· Web viewVariation 15 – Subdivision Connectivity, Heritage, Special Provisions in Growth...

To: Chief ExecutiveFrom: General Manager

Subject: Variation 15 – Subdivision Connectivity, Heritage, Special Provisions in Growth Areas and Miscellaneous Provisions

Committee City Development CommitteeMeeting Date:

22 and 23 September 2008 File Reference:

124/8/16

1.0 Executive Summary

1.1 Purpose of the Report1.1.1 This report addresses the matters raised in the submissions and further

submissions to the proposed Variation Number 15: Subdivision Connectivity, Heritage, Special Provisions in New Growth Areas and Miscellaneous Provisions (Variation 15).

1.1.2 Variation 15 responds to and recognises a number of key changes in Council’s strategic policy direction, as espoused in the Hamilton City Council’s 2006-16 Long-Term Plan; and incorporating two of the key strategic directions, CityScope and Access Hamilton. The proposed changes promote the ongoing accuracy of the Plan and its alignment with recent Council policy and approach. The Variation also contributes towards the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991 continuing to be achieved over time.

1.1.3 The Variation is broken into four main topics: PART A: Amendments relating to Subdivision Connectivity affecting

Policy Sections 4.2 and 4.4 and Rule Sections 6.2, 6.3 and 8.0; PART B: Amendments relating to the Heritage Items Overlay affecting

Policy Section 7.1 and Rule Section 2.3; PART C: Amendments relating to the special provisions for commercial

and community development in new growth areas affecting Rule 4.1.1e);

PART D: Minor amendments relating to miscellaneous provisions affecting Appendices 2.2-I and 2.4-I, Rule 5.1 and Planning Maps 11 and 11a.

1.2 Summary of Key Points

of 102 Last modified: 8/09/2008 07:46:00 AM

1.2.1 The majority of the submissions are in support or generally supportive of parts of the Variation, but also seek additional measures be approved by Council. However, there are also submissions received which do not support Variation No. 15.

1.2.2 There are 13 submissions to Part A. Subdivision Connectivity. Eight submissions oppose the changes, raising concern over: the narrow focus of the proposed urban design principles; the City wide approach rather than applying to Greenfield areas only; the content of the ‘design guide’; and the threshold and extent of detail required to be provided with a concept plan.

1.2.3 The proposed amendment introduces accepted urban design principles of connectivity and permeability into the District Plan and is a positive step towards creating sustainable communities. The proposed changes to the Proposed District Plan are as a result of Council’s policy approach and key strategic directions, CityScope and Access Hamilton. Connectivity and permeability assists in achieving a more sustainable pattern of development which is advocated by CityScope. Enhanced accessibility and connectivity in the layout of the local roads can promote an enhanced sense of identity within urban areas, improving access to community facilities and/or alternative transport modes.

1.2.4 There are eight submissions to Part B. Heritage. From the eight submissions, three submissions oppose the proposed changes raising, amongst other matters the concern over the negative impact the protection of heritage has on the private property owner.

1.2.5 The main thrust of Part B changes is a result of the elevated importance historic heritage now has under the Resource Management Act 1991. The proposed amendments ensure that the Proposed District Plan is up-to-date, accurate and is in accordance with the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991.

1.2.6 Five submissions were received in regard to Part C. Special Provisions in New Growth Areas. There are four submissions opposed to the deletion of Rule 4.1.1(e), citing the removal as being premature and unwarranted.

1.2.7 Since the release of the decisions to the District Plan in 2001 Council has taken a proactive approach to the provision of community and commercial facilities in growth areas through the preparation of structure plans. The level of flexibility provided through Rule 4.1.1(e) undermines the urban design concepts promoted in structure plans and has the potential to generate poor planning outcomes. Accordingly, the deletion of Rule 4.1.1(e) supports the Council’s policy approach of having overall strategic planning to achieve sound resource management outcomes along with supporting the other strategies (i.e. Future Proof). The deletion assists with keeping the Proposed District Plan aligned with good planning practice and with the protection of long term planning.

1.2.8 Part D. Miscellaneous Provisions proposed minor amendments to the Proposed District Plan to correct minor errors or inconsistencies to ensure that the Plan and Planning Maps continue to operate as effectively and efficiently as possible. One submission was received. The submission, by Hamilton City Council, identifies that an existing anomaly, should not to be amended as intended by Variation 15 as this will perpetuate the anomaly in the Plan. It is considered that the decision sought will allow for an existing inaccuracy to be rectified and ensures that the District Plan is up-to-date and accurate.


1.3 Recommendation1.3.1 That the report, Variation 15 – Subdivision Connectivity, Heritage, Special

Provisions in Growth Areas and Miscellaneous Provisions Variation be received;

1.3.2 That the proposed amendments, as set out in Section 8.0 of the report be approved;

1.3.3 That the decisions, in relation to each submission and further submission be made for the reasons as set out in Section 8.0 of the report.

2.0 Introduction2.1.1 This report addresses the matters raised in the submissions and further

submissions to the proposed Variation Number 15: Subdivision Connectivity, Heritage, Special Provisions in New Growth Areas and Miscellaneous Provisions (Variation 15).

2.1.2 Variation No.15 was publicly notified on 28 October 2006 and submissions were received until 27 November 2006. A summary of the decisions requested by persons making submissions on the proposed Variation was then publicly notified on 3 March 2007, and closed on the 30 March 2007.

2.1.3 20 submissions which raised 140 submission points, along with 5 further submissions were received.

2.1.4 In reaching its decisions, Council is required to consider the resource management issues raised in each submission and determine whether the relief sought, if any, should be accepted or rejected. If changes to the Variation are supported, the nature of these changes must be clearly identified and the supporting reasons provided for them.

3.0 BACKGROUND3.1.1 Over time changes occur through the actions of Council, developers and

landowners which necessitate changes being made to the Proposed District Plan. In addition, the operation of the Proposed District Plan brings to light minor errors or inconsistencies which require correction to ensure that the Plan continues to operate as effectively and efficiently as possible. Amendments to relevant legislation and Council policy and approach should also be reflected in changes to the District Plan as appropriate.

3.1.2 Variation 15: Subdivision Connectivity, Heritage, Special Provisions in New Growth Areas and Miscellaneous Provisions responds to and recognises a number of key changes in Council’s strategic policy direction, as espoused in the Hamilton City Council’s 2006-16 Long-Term Plan, and adopted by Council’ on 30 June 2006.

3.1.3 The Council’s Long-Term Plan incorporates two new strategic directions, known as CityScope and Access Hamilton. CityScope is Hamilton’s new urban design strategy which seeks to improve the quality and design of development and architecture within the City. Proposed Variation 15 is in part, a prefatorial response to the Councils CityScope Urban Design Strategy.

3.1.4 The proposed changes promote the ongoing accuracy of the Plan and its alignment with recent Council policy and approach. The Variation also


contributes towards the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991 continuing to be achieved over time.

3.1.5 There are four main parts to Variation 15, Part A: Subdivision Connectivity’, Part B: Heritage, Part C: Special Provision in New Growth Areas and Part D: Miscellaneous Provisions’.

3.1.6 The scope of Part A is firstly to introduce a new resource management issue relating to the relationship between subdivision layout and roading design; secondly, to add new objectives and related policies to the current resource management policy framework and thirdly, to make consequential changes to the Rules, Performance Standards and Planning Outcomes for Subdivisional Planning; including the introduction of a new Rule. The purpose of the new Rule is to provide illustrated design guidance to support and augment the interpretation of specific Rules within the Plan.

3.1.7 Part B aligns the District Plan’s heritage protection with the elevated importance placed on heritage through the Resource Management Act. Parts C and D propose changes to the Proposed District Plan to promote the accuracy of the Plan and its alignment within recent Council policy and approach. The amendments are necessary to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, by ensuring the Plan is up-to-date and accurate.

3.1.8 Variation 15 is part of an ongoing programme of variations to ensure that, within the context of established policy; the Proposed District Plan is kept up-to-date, accurate and promotes the sustainable management of the natural and physical resources within the city.

4.0 STATUTORY PROCESS – RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 (RMA)

4.1.1 The First Schedule of the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991 enables a local authority to initiate a variation to a district plan.

4.1.2 During the preparation of a variation, the local authority is required to undertake consultation in accordance with Clause 3 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991. For Variation 15, consultation has been undertaken with: The Minister for the Environment New Zealand Historic Places Trust Environment Waikato Waikato District Council Waipa District Council Nga Mana Toopu O Kirikiriroa Staff in the Planning Guidance, Transportation, and Parks and Gardens

units of Hamilton City Council.4.1.3 In preparing a variation for notification, a section 32 report is required to

be prepared in order to address the resource management issues and provide an evaluation of the following: The extent which each objective is the most appropriate way to

achieve the purpose of the Act; and Whether having regard to efficiency and effectiveness, the policies,

rules or methods are the most appropriate for achieving the objectives


4.1.4 As part of making decisions on the submissions and further submissions, an evaluation, in accordance with section 32 of alternatives, benefits and cost is required to be made. The evaluation must take into account : The benefit and costs of policies, rules or other methods; and The risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient

information about the subject matter of the policies, rules or other methods.

4.1.5 The Variation was supported, at notification by a section 32 evaluation. In assessing the submissions and further submissions and in the formulation of recommendations, the original section 32 evaluation has been subject to further analysis. The re-evaluation reconfirmed the conclusions made in the original section 32 conclusions (refer to Appendix B).

4.1.6 Only those parts of the proposed Variation which have been challenged in the submissions are considered by Council during the hearing. Those parts of the Variation which have not been challenged by a submission are already effectively operative pursuant to section 19 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

4.1.7 Any person who has made either a submission or a further submission in support of or opposition to a submission to Proposed Variation No 15 has the right to be heard by the Hearings Committee if they indicate they wish to do so. The Committee may ask questions of any submitters appearing at the hearing in order to clarify the submitter’s position.

4.1.8 After hearing all the submitters, the Committee will make its decisions on the points raised in the submissions, which may include any consequential alterations arising out of submissions. The decisions shall include reasons for accepting or rejecting submissions.

4.1.9 The Council is required to give public notice of the availability of its decisions. It also shall serve a copy of the decisions on every party who made a submission or further submission.

4.1.10Submitters not satisfied by Council’s decisions may lodge an appeal to the Environment Court against the whole or any part of the Council’s decision within fifteen working days of receiving the decision. The Variation will take full effect once all appeals to the Environment Court (if any) are resolved, and the Variation will then be merged into the Proposed District Plan.

5.0 OVERVIEW OF THE VARIATION5.1.1 A copy of Variation No. 15 is attached in Appendix A. The Section 32

evaluations are attached in Appendix B (noting that the section 32 itself is split into two parts ‘A’ – subdivision connectivity and ‘B’ – Heritage, Special Provisions in New Growth Areas, and Miscellaneous Provisions). The following provides a brief summary of the contents of the variation.

5.1.2 Variation No.15 proposes a number of amendments that are designed to align the Plan with the City’s strategic framework and principal strategies and to deal with a number of minor errors or inconsistencies. These amendments fall into four parts: PART A : Amendments relating to Subdivision Connectivity affecting

Policy Sections 4.2 and 4.4 and Rule Sections 6.2, 6.3 and 8.0;


PART B : Amendments relating to the Heritage Items Overlay affecting Policy Section 7.1 and Rule Section 2.3;

PART C : Amendments relating to the special provisions for commercial and community development in new growth areas affecting Rule 4.1.1e);

PART D : Minor amendments relating to miscellaneous provisions affecting Appendices 2.2-I and 2.4-I, Rule 5.1 and Planning Maps 11 and 11a.

5.2 PURPOSE AND CONTEXT OF THE FOUR PARTS OF VARIATION 15Part A - Amendments relating to Subdivision Connectivity

5.2.1 The process of land subdivision is the first stage in developing the City’s form and sets the pattern for subsequent built development. Any deficiencies in the level of connectivity and permeability established at this stage are extremely difficult to correct later on as land ownership becomes more fragmented and built development begins to take place. District Plan monitoring indicates that whilst connectivity is being achieved with collector roads, this should extend further down the roading hierarchy to include the local road network.

5.2.2 The City Design Strategy for Hamilton, CityScope advocates opportunities to influence the design of subdivisions towards a more sustainable pattern of development, in particular, the potential for better connectivity within and between subdivisions. Council recognises the importance of accessibility and connectivity in the layout of the local roads and can promote an enhanced sense of identity within urban areas, improving access to community facilities and/or alternative transport modes.

5.2.3 A review of Part 1.0 of the District Plan highlighted several areas where the urban design principles of connectivity and accessibility could be more consistently applied in the Plan’s Objective and Policy framework to promote a more integrated planning approach to the subdivision of land. Consequential amendments to the Rules and Performance Standards relating to subdivision were also necessary to implement the revised policy framework.

5.2.4 Design Guidance was developed to address subdivisional connectivity and permeability for residential areas. This guidance was incorporated into the Plan to support the General Provisions under Rule 6.2.2: Consideration of Subdivision Proposals.

5.2.5 Since the formulation of the guidance Council has introduced two other strategies which support the principles of the Guidance, these strategies being the Creativity and Identity strategy and Vista – the Hamilton City Design Guide. Vista in particular specifically promotes the concept of access within the City, aiming to ensure that Hamilton is easy to get around so that everyone can access services and facilities. Vista also supports the consideration of the overall circulation network and connections between existing and new places at an early stage which reinforces pre-design meetings as an invaluable tool.

5.2.6 Within this context the subdivisional amendments proposed in Variation 15 should be regarded as a positive step towards creating sustainable communities.


Part B - Amendments relating to Heritage5.2.7 The Resource Management (Amendment) Act 2003 brought a new focus

onto the debate with the elevation of heritage matters to being matters of national importance in relation to which Councils should recognise and provide for in undertaking their functions. At the same time Council provided a forum for the consideration of such matters through development of CityScope, the City’s urban design strategy prepared within the context of the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol. CityScope was one of the first strategies to emerge as part of a new strategic framework signalled in the 2006-2016 Long Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP). It established a framework and a programme of actions, amongst which was a clear intent to refine the City’s approach to resource management matters to take a more sensitive and responsive approach to matters defining local character, distinctiveness and identity. The CityScope vision centres on the creation of a sustainable and “distinctive” Hamilton.

5.2.8 Consultation on the draft CityScope was undertaken as part of the LTCCP. The community response was overwhelmingly supportive and, accordingly, Council adopted CityScope in July 2006, before Variation 15 was publicly notified.

5.2.9 More recently, the LTCCP strategic framework has been bolstered by development of the City’s Creativity and Identity strategy. Based on a range of core principles the Strategy advances the proposition that Hamilton is an urban village where the principal focus is on the relationship that people have with their surroundings. Enhancing the aesthetic experience is a key project that, amongst other matters, envisages a city: Where our rich cultural history is translated into our built environment; That celebrates and enhances our heritage; That fosters a culture for creativity through an innovative and fresh

administration of the rules and regulations of the city; Where areas of special character are recognised and given a lasting

future. That builds sustainability into urban form, reflecting the connections

between the land and the city5.2.10Since work commenced on Variation 15, the programme of actions

signalled by CityScope has taken shape. In terms of actions relating to the Proposed District Plan this programme includes additional proposed variations promoting a design led structure planning proposals for new Greenfield areas, proposals being initiated for the recognition of heritage and character values in Hamilton East and Frankton, and the development of a citywide design guide aimed at generally raising awareness and interest in design matters and promoting debate around design solutions. The influence of the Creativity and Identity strategy can be seen in the distinct focus that new proposals are placing on people and their environment rather than simply the design of physical objects.

5.2.11Within this context Variation 15 can be regarded as part of an emerging programme of district plan variations and other initiatives intended to secure better alignment with the City’s strategic framework and principal strategies, notably CityScope and the Creativity and Identity Strategy.

Part C - Amendments relating to Commercial and Community Development in New Growth Areas


5.2.12Rule 4.1.1(e) Special Provisions for Commercial and Community Developments in New Growth Areas was introduced with the Proposed District Plan. If a residentially zoned property in a new growth area meets lot size and location criteria Rule 4.1.1(e) provides flexibility for the market to introduce commercial and community facilities into the area. Enabling relatively large-scale commercial developments to proceed as permitted activities at key locations within growth areas without a full analysis of effects from this type of development on the key locations in a new growth area being assessed.

