#1188187

1

Fact Sheet: Summary of Discussion Document Submissions Number of Submissions: 45 28 Individuals:Alan Gray Botha, Paul Branch, Melaney Dale Hartle Dellow, Anna Diane Strugnell Dianne Boyack Francesse Middleton

Fraser Press Frederikson, L Gwynn, Kevin Handley, Alison Joanne Cross Knox, Stephen Lucas, Ron Manning, Andrew

Nation, Ted Patterson, Julie Patterson, Robin Petro, Ben Phillip Reidy Piper, Ross Roberts, Trevor Russell Morrison

Sarniak-Thomson, A & M Stanley, Christine Steve Smile Stevens, Ron and Julia Whittle, Anton

11 ‘Public’ Organisations: Department of Conservation Department of Corrections Greater Wellington Regional Council Ministry of Education

New Zealand Defence force New Zealand Fire Service New Zealand Police New Zealand Transport Agency

Powerco Transpower New Zealand Limited Wellington Electricity Lines Limited

5 Private Organisations: BP Connect Mana (Spencer Holmes) BRANZ Oil Companies - Z Energy - BP - Mobil

Pauatahanui Residents Association Shoreline Partners

Number of submission points: 491 Topics of Submissions: 50 Identified issues 43 Rules 33 Subdivision 32 Identified ways of managing issues 27 Activity 27 Plan approach 22 Zone boundary 19 Provisions 16 Network utilities 15 Transport 12 Urban design 12 Intensification 11 Zones 11 Development 10 Ecosites 9 Access 8 Stormwater 9 Riparian 7 Parking 6 Water 6 Partnership 5 Sediment 5 Privates ecosites

5 Assistance 4 Setbacks 4 Records 4 Home based businesses 4 Growth 3 Whitby 3 Revitalisation 3 Reverse sensitivity 3 Rates 3 Plantation forestry 3 Incentives 3 Housing 3 Ecological linkages 3 Definitions 3 Character 3 BRANZ 2 Values 2 Public access 2 PCC Processes 2 Landscape 2 Hazards 2 Hazardous substances 2 Harbour 2 Consultation

2 Bylaw 2 Amenity 1 Village plans 1 Vegetation 1 Transmission Gully 1 Sustainability 1 Sex Businesses 1 Recognition 1 Projects 1 Plantings 1 Mapping 1 Landscape 1 Land management plan 1 Investment 1 Infrastructure 1 Information 1 Flood control 1 Flexibility 1 Finance 1 Enforcement 1 Effects 1 Certainty 1 Air discharge

Number of submissions per discussion document: 111 Rural 52 Pauatahanui 52 Significant Rural Ecosites 52 Residential 35 City Centre

32 Local Business 31 Earthworks 28 Esplanade 22 Renewable Energy 20 Industrial

11 Major Facilities 10 Signage 35 Whole of Plan

Position of Submissions: 151 Support 35 Oppose

145 Amend 124 New Matters

36 Neutral

#1188187

2

Summary of Discussion Document Submissions and Feedback

‘Whole of Plan’: (35) Points on: 5 Activity 5 Planning approach 4 Network utilities 3 Rules 2 Definitions 2 Ecosites

2 Processes 2 Provisions 2 Zones 1 Enforcement 1 Harbour 1 Hazardous substances

1 Hazards 1 Identified issues 1 Intensification 1 Records 1 Sediment

Support for:

the current framework of the operative plan;

approach of the discussion documents;

the standalone Network Utilities chapter. Concern about:

resilience of coastal features and how Pauatahanui setbacks are managed for inland migration resulting from sea level rise (DOC).

