Appendix 13: Summary Submissions Report on PDP...2.10 Submissions on Residential Chapters 13 3.0...

Appendix 13: Summary Submissions Report on PDP

Ruakura Private Plan Change | Assessment of Environmental Effects

Appendix 13: Summary Submissions Report on PDP

PDP Submissions AnalysisPrepared for

Tainui Group Holdings Limited and Chedworth Properties Limited

13 June 2013

Document Quality Assurance

Bibliographic reference for citation: Boffa Miskell Limited 2013. PDP Submissions Analysis: Report prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited for Tainui Group Holdings Limited and Chedworth Properties Limited.

Prepared by: John Carter Senior Planner Boffa Miskell Limited

Reviewed by: Phil Stickney Associate Director/Planner Boffa Miskell Limited

Status: Final Revision / version: 3 Issue date: 13 June 2013

Use and Reliance This report has been prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited on the specific instructions of our Client. It is solely for our Client’s use for the purpose for which it is intended in accordance with the agreed scope of work. Boffa Miskell does not accept any liability or responsibility in relation to the use of this report contrary to the above, or to any person other than the Client. Any use or reliance by a third party is at that party's own risk. Where information has been supplied by the Client or obtained from other external sources, it has been assumed that it is accurate, without independent verification, unless otherwise indicated. No liability or responsibility is accepted by Boffa Miskell Limited for any errors or omissions to the extent that they arise from inaccurate information provided by the Client or any external source.

Template revision: 20120910 0000

File ref: A08274_9000_Submsissions-Analysis_JCFurther edits.docx

\\bmlfp2\design\2013\A13090_PSt_Ruakura_EPA\Documents\Plan Change\AEE_Appendices\12_SummarySubmissionsReport\A08274_9000_Submsissions-Analysis_JCFurther edits.docx

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Submissions 2

2.1 Institutional Submitters 2 Waikato University 2 AgResearch 2 Waikato Innovation Park 3 Future Proof 3 New Zealand Transport Agency 3 KiwiRail 4 The Property Council 4 Waikato Chamber of Commerce 4 Hamilton City Council 4 Waikato District Council 4 Waikato Regional Council 5 Transpower 5 Fonterra 5 2.2 Percival/Ryburn Road Residents 5 2.3 Submission to the East of the Expressway Designation 7 2.4 Southern area (Silverdale North) Residents 8 2.5 Panhandle Large Lot Residential Area 10 2.6 Silverdale Southwest Residents 10 2.7 Fairview Downs Residents 11 2.8 Wairere Drive 12 2.9 Enderley Residents 13 2.10 Submissions on Residential Chapters 13

3.0 Conclusion 14 Appendices Appendix 1: Ruakura Submissions Map

PDP Submissions Analysis 1

1.0 Introduction

This paper sets out a brief summary of submissions relating to the district plan chapters relevant to the Ruakura Structure Plan Area. A plan showing the location of submitter addresses for the business and structure plan chapters is attached as Appendix 1.

It is noted that more detailed summaries of submission points have been produced by Boffa Miskell and the Hamilton City Council summary was provided on 31 May. Copies of submissions can be found at http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/PDPSubmissions2013.pdf

Overall submissions relevant to the business zones at were received from 56 addresses, although in some cases numerous submissions were received from the same address. In addition we also had a number of submissions from institutional or non-locational specific submitters including Hamilton City Council, Fonterra, NZTA, Kiwi Rail, Transpower and Future Proof.

2 PDP Submissions Analysis

2.0 Submissions

2.1 Institutional Submitters

Waikato University

http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/Proposed%20District%20Plan%20Submission%201059.pdf

- Map reference 26

- The submission from the University primarily relates to the Knowledge Zone provisions specific to the University which do not directly affect the greenfield innovation area

- Supports 45% building coverage

- There are some comments in relation to finding the appropriate balance between promoting the Rukura proposal and maintaining the environmental and social objectives of existing facilities and neighbourhoods

- Amend Objective 10.2.2 as follows (or similar wording); To optimise the long term economic benefits of the logistics hub while ensuring that development proceeds in a manner which does not compromise the amenity and social values of surrounding neighbourhoods and facilities. To optimise the long-term positive environmental, economic and social effects of the logistics hub.

- In addition a submission point requests the reduction of the height of cranes from 35m to 20m outside the inland port. It is noted that this change formed part of the TGHL submission.