5.2.13Since the release of the decisions to the District Plan in 2001 Council has taken a proactive approach to the provision of community and commercial facilities in growth areas through the preparation of structure plans that detail how these services should be provided in an area and through partnership with stakeholders and landowners to achieve better design outcomes.

5.2.14In this context it is now considered that the level of flexibility provided through Rule 4.1.1(e) undermines the urban design concepts promoted in structure plans and has the potential to generate poor planning outcomes.

5.2.15Within this context the removal of Rule 4.1.1(e) would support the Council’s policy approach of promoting more proactive strategic planning for the City including the use of structure plans to achieve sound resource management outcomes; this approach is supported by the other aspects of Council’s strategic framework (i.e. Future Proof which is the Sub-Regional Growth Strategy.

Part D - Minor Amendments5.2.16Over time changes occur through the actions of Council, developers and

landowners which necessitate changes being made to the Plan and Planning Maps. In addition, the operation of the Plan brings to light minor errors or inconsistencies which require correction to ensure that the Plan and Planning Maps continue to operate as effectively and efficiently as possible. The proposed changes will promote accuracy of the District Plan.

6.0 GENERAL SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

6.1 Submissions Received6.1.1 20 submissions were received which raised 140 submission points. An

additional 6 further submissions were received. A summary of the submissions and further submissions received is attached in Appendix C and full copies of all submissions and further submissions received are attached in Appendix D.

6.1.2 From the 20 submissions, one supports and one opposes the Variation in its entirety. There are also a few submissions received that raise matters which lie beyond the scope of the Variation.

6.1.3 There are 12 submissions to Part A Subdivision Connectivity, 6 submissions to Part B Heritage, 3 submissions in regards to Part C Commercial and


Community development in new growth areas and one submission to Part D Minor Amendments.

6.1.4 There are five further submissions. Two further submissions to 8 submissions to Part A; two further submissions to 4 submissions to Part B; and two further submissions to 3 submissions to Part C.

6.1.5 The majority of the submissions are in support or generally supportive of parts of the Variation, but also sought that additional measures to be approved by Council. However, several submissions received do not support Variation No. 15. Notwithstanding that position several have provided suggested amendments.

6.1.6 For the purpose of analysing the submissions received, the submission points have been grouped under the four parts of the Variation: Part A - Subdivision Connectivity Part B - Heritage Part C - Amendments relating to the special provisions for commercial

and community development in new growth areas affecting Rule 4.1.1e) - Special Provisions in New Growth Areas;

Part D - Miscellaneous

6.2 Table of SubmittersSubmitter Submission Number Variation 15 -

Part A, B, C or D

New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT)

V15/06/1 A & B

CKL Surveys (L Smith) V15/06/2 A Never Ending Abundance Limited (RV Chadwick)

V15/06/3 B

Mrs D.E.L Spence V15/06/4 Total V.15 Dr A McEwan V15/06/5 B Tui 2000 (C/- W Stace) V15/06/6 A,B & C PRS Group V15/06/7 A Mr G Holland V15/06/8 Total V.15 & A New Zealand Transportation Agency (NZTA)

V15/06/9 A

Blue Wallace Surveyors Ltd (M Wallace)

V15/06/10 A

Gokul Developments (C/- Harrison Grierson)

V15/06/11 C

Environment Waikato V15/06/12 A Cycle Action Waikato V15/06/13 A


Parkwood Retail Office Ltd(C/- Harkness Henry and Co)

V15/06/14 C

McPherson Goodwin Surveyors Limited (J Curtis)

V15/06/15 A

Attic Homes (CR Nicholls)

V15/06/16 A

Jack House NZTA Limited(AS Jack)

V15/06/17 B

CKL Surveying and Planning(RB Keucke)

V15/06/18 A

Hamilton Methodist Parish(R Mudford)

V15/06/19 B

Hamilton City Council V15/06/20 D Further Submitter Further Submission To

Submission Part A, B, C or D)

Hamilton Methodist Church(further submission number F.07.02)


V15/06/1 B

Dr A McEwan V15/06/5Jack House NZTA Limited

V15/06/17

Church Of Latter Day Saints(further submission number F.07.03)


V15/06/1 B

Never Ending Abundance

V15/06/3

Dr A McEwan V15/06/5Jack House NZTA Limited

V15/06/17

Hamilton Methodist Parish

V15/06/19

Parkwood Retail Office Ltd (further submission number F.07.04)

Gokul Developments

V15/06/11

C

Cycle Action Waikato CKL Surveys V15/06/2 ATui 2000 V15/06/6


(further submission number F.07.06)

PRS Group V15/06/7New Zealand Transportation Agency

V15/06/9

Blue Wallace Surveyors Limited

V15/06/10

Environment Waikato

V15/06/12

McPherson Goodwin Surveyors Limited

V15/06/15

CKL Surveying and Planning

V15/06/18

Gokul Developments Limited(further submission number F.07.07)

Tui 2000 V15/06/6 CParkwood Retail Office Ltd

V15/06/14

New Zealand Transportation Agency(further submission number F.07.08)

Cycle Action Waikato

V15/06/13

A

7.0 ANALYSIS OF SUBMISSIONS

7.1 Variation in TotalSubmission:

7.1.1 Mrs DEL Spence (submission point 4.01) opposes any changes to the rules of the Proposed District Plan, stating all parties should be made to abide by the rules as set in the Proposed District Plan in its present form. There is no other relief sought. This submission is of a general nature and does not specifically raise any concerns with the intent of Variation 15.Comments:

7.1.2 Variation 15 supports Council’s policy direction under CityScope which was publically adopted in 2006. As a result of Council’s policy direction, the District Plan in its present form does not fully provide for sustainable growth and development of the City. It is also to be noted that under the Resource Management Act consideration of alternatives or activities that contravene the standards under a District Plan can be considered. Recommendation: That the submission, Mrs DEL Spence (submission point 4.01) be

rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation a)

Submission:7.1.3 Parkwood Retail Office Limited (submission point 14.01) requests the

withdrawal of Variation 15 in its entirety pursuant to Council’s powers


under Clause 8D of the First Schedule to the RMA (1991) or withdraw part of Variation 15 as it relates to Part C: Amendments relating to the special provisions for commercial and community development in new growth areas affecting Rule 4.1.1(e) or that Lot 1 DP 32102 be rezoned as part of the proposed Variation to suburban centre or retain Rule 4.1.1(e) and amend. Comments:

7.1.4 As the focus of the submission is to Rule 4.1.1(e) and that there are a number of other diverse matters contained within the variation, it is not considered appropriate for Council to withdrawal Variation 15 in its entirety. Notwithstanding this, as the other option set out in the submission is for the retention or amendment of Rule 4.1.1(e) it is considered more appropriate to address those matters within the consideration of Part ‘C’ of the Variation.

7.1.5 Therefore, it is recommended that the request in the Parkwood Retail Office Limited (submission point 14.01) for the withdrawal of Variation 15 in its entirety be rejected and the matters raised within the submission with regard to retention or amendment of the rule be addressed under Part C matters as set out in Section 6.4 of this report.Recommendation: That the submission, Parkwood Retail Office Limited (submission point

14.01) be rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation A)

Submission:7.1.6 Mr G Holland (submission point 8.01) supports the proposed Variation, in

particular stating “While we cannot change the poor design of the recent past I believe that this variation will contribute to healthier communities in the future”. In addition, Mr Holland does suggest a number of amendments to Part A of the Variation (these matters are specifically considered in section 7.4 below).

7.1.7 Notwithstanding the suggested amendments sought, it is recommended that Mr G Holland (submission point 8.01) be acceptedRecommendation: That the submission, Mr G Holland (submission point 8.01) be

accepted.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation a)

7.2 PART A: Subdivision Connectivity – Analysis of Submissions

Support of Part A in general:Submission:

7.2.1 Tui 2000 (submission point 6.01) stated their support for Part A of the variation. Cycle Action Waikato (CAW) (further submission F.07/05.02) lodged a further submission in support of Tui 2000 (6.01).Comments:

7.2.2 Tui 2000 stated in their support for Part A that there are many examples of developed subdivisions where connectivity has not been used. As a design technique connectivity provides modern communities with the amenity availability that is desirable for a convenient and healthy lifestyle. In Tui


2000’s opinion, the proposed connectivity and permeability provisions will provide for improved integration between developing properties and natural landforms. CAW agrees that the proposed connectivity and permeability provisions will improve integration between developing communities.Recommendation: That the submission, Tui 2000 (submission point 6.01) be accepted; That the further submission, Cycle Action Waikato (further submission

F.07/05.02) be accepted.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Aa)

Submission:7.2.3 New Zealand New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) (submission point

1.01), CKL Survey Office Limited (submission point 2.01), New Zealand Transportation Agency (NZTA) (submission point 9.01), Environment Waikato (submission point 12.01) and Cycle Action Waikato (CAW) (submission point 13.03) seek the adoption of Variation 15 Part A subject to additions and amendments. CAW lodged a further submission (further submission F.07/05.05) in support of the submission point by New Zealand Transportation Agency (submission point 9.01).Comments:

7.2.4 The support given to NZTA from CAW is due to their agreement that the proposed connectivity provisions will improve Transportation Planning and that best practice urban design will assist with achieving sustainable growth.

7.2.5 The amendments proposed by the above listed submitters cover a number of matters discussed in detail under separate topic headings within this report. Some are deemed outside the scope/intent of the Variation, while others raise matters that have validity for further consideration. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that these submitters are in general support the intent of Part A. Recommendation: That the submissions, CKL Survey Office Limited (submission point

2.01), New Zealand Transportation Agency (submission point 9.01) Environment Waikato (submission point 12.01) and Cycle Action Waikato (CAW) (submission point 13.03) be accepted in part;

That the further submission, Cycle Action Waikato (further submission F.07/05.05) be accepted.

(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Aa)

Submission:7.2.6 New Zealand New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) (submission point

1.01) also seeks to insert text to recognise the Resource Management Act 2003 Amendments regarding heritage. NZHPT states that the 2003 amendments to the RMA, elevating the protection of historic heritage, should be reflected. It is the NZHPT’s opinion that Council has the opportunity to review its Development Environmental Policy section and in particular the subdivision policy and rules in relation to the recognition and protection of historic heritage.

7.2.7 Although this has validity, due to the specific nature and narrow focus of Part A matters on subdivisional connectivity only, it is considered that the


changes sought by NZHPT are outside the scope to be implemented of Part A.

7.2.8 Notwithstanding this, Part B of the Variation does address the elevated historic heritage implemented by the 2003 amendment of the RMA in detail.

7.2.9 In addition to the submission point (1.01), NZHPT have also raised specific changes to 4.0 Policy Section of the District Plan to include significant heritage or archaeological features (submission points (1.02 – 1.08). NZHPT has also raised these matters as part of their submission on Part B (identified as submission point 1.09 under Part B matters listed in the Summary of Submissions). It is considered that the matters contained within these submission points fall more comfortably within the intention of Part B – Heritage. As a result, they are addressed under the umbrella of submission point (1.09), discussed in Part B of this report.Recommendation: That the submission, New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT

(submission points 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, 1.04, 1.05, 1.06, 1.07 and 1.08) be rejected.


Oppose Part A in general:Submissions:

7.2.10Blue Wallace Surveyors (submission point 10.01), McPherson Goodwin Surveyors (submission points 15.01, 15.02, 15.03) and CKL Surveying and Planning (submission point 18.01) seek the withdrawal of Part A. All question the narrow focus on Part A and cite a lack of consultation with professional bodies and request that Part A of Variation 15 be re-written after consultation with leading developers and consultants has occurred. Further submissions were lodged by Cycle Action Waikato opposing the submissions by Blue Wallace Surveyors (Cycle Action Waikato F.07/05.13), McPherson Goodwin Surveyors (Cycle Action Waikato F.07/05.16) and CKL Surveying and Planning (Cycle Action Waikato F.07/05.17)

7.2.11Blue Wallace Surveyors states the proposed amendments are a piecemeal approach to urban design. It is Blue Wallace Surveyors opinion that the main issue for urban design is density and not layout.

7.2.12McPherson Goodwin Surveyors state that there has been undue weighting given to connectivity over other design considerations. As a result, no weight should be given to the Variation and the Design Guide until a revisited and more complete variation can be notified, including the review of all aspects of residential subdivision design including residential development and seek public input outside the District Plan hearing procedures.

7.2.13CKL Surveying and Planning states that following the withdrawal of Part A its scope should be broadened to consider living standards, building form, densities, open space, transportation including vehicle, pedestrian and cycle.

7.2.14Cycle Action Waikato oppose the submissions, citing their disagreement with the submitters’ opinions that: undue weighting is given to connectivity over other design considerations; and the discouragement of cul-de-sacs is wrong in Hamilton. CAW’s opinion is that the addition of connectivity to the design considerations within the District Plan does not reduce the


importance of other considerations; Variation 15 will improve the connectivity and enable more walking, cycling and bus transport

7.2.15PRS Group (submission point 7.01) seeks either the withdrawal of Part A or for it to be amended to focus only on developments in Greenfield situations, being of a certain size and requiring the formation of roading. PRS Group requests amendments to the variation, policies, rules and the Design Guidance to defer the requirement of connectivity and permeability to Greenfield subdivisions in new growth areas where the creation of new roads is proposed. In particular, seek amendments to policy section 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4, Rules 6.2.2(a)(i) and (ii) (submission points 7.02, 7.03, 7.04, 7.06, 7.07, 7.08, 7.11, 7.15, 7.16, 7.17, 7.18, and 7.20). Further submissions were lodged by Cycle Action Waikato opposing the submission by PRS Group (Cycle Action Waikato F.07/05.03).

7.2.16Cycle Action Waikato oppose the submission, citing that although the provision of infill subdivision may be limited, being reliant on the existing road network there is always the potential opportunity for the creation of new walkways/cycle way links both within the subdivision and between subdivisions. Overall, improving access and connectivity is vital to encourage more walking and cycling and to reduce car dependency which relates to both Greenfield and infill subdivisions. In CAW’s opinion PRS Group suggested amendments are inconsistent with both Access Hamilton and CityScope. CAW request that connectivity, access and permeability remain relevant to all submissions.Comments:

7.2.17Proposed Variation No. 15: Part A: Subdivision Connectivity, responds to and recognises a number of key changes in Council’s strategic policy direction, as espoused in the Hamilton City Council’s 2006-16 Long-Term Plan, and adopted by Council on 30 June 2006.

7.2.18The Council’s Long Term Plan 2006 –16 incorporates two new strategic directions, known as CityScope and Access Hamilton. CityScope is Hamilton City’s new Urban Design Strategy which seeks to improve the quality and design of development and architecture within Hamilton. The Proposed Variation 15: Part A is in part, a response to the Council’s CityScope Urban Design Strategy. Noting that for the CityScope vision to be effectively implemented some changes to the District Plan are necessary to ensure strategy alignment. It is stated in the section 32 report that “the proposed amendments ‘dove-tail’ the new vision into the existing Plan in an integrated and transparent way.”

7.2.19Council considers (Section 32 report) that a responsible and proactive approach to the effective management of potential and future effects of transport usage (e.g. congestion, use of private vehicles vs. public transport, air pollution and inefficient use of infrastructure) is to shape the design of urban form, transport demand patterns and overall management of the traffic network. At a local level embracing the principles of connectivity in terms of design and linkages of roadways, pedestrian paths and cycleways within local communities to destination activities (i.e. schools and local social and employment activities) will almost certainly influence the choice of transport modes and potentially reduce the traffic costs and congestion effects.

7.2.20Part A is narrow in focus, with a specific focus on residential subdivision permeability and connectivity. This is a focused response to an immediate issue within Hamilton as identified through CityScope and Access Hamilton.


7.2.21The scope of Part A is firstly, to introduce a new resource management issue relating to subdivision design and roading patterns; secondly, to add new objectives and related policies to the current resource management policy framework and thirdly, to make consequential changes to the Rules, Performance Standards, and Planning Outcomes for Subdivisional Planning; including the introduction of a new Rule. The purpose of the new Rule is to provide illustrated design guidance to support the interpretation of specific Rules within the Plan.