Opposition to:

the woeful and damaging delays of the review being six years overdue; and

high degree of flexibility with regard to development and change (seeking greater certainty). Submissions seek:

rain gardens in city centre, industrial and LBZ zones for treating stormwater;

recognition of the special values/sensitivities of coastal areas within catchment zones (DOC);

recognition of the important functions of community correction facilities in objectives, policies and rules;

exemption from general earthworks provisions for removal and replacement of Underground Petroleum Storage Systems (UPSS), (where controlled by NES);

inclusion of emergency overhead line corridor provisions;

consideration of controls in regard to flood hazards;

new/amended definitions of Temporary Military Training Activities (TMTA) and overall ‘education facility’;

identification of the coastal environment (giving effect to Part 2, NZCPS and RPS matters);

4m width and 4m height access clearance to dwellings for fire appliances;

inclusion of 'Note to Plan Users' regarding Soil Contaminants;

inclusion of all significant ecosites according to s6(c) of RMA and RPS policies 23 and 24 (not just rural zone);

recognition of the Council’s responsibility of with respect to non-significant sites under s 31(1)(b)(iii) of RMA to maintain indigenous diversity;

property owners be able to anonymously report neighbours who break rules;

removal of generic hazardous facility screening facilities procedure from all zones (addressed under HSNO);

all zones maintain the buffer corridor provisions included in Plan Change 16 (Policies 10 and 11 of NPSET);

that PC16 rules (or similar) be included in new zone provisions;

policy that allows for balancing competing needs for protecting natural environments and enabling infrastructure that must traverse high value natural environments;

further consultation sought by the Ministry of Education on how education facilities are provided for (including early childhood facilities); reverse sensitivity; changes that affect school network capacity; and how changes might affect land divestment and acquisition.

#1188187

3

permitted status for: o TMTA across all zones and overlays, without restriction; o community correction facilities; and o fire stations for all zones with performance standards.

Additional feedback from Community Workshops: Need for a vision and strategy for the Plan

Seeks a clearer vision and strategy of what the District Plan wants to achieve so that growth is more strategic around growth nodes, including a greenbelt and a ring fencing urban areas;

With additional growth happening, seeks demonstration of where all money is going from increased rates and taking of financial contributions;

Supports a friendly, business inviting environment; seeks this throughout Council;

Seeks financial incentives for businesses, such as those in Hutt City (i.e. rates relief, waiver of Consent Fees and waiver/reduction of development levies); and

Seeks that the review be placed in the wider/strategic context of what is sought for the City; Particular aspects

Seeks the avoidance of uniform development (such as in Aotea) in future growth areas;

Concern with ability to trust the new plan, given issues with the supermarket on Whitford Brown Avenue, the loss of the campground and the unhappiness of Papakowhai residents;

Seeks provisions for a new camping group in Porirua replacing Aotea Camping Ground;

Concern about the interface between the District Plan and Bylaws, and Bylaw interpretation and administration. Seeks a better interface;

Concern about the needs of disabled being reflected throughout the Plan and the review;

Seeks consideration of the Hospital Site in the review;

Concern about the DP review process, seeks consideration of: o conflict between sections currently in place and proposed changes; o how existing provisions may need to be tweaked to reflect other changes etc.

Seeks assurance that the Council has looked at the trade-off between flexibility and certainty;

Concern about too much flexibility in the District Plan;

Concern that some areas are no longer fit for purpose; e.g. growth in Whitby has meant that the commercial centre is no longer adequate to service the community; another example is the walkway network;

Does not want too much freedom (seeks some Urban Design Parameters); and

Question whether there will be incentives for good design and who would judge what good design is.

Rural Zone: (111)

Points on: 25 Subdivision 12 Identified issues 9 Zone boundary 7 Identified ways of managing issues 6 Network utilities 5 Rules 4 Activity 4 Development 3 Access

3 Home based businesses 3 Plantation forestry 3 Riparian 3 Transport 3 Planning approach 2 Landscape 2 Values 2 Water 2 Rates 2 Provisions

1 Harbour 1 Investment 1 Plantings 1 Transmission Gully 1 Zones 1 Recognition 1 Public access 1 Character

Support for:

identified issues;

the retention of rural character;

#1188187

4

zoning Paekakariki Hill Road up to Battle Hill as rural residential;

providing for home based occupation provisions;

new planning strategy in general;

rural lifestyle/residential zone;

permissive planning system;

increased riparian connectivity;

suggested provisions; and

greater certainty for rural activities.

Concern about:

reverse sensitivity affecting rural lifestyle;

incentives to retire erosion prone land;

various network utilities issues; and

lack of mention of plantation forestry.

