Summary of Decision Requested to Plan Change 5: … · 230 George Melrose Drive Te Awamutu 3800 36 Shaw, Cathie ; 3718 Cambridge Ro ad RD 3 . Cambridge 3495 49 Singh, Nirshai & Singh,

Summary of Decisions Requested to Plan Change 5: Waipa 2050 Growth Strategy by Submitter Page 1 of 79

Summary of Decision Requested to Plan Change 5: Waipa 2050 Growth Strategy by Submitter

March / 2018



Table of Contents Reader’s Guide ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7

How to read the summary: .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7

How to make a further submission ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Submitter Contact Details ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9

3Ms of Cambridge GP Ltd ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 15

Airlie Trust .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17

Aotearoa Park Developments Ltd ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 20

Aztam Famliy Trust ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21

Blewden, David ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 22

Cambridge Golf Club Inc. .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 22

Campbell, Ross ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 23

Chartwell Developments LP ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24

Coombes Farms Limited ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27

Coombes, Lance and Dulcie .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29

Cropp, Lisa .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30

Cropp, Ron and Kay ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30

Darragh, John Denis ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31

Davis, John & Davis, Glenda ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31

Dunn, Ross .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32

Falconer, Graham & Denise .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32

Fonterra Limited ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32

Future Proof Implementation Committee ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 34

Gwynn, George ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 35

Hatwell, John ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 36

Haultain Street Properties ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 36

Higgs, Brian ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 36


Horticulture New Zealand ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 36

HW Industries ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 44

IH & KJ Mackay Family Trust ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 46

Kaur, Jesvier and Sharma, Helvier Kaur ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 47

Kelly Road Group .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 48

KiwiRail Holdings Limited ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 50

Langridge, Bruce & Winstanley, Kathy and Hardgrave, Paula ...................................................................................................................................................................... 51

Limmer, Dean ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 52

Logan, John and Logan, Iris........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 53

Maunsell Family Trust .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 53

Maunsell, Geoffrey and Raewyn .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 53

McCarthy, Greg ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 54

Meridian 37 Ltd ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 56

Middle Road and Narrows Road Focus Group ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 58

NZ Transport Agency .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 58

Oak Ridge Developments Ltd ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 59

Pike, Dr Robert ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 61

Powerco Limited ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 62

Reid, KSN and Reid, MN ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 63

Reid, Martin .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 63

Rider, TV and VR ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 63

Ross, Aisha and Hughes, Davina .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 64

Shaw, Cathie ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 65

Singh, Nirshai & Singh, Avtar & Kaur, Manpreet .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 66

St Peter's School ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 66

The Oaks Stud ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 70

Urban Village Property Ltd ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 70


Waikato Regional Airport Limited (WRAL) ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 73

Waikato Regional Council ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 76

Walker, Grant ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 79

Wang, Jun & Yanot, Bin ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 79

Watson, Martin and Watson, Karin .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 79

Williams, Rick ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 79



Reader’s Guide

This document is a summary of the 55 submissions received and the relief sought/decision(s) requested. This summary is ordered in alphabetical order by the submitters surname or the name of the organization. This summary helps readers to see all the decisions requested by a specific submitter (e.g. Jo Smith). If you would like to see all the submissions lodged on a specific topics within the Plan Change, then refer to “Summary of Decisions Requested to Plan Change 5: Waipa 2050 Growth Strategy by Topic”.

The summary of submissions was publicly notified on 15 March 2018 for further submissions. The closing date for making further submissions is 28 March 2018 at 5pm. No late further submissions will be accepted.

In the summary, every submitter has been allocated a submitter number and each submission point is referenced by a unique number. This whole number (e.g. 12/7) is required to be referenced when you make a further submission. EXAMPLE:

Submission 12/7

12 is the submitter number

7 is the submission point number

How to read the summary:

This summary is ordered by submitter surname. The summary is ordered alphabetically by surname and or name of the company or organisation. The summary lists all of the submission points made by the submitter.

Where a submission has been lodged by two people with different surnames, it has been listed by the surname that is first in alphabetical order.

If after looking at this summary you wish to look at all the submission points to a particular Topic then you need to refer to the “Summary of Decisions Requested to Plan Change 5: Waipa 2050 Growth Strategy by Topic”.

For your information separate spell checks have been carried out on the Topic and Submitter reports. In the event of there being any discrepancy the “Summary of Decisions Requested to Plan Change 5: Waipa 2050 Growth Strategy by Topic” will be predominant.


How to make a further submission

People can make a further submission if they represent a relevant aspect of the public interest and/or have an interest in Plan Change 5 greater than the interest of the general public.

A further submission can only be made in support or opposition of matters raised in the submissions. No new points can be raised.

Further submissions should be set out in the format shown in the submission form. Copies of the further submission form are available at Council offices or Libraries at Cambridge and Te Awamutu as well as online at www.waipadc.govt.nz.

In accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991 a copy of the further submission must be sent to the person who made the original submission within five (5) working days of sending the further submission to the Waipa District Council. To assist you with this an address list of all submitters is included in this report.

Submissions can be:

Posted to: Waipa District Council Private Bag 2402 Te Awamutu 3840

Delivered to: Waipa District Council – Te Awamutu Office 101 Bank Street Te Awamutu

Delivered to: Waipa District Council – Cambridge Office 23 Wilson Street Cambridge

Emailed to: [email protected]

Online: waipadc.govt.nz/haveyoursay

http://www.waipadc.govt.nz/

mailto:[email protected]


Submitter Contact Details

Submitter Name Submitter's Contact Details Submitter No. 3Ms of Cambridge GP Ltd

c/- Mitchell Daysh Limited Attn: Mark Chrisp PO Box 1307 Hamilton 3240

19

Airlie Trust

c/- Mitchell Daysh Limited Attn: Mark Chrisp PO Box 1307 Hamilton 3240

20

Aotearoa Park Developments Ltd

C/- KTB Planning Attn: Karl Baldwin PO Box 641 Cambridge 3450

38

Aztam Famliy Trust

c/- Mitchell Daysh Limited Attn: Ian Johnson PO Box 1307 Hamilton 3240

30

Blewden, David

54 Pukerimu Lane RD 3 Cambridge 3495

3

Cambridge Golf Club Inc.

C/- Cogswell Surveys Ltd Attn: Phil Cogswell PO Box 156 Cambridge 3450

18

Campbell, Ross

123 McGhie Road RD 5 Te Awamutu 3875

7

Chartwell Developments LP

WSP/Opus Attn: Craig McKibbin Private Bag 3057 Waikato Mail Centre Hamilton 3240

15


Submitter Name Submitter's Contact Details Submitter No. Coombes Farms Limited

CKL Attn: Andrew Wood PO Box 171 Hamilton 3240

43

Coombes, Lance and Dulcie

CKL Attn: Andrew Wood PO Box 171 Hamilton 3240

44

Cropp, Lisa

PO Box 603 Cambridge 3450

40

Cropp, Ron and Kay

PO Box 603 Cambridge 3450

39

Darragh, John Denis

PO Box 132 Te Awamutu 3800

53

Davis, John & Davis, Glenda

28 Pukerimu Lane RD 3 Cambridge 3495

4

Dunn, Ross

52 Great South Road Ohaupo 3803

48

Falconer, Graham & Denise

106 Lamb Street RD 3 Cambridge 3495

17

Fonterra Limited

Mitchell Daysh Limited Attn: Ian Johnson PO Box 1307 Hamilton 3240

37

Future Proof Implementation Committee

Attn: Bill Wasley PO Box 381 Tauranga 3141

31

Gwynn, George

148 Flat Road RD 5 Te Awamutu 3875

34

Hatwell, John


24


Submitter Name Submitter's Contact Details Submitter No. Haultain Street Properties

CKL Attn: David Latham PO Box 126 Te Awamutu 3840

28

Higgs, Brian 108 Douglas Avenue Te Awamutu 3800

50

Horticulture New Zealand

Attn: Lucy Deverall PO Box 10232 Wellington 6143

29

HW Industries


32

IH & KJ Mackay Family Trust

380 Alexandra Street Te Awamutu 3800

8

Kaur, Jesvier and Sharma, Helvier Kaur

4 Manor Place Point Chevalier Auckland 1022

9

Kelly Road Group

Mitchell Daysh Limited Attn: Mark Chrisp PO Box 1307 Hamilton 3240

23

KiwiRail Holdings Limited

Attn.: Pam Butler PO Box 593 Wellington 6140

42

Langridge, Bruce & Winstanley, Kathy and Hardgrave, Paula

8 Thirlwall Lane RD 3 Cambridge 3495

41

Limmer, Dean


22

Logan, John and Logan, Iris

Villa 133 - Lauriston Park 91 Coleridge Street Cambridge 3432

11


Submitter Name Submitter's Contact Details Submitter No. Maunsell Family Trust

20 Silverwood Lane Kawarua Falls Queenstown 9300

52

Maunsell, Geoffrey and Raewyn

20 Silverwood Lane Kawarua Falls Queenstown 9300

51

McCarthy, Greg


21

Meridian 37 Ltd


33

Middle Road and Narrows Road Focus Group

Attn.: Elaine Penn 90 Middle Road RD 2 Hamilton 3282

2

NZ Transport Agency

Attn: James Bevan PO Box 973 Waikato Mail Centre Hamilton 3240

47

Oak Ridge Developments Ltd

Momentum Planning and Design Attn: Andrew Fladgate / Richard Coles 3 Harington Street Tauranga 3110

46

Pike, Dr Robert

1185 Kaipaki Road RD 3 Cambridge 3495

5

Powerco Limited

Attn: Simon Roche Private Bag 2065 New Plymouth 4342

10


Submitter Name Submitter's Contact Details Submitter No. Reid, KSN and Reid, MN

CKL Attn: David Latham PO Box 126 Te Awamutu 3840

27

Reid, Martin

60 Reid Road RD 2 Ohaupo 3882

26

Rider, TV and VR

Cogswell Surveys Ltd Attn: Phil Cogswell PO Box 156 Cambridge 3450

45

Ross, Aisha and Hughes, Davina

230 George Melrose Drive Te Awamutu 3800

36

Shaw, Cathie

3718 Cambridge Road RD 3 Cambridge 3495

49

Singh, Nirshai & Singh, Avtar and Kaur, Manpreet

55 Scott Street Leamington Cambridge 3432

14

St Peter's School

WSP/Opus Attn: Craig McKibbin Private Bag 3057 Waikato Mail Centre Hamilton 3240

16

The Oaks Stud

Attn: Rick Williams The Oaks Stud RD3 Cambridge 3495

55

Urban Village Property Ltd


25


Submitter Name Submitter's Contact Details Submitter No. Waikato Regional Airport Limited (WRAL)

Bloxam Burnett & Olliver Attn: John Olliver PO Box 9041 Hamilton 3240

35

Waikato Regional Council

Attn: Leslie Vyfhuis Private Bag 3038 Waikato Mail Centre Hamilton 3240

13

Walker, Grant

3715 Cambridge Road Cambridge3495

12

Wang, Jun & Yanot, Bin

2/35 Hydro Road Cambridge 3494

1

Watson, Martin and Watson, Karin

1213 Kaipaki Road RD 3 Cambridge 3495

6

Williams, Rick

C/- The Oaks Stud RD3 Cambridge 3495

54


3Ms of Cambridge GP Ltd Submission

point Topic Plan Change Reference /

District Plan Provision Support / Oppose /

In Part

My submission is (summary): I seek the following decision/s from Council:

19/1 Generic Appendix S1 Growth Cells - C2

Support The submitter supports purpose of Plan Change 5 which is to provide for, and allow the development of, identified growth areas within the Waipa District to provide for anticipated population growth. The submitter particularly supports the identification of the properties owned by the submitter on Cambridge Road and Kelly Road being within the C2 Growth Cell.

Retain the land owned by the 3Ms of Cambridge on Cambridge Road within the C2 Growth Cell. Retain the timing associated with the development of the C2 Growth Cell being “now to 2035”.

19/2 Triggers/Deferred Zoning

Section 14 Deferred Zone - Rule 14.4.1.9(b)

Oppose in part

Rule 14.4.1.9 sets out the requirements for the uplifting of a Deferred Zone so that the land the subject of that zoning can be developed for its intended purpose. Rule 14.4.1.9(b) references Rule 14.4.1.5(e) in relation to the preparation of a structure plan for part of a Deferred Zone area (wherein it becomes clear that a resource consent application is required as a non-complying activity), but does not refer to the relevant rule that relates to the preparation of a structure plan for the whole of a Deferred Zone area (being Rule 14.4.1.4(b) which is a discretionary activity). This inconsistency makes the rule confusing and unhelpful. The rule should be amended to make it clear as to the process to be followed in relation to securing the approval to a structure plan and reference the relevant rules (where the structure plan is approved by way of a resource consent application process). Rule 14.4.1.9(b) should also refer to the situation whereby a structure plan is approved by way of a change to the Waipa District Plan (e.g. what is occurring in relation to Plan Change 7 in relation to the C1, C2 and C3 Growth Cells).

