SUBMISSION ON

HAMILTON CITY

PROPOSED DISTRICT PLAN

FROM

FONTERRA CO-OPERATIVE GROUP LTD

28TH MARCH 2013

1

SUBMISISON BY FONTERRA CO-OPERATIVE GROUP LIMITED ON

HAMILTON CITY PROPOSED DISTRICT PLAN

INTRODUCTION

Fonterra is New Zealand's major dairy co-operative and is the world's leading

exporter of dairy products, trading in more than 100 countries. It is responsible for

more than a third of international dairy trade, comprising 25% of New Zealand's

export earnings. As a co-operative, Fonterra is owned by 10,578 shareholders

throughout the country. Its portfolio includes functional proteins, liquid and powdered

milks, cultured foods and yoghurts, butter, cheeses and specialty food-services

products. Fonterra has significant assets, the total value of which is in the order of

$15.5 billion dollars ($4 billion in the Waikato Region).

Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited was formed in 2001, and has an annual

turnover of under $20 billion. Approximately 17 billion litres of milk are collected and

processed in 27 Dairy Manufacturing Sites throughout New Zealand. The company

exports 95% of its dairy products to customers in more than 100 countries.

Dairy farming in the Waikato Region represents approximately 30.1%1 of New

Zealand’s dairy herds and 24.3% of national production, and comprises 3,423

Fonterra shareholder/farms (as well as those dairy farms supplying other dairy

processors). In the 2010/11 dairy season a total of 407,300,650 kg2 of milk solids

was produced within the Region. This had a farm gate value of approximately of

over $2.6 billion (at $6.40 average payout per kg of Milk Solids). A recent report by

the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (Dairy’s role in sustaining New

Zealand) assessed the contribution of dairying within the Waikato to regional

employment (directly related to dairying) as being 10,640 jobs3.

The dairy sector, comprising farmers and dairy processors, directly contributed

around $5.0 billion of value added (or GDP) to the New Zealand economy in 2010,

around 2.8% of the total GDP. By way of comparison, dairy GDP:

is greater than the GDP contribution of the fishing, forestry and mining sectors

combined;

1 New Zealand Dairy Statistics 2011-12, LIC/DairyNZ

2 Ibid

3 Regional Dairy Statistics: Employment and Value of Production Update to 2011/12, NZIER

2

is around 10 times as large as the GDP of the wine sector;

is about 3 times as large as the forestry and logging sector;

accounts for over a third of the GDP contribution of the entire primary sector

(dairy and meat farming and processing, horticulture, fishing, forestry,

mining);

is 40% larger than the entire utilities sector (electricity, gas and water);

is 2/3 as large as the entire construction sector; and

accounts for 15% of the total GDP of the goods producing industries.

These figures are the direct contributions only. They do not take into account the

links that the dairy sector has with the wider economy. In reality, the dairy sector also

has indirect and induced positive effects on the New Zealand economy.

Dairy farming is an efficient and high returning land use, providing both significant

regional income and a large number of jobs both directly and through support

industries. Dairy farms tend to have a higher level of staffing for a given land area

than most alternative pastoral land uses. This provides benefits in terms of creating

value to the regional economy and employment. It is also assists with the

maintenance of current populations within the large number of rural Waikato

communities where dairying is a significant land use.

Following the recent alteration of the Hamilton City boundary, key elements of the

Company’s operational and administrative functions are now the subject of the

Hamilton City Proposed District Plan. The continued operation and growth of these

facilities can be expected to provide significant economic benefits to the City and the

wider regional community.

Within the City, the company owns and operates two nationally important

manufacturing sites; the Te Rapa Dairy Factory and Canpac International. In

addition, the Company owns or has interests in a number of other properties

including the Company’s Regional Office in London Street, the Crawford Street

Freight Village, the Te Rapa Dairy Farm, storage and leased warehouse distribution

facilities at Simsey Place and Barnett Place, Duke Street and the RD1 retail outlet on

Norton Road and a number of suppliers within the rural area e.g. within the Peacocke

Structure Plan area.

3

The company provides direct employment for 1870 people in the City, (out of a total

staff of 3,761 within the Waikato Region and 16,800 worldwide). 659 of these people

work in the Central City office on London Street.

Within the wider region Fonterra has significant warehousing, and among its

subsidiary businesses also operates a network of RD1 retail stores to service the

rural community. Many other businesses either work with or benefit from the

company’s presence in the City.

In terms of regionally significant infrastructure the Te Rapa Dairy Factory includes a

significant milk supply transport depot supported by a grade separated interchange to

State Highway 1 (SH1). Conceptual proposals have been prepared for the creation

of a link to the NIMTR and the feasibility of this concept may improve with the

development of the Te Rapa Farm on the western side of SH1. The factory includes

a gas powered co-generation plant (owned and operated by Contact Energy Ltd.)

and has its own water supply from the Waikato River. Fonterra also operates the

regionally significant freight village operation at Crawford Street which has recently

been expanded to include coolstore facilities. The facility enables the transfer of

products direct to the rail network for export through the Auckland and Tauranga

ports and has enabled rail transfer to increase from 50% to 75% of gross tonnage

within the Region, with associated benefits in terms of reduced fuel use, air

emissions and traffic congestion4.