Opposition to:

relaxing noise standards with reduced lot sizes;

plantation forestry to include waterbody setbacks;

relaxing contractor depot rules;

enhancing public access to waterways;

Council taking reserves; and

identified ways of managing issues. Submissions seek:

provisions to manage activities within coastal environment and effects on natural character;

consideration of non-regulatory approaches to achieving environmental outcomes;

greater freedom to use one’s land;

subdivision rules to be based of effects (not lot sizes);

greater Council investment in rural zone;

ongoing flexible planning approach;

plantation forestry earthworks be controlled;

inclusion of road corridors for future residential zones;

subdivision as controlled (not discretionary); compensation of landowners for required covenant retention of 5ha lot size for hilly properties;

rates reduction for work done; and alteration of various rules. Additional feedback from Community Workshops:

Seeks improved access from local roads onto and along SH58;

Concern about subdivision long term breaking down the rural environment and reducing farm options;

Need to understand how increased intensity might result in community facilities and welfare / wellbeing benefits

Important to have environmental controls over self-containment and sewage treatment.

Empower property owners to care for properties better.

How have TGM and GWRC been involved in the options analysis?

Pauatahanui Zone: (52)

Points on: 6 Identified ways of managing issues 6 Subdivision

5 Zone boundary 4 Identified Issues 4 Provisions

3 Activity 3 Zones 2 Access

#1188187

5

2 Character 2 Development 2 Planning approach 2 Water 1 Consultation

1 Growth 1 Hazards 1 Information 1 Intensification 1 Land usage

1 Riparian 1 Rules 1 Stormwater 1 Sustainability 1 Village plans

Support for:

issues identified;

retention of village character;

protecting harbour water quality from development effects;

intention to plan for future growth in village; and

concept of village business zone. Concern about:

uncontrolled noise,

light, intensity of activity, site coverage and lack of green space;

enforcement of consent conditions;

LBZ being applied to village;

Pauatahanui become a ‘Whitby East’

subdivision lot size in regard to sewage. Opposition to:

allowing subdivision below 2ha;

non-residential activities being permitted;

intensification disturbing village character;

different zones for different properties; and

making change within the village easier. Submissions seek:

retention of village character;

more consultation;

consideration of NZCPS (x4);

retention of existing rural zone with its rules making change difficult;

certainty for business operation and growth;

setback and parking rules for business activities;

reduced subdivision levies;

recognition of the village plan in the District Plan

inclusion/recognition of village plan in district plan; and

inclusion of Taylor-Stace Cottage in zone. Additional feedback from Community Workshops:

Concern that the village is struggling to deal with existing development;

An option is to leave development in village to ‘case by case’ assessment; and

Can we have some certainty around Council making people comply with conditions.

Questions: o Can the school support future growth? o What is the Council’s vision for the Village? o How will growth be managed in regard to parking, traffic, character and scale? o Are there opportunities for development around TGM link road junctions as an alternative to

village development?

#1188187

6

Residential Zone: (50)

Points on:

9 Intensification 5 Rules 4 Activity 4 Urban design 3 Identified issues 3 Parking 2 Ecosites 2 Growth

2 Identified ways of managing issues 2 Network utilities 2 Whitby 1 Access 1 Amenity 1 Development 1 Flexibility 1 Home based businesses

1 Housing 1 Planning approach 1 Provisions 1 Setbacks 1 Sex businesses 1 Stormwater 1 Subdivision 1 Transport 1 Vegetation

Support for:

intensification and LIUD.

provisions; protecting ecosites;

greater diversity of dwellings sizes;

growth and intensification where infrastructure has capacity; and

incentives to encourage greater density. Concern about:

whether retirement villages/residential care/educational facilities be allowed by right (due to traffic and character issues);

home occupation rules, activities and effects; and

parking rules.