Amend Rule 14.4.1.9(b) to read: “A structure plan, where identified in Appendix S1, has been approved: - by way of a change to the Waipa District Plan; or - for the whole of the Deferred Zone area in accordance with a resource consent granted under Rule 14.4.1.4(b), or - for part of the Deferred Zone area in accordance with a resource consent granted under Rule 14.4.1.5(e) identified in the Planning Maps; and”


Submission point

Topic Plan Change Reference / District Plan Provision

Support / Oppose /

In Part



Section 14 Deferred Zone - Rule 14.4.1.9(d)

Oppose in part

The map called “Cambridge Growth Map” in Appendix S1 identifies six residential growth cells that are planned to be developed from “now to 2035”, four of which are on the northern side of the Waikato River and two of which are on the southern side of the Waikato River. It identifies three other residential growth cells which are to be developed “beyond 2035” (which is beyond the life of the current Waipa District Plan). The current wording of Rule 14.4.1.9(d) does not give effect to the purpose of Plan Change 5, particularly in terms of the timing of development, and is inconsistent with the outcomes that the submitter understands from discussions with Council staff are sought to be enabled and/or achieved. The rule limits the number of growth cells able to be developed at any one time to a total of three growth cells in Cambridge. Given that the Cambridge North Growth Cell and the C6 Growth Cell are currently open for development, the combination of clauses ii) and iii) of the rule mean that only one more growth cell can be opened for development in Cambridge under the current circumstances. That situation works in relation to the south side of the river as there are only two residential growth cells identified for development from “now to 2035”. However, on the northern side of the river there are three growth cells (C1, C2 and C3) in addition to the Cambridge North Growth Cell which is already being developed. Rule 14.4.1.9(d) needs to be amended to allow for the development of any and all of the growth cells in the “now to 2035” category as and when they are able to satisfy the other requirements specified in Rule 14.4.1.9 and as the market demands.

Amend Rule 14.4.1.9(d) to read: “In the case of Deferred Residential Zone or Deferred Large Lot Residential Zone areas identified on the Planning Maps, it is proven to the satisfaction of Council that within the relevant town or village in either the Deferred Residential Zone or the Deferred Large Lot Residential Zone there is: i) less than three years supply of land that is Development Ready; or ii) there are less than three Open Growth Cells; and or iii) in the case of Cambridge only, there are less than two Open Growth Cells on either the northern or southern side of the Waikato River, in which case an additional Growth Cell identified in Appendix S1 can be released for development on that side of the Waikato River any of the growth cells identified on the Cambridge Growth Map in Appendix S1 as “now to 2035” (i.e. the continuation of the Cambridge North Growth Cell, C1, C2, C3, C4 and C6 Growth Cells) can be developed provided that the other requirements of this rule have been satisfied, and”


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part



Section 14 Deferred Zone - Rule 14.4.1.9

Support in part

The submitter consider that an advice note should be included at the end of Rule 14.4.1.9 to make it clear that landowners / developers have the ability to initiate and undertake the development process for uplifting a Deferred Zone as set out in Rule 14.4.1.9.

Add an advice note at the end of Rule 14.4.1.9 which reads: “Structure plans for Deferred Zones can be initiated and prepared by Council, a landowner / developer, or a combination thereof.”



Support in part

The submitter support the Cambridge Growth Map. However, the timeframes for development set out in the key to the map should be provided for as a provision. It is considered this could be the subject of a rule.

See the relief sought in relation to Rule 14.4.1.9(d) which addresses this point of submission (submission point 19/3).


Section 14 Deferred Zone - Policy 14.3.1.4

Support in part

Policy 14.3.1.4 should be amended to reflect the timing of development in Growth Cells as set out in the Cambridge Growth Map in Appendix S1, and remove ambiguity within the policy.

Amend Policy 14.3.1.4 to read: All Deferred Zones are able to be rezoned for their intended future use, subject to Policy 14.3.1.5 below, once the preconditions and associated sequencing and staging provided it is generally in accordance with the timing, location and extent of the growth cells as outlined in Appendix S1 of the Plan have been complied with, no amendments to the District Plan objectives, policies or rule framework are required, the process in Policy 14.3.1.5 has been followed, and adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Airlie Trust Submission



In Part



Support The submitter supports purpose of Plan Change 5 which is to provide for, and allow the development of, identified growth areas within the Waipa District to provide for anticipated population growth. The submitter particularly supports the identification of the properties owned by the submitter on Cambridge Road being within the C4 Growth Cell.

Retain the land owned by the submitter on Cambridge Road within the C4 Growth Cell. Retain the timing associated with the development of the C4 Growth Cell being “now to 2035”.


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part




Oppose in part





Oppose in part

The map called “Cambridge Growth Map” in Appendix S1 identifies six residential growth cells that are planned to be developed from “now to 2035”, four of which are on the northern side of the Waikato River and two of which are on the southern side of the Waikato River. It identifies three other residential growth cells which are to be developed “beyond 2035” (which is beyond the life of the current Waipa District Plan). The current wording of Rule 14.4.1.9(d) does not give effect to the purpose of Plan Change 5, particularly in terms of the timing of

Amend Rule 14.4.1.9(d) to read: “In the case of Deferred Residential Zone or Deferred Large Lot Residential Zone areas identified on the Planning Maps, it is proven to the satisfaction of Council that within the relevant town or village in either the Deferred Residential Zone or the Deferred Large Lot Residential Zone there is: i) less than three years supply of land that is Development Ready; or ii) there are less than three Open Growth Cells; and or


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


development, and is inconsistent with the outcomes that the submitter understands from discussions with Council staff are sought to be enabled and/or achieved. The rule limits the number of growth cells able to be developed at any one time to a total of three growth cells in Cambridge. Given that the Cambridge North Growth Cell and the C6 Growth Cell are currently open for development, the combination of clauses ii) and iii) of the rule mean that only one more growth cell can be opened for development in Cambridge under the current circumstances. That situation works in relation to the south side of the river as there are only two residential growth cells identified for development from “now to 2035”. However, on the northern side of the river there are three growth cells (C1, C2 and C3) in addition to the Cambridge North Growth Cell which is already being developed. Rule 14.4.1.9(d) needs to be amended to allow for the development of any and all of the growth cells in the “now to 2035” category as and when they are able to satisfy the other requirements specified in Rule 14.4.1.9 and as the market demands.

iii) in the case of Cambridge only, there are less than two Open Growth Cells on either the northern or southern side of the Waikato River, in which case an additional Growth Cell identified in Appendix S1 can be released for development on that side of the Waikato River any of the growth cells identified on the Cambridge Growth Map in Appendix S1 as “now to 2035” (i.e. the continuation of the Cambridge North Growth Cell, C1, C2, C3, C4 and C6 Growth Cells) can be developed provided that the other requirements of this rule have been satisfied, and”



Support in part





Support in part




Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part




Support in part



Aotearoa Park Developments Ltd Submission



In Part


38/1 Growth Cell boundaries

Appendix S1 Growth Cells - Cambridge

Oppose Proposed Growth Cell C11 adjoins the existing Industrial Zone and Council's Wastewater Treatment Plant (Designation D91) as shown in Figure 1 below. Locating sensitive activities, such as residential, next to industrial and core infrastructure activities is not considered to be an appropriate or sustainable use of the District's natural and physical resources. The proposal has the potential to create significant reverse sensitivity effects that could undermine the on-going viability and future growth of existing industrial and infrastructural activities. The submitter considers it inappropriate to locate residential activities, even 'large lot' residential, directly adjacent to these existing activities without any provisions to ensure the existing activities are not compromised by their proximity to incompatible land uses.

That Growth Cell C11 is either deleted from Plan Change 5 or amended in such a way so as to avoid potential reverse sensitivity effects arising from the introduction of sensitive residential activities in proximity to existing industrial activities and key infrastructure, being Council's wastewater treatment plant.


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


The submitter considers that the proposed re-zoning will, in its current form, be contrary to objective 7.3.1 and policy 7.3.1.1 in the Waipa District Plan.

Aztam Famliy Trust Submission



In Part


30/1 Generic Section 14 Deferred Zone - Introduction 14.1.3

Support in part

Resource consent has been granted for the relocation of lot boundaries and land use consent for industrial activity at the property located at 222 Peake Road. There is significant demand for additional industrial development on the balance fo the site. The submitter support Plan Change 5 to the extent that it is intended to provide a more enabling framework for future development of industrial lad at Hautapu. However further amendment is needed to ensure that the manner in which the Plan Change describes the respective development cells does not constrain their development.

In the third sentence, replace the word 'this' with 'a proposal'.

30/2 Generic Section 14 Deferred Zone - Policy 14.3.1.4

Support Support this policy. Retain.

30/3 Generic Section 14 Deferred Zone - Rule 14.4.1.9

Support Supports this Rule. Retain.

30/4 Generic Appendix S1 Growth Cells Support in part

The paragraph is supported in part with the an amendment sought.

Amend Paragraph S1.1.2 to include the following: With regard to industrial land, the wide range of factors affecting demand, and the extent to which these are matched by supply are such that there is a need to ensure choice and variety at all time. In relation to Hautapu, in addition to providing for labour force growth, the supply of industrial land also needs to provide opportunity to facilitate the relocation of existing activities from the Carters


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


Flat area as part of its transition to commercial activities.

30/5 Generic Appendix S1 Growth Cells - Tables

Support in part

The submitter considers that the Plan Change needs to ensure that the explanation of the Hautapu growth cells recognises its wider role in delivering district and regional objectives and avoids introducing terminology.

Amend Cambridge/Hautapu Industrial Growth cells (to 2035) to include Cell C9 with amendment to the footer to read: the land supply provided through these growth cells will be sufficient to meet the Future Proof anticipated demand arising from growth until 2041, will enable the relocation of existing industrial activities from Carters Flat and will ensure choice and variety to accommodate all potential users.

Blewden, David Submission



In Part



Appendix S1 Growth Cells - C11

Support in part

The submitter believes that further large lot residential development in the Kaipaki/Pukerimu area would be consistent with what has already taken place, would add positively to the local community and would help meet strong expected future demand. The submitter believes that the western boundary of proposed growth cell C 11 should be extended to Pukerimu Lane.

That the western boundary of C11 be extended to Pukerimu Lane.

Cambridge Golf Club Inc. Submission



In Part



Appendix S1 Growth Cells Support in part

The submitter seeks a modification of the Plan Change proposal to incorporate the Club's land as a future growth cell and rezoned to allow partial development around the Golf Course to occur through a non-notified consent process. Currently

The submitter seeks inclusions in the Plan Change process to include their land for rezoning to allow future development to occur around the Golf Course.


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


the land is zone Rural and any application for residential development would require processing through an expensive non-complying resource consent application. The application of a Deferred Zoning would allow development to occur once infrastructure solutions have been devised and an overall design for the Golf Course re arrangement and level of housing is formulated.

Campbell, Ross Submission



In Part



Appendix S1 Growth Cells - Te Awamutu to Kihikihi

Support in part

The submitter requests that the land between Kihikihi and Te Awamutu from McGhie Road to the Park Road town boundary be considered rezoned. To be specific, the road frontages along Flat Road, Golf Road and Park Road up to the Te Awamutu boundary. This would connect Te Awamutu and Kihikihi. There is already existing infrastructure in place such as town water supply, sewage and a recent upgrade of storm water and drainage completed by Council when they placed the cycle track along these roads. There is already existing housing along these roads which cannot connect to above mentioned facilities due to being zoned Rural. It seems senseless for rate payers to spend on developments, putting new infrastructure in, when existing amenities are in place. There are residential properties on the same landscape along Park Road and Flat Road up to the town boundaries and then its Rural for about 2 kilometres.

Rezone land referenced in submission from rural to residential zoning.