7.2.22Although the approach taken could be viewed as being piecemeal, it has been clearly stated that the proposed design guidance will form part of a suite of guidance incorporated into the plan targeting specific topic areas overtime. The suite will include a wider set of guidance aimed at other aspects of subdivision. Nevertheless, achievement of further guidance is not likely to occur for some time and will be addressed as part of the District Plan Review scheduled to start around the middle of 2009. Therefore the guidance proposed in Variation 15 has become even more important in helping to achieve a more sustainable environment until such time as more desirable outcomes can be realised.

7.2.23The introduction of Rule 10.0 has been specifically included to provide design guidance that helps secure development outcomes which are based around sound urban design principles. The intention of the Rule is that it will contain City-wide, area-based and topic-specific design guidance and overtime relate to a number of design guidance notes.

7.2.24In the submissions from Blue Wallace Surveyors, McPherson Goodwin Surveyors and CKL Surveying and Planning the level of consultation was questioned and considered inadequate. The proposed amendments set out in part A are, in part to promote the community outcomes of Hamilton’s Long Term Plan 2006-2016. In preparing the Long-Term Plan Council undertook extensive consultation with the Community in 2006, the Draft was open for public submissions and the resulting 202 submissions were considered by Council and helped shape the final version, key plans and policies of the Long Term Plan. It is noted that useful and relevant feedback from this process was forwarded to the City Planning team and formed an invaluable and integral foundation for the preparation of the Variation.

7.2.25In addition, consultation was undertaken in accordance with Clause 3 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 with relevant statutory bodies and local iwi. It is considered that the level of consultation was acceptable.

7.2.26The proposed changes set out in Part A are based on well accepted urban design principles and reflect the strategic direction of Council which have been through extensive consultation with key stakeholders groups within Hamilton and the public at large. Hamilton City is also a signatory to the Urban Design Protocol. In addition, Part A matters are in response to and consistent with the intent of CityScope, which has also been through a consultative process.

7.2.27In 2005 Council determined that a stronger and more visionary role in guiding the future development of the City’s built environment was required. Following a series of presentations and workshops Council determined “that future development in Hamilton must align with the city’s aspirations for a sustainable, quality urban environment as articulated in Hamilton City’s Vision and reflected in the aspirations of the Community


Outcome programme”. As a result CityScope: “A new approach to City Design that is strategic, visionary and which will provide a framework to inform and shape the decision-making processes of Council, industry and the community as a whole within a share vision of the future” was developed. CityScope was adopted in early 2006.

7.2.28Therefore, no further consultation was deemed to be necessary at a developer level when formulating the specifics of Part A.

7.2.29In the submission from PRS Group it is stated that the variation does not recognise the constraints posed to infill subdivision through existing street patterns and the commercial hierarchy promoted by the District Plan. They believe that the infill subdivision of existing residential areas is unable to address impacts on amenity values caused by longer car trips and the variation provisions should only relate to Greenfield sites in new growth areas affected by a structure plan. It is accepted urban design practice that interconnected streets achieve walk-ability, reduce car reliance and contribute to a more distinctive and stimulating urban environment. The overall intent of the introduction of subdivision connectivity in to the District Plan is for the overall improvement of transport network linkages for the City. It is not the intention to limit the control of subdivision, with regard to connectivity and permeability to Greenfields developments, sites in new growth areas or to sites that have roads to vest.

7.2.30PRS Group is correct in identifying the challenge of mitigating a lack of connectivity in existing residential areas where existing infrastructure has been finalised; and the biggest impact could be made in the developing and yet to be developed Rototuna, Rotokauri and Peacocke growth cells. However, to achieve Council’s policy approaches as set out in CityScope and Access Hamilton, the inclusion of both Greenfield and existing urban areas is important to achieve a more sustainable urban development. As highlighted through the further submission from CAW, although infill subdivision may have limitations there is always the potential opportunity for the creation of new walkways/cycle way links both within the subdivision and between subdivisions. Overall, improving access and connectivity is vital to encourage more walking and cycling and to reduce care dependency which relates to both Greenfield and infill subdivisions.

7.2.31A connected network of roads, as opposed to a series of unconnected cul-de-sacs increases accessibility for residents, allows for a safer and more efficient movement of traffic, and enables more efficient provision of infrastructure. It can be difficult to create a network which can be constantly extended, particularly where there are a series of small developments. For various reasons, developers are often reluctant to link up to adjacent subdivisions and therefore it can be hard for Council to achieve the roading pattern that it sought by the community in general along with the sustainable management of the City’s natural and physical resources (pursuant to section 5 of the RMA). Accordingly, the use of a statutory tool, mainly the District Plan is therefore important to provide direction to developers.

7.2.32As set out above, the formulation of Part A is in part to support the Council’s strategic policy direction. It allows for the District Plan to be consistent with other statutory documents as required by the RMA (i.e. Regional Policy Statement) along with continuing to achieve the purpose of the RMA. Therefore, it is considered that Part A of the Variation should not be withdrawn.


Recommendations: That the submissions, Blue Wallace Surveyors (submission point

10.01), McPherson Goodwin Surveyors (submission points 15.01, 15.02, and 15.03), CKL Surveying and Planning (submission point 18.01) and PRS Group (submission points 7.01, 7.02, 7.03, 7.04, 7.06, 7.07, 7.08, 7.11, 7.13, 7.15, 7.16, 7.17, 7.18, 7.20)) be rejected;

That the further submissions, Cycle Action Waikato (further submissions F.07/05.03, F.07/05.13, F.07/05.16, F.07/05.17) be accepted.


Concept Plan:Threshold for Concept PlansSubmission:

7.2.33Environment Waikato (submission point 12.07) supports the adoption of the proposed amendments to Rule 6.2.1(a) requiring a developer to prepare a concept plan with any subdivision for 10 or more allotments.

7.2.34Attic Homes (submission point 16.02) generally supports the amendments to Rule 6.2.1(a) relating to larger scale developments of 10+ lots. However, Attic Homes (submission point 16.01) request that smaller high density zone sites for up to 9 apartments (150m2 sites) be excluded. Comments:

7.2.35The proposed threshold requiring a concept plan is 10+ allotments. Apartment development requires a land use resource consent before the individual units can be legally separated through unit title subdivision (either: a Controlled or Discretionary activity; with matters for consideration being on site and building layout and design, parking, loading and access in accordance with matters set out in Rule 4.1 and Rule 5.0.). As Rule 6.2.1(a) does not rely on the density or net site area, but on the number of allotments of either a single or staged subdivision the threshold of 10+ allotments would technically apply. However, as approval for an 10+ apartment development has already been assessed under a land use consent a pre-application meeting prior to the lodgement of a subdivision resource consent to discuss a concept plan would not be necessary. Notwithstanding this, the subdivision of a site, containing nine apartment units would fall outside of the assessment criteria under Rule 6.2.1.

7.2.36The proposed amendments in accordance with the Variation would not affect the development of high density zoned sites containing a maximum of nine allotments.Recommendation: That the submissions, Environment Waikato (submission point 12.07)

and Attic Homes (submission point 16.02) be accepted; That the submission, Attic Homes (submission point 16.01) be rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Ab)Submission:

7.2.37PRS Group (submission points 7.14) seek the amendment of Rule 6.2.1(a) to only require a concept plan for subdivisions creating more than 50 lots and/or subdivision which will result in creation and vesting of new roads.


7.2.38New Zealand Transportation Agency (NZTA) (submission point 9.13) gives support in general to the rationale behind the concept plans and the need for concise assessment criteria. However, New Zealand Transportation Agency (NZTA) (submission point 9.14) seeks clarification on the process in which subdivisions can achieve Objective 4.4.4 of integration, permeability and connectivity and an amendment to Policy 4.4, Reasons paragraph to justify the threshold figure for the provision of Subdivision Concept Plans and the requirement for scrutiny under Urban Design guidelines. In addition NZTA considers that the cumulative effects of incremental subdivision ‘creep’ can have an adverse traffic and environmental effect comparable to those of large subdivisions.

7.2.39New Zealand Transportation Agency (NZTA) (submission point 9.15) requests that concept plans be required for all subdivision applications (regardless of size) where site is adjacent to a State Highway or Major arterial road. They request Hamilton City Council considers a case for adopting threshold trigger for Subdivision Proposal with frontage to a minor local road (Criteria to be effects-based and align with Councils roading criteria and the City’s Growth Strategy).

7.2.40CKL Surveying and Planning (submission point 18.01) highlighted that the areas being developed at present have a density of about 12 households per hectare. As density increases the requirements change and therefore the issues need to be considered on a much broader base so the future development of the city is addressed in a form as envisaged by CityScope.Comments:

7.2.41In setting the threshold at 10 allotments the rationale was that both large and small subdivision developments contribute to the overall development of the City. It is not only larger subdivisions that can contribute to a well-connected and permeable environment; a series of small developments with little or no linkages to adjacent subdivisions and surrounding facilities creates the same effect as a large subdivision with the same level of connectivity. Poor interconnectivity has implications for community integration, increasing the reliance on motor vehicles, reducing opportunities for public transport and limiting opportunities for social interaction and health benefits.

7.2.42It is considered that the existing threshold of 50 allotments is too high in the Hamilton context to achieve greater control over subdivision design criteria when in general the typical subdivision involving single cul-de-sac developments generally produce an average of 10 lots. This type of subdivisional development, without the ability for greater connectivity and control of integration with the local neighbourhood and other transport network modes effects are likely to become significant and can impact on the local road and therefore the wider road hierarchy of the City.

7.2.43The use of the 10 allotment threshold is intended to capture the majority of ‘day-to-day’ subdivision development typical in the Hamilton context to manage connectivity and permeability. It is not considered that if there was an increase in density, as highlighted by CKL Surveying and Planning (submission point 18.01) that the existing threshold of 10 allotments would impact negatively on the policy direction set by CityScope relating to connectivity and permeability linkages. Due to the effects from poor connectivity not being as a result of density but due to poor linkages between subdivisions.


7.2.44It is accepted that it is not always possible to provide a connected street network especially in small lot subdivisions. However, the concept plan requires the applicant to demonstrate how the subdivision is achieving the provisions of Rule 6.2. This is a requirement for any type of subdivision. The concept plan requires there to be a particular focus on demonstrating linkages with the surrounding environment, including any existing or planned adjacent subdivisions and community facilities. The aim is to optimise the situation and encourage developers to work with the opportunities that may exist.

7.2.45The trigger suggested by NZTA, of the use of state highway and major arterial roads is considered to be too narrow in focus to achieve the overall connectivity and sustainable environmental outcomes sought by Council. The use of an allotment number threshold captures a mix of subdivision sizes, allowing an overall management of subdivision development for the City. In addition, subdivision proposals where access is to a major arterial road Council requires the developer to address access onto the City’s roading network via Rule 3.3 Roading and Network Utilities. With regard to proposals where access is to be onto Sate Highway the access would be managed under separate legislation administered by New Zealand Transportation Agency and in such cases the determination as to whether NZTA would be an affected party in terms of the subdivision would be determined pursuant to section 93 and 94 of the RMA.

7.2.46The amendments sought by PRS would limit the focus of concept plans which is not the overall intent of Part A. Recommendation: That the submission, New Zealand Transportation Agency (submission

points 9.13 and 9.14) be accepted in part. That the submissions, PRS Group (submission point 7.14), New Zealand

Transportation Agency (submission point 9.15) CKL Surveying and Planning Limited (18.01) be rejected.

(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Ab)

Use of Design GuideSubmission:

7.2.47PRS Group (submission points 7.05 and 7.09) request that clarification be provided on the intended use of the Design Guide as a means to assess applications for residential subdivision having Controlled Activity status.

7.2.48PRS Group (PRS) states that it is inappropriate and unreasonable for the ‘subdivision design guide’ to provide an interpretation of assessment criteria and performance outcomes as set out in the text of the ‘Subdivision Design Guide Method’ to be used to implement the relevant objectives and policies in Policy 4.2 Transportation and Accessibility. PRS conclude that as the design guide is to provide an interpretation of assessment criteria and performance outcomes the design guide will be used as a “surrogate rule layer” which could undermine the certainty provided by the controlled activity status, and be used to justify a refusal to accept an application for processing.

7.2.49They also state the new information to be included in concept plans is inappropriate as a controlled activity subdivision will be subject to additional criteria which are open to subjective interpretation. While a concept plan could easily be developed for any subdivision, it will not necessarily meet the desires of Council staff. This could result in a


controlled activity subdivision not being accepted for consideration until such point as the proposed subdivision design meets approval from Council staff. In the submitter’s opinion, this takes the certainty out of the Controlled Activity Status and places a level of control and dictation into the hands of Council which is inappropriate. Comments:

7.2.50The requirement for a concept plan where any single or staged subdivision for residential purposes results in the creation of more than 10 allotments is a Rule. The Reasons paragraphs within the policy section of the Proposed District Plan are to justify why the objectives and policies address the associated issues and not to provide justification for a rule. The methods identified to achieve the objectives and policies included the subdivisional design guidance and the subdivision and development rules. It is considered that this is the most appropriate area to identify the subdivisional design guidance and the subdivision and development rules as the means to achieve the objectives and policies.

7.2.51The use of the design guide will assist in enabling the development of a holistic and coherent urban design approach for the city and achieves greater potential to change the pattern of residential subdivision and promote a more sustainable urban form. It also allows for the ability to promote transport networks through design and encourage social well-being, walking cycling and provision of public transport

7.2.52The Design Guidance and topic-specific design guidance for residential subdivision is consistent with the Council’s powers and responsibilities under the RMA in respect of integrated management. It is important for Council to have the ability to decline a subdivision, if it would create adverse effects on the environment. As stated in the section 32 report, the existing subdivision provisions of the Proposed District Plan are weak when it comes to the application of a comprehensive planning approach for new subdivisions in growth areas. It is considered that the proposed approach complements existing objectives and policies in the Plan. It also provides some flexibility for developers to demonstrate that a particular subdivision concept plan complies with the intent of the Design Guidance in respect to the principles of connectivity and permeability. Therefore it is concluded that the Design Guidance matters extend the District Plan provisions to address the matters of subdivision design in a more integrated and holistic way.

7.2.53Nevertheless, it is considered that PRS Group concern over interpretation has a degree of validity as there is the potential for the Design Guide to be used as a rule rather than as a guide. Therefore, it is considered that using “guidance” instead of “interpretation” would provide the anticipated flexibility envisaged with the provision of the Design Guidance and remove the concern by PRS Group that it would be used as a “surrogate rule layer” undermining the certainty provided by the controlled activity status, and used to justify non-acceptance of an application. Therefore it is recommended that the proposed new method, seventh bullet point in Policy section 4.2 be amended to read as follows:“Subdivision Design Guide – will be used to provide an interpretation of a guidance on the Assessment Criteria and Performance Outcomes in relation to residential subdivision: layouts and road design. The Guidance explains and illustrates the urban design principles of connectivity and permeability”


Recommendation: That the submission, PRS Group Limited (submission points 7.05 and

7.09) be accepted in part.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Ac)

Provision of Concept Plans (Rule 6.2.1(a)):Submission:

7.2.54CKL Survey Office Limited (submission point 2.03) opposes the specific requirement to submit a concept plan that includes the matters listed in Rule 6.2.1(a) bullet point three. Cycle Action Waikato lodged a (further submission F.07/05.01) opposing this submission.

7.2.55In their opinion, without a definition for ‘concept plan’ in the District Plan one must defer to the definition in the dictionary. CKL Survey Office Limited have made reference to the Collins English Dictionary definition of ‘concept’ (which means “an idea” – text taken from CKL Survey Office Limited’s submission). As a result, they are of the opinion that there should not be a requirement to provide the detail requested in Rule 6.2.1(a). In particular, details like widths of carriageways are already controlled through existing rules in the District Plan and the Hamilton City Development Manual. Also, CKL Survey Office Limited raised concern over the ability to provide detail of the intended use of each lot in a proposed subdivision at concept stage. Stating, “Council should assume that the intended use will be any permitted or controlled activity listed for that zone”.