KEY SUBMISSION POINTS

The Te Rapa site is a key landholding for the Company. It comprises the Te Rapa

Dairy Manufacturing Site and surrounding farm land which together form the major

part of the Te Rapa North Strategic Industrial Node identified in both Future Proof

and the Proposed Regional Policy Statement (PRPS). Land in the vicinity of the Te

Rapa site has been the subject of an appeal to the Proposed Waikato District Plan

which has now been settled. Fonterra is pleased to note that the majority of the

provisions that were agreed through the Environment Court Consent order have

been incorporated into the Proposed Plan. Some matters have not been addressed

as the Company would like and these are the subject of individual submission points.

In addition, some submission points relate to specialised activities undertaken at the

4 (Reference: Fuel Efficiency Impacts of Fonterra’s Crawford Street Dairy Freight Hub. Report

to Waikato Regional Council September 2011)

4

site that are not adequately provided for through citywide provisions. The submission

explains where amendment is needed and the form that it should take.

Fonterra particularly welcomes the recognition and support for the further

development of the Crawford Street Freight Village as a major logistics and freight

handling facility of regional significance. The facility has a direct operational

relationship with the Company’s two manufacturing sites within the City as well as

other factories within the region. Fonterra’s submissions seek amendments that

would strengthen the planning framework and assist the management of reverse

sensitivity effects that might otherwise restrict the functioning of the facility.

Within the central city Fonterra’s submissions seek to provide more explicit

recognition of the significance of the major office activity situated at London Street.

This significance relates to both the Company’s operations and to the vitality and

viability of the central city. The Company is concerned that the notified plan has

failed to recognise the importance of retaining such a significant workforce within the

central city and the spin-off benefits that this provides to other businesses and

support activities within the central area. Fonterra’s submissions seek amendments

that will provide a more enabling framework for the retention and expansion of

existing major office activities within the central city. These amendments will provide

increased certainty to Fonterra but will also send a clear signal to other potential

investors and developers within the central city that the aim is to support the retention

and expansion of major office activities.

Fonterra notes the emphasis placed on matters relating to infrastructure provision

generally and roading in particular. Fonterra is supportive of the need to ensure the

coordination of development with infrastructure provision and has devoted significant

resources to ensure that an appropriate framework is developed that will enable

development within the Te Rapa North industrial Zone in a manner that will ensure

continued operation of the network. The work to date and the notified provisions

reflect modelling assumptions that predate the opening of the Te Rapa Bypass.

These assumptions are currently being reviewed by the New Zealand Transport

Agency (NZTA). Fonterra’s submissions to Rule 12.4.8 explain the Company’s

intention to work with NZTA and Hamilton City Council to ensure that the resultant

provisions are robust and appropriate in the context of the regional significance of the

road network and the Te Rapa Dairy Factory site and the identification of the locality

as a Strategic Industrial Node in the Proposed Regional Policy Statement. The

5

submission therefore reflects a holding position rather than proposing a specific

wording or numerical amendment.

Fonterra intends to present evidence relating to the submission points in due course

but to assist the preparation of reports and recommendations I can confirm the

availability of Fonterra representatives to discuss the matters raised in the

submissions.

Adrian Pyne

Environmental Manager North

Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd

Date: 28th March 2013

Address for service:

Ian Johnson

Environmental Management Services Ltd

PO Box 1307

Hamilton

3240

Tel: 07 838 5672

Cell Phone: 027 2814014

Email: ian.johnson@emslimited.co.nz

1

FONTERRA CO-OPERATIVE GROUP LIMITED

HAMILTON CITY PROPOSED DISTRICT PLAN

SCHEDULE OF SUBMISSION POINTS

PLAN PROVISION SUPPORT/OPPOSE REASONS RELIEF SOUGHT (providing that this would enable any similar or alternative relief and any

consequential amendments)

Entirety of the Plan Support Retain as notified subject to the specific amendments sought through this submission.

Strategic Framework Towards a sustainable city Objective 2.2.2 – using land and infrastructure most efficiently

Support Retain as notified.

Policy 2.2.1a Support in part.

Fonterra is supportive of policy direction that will promote residential intensification. However, the application of the same principle to industrial development would restrict opportunities for investment and development. Industrial activities are diverse in nature and effects and often require large sites and separation to enable the management of effects or to enable staged expansion.

Amend Policy 2.2.1a to read: “Residential development shall make use of the identified opportunities for urban intensification…”

Policy 2.2.2a Support in part.

The provisions of the current Hamilton Urban Growth Strategy and Future Proof are reflected in the Proposed Regional Policy Statement. Reference to strategies which are prepared under different legislation and which may be

Amend Policy 2.2.2a to retain reference to the Proposed Regional Policy Statement and delete the references to Future Proof and Hamilton Urban Growth Strategy.

2

subject to partial or full review outside of RMA processes is unnecessary and potentially confusing and would necessitate a Plan Change process each time that a Strategy is reviewed.

Policy 2.2.2c Support in part.