Chartwell Developments LP Submission



In Part




Oppose Plan Change 5 introduces a new set of triggers for the uplift of deferred residential zoning. Those triggers will have a profound impact on how the Proposed Structure Plan for C1 and C2/C3 is implemented. The submitter contends that the triggers provided under Section 14 of the Waipa District Plan create more uncertainty for all parties and the limitations to land being made available will simply create a race for developers to having deferred residential zoning uplifted. This may lead towards ad-hoc development that does not reflect the holistic approach that the Structure Plan seeks to achieve. The submitter is also concerned that the generic triggers provided under Rule 14.4.1.9 do not provide any recognition of unique, or site-specific matters which may need to be considered in determining the appropriate sequencing of land development. Without recognising such matters in Section 14 may lead to development occurring in a way that does not reflect the outcomes sought by the Proposed Structure Plan for the C1 and C2/C3 Growth Cells. Unless a better defined set of triggers can be determined, which provides certainty to all parties and represents the most appropriate approach under section 32 of the RMA to achieve the purpose of the RMA, the submitter would prefer triggers similar to those listed in Section 10.2.4 of the Proposed Structure Plan (dated 12 September 2017). Without that, the submitter considers much of the underlying design philosophy of the Proposed Structure Plan will be undermined and frustrated. It is noted that those triggers were removed from the Proposed Structure Plan (dated

1. Rule 14.4.1.9 be amended to reflect the wording pre Plan Change 5 and the following triggers be listed in Appendix S1 as it relates to the C3 cell. Similar triggers should also be prepared for the C1 and C2 cells. 2. That the triggers listed below (the genesis of which are from an earlier draft of the Proposed Structure Plan dated 12 September 2017) be adopted by WDC within Appendix S1 as it relates to the C3 Growth Cell. The staged uplift of the deferred residential zoning within the C3 Structure Plan area shall be subject to the following requirements: Stage 1: a) A consented and designated stormwater solution exists that holistically manages stormwater from the C1, C2 and (where necessary) C3 growth cell areas. b) Council approved on-site stormwater solutions. c) Completion of signalised Cambridge Road intersection as part of Stage 1 development. d) Designation of the north/south central collector road within the C3 Stage 1 area, to provide connectivity between the neighbourhood centre and residential development. e) Approved subdivision and development in general accordance with the Structure Plan. f) Installation of strategic trunk mains for water and wastewater on the western side of Cambridge, and water and wastewater treatment plant capacity upgrades, as required. g) As they are not relevant, triggers a) c) and d) above shall not apply to the uplift of the deferred residential zoning for Stage 1 located east of the Te Awa Lifecare Village. Stage 2:


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


31 October 2017) as notified and replaced with those in Section 14 of the Waipa District Plan (Plan Change 5). No consultative process was undertaken with Chartwell prior to the notification of the revised triggers.

a) 70% completion of residential development within C3 Stage 1. b) Council approved on-site stormwater solutions. c) Designation of the central collector road and local road within the C3 Stage 2 area, to provide connectivity between residential areas and back towards Cambridge Road. d) Designation of the C3 Stage 2 local open space and stormwater infrastructure identified on the Structure Plan (or Council agreed alternatives to meet the same outcomes). e) Approved subdivision and development in general accordance with the Structure Plan. f) Installation of strategic trunk mains for water and wastewater on the western side of Cambridge, and water and wastewater treatment plant capacity upgrades, as required. g) Trigger c) and d) above shall not apply to the uplift of the deferred residential zoning for Stage 2 located east of the Te Awa Lifecare Village. However, alternative access would need to be provided via the local road proposed through the Town Belt. Stage 3: a) 70% completion of residential development within C3 Stage 2. b) Council approved on-site stormwater solutions. c) Designation of the central collector road C3 Stage 3 area, to provide connectivity between residential areas and back towards Cambridge Road. d) Designation of the Stage 2 local open space identified on the Structure Plan; or confirmed provision of alternative local open space. e) Approved subdivision and development in general accordance with the Structure Plan. f) Installation of strategic trunk mains for water


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


and wastewater on the western side of Cambridge, and water and wastewater treatment plant capacity upgrades, as required. 3. Under this approach it is anticipated that similar triggers would be included for the staged release of the C1 and C2 cells. The submitter seeks that such triggers for Stage 1 in C1 and C2 include the following for the uplift of deferred residential zoning: A consented and designated stormwater solution exists that holistically manages stormwater from the C1, C2 and (where necessary) C3 growth cell areas. 4. Any similar or consequential amendments that stem from the submission and relief sought.

15/2 Infrastructure - stormwater

Section 14 Deferred Zone - Rule 14.4.1.9(c)

Oppose Rule 14.4.1.9(c) allows for the uplift of deferred residential zoning provided that the development infrastructure required to service the Deferred Zone area is either in place, or Council is satisfied that there is a solution to deliver the necessary infrastructure. The submitter is concerned with the how this rule may be applied given that the C1 and C2 growth cells are dependent on a permanent stormwater solution across C3 land, but may proceed with staged development within those cells on the basis of a temporary stormwater solution being provided as an interim measure. However, the time taken to obtain a consented solution could take a number of years subject to appeals by interested parties.The submitter considers the most appropriate method for ensuring that the permanent stormwater solution is designed and consented in an efficient manner is to ensure that a consented solution is in place before any deferred residential zone (that will be required to connect to the permanent stormwater solution) is uplifted. This requirement

1. Rule 14.4.1.9(c) be deleted and the balance of Rule 14.4.1.9 be amended to reflect the wording pre Plan Change 5. Triggers be included in Appendix S1 as described above in submission point 15/1). 2. Any similar or consequential amendments that stem from the submission and relief sought.


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


would not prevent temporary stormwater solutions being applied, but it would ensure that the Submitter is not disadvantaged in terms of developing its land due to infrastructure being required which is largely required for the benefit of other growth cells (C1 and C2).



Oppose The submitter has concerns with Rule 14.4.1.9(d) as it creates a significant amount of uncertainty with terminology that is open to interpretation, despite definitions being included with the rule. For example, it does not state how three years supply of land is to be calculated and what happens if WDC’s calculation of this is not consistent with the applicant seeking to have the deferred zoning uplifted. Furthermore, the rule requires such matters to be ‘proven to the satisfaction of Council’, meaning there is no absolute target that needs to be reached. The submitter provided different scenarios which may occur and made the point that such situations would be untenable for developers given the costs that will be associated with getting an application prepared. Furthermore, such situations may leave the WDC exposed to accusations of showing bias and/or preferential treatment to one party over another, or otherwise distorting the local residential market.

1. Rule 14.4.1.9(d) be deleted and the balance of Rule 14.4.1.9 be amended to reflect the wording pre Plan Change 5. Triggers be included in Appendix S1 as described above in submission point 15/1). 2. Any similar or consequential amendments that stem from the submission and relief sought.

Coombes Farms Limited Submission



In Part



Section 14 Deferred Zone - Rule 14.4

Support in part

The submitter generally supports the proposed rule framework.

The submitter seeks new or clarified provisions in Section 14 around the process for removing the Deferred status over land in such cases where a plan change is not required. It is suggested that a


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


Land Development Plan or Concept Plan of development could be an alternative, particularly where land is void of three waters infrastructure and the predominant infrastructure provision is only roading.


Appendix S1 Growth Cells - N2

Support The submitter supports shifting the common boundary between the N1 and N2 growth cell/deferred zone boundary to align with existing legal boundaries and property ownership. The submitter supports support the expansion of the deferred zoning and the N2 growth cell boundary to the west. The submitter proposes that the western boundary of the N2 growth cell is extended westward to align with the Gas Pipeline traversing the land. This presents a more appropriate physical and legal boundary to the growth cell. This is proposed because a significant portion of the revised N2 growth cell which has been extended westward is located within an existing topographical depression which is not fit for purpose for large lot residential development. The proposed extension of the N2 growth cell westward will not increase the quantum of Deferred Large Lot Zone in Ngahinapouri over and above that already existing in the Operative District Plan, therefore does not generate conflict with the strategic objectives of the Operative District Plan or higher order planning documents (e.g. the Regional Policy Statement). The submitter has provided a map showing the approximate location which seeks a shift to the west of approximately 180m.

The submitter proposes that the western boundary of the N2 growth cell is extended westward to align with the Gas Pipeline traversing the land as shown below.


Coombes, Lance and Dulcie Submission



In Part



Section 14 Deferred Zone Support in part

The submitter generally supports the proposed rule framework.

The submitter seeks new or clarified provisions in Section 14 around the process for removing the Deferred status over land in such cases where a plan change is not required. It is suggested that a Land Development Plan or Concept Plan of development could be an alternative, particularly where land is void of three waters infrastructure and the predominant infrastructure provision is only roading.


Appendix S1 Growth Cells - N2

Support The submitter supports shifting the common boundary between the N1 and N2 growth cell/deferred zone boundary to align with existing legal boundaries and property ownership. The submitter supports support the expansion of the deferred zoning and the N2 growth cell boundary to the west. The submitter proposes that the western boundary of the N2 growth cell is extended westward to align with the Gas Pipeline traversing the land. This presents a more appropriate physical and legal boundary to the growth cell. This is proposed because a significant portion of the revised N2 growth cell which has been extended westward is located within an existing topographical depression which is not fit for purpose for large lot residential development. The proposed extension of the N2 growth cell westward will not increase the quantum of Deferred Large Lot Zone in Ngahinapouri over and above that already existing in the Operative District Plan, therefore does not generate conflict with the strategic objectives of the Operative District Plan or higher order planning documents (e.g. the Regional Policy Statement). The submitter has provided a map showing the

The submitter proposes that the western boundary of the N2 growth cell is extended westward to align with the Gas Pipeline traversing the land as shown below.


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


approximate location which seeks a shift to the west of approximately 180m.

Cropp, Lisa Submission



In Part


40/1 Generic Appendix S1 Growth Cells - Cambridge

Support in part

The submitter does not oppose the proposed plan change in its current form except that there needs to be an additional large lot residential area on Thornton Road (with attendant plan changes) for the following reasons A) The submitter owns land in Thornton Road on the southern side just outside the Cambridge area. B) The land has been affected by the expressway (some land was taken for it under the Public Works Act). C) No provision has been made for a cell east of Cambridge along Thornton Road. D) The area adjacent (to the east) to her land already has a cluster of 4 (plus mine) so is effectively a large lot area. E) The submitters parents place is also adjacent to the rear of my property and they will support a large lot area. F) Some of the submitter's land has had its topsoil removed so is not high quality any longer.

The submitter seeks for the plan change to be amended to include a large lot residential area on the south side of Thornton Road up to the junction with Maungakawa Road and French Pass Road.

Cropp, Ron and Kay Submission



In Part



Support in part

The submitter does not oppose the proposed plan change in its current form except that there needs

The submitter seeks for the plan change to be amended to include a large lot residential area on


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


to be an additional large lot residential area on Thornton Road (with attendant plan changes) for the following reasonsA) The submitters trust owns land in Thornton Road on the southern side just outside the Cambridge area.B) The land has been affected by the expressway (some land was taken for it under the Public Works Act)C) No provision has been made for a cell east of Cambridge along Thornton Road.D) The area adjacent (to the west) to their land already has a cluster of 6 so is effectively a large lot area already.E) The submitter's daughter’s place is also adjacent to the rear of their property and she will support a large lot areaF) Some of the land is not high quality.

the south side of Thornton Road up to the junction with Maungakawa Road and French Pass Road and for the maps to be changed accordingly.

Darragh, John Denis Submission



In Part


53/1 Residential Appendix S1 Growth Cells - C7 and T13

Support On behalf of John Darragh Family Trust, fully support Plan Change 5 re-zoning advancement.

Retain.

Davis, John & Davis, Glenda Submission



In Part




Support in part




Dunn, Ross Submission



In Part


48/1 Generic Whole of Plan Change 5 Support The submitter supports the plan change and when he initially purchased his property, it had, in his opinion, the suitability to be subdivided. He has seen other villages and areas benefit from injection of more residents etc. and wishes this for Ohaupo also. The submitter wishes to retain use, control and ownership of his present water bore.

Retain.

Falconer, Graham & Denise Submission



In Part



Appendix S1 Growth Cells Oppose Loss of ability to subdivide in the future. The submitter request their property at 106 Lamb Street to be reverted to original status.

Fonterra Limited Submission



In Part



Section 1 Strategic Policy Framework - Policy 1.3.2.2

Support The proposed amendments provide a more enabling framework that will facilitate the release of ‘Deferred Zones’ for development.

Retain Policy 1.3.2.2 as notified.

37/2 Generic Section 14 Deferred Zone Introduction - 14.1.3

Support in part

The replacement of the words ‘plan change’ with ‘this’ requires clarification.

Replace the word ‘this’ with ‘a proposal’.



Support The proposed amendments provide a more enabling framework that will facilitate the release of ‘Deferred Zones’ for development.




Support The submitter supports the deletion of clause (a), amendment to clause (b) (previously clause c) and the introduction of a new clause (c) as they reflect the proposed amendments to the policy framework.



Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


37/5 Generic Appendix S1 Growth Cells - Introduction S1.1

Support in part

The submitter is generally supportive of the proposed amendments but seeks further amendment to Paragraph S1.1.2 to provide additional context regarding the identified supply of industrial land and the timing of its release for development. The submitter supports the explanation that the proposed timing of release of land (being either pre-2035, or beyond 2035) is intended to be indicative rather than prescriptive. Given the wide range of factors that relate to the demand for different types of industrial land, as well as factors affecting its release such as land ownership, infrastructure provision and price, this explanation is appropriate. It also reflects the explanation provided within the Tables set out as part of Appendix S1, that Growth Cells C8, C9 and C10 are intended to operate in combination to provide choice to developers. This combined approach responds directly to the requirements of the National Policy Statement – Urban Development Capacity which requires Councils to ensure that their plans provide sufficient feasible capacity to meet projected demand. The NPS also explains the need to provide opportunity, recognising that land ownership can present a constraint to land supply and that not all potential supply will be taken up. In the context of Council’s intention to facilitate the transition of the Carters Flat area of Cambridge from industrial activity to commercial activity, there are additional reasons to have a plentiful supply available to achieve this, over and above the land requirements driven by growth projections. Additional context is therefore required to ensure that the timing for release of cells C8, C9 and C10 is not constrained by the ‘indicative dates’.

Amend Paragraph S1.1.2 to include the following: With regard to industrial land, the wide range of factors affecting demand, and the extent to which these are matched by supply are such that there is a need to ensure choice and variety at all times. In relation to Hautapu, in addition to providing for labour force growth, the supply of industrial land also needs to provide the opportunity to facilitate the relocation of existing activities from the Carters Flat area as part of its transition to commercial activities.