7.2.56In the further submission by CAW they oppose CKL Survey Office Limited’s request to delete the specific requirements for a concept plan as proposed by the matters listed in Rule 6.2.1(a) bullet point three. It is CAW’s opinion that a concept plan needs to demonstrate whether the developers are providing the necessary provisions for walking and cycling, and the dimension widths of roads is important to determine if they would be adequate for cycle lanes. In particular for the safety of cyclists on both collector and arterial roads, along with the provision of pedestrian and cycle accessways within subdivisions and linking to other subdivisions. CAW cites that public reserves are a vital part of developing growth areas. Comments:

7.2.57The additional information proposed, via Variation 15, to be provided with subdivision concept plans are intended to provide detail on and the ways in which the subdivision relates to the surrounding environment. With any resource consent application, the applicant must include additional information to show how the proposed allotments and access can adequately accommodate the development potential of the site. The purpose of Variation 15 is to require subdivision connectivity and permeability especially in local roads; it is therefore most important that the concept plan shows the ways in which the subdivision will integrate with all neighbouring sites. It is equally important to have a specific requirement within concept plans to show the location and dimensions of pedestrian/cycle accessways, roads and reserves.

7.2.58The deletion of the rule, as sought by CKL defeats the purpose of the provision of a concept plan to demonstrate how the various requirements will be achieved and relevant performance standards satisfied. In addition, as the concept plan is to be prepared and used as the main tool for discussion with main stakeholders and Council (e.g. at a pre-application


meeting) the level of detail is important to demonstrate urban design features, mitigation and areas of non compliance. In discussion with Council Subdivision Team Leader, Planning Guidance it was clear that the use of comprehensive concept plans was important (timesaver) as a discussion tool during pre-application meetings. It also provided a level of detail that assisted when the application was formally lodged, so that only a minimal number of new matters would need to be addressed.Recommendation: That the submission, CKL Survey Office Limited (submission point 2.03)

be rejected. That the further submission, Cycle Action Waikato (further submission

F.07/05.01) be accepted.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Ad)

Submission:7.2.59Environment Waikato (submission point 12.08), New Zealand

Transportation Agency (NZTA) (submission point 9.16), Cycle Action Waikato (CAW) (submission points 13.06 and 13.07) and PRS Group (PRS) (submission points 7.14, 7.15, 7.16, 7.17) all seek amendments to Rule 6.2.1(a), as it is proposed in the Variation.

7.2.60New Zealand Transportation Agency (NZTA) (submission point 9.16) requests the insertion of the following additional assessment criteria into Rule 6.2.1(a) to follow the proposed second bullet point: “The manner in which the subdivision will internally address all property

access requirements and having consideration for future development. The manner in which the subdivision will connect via collector roads to

neighbouring sites and taking into account the City’s Roading Hierarchy.

The manner in which reverse sensitivity will be addressed in respect to future yet to be constructed roads.”

Comments:7.2.61Existing rules within the District Plan (e.g. Rule 6.2.2(c) and (d)) already

provide performance standards to be achieved for subdivision design and formulation. In addition the other sections of the plan also assist. In particular, and with reference to NZTA’s suggested amendment to encompass access, in Rule 3.3 and Rule 6.2.2(d)(i) access requirements are already adequately addressed. It is not considered that the specific location of lot accesses would impact on the overall connectivity or permeability of a subdivision such as to warrant the matter needing to be considered within the subdivision concept plan. Therefore, it is considered that these three bullet points bring no additional value and should be rejected.

7.2.62Environment Waikato (submission point 12.08) suggest further amending Rule 6.2.1(a) to include a new bullet point requiring a concept plan to include the location and dimensions of passenger transport routes. Environment Waikato also wishes to be named as a party to which consultation must be held when designing concept plans for new areas.

7.2.63This suggestion has merit, however, the identification, location and dimension of potential passenger transport routes is already occurring through the structure planning Council is undertaking (e.g. Rotokauri Structure Plan) along with the policy directions of Access Hamilton. In addition, Council undertakes to liaise with Environment Waikato on


passenger transport routes along with other roading issues for the City and the region via one-to-one discussions through to being co-partners of regional strategies (i.e. Future Proof).

7.2.64As a result, it is considered that there is already adequate liaison with and ability for EW to comment on public transport planning for the City. In addition, on considering the request by EW for that body to be a named party with which consultation must be had with, the District Plan does not list parties to be consulted with unless there is a statutory requirement to do so. As a result it is considered that this approach should not alter with specific regard to the matters being assessed under Variation 15. Therefore the District Plan should not seek to identify particular parties with respect to such matters as consultation unless there is a statutory requirement.

7.2.65Cycle Action Waikato (CAW) (submission points 13.06 and 13.07) request amending the 6th bullet point of the information requirements of concept plans to read ‘The location and dimension of shared-use pedestrian/cycle accessways’, along with the addition to show the location and dimension of on-road cycle lanes and off-road cycle paths on the collector and arterial roads. The suggested additional wording would provide clarification as to the potential for accessways to be shared. It is considered that, although such matters would also be covered via the requirements of the Hamilton Development Manual this level of information would be of assistance. In demonstrating the location and dimensions of on-road and off-road cycle lanes and shared pedestrian ways the consideration as to whether adequate connectivity along with safety of users could be undertaken.

7.2.66The amendments to Rule 6.2.1(a) as proposed by the Variation reflect the information required to be provided with a concept plan to determine whether the proposals would achieve connectivity and permeability. However, it is considered that the proposed amendments by CAW warrant consideration. The proposed changes by CAW would add weight to the level of information to be provided in a concept plan and are beneficial to showing connectivity and the proposed subdivision’s ability to link with its surroundings.Recommendation: That the submissions, Cycle Action Waikato (CAW) (submission points

13.06 and 13.07) be accepted; That the submissions, Environment Waikato (submission point 12.08)

and New Zealand Transportation Agency (NZTA) (submission point 9.16) be rejected.

(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Ad)

Subdivision and Development Environment:Submission:

7.2.67G Holland (submission point 8.02) seeks amendment to the Reasons and Design Guidance to include reference to planting of native trees in corridors and in planning new roadways. The reasons given being that the use of native trees would encourage the return of native birds into Hamilton. This could be achieved with the planting of roadways with appropriate native trees so to establish ‘flight corridors’ to encourage birds to return and reside. G Holland states that it is important to include native trees into subdivision design as both native trees and bird life is important part of children’s development and identity as New Zealanders.


Comments:7.2.68G Holland’s perspective has merit, in that the encouragement of natural

habitats is both important ecologically and socially. However, as the matters contained in Part A are narrow, with connectivity and permeability focusing on transport modes to generate greater linkages within and between subdivisions the matter of the specifics for ecological corridors is considered outside the scope of the Variation. Notwithstanding that, through other methods, such as Council Guidelines and other educational material (i.e. City Beautification Guidelines for Street Planting) helps to encourage forms of subdivision development that are capable for responding to G Holland’s concerns.Recommendation: That the submission, G Holland (submission point 8.02) be rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Ae)

Submission:6.2.70G Holland (submission points 8.03 and 8.05) seek the inclusion of the word

‘sustainability’ in the ‘Subdivision Design Guide under the Methods’ section of Policy 4.2 and 4.4. The proposed wording in Part A states (the submitters suggested inclusion underlined): Under Policy 4.2 the Method reads:

“Subdivision Design Guide – will be used to provide an interpretation of Assessment Criteria and Performance Outcomes in relation to residential subdivision: layouts and roading design. The Guidance explains and illustrates the urban design principles of connectivity and permeability and sustainability.”

Under Policy 4.4 the Method reads:“Subdivision Design Guide – will be used to provide an interpretation of Assessment Criteria and performance Outcomes in so far as they relate to subdivision for residential purposes. Guidance will include an explanation of and illustration of the urban design principles of connectivity and permeability and sustainability.”

7.2.69G Holland (submission points 8.06 and 8.08) seeks the amendment of Rule 6.2.2(d)(ii), first bullet point and Rule 6.3.6(a) clause (v) by inserting the word ‘sustainability’. The proposed wording being:

Rule 6.2.2(d)(ii), first bullet point: “Consideration of the design principles of connectivity and permeability and sustainability to existing or planned adjoining subdivision, ,local facilities and transport nodes” Rule 6.3.6(a) clause (v): after “As part of any subdivision, appropriate regard should be had to maintaining and enhancing the existing and future amenity values of the locality and to the design principles of connectivity and permeability and sustainability in minimising the effects of transport activities on the environment.”

Comments:7.2.70Part A matters specifically focus on connectivity and permeability and the

inclusion of those matters into the District Plan is in response to Council strategic direction. It is considered that the inclusion of the Part A matters contained in Variation 15 contribute to the purpose and principles of the


Resource Management Act 1991 in ensuring that the Proposed District Plan continues to achieve the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. The specific wording of a Method point is to identify what the method is for, and for a rule it is to identify what it is to achieve. In this case the method points under Policies 4.2 and 4.4, and rules under Rules 6.2.2(d)(ii) first bullet point and Rule 6.3.6(a)(v) specifically relate to the urban design principles set out in the Design Guidance, namely connectivity and permeability. It is not appropriate to add the word ‘sustainability’ when it is not a specific design principle of the Design Guidance. Recommendation: That the submissions, G Holland (submission points 8.03, 8.05, 8.06

and 8.08) be rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Af)

Submission:7.2.71G Holland (Submission point 8.04) seeks an amendment to the proposed

issue (bullet point seven) under Policy 4.4 to read (submitter’s amendments are underlined):

“Subdivisional design; connectivity and permeability. Well designed subdivision of land and buildings is integral to the sustainable management and development of land. The predominant form of suburban subdivisions has resulted in a curvi-linear street pattern, with a large number of cul-de-sacs and poor interconnectivity. This form of development has implications for community integration and increase reliance on motor vehicles. By recognising and promoting connectivity and permeability in subdivision design, better linkages within and between adjoining neighbourhoods and more sustainable forms of development including the maintaining of conservation and heritage features can be achieved.”

Comments:7.2.72As stated throughout this report, the intent of Part A is to introduce specific

urban design features (connectivity and permeability) into the District Plan to continue to maintain the District Plan’s ability to achieve the sustainable management of natural and physical resource as required under the Resource Management Plan. However, the nature of the Part A matters are specific and purposefully narrow in focus. It is not the intent of Part A to provide a broad protection of other elements that are required to be considered as part of a development. Notwithstanding that, the specific matters raised by G Holland are important in their own right. The issue of protection of natural features and cultural items are already identified, Bullet Point two of the Introduction and Issues section of Policy 4.4 of the District Plan. In addition, the elevated protection of heritage under the RMA is reflected in the proposed amendments set out in Part B of Variation 15. Accordingly, it is not considered necessary to include the additional wording.Recommendation: That the submission, G Holland submission point (8.04) be rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Ag)

Submission:


7.2.73Environment Waikato (EW) (submission points 12.05 and 12.06) support the adoption of Objective 4.4.4 and the amendments to Policy 4.4 in respect of subdivision design. Cycle Action Waikato (CAW) (further submission F.07/05.14) lodged a further submission in support of the EW submission, stating that the connectivity provisions will improve both land use planning and transport infrastructure.

7.2.74PRS Group (submission points 7.12 and 7.13) seek amendments to Rule 6.2 Subdivisional Planning: Expected Outcomes to delete reference to public reserves and green corridors unless referred to in the context of structure plans and new growth areas. The submitter states that there is too much onus on the developer to make provision for these facilities while rule framework and proposed objectives and policies do not support this. Cycle Action Waikato lodged a further submission (further submission F.07/05.04) opposing PRS Group citing that public reserves and green corridors are vital part of developing growth areas and are an asset to a subdivision and enhance the local community. CAW seek to retention of the reference to public reserves and green corridors.Comments:

7.2.75The provision of reserves at subdivision stage is an existing requirement set out in Rule 6.5 of the Proposed District Plan that not been amended by Variation 15. The ‘Expected Outcome’ in Rule 6.5 states “The adequate provision and distribution of reserves, open space and facilities secured at the time of subdivision and the development of land which contributes to the social, environmental, recreational, cultural and amenity needs and values of the community

7.2.76It is considered that there are adequate linkages in the District Plan, between rules, objectives and policies requiring the provision of public reserves and green corridors. As a result, PRS Group’s position is not supported.Recommendation: That the submission, Environment Waikato (EW) (submission points

12.05 and 12.06) be accepted; That the further submission, Cycle Action Waikato (CAW) (further

submission F.07/05.14) be accepted; That the submission, PRS Group (submission points 7.12 and 7.13) be

rejected; That the further submission, Cycle Action Waikato (further submission

F.07/05.04) be accepted.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Ag)

Transportation and Accessibility:Submission:

7.2.77G Holland (submission point 8.07) seeks the amendment of Rule 6.2.3(a) to include a rule that walkways are to be constructed on both sides of residential streets.Comments:

7.2.78The Hamilton City Development Manual, Section 3.9 sets out the requirements for the formation of footpaths. In general it is required that all roads have a footpath on both sides, with the only exception being where a short cul-de-sac has been deliberately designed to create a slow speed environment. Accordingly, as the design and formation of footpaths


is set out in the Development Manual it is not necessary to set a rule in the District Plan. Recommendation: That the submission, G Holland (submission point 8.07) be rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Ah)

Submission:7.2.79Cycle Action Waikato (submission points 13.01 and 13.02) request that

new District Plan Guidelines be developed that support walking, cycling and public transport connections, limit collector roads feeding directly onto major arterial ‘Limited Access Roads’ and adopt the Council’s ‘On Road Cycle Route Network’

7.2.80Cycle Action Waikato (submission points 13.11, 13.13 and 13.14) request the development of a District Plan Rule on the provision of cycle lanes, including a firmer District Plan Rule requiring that collector and arterial roads (new and upgraded) are fitted with on-road cycle lanes or off road cycle paths.

7.2.81New Zealand Transportation Agency (NZTA) (further submission F.07/08) lodged a further submission opposing the submission by Cycle Action Waikato relating to the provision of cycle lanes.Comments:

7.2.82The request by CAW, in their submission points 13.01 and 13.02 goes beyond that set out in Part A of the Variation. Although these matters are being considered through work related to Access Hamilton. CAW’s request is outside the scope of the Variation and is recommended for rejection.

7.2.83NZTA oppose the provision of cycle lanes as a rule in the District Plan as there is already existing legislation and policy relating to the provision of cycle lanes.

7.2.84The access provisions in the Proposed District Plan aim to ensure that the location and distribution of access points for activities along roads do not adversely affect the safe and efficient functioning of the transport network. The access rules control the number, size and position of access points to individual properties and land uses so as to minimise the adverse effects on the transport network and public safety.

7.2.85It is considered that the Objective and Policy framework of the Proposed District Plan and its implementation through Rule 5.2 Parking, Loading and Access and the Road Hierarchy ensures that the distribution of access points for activities along roads does not adversely affect the safe and efficient functioning of the transport network including pedestrian and cycle ways.

7.2.86In addition the provision of cycle lanes is set out in the Hamilton Development Manual, Volume 2 – Design Guide, Part 3 – Road works.

7.2.87Accordingly, it is considered that it is not necessary for there to be a specific rule for the provision of cycle lanes to be included into the District Plan.Recommendation: That the submission, Cycle Action Waikato (submission points 13.01,

13.02, 13.11, 13.13 and 13.14) be rejected. That the further submission, New Zealand Transportation Agency

(further submission F.07/08) be accepted. of 102 Last modified:

8/09/2008 07:46:00 AM

(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Ai)

Submission:7.2.88PRS Group (submission point 7.19) seeks the deletion of proposed Rule

6.2.3(a)(v) stating that there is no need to incorporate the additional criteria when the matters are already contained in points (i) – (iv) of Rule 6.2.3(a). Rule 6.2.3(a) states:

“a) AccessibilityThe design and layout of subdivisions should provide for the following:(i) Good internal and external access for residents, which minimises

the impact of through traffic, maximises public safety and accommodates a wide range of transport options

(ii) A safe, convenient and legible network for pedestrians, cyclists and persons with disabilities both on and off the road network

(iii) For the number of vehicle accesses onto major arterial roads to be kept to a minimum

(iv) Attractive streetscape that enhance the visual amenity values of neighbourhoods”.

The amendment proposed in the variation is the inclusion of point (v) which states:

(v) “A well-connected and permeable local movement system which incorporates pedestrian and cycleway routes and provision for public transport nodes.”