Opposition to:

issues and proposed way of managing them;

sex businesses;

loss of character in Whitby; and

antiquated covenants restricting development. Submissions seek:

greater berms for street planting;

greater scope for flexible building styles;

affordable housing;

higher density;

intensification be enabled in any residential area, subject to adverse effects (e.g. as discretionary);

greater certainty (re alterations and character);

various rule alterations;

retention of character in older areas; and

improved provision of open/green/meeting spaces. Additional feedback from Community Workshops:

Just because someone is elderly, does not mean they want, or can afford, to move into a retirement village;

Site coverage standards of 40% and 70% do not align with Wellington City’s 35%, 42% and 50%;

Is there an actual demand for more intensive residential development?

Seeks more flexibility of yard requirements for new developments/infill;

Rest homes and assisted living facilities are residential activities, not businesses or industries;

It is very important that rest homes and IHC homes remain integrated and close to our homes;

#1188187

7

Car parks in the city and footpaths need to be suitable for wheelchair access and use, as per the Disability Strategy; and

Concern about residential infill: o quality controls; o loss of character to existing communities; and o intensification and change.

Significant Rural Ecosites: (52)

Points on:12 Identified issues 6 Partnership 5 Assistance 5 Ecosites 5 Planning approach 4 Private ecosites

4 Rules 2 Network utilities 2 Provisions 2 Records 1 Consultation

1 Identified ways of managing issues 1 Land management plan 1 Mapping 1 Reports

Support for:

the issues identified;

the proposed ways of managing;

partnership of landowners with Council;

financial assistance (5 submissions);

more effective regulation;

making rules more targeted to significant ecosites;

removing general clearance restrictions;

incentivisation of ecosite protection;

reduced uncertainty; and

a mix of regulatory and non-regulatory approaches. Concern about:

changes to vegetation clearance rules and standards; and

effects vs benefits.

Opposition to:

none received.

Submissions seek:

the scheduling of public ecosites;

greater consultation with landowners;

greater work to be done on ecosites;

updated list of ecosites;

biodiversity offset provisions;

individualisation of assistance provided;

greater emphasis on voluntary protection;

landowner agreement of ecosites;

recognition of infrastructure needs in regard to ecosites;

clarification of how the NZCPS (policy 11) is given effect to;

enforcement statistics;

restoration funds to be noted on LIM;

landowners being made aware of Council’s obligations. Additional feedback from Community Workshops:

Concern about:

#1188187

8

o future rights being possibly taken away; o changes that may incentivise clearance; o owners possibly being forced to covenant; o different views regarding pest control – rural versus lifestylers, e.g. rabbits, stoats, possums

(and pest plants) being vermin vs cute; o possible financial detriment of bush management support; and o Effect of covenanting can rocket value (i.e. rates) of remaining bare land.

Road reserves in bush to encourage careful management (e.g. pest control) by adjacent landowners;

Where does the definition come from?

Need to consider the ecological function of exotic species if in a significant area or specific listed trees;

Carbon credits should apply to all vegetation – carbon credit farms;

Council should lobby as part of tools – support; and

Support could include the ability to gift land or bush instead of financial contribution – means it stays in private ownership but protected.

Significant urban vegetation:

This should have been put out as part of the discussion documents and not deferred to a later stage;

Provisions and incentives to encourage bush retention/enhancement should extent to residential areas. Who should pay for incentive for protecting and enhancing vegetation?

Currently no tree protection in urban areas in Porirua; and

Question about the proposed changes in rural areas and whether environmental protection would be significantly different.

City Centre Zone: (35)

Points on: 5 Activity 5 Planning approach 4 Network utilities 3 Rules 2 Definitions 2 Ecosites

2 Intensification 2 Processes 2 Provisions 2 Zones 1 Enforcement 1 Harbour

1 Hazardous substances 1 Hazards 1 Identified issues 1 Records 1 Sediment

Support for:

improved urban design;

the Council’s desire for a vibrant city centre;

improved emphasis on facing the harbour.

Opposition to:

the Council’s desire for a vibrant city centre;

ratepayer’s money being used for financial encouragements or ‘extravagant’ city centre projects; and

the expansion of the CCZ boundaries (submission asks for justification), and active frontages.