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part



Support in part

The submitter notes that each table contains a footer making reference to the Future Proof allocations. At this stage, Future Proof has not been reviewed in respect of the industrial land requirements set out within the NPS – Urban Development Capacity. Noting this, the submitter is concerned to ensure that the footer is read simply as an informative. To ensure that the explanation provided to Cells C8,C9 and C10 reflects the District Plan strategy of relocating industrial activities out of Carters Flat, and to meet the requirements of the NPS, the submitter seeks amendments to the text to each cell.

Amend bullet point 1 of the explanation to Growth Cell C8 to include additional reference to Cell C10 as part of the combined land supply. Include Growth Cells C8, C9 and C10 within the pre-2035 table. Amend the footer to the table to read: The land supply provided through these growth cells will be sufficient to meet the Future Proof anticipated demand arising from growth until 2041, will enable the relocation of existing industrial activities from Carters Flat and will ensure choice and variety to accommodate all potential users. The extent of the overall supply will enable demand to be met until 2061. Amend bullet point 1 of the explanation to Growth Cell C9 to include additional reference to Cell C10 as part of the combined supply. Amend bullet point 1 of the explanation to Growth Cell C10 to include additional reference to Cell C8.

Future Proof Implementation Committee Submission



In Part


31/1 Residential Whole of Plan Change 5 Support The submitter supports the Plan Change as it gives effect to the updated Future Proof Strategy by rezoning key growth cells to deferred zones in anticipation of growth needs. The locations of these cells are consistent with the Future Proof Strategy, the RPS and Waipa 2050. This also helps to give effect to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity.

Retain.

31/2 Residential Whole of Plan Change 5 Support The submitter supports the linkages to the Future Proof Strategy as set out in the section 32 report. This helps provide context for the strategic

Retain.


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


direction of the Plan Change and is important in terms of the policy cascade.

31/3 Residential Whole of Plan Change 5 Support The submitter supports section 4(d) on the Waikato Regional Policy Statement but we are of the view that more detail should be added on the RPS, especially Section 6 on the Built Environment, in particularpolicies 14-16.

Retain with more detail added on the RPS, especially Section 6 on the Built Environment, in particular policies 14-16.

31/4 Generic Section 1 Strategic Policy Framework

Support The submitter supports the changes to the strategic policy framework section as they refer to the deferred zones and also ensure that this section is up to date.

Retain.


Section 14 Deferred Zone Support The submitter supports the changes to the Deferred Zone section as these allow for the development of the deferred zones subject to certain criteria being met. Future Proof supports the criteria in particular the links to infrastructure delivery and development capacity / land supply.

Retain.

31/6 Residential Planning Maps Support The submitter supports the changes to the planning maps as they give effect to the rezonings.

Retain.

Gwynn, George Submission



In Part



Appendix S1 Growth Cells - T15

Support in part

That the area south of McGhie Road should be rezoned from rural to rural residential (and not be deferred T15). The reason being that the area along Flat Road would be an easy subdivision, water and sewerage available.

The submitter seeks a zone change of the existing rural land south of McGhie Road to a zone change of large lot residential.


Hatwell, John Submission



In Part




Support in part

The submitter consider it common sense that 1854 Cambridge Road be included in the T11 plan. A structure plan can be easily formulated for roading etc. connecting this property in the T11.

That the property at 1854 Cambridge Road be included in the T11 plan.

Haultain Street Properties Submission



In Part


28/1 Residential Planning Maps - Maps 12, 40 and 41

Support The submitter supports the need for additional residential land in Kihikihi for greenfield development leading to a more efficient and effective use of the available land resource.

PC 5 (as it relates to 18 Hautain Street) to be adopted as presented.

Higgs, Brian Submission



In Part



Appendix S1 Growth Cells - T11 and T14

Support in part

The submitter would like to incorporate some of the T14 cell within the T11 cell.

That: Lot 2 DPS 89062 (SA70B/297), Lot 1 DPS 89062 (SA70B/296), Lot 1 DPS 85176 (SA 670/205) Lot 2 DPS 85176 (SA670/206), Lot 1 DPS 15393 (SA13B/1431), Lot 1 DPS 59812 (SA51A/27), Lot 1 DPS 12432 (SA10C/49) and Lot 2 DP 310961 (CFR 43097) be brought into the T11 cell rather than the T14 cell so that they can be developed prior to 2035.

Horticulture New Zealand Submission



In Part


29/1 Generic Section 4 Rural Zone - Policy 4.3.2.2

Oppose in part

This policy appears to contradict the relevant Objective 4.3.2: The capacity of rural areas and

Amend Policy 4.3.2.2: Recognise and protect the continued operation of


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


rural resources to support farming activities and lawfully established rural based activities is maintained. The definition of farming activities is significantly broader than pastoral farming. Prioritising pastoral farming inherently limits the capacity of rural areas and does not acknowledge other types of farming which are also lawfully established. Horticulture is a rapidly growing industry with innovative practices which support improving environmental quality. Given Waipa’s unique access to high value production land and pressures to food production in surrounding regions, it is paramount that the Waipa District Council recognise the need and opportunity to support horticultural activities in the District.

a range of farming activities and ancillary farming activities within the Rural Zone. Or insert new policy: Recognise the opportunities for the horticultural sector in Waipa District and support the on-going operation and development of horticultural activities within the Rural Zone.

29/2 Generic Section 4 Rural Zone - Policy 4.3.8.2

Oppose in part

Policy 4.3.8.2 should relate to habitable buildings and residential activities only. Requiring horticultural or farming activities to be set back from internal boundaries restricts operation and growth of rural activities and is contradictory to Objective 4.3.8 Rural amenity – setbacks: To maintain rural character and amenity and avoid reverse sensitivity effects. It is particularly important to note the objective requires avoidance of reverse sensitivity effect not minimise, mitigate or remedy. The proposed plan change will result in a loss of productive land. In order to protect remaining productive land, it is essential that the onus for setbacks be placed on non-rural activities.

Amend Policy 4.3.8.2 Habitable buildings and non-rural activities are set back from rear and side boundaries to maintain rural character and amenity and avoid reverse sensitivity effects.

29/3 Generic Definitions Oppose in part

The operative definition of a building is interpreted to include artificial screens. Artificial screens includes crop support structures and artificial protection structures. These structures are necessary and part of the rural production environment. Crop support structures include for

Amend the definition of building to exclude artificial screens.


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


example kiwifruit support structures while artificial protection structures are open structures that are used to protect crops from damage including bird netting; and wind-break netting but excluding greenhouses.These structures also provide protection from hail and intense heat and are necessary to ensure high quality production. Structures covered by material are considered permeable as water still gets through.The definition of building should be amended to excluded these structures to ensure they are not subject to typical building limitations of coverage or yard setback controls.

29/4 Generic Section 4 Rural Zone - Introduction 4.1.12

Oppose in part

The key elements of rural amenity and character are outlined in Part 4.1.12 of the Operative Plan. The submitter generally supports this description but believes the description of farming activities should be extended to reflect a wider range of activities. This is consistent with the operative definition of farming activities. The submitter suggests these be inserted into the definition section of the plan as this is more logical location to reference for readers considering rural amenity effects in other areas of the plan.

Include a new definition: (a) Areas of vegetation (in a natural state or managed, indigenous and/or exotic), such as pasture used for grazing stock, crops, forest and scrub, riparian stream margins, lakes and wetlands; and (b) Open landscapes containing natural features and scenic vistas including flat to rolling terrain, volcanic cones, streams, lakes, peat lakes, rivers and wetlands that are largely free from development; and (c) Low density widely spaced built form, with dwellings and farm buildings dispersed in the wider landscape; and (d) and uses of a predominantly production or rural working nature such as farming and related farm storage sheds, stock yards, farm animals, crop support structures and artificial crop protection structures and houses, and the widespread use of machinery supporting the principal productive land use. The characteristic noises and odours of farming are part of the rural working nature of the Rural Zone; and (e) Occasional papakāinga and marae with


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


associated activities and events; and (f) Infrequent rural based industry (see definition) sites such as cool stores and wineries, as well as infrequent mineral and aggregate extraction sites, intensive farming operations and rural service providers such as agricultural contractors; and (g) Infrequent tourism or traveller accommodation based facilities generally associated with landscape features; and (h) Generally un-serviced land with a lack of urban infrastructure such as reticulated water and wastewater systems; and (i) An extensive network of roads with varying traffic levels, primarily without kerbs, footpaths or other urban structures such as street lighting, unless required for road safety reasons. Higher traffic levels occur on State Highways, arterial and some collector roads; and (j) Occasional local temporary events and activities such as equestrian hunts, farm open days, local fund raising events, pony club, and associated events and activities in rural community halls; and (k) Recreational hunting.

29/5 Generic Definitions Oppose in part

The submitter is concerned at the use of the word “objectionable”. The operative plan does not include a definition and there is no clear description that would guide interpretation and implementation of the terms, particularly in relation to farming. This provides considerable uncertainty for users where it is a condition in a rule. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines ‘objectionable’ as “open to objection, unpleasant, offensive”. Whether an activity is ‘objectionable’ therefore depends on an objective assessment of the specific situation.

Guidance is sought in the Plan to assist plan users to determine whether relevant activities are “objectionable”. Such guidance could be included in the Definitions section or in Section 21 – Assessment Criteria and Information Requirements.


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


In undertaking such an assessment key considerations could include: (i) Location of an activity and sensitivity of the receiving environment – For example, what may be considered offensive or objectionable in an urban area, may not necessarily be considered offensive or objectionable in a rural area. (ii) Reasonableness - Whether or not an activity is offensive or objectionable should be determined by an ordinary person who is representative of the community at large and in unbiased in their decision. (iii) Existing uses - It is important to consider what lawfully established activities exist in an area, particularly with regard to cumulative effects. The MfE Guidelines for managing odour provide some direction in assessing cases, based on the FIDOL factors frequency, intensity, duration, offensiveness, location. The rule excludes activities which have a discharge consent from Regional Council. Those activities that do not require discharge consent from Regional Council should also be excluded.

29/6 Generic Section 21 - Assessment Criteria and Information Requirements

Support in part

Proposed Rule 14.4.1.9 sets out requirements for uplifting of Deferred Zones. This provides high level guidance for the development of structure plans but is primarily concerned with the provision of infrastructure. The submitter supports the need to ensure adequate infrastructure is in place prior to uplifting of zones. However, additional guidance should be provided to support the development of structure plans and ensure high quality urban development and to assist managing the rural urban interface. Additional guidance could be provided in Section 21 – Assessment Criteria and Information

Insert additional information requirements in Section 21: 1. How the structure plan will be in accordance with the strategic policy framework in the district plan, any relevant growth strategies, and any Council design guides and town character statements, where available. 2. The type, location and density of land uses (including recreational land uses and community facilities where these can be anticipated) that will be provided for. 3. The location, type, scale, funding and staging of infrastructure to service the area, including network and capacity considerations.


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


Requirements. 4. The intended pattern of development including the transport network, public reserves and linkages, proposed block and street layout and orientation, and areas for preservation. 5. Design principles, parameters or constraints that will guide more detailed development of the area. 6. How key elements of character will be maintained. Refer to relevant objectives and policies for guidance on these matters. 7. A site and surrounding area analysis / constraints assessment covering how existing values, and valued features of the area including amenity, landscape, natural character, ecological and heritage values, water bodies, and significant views, will be managed and integrated into the structure plan development. 8. Identification of any existing land uses in the area that may be affected by the development and proposals to avoid or minimise any effects – consideration should be had to all matters relating to reverse sensitivity including noise, odour, lighting, amenity, transport linkages and utility accessibility. Reverse sensitivity conflicts are not limited to rural-residential boundaries, but are also relevant for industrial zones as this land often requires the provision of significant municipal water supply. 9. Anticipated water requirements and water sources for public water supply. 10. How stormwater will be managed having regard to a total catchment management approach and low impact design methods. 11. Multi-modal transport links and connectivity, both within the area of new urban development, and to neighbouring areas and existing transport infrastructure; and how the safe and efficient


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


functioning of existing and planned transport and other regionally significant infrastructure will be protected and enhanced. 12. Potential natural hazards and how the related risks will be managed. 13. Information on any geotechnical issues on the site and how any related risks are proposed to be managed. 14. Potential issues arising from the storage, use, disposal and transport of hazardous substances in the area and any contaminated sites and describes how related risks will be avoided, remedied or mitigated. 15. Any significant mineral resources in the area and any provision, such as development staging, to allow their extraction where appropriate. 16. How the relationship of tangata whenua with culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water sites, waahi tapu and other taonga has been recognised and provided for. Outcomes from consultation with tangata whenua must be included with the structure plan.

29/7 Residential Whole of Plan Change 5 Oppose in part

The identified “village growth areas” are centred around small clusters of existing rural - residential development. Nearly all the land identified for deferred development in these growth areas is a mixture of Class 2 – 4 soils. The submitter opposes urbanisation of Ngahinapouri, Te Pahu, Rukhia, C8 (and land to the north, east and west) areas without adequate assessment of impacts on the loss of potentially high value production land. In particular, the s32 report does not adequately consider the economic, social or environmental effects resulting from loss of productive land to urbanisation. It is acknowledged that both Cambridge and Te

The submitter considers that further provision could be made within the District Plan for compact, infill housing at Cambridge and Te Awamutu. Providing for higher density, or compact development within existing urban areas would still cater for growth and diversity of household type but would offer greater protection to high class soils.