- Seeks setbacks from open space increased to 15m.

- Concerns about noise standards

- Seeks amendment to restricted discretionary activity criteria

AgResearch

http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/Proposed%20District%20Plan%

- Map reference 63

- Opposes activities not listed in activity tables defaulting to non-




20Submission%20609.pdf

complying activities

- Supports the Ruakura Structure Plan development

- Supports a Suburban Centre within the knowledge zone

- Supports flexibility with the spine road

- Support TGHL’s preferred interchange locations

- Seek increase from 50% to 70% buildings coverage.

- Minimum road frontage (20m) opposed

- Seek amendments to events provisions

- Seek amendments to Radioactive and Hazardous facilities rules

Waikato Innovation Park


- General alignment in particular the support the suburban centre and the removal of excessive reference to the Central City

- Seek removal of restriction of Greenfield area to post 2041

- Seek permitted activity status for new buildings

- Seek permitted activity status for new buildings.

- Oppose 20m minimum road frontage

Future Proof


- Supports TGHL’s proposal

- Supports re-zoning of Percival Road Large Lot residential to Ruakura Logistics

- Supports TGHL’s preferred interchange locations

New Zealand Transport Agency

http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/Proposed%20District%20Plan%

- Support the strategic integration of land use and infrastructure


- Need to ensure buildings/containers





20Submission%20924.pdf

not to high close to expressway

- No advertising signage to be visible from the expressway

- Request a 5m wide landscape planting strip along the expressway

- Supports Logistics zoning for Ryburn/Percival Road

KiwiRail


- Supports the development of a regional logistic hub at Ruakura

The Property Council


- Comprehensive submission primarily focussed on the Central city and existing urban areas

- Generally not in-consistent with TGHL submission

- Supports an efficient consent process

Waikato Chamber of Commerce



Hamilton City Council


- Seeks sewer with sufficient capacity to support not only Structure Plan Area but also other growth areas.

- Various alterations and corrections to provisions.

Waikato District Council



- Seeks 18 dph for Greenfield areas

- Asks for Social infrastructure to be provided for

- Indicates that roads will be stopped and a new underpass provided for Ruakura Road







Waikato Regional Council


- Supports the PRPS and Future Proof growth pattern

- General support for provisions relating to environmental protection including ecological corridors.

- Support for Ruakura and the recognition of the PRPS industrial land allocation table

Transpower


- Supports the use of land under powerlines for stormwater treatment

- Increase the setbacks from poles from 8m to 12m

- Seeks buildings being non-complying within electricity yard including new dwellings within existing urban areas.

- Seeks the addition of new vertical and horizontal separation standards

- Definition of sensitive land uses to include buildings where people might spend more than 20 hours per week.

Fonterra


- Submission point are predominantly related specifically to the Te Rapa Dairy Factory and the Crawford Freight Village

- Restricted to submission points related to infrastructure provision

2.2 Percival/Ryburn Road Residents This area is currently zoned Countryside Living and is located directly adjoining the proposed Waikato Expressway and next to the existing East Coast Main Trunk Line. The Structure Plan seeks a logistics zoning on the land. The proposed plan has however zoned the land Large Lot Residential. TGHL’s submission apposes this zoning as it is located in the middle of a large industrial growth cell.

22 submitter addresses are located in this area





Submission No Map Reference No Name Address

1005 20 Alan Frederick and Barbara Winifred Julian

53a Ryburn Road

1006 31 Peter and Barbara Ryan

3 Brighton Grove

1007 19 Bo Han and Maggie Wang -

53C Ryburn Rd

1224 24 Shing-long Lee 134B Percival Rd

238 16 Ross & Leonie Hopkins 352 Ruakura Rd

763 21 Wei Lee 124B Percival Rd

764 22 Ming-San (Arvin) and Meng-Chu (Anna) Tang

51b Ryburn Rd

827 23 Ken Shang and Hong Wang -

51a Ryburn Rd

831 29 Kung-Yao Lin 12 Brighton Grove

835 25 Derrick Ross and Robyn Mary Marsters

134A Percival Rd

861 17 Allan Liang-chitz and Shirley Tzu-ling Wan

45 Ryburn Road

864 59 Raylene Cowie and Saul Spriggs

60a Percival Rd

910 58 Bryce and Natasha Carmichael

6 Brighton Grove

928/1275 30 William Roy Cowie/Ruakura Residents and Ratepayers

60 Percival Road

1277 42 Russell Cooper 318 Ruakura Road

1278 43 David Evan and Karlene Chibnall

124a Percival Road

1279 44 Roland and Wendy Spirig

116 Percival Road

1280 45 David Murray Young & Karen Lee Young

4 Brighton Grove

1281 51 Dr Liz Halsey 130 Percival Road

1257 62 Kerry and Donna Willmott

63 Ryburn Road


1004 32 Japara Trust 10 Brighton Grove

180 48 Graeme Ernest Goodwin

23 Ryburn Road

Key issues raised by submitters:

The submitters almost consistently seek the following;

- Large Lot Residential zoning to be retained. Reference to temporary nature of the zone be removed.

- 1 dwelling per 2500m2.

- 100m buffer.

- 100m landscaped area and an 4m high earth bund.

- Larger areas of landscape screening.

In addition other comments included:

- Ryburn road should be offered mitigation.

- 70% uptake of industrial land before Ruakura land made available.

- Oppose logistics hub.

- No freight movements on Percival road.

- City should buy out landowners.

A copy of the Submission from the Ruakura Residents Association can be found at the following link http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/Proposed%20District%20Plan%20Submission%201275.pdf

Current remediation contained in the District Plan:

Container Height: Height of containers limited to 12m within 100m of the northern boundary of the inland port– This formed part of TGHL submission to the District Plan.

Screen Planting– 5m wide 1.5m high landscape planting strip to be established to provide screen of the facility from Ryburn/Percival Road area. Potential to locate this on the road reserve to increase the level of screening ( Proposed Rule 10.4.7)

Noise controls – Amended city wide noise controls proposed.

Lighting Glare controls – 3 lux to be achieved – the same as any other residential zone.

2.3 Submission to the East of the Expressway Designation


238 16 Ross & Leonie Hopkins 352 Ruakura Rd



252 49 Alastair Philip Calder 81 Davison Road

911 12 Hugh Goodman and Katie Mayes -

3 Vaile Road

Key issues raised by submitters:

- 70% uptake of industrial land before Ruakura land made available

- Seek Residential/Innovation rather than industrial development

- Oppose land release prior to the expressway being completed

- Adverse effects to residential property

- Support for commercial and general industrial activities being non-complying in the logistics zone.

- Support logistics and freight handling activities being restricted discretionary activities.

- Seek amendments to the permitted activity standard for lighting towers in the Ruakura Logistics Zone so that "Provision and use of artificial lighting, producing an illuminance in excess of 150 lux, measured at any point on the site containing the light source, in a horizontal or vertical plane at ground level" is a discretionary activity.

- Seek a a permitted activity standard in the Ruakura Logistics Zone and Ruakura Industrial Park Zone that prevents glare from buildings as follows: "Buildings shall be designed and built so that the reflectivity of all external surfaces does not exceed 20% of white light. This means that glass and other materials with reflectivity values that exceed 20% may only be used provided they are covered or screened in such a way that the external surfaces will still meet this rule."

2.4 Southern area (Silverdale North) Residents The Industrial Park Zone adjoins this existing residential area. The properties located near to the zone boundary are located on Sheridan and Nevada Street.

9 submitter addresses are located in this area.


16 66 Kevin Brian Hall 61a Nevada Road

184 8 Denis Richard Lauren 57 Nevada Rd

187 15 Robert Alan Mills 70B Nevada Road

249 8 Philippa Jane Gerard 57 Nevada Rd

260 13 Robert James Davies-Colley

76 Nevada Road


265 13 Silverdale Residents Group

76 Nevada Road

268 10 Robert Gordon Bell 69 Nevada Rd

270 14 Roberta Lee Farrell 74 Nevada Road

283 14 Roy McIver Daniel FRSNZ

74 Nevada Road

289 7 Josina Wilhelmina Maria Ellis

1 Chelmsford Street

303 11 Silverdale Residents Group

75 Nevada Road

909 9 Jennifer and John West 66 Nevada Road

Key issues raised were;

- Industrial Park Zone is an inappropriate use of land

- Stormwater controls at source should be required

- Impact to local school

- Impact to the Mangaonua Gully

- A buffer of 200m required

- Impact to the Knowledge Zone/Waikato University

- Reduce site coverage (75% max)

- Reduce height of container stacking buildings and light towers

- Increase landscaping from University and Expressway

- Remove low value freight activities

- 40m setback from all Residential and Special Character Zones

- Limit hours of operation

Submission from the residents group can be accessed from the following link


Current remediation proposed in the District Plan:

- Setbacks – 40m setback from the residential zone, 8m from open space.