Submissions seek:

enhanced amenity of stream area;

bringing city focus towards the water by encouraging cafes;

car access between Lydney Place and Serlby Place with 15 min parking;

regulations requiring green space;

ecological linkages with harbour;

relaxed parking rules;

retention of ‘Bunnings Bank’ as park area;

a bike friendly environment (with facilities);

the encouragement of other transport modes;

#1188187

9

a more pedestrian friendly CBD; and

the use of rain gardens to control stormwater effects. Additional feedback from Community Workshops:

Footpaths and access for people with disabilities walking from the Train Station to the Hospital;

Keep active street frontages;

City Centre Revitalisation o Need to look at and acknowledge the impact of Home Businesses; o How has the plans for future District Plan reflected Demographics;

Need to consider trends such as more work from Home Activities – On-line retailing;

Look maximum number of carparks for buildings or residential developments. o Efficient use of land; o Like Nelson; where communal carparks to the rear/centre of development;

Look at the Bunnings bank for residential spaces;

Care needs to be taken for commercial activities in sensitive locations;

We want a vibrant centre; but not want to back a losing horse. o Recent LGNZ new economic zones for regions; and o Changes from Transmission Gully.

Earthworks: (31)

Points on:13 Rules 4 Sediment 3 Identified ways of managing issues

2 Bylaw 2 Identified issues 2 Setbacks 1 Activity

1 Definitions 1 Provisions 1 Stormwater 1 Zones

Support for:

identified issues and suggested ways of managing issues, but disagreement that the PCC Bylaw and its earthworks rules are working well.

Concern about:

permitted activity rules;

that the PCC Bylaw and its earthworks rules are not working well;

sensitivity of the harbour and other waterbodies; and

consistency and overlap of rules with GWRC. Submissions seek:

clarification of rules and standards interface with bylaw;

an improved definition of riparian setback to include smaller streams with ecological values;

an increased limit of 200 or 250m2;

altering boundary cut rules;

relaxing of rural rules;

tightening of subdivision rules;

requiring wetland setbacks;

exemption for UPSS and electricity utility earthworks; and

change of approach (to volume based rules).

#1188187

10

Esplanade: (28)

Points on:4 Riparian 4 Identified issues 4 Identified ways of managing issues 3 Provisions 2 Planning approach

2 Rates 1 Ecological linkages 1 Ecosites 1 Finance 1 Flood Control 1 Public Access

1 Rules 1 Setbacks 1 Subdivision 1 Transport

Support for:

identified issues and suggested ways of managing issues;

proposed Esplanade Area Strategy;

reduced uncertainty;

connections between esplanade areas; and

managing significant indigenous biodiversity values. Opposition to:

access to own riparian planting strip Concern about:

more specific standards and rules;

the costs of esplanade strips to landowners and financial support;

recognition of prior investments in planting and covenants (financial included); and

regard be given to NZCPS (policies 18 and 19) when considering strategy. Additional feedback from Community Workshops:

Concern over the lack of protection of Duck Creek;

Non-regulatory methods can be too uncertain – can’t rely on them;

Seeks more certainty and a Council strategy about where reserves will be taken;

Need to factor in maintenance of reserves, especially if esplanade reserves are taken for flood management;

Council needs to ensure applying proper RMA tests to acquiring reserves; not just how much it will cost the Council to maintain if it takes them. Need to think longer term;

Need to look at all aspects of esplanade reserves such as stormwater, flooding, amenity, open space, safety, controlling access and ensuring stock access to water;

There has been too much ad hoc planning; and

Need to ensure the protection of streams and the health of the Inlet.

Local Business Zone: (28)

Points on:4 Identified Issues 4 Identified ways of managing issues 4 Zones 4 Zone boundary 3 Urban design

2 Activity 2 Development 1 Access 1 Infrastructure 1 Provisions 1 Planning approach

1 Reverse sensitivity 1 Rules 1 Stormwater 1 Transport 1 Water 1 Whitby

#1188187

11

Support for:

the zone, its identified issues and ways of managing issues;

mixed use development;

the use of Low Impact Urban Design (LIUD);

adequate recreational facilities; and

rain gardens for large car parks.