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


Awamutu have unique built character. The development of a comprehensive urban design manual, such as Auckland Council’s Urban Design Manual, would assist in ensuring infill development that complements the local built environment.

29/8 Infrastructure - water supply

Whole of Plan Change 5 Oppose in part

Urbanisation (including both residential and industrial development) will result in the need to supply potable water and competition for water resources. Care needs to be taken to ensure allocable water is not removed from local rural production activities and that groundwater is still available for growers. Urbanising rural land results in a degradation of water quality (for instance stormwater runoff and aquifer contamination). A degradation in water quality should not impact on rural users in the catchment who need fresh clean water for rural production and requiring catchment water quality improvements should not then be unfairly weighted onto rural users.

No specific relief sought.

29/9 Transportation Whole of Plan Change 5 Oppose in part

Consideration should be had on the impacts of increased urbanisation on local infrastructure and the needs of the rural sector. With urban growth comes added pressure on transport networks. Consideration should be had for impacts on rural roads and on other infrastructure and resources such as gas supplies and water (mentioned above).

No specific relief sought.

29/10 Generic Whole of Plan Change 5 Support in part

The s32 report lacks of discussion on the long-term trade-offs of converting rural production land to urban land. It is acknowledged that providing for new urban areas will assist in minimising the instances of sporadic development and thereby protects rural land and soil resource. However, the submitter believes the s32 report does not adequately consider how the wider

Further analysis is required on whether the operative rules will appropriately manage the new rural-urban interface to achieve the above objectives and policies.


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


social, cultural, environmental and economic effects from the loss of rural land and soil resource. In particular: the financial costs of reverse sensitivity on

farm owners adjoining newly identified Deferred Zone land.

the economic effects from the loss of productive land for a range of rural production activities.

potential environmental effects of future urban development including, potential effects from increased impervious surfaces and increased water consumption.



Support in part

It is imperative that local communities are adequately engaged in the development of structure plans. This engagement should be in addition and prior to formal consultation processes. It is noted that consultation took place at the time of the Growth Strategy review earlier in 2017. However, in order to account for changing patterns of communities and to remain transparent, local communities should be involved in the development and approval of structure plans and should be notified of the uplifting of Deferred Zones.

Rule 14.4.1.9 enables the uplifting of the Deferred Zone without the need for consultation, following resolution from Council. HortNZ opposes this approach. HortNZ seeks that additional criteria be included requiring: adequate consultation with relevant

communities at the Structure Plan stage and a report detailing the method, summary of feedback and analysis.

notification of the uplifting of zones.


Support Section 1 Strategic Policy Framework is supported. Retain.

HW Industries Submission



In Part



Support The submitter supports Section 1 Strategic Policy Framework.

Retain.

32/2 Generic Section 14 Deferred Zone - Introduction 14.1.3

Support in part

The submitter supports Plan Change 5 to the extent that it is intended to provide a more

in the third sentence of Section 14 Deferred Zone - Paragraph 14.1.3, replace the word 'this' with 'a


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


enabling framework for the future development of industrial land at Hautapu. However considers that further amendment is needed to ensure that the Plan Change identified sufficient land to enable the achievement of District Plan objectives and fulfils the requirement of the Waikato Regional Policy Statement (RPS) and NPS on Urban Development Capacity.

proposal.'

32/3 Generic Section 14 Deferred Zone - Policy 14.3.1.4

Support in part

Support this policy. Retain.

32/4 Generic Section 14 Deferred Zone - Rule 14.4.1.9

Support in part

Supports this Rule. Retain.

32/5 Generic Appendix S1 Growth Cells Support in part

The Hautapu location is identified as a Strategic Industrial Node within the operative RPS. To fulfil this role, the District Plan is required to make provisions to ensure that 50ha of land are able to be developed up to 2041 and a further 46ha up to 2061. The selection of the area as a Strategic Industrial Node recognises the locational advantages of the Hautapu location relative to projected growth areas and the relationship to key transportation infrastructure. Currently, the majority of the identified land supply is held in single ownership and is subject to requirements for significant new infrastructure. Very little development has occurred within the major land blocks comprising the Hautapu Node.

Amend Paragraph S1.1.2 to include the following: With regard to industrial land, the wide range of factors affecting demand, and the extent to which these are matched by supply are such that there is a need to ensure choice and variety at all time. In relation to Hautapu, in addition to providing for labour force growth, the supply of industrial land also needs to provide opportunity to facilitate the relocation of existing activities from the Carters Flat area as part of its transition to commercial activities.


Appendix S1 Growth Cells - Tables

Support in part

The submitter considers that additional land is required at Hautapu to ensure that a feasible land supply is available to enable the achievement of district and regional objectives. Therefore the submitter seeks amendment to the Plan Change to identify an additional growth cell of approximately 6ha located to the north of Hautapu Road, immediately adjoining the western boundary of the existing Industrial Zone. The submitter is the owner of part of this land. the

Amend Cambridge/Hautapu Industrial Growth cells (to 2035) to include Cell C12 comprising approximately 6ha of land at 84 and 90 Hautapu Road, with commentary to read: Immediately available subject to requirements to safeguard the ability to convey stormwater discharge from Cell C8 and C9 to the Mangaone Stream.


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


significance of this additional cell is that it is profoundly affected by proposal for stormwater infrastructure required to enable the development of the Hautapu Industrial Structure Plan (being proposed through Plan Change 6).



Support in part

The submitter considers that additional land is required at Hautapu to ensure that a feasible land supply is available to enable the achievement of district and regional objectives. Therefore the submitter seeks amendment to the Plan Change to identify an additional growth cell of approximately 6ha located to the north of Hautapu Road, immediately adjoining the western boundary of the existing Industrial Zone. The submitter is the owner of part of this land. the significance of this additional cell is that it is profoundly affected by proposal for stormwater infrastructure required to enable the development of the Hautapu Industrial Structure Plan (being proposed through Plan Change 6). The submitters considers that including the additional land will assist in unlocking the development potential of the major part of the node and will provide land that is capable of immediate development. It will therefore contribute towards the achievement of key objectives of the NPS-UDC, the RPS and the District Plan.

Amend the footer to the Table relating to Cambridge/Hautapu Industrial Growth Cells (to 2035) to read: "the land supply provided through these growth cells will be sufficient to meet the Future Proof anticipated demand arising from growth until 2041, will enable the relocation of existing industrial activities from Carters Flat and will ensure choice and variety to accommodate all potential users."

IH & KJ Mackay Family Trust Submission



In Part




Oppose The southern side of Lamb Street was identified as a Growth Cell under the 2009 Waipa 2050 Growth Strategy and shown in the 2050 Town Boundary

That the southern side of Lamb Street be identified as a Cambridge Growth Cell and in particular included in C4 (Residential) or C11


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


of Appendix SI. (Plans Attached). The Council are proposing to rezone the Growth Cells in Cambridge, resulting in the southern side of Lamb Street being excluded as a Growth Cell and zoned Rural. (Plans attached). Residential subdivision is not a permitted activity for Rural zones. The submitter relied on the Council's policy direction in 2009 when their Property was identified as a Growth Cell. The effect of the proposed exclusion of the southern side of Lamb Street from the Growth Cell is that the potential subdivision value for their Property would be lost.

(Large Lot Residential) of Appendix SI and zoned Deferred Residential.

Kaur, Jesvier and Sharma, Helvier Kaur Submission



In Part



Oppose Residential development in C7 will have an adverse effect on the following:1. The equine industry, facilities and activities around Racecourse Road.2. The heritage and rural character of Racecourse Road.The adverse effect will be created by the intensified housing, noise, traffic, people, etc.Retaining the rural character of C7 ensures Cambridge's heritage and character are preserved for future generations.It is important to retain some rural/green spaces close to Cambridge town to maintain its heritage rather than intensively building up every zone.

The C7 be excluded as a future development area = it's current zoning is maintained and it does not become a 'deferred zone'.That C2 development maintains larger lots so it acts as a buffer zone for C7.


Kelly Road Group Submission



In Part



Support The submitter supports purpose of Plan Change 5 which is to provide for, and allow the development of, identified growth areas within the Waipa District to provide for anticipated population growth. The submitter particularly supports the identification of the properties owned by the submitter on Kelly Road being within the C2 Growth Cell.

Retain the land owned by the submitter on Kelly Road within the C2 Growth Cell. Retain the timing associated with the development of the C2 Growth Cell being “now to 2035”.



Oppose in part





Oppose in part

The map called “Cambridge Growth Map” in Appendix S1 identifies six residential growth cells

Amend Rule 14.4.1.9(d) to read: “In the case of Deferred Residential Zone or


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


that are planned to be developed from “now to 2035”, four of which are on the northern side of the Waikato River and two of which are on the southern side of the Waikato River. It identifies three other residential growth cells which are to be developed “beyond 2035” (which is beyond the life of the current Waipa District Plan). The current wording of Rule 14.4.1.9(d) does not give effect to the purpose of Plan Change 5, particularly in terms of the timing of development, and is inconsistent with the outcomes that the submitter understands from discussions with Council staff are sought to be enabled and/or achieved. The rule limits the number of growth cells able to be developed at any one time to a total of three growth cells in Cambridge. Given that the Cambridge North Growth Cell and the C6 Growth Cell are currently open for development, the combination of clauses ii) and iii) of the rule mean that only one more growth cell can be opened for development in Cambridge under the current circumstances. That situation works in relation to the south side of the river as there are only two residential growth cells identified for development from “now to 2035”. However, on the northern side of the river there are three growth cells (C1, C2 and C3) in addition to the Cambridge North Growth Cell which is already being developed. Rule 14.4.1.9(d) needs to be amended to allow for the development of any and all of the growth cells in the “now to 2035” category as and when they are able to satisfy the other requirements specified in Rule 14.4.1.9 and as the market demands.

Deferred Large Lot Residential Zone areas identified on the Planning Maps, it is proven to the satisfaction of Council that within the relevant town or village in either the Deferred Residential Zone or the Deferred Large Lot Residential Zone there is: i) less than three years supply of land that is Development Ready; or ii) there are less than three Open Growth Cells; and or iii) in the case of Cambridge only, there are less than two Open Growth Cells on either the northern or southern side of the Waikato River, in which case an additional Growth Cell identified in Appendix S1 can be released for development on that side of the Waikato River any of the growth cells identified on the Cambridge Growth Map in Appendix S1 as “now to 2035” (i.e. the continuation of the Cambridge North Growth Cell, C1, C2, C3, C4 and C6 Growth Cells) can be developed provided that the other requirements of this rule have been satisfied, and”



Support in part

The submitter consider that an advice note should be included at the end of Rule 14.4.1.9 to make it

Add an advice note at the end of Rule 14.4.1.9 which reads:


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


clear that landowners / developers have the ability to initiate and undertake the development process for uplifting a Deferred Zone as set out in Rule 14.4.1.9.

“Structure plans for Deferred Zones can be initiated and prepared by Council, a landowner / developer, or a combination thereof.”



Support in part





Support in part



KiwiRail Holdings Limited Submission



In Part


42/1 Generic Whole of Plan Change 5 Support KiwiRail has two railway corridors in the District, being: North Island Main Trunk Line Hautapu Branch Line There will be an impact on the District’s existing level crossings as growth cells develop. While KiwiRail prefers to see existing level crossings removed, there will be occasions where this is not feasible. Increased traffic levels will increase the use of the

No changes sought.


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


District’s crossings, sometimes at a distance from the actual growth cell location. This will inevitably affect level crossing risk. It would be reasonable for the Council to start planning now for upgrading the District’s level crossings to safely accommodate new growth. Plan Change 5 provides a more flexible approach to the timing of development of growth cells. Integrated Transport Assessments (ITA) will likely be needed to accompany resource consents to initiate any physical development. Where there are existing public crossings in the locality an assessment of the impact on level crossing risk should be undertaken. This is best done via assessment process KiwiRail and NZTA have has developed called the Level Crossing Safety Impact Assessment (LCSIA). A key component of this process is the Level Crossing Safety Score (LCSS). The scope for Council to require a LCSIA assessment is generally covered by Plan Change and the Plan’s Discretionary Assessment Criteria 21.1.1.6: however, the purpose of this submission is to highlight this issue before work starts on new growth cell implementation (which may proceed apace). A copy of the Level Crossing Risk Assessment guidance document is attached to the submission for the Council’s information.