7.2.89In addition, PRS Group (submission point 7.19) seeks seek clarification of the term ‘local movement system’.Comments:

7.2.90The amendment to Rule 6.2.3(a) encapsulates connectivity for transport modes and is broader than points (i) to (iv). As a result, the deletion of Rule 6.2.3(a)(v) is not supported. However, it is considered that the provision of a definition would provide adequate clarification to express the intent of the rule.

7.2.91Therefore the deletion of Rule 6.2.3(a)(v) is not supported. However, it is considered that the inclusion of a definition of ‘local movement system’ would provide clarity. The following definition is recommended to be inserted into Rule 8.0 of the District Plan:

“Local Movement System means any type of resource capable of moving people or vehicles within the transport network, and can include roads, pedestrian/cycle access ways, reserves and the River”.

Recommendation: That the submission, PRS Group (submission point 7.19) be accepted in

part.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Aj)

Submission:7.2.92New Zealand Transportation Agency (NZTA) (submission points 9.02, 9.03,

9.04 and 9.05) support the adoption without amendments of the proposed new issue “Relationship between Subdivision Layout and Roading Design”; the amendments to Policies 4.2.4(d) and 4.2.4(e); the adoption of the amendments to the ‘Reasons’; and the proposed new Objective 4.2.4A.


Cycle Action Waikato lodged a further submission (further submission F.07/05.06) in support of NZTA’s submission point (9.02).

7.2.93Both NZTA and CAW give their support as the proposed additions explain the issues behind integrated land use and transportation planning.Recommendation: That the submission, New Zealand Transportation Agency (submission

points 9.02, 9.03, 9.04 and 9.05 be accepted; That the further submission, Cycle Action Waikato (further submission

F.07/05.06) be accepted.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Ak)

Submission:7.2.94New Zealand Transportation Agency (submission points 9.06, 9.07, 9.08,

9.09 and 9.10) all relate to the proposed Objective 4.2.4A. Overall NZTA supports the proposed objective (submission point 9.06). However, NZTA seeks the following amendments to Policy 4.2.4A (a), (b) and (c) (submission points 9.07, 9.08, 9.09) and the inclusion of a new clause ‘f’ (submission point 9.10). Two further submissions were lodges to the submission points New Zealand Transportation Agency (submission points 9.08 and 9.10) by Cycle Action Waikato (CAW) (submission points F.07/05.07 and F.07/05.08) giving support The proposed amendments by NZTA are as follows: Policy 4.2.4A (a) to read: “To recognise and provide …..within the City’s

Road hierarchy transport network ” (submission point 9.07); Policy 4.2.4A(b) to read: “To ensure ….to enhance neighbourhood

amenity values, and decrease direct property access to main arterial routes.” (submission point 9.08);

Policy 4.2.4A(c) to read: “To improve the design and integration of access (taking into account all modes of transport) within any new subdivisions.” (submission point 9.09);

Policy 4.2.4A(f) to read: “To develop newly acquired territory, or land currently zoned future urban, in a structured manner and in way that promotes the City’s Road Hierarchy.” (submission point 9.10);

Comments:7.2.95The term ‘Road Hierarchy’ covers the different classifications of roads

within the City, and are specifically identified on Planning Map 19 of the District Plan. While the term ‘Transport Network’ within the Hamilton City context includes roads, cycle ways, pedestrian ways, and the river. Policy 4.2.4A(a) relates to transport nodes and routes with a specific focus on the use of the City’s roading system. Therefore, it is more appropriate to use the term ‘road hierarchy’ within the context of Policy 4.2.4A than the term ‘transport network’.

7.2.96Policy 4.2.4A(b) focuses on the general provision of accessibility, connectivity and permeability within neighbourhoods. It is considered that the additional wording suggested by NZTA narrows the focus of the policy to roads which is not the intent of the policy.

7.2.97The additional wording proposed by NZTA for Policy 4.2.4A(c) assists in clarifying that access does not only pertain to the private motor vehicle but encompasses pedestrian, cycle and public transport along with linkages with walkways. Therefore, it is considered that the addition of the proposed wording in Policy 4.2.4A(c) is helpful.


7.2.98With regard to submission point 9.10; the reason for the addition of Policy 4.2.4A is to ‘complement’ the existing objectives and policies which are not presently adequate or sufficient as they assume that the provision of roading networks in themselves provide for accessibility, without recognising that the particular design of infrastructure can impact on a community’s health and safety as well as environmental amenity values. The introduction of Policy 4.2.4A specifically achieves the above outcomes. Council’s strategic policy direction is to utilise structure planning when developing any land for urban development. Through the development of specific structure plans the manner in which transport networks will be implemented will be determined through the specific structure plan for that area. It is considered that as proposed policy 4.2.4A(f) by NZTA promotion of the use of the road hierarchy is a too narrow a focus. The inclusion of the proposed policy ‘f’ is therefore not seen as necessary. Recommendation: That the submission, New Zealand Transportation Agency (submission

points 9.06 and 9.09) be accepted. That the submission, New Zealand Transportation Agency (submission

points 9.07, 9.08 and 9.10) be rejected. That the further submissions, Cycle Action Waikato (CAW) (submission

points F.07/05.07 and F.07/05.08) be rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Al)

Submission:7.2.99Environment Waikato (EW) (submission point 12.02) supports the adoption

of the proposed amendments to Policy 4.2.4A(e) while Cycle Action Waikato (CAW) (submission point 13.04) seek an amendment to Policy 4.2.4A(e).

7.2.100 EW stated in support of Policy clause (e) that it is important to integrate land use planning and transportation planning to facilitate the provision of passenger transport allowing a transport network that provides for through flow for buses allows larger vehicles (such as buses) to transverse without routes becoming dead ends at the boundaries of subdivisions.

7.2.101 CAW seek an amendment to Policy 4.2.4A(e) to provide a rule for collector and arterial roads, so that future collector roads will not be connecting directly to major arterials. CAW quote from the HCC City Development Manual, Section 3.3 Road Network that “Generally, roads should intersect only with roads in the same class or those immediately above or below in classification” along with highlighting that the suggested amendments to Policy 4.2.4A(e) would be consistent with the District Plan Objective 4.2.1 Transport Policy (a).

7.2.102 CAW (submission point 13.05) also requests “that with the Council’s adoption of Access Hamilton much tighter control be placed on requirements of subdivision development (via District Plan Rules), so that in the future vital access and safety of off-road walkways/cycle ways is no longer compromised by the collector road access from subdivision housing development connecting directly to a major arterial”. Comments:

7.2.103 Part A of the Variation is in response to two strategic directions (CityScope and Access Hamilton) which are incorporated into the Hamilton City Council’s 2006-2016 Long Term Plan. As a result, in relation to the


above submission points, the strategic direction set out in Access Hamilton is encompassed into the proposed resource management issue, objectives and policies and consequential changes to rules, performance standards and planning outcomes for subdivisional planning along with the introduction of a new rule and design guidance within Part A of the Variation.

7.2.104 It is preferable for the roading network to follow the roading hierarchy so that roads intersect with the same class or those in the next classification. However, that cannot always be achieved through existing roading patterns and land developments. Part A changes are to cover all residential subdivision possibilities that fall into the 10+ lot threshold. To achieve Connectivity linkages with existing and new roading in some cases may require a lesser classification connecting to a higher classification to allow for good overall connectivity for the area. It is important to continue to provide for that flexibility (presently provided through the use of the wording “generally” in the HCC development Manual). In particular, Policy 4.2.4A(e) is worded to encompass the overall development of the road hierarchy to achieve the objective of achieving an integrated and sustainable transport network. As a result it not appropriate to specifically limit design features within the policy framework. Recommendation: That the submission, Environment Waikato (EW) (submission point

12.02) is accepted; That the submission, Cycle Action Waikato (CAW) (submission points

13.04 and 13.05) be rejected. (Section 8.0 - Recommendation Al)

Submission:7.2.105 Environment Waikato (EW) (submission points 12.03 and 12.04) seek

amendments to the reasons for Objective 4.2.4A. Cycle Action Waikato lodged a (further submission F.07/05.15) in support of the EW submissions. Under submission point 12.03 EW requests that Hamilton City Council to prepare Passenger Transport Routes across whole structure plan areas identifying roads which would become bus routes. Submission point 12.04 requested that Council considers preparing transport network plans that connect subdivisions, based on road hierarchy which identify potential bus routes, and other roads that will form local roads that buses will not travel down. EW considers, that with the provision of the requested plans bus routes would be identified for developers to accommodate, and would also provide clarity for developers.

7.2.106 CAW’s (further submission F.07/05.15) support is based on a view that with a more proactive bus provision in new growth areas would reduce car dependence by offering modal choice and developing habits of using alternative transport as soon as people move into the area. In addition to requesting that Council adopt the amendments sought by EW, CAW requests that there be provisions made for the allocation of ‘Park and Ride Facilities’ sites within the new growth areas. Comments:

7.2.107 Access Hamilton sets out the policy direction and strategies to achieve an integrated transport network for the City, which includes public transport. The request by EW is outside the scope of the plan, going beyond that intended through the inclusion of objectives, policies and


rules for connectivity and permeability into the Proposed District Plan. The formation of such a plan would sit more comfortability with the work undertaken through Access Hamilton and as part of individual structure planning of new growth areas.

7.2.108 Overall, with regard to the City’s focus, in achieving an integrated and sustainable transport network it is considered that the matters pertaining to Hamilton City in the Regional Land Transport Strategy (RLTS) are addressed under Policy Section 4.2 Transportation and Accessibility of the District Plan. The introduction of connectivity and permeability standards into the plan will assist in managing travel demand to optimise the capacity and efficiency of the existing transport network within Hamilton (which is an outcome of the RLTS).

7.2.109 The plan preparation requested by EW is considered out side the intent of Part A matters of Variation 15. They are also matters that can be managed through the collaborative land use and transport planning between the authorities and the promotion of integrated transportation networks in structure plans and areas of new development to ensure coordinated land use and transport planning is achieved.Recommendation: That the submission, Environment Waikato (EW) (submission points

12.03 and 12.04) be rejected; That the further submission, Cycle Action Waikato (further submission

F.07/05.15) be rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Am)

Submission:7.2.110 6.2.109New Zealand Transportation Agency (NZTA) (submission point

9.11) seeks the deletion of the existing Reasons section for Policy 4.2.4A and its replacement with the following:

“I ncorporating Urban Design principles into the roading infrastructure while recognising that these are shared public spaces that contribute to Community identity and enhance the vitality and vibrancy of the City.A sustainable transport system should provide accessibility, connectivity and permeability along every route throughout the network, and reduce the travel distances between transport nodes. This is principally achieved by implementing a road hierarchy whereby each road is designed according to its function and location along a particular route.To ensure that growth within the City will meet the needs of all road users. All new roads shall be interconnected to reduce travel distances and provide for all modes of transport. Where appropriate, a package of passive and active measures should be provided to manage increasing travel demand within the wider network and to ensure that alternative transportation (including provision for viable transport, pedestrian and cycle access) can be achieved.Future structure planning and subdivision development should have consideration for development occurring around the City’s suburbs in general, and on other properties within the neighbourhood in particular. In this way, well-designed transport network will help avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of roads on the environment and the community’s amenity values .”


7.2.111 Cycle Action Waikato (CAW) (further submission F.07/05.09) lodged a further submission in support of NZTA’s proposed rewording of the Reasons section for Policy 4.2.4A ‘where appropriate, a package of passive and active measures should be provided to manage increasing travel demand within the wider network and to ensure that alternative transportation (including provision for viable public transport, pedestrian and cycle access) can be achieved”. CAW’s reason for the support being that “Travel Demand Management is vital to reduce car-dependency, and to make Hamilton’s transportation much more long term sustainable”. The outcome requested by CAW being the adoption of NZTA’s rewording of Policy 4.2.4A with the addition of a reference to ‘park and ride sites’. Comments:

7.2.112 The proposed wording for the ‘Reasons’ as set out in Part A of the variation, provides an all encompassing approach to the development of a sustainable transport network for all users (from private motor vehicle, public transport, cycles to pedestrians). The text suggested by NZTA has a greater focus on the use of the road hierarchy. Notwithstanding that the text suggested by NZTA does encompass the reasons for Policy 4.2.4A, it is considered the suggested text does not add anything to that set out in Part A and as a result it is not considered necessary to make any alterations to the Reasons as set out in Part A of the Variation.

7.2.113 In addition to the above, CAW’s request to reference ‘park and ride sites’ in the text of Policy 4.2.4A is considered as narrowing the focus of what constitutes alternative transportation. The concept of ‘park and ride’ is a method of facilitating public transport. Therefore, as the development and implementation of ‘park and ride’ facilities is already identified as a transport action in the ‘Climate Change Local Action Plan’ it is not considered necessary to include it in the reasons for Policy 4.2.4A. Recommendation: That the submission, New Zealand Transportation Agency (NZTA)

(submission point 9.11) be rejected; That the further submission, Cycle Action Waikato (CAW) (further

submission F.07/05.09) be rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Am)

Submission:7.2.114 New Zealand Transportation Agency (submission point 9.12) seek the

inclusion of the Subdivision Design Guide to be referenced under Policy Section 4.2 ‘Other Methods’ rather than ‘District Plan Methods’. Comments:

7.2.115 The list of Methods under the heading ‘District Plan’ are all contained within the District Plan while the list of methods under the heading ‘Other Methods’ fall outside the jurisdiction and management of the District Plan. The proposed design guide is to be incorporated into the District Plan through the introduction of Rule 10.0. As it will be a rule in the District Plan it is prudent to have it listed under ‘District Plan Methods’. Recommendation: That the submission, New Zealand Transportation Agency (NZTA)

(submission point 9.12) be rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation An)

Connectivity and Permeability of 102 Last modified:

8/09/2008 07:46:00 AM

Submission:7.2.116 PRS Group (submission point 7.10) requests the amendment of the

Rule Statement within Rule 6.2 Subdivisional Planning so that the rules make reference to urban design principles of connectivity and permeability rather than specifically implement them.

Comments:7.2.117 Variation 15 proposes to amend Rule 6.2 by the addition of a third

sentence to the existing Rule Statement. The sentence stating: “The rule specifically implement the urban design principles of connectivity and permeability in subdivision design with the aim of enhancing people’s accessibility at both a city and neighbourhood level.”

7.2.118 The proposed sentence, to be incorporated into the Rule Statement, provides guidance as to what the rules are to achieve. The rules do not only make reference to connectivity and permeability but also, through the ‘Means of Compliance’ set out the means as to how the urban design principles are to be implemented. Therefore, it is seen as appropriate for the third sentence of the Rule Statement to remain unchanged. Recommendation: That the submission, PRS Group (submission point 7.10) be rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Ao)

Design Guidance (Rule 10.0):Submission:

7.2.119 G Holland (submission point 8.10) seeks the inclusion of a new bullet point in the Rule Statement for Rule 10.0 to insert the following: “Natural Heritage features and significant trees”. G Holland states that there is no adequate protection for both native trees and significant exotic trees on private land and as such requires a specific rule to provide protection of these features so that they are preserved for future generations. Comments:

7.2.120 The matters raised by G Holland area already addressed in the Plan. The subdivision rules 6.2.2(a)(ii) bullet point 5 General Provision and 6.2.3(d) Natural Features and Open Space Network of the District Plan require consideration to be given to the natural features of a site. Rule 2.0 Overlays in the District Plan also affords protection and enhancement of natural features and specifically identified trees and heritage items (including buildings and areas) on both public and private land. As a result of the existence of these overlays in the District Plan it is considered that there is adequate protection. Recommendation: That the submission, G Holland (submission point 8.10) be rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Ap)

Attachment A - Design Guidance for Residential Subdivisions:Introduction Statement:Submission:


7.2.121 CKL Survey Office Limited (submission point 2.05) highlight two spelling mistakes ‘exiting’ should be ‘existing’ and ‘pipers’ should be ‘pipes’. In addition to the highlighted errors it is noted that there is also a grammatical error, the word ‘a’ should be ‘as’. These are errors do not affect the intent of the Variation therefore, it is prudent to amend without further discussion. The changes being:

7.2.122 Site Analysis and Layout, clause (6) bullet point three of the Design Guidance be corrected as follows: The availability of exiting existing infrastructure such a as water pipers

pipes, sewer pipes and roading.