The requirement for servicing is reasonable but the reference to effects on HCC planned infrastructure is uncertain and unnecessary. The District Plan does not explain or quantify how the “efficiency and sustainability” of planned infrastructure is to be judged.

Amend Policy 2.2.2c to delete the following: “…and the servicing of this land does not compromise the efficiency and sustainability of Council’s planned infrastructure.”

Urban design approach Policy 2.2.3b

Support in part.

Objective 2.2.3 and Policy 2.2.3a refer to design requirements being “appropriate to their context”. This wording should be carried through into all design policies to ensure that design requirements are appropriate and necessary.

Amend Policy 2.2.3b to read: “Where appropriate to its context, development shall respond to Low Impact Urban Design and Development and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles”.

Policy 2.2.3c Support in part.

Objective 2.2.3 and Policy 2.2.3a refer to design requirements being appropriate to their context. This should be carried through into all design policies to ensure that design requirements are appropriate and necessary. In its current form the Policy requires all development to enhance civic, natural heritage, ecology and public open space networks.

Amend Policy 2.2.3c to read: “Where appropriate to its context, development shall enhance civic, natural heritage, ecology and surrounding public space networks”.

Business and industry Objective 2.2.5

Support. Retain as notified

Policy 2.2.5a Support. Retain as notified

Policy 2.2.5b Support. Retain as notified

Omission Oppose In context of a Strategic Framework it would be appropriate and beneficial to

Include an additional policy to read: “Policy 2.2.5c

3

include a policy stating that industrial land should not be used for non-industrial activities.

Industrial zoned land shall be safeguarded for industrial purposes.”

Resource Efficiency Policy 2.2.12b

Support in part.

Fonterra is supportive of this provision insofar as it relates to the adaptability of buildings within a commercial area such as the central city. The approach anticipates changes due to occupancy turnover or changing trends and preferences in the retailing, entertainment and office sectors. However the approach is less appropriate in the context of industrial buildings in the Industrial Zone which are often designed to accommodate specialist activities and where the purpose of the zone is to provide primarily for industrial activities. In these situations the primary consideration should be to ensure that buildings provide for the needs of their immediate intended use.

Amend Policy 2.2.12b to read: “Buildings within the central city and business centres shall be designed so they can be adapted in the future for a range of uses.”

Integrate Land use, transport and infrastructure Objective 2.2.13

Support in part.

Fonterra is supportive of the Objective insofar as it aims to ensure the integration of land use and development with the provision of infrastructure. However the objective also seeks to ensure that development is integrated with the provision of open space. On the assumption that this relates to public open space and that future users may have amenity expectations that may be incompatible with industrial activities,

Amend Objective 2.2.13 to read: “Land use and development is integrated with the provision of infrastructure (including transport, Three Waters and, where appropriate, open space).

4

the requirement requires qualification to ensure that the provision of open space is appropriate to the proposed activity.

Policy 2.2.13a Oppose. The District Plan does not specifically define infrastructure but Objective 2.2.13 indicates that it includes transportation, Three Waters services and open space. In relation to these the Plan does not describe or explain the matters that will be taken into account in assessing how a proposal will affect their efficient and effective operation and use. Similarly there is no definition of the term “planned” to provide certainty on the circumstances in which it will be applied.

Delete Policy 2.2.13a; or Amend to describe the matters that will determine the “efficient and effective operation and use of existing infrastructure”; And: Amend to provide a definition or explanation of how the term “planned” infrastructure will be applied.

Policy 2.2.13c Support in part.

While the requirement to connect with existing development is appropriate in relation to residential or commercial activity it would be inappropriate to require connection in the case of industrial activities that may require separation for safety, security or operational reasons. In the context of the objective the focus would be better placed on the connection of infrastructure and open space networks.

Amend Policy 2.2.13c to read: “New infrastructure and open space networks shall, where practicable, connect well with existing infrastructure and networks.”

Structure Plans - Purpose 3.1g

Oppose.

This section requires amendment to recognise that future structure plans or similar approaches could be promoted through a resource consent process.

Amend Section 3.1g to read: “Currently prepared Structure Plans are incorporated into the District Plan. Future Structure Plans, Concept Development Plans, or other equivalent methods for establishing a

5

strategic planning framework for an area, should also be incorporated into the District Plan, either through a variation or plan change or may be promoted through a resource consent process.”

3.2 Principles Support in part.

To ensure consistency with the amendment sought to 3.1g, additional reference should be made to alternative methods.

Amend Section 3.2 to read: “To provide consistency across the City, Structure Plans (or other appropriate strategic planning methods) should adopt the following principles where appropriate:”

3.3.2a Support in part.

The requirement for servicing is reasonable but the reference to HCC “planned” infrastructure is uncertain and unnecessary. The District Plan does not explain or quantify how the “efficiency and sustainability” of infrastructure is to be judged.

Amend Policy 3.3.2a to delete the following wording: “…and the servicing of this land does not compromise the efficiency and sustainability of Council’s planned infrastructure.”

Structure Plans Policy 3.3.5b

Support in part.