Concern about:

commercial creep;

infrastructure capacity (parking, roading and footpaths);

reverse sensitivity;

standards and definitions to manage character and effects of surroundings; and

rules (noise, lighting and hours of operation). Opposition to:

the inclusion of all of Mana Esplanade in LBZ;

LBZ being applied to Pauatahanui Village;

‘too much flexibility’ resulting in poorly planned spaces (such as Whitby shopping centre with all its issues); and

any further business activity on Mana Esplanade. Submissions seek:

extension of the Mana LBZ zone to include BP Connect; and

limiting size of LBZ in Mana to two particular areas. Additional feedback from Community Workshops:

Number of comments on the development and congestion of Mana Esplanade. o Seeks Mana Esplanade returned to 2 lanes as was always intended; o The future of Mana Esplanade needs to be carefully worked through the District Plan review

as part of the Local Business Zone changes; o Concerns about intensification in this area. The community doesn’t want more businesses.

Half the properties between Mana View Road and Acheron Road are already commercial; o There appears to be a difference the Community and Council on feel and activities in Mana

as illustrated in the Council Officers report from BP Council hearing; o Will the bridge be replaced? and o Is 2 lanes the right solution and is this “undersized” for the future of the area even with TG.

Renewable Energy: (22)

Points on:5 Rules 4 Planning approach 3 Identified issues 3 Provisions

2 Activity 2 Identified ways of managing issues 1 Development

1 Effects 1 Incentives

Support for:

identified issues and identified ways of managing issues.

Provisions that will encourage generation and generation activities. Concern about:

conveyance issues from generated power;

#1188187

12

setbacks;

protection for flora and fauna, especially birds; and

having regard to effects, not size of turbines (as technology is moving too fast).

Opposition to:

wind farms being a non-complying activity.

Industrial Zone: (20)

Points on:3 Activity 2 Housing 2 Planning approach 2 Reverse sensitivity 2 Zone boundary

1 Access 1 Air discharge 1 Hazardous substances 1 Identified issues 1 Parking

1 Rules 1 Stormwater 1 Transport 1 Water

Support for:

relaxed parking and zone rules. Concerns about:

various rules and their effects, in particular reverse sensitivity. Opposition to:

allowing residential activities within the Industrial zone. Submissions seek:

updating of provisions in regard to HSNO;

greater environmental protection in regard to stormwater, storage and discharges to streams; and

recognition of the special values/sensitivities of coastal areas within this zone. Additional feedback from Community Workshops:

Many other industrial areas within the Region are now at saturation. Likely area for new demand will be Porirua, particularly with TG opening things up more;

Existing industrial areas are unattractive. Should try to make it more of a “business park” to compete better with other areas, e.g. landscaping of frontages;

Car parking issues: o Roads being an insufficient width for carparks, e.g. Makaro Street. o Lack of on-street parking availability for staff and visitors. o While is good to reduce car parking number, you still need enough to service the site and for

businesses to operate.

Anomalies in boundary between Rural and Industrial Zone; maybe need some adjustment;

Concern if Council getting involved in discharges. Comments on Offensive Trades and Objectionable Odours and question what this means;

Question on reserve flexibility and development contributions - ability to give land instead of contributions;

Road setback should depend on the width of the road access;

Need to look at yards/boundary setbacks can actually be used;

Some residential in the Industrial area is needed, increasing safety. However, should be limited to worker accommodation; and

Support removing childcare centres from industrial areas.

#1188187

13

Major Facilities Zone: (11)

Points on: 3 Activity 3 BRANZ

2 Planning approach 1 Rules

1 Stormwater 1 Transport

Support for:

the new zone.

BRANZ prefers ‘site specific’ zones (although comfortable with ‘single uniform’ zone approach). Concern about:

infrastructure issues. Opposition to:

keeping the current approach. Additional feedback from Community Workshops:

Takapuwahia Marae should be considered for this zone.

Signage: (10) Points on:3 Rules 2 Identified issues

2 Identified ways of managing issues

2 Network utilities 1 Transport

Support for:

All submissions support/amend, none oppose. Concern about:

Signage required by other laws for safety and informational purposes

Submissions seek:

Alteration of signs that restrict foot and bike traffic flow on footpaths. Additional feedback from Community Workshops:

Concern about visual effects of commercial signs in the City Centre, and whether that is the view we want when we come over the bridge.