Recommendation That the submission, CKL Survey Office Limited (submission point 2.05)

be accepted. (Section 8.0 - Recommendation Aq)

Submission:7.2.123 New Zealand Transportation Agency (NZTA) (submission point 9.19)

requests the adoption of the broad design guidelines that encompass citywide growth patterns and provide for all future subdivision irrespective of underlying zoning.

7.2.124 However, New Zealand Transportation Agency (NZTA) (submission points 9.20, 9.21) requests the rewording of the Introduction of the design guide to read (notation shows NZTA’s proposed rewording):

“IntroductionHamilton City Council wishes to take a stronger and more visionary role in the guiding the future development of Hamilton’s built environment to ensure that it can better reflect the dreams and aspirations of the City’s community. To this end, Council has articulated its strategy for urban design in CityScope.CityScope recognises that for new urban development to be sustainable, it needs to be integrated with the natural environment whilst ensuring that the resulting buildings and spaces contribute to making attractive places for people. In order to achieve this, it is important that future development in the City is based on sound urban design principles.Urban design planning, zoning and determination of the main transportation links and their connections to the existing roading network in accordance with the roading hierarchy The process of land subdivision is the first stage in developing the City’s form and sets the pattern for subsequent built environment. . The second stage involves the process of land subdivision. In particular, the way in which land is subdivided for residential, commercial, industrial and mixed purposes has a major bearing on the type of living environments and the amenity that are created for residents of the City. The quality of these environments is heavily dependant on their connectivity and permeability. Therefore, it is crucial therefore, that these elements of urban design area incorporated into the design of all residential subdivisions at the very earliest stage of their planning.


Inadequate connectivity and permeability in all residential subdivisions are extremely difficult to correct later on as land ownership becomes fragmented and built development begins to take place

7.2.125 In addition, New Zealand Transportation Agency (NZTA) (submission point 9.22) requests the rewording of proposed paragraph 4 under the heading ‘Purpose of this Guidance’ as follows (note the strikethrough indicates the proposed wording in the Variation the NZTA proposed to have deleted and the underlined text is what is proposed by NZTA):

‘The well-designed subdivision of land and buildings is integral to the sustainable management of land. The principles in this guide are intended to help developers shape the site and create a more vibrant sense of place in a manner that will maximise land use while ensuring adequate integrate (?) [in the text of the submission] with the land transport system. The layout of roads and the linkages between different sections are critical elements in the achievement of streetscapes, enjoyable and stimulating urban environments and distinctiveness for the city. Applications for subdivision will therefore need to demonstrate an understanding of the existing character of the development site and its place Anyone wishing to subdivide land needs to be familiar with the urban design planning for the area. Accordingly, any application wishing to subdivide land must first demonstrate; an understanding of the existing character of the site, and its place within the context of the wider neighbourhood and Hamilton City.”

7.2.126 Cycle Action Waikato (CAW)(further submission F.07/05.12) lodged a further submission in support of the submission by NZTA (submission points 9.20, 9.21 and 9.22). Comments:

7.2.127 The proposed wording suggested by NZTA (submission points 9.20, 9.21 and 9.22) does provide further clarification as to what is proposed to be achieved through the implementation of the Design Guidance. However, as the design guide’s focus is on residential subdivision only there is no need to highlight any other purposes (i.e. commercial, industrial and mixed). It is also considered that the wording proposed by NZTA has a too stronger emphasis on the road hierarchy rather than the overarching transport networks which implies both road and other movement mechanisms (e.g. pedestrian, cycles, public transport). As a result it is considered that there should be a partial adoption utilising some of the suggested re-wording from NZTA as follows (Underlining showing recommended changes):

Introduction:“Hamilton City Council wishes to take a stronger and more visionary role in the guiding the future development of Hamilton’s built environment to ensure that it can better reflect the dreams and aspirations of the City’s community. To this end, Council has articulated its strategy for urban design in CityScope.CityScope recognises that for new urban development to be sustainable, it needs to be integrated with the natural environment whilst ensuring that the resulting buildings and spaces contribute to making attractive places for people. In order to achieve this, it is important that future development in the City is based on sound urban design principles.


Urban design planning, zoning and determination of the main transportation links and their connections to the existing roading network in accordance with the roading hierarchy and transport networks is the first stage in developing the City’s form and sets the pattern for subsequent built environment. The second stage involves the process of land subdivision. In particular, the way in which land is subdivided for residential purposes has a major bearing on the type of living environments and the amenity created for residents of the City. The quality of these environments is heavily dependant on their connectivity and permeability. It is crucial therefore, that these elements of urban design area incorporated into the design of all residential subdivisions at the very earliest stage of their planning.Inadequate connectivity and permeability in all residential subdivisions are extremely difficult to correct later on as land ownership becomes fragmented and built development begins to take place

Paragraph 4 under the heading ‘Purpose of this Guidance’:

‘The well-designed subdivision of land and buildings is integral to the sustainable management of land. The principles in this guide are intended to help developers shape the site and create a more vibrant sense of place. The layout of roads and the linkages between different sections are critical elements in the achievement of streetscapes, enjoyable and stimulating urban environments and distinctiveness for the city. Anyone wishing to subdivide land needs to be familiar with the urban design planning for the area. Accordingly, any application to subdivide land must first demonstrate an understanding of the existing character of the site, and its place within the context of the wider neighbourhood and Hamilton City.”

Recommendation: That the submission, New Zealand Transportation Agency (submission

point 9.19) be accepted; That the submission, New Zealand Transportation Agency (submission

points 9.20, 9.21 and 9.22) be accepted in part; That the further submission, Cycle Action Waikato (CAW)(further

submission F.07/05.12) be accepted in part.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Ar)

Site Analysis and Layout:Submission:

7.2.128 Tui 2000 (submission point 6.02) suggests that the “Key Landscape Features” should also include particular reference to native trees. Accordingly Tui 2000 suggest the following amendment (suggested wording underlined):

“1. Key landscape features, whether these are natural or culturally significant (e.g.; lakes, streams, pa sites, native trees) or built features (e.g., churches, heritage buildings).”

Comments:7.2.129 It is considered that the request is beyond the scope of Variation 15.

Nevertheless, the additional wording has validity as it would provide clarification to what the key landscape features are. However, in limiting the example to “native” trees implies that exotic vegetation has a lesser importance and narrows the focus for the Key Landscape Features.


Recommendation: That the submission, Tui 2000 (submission point 6.02) be rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation As)

Submission:7.2.130 Environment Waikato (submission point 12.10) outlines that in their

opinion development levies should be collected by the Council from developer to pay for the new infrastructure associated with the establishment of new bus routes, including bus poles, shelters and real time passenger transport information.Comments:

7.2.131 The Regional Land Transport Strategy (RLTS) sets out the strategic approach for the region to manage transport demand and encourage alternative transport modes. Although Hamilton City Council is a party to the RLTS the actual provision of infrastructure associated with bus routes lies with EW. It is considered that as the management of such infrastructure falls to EW. If there is to be the requirement of a levy EW would need to consider the manner in which that could be collected under their own jurisdiction. In addition, under the Local Government Act 2002, the collection of development contributions must be outlined in policy specifically provided for such and adopted by Council pursuant to section 102 of the LGA 2002. There is no such policy to allow Council to collect such a levy as suggested by EW. Notwithstanding the LGA process the matter is considered to be beyond the scope of Variation 15. Recommendation: That the submission, Environment Waikato (submission point 12.10) be

rejected. (Section 8.0 - Recommendation At)

Connectivity and Permeability – Key Principles:Submission:

7.2.132 Cycle Action Waikato (submission point 13.08) request the amendment of the Key Principles within the Design Guide to read: ‘Enable a choice of modes of transport and provide a layout with good links and connections to surrounding neighbourhoods, residential areas, schools, local shops, recreation parks and reserves, public transport services and cycle commuter routes (on-road cycle lanes and off-road walkway/cycleways)’Comments:

7.2.133 It is considered that the inclusion of the term ‘local shops’ would assist with clarifying expected types of activities envisaged within neighbourhoods. However, the other wording public transport services and cycle commuter routes (on-road cycle lanes and off-road walkway/cycleways)’ suggested by CAW, although assisting in what “public transport services and cycle commuter routes” can include is seen as being superfluous. Therefore it is considered that the bullet point three under the heading ‘Key Principles: in the Design Guidance be amended as follows:


‘Enable a choice of modes of transport and provide a layout with good links and connections to surrounding neighbourhoods, residential areas, schools, local shops, recreation parks and reserves.’

Recommendation: That the submission, Cycle Action Waikato (submission point 13.08) be

Accepted in Part.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Au)

Good Practice Requirements:Submission:

7.2.134 Blue Wallace Surveyors (submission point 10.02) states the Design Guide has been poorly prepared and discourages cul-de-sacs which, in their opinion is wrong in the Hamilton setting. Furthermore, Figure 6 is a very poor example of good practice. Both CKL Surveying and Planning (submission point 18.01) and McPherson Goodwin Surveyors Ltd (submission point 15.04) also disagree with the use of Figure 6 as an example of good design practice. Cycle Action Waikato (further submissions F.07/05.13 and F.07/05.16) opposing the submissions from Blue Wallace Surveyors and McPherson Goodwin Surveyors Ltd.

7.2.135 McPherson Goodwin Surveyors Limited (submission point 15.04) requests a review of the design guide to include other considerations in respect of residential development, including consideration of densities and locations; open spaces, size, locations, function, integration with subdivision; desirable forms of connectivity; hierarchy of street designs/functions; and building of residential identities. McPherson Goodwin Surveyors believe Figure 6 gives vehicles special elevation in importance, there is no practical reserve and destroys the residential environment for the sake of traffic expediency. On the flipside, it is their opinion that Figure 5 embraces a defined roading hierarchy, provides for an appropriate and safe environment sought after by new section/home buyers in the new growth areas and provides for an adequate degree of pedestrian/cycle connectivity within and through the development from surrounding areas. McPherson Goodwin have submitted that undue weighting has been given to connectivity, principally vehicular traffic, over all other design considerations, no weight should be given to the variation and the design guide until a revisited and more complete variation can be notified.

7.2.136 CKL Surveying and Planning (submission point 18.01) believes Figure 6 should be promoted as a bad example of subdivisional design due to the design being uneconomic, too traffic orientated, no practical reserve or open space area and destroying the residential environment for the sake of traffic connectivity.

7.2.137 Cycle Action Waikato (further submissions F.07/05.13 and F.07/05.16) cite their disagreement with the submitters’ opinion that discouragement of cul-de-sacs is wrong in Hamilton as this type of roading pattern increases car dependency, by reducing bus access and also reducing walking and cycling provisions (where there is poor permeability).Comments:

7.2.138 The Design Guide has been peer reviewed by an independent urban design expert. The peer review findings, titled “Urban Design review of Part A” by Joanna Smith, Urban Design Consultant, Chow:Hill Architects Limited dated July 2008 indicates that the proposed design guidance is


narrow in focus and in some instances provides the bare minimum factors needed to be considered in a site analysis and the key principles are more like objectives than design principles. There is also detail provided to support the ‘good practice’ approach of dis-encouraging the use of cul-de-sacs. It is stated in point 3.12 of the review that:

“Given that the conventional suburban approach is to maximise cul-de-sacs which are perceived as “safer”, the point could be reinforced that in addition to interconnected streets provision the surveillance of passing vehicles (improving pedestrian safety) they also offer choice of routes for both pedestrians and vehicles. In the latter case, that means that instead of all traffic being funnelled into one Connector Street that becomes busier, traffic can be dispersed over several streets and the volumes of traffic can be evened out across the neighbourhood. It can also be noted that interconnected street can be designed for low traffic speeds, for instance narrower carriageways, trees in built out kerbs, on-street parking and tight corners rather than side sweeping radii.”

7.2.139 The outcome of the peer review was that due to the narrow focus of the Part A matters the design guidance does mean that some of the related urban design principles have not been addressed. However, Joanna Smith acknowledges that in addition to the Variation, Hamilton City is also using other mechanisms to encourage better urban design and to articulate the City’s expectation (i.e. CityScope, Vista and the use of the Urban Design Panel). Overall it is noted that Hamilton has recognised the importance of connected streets and robust urban patterns in new subdivisions. Joanna Smith concluded that “Variation 15 and the design guidance in Part A go some way to ensuring that future development creates more pedestrian-friendly streets and reduces the need to use a car for every trip.”

7.2.140 The use of the figures in the design guide have been to illustrate the differences between a more traditional subdivision layout (which does not reflect now accepted urban design principals) and a ’modern’ design (which reflects accepted urban design the practices, specifically focusing on connectivity and permeability). It is considered that the submitters have not grasped the intent of Part A to align the District Plan with accepted urban design principles of connectivity as adopted through Council’s Long-Term Plan’s key strategic direction (Access Hamilton and CityScope). With specific regard to the use of the examples in the Design Guide (Figures 5 and 6) the diagrams are considered to be generic, and do not represent any specific development. The advice Council has received from Joanna Smith, Urban Design Consultant, Chow:Hill Architects Limited is that the ‘good practice’ section of the Guidance contains useful points which are emphasised in the diagrams. In Ms Smith’s opinion the suggestion that Figure 6 is not a good example could be in part due to the scale and the reduced number of lots along with the fact that the streets are shown as the same dimensions as typical cul-de-sac/through road layout. She makes no statement indicating that the existing diagrams have been used wrongly or show poor connectivity and permeability.

7.2.141 It is recognised that at the time of the formulation of the Proposed District Plan the market reflected the perceived safety and privacy advantages of cul-de-sac layouts. However, in the last 5 years there has been a shift towards master planning and along with that New Zealand based examples of the market responding more positively to a well-integrated and planned approach.


7.2.142 A connected network of roads, as opposed to a series of unconnected cul-de-sacs increases accessibility for residents, allows for a safer and more efficient movement of traffic, and enables more efficient provision of infrastructure. It can be difficult to create a network which can be constantly extended, particularly where there are a series of small developments. For various reasons, developers are often reluctant to link up to adjacent subdivisions and therefore it can be hard for Council to achieve the roading pattern that it seeks. The submitter is correct in identifying the challenge of mitigating a lack of connectivity in existing residential areas where existing infrastructure has been finalised and the biggest impact could be made in the developing and yet to be developed Rototuna, Rotokauri and Peacocke growth cells. However, the intent of the Variation, to achieve Council’s policy approaches as set out in CityScope and Access Hamilton, the inclusion of both Greenfield and existing urban areas is important to achieve a more sustainable urban development.Recommendation: That the submissions, Blue Wallace Surveyors (submission point

10.01), McPherson Goodwin Surveyors Limited (submission point 15.04), and CKL Surveying and Planning (submission point 18.01) be rejected;

That the further submissions, by Cycle Action Waikato (further submission F.07/05.13 and F.07/05.16) be accepted.

(Section 8.0 -Recommendation Av)Comments:

7.2.143 Cycle Action Waikato (CAW) (submission points 13.09, 13.10 and 13.12) requests the amendments to the Good Practice Requirements of the Design Guide. In particular:

2nd bullet point to read: ‘Provide shared-use pedestrian/cycle public accessway links that connect residential areas with public transport services, parks, reserves, schools and local shops. Pedestrian or cycle only routes should be avoided’ (submission point 13.09)3rd bullet point within Good Practice Requirements of the Design Guide to read: ‘Integrate access for pedestrians and cyclists into the main road network through the provision of on-road cycle lanes on all collector and minor arterial roads, and shared-use off-road pedestrian/cycle paths on all major arterials that are Limited Access Roads’ (submission point 13.10)8th bullet point within Good Practice Requirements of the Design Guide to read: ‘Design roads so that they facilitate safe and convenient pedestrian and cycle use, by providing sufficient carriage way width and sufficient road width to fit on-road cycle lanes on collector and minor arterial roads, and shared-use off-road pedestrian/cycle paths on major arterials that are Limited Access Roads’ . (submission point 13.12)

Comments:7.2.144 The additional wording suggested by CAW for the second bullet point

has validity for consideration. The addition of “shared-use pedestrian/cycle public accessway links” would clarify that the shared use has a focus on pedestrian and cycle ways rather than including the roading hierarchy.


