (FS1263/21), (1587/3), (1587/5), (1577/5), (1532/5), (1451/1), (1587/4), (FS1536/30), (1577/8), (1423/10), (1423/11), (1585/33) and (1480/1) be rejected.

(ii) That submissions (FS1486/11), (FS1436/27), (FS1304/15), (FS1408/21),

(FS1536/34), (FS1638/17), (FS1639/19), (FS1263/23), (FS1636/11), (FS1239/11), (FS1314/18), (FS1637/17), (FS1635/2), (FS1634/8), (FS1633/7), (FS1640/23), (FS1322/21), (FS1526/20), (FS1500/26), (FS1512/32), (FS1486/20), (FS1305/9), (FS1436/28), (FS1651/13), (FS1111/2), (FS1058/22), (FS1307/25), (FS1306/26), (FS1499/6), (FS1407/24), (FS1372/24), (FS1650/9), (FS1304/10), (FS1408/25), (FS1315/22), (FS1642/5), (FS1641/9), (FS1630/18) and (FS1631/22) be accepted.

27.2.2 Reasons for Decision

These submissions are general submissions that largely request very general changes that have not been well defined or are consequential changes from more detailed parts of submissions.

The Commissioners consider that no further changes are required as a result of these submissions.

27.2.3 Amendments to the Proposed Variation

No amendments resulting from this decision.