Langridge, Bruce & Winstanley, Kathy and Hardgrave, Paula Submission



In Part



Appendix S1 Growth Cells - Cambridge

Support in part

The submitter owns the land to the east of Thirlwall Lane, Kaipaki, Cambridge. The submitter proposes an extension to growth

Proposed growth cell C11 for large lot residential development be extended westwards between the Waikato River and Kaipaki Road to Thirlwall


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


cell C11 which is not earmarked for future development under the Waipa 2050 Growth Strategy or Plan Change 5. The proposed extension sought by this submission is an area bounded by Thirlwall Lane, Kaipaki Road, the western boundary of growth cell C11 and the Waikato River. The approximately 90ha area is approximately 1.3km west to east and 0.65km north to south. The land is extremely suited to be developed as large lot residential properties as the surrounding area comprises many 5000m2 sections, therefore such development would be in keeping with the existing environment. Moreover, the land is a natural extension to proposed growth cell C11, is topographically defined by roads and the Waikato River, is unproductive due to the existing pattern of small lot sizes, and could be serviced by the wastewater treatment plant located nearby at Matos 5egedin Drive and the Council reticulated water supply present in the area. The submitter provided feedback to Council on the District Growth Strategy in May 2017 and initial feedback from Council staff was that there was merit in the submission to earmark the land for large lot residential development and that an extension of the boundary of a large lot residential growth cell would be an appropriate approach.

Lane as shown below.

Limmer, Dean Submission



In Part




Support in part

The submitter owns Parts of T14 with the neighbour (Hatwell) being Lot 2 DP 310961 and

The Te Awamutu growth map and Planning Map 39 be changed so that Lot 2 DP 310961 and Lot 2


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


Lot 1 DPS 12432 which are suitable for residential development in the near future i.e. not beyond 2035. There are available services, including water and roading connectivity which can be provided from the T11 growth area.

DPS 12432 be taken out of T14 and placed in T11.

Logan, John and Logan, Iris Submission



In Part




Support in part

Consideration be given to extending the C4 growth cell to include the previous C4 growth cell area as shown in the existing Appendix S1, or at least include the row of properties adjacent Lamb Street.

To include the row of properties on the south side of Lamb Street in the growth cell C4. Also, to consider making the south side portion of growth cell C4 lifestyle residential.

Maunsell Family Trust Submission



In Part




Support Undeveloped land of 5.6ha with a wide road frontage on the fringes of the Cambridge town zone (referred to as C4 in the District Plan).

Rezone Lot 2 3796 Cambridge Rd, Cambridge to deferred Residential.

Maunsell, Geoffrey and Raewyn Submission



In Part




Support Existing house and 5000m2 of land will have no adverse effects on a new zone. The site has natural landscape and planting.

Rezone Lot 1 3796 Cambridge Rd, Cambridge to deferred Residential.


McCarthy, Greg Submission



In Part



Support The submitter supports purpose of Plan Change 5 which is to provide for, and allow the development of, identified growth areas within the Waipa District to provide for anticipated population growth. The submitter particularly supports the identification of the properties owned by the submitter on Lamb Street being within the C4 Growth Cell.

Retain the land owned by the submitter on Lamb Street within the C4 Growth Cell. Retain the timing associated with the development of the C4 Growth Cell being “now to 2035”.



Oppose in part





Oppose in part

The map called “Cambridge Growth Map” in Appendix S1 identifies six residential growth cells

Amend Rule 14.4.1.9(d) to read: “In the case of Deferred Residential Zone or


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


that are planned to be developed from “now to 2035”, four of which are on the northern side of the Waikato River and two of which are on the southern side of the Waikato River. It identifies three other residential growth cells which are to be developed “beyond 2035” (which is beyond the life of the current Waipa District Plan). The current wording of Rule 14.4.1.9(d) does not give effect to the purpose of Plan Change 5, particularly in terms of the timing of development, and is inconsistent with the outcomes that the submitter understands from discussions with Council staff are sought to be enabled and/or achieved. The rule limits the number of growth cells able to be developed at any one time to a total of three growth cells in Cambridge. Given that the Cambridge North Growth Cell and the C6 Growth Cell are currently open for development, the combination of clauses ii) and iii) of the rule mean that only one more growth cell can be opened for development in Cambridge under the current circumstances. That situation works in relation to the south side of the river as there are only two residential growth cells identified for development from “now to 2035”. However, on the northern side of the river there are three growth cells (C1, C2 and C3) in addition to the Cambridge North Growth Cell which is already being developed. Rule 14.4.1.9(d) needs to be amended to allow for the development of any and all of the growth cells in the “now to 2035” category as and when they are able to satisfy the other requirements specified in Rule 14.4.1.9 and as the market demands.

Deferred Large Lot Residential Zone areas identified on the Planning Maps, it is proven to the satisfaction of Council that within the relevant town or village in either the Deferred Residential Zone or the Deferred Large Lot Residential Zone there is: i) less than three years supply of land that is Development Ready; or ii) there are less than three Open Growth Cells; and or iii) in the case of Cambridge only, there are less than two Open Growth Cells on either the northern or southern side of the Waikato River, in which case an additional Growth Cell identified in Appendix S1 can be released for development on that side of the Waikato River any of the growth cells identified on the Cambridge Growth Map in Appendix S1 as “now to 2035” (i.e. the continuation of the Cambridge North Growth Cell, C1, C2, C3, C4 and C6 Growth Cells) can be developed provided that the other requirements of this rule have been satisfied, and”



Support in part

The submitter consider that an advice note should be included at the end of Rule 14.4.1.9 to make it

Add an advice note at the end of Rule 14.4.1.9 which reads:


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


clear that landowners / developers have the ability to initiate and undertake the development process for uplifting a Deferred Zone as set out in Rule 14.4.1.9.

“Structure plans for Deferred Zones can be initiated and prepared by Council, a landowner / developer, or a combination thereof.”



Support in part





Support in part


Amend Policy 14.3.1.4 to read:All Deferred Zones are able to be rezoned for their intended future use, subject to Policy 14.3.1.5 below, once the preconditions and associated sequencing and staging provided it is generally in accordance with the timing,location and extent of the growth cells as outlined in Appendix S1 of the Plan have been complied with, no amendments to the District Plan objectives, policies or rule framework are required, the process in Policy 14.3.1.5 has been followed, and adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Meridian 37 Ltd Submission



In Part



Appendix S1 Growth Cells - Hamilton Airport

Support in part

The submitter is the owner of land forming the majority of the Industrial Zone (Raynes Road). An application for approval of a CDP for this area is currently in preparations and preliminary discussions have been held with Council staff. The land forms part of the Hamilton Airport Strategic Industrial Node required to be provided by the Waikato Regional Policy Statement. The submitter notes that both the Growth Strategy and the associated Plan Change 5 show a

Amend the Hamilton Airport Growth Map to indicate the full 19.5ha extent of the Meridian 37 Growth Cell to align with the Industrial Zone (Raynes Road) contained within the District Plan. The submitter also requests that the same amendments are made in respect of the adopted Waipa 2050 Growth Strategy.


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


reduction in the size of the area to be developed in respect of the Industrial Zone (Raynes Road). The location is identified as the Meridian 37 growth cell in both document. Neither document provides any explanation for the reduction in the extent of the area from 19.5ha (currently zoned) to 11ha. Council staff indicated that the location of the site boundaries and the consequential measurement of the area arises from an error in the use of a GIS mapping tool and the proposed reduction is unintentional.



Support in part

The submitter is the owner of land forming the majority of the Industrial Zone (Raynes Road). An application for approval of a CDP for this area is currently in preparations and preliminary discussions have been held with Council staff. The land forms part of the Hamilton Airport Strategic Industrial Node required to be provided by the Waikato Regional Policy Statement. The submitter notes that both the Growth Strategy and the associated Plan Change 5 show a reduction in the size of the area to be developed in respect of the Industrial Zone (Raynes Road). The location is identified as the Meridian 37 growth cell in both document. Neither document provides any explanation for the reduction in the extent of the area from 19.5ha (currently zoned) to 11ha. Council staff indicated that the location of the site boundaries and the consequential measurement of the area arises from an error in the use of a GIS mapping tool and the proposed reduction is unintentional.

Amend Hamilton Airport Industrial Growth Cells (to 2035) to refer to the Meridian 37 Growth Cell as being the 19.5ha currently zoned through the District Plan. The submitter also requests that the same amendments are made in respect of the adopted Waipa 2050 Growth Strategy.


Middle Road and Narrows Road Focus Group Submission



In Part



Appendix S1 Growth Cells - Montgomery Block

Support The submitter notes that:- 1. The boundary of the future extension direction of the industrial development should be defined.

That the north/north west boundary of the future industrial development area be clearly defined as "The Southern Links roadway system north and west of the Montgomery Block".

2/2 Generic Whole of Plan Change 5 Support The submitter notes that:- 2. Definitions, codes and conditions of the Montgomery development must be clearly defined to allow neighbouring landowners to: Maintain quiet enjoyment of life as they

presently experience Maintain the value of their asset Sense of Community Effective access to property Quality and security of life Be informed

1. That the "Industrial" designation is clearly defined as to the type of industry allowed to operate on the Montgomery Block and future development 2. That the condition in the present District Scheme that "No traffic access or egress to the Montgomery Block be allowed from Middle Road during the development or operation of the industrial site" remain and a new provision be made to include Narrows Road 3. That the paper road at the south end of Middle road be pedestrian accessible from Middle Road 4. That previous promises (during the District Scheme hearing) of beautification and landscaping of the industrial development be included as conditions.

NZ Transport Agency Submission



In Part


47/1 Generic Whole of Plan Change 5 Support The NZ Transport Agency supports PPC5 as it seeks to achieve a robust planning framework to guide the future growth of the District’s townships and provide certainty to developers and the community generally on future growth locations. The submitter provided feedback to the 2050 Growth Strategy in relation to sequencing of development of deferred zoned land, as well as

The NZ Transport Agency generally supports PPC5 and seeks its retention subject to any amendments that Council considers may be necessary to reflect the feedback provided in relation to the 2050 Growth Strategy.


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


specific feedback on Karapiro, Rukuhia and Ohaupo and has attached this to the submission as it is considered relevant to this plan change, notably: Karapiro - The submitter is unable to support

zoning in this area until the Business Case is confirmed for SH1 through this section

Rukuhia - Growth on either side of SH3 is not considered an ideal outcome in terms of connectivity and community severance. There needs to be careful consideration to the form and function of SH3 through Rukuhia to support future growth in this area

Ohaupo - Growth on either side of SH3 is not considered an ideal outcome in terms of connectivity and community severance.

Oak Ridge Developments Ltd Submission



In Part




Support The proposed rule framework will be effective in driving the preparation of structure plans and key infrastructure to serve new growth cells. This responsive rule framework is supported, however this submission seeks that the lead in time relative to existing levels of development capacity is increased from 3 to 6 years. Rule 14.4.1.9(c) differs slightly from the NPS definition in that it doesn’t require the infrastructure to be in the ground, but rather Council must be satisfied that “…there is a solution to deliver the necessary infrastructure”. There are practical considerations that will influence the amount of lead-in time required to ensure development capacity in the growth cells

The following changes are therefore sought to Rule 14.4.1.9 in Proposed Plan Change 5: 1. Rule 14.4.1.9(d)(i) - less than threesix years supply of land that is Development Ready; or. 2. Delete explanatory note and 5 from Rule 14.4.1.9.


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


is ready to go at the time required (i.e. to ensure at least 3 years supply at all times). The submitter has provided considerations for both pre-uplifting deferred zoning and post-uplifting deferred zoning. The submitters is of the view that these considerations demonstrate that at least a two-year lead in time for preparatory work is required before the uplifting criteria are met. There is then a further 2-3 years needed to obtain consents and complete development works before the first residential lots are available for sale. In total, 4 to 5 years is required to complete this process. If a 20% contingency is added, a 6-year lead in time is required prior to land being development ready. In considering the size and characteristics of future growth cells in the Cambridge and Te Awamutu areas it is estimated that a minimum of 2 years lead in will be required to have a Structure Plan and associated technical information available to meet the uplifting criteria in Rule 14.4.1.9. Following the growth cells becoming ‘live’ by Council resolution there is a further 2-3 years delay before actual land supply is development ready. Therefore to realise the intent of the NPS that at least 3 years of development capacity (+ 20% margin) is available at all times, a trigger point of 6 years remaining capacity in existing growth cells is considered appropriate. this would make redundant the explanatory note regarding the calculation of three years supply of land. The 20% additional margin required by the NPS: UDC would be captured by this 6y lead in time.



Support The growth cell boundaries have been established generally along existing cadastral boundaries. While this has practicalities in terms of land ownership it may result in some land that may be

The following changes are therefore sought to Proposed Plan Change 5. 1. Amend the T8 and T11 growth cells to include the additional land as per the attached plan.


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


suitable for development but excluded due to only high-level constraints information being available. For example, Both the T8 and T11 growth cells adjoin the Mangaohoi Stream and an existing flood hazard exists. New flood modelling of the stream flood hazard is being prepared and may identify land adjacent to the growth cell boundary as being suitable for development. The structure plan process will include these detailed assessments and enable the growth cell boundaries to be refined. If it is deemed desirable to short cut a plan change process to allow for such amendments to the extent of growth cells then the extent of the boundaries should be increased to provide flexibility for refinement of natural hazard lines within respective growth cells.