- Controls over types of activities - A number of activities that would normally be expected within an Industrial zone have been specifically excluded from consideration. Including any noxious or offensive activity, motor vehicle dismantling and repair, recycling plants, incinerators and fertiliser manufacture.



- Design Controls – New buildings within 40m of the public realm require consent as a Controlled Activity. It is noted that all buildings currently require consent although this is opposed in the TGHL submission.

- Noise Controls – amended city wide noise controls proposed.

- Light spill controls – 3 lux city wide control.

- Landscaping – Landscaping required in all yards adjoining public open space ( Proposed Rule 11.4.7) and 2m planting strips required. Open space zoned buffer also provided.

- Building height control – 20m (Proposed Rule 11.4.4).

- Interface standards – No unloading of containers in front yards (Proposed Rule 11.4.9).

2.5 Panhandle Large Lot Residential Area This area is currently zoned rural but is proposed to be rezoned as Large Lot Residential under the Proposed Plan.



293 56 Gwyneth Ann Verkerk 161 Morrinsville Rd

832 57 James Hely and Heather Montgomerie

188B Morrinsville Road

951 61 ANG & SL Clarke 187A, SH26, Hamilton

Key issues raised were:

- Generally these submissions support the zoning of the land.

- The Clarke submission identified stormwater management as a key issue. I have added links to this submission http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/Proposed%20District%20Plan%20Submission%20951.pdf

2.6 Silverdale Southwest Residents This area of residential development is located on Silverdale Road near the University. It is separated by Silverdale Road and an area of open space from the commercial zones.





1018 28 Gillian Anne Denny 199 Silverdale Road

218 18 Nagarajah Manoharan 103A Silverdale Road

245 27 Dianne Leathwick 197 Silverdale Road

Key issues raised were:

- Impact on the character of the area.

- Farm and associated buildings are heritage sites.

- Minimise impact on residential properties.

- Staging Plans required.

- Impacts to the University.

- Clean Green alternative uses should be found.

Current remediation proposed in the plan:

- Open Space – Open Space zoned Buffer Area provided.

- Design Controls – New buildings within 40m of the public realm require consent as a Controlled Activity. It is noted that all building currently require consent although this is opposed in the TGHL submission.




2.7 Fairview Downs Residents This is an existing area of established residential development previously developed by CPL.



282 37 Deborah June Fisher 80 Alderson Road

327 36 Lori Silsbee 10 Ada Place

330 35 David Charles Ferguson 117 Powells Road

338 34 Jennifer Rita Bothwell - Fairview Downs Residents

26 Aldona Place


56 39 Dennis Roy McLeod 25 Alderson Rd

Key issues raised:

- Protection required for local residents.

- Removal of the Structure Plan from the Plan.

- Spine road should be shown as an arterial.

- Landscaping 1.5m by 5m is not enough.

- Removal of notification rule.

- 8m and 40m building setbacks setbacks should be increased.

- Request no industrial views.

- Rural outlook.

- 400m greenbelt required.

The submission from the Fairview downs residents can be accessed via the following link


Submission 35 (David Charles Ferguson) relates to a piece of land that is included within the R1 land but is not owned by the JV partners but has been identified as open space associated with the spine road.

Current remediation proposed in the plan:

- Open Space – Open Space Zoned Buffer Area provided between Rukura Industrial Park Zone and residential.

- Controls over types of activities - A number of activities that would normally be expected within an Industrial zone have been specifically excluded from consideration. Including any noxious or offensive activity, motor vehicle dismantling and repair, recycling plants, incinerators and fertiliser manufacture.

- Design Controls – New buildings within 40m of the public realm require consent as a Controlled Activity. It is noted that all building currently require consent although this is opposed in the TGHL submission.




2.8 Wairere Drive This area is located in the far north-western corner of the Structure Plan Area.




80 47 Alexandra Lee Simmons 22 Stoneleigh Drive

977 46 Parkwood Gateway Limited

PRS Planning Services Limited

984 46 Portland Park Limited PRS Planning Services Limited

3 submissions have been received that relate to the northern most extent of the R1 land. Submission 46 relates to area of land currently zoned for a suburban centre in the Hamilton City Operative Plan. The proposed plan zones this as a neighbourhood centre. The submitter seeks to enable a suburban centre on this site. Both submissions 46 and 37 are concerned with wastewater connection in this area.