While the policy refers to the need to avoid reverse sensitivity effects on and from regionally significant infrastructure it does not refer to reverse sensitivity effects on regionally significant industry such as the Te Rapa Dairy Factory and the Crawford Street Freight Village. Amendment is necessary to ensure consistency with Objectives 9.2.4 and 12.2.5.

Amend Policy 3.3.5b to read: “Sensitive land uses shall avoid effects on and from regionally significant infrastructure and regionally significant industry.”

Section 3.7f) Ruakura Support in part.

Section f) includes Table 6-2 from the WPRPS setting out the industrial land allocations for the Future Proof Area. This Table is the subject of a number of appeals which affect its content and status. It would assist understanding and implementation of the District Plan if this

Amend Section 3.7f) to include a footnote to the Table stating: “Table 3.7f) is an extract from the Waikato Proposed Regional Policy Statement. The provisions of the Table are the subject of appeals.”

6

was recorded in a footnote to the Table.

Section 7 Central City Zone 7.1.2 Precinct 2 – City Living Precinct

Support in part.

Fonterra is supportive of initiatives to revitalise the central city. The Company’s Regional Office and car parking facilities are situated in Precinct 2 which is intended to be developed as a mixed use residential area supporting small scale office and commercial activities. The proposals as written fail to acknowledge the significance of the existing office activities and its relationship to the Downtown area of the city. The reduction, loss or relocation of employment activity away from this site would have a significant adverse effect on the vitality and viability of the central city. Additional provisions including Objectives, Policy and Explanatory Text are necessary. These additional provisions will ensure that the Plan appropriately recognises and provides for the retention and expansion of the existing activity rather than indicating a preference for the scaling down of activities through redevelopment.

Amend Section 7.1.2 to include additional sections to read: “7.1.2a) iii) The Precinct includes a small number of major office developments and associated car parking areas, including the Regional Office of the Fonterra Co-operative Group. Such activities and their associated requirements for supporting services, suppliers and transport provide a major anchor within the Central City. In particular, the intensity and level of employment is beneficial in supporting retail and commercial activities in the adjacent Downtown Precinct.” b) The Precinct has significant potential for comprehensive development, including the expansion of existing major office activities such the Fonterra Co-operative Group’s Regional Office. The concentration of employment within these major office developments will provide stimulus and support for the establishment of other activities within the Precinct, including residential activity. The main focus will be to secure the retention of existing major office developments and diversify the mix of activities within the surrounding precinct by enabling additional office and commercial activities. Development within this Precinct shall be guided by provisions which optimise the further development of established major office users and enable additional mixed use and multi-level development, including residential activity. It is likely that opportunities for comprehensive

7

development within the Precinct will occur on the larger amalgamated sites.

Objective 7.2 Support in part.

Amend Objective 7.2 to delete reference to “small scale” offices.

Policies 7.2.7a – 7.2.7h Omission.

Amend to include an additional policy to read: “Policy 7.2.7i) The retention and expansion of existing major office activities and associated land use”.

Explanation to Objective 7.2.7

Support in part.

Amend the Explanatory text to read: “Based around the retention of existing major office activities such as the Fonterra Regional Office, the City Living Precinct is an area with the greatest potential for transformation….”

7.3 Rules-Activity Status Support in part.

Rule 7.3 includes provisions which significantly reduce and restrict the opportunity for continued development of the Fonterra Regional Office on London Street and its associated car parking areas on Harwood Street. The Rule introduces requirements for resource consent for any new building or alteration including new car parking buildings or additional office space greater than 500m2. In the context of the amendments sought to the Objectives and Policies relating to the City Living Precinct these requirements are inappropriate and counter-productive.

Amend Rule 7.3 to provide for the following activities as permitted activities on Lot 1 DPS 45711 and Lots 1 and 2 DPS 40749 (80 London Street): a) new buildings; b) alterations and additions; n) offices greater than 500m2 gross floor area. And to provide for the following activities to be permitted activities on Lots 17 and 18 DP 25441 (9-11 Harwood Street): cc) Parking buildings within the Parking Building Overlay; ee) Parking lots >6 months duration) ff) Parking lots <6 months duration.

8

Site coverage Rule 7.4.1

Support in part.

In the context of the amendments sought in relation to the Objectives and Policies, the Rule unnecessarily reduces the development entitlement within the Operative District Plan. The reduction is unjustified and will significantly reduce and restrict opportunities for the retention and expansion of the Regional Office facility.

Amend Rule 7.4.1 to provide an exemption relating to Lot 1 DPS 45711 and Lots 1 and 2 DPS 40749 (80 London Street) and provide for the ability to develop to 100% site coverage.

Building Intensity Rule 7.4.2

Support in part. In the context of the amendments sought in relation to the Objectives and Policies, the Rule unnecessarily reduces the development entitlement within the Operative District Plan. The reduction is unjustified and will significantly reduce and restrict opportunities for the retention and expansion of the Regional Office facility.

Amend Rule 7.4.2 to provide for a floor area ratio of 4:1 in relation to Lot 1 DPS 45711 and Lots 1 and 2 DPS 40749 (80 London Street).

Permeable surfaces Rule 7.4.3

Support in part.