7.2.145 However, the suggested additions for bullet points 3 and 8 are not considered necessary as those matters are already addressed through the requirements of the Hamilton City Development Manual. With the inclusion of the text as suggested there is the potential for the Good Practice Requirements to be viewed as having a narrow focus relating to cycle and placing to much emphasis on cycle mode of transport rather than having a broad approach on all transport networks.

7.2.146 In addition to the matters addressed above, through the peer review, Joanna Smith indicated that the design guidance could be amended, such as provision of measurements (e.g. the maximum block size or the maximum acceptable length where a cul-de-sac is unavoidable); and more specific requirements for a site analysis noting what an applicant should submit. These matters are noted and may form part of any future amendments through the District Plan review commencing mid 2009. However, within the context of Variation 15 the suggested amendments are not covered by any submissions to warrant change.Recommendation: That the submission, Cycle Action Waikato (submission points 13.09)

be accepted; That the submission, Cycle Action Waikato (submission points 13.10

and 13.12) be rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Av)

Definitions:Submission:

7.2.147 CKL Survey Office Limited (submission point 2.02) requests the inclusion of a definition of ‘Concept Plan’ within Section 8.0 Definitions to clarify the requirements of Rule 6.2.1(a). CKL Survey Office Limited states that without a definition in the District Plan for ‘concept plan’ there is the need to defer to the Collins English Dictionary definition of ‘concept’ which means “an idea” (text taken from CKL Survey Office Limited’s submission). They also have submitted that there should not be the requirement to provide such detail as requested in Rule 6.2.1(a). This aspect of their submission has been addressed in paragraph 7.2.56 of this report. Comments:

7.2.148 Rule 6.2.1a) defines what a subdivision concept plan should demonstrate and the information to include within it. It is considered that this constitutes a definition and no further clarification is needed through an amendment to Section 8.0. Recommendation: That the submission, CKL Survey Office Limited (submission point 2.02)

be rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Aw)

Submission:7.2.149 CKL Survey Office Limited (submission point 2.04) request the

amendment of the definition of ‘good subdivision guidance’ to read: “This may include Guidance contained in Rule Section 10.0, the Hamilton City Development Manual, Best Practice Design Guides or other education material formally approved by Council”


Comments:7.2.150 The use of the term “formally approved” would limit the materials to be

considered as good subdivision guidance. This would in term limit the ability for designers to provide a concept plan utilising the most up-to-date literature. This would also require that any materials to be able to be considered would need to have been formally adopted by Council. It is considered that such a process would be onerous and could limit the flexibility of designers and Council in general in achieving the sought outcomes of good subdivision design and to keep par with best practice.Recommendation: That the submission, CKL Survey Office Limited (submission point 2.04)

be rejected. (Section 8.0 - Recommendation Ax)

Submission:7.2.151 G Holland (submission point 8.09) seeks the inclusion of a definition of

‘sustainable management’. Comments:

7.2.152 Section 5 of the RMA defines ‘sustainable management’ as meaning:“the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while –(a)Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding

minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b)Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and

(c)Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.”

7.2.153 Therefore, as there is already a definition set in legislation it is not necessary to provide a definition under the District Plan. Recommendation: That the submission, G Holland (submission point 8.09) be rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Ay)

Submission:7.2.154 New Zealand Transportation Agency (NZTA) (submission point 9.17)

and Environment Waikato seek amendment to the definition of ‘connectivity’.

7.2.155 NZTA seek the amendment of the definition ‘connectivity’ to read: “in terms of subdivisional planning means land, local facilities and surrounding neighbourhoods through interconnectivity of the local road network in a way that addresses the needs of pedestrians and cyclists. The starting point for a well connected development is the existing system of linkages into and through the site from the surrounding neighbourhood”

7.2.156 Cycle Action Waikato (CAW)(further submission F.07/05.10) lodged a further submission in support of NZTA’s submission (submission point 9.17).


7.2.157 Environment Waikato (EW) (submission point 12.09) seeks the amendment of the definition of ‘connectivity’ to include:(i) inter-connectivity of passenger transport networks and(ii)RPTP Service Guidelines

7.2.158 The proposed definition as set out in the Variation states:“Connectivity – connectivity in terms of subdivision planning, means the ability to provide a well-connected local movement system which makes connections to adjoining land, local facilities and surrounding neighbourhoods through interconnectivity of the local road, pedestrian and cycle network.”

7.2.159 New Zealand Transportation Agency (NZTA) (submission point 9.18) seeks to amend the definition of ‘permeability’ as follows: “the extent to which subdivision development provides choice and ease of movement from place to place within the proposal site and having consideration for the City’s Road Hierarchy”

7.2.160 The proposed definition as set out in the Variation states:“Permeability – the extent to which an environment provides choice and ease of movement through it from place to place. The starting point for a permeable development is the existing system of links into and through the site from the surrounding neighbourhood.”

Comments:7.2.161 The full amendments by EW, NZTA and CAW to the definition for

connectivity are seen as being unnecessary as the existing wording of the definition incorporates all modes of transport adequately without the need to be specific. However, it is considered that the additional sentence proposed by NZTA would provide further clarification as to what is meant.

7.2.162 Accordingly, it is recommended that the following amendments be made to the definition of Connectivity, (proposed words to be inserted underlined):

“Connectivity – connectivity in terms of subdivision planning, means the ability to provide a well-connected local movement system which makes connections to adjoining land, local facilities and surrounding neighbourhoods through interconnectivity of the local road, pedestrian and cycle network. The starting point for a well connected development is the existing system of linkages into and through the site from the surrounding neighbourhood”

7.2.163 The amendments proposed by NZTA to the definition for ‘permeability’ would narrow its focus. As stated in the definition permeability relates how an environment provides choice and ease in which movement is achieved without having a narrow focus on the specifics of subdivision development nor one form of transport (i.e. roads). The additional wording suggested by CAW of including the words “alternative transport modes” is also seen as not being necessary in the context of the definition. Therefore, it is recommended that the definition of permeability as set out in the Variation be confirmed.

7.2.164 Notwithstanding the above, as part of the peer review of the design guidance by Joanna Smith, Chow:Hill she suggested that it may be of assistance to provide a ‘plain english’ definition at the start of the principles section as the rationale for why connected streets are important


to making more sustainable subdivisions. The following wording being proposed:

“A connected street network provides more direct routes for pedestrians, reducing walking distances. Streets shared with vehicles and overlooked by houses provide a safer environment, particularly after dark, than pedestrian-only routes away from passing traffic”

7.2.165 Although Ms Smith suggests the above as a definition, it could in fact be an additional ‘Key Principle’ for Connectivity and Permeability. It is considered that as a consequential change the additional wording could be implemented to assist in clarifying importance of the road network, which is implied through the suggested changes to the definition of connectivity and permeability proposed by NZTA without affecting the broader intent of either definition. Therefore, it is recommended, as a consequent of the matters highlighted in the submission point by NZTA (9.18) (as set out above) that the above wording be added as an additional ‘key principle’ in addition to the definitions of Connectivity and Permeability for clarity.

7.2.166 As a consequential change, it is recommended that the following be inserted as the first bullet point under the heading ‘Connectivity and Permeability Key Principles’ in the Design Guidance to read:

“A connected street network provides more direct routes for pedestrians, reducing walking distances. Streets shared with vehicles and overlooked by houses provide a safer environment, particularly after dark, than pedestrian-only routes away from passing traffic”

Recommendation: That the submission, New Zealand Transportation Agency (NZTA)

(submission points 9.17 and 9.18)) be accepted in part; That the further submission, Cycle Action Waikato (CAW) (further

submission F.07/05.10) be accepted in part. That the submission, Environment Waikato (EW) (submission point

12.09) be rejected. (Section 8.0 - Recommendation Az)

7.3 PART B: Heritage – Analysis of SubmissionsGeneral:One submitter (Tui 2000) supports the variation in its entirety and three submitters (New Zealand Historic Places Trust, Never Ending Abundance Limited and Hamilton Methodist Parish) raise general matters regarding Part B.

Submission:7.3.1 Tui 2000 (submission point 6.03) request the approval of Part B, Variation

15.Recommendation: That the submission, Tui 2000 (submission point 6.03) be accepted. (Section 8.0 -Recommendation Ba)

Submission:7.3.2 New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) (submission point 1.09)

requests the review and amendment of Policy Section 4.0 Development Environment to recognise Resource Management Amendment Act 2003 in respect of historic heritage.


Comments:7.3.3 The recognition and protection of New Zealand’s historic places, sites,

items and areas are promoted by the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and the Historic Places Act 1993 (HPA). The RMA is the principal legislation protecting heritage, and the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) is the lead agency for the advocacy of heritage. The HPA empowers the Trust to operate a National Register of historic places, historic areas, wahi tapu and wahi tapu areas.

7.3.4 In 2003 the RMA was amended, introducing new requirements and a new definition of historic heritage. Previous to this authorities were to have regard to the recognition and protection of heritage values. However, following the amendment the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development was raised to a matter of national importance. This prompted Hamilton City to reflect on how well existing heritage management provisions satisfied the new requirements.

7.3.5 As a result, the amendments set out in Variation 15 have focused on the specific heritage management provisions for built heritage in the context of the current heritage provisions in the District Plan only.

7.3.6 NZHPT’s submission points 1.01 – 1.06 have also raised these matters under Part A of the Variation. The matters set out in Part A relate specifically to subdivision connectivity and not on providing a heritage context to subdivision. As set out in paragraphs 6.2.7 – 6.2.10 of this report those submission points have already been deemed to be outside the scope of the matters in Part A of the Variation. The decision sought by NZHPT (submission point 1.09), for the addition of historic heritage in the Policy Section 4.0 has not been specifically identified in Variation 15.

7.3.7 Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the following objectives and policies within the Policy Section 4.0 does afford historic heritage a degree of cover; as a Developer must had regard to the relevant objective and policies when preparing a resource consent application:

Objective 4.1.3 ‘Protection of Environmental and Cultural Values’ “to ensure that any development in the future urban are, in particular the development of new growth areas, does not have an adverse impact on the significant environment, ecological and cultural features of the area” Policy 4.1.3c) “identify and protect sites of archaeological, historic and cultural significance and notable trees within future urban areas”Objective 4.4.2 ‘Environmental Impacts of Subdivision and Development’ “to ensure that any subdivision and development of land is carried out in a manner which reflects the physical constraints on its use and development avoids, remedies or mitigates any adverse effects on the environment”Policy a) “Ensure that the subdivision and development of land does not negatively impact on the identified natural, amenity, cultural and heritage values on the locality”

7.3.8 Therefore it is not considered necessary to modify the Development Environment policy of the District Plan. Recommendation: That submission, New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT)

(submission point 1.09) be rejected. of 102 Last modified:

8/09/2008 07:46:00 AM

(Section 8.0 -Recommendation Ba)

Submission:7.3.9 Never Ending Abundance (Submission point 3.01) opposes the

amendments set out in Part B of Variation 15 on the grounds that it would unfairly disadvantage the owners of heritage listed buildings and their ability to alter the building to suit different uses and business activities in the future.

7.3.10A further submission in support of this submission was lodged by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (further submissions F.07/03.04). The further submission seeks the withdrawal of the proposed amendments to Policy 7.1, Objective 7.1.1 and Rules 2.3.1(b), 2.3.1(c), 2.3.1(d), 2.3.2, 2.3.4(b), 2.3.5 and 2.3.5(a).Comments:

7.3.11The proposed amendments via Variation 15 place more emphasis on the importance of heritage items within the District Plan and align the protection afforded under the District Plan with the RMA. This ensures that the current heritage provisions recognise and provide for historic heritage as defined by the Act.

7.3.12It is considered that the more discretionary approach, utilising the existing 5 tier system allows items to be assessed according to importance. Aligning the District Plan with the elevated status of heritage under the RMA improves clarity and consistency within the heritage overlay. However, it is acknowledged that with the elevation of some activities (i.e. additions and alterations) of ‘B’ and ‘C’ ranked buildings from controlled to discretionary does place additional controls over the management of those buildings. Notwithstanding the elevated activity status of some activities for ranked buildings in the District Plan, the proposed changes will not limit an owner of a protected building from applying for resource consent to undertake works to allow for the continued economic use of the building. Recommendation: That the submission, Never Ending Abundance (submission point 3.01)

be rejected; That the further submission by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day

Saints Trust Board (further submission F.07/03.04) be rejected. (Section 8.0 - Recommendation Ba)

Submission:7.3.13Hamilton Methodist Parish (submission point 19.01) requests the initiation

of dialogue to clarify the intent of the proposed changes and how the changes would impact on the Church and reach a formal agreement between the Council and the Methodist Church of New Zealand. The request is due to concerns that the proposed amendments will impose a financial burden on owners of heritage properties.

7.3.14A further submission in support of this submission was lodged by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (further submission F.07/03.01). The reason for the further submission being: “the submitter has identified the additional costs which may be incurred by owners of scheduled buildings”. The decision sought through this further submission was for the withdrawal of the proposed amendments to Policy


7.1, Objective 7.1.1 and Rules 2.3.1(b), 2.3.1(c), 2.3.1(d), 2.3.2, 2.3.4(b), 2.3.5 and 2.3.5(a).Comments:

7.3.15The submission point by Hamilton Methodist Parish (submission point 19.01), albeit of a site specific nature seeking further dialogue between the Parish and Council has highlighted a general concern by other submitters with regard to the economic burden placed on owners of heritage buildings.

7.3.16In response to the Hamilton Methodist Parish’s concerns Council did correspond with the St Paul’s Methodist Church Property Committee in December 2006. The letter broadly outlined the protection afforded historic heritage under the District Plan and the implications of the Variation for the Church along with the statutory process to be followed in considering Variation 15.

7.3.17It is acknowledged that with the elevation of some activities (i.e. demolition, additions and alterations) of ‘B’ and ‘C’ ranked buildings from controlled to discretionary does place additional controls over the management of those buildings. As a result, the perceived financial impacts have not changed in a general context, as there is still the requirement of a resource consent application to be prepared and lodged with Council. Notwithstanding the above, the proposed amendments, aligning the District Plan’s heritage protection with the elevated heritage status under the RMA does not alter the existing list of buildings protected under Appendix 2.3-II. Recommendation: That the submission, Hamilton Methodist Parish (submission point

19.01) be rejected; That the further submission, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day

Saints Trust Board (further submission F.07/03.01) be rejected. (Section 8.0 - Recommendation Ba)

Policy 7.1 Built Heritage:Submission:

7.3.18New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) (submission points 1.10 and 1.12) and Dr McEwan (submission point 5.01) support the adoption of the amendments to Policy 7.1.1(b). The proposed wording being: “Avoid the demolition or relocation of all outstanding and highly significant heritage items listed within the Heritage Items Schedule in Appendix 2.3-II to retain heritage values in the City.” New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) (submission point 1.12) support of the amendment of Policy 7.1(b) is due to the fact that the explanation reflects the significant adverse effect that unsympathetic alterations or additions may have on the value of any heritage item.

7.3.19Hamilton Methodist Parish (further submission F.07/02.01) lodged a further submission in opposition to the submission by NZHPT (submission points 1.10 and 1.12) stating that “no clarity on how an item will be recognised by the Hamilton City Council in Appendix 2.3-II”.

7.3.20The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (further submission F.07/03.03) lodged a further submission in opposition to the


submission by Dr McEwan (submission point 5.01) stating that the “submission fails to recognise that the proposed changes to the District Plan may have an adverse effect on the long term sustainable use of scheduled buildings in a manner which meets the social, economic and cultural needs of the land owner and the community.” Comments:

7.3.21The proposed changes to the Policy is to align the District Plan with the elevated heritage status in the RMA. There have been no proposed changes to Appendix 2.3-II or to the assessment methodology determining how built heritage is protected. Recommendation: That the submissions, New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT)

(submission points 1.10 and 1.12) and Dr McEwan (submission point 5.01) be accepted;

That the further submissions, Hamilton Methodist Parish (further submission F.07/02.01) and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (further submission F.07/03.03) be rejected.

(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Bb)

Submission:7.3.22New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) (submission point 1.11) and Dr

McEwan (submission point 5.02) support the deletion in Policy 7.1.1(c). The wording to be deleted being: “Control demolition of heritage items of significant heritage value to ensure that heritage values are maintained”

7.3.23Hamilton Methodist Parish (further submission F.07/02.01) lodged a further submission in opposition to the submission by NZHPT (submission points 1.11) stating that “no clarity on how an item will be recognised by the Hamilton City Council in Appendix 2.3-II”.