2. Include a policy that enables the refinement of the growth cell boundaries. Suggested wording: The growth cell boundaries have been established using cadastral boundaries or logical boundaries based on available ground contour information. Technical reports through the structure planning process will refine the extent of natural hazards and other constraints, which may result in additional land being suitable for residential and industrial development. Adjustments to the growth cell boundaries may be made through the process of developing the structure plan before uplifting the deferred zone. 3. Amend Rule 14.4.1.9(b) to read – A structure plan where identified in Appendix S1, has been approved for the whole of the Deferred Zone area, or has been approved for part of the Deferred Zone area in accordance with Rule 14.4.1.5(e), identified on the Planning Maps, subject to any minor amendments to the extent of the area determined through the development of the structure plan; and

Pike, Dr Robert Submission



In Part




Support in part




Powerco Limited Submission



In Part


10/1 Infrastructure - other/utilities

Appendix S1 Growth Cells Neutral The submitter seeks to ensure that electricity infrastructure can be provided to developments in an appropriate and timely manner, and existing assets are protected from inappropriate development. The submitter notes that the proposed development of 40 dwellings at Te Miro will be supplied by a new 11kV line out of the submitter's Piako substation. Load flow studies show that this development can be accommodated taking into account the forecast electricity demand growth of this area up to 2050. However, should projected growth increase, additional infrastructure may be required. It is therefore best if any new infrastructure provision can occur simultaneously with the new development to minimise disruption to other infrastructure (e.g. particularly having to dig up roads) and also reduce costs to end consumers. The submitter seeks recognition of the existing electricity assets in Te Miro (map attached to submission) in order to act as a trigger to ensure they are appropriately taken into account in relation to any future works, or development that may result in adverse effects on these existing assets. There is a need to manage any rezoning in the immediate vicinity of network utilities that pose a risk to, or are at risk from, the operation of the network. There are a number of other standards and initiatives relevant to undertaking works in and around network utilities, and the submitter anticipates the Council will adhere to these in the design and implementation of any expansion of residential and rural lots.

The submitter seeks that if Plan Change 5 becomes operative that: 1. The Council confirm with the submitter if any work or changes to the land use are proposed in or around their assets (e.g. proposed new roads, development planting or rezoning). This is to ensure that the submitter can continue to operate, maintain, upgrade and access their existing assets. There is a need to manage any rezoning in the immediate vicinity of network utilities that pose a risk to, or are at risk from, the operation of the network. Any changes that occur should be designed to comply with the relevant regulations for community and individual safety and continuity of supply. 2. Should the number of potential lots/ dwellings increase through the notification process, then the submitter requests early notification to ensure an adequate supply of electricity can be provided and any upgrades to the network can be undertaken if required.


Reid, KSN and Reid, MN Submission



In Part


27/1 Generic Planning Maps - Map 34 Support in part

There needs to be flexibility relating to the ease and timing for the different land owners within structure plan areas that are comprised within multiple ownerships.

Planning map 34 to be altered to clearly show different structure plans to be approved for the N1 and N2 growth areas.

Reid, Martin Submission



In Part


26/1 Generic Planning Maps - Map 34 Support in part

The Waipa District Council has engaged with the Ngahinapouri community and the affected parties regarding the 2050 Growth Strategy and its effects on our community over nearly ten years. This process has been robust, comprehensive and well supported.

Planning map 34 to be altered to show separate structure plans to be approved for the N1 and N2 growth areas.

Rider, TV and VR Submission



In Part


45/1 Generic Whole of Plan Change 5 Support The submitter's support the intention of the Growth Strategy to accommodate the future growth and development of Cambridge.

No change sought.


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part




Oppose The submitter's oppose in part Rule 14.4.1.9 (d) and the "Cambridge Growth Map" in Appendix S1 as it applies to Growth Cell C5 and seek to have this included in the growth cells to be developed between now and 2035. The submitters own a substantial portion of the land ( approximately 41 ha ) within the Growth Cell identified as C5 on the Eastern outskirts of Leamington, which has access to Wordsworth Street to the North and Maungatautari Road to the South. The applicants have been looking at development opportunities for this land South from Wordsworth Street and wish to progress this development sooner, rather than post 2035 as promulgated for this cell in the proposed Plan Change. The submitter's block has a ready connection to the Eastern end of Wordsworth Street and extension of infrastructure to service this area is not a difficult exercise.

Amend Growth Strategy to allow a portion or all of submitters land within growth cell C5 to be developed prior to 2035.



Oppose The submitter's oppose in part the requirement of Rule 14.4.1.9 (d) to restrict the number of growth cells on either side as this is too prescriptive and restrictive. The cells all have vastly different infrastructure requirements and in some instances a multitude of owners will complicate the issue. The submitters would like to see at least two open growth cells available in Cambridge on the North and South side respectively.

The submitters would like to see at least two open growth cells available in Cambridge on the North and South side respectively.

Ross, Aisha and Hughes, Davina Submission



In Part




Oppose The submitter purchased the property at 230 George Melrose Drive in August 2017. As part of

The submitter seeks the following decisions from Council:


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


the process they ordered a LIM report in July 2017, as a concern in buying this property was the rural block being changed to residential. The LIM stated: No under the Relevant approved or proposed

plan change that may affect the site. Under Significant Projects - the T13 residential

development is not listed. Had this T13 residential development been included in the LIM report the submitter would not have purchased this property. The views this property currently has connects them to their ancestral mountains, the environment and the whenua. These views are also reflective of the value they place on their property and the dollar figure they paid only three months ago.

1. Ensure their rights, views, and connections of ancestral mountains, environment, and lands are wholly uninterrupted or impeded, and are not impacted in any way through these proposed changes. 2. Undertake a Cultural Impact Assessment with regard to the proposed changes and its impacts on them as a property owner and mana whenua. 3. Ensure the proposed changes do not erode the purchased property value in August 2017. 4. Ensures properties built in future inclusive of roof lines, materials, fences etc. do not impact or impede on the views and connections of ancestral mountains, environment, and lands. 5. Changes to the boundary lines of the proposed area not to include the land and environment areas adjoining their affected property and neighbouring properties, these areas to remain rural land or changes the T13 cell area back to its original proposed location. 6. Purchase the lands and environments immediately adjoining their affected property and neighbouring properties to be invested into a reserve. 7. Provide them with a first right option to purchase at a discounted market rate the lands adjoining their affected property should the changes proceed.

Shaw, Cathie Submission



In Part




Oppose The rural status for the southern side of Lamb Street is not appropriate once other cells have been completed. These properties are classed as

That the southern side of Lamb Street be retained as part of the cell to be developed as determined by the 2009 Growth Strategy adopted.


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


urban for fire permits and also electoral boundaries and are basically life style blocks rather than full scale working farms.

Singh, Nirshai & Singh, Avtar & Kaur, Manpreet Submission



In Part



Appendix S1 Growth Cells Oppose The southern side of Lamb Street was identified as a Growth Cell under the 2009 Town Boundary of Appendix S1. The submitter notes that they relied on this for potential subdivision value of their property. They are of the opinion that the proposal to rezone the growth cells in Cambridge, excluding the southern side of Lamb Street as a growth cell, means they have lost that potential subdivision value of their property.

That the southern side of Lamb Street be identified as a Cambridge Growth Cell and included in C4 (Residential) or C11 (Large Lot Residential) of Appendix S1 and zoned Deferred Residential.

St Peter's School Submission



In Part




Oppose Plan Change 5 introduces a new set of triggers for the uplift of deferred residential zoning. Those triggers will have a profound impact on how the Proposed Structure Plan for C1 and C2/C3 is implemented. The submitter contends that the triggers provided under Section 14 of the Waipa District Plan create more uncertainty for all parties and the limitations to land being made available will simply create a race for developers to having deferred residential zoning uplifted. This may lead towards ad-hoc development that does not reflect the holistic approach that the Structure

The submitter seeks the following relief from the WDC: 1. Rule 14.4.1.9 be amended to reflect the wording pre Plan Change 5 and the following triggers be listed in Appendix S1 as it relates to the C3 cell. Similar triggers should also be prepared for the C1 and C2 cells. 2. That the triggers listed below (the genesis of which are from an earlier draft of the Proposed Structure Plan dated 12 September 2017) be adopted by WDC within Appendix S1 as it relates to the C3 Growth Cell. The staged uplift of the deferred residential


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


Plan seeks to achieve. The submitter is also concerned that the generic triggers provided under Rule 14.4.1.9 do not provide any recognition of unique, or site-specific matters which may need to be considered in determining the appropriate sequencing of land development. Without recognising such matters in Section 14 may lead to development occurring in a way that does not reflect the outcomes sought by the Proposed Structure Plan for the C1 and C2/C3 Growth Cells. Unless a better defined set of triggers can be determined, which provides certainty to all parties and represents the most appropriate approach under section 32 of the RMA to achieve the purpose of the RMA, the submitter would prefer triggers similar to those listed in Section 10.2.4 of the Proposed Structure Plan (dated 12 September 2017). Without that, the submitter considers much of the underlying design philosophy of the Proposed Structure Plan will be undermined and frustrated. It is noted that those triggers were removed from the Proposed Structure Plan (dated 31 October 2017) as notified and replaced with those in Section 14 of the Waipa District Plan (Plan Change 5). No consultative process was undertaken with the submitter prior to the notification of the revised triggers.

zoning within the C3 Structure Plan area shall be subject to the following requirements: Stage 1: a) A consented and designated stormwater solution exists that holistically manages stormwater from the C1, C2 and (where necessary) C3 growth cell areas. b) Council approved on-site stormwater solutions. c) Completion of signalised Cambridge Road intersection as part of Stage 1 development. d) Designation of the north/south central collector road within the C3 Stage 1 area, to provide connectivity between the neighbourhood centre and residential development. e) Approved subdivision and development in general accordance with the Structure Plan. f) Installation of strategic trunk mains for water and wastewater on the western side of Cambridge, and water and wastewater treatment plant capacity upgrades, as required. g) As they are not relevant, triggers a) c) and d) above shall not apply to the uplift of the deferred residential zoning for Stage 1 located east of the Te Awa Lifecare Village. Stage 2: a) 70% completion of residential development within C3 Stage 1. b) Council approved on-site stormwater solutions. c) Designation of the central collector road and local road within the C3 Stage 2 area, to provide connectivity between residential areas and back towards Cambridge Road. d) Designation of the C3 Stage 2 local open space and stormwater infrastructure identified on the Structure Plan (or Council agreed alternatives to meet the same outcomes). e) Approved subdivision and development in


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


general accordance with the Structure Plan. f) Installation of strategic trunk mains for water and wastewater on the western side of Cambridge, and water and wastewater treatment plant capacity upgrades, as required. g) Trigger c) and d) above shall not apply to the uplift of the deferred residential zoning for Stage 2 located east of the Te Awa Lifecare Village. However, alternative access would need to be provided via the local road proposed through the Town Belt. Stage 3: a) 70% completion of residential development within C3 Stage 2. b) Council approved on-site stormwater solutions. c) Designation of the central collector road C3 Stage 3 area, to provide connectivity between residential areas and back towards Cambridge Road. d) Designation of the Stage 2 local open space identified on the Structure Plan; or confirmed provision of alternative local open space. e) Approved subdivision and development in general accordance with the Structure Plan. f) Installation of strategic trunk mains for water and wastewater on the western side of Cambridge, and water and wastewater treatment plant capacity upgrades, as required. 3. Under this approach it is anticipated that similar triggers would be included for the staged release of the C1 and C2 cells. Chartwell seeks that such triggers for Stage 1 in C1 and C2 include the following for the uplift of deferred residential zoning: A consented and designated stormwater solution exists that holistically manages stormwater from the C1, C2 and (where necessary) C3 growth cell


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


areas. 4. Any similar or consequential amendments that stem from the submission and relief sought.



Oppose Rule 14.4.1.9(c) allows for the uplift of deferred residential zoning provided that the development infrastructure required to service the Deferred Zone area is either in place, or Council is satisfied that there is a solution to deliver the necessary infrastructure. The submitter is concerned with the how this rule may be applied given that the C1 and C2 growth cells are dependent on a permanent stormwater solution across C3 land, but may proceed with staged development within those cells on the basis of a temporary stormwater solution being provided as an interim measure. However, the time taken to obtain a consented solution could take a number of years subject to appeals by interested parties.The submitter considers the most appropriate method for ensuring that the permanent stormwater solution is designed and consented in an efficient manner is to ensure that a consented solution is in place before any deferred residential zone (that will be required to connect to the permanent stormwater solution) is uplifted. This requirement would not prevent temporary stormwater solutions being applied, but it would ensure that the Submitter is not disadvantaged in terms of developing its land due to infrastructure being required which is largely required for the benefit of other growth cells (C1 and C2).

1. Rule 14.4.1.9(c) be deleted and the balance of Rule 14.4.1.9 be amended to reflect the wording pre Plan Change 5. Triggers be included in Appendix S1 as described above in submission point 16/1). 2. Any similar or consequential amendments that stem from the submission and relief sought.