In the context of the amendments sought in relation to the Objectives and Policies, the Rule unnecessarily reduces the development entitlement within the Operative District Plan. The reduction is unjustified and will significantly reduce and restrict opportunities for the retention and expansion of the Regional Office facility.

Amend Rule 7.4.3 to provide for an exemption relating to Lot 1 DPS 45711 and Lots 1 and 2 DPS 40749 (80 London Street).

Building setbacks Rule 7.4.8

Support. Retain as notified

Car parking Rule 7.4.9a)

Support in part.

The Rule is unworkable in relation to proposals for car parking buildings and parking lots.

Amend Rule 7.4.9a to read: “Except in relation to proposals for car parking lots and car parking buildings, no part of the front of a site (i.e. that part of a site adjoining a

9

road and located in front of the building line) shall be used for car parking…”

Restricted Discretionary Activities: Matters of discretion and assessment criteria Rule 7.6

Oppose.

Fonterra is seeking amendments to the Objectives, Policies and Rules to ensure that the Plan provides an enabling framework for the retention and expansion of the Company’s Regional Office activities at 80 London Street. In the event that this primary relief is not provided, further amendment of the assessment criteria will be necessary to ensure that the focus of concern is on matters that are of significance to the wider Precinct.

Insofar as the Plan relates to 80 London Street, amend Rule 7.3 and Rule 7.6 i) to relate only to the streetscape exterior of buildings and subject solely to relevant criteria listed in A2, A3, A4 and Z1-Z9. And: Identify such proposals by an asterisk as being activities that will be considered without notification or the need to obtain approval from affected persons, pursuant to Rule 7.7.

Industrial Zone Objective 9.2.1 and supporting policies 9.2.1a-c

Support.

Retain as notified.

Objective 9.2.2 and Policy 9.2.2a

Oppose.

The Crawford Street Freight Village is a regionally significant industrial activity characterised by large buildings associated with the NIMTR corridor, extensive open storage yards, container stacking and significant heavy vehicle movements. A significant proportion of the facility is the subject of a designation. The Objective and Policy establish a framework which could profoundly affect the efficient functioning of the facility. The plan provisions relating to the Freight Village restrict opportunities for the introduction of sensitive activities in proximity to the facility. The Plan

Amend Objective 9.2.2 to read: “Except in relation to the Crawford Street Freight Village, the amenity levels of industrial areas are to be enhanced.” Amend Policy 9.2.2a to read: “Except in relation to the Crawford Street Freight Village, amenity levels within the Industrial Zone shall be improved with the use of landscaping and screening, restrictions on site layout, enhanced design of buildings, ensuring orientation of buildings towards the site frontage, and enhanced urban design outcomes.”

10

therefore clearly recognises that lower standards of amenity are to be expected. The priority within this part of the Industrial Zone should be to ensure the efficient functioning of the facility to ensure that the economic benefits to the Region can be optimised.

Objective 9.2.4 and Policies 9.2.4a) and b) and Planning Maps 25B and 34B

Support Retain as notified

9.3 Rules – Activity status Oppose.

In the context of the amendments sought in relation to the Crawford Street Freight Village, further amendment is required to the activity status of activities within the defined area of the Freight Village to ensure that key activities are able to be undertaken as permitted activities. The priority within this part of the Industrial Zone should be to ensure the efficient functioning of the facility to ensure that the economic benefits to the Region can be optimised.

Amend Rule 9.3 u), v) and ff) to include the following: “Except within the Crawford Street Freight Village…”.

Building Height Rule 9.4.2 b) and c)

Support. Retain as notified

Site layout Rule 9.4.6

Oppose.

The provisions do not reflect the existing layout of the facility, the configuration of buildings, the operational requirements of logistics handling or the fact that a major part of the facility is the subject of designation F1.

Amend Rule 9.4.6 to: Provide an exemption from a) and b) in respect of the Crawford Street freight village and the deletion of c).

Te Rapa North Industrial Zone 12.1 - Purpose

Support in part.

The entirety of the area has previously been identified for industrial use, including through an Environment Court

Amend Section 12.1 to delete the term “limited”; and amend the last sentence of the paragraph to read:

11

consent order. Consequently, the reference to “limited” is inappropriate and unnecessary, as is the statement regarding the effects of additional development on infrastructure.

“Permitting industrial development outside of these stages, other than on the Dairy Factory site, could increase the costs to the community of infrastructure provision if they are to rely on Council services.”

Te Rapa North Industrial Zone Objective 12.2.1 and Policies 12.2.1a)-c)

Support Retain as notified

Objective 12.2.2 and Policy 12.2.2a

Oppose.

The provisions do not reflect the high standard of amenity within the existing dairy factory site which is the only existing industrial activity in the Zone.

Delete Objective 12.2.2 and Policy 12.2.2a.

Objective 12.2.3 and Policies 12.2.3a)-12.2.3g)

Support. Retain as notified

Objective 12.2.4 and Policies 12.2.4a -12.2.4c

Support. Retain as notified

Objective 12.2.5 and policies 12.2.5a-12.2.5c

Support in part.