2.9 Enderley Residents This submission relates to a residential area to the west of AgResearch.

Key issues raised:

- Primarily these submissions relate to areas of proposed residential intensification not related to the R1 growth cell.

- Restrict further industrial development until existing areas are full.

- Minimise use of 5th Ave as a thoroughfare.

- Planting should be provided along Wairere Drive.

- Note submission 906 (Stephen George Bigwood) includes as a submission point that stages 2 and 3 should be rezoned as deferred Industrial Areas.

2.10 Submissions on Residential Chapters A large number of submissions were received in relation to the residential chapters most of these submission are not directly relevant to Ruakura. The following is noted:

- Predominantly submission points related to the specific provisions of the General Residential Zone and various garage gate issues.

- Most Ryburn/Percival Road residents made submission points in relation to the supporting the Large Lot residential Zone on their properties.

- There are only limited submission points that relate to the Medium Density Zone. These relate to minimum dwelling sizes and residential yield. Generally comments are aligned with CPL submission.

- It is noted that Portland Park Limited has challenged the need for an Integrated Retail Development with the Medium Density Zoned land at Ruakura.


Further detailed analysis of these issues will be provided once the council release their detailed summary of submissions.

3.0 Conclusion

The following observations are made;

• Overall there were a relatively low number of submissions.

• Residents submissions tend to relate to specific interfaces with the Structure Plan Area. They do not show a ground swell of opposition to the proposal

• Although there are some issues that will need to be resolved overall there appears to be a high level of consistent support for the proposal by key partners.

• One submitter Stephen George Bigwood (submission 906) included as a submission point that stages 2 and 3 should be rezoned as deferred Industrial Areas

Appendix 1: Ruakura Submissions Map

PDP Submissions Analysis

Appendix 1: Ruakura Submissions Map

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

78

910

11

12

13

1415

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2728

29

30

31

34

3536

37

38

39

40

41

46

47

5657

5859

60

61

63

64

65

66

42

43

44

45

51

6232

48

49

5

A08274 Tainui Ruakura

Ruakura Submissions

Date: 24 May 2013 | Revision: 0

Plan Prepared for Tainui Group by Boffa Miskell Limited

Author: [email protected] | Checked: JCa

File Ref: A08274_Submissions.mxd

www.boffamiskell.co.nz

0 500 m

1:20,000 @ A3

Leg

en

d

°Projection: NZGD 2000 New Zealand Transverse Mercator

Data Sources: LINZ Topo250, BML

!( Submitter Location

R1 Boundary

Th

is g

rap

hic

ha

s b

een

pre

pa

red

by

Bo

ffa

Mis

kell

Lim

ite

d o

n t

he

sp

eci

fic

inst

ruct

ion

s o

f o

ur

Cli

en

t. I

t is

so

lely

fo

r o

ur

Cli

ents

use

in a

cco

rda

nce

wit

h t

he

ag

ree

d s

cop

e o

f w

ork

. An

y u

se o

r re

lia

nce

by

a t

hir

d p

art

y is

at

tha

t p

art

ys o

wn

ris

k.

Wh

ere

info

rma

tio

n h

as

be

en

su

pp

lie

d b

y th

e C

lie

nt

or

ob

tain

ed

fro

m o

ther

ex

tern

al s

ou

rce

s, it

ha

s b

een

ass

um

ed

th

at

it is

acc

ura

te. N

o li

ab

ilit

y o

r re

spo

nsi

bil

ity

is a

ccep

ted

by

Bo

ffa

Mis

kell

Lim

ite

d f

or

an

y e

rro

rs o

r o

mis

sio

ns

to t

he

ex

ten

t th

at

the

y a

rise

fro

m in

acc

ura

te in

form

ati

on

pro

vid

ed

by

the

Cli

en

t o

r a

ny

ex

tern

al s

ou

rce

.

Appendix 13: Summary Submissions Report on PDP...2.10 Submissions on Residential Chapters 13 3.0...

Documents

Transcript of Appendix 13: Summary Submissions Report on PDP...2.10 Submissions on Residential Chapters 13 3.0...