Oppose The submitter has concerns with Rule 14.4.1.9(d) as it creates a significant amount of uncertainty with terminology that is open to interpretation, despite definitions being included with the rule. For example, it does not state how three years supply of land is to be calculated and what

1. Rule 14.4.1.9(d) be deleted and the balance of Rule 14.4.1.9 be amended to reflect the wording pre Plan Change 5. Triggers be included in Appendix S1 as described above in submission point 16/1). 2. Any similar or consequential amendments that


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


happens if WDC’s calculation of this is not consistent with the applicant seeking to have the deferred zoning uplifted. Furthermore, the rule requires such matters to be ‘proven to the satisfaction of Council’, meaning there is no absolute target that needs to be reached. The submitter provided different scenarios which may occur and made the point that such situations would be untenable for developers given the costs that will be associated with getting an application prepared. Furthermore, such situations may leave the WDC exposed to accusations of showing bias and/or preferential treatment to one party over another, or otherwise distorting the local residential market.

stem from the submission and relief sought.

The Oaks Stud Submission



In Part


Late - 55/1 Growth Cell boundaries


Support in part

Seek a rezoning of 118ha of land as an extension of C6 as per attached map. The landowner is keen to develop a residential area with walkways, parks and facilities to complement the housing.

Seek a rezoning of 118ha of land as an extension of C6 as per attached map.

Urban Village Property Ltd Submission



In Part


25/1 Generic Appendix S1 Growth Cells - T11

Support The submitter supports purpose of Plan Change 5 which is to provide for, and allow the development of, identified growth areas within the Waipa District to provide for anticipated population growth. The submitter particularly supports the identification of the properties

Retain the land owned by the submitter on Cambridge Road within the C4 Growth Cell. Retain the timing associated with the development of the C4 Growth Cell being “now to 2035”.


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


owned by the submitter on Cambridge Road being within the C4 Growth Cell.



Oppose in part





Oppose in part

The map called “Cambridge Growth Map” in Appendix S1 identifies six residential growth cells that are planned to be developed from “now to 2035”, four of which are on the northern side of the Waikato River and two of which are on the southern side of the Waikato River. It identifies three other residential growth cells which are to be developed “beyond 2035” (which is beyond the life of the current Waipa District Plan).The current wording of Rule 14.4.1.9(d) does not give

Amend Rule 14.4.1.9(d) to read:“In the case of Deferred Residential Zone or Deferred Large Lot Residential Zone areas identified on the Planning Maps, it is proven to the satisfaction of Council that within the relevant town or village in either the Deferred Residential Zone or the Deferred Large Lot Residential Zone there is:i) less than three years supply of land that is Development Ready; orii) there are less than three Open Growth Cells; and oriii) in the case of Cambridge only,


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


effect to the purpose of Plan Change 5, particularly in terms of the timing of development, and is inconsistent with the outcomes that the submitter understands from discussions with Council staff are sought to be enabled and/or achieved.The rule limits the number of growth cells able to be developed at any one time to a total of three growth cells in Cambridge. Given that the Cambridge North Growth Cell and the C6 Growth Cell are currently open for development, the combination of clauses ii) and iii) of the rule mean that only one more growth cell can be opened for development in Cambridge under the current circumstances. That situation works in relation to the south side of the river as there are only two residential growth cells identified for development from “now to 2035”. However, on the northern side of the river there are three growth cells (C1, C2 and C3) in addition to the Cambridge North Growth Cell which is already being developed. Rule 14.4.1.9(d) needs to be amended to allow for the development of any and all of the growth cells in the “now to 2035” category as and when they are able to satisfy the other requirements specified in Rule 14.4.1.9 and as the market demands.

there are less than two Open Growth Cells on either the northern or southern side of the Waikato River, in which case an additional Growth Cell identified in Appendix S1 can be releasedfor development on that side of the Waikato River any of the growth cells identified on the Cambridge Growth Map in Appendix S1 as “now to 2035” (i.e. the continuation of the Cambridge North Growth Cell, C1, C2, C3, C4 and C6 Growth Cells) can be developed provided that the other requirements of this rule have been satisfied, and”



Support in part





Support in part




Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part




Support in part



Waikato Regional Airport Limited (WRAL) Submission



In Part


35/1 Generic Appendix S1 Growth Cells - Hamilton Airport

Support in part

The existing Hamilton Airport Strategic Node map and related provisions that currently form part of Appendix 51 of the Waipa District Plan were put in place in 2015 and therefore these provisions are only two years old, and were the subject of extensive submissions and evidence by multiple parties at the time. They include identification of a 'Possible Future Growth Area' adjoining the Northern Precinct of Titanium Park (Figure attached in submissions). The land within this area is owned by the submitter and is considered suitable for future development. With appropriate infrastructure being developed in the area, it is considered that other land surrounding the 'Possible Future Growth Area' will also be suitable for development in the future. The 'Hamilton Airport Growth Map' in Plan Change 5 proposed to replace the above map includes a number of amendments that are

To amend the 'Hamilton Airport Growth Map' as shown below. In addition, remove the word 'Industrial' from those parts of Titanium Park on the map.


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


opposed, as follows: - The change in terminology from 'Titanium Park (Northern Precinct)' to 'Montgomery Block (Industrial - 41ha)' for the zoned land creates confusion. The previous owners of this land were the Montgomeries and therefore previously it was colloquially known as the 'Montgomerie Block'. However all of the land is now owned by WRAL and in the Waipa District Plan Airport Structure Plan at Appendix 510 it is identified as the Titanium Park Northern Precinct. For consistency and to avoid confusion the reference to 'Montgomery Block' should be removed and replaced with 'Titanium Park- Northern Precinct'. - The references to 'lndustrial' on the plan are not accurate and should be amended. All of the Titanium Park land is zoned Airport Business Zone in the Waipa District Plan. This zone is a mixed use zone that was incorporated into the Waipa District Plan as a result of Plan Change 57 in 2008 and subsequently re-confirmed as part of the Proposed Waipa District Plan submission process from 2012-2015. While development to date has largely been industrial that is unlikely to always be the case and it is confusing and potentially misleading if the growth plan does not accurately reflect the zoning. All the references to Industrial on the map should be removed. - The new map has removed 'Possible Future Growth Area' with 'Future Expansion Direction' and arrows as well as identifying the land area and boundaries. The deletions should be reinstated as shown on the attached map as well as retaining the 'Future Expansion Direction' and arrows (albeit amended as shown on the attached map).


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part



Support in part

The description of Titanium Park in the first column of the table does not accurately reflect the zoning of the land as Airport Business Zone and the range of activities that are permitted. This zoning and the range of activities were settled through Environment Court processes in 2015 and there have been no significant changes in circumstances since then to indicate any need for amendments. While Titanium Park is part of the Hamilton Airport Strategic Industrial Node in the Regional Policy Statement, and therefore provides industrial land capacity its zoning is multipurpose and provides for other activities. To ensure this special nature of the node is clear the first bullet point is requested to be amended. I seek the following decision from the Council.

Update the tables accompanying the map that define land areas and provide an overview and capacity of each growth cell. Amend the first row in the table to read; 'Titanium Park is being developed in stages, with the initial stage2, being developed currently. The industrial capacity provides for Future Proof anticipated demand for the period until 2041 and provides for further industrial development and airport related activities. It is zoned in the District Plan as Airport Business Zone which provides for a range of other activities as well as industrial.


Support in part

The third row of the 'pre-2035' table also requires amendment because it is inaccurate. It refers to the 'Montgomery Block' rather than the Northern Precinct. The land is now largely owned by WRAL and able to be developed in accordance with the Airport Business Zone rules . Although the Northern Precinct land is strategically located due to its proximity to the runway the Airport Business Zone policies and rules do not direct it towards activities that are airport related . The range of activities in the Northern Precinct were settled during the Proposed Waipa District Plan Environment Court process from 2012-2015.

The submitter seeks the following decision from the Council. Amend the third row of the 'pre-2035' table to read:


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part



Support in part

The 'Beyond 2035' table includes a reference to the 'Montgomery Block Extension' which also needs to be amended for clarity and consistency. As described in the submission on the Growth Area Plan the reference to 'future extension direction' while helpful, detracts from the certainty of identifying a land parcel for future development. Identifying a specific land parcel assists those who may be affected understanding the long term thinking for the area and also provides a higher degree of certainty for the landowners. However, it is acknowledged that the current land ownership does not restrict future development and it would be helpful to provide some indicative direction, given that the Southern Links designation has now established a logical northern and western boundary to development.

The submitter seeks the following decision from the Council. Amend the 'Beyond 2035' table to read:

Waikato Regional Council Submission



In Part


13/1 Generic Whole of Plan Change 5 Support The submitter generally supports the Plan Change, noting that it responds to the outcomes of a strategic planning exercise, and reflects new and additional information regarding growth projections for Waipa District. Overall, PCS, in conjunction with the existing provisions of the District Plan, is considered to achieve planned and co-ordinated subdivision,

Retain as notified (subject to any specific relief identified in WRC's other submission points).


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


use and development (RPS Policy 6.1) and co-ordinated growth and infrastructure provision (RPS Policy 6.3). In particular, the updated Waipa 2050 Growth Strategy gives effect to Implementation Method 6.1.6, and the requirement for structure plans as part of the uplift of deferred zoning gives effect to Implementation Method 6.1.7. It is recognised that in respect of 'deferred' zones, some of the considerations sought by these RPS policies and associated implementation methods (in particular Implementation Method 6.1.8) will be addressed through the structure planning process required at the time that the deferred zoning is proposed to be uplifted.


Section 1 Strategic Policy Framework - Policy 1.3.2.2

Support The proposed amendments to this policy will ensure that in Deferred Zones subdivision and development that is not generally in accordance with Appendix S1 will be avoided, unless infrastructure requirements are met, and the development meets the criteria for alternative land release in the RPS. WRC supports this as it gives effect to the RPS, in particular Implementation Method 6.14.3.

Retain.



Support in part

The amendments to this policy are generally supported, as they provide an appropriate framework for Rule 14.4.1.9. The cross reference to Policy 14.3.1.5 is noted, and it is recommended that 14.3.1.5 be amended in light of changes anticipated to the RPS to give effect to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity (NPS-UDC).

Amend Policy 14.3.1.5 as follows: To provide for the rezoning of deferred land to its intended future use where it is consistent with the residential or industrial land tables, and/or the criteria for alternative land release in the provisions in the Regional Policy Statement relating to sub-regional growth.



Support in part

The submitter generally supports the proposed process for uplifting of Deferred Zones, and recognises the intention to respond to the NPS-UDC, by providing a more flexible approach to land supply in locations of demand. The submitter

Amendments to the introductory text to more clearly describe the process, including alternative pathways (i.e. either by plan change or resource consent) for uplifting of deferred zones, including use of a diagram to show the process.


Submission point


Support / Oppose /

In Part


also supports the definitions that accompany this rule. To assist in the application of the rule, amendments to the introductory text of Section 14.1 and of Appendix S1 (S1.1) would be helpful. In particular, a diagram setting out the process for uplifting deferred zoning, and a clearer description of the process by which a structure plan gets 'approved', including a cross-reference from Ru le 14.4.1.9(b) to Rule 14.4.1.4(b) would assist.

AND Amendment to Rule 14.4.1.9(b) as follows: A structure plan has been approved for the whole for the Deferred Zone area in accordance with 14.4.1.4(b) ...

13/5 Residential Appendix S1 Growth Cells - Introduction S1.1

Support The submitter supports the application of the 12-15 dwellings per ha density target within the Cambridge and Te Awamutu/Kihikihi growth cells, as this gives effect to RPS Policy 6.15.

Retain.


Appendix S1 Growth Cells Neutral It is noted that the development of the identified growth cells will change stormwater run-off characteristics, and has the potential to result in cumulative downstream impacts on receiving environments, including the Waikato River and various WRC-administered drainage areas. It is acknowledged that stormwater will be considered as part of the structure plan process that is required prior to uplifting of the deferred zoning of any of the structure plan areas, and in this respect the existing assessment criteria 21.1.14.1(c) is noted . WRC supports catchment wide stormwater management approaches that seek to manage cumulative impacts on downstream receiving environments. It is also noted that consents are likely to be required for stormwater discharge under the Waikato Regional Plan (WRP).

To note, no specific amendments sought.


Walker, Grant Submission



In Part


12/1 Generic Whole of Plan Change 5 Oppose The submitter considers that not enough consultation with affected landowners has occurred. The submitter is of the opinion that the proposed changes to the district plan removes their future rights to change land use, even to develop a better use for the land.

The proposed changes to 3715 Cambridge Rd be left as the 'status quo' or brought forward from 2050 to 2035, and the whole submission process to involve the landowners in Waipa more effectively.

Wang, Jun & Yanot, Bin Submission



In Part


1/1 Generic Whole of Plan Change 5 Support Not stated. Not stated.

Watson, Martin and Watson, Karin Submission



In Part




Support in part



Williams, Rick Submission



In Part


Late - 54/1 Residential Appendix S1 Growth Cells - C7 and T13

Support Support the proposed rezoning of growth cells C7 in Cambridge and T13 in Te Awamutu.

Retain.

Documents

Summary of Decision Requested to Plan Change 5: … · 230 George Melrose Drive Te Awamutu 3800 36 Shaw, Cathie ; 3718 Cambridge Ro ad RD 3 . Cambridge 3495 49 Singh, Nirshai & Singh,