Amendment is necessary to ensure that the policy framework provides adequate recognition and protection for major infrastructure that is directly associated with the Te Rapa Dairy factory, some of which (e.g. the gas pipeline) extends beyond the Dairy Factory site.

Amend Policy 12.2.5a to read: “The Te Rapa Dairy Factory site and its supporting infrastructure should be recognised for the important benefits it contributes to the community and dairy industrial base for the Waikato.”

Omission Oppose The Planning Maps specifically identify the Te Rapa Dairy Factory as a Heavy Industrial Area although there are no related plan provisions. An additional policy should be included that recognises the specific nature of activities and built form at this site, to provide context for bulk and location standards and the consideration of proposals in the vicinity.

Include an additional Policy 12.2.5d to read: “As a Heavy Industrial Area the Dairy Factory site is the subject of specific bulk and location requirements that enable high buildings and structures, high noise emissions and significant heavy vehicle movements.”

12

Rules – Activity Status Table 12.3

Oppose.

While clause w) of Rule 12.3 provides for appropriate permitted activities at the Te Rapa Dairy Factory site subject to compliance with standards and “not impacting on City infrastructure (Transportation and Three Waters)”, there is no corresponding standard that defines the scope of this standard or provides thresholds or nature of impact. Clause x) states that a failure to comply with any standard, or a requirement to draw on Three Waters infrastructure will require a discretionary resource consent. Clause y) provides permitted activity status for activities that are also permitted in the Industrial Zone provided that they comply with standards and also do not impact on “City Infrastructure”. Consequently, a proposal that may involve increased traffic movements would be classed as a non-complying activity through clause z). The Rule therefore has the potential to significantly constrain opportunities for further development of the site. Such an outcome would clearly be in conflict with Objective 12.2.5 and its supporting policies and does not recognise the significance of the factory to the Regional economy.

Amend to delete Rule 12.3w) clause ii.: “Not impacting on City infrastructure (Transportation and Three Waters)”; and Amend Rule 12.3 clause x) to read: “Collection, storage and processing of raw milk; manufacture of dairy products from the processed raw milk; and associated dairy activities located at the Te Rapa Dairy Factory that do not comply with Rule 12.4 and will draw on the City’s Three Waters Infrastructure.” Amend the classification of activities under Rule 12.3 clause x) to restricted discretionary. Amend Rule 12.3 clause y) to delete: “ Not impacting on City Infrastructure”.

13

Building setbacks 12.4.1v

Support in part.

The Rule refers to Waikato Expressway Designations E90 and E90a, neither of which apply to the Te Rapa North Industrial Zone. The Zone is adjoined by Designation E99 which relates to the Te Rapa Bypass. Specific setback requirements have been developed for this Zone and are the subject of a recent Environment Court Consent Order. Rule 12.4.1v.i does not form part of the Consent Order and is superfluous as the activities to which it relates would be discretionary activities within the Zone in any event.

Amend Rule 14.4.1v to; Replace reference to Designation E90 and E90a with “Designation E99a”; and Delete standard 12.4.1v.i.

Site Layout 12.4.6 a)and b)

Oppose.

In relation to the Dairy Factory and Stage 1A area the provisions serve no clear purpose and will adversely affect the efficient layout and operation of dairy manufacturing and dairy related industry.

Amend Rule 12.4.6a) and b) to include the following: “Except in relation to the Te Rapa Dairy Factory Site and development within the Stage 1A area…”

Transportation 12.4.8 Support in part.

While Fonterra recognises the need to ensure appropriate management of traffic effects within the Zone, the notified provisions relate to network modelling which predates the opening of the Te Rapa Bypass. The modelling is currently being revised and updated to also address anomalies within the modelling assumptions. The review could potentially affect provisions a) i. , b) and e) which relate to use of the existing grade separated interchange on

Amend Rule 12.4.8 to ensure that controls relating to the use of the grade separated interchange on Te Rapa Road are appropriate in the context of the regional significance of the Te Rapa Dairy factory and are informed by the outcome of modelling work that is currently underway.

14

Te Rapa Road. As this interchange provides access to the Te Rapa Dairy Factory it is critical that the plan provisions are accurate and appropriate. Fonterra is supportive of the review process and is currently working with NZTA and HCC to ensure that the findings can be reflected in amendments to the Plan.

Transportation 12.4.8

Support in part.

Notwithstanding the amendments sought in relation to specific controls, further amendment is also necessary to provide for the classification of activities that fail to meet the standards as restricted discretionary activities rather than requiring a full discretionary resource consent. The issues raised through non-compliance with the standards relate solely to traffic effects and these are capable of being considered on a restricted basis.

Amend the footnote to Rule 12.4.8 to refer to proposals which do not meet the standard being classed as a “restricted discretionary activity”.

Restricted Discretionary Activities: Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria Rule 12.7

Oppose.

There are no identified restricted discretionary activities within the Zone. Therefore the only reference in the table should be to assessment criteria that would apply where an activity does not comply with a relevant standard. In relation to criteria that would apply in the event of non-compliance with a standard, the Table refers to criterion B1. This relates to design guides for the city centre and residential areas. The appropriate reference should be to

Amend Rule 12.7 to: Delete Activities i-v; and Amend Activity vi to cross reference assessment criteria B3 rather than B1 .

15

criterion B3.

Provisions in other chapters Rule 12.4.9

Oppose.

This section provides a cross reference to other chapters of the plan which would apply “where relevant”. It is unclear how “relevance” will be determined. It creates uncertainty regarding whether buildings within the Te Rapa North Industrial Zone will be subject to requirements for resource consents regarding buildings, alterations and additions and whether the City wide provisions in chapter 25 will apply. These include a wide range of controls including transportation which is the subject of specific standards within Rule 12.4.8.

Amend Chapter 12 to incorporate or specifically identify all relevant plan provisions, ensuring that the policy framework that will apply within the Zone is that set out in Chapter 12 (as proposed to be amended through this submission), and that the specific provisions of Rule 9.3u) and v) and ff) will not apply within the Te Rapa North Industrial Zone.

Subdivision Table 23.3a

Oppose.

In the context of the Objectives and Policies which guide subdivision there is no reason why fee simple, company and unit title subdivision could not be classed as a controlled activity within the Crawford Street Freight Village.

Amend Table 23.3a to classify fee simple, cross lease, company lease and unit title subdivision as controlled activities within the Crawford Street Freight Village.

Table 23.3b Oppose.

In the context of the Objectives and Policies which guide subdivision there is no justification for the classification of subdivision in the Te Rapa North Industrial Zone, including the Dairy Factory as a restricted discretionary activity. The provisions do not reflect those that were recently settled through an Environment Court consent order, or the existing operative plan provisions relating to the dairy factory.

Amend Table 23.3b to classify fee simple, cross lease, company lease and unit title subdivision as controlled activities within Stage 1A of the Te Rapa North Industrial Zone after a Concept Development Plan, and in relation to the Te Rapa Dairy Factory.

16

City Wide Development suitability Policy 25.1.2.1c

Support in part.

The requirement for servicing is reasonable but the reference to effects on HCC planned infrastructure is uncertain and unnecessary. The District Plan does not explain or quantify how the “efficiency and sustainability” of planned infrastructure is to be judged.

Amend Policy 25.1.2.1c to delete the following: “…and the servicing of this land does not compromise the safety, efficiency and sustainability of Council’s planned infrastructure.”

Policy 25.1.2.2a Support in part.

Clauses i) and ii) of the policy establish a no-effects approach in relation to water and an uncertain threshold in relation to infrastructure. A no-effects approach is inappropriate in terms of the Act. The Policy provides no guidance on the use of the term ”minimise”.

Amend Policy 25.1.2.2a to read: ii. Where practicable, avoid any adverse effects on water quality and quantity, and iii. Avoid or mitigate adverse effects on significant infrastructure.”

Earthworks and vegetation removal Rule 25.2.5.1

Oppose.

The Rule states that resource consent may be required for earthworks activities associated with activities that are otherwise classed as permitted activities in the Plan. The requirement would introduce significant additional resource consent requirements within the Te Rapa North Industrial Zone wherein specific Zone provisions have been developed to address environmental effects.

Amend Rule 25.2.5.1 to clarify that such provisions will only apply: i. where the earthworks do not relate to an activity that is classed as a permitted activity in the Plan or is otherwise authorised by a resource consent; or ii. is within a Natural Hazard Overlay area.

Hazardous facilities Objective 25.4.2.1 and policies 25.4.2.1a-f

Omission.

Although Policy 25.4.2.1f seeks to recognise the positive effects of hazardous facilities it does not go far enough in recognising that hazardous substances are a key element of dairy manufacturing and processing. The focus is on facilities rather than substances. Additional policy guidance is necessary to ensure that this aspect of

Amend to include an additional policy to read: “Policy 25.4.2.1g To enable the storage, transportation and use of hazardous substances associated with the Te Rapa Dairy Factory, Stage 1A of Te Rapa North Industrial Zone and the Crawford Street Freight Village.”

17

regionally significant industrial activities is recognised and provided for. In doing so it will assist in providing additional context for related plan provisions which seek to avoid the potential for reverse sensitivity effects arising in relation to these facilities.

Objective 25.4.2.2 and Policy 25.4.2.2a

Support. Retain as notified

25.4.3 Rules – Activity Status

Oppose.

The approach to the determination of activity status requires the use of the complex Hazardous Facilities Screening Procedure which introduces significant compliance costs and delays to industrial activities. While existing use rights protect existing operations, they would need to be established through a statutory process and would not provide flexibility to allow for changes in volumes or characteristics which occur frequently in relation to dairy manufacturing and processing activities. The provisions could therefore constrain increased production levels at the Te Rapa Dairy Factory site which could have significant implications for the local economy. The permitted activity status of the Te Rapa Dairy Factory has recently been established through an Environment Court consent order. The Te Rapa North and Crawford Street sites are well defined areas where issues relating to hazardous substances

Amend Rule 25.4.3 to classify hazardous facilities as a permitted activity in respect of the Te Rapa Dairy Factory, Te Rapa North Industrial Zone and Crawford Street Freight village.

18

are capable of being managed through conventional setback standards and a clear policy framework which seeks to avoid reverse sensitivity issues arising from new activities in proximity to these regionally significant areas. In addition, the management of hazardous substances is subject to separate regulation that provides for annual certification of the siting and volumes of specific hazardous substances.

Landscaping and screening 25.5.3.1 - Landscaping

Support in part.

Standard xiii is equally appropriate to the Crawford Street Freight Village.

Amend Rule 25.5.3.1 xiii to read: “Activities in the Ruakura Logistics Zone and Crawford Street Freight Village.”

Noise and Vibration Objective 25.8.2.2 and Policies 25.8.2.2a and b

Support in part.

The Planning Maps define a noise emission boundary relating to the Te Rapa Dairy Factory which extends beyond the Te Rapa North Industrial Zone. Consequently, to ensure that the Objective and policies will apply to the full extent of this area it is necessary to include specific reference to the noise emission boundary.

Amend Objective 25.8.2.2 to include an additional item to read: “iv within the noise emission boundary of the Te Rapa Dairy Factory.” and; Amend Policy 25.8.2.2a to read: “ …Ruakura Industrial Park Zones, or within the noise emission boundary of the Te Rapa Dairy Factory…” and;

25.8.3.7 Noise performance standards for activities in all zones.

Support in part.

The Planning Maps define a Noise Emission boundary relating to the Te Rapa Dairy Factory. This boundary includes land beyond the Te Rapa North Industrial Zone. However there are no corresponding provisions within the Plan which relate to this boundary, or establish a noise standard for activities

Amend Rule 25.8.3.7c) to include reference to “Te Rapa North Industrial (excluding the Te Rapa Dairy Factory Heavy Industrial Area)” as a Zone to which the standard will apply, and; Amend Rule 25.8.3.7 to include an additional standard to read: “Any activity within the Te Rapa Dairy Factory

19

elsewhere within the Te Rapa North Industrial Zone.

Heavy Industrial Area shall not exceed a noise level of 45dBA Leq at the noise emission boundary defined on the Planning Maps.”

Three Waters 25.13.4.6 Water Impact Assessments (and Appendix 1.5.4)

Oppose.

The provisions have the potential to nullify the permitted activity status of significant industrial development, including continued expansion of activities within the Te Rapa Dairy Factory site. This site relies on water supplied under the Company’s own resource consent and from water supplied by HCC under separate agreement. In relation to industrial development elsewhere, the link to the size of the site or the size of a building is unrelated to the demand for water. A more appropriate threshold for a requirement for a Water Impact Assessment would be related to actual demand. Consequently it would be appropriate to set this at the same level which is provided for in the Council’s consent for water take.

Amend Rule 25.13.4.6 and Appendix 1.5.4 to provide: i. exemption for activities within the Te Rapa Dairy Factory site on the basis that matters of efficiency are addressed through the Company’s resource consent under the Regional Plan and agreement with HCC relating to water supply; ii. a threshold for industrial activities based on a requirement exceeding 15m3 per day, rather than size of the site or the building.

Transportation 25.14.4.3 Integrated Transport Assessment requirements

Oppose.

Traffic matters with the Te Rapa North Zone are the subject of specific provisions. The Te Rapa North Zone should be exempted from the requirements of the rule through an amendment to clause h).

Amend Rule 25.14.4.3 h) to include the following as an exception: “The requirements of Rule 25.14.4.3 a), b), c), d) and f) shall not apply within the Te Rapa North Industrial Zone.”

Appendix 1.1 – Controlled Activities – Matters of Control

Oppose.

The matters set out in B do not anticipate or provide for large footprint buildings, freight handling structures or security requirements associated with

Amend Section B of Appendix 1.1 to recognise and provide for the scale, nature and operational requirements of logistics and freight handling facilities at the Crawford Street Freight Village.

20

the Crawford Street Freight Village. Fonterra is seeking amendments to the Plan provisions relating to the Freight Village. In the event that the primary relief is not granted, amendment of the matters of control is necessary to reflect the anticipated character and scale of development. The matters set out in D a) relating to the Concept Development Plan for Stage 1A at the Te Rapa North Industrial Zone would be more appropriately expressed as specific standards as an addition to Section 12.6 (Te Rapa North Industrial Zone). Section D a) should then be amended to set out the matters which are reserved for control (through conditions). This approach would reflect the outcome of the recently settled Environment Court Consent Order.

Amend Section 12.6 to incorporate the matters set out in Section D a) of Appendix 1.1 as specific standards to be addressed in the Concept Development Plan for Stage 1A. Amend Section D a) of Appendix 1.1 to replace the notified provisions with the following as matters which are reserved for control: i. Safety and efficiency of the road network; ii. Provision for reticulated infrastructure; iii. Provision for public transport, pedestrian and cycle linkages; iv. Site layout and the maintenance of amenity; v. Provision of activities; and vi. Management of traffic movements and monitoring of traffic generation.

Appendix 1.2 – Restricted Discretionary Activities – Matters of discretion and assessment criteria

Support Retain Criterion A4 as notified.