7.3.24The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (further submission F.07/03.03) lodged a further submission in opposition to the submission by Dr McEwan (submission point 5.02) and a further submission (F.07/03.05) to the submission by NZHPT (submission point 1.11) stating that the submissions fail “to recognise that the proposed changes to the District Plan may have an adverse effect on the long term sustainable use of scheduled buildings in a manner which meets the social, economic and cultural needs of the land owner and the community.” Comments:

7.3.25The proposed changes to the Policy is to align the District Plan with the elevated heritage status in the RMA. There have been no proposed changes to Appendix 2.3-II or to the assessment methodology determining built heritage is protected. Recommendation: That the submissions, New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT)

(submission point 1.11) and Dr McEwan (submission point 5.02) be accepted;

That the further submissions, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (further submission F.07/03.03 and F.07/03.05) and Hamilton Methodist Parish (further submission F.07/02.01) be rejected.

(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Bc)


Submission:7.3.26New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) (submission point 1.13)

supports the amendments to paragraphs three and four under ‘Reasons’ for Objective 7.1.1. However, NZHPT seek the inclusion of the following into the reasons: “Changes to the interior are not controlled as they are necessary to make buildings workable unless the heritage item is:- an archaeological site and/or - a Scheduled Site registered with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust

(NZHPT) or- the interior has been recognised by the Hamilton City Council in

Appendix 2.3-II as integral to the heritage value of the heritage item”7.3.27Hamilton Methodist Parish (further submission F.07/02.01) lodged a further

submission in opposition to the submission by NZHPT (submission points 1.13) stating that “no clarity on how an item will be recognised by the Hamilton City Council in Appendix 2.3-II”.

7.3.28The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (further submission F.07/03.05) lodged a further submission in opposition to the submission by NZHPT (submission point 1.13) stating that the submissions fails “to recognise that the proposed changes to the District Plan may have an adverse effect on the long term sustainable use of scheduled buildings in a manner which meets the social, economic and cultural needs of the land owner and the community.” Comments:

7.3.29The additional wording proposed by NZHPT has validity in providing some clarity as to when interiors may be protected and highlights that there is still the requirement to consider heritage items in light of the Historic Places Act.

7.3.30Council does not currently propose to vary the status of activities in relation to the interior of any heritage item listed in Appendix 2.3-II. Nevertheless in NZHPT’s opinion consideration should be given to noting in Appendix 2.3-II where the interiors of individual heritage items contribute to the historic integrity of that protected item. NZHPT believes that whilst this will have no effect on overall resource consent status, it will serve as a useful purpose in allowing Council to assess on a case by case basis whether the interior contributes to the overall heritage value of any heritage item listed in Appendix 2.3-II.

7.3.31The Council, in determining the policy approach to take in the preparation of the Proposed District Plan in 1997 decided to focus the district plan provisions on exteriors of heritage items only, taking the philosophy that people should have the ability to adapt the interiors of their buildings to modern standards to ensure that the buildings remain economically viable. At that time, Council considered that to impose such rules would unduly restrict the efficient use and/or re-use of the city’s physical heritage resources. Instead, other methods such as guidelines, education, conservation and management plans, and financial incentives were proposed to be used to encourage and assist property owners in making sympathetic alterations or additions which affect the interiors of items.

7.3.32The approach outlined above was supported by the outcomes of a heritage review undertaken as part of the formulation of the Proposed District Plan. Council engaged Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner to undertake a heritage review. An outcome of that review, “Hamilton City Built Heritage Review” by Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner for the Council dated 1998, was that:


“There is potential for heritage values to be lost through inappropriate use and/or development. However, the use of these resources is also often important, providing context to the resource and ensuring that heritage values are not lost through deterioration or neglect. As many heritage resources are in private ownership it is important to encourage sympathetic use of heritage resources and provide a balance between the expectations of the owners/occupiers of these buildings, sites and areas with the wider heritage values of the community”. (“Hamilton City Built Heritage Review” by Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner for the Council dated 1998)

7.3.33As stated above, activities are given an activity status dependent on the significance of the heritage item. Variation 15 sets out how the levels of protection are to be applied to heritage items presently listed under the District Plan. This also aligns with the elevated importance afforded heritage under the RMA while also aligning the District Plan with the policy direction of Council as set out in CityScope.

7.3.34The manner in which NZHPT is suggesting introducing the importance of interiors into the District Plan could not be undertaken without an extensive heritage study/inventory of the interiors of the listed heritage items to determine which should be listed. This is also currently not the policy approach adopted by Council for the protection of heritage items in the City nor is it the intent of variation 15. Notwithstanding this presently position, through the development of the Heritage Policy and as part of the District Plan review (commencing in 2009) the reassessment of the extent of protection may be considered. Accordingly, it is considered that the wording of the reason as proposed in Variation 15 is adequately explained without the clarifications as suggested by NZHPT. Recommendation: That the submission point New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT)

(submission point 1.13) be accepted in part; That the further submission, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day

Saints Trust Board (further submission F.07/03.05) be rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Bd)

Submission:7.3.35Dr McEwan (submission point 5.03) seeks to have paragraph 3 and 4 of the

Reasons under Policy 7.1.1 amended to outline circumstances justifying demolition and control of interior alterations.

7.3.36Hamilton Methodist Parish (further submission F.07/02.02) lodged a further submission in opposition to the submission Dr McEwan (submission points 5.03). The Hamilton Methodist Parish gave the following reasons for their opposition: “(1) no recognition if the cost to the incumbent owner; (2) no criteria that clearly defines discretionary activities or management controls”.

7.3.37The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (further submission F.07/03.03) lodged a further submission in opposition to the submission by Dr McEwan (submission point 5.03) stating that the submission fails “to recognise that the proposed changes to the District Plan may have an adverse effect on the long term sustainable use of scheduled buildings in a manner which meets the social, economic and cultural needs of the land owner and the community.” Comments:


7.3.38As set out in paragraphs 6.3.21 – 6.3.24 above, the policy direction of Council is not to protect the interior of heritage listed buildings. Part B of Variation 15 does not propose any amendments to the existing heritage items listed for protection. The proposed amendments relate to aligning the District Plan with the RMA. This has resulted in the modifications to the protection afforded the different ranked heritage items depending on the type of activity proposed to be undertaken (i.e. additions and alterations/relocation and demolition). There has been no change to the Council’s policy stance on not protecting the interiors of listed buildings. However, the elevation of protection proposed by the Variation does elevate the discretion Council has when assessing an application for demolition for ‘B’ and ‘C’ ranked buildings. Therefore, Rule 2.3.1(c), Rule 2.3.2 and the assessment Criteria Rule 2.3.5 provide the mechanism to assess an application for demolition adequately along with providing Council with the tools to justify an approval or decline decision for the demolition of a listed building. Notwithstanding this present position, through the development of the Heritage Policy and as part of the District Plan review (commencing in 2009) the reassessment of the extent of protection may be considered.

Recommendation: That the submission, Dr McEwan (submission point 5.03) be rejected. That the further submission, Hamilton Methodist Parish (further

submission F.07/02.02) be accepted in part; That the further submission, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day

Saints Trust Board (further submission F.07/03.03) be rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Bd)

Rule 2.3 Heritage Items Overlay – Means of Compliance:General:Submission:

7.3.39Jack House NZTA Limited (submission point 17.01) does not support the proposed amendments and seeks the retention of the existing Rule 2.3. Jack House NZTA Ltd opposes the idea that certain buildings (in particular those categorised as ‘B’ or ‘C’) be ‘upgraded’ or become more ‘protected’ than at present. In the submission by Jack House NZTA Limited it is stated that “an owner should have the right to alter their own premises that they have indeed purchased rather than being dictated to by somebody who has no direct financial interest. Especially where it covers buildings of very minimal historical or cultural significance as some of those on the list noted as Category ‘B’ or ‘C’. Any wish to alter these buildings/structures for whatever reason be it for safety or improvement will now be up for yet further time delays and expenditure due to the heavier consent procedure”.

7.3.40Two further submissions, from the Hamilton Methodist Parish (further submission F.07/02.03) and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (further submission F.07/03.02) were received giving full support to the submission by Jack House NZTA Limited (submission point 17.01).

7.3.41The Hamilton Methodist Parish support the assertion made by Jack House NZTA Limited that “an owner should not be dictated to by somebody who has no direct financial interest” and seek that Rule 2.3 be retained without being amended. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust


Board supports the position by Jack House NZTA Limited that additional costs would be borne by property owners who wish to make alterations to B or C listed buildings. The relief sought by the Hamilton Methodist Parish and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board is to have the proposed amendments to Policy 7.1, Objective 7.1.1 and Rules 2.3.1(b), 2.3.1(c), 2.3.1(d), 2.3.2, 2.3.4(b), 2.3.5 and 2.3.5(a) withdrawn. Comments:

7.3.42The 2003 Amendment to the Resource Management Act elevates historic heritage to a matter of national importance (section 6, RMA) from the previous status afforded to it under section 7 Other Matters. As outlined above, the intent of Part B of the Variation is to align the heritage protection given to existing listed buildings under the District Plan with the elevated heritage status under the RMA. These changes have not altered the actual list of buildings to be protected although it changes the activity status of some activities (e.g. additions to or demolition of ‘B’ and ‘C’ ranked items from controlled to discretionary activities).

7.3.43The submitter’s state that “…buildings of very minimal historical or cultural significance as some of those on the list noted as Category ‘B’ or ‘C’...” However, it should be noted that this ranking was based on the heritage categories (as set out in Appendix 2.3-I of the District Plan) as well as an assessment of the integrity of the heritage item, its rarity and condition. The ‘B’ ranking is for buildings and structures of significant heritage values while ‘C’ ranked buildings and structures are of recognised heritage value. It is outlined in the heritage review that was carried out as part of the preparation of the District Plan, that ‘B’ ranked items are considered to have heritage value and 55% of those listed within the plan have significance in terms of their relevance to the City. A further 39% of those are significant to the region. ‘C’ ranked items are of recognised heritage value within the Heritage Items Overlay are either significant in terms of their relevance to the city or significant to their local/neighbourhood nodes.

7.3.44The list of buildings in the District Plan was formulated following a thorough assessment according to robust criteria to determine a building’s historical significance. This list has been through an extensive public participation through the District Plan process. Heritage items are protected because they constitute a valuable public resource. Owners of such buildings are the custodians of that resource and their decisions have a bearing on the public good. Therefore, any party either owning or considering the purchase of a building listed in Appendix 2.3-II would be aware of the particular protection afforded their building/structure. The ranking used in the District Plan does acknowledge different levels of importance which is reflected in the ease with which buildings can be altered, added to or in fact demolished. Requiring a resource consent is necessary to ensure that proposed works are carried out in a sympathetic manner and do not reduce the heritage value of the protected item.

7.3.45The proposal to modify the resource status afforded to ‘B’ or ‘C’ buildings reflects the changes and importance placed nationally on heritage through the amendments in 2003 to the RMA.

7.3.46Alterations or additions to either a ‘B’ and ‘C’ ranked building under the Proposed District Plan require a controlled activity assessment under a resource consent application. The proposed amendments under Part B elevate the activity status to discretionary in some instances, which could


require an application to be notified, along with the ability of the Council to decline an application. Accordingly, if an application was to be notified the length of time to process it would be longer than if it was assessed on a non notified basis. Therefore, it is acknowledged that the submitter’s statement regarding further time delays and expenditure due to the heavier consent procedure has validity. However, the amendments, under the Variation to the activity status of some activities undertaken to the ranked heritage items is necessary for the District Plan to be consistent with the purpose and principles of the RMA. Without the proposed amendments, the effects of some activities on listed buildings maybe detrimental to their heritage value. As a result, it is considered that there is the need to control the outcome of activities proposed for listed heritage items to achieve better outcomes and maintain the heritage value of the item. Therefore, although this may mean a change in the timeframes and costs for an application, it is considered that the protection of heritage out weighs those costs. Recommendation: That the submission, Jack House NZTA Limited (submission point 17.01)

be rejected; That the further submissions, Hamilton Methodist Parish (further

submission F.07/02.03) and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (further submission F.07/03.02) be rejected.

(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Be)


supports the deletions proposed by Variation 15 in paragraph two under ‘Means of Compliance’.Comment:

7.3.48Under Variation 15 it is proposed to delete the third sentence of paragraph two of the text of ‘Means of Compliance’ as follows:

“Means of ComplianceThe following rules shall be read in conjunction with the standards and performance assessments in the zone in which the site is located, and all other rules in the plan.The Heritage Items Overlay rules shall be complied with first, then the relevant underlying zone or city-wide rules shall apply. Where different standards or activity status apply the relevant provisions in the Overlay Rule shall take precedence. The activity status of a Permitted or Controlled Activity may be altered from the activity list below where the activity cannot meet one or more of the standards in this rule. For clarification of activity status see Rule 2.3.3 – Failure to Meet Standard.Regard must be had to all Objectives and Policies which may be relevant to any proposed activity subject to the provisions of this Rule. This includes, but shall not be limited to, Policy 7.1 Built Heritage.”

NZHPT believes the amendment provides clarity and certainty to the Council, NZHPT and consent applicants.Recommendation: That the submission, New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT)

(submission point 1.14) be accepted.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Bf)



requests amendment to Rule 2.3 Advisory Note, 2nd Sentence of Paragraph 2 to read: “For a non-notified resource consent application… Council may then require that written approval be obtained from the Trust in respect of any items identified in the District Plan as having heritage value. Council shall require written approval be obtained from the Trust in respect of any heritage item registered under the Historic Places Act 1993”

7.3.50The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (further submission F.07/03.05) is opposed to the submission by NZHPT (submission point 1.15) stating that the submission fails “to recognise that the proposed changes to the District Plan may have an adverse effect on the long term sustainable use of scheduled buildings in a manner which meets the social, economic and cultural needs of the land owner and the community.” Comments:

7.3.51The change proposed through the variation is for the deletion of the word ‘development’ from paragraph two and replace it with ‘resource consent application’. No other wording changes have been proposed.

7.3.52NZHPT believes that local authorities need to establish effective controls over inappropriate subdivision, use and development through resource consent mechanisms that are appropriate to the heritage item. Heritage items that have been registered with the Historic Places Acts should be referred to the NZHPT in recognition of their legislative status. If a heritage item is registered with the Historic Places Act there is a requirement under that Act for an applicant to seek an approval from the NZHPT prior to any works being undertaken. The Advisory Note in Rule 2.3 Heritage Items Overlay outlines when an applicant is to obtain approval from or to consult with the NZHPT as part of seeking consent to do works to a heritage item. The additional wording proposed by NZHPT is not considered to add anything further to the advice already contained in the Advice Note. The Advice Note as worded clearly identifies when written approval is required from NZHPT.Recommendation: That the submission, New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT)

(submission point 1.15) be rejected. That the further submission, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day

Saints Trust Board (further submission F.07/03.05) be rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Bg)

Rule 2.3.1(a) – InteriorsSubmission:

7.3.53Dr McEwan (submission points 5.04 and 5.05) requests the adoption of the proposed amendments to Rule 2.3.1, subject to further amendments to Rule 2.3.1(a) and Rule 2.3.5.

7.3.54Dr McEwan seeks to control the management of interior changes to specifically A and A+ listed buildings. Dr McEwan does not support the permitted status for all interior changes. Dr McEwan supports the elevation of additions, alterations and demolition of ‘B and C listed items to consideration under the Discretionary Activities heading.


7.3.55The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (further submission F.07/03.03) is opposed to the submission by Dr McEwan (submission points 5.04 and 5.05) stating that the submission fails “to recognise that the proposed changes to the District Plan may have an adverse effect on the long term sustainable use of scheduled buildings in a manner which meets the social, economic and cultural needs of the land owner and the community.” Comments:

7.3.56As set out in paragraphs 6.3.21 – 6.3.24 of this report, the current policy direction of Council is not to protect the interior of heritage listed buildings. Part B of Variation 15 has not proposed any amendments to the items to be protected, only the elevation of the protection of ‘B’ and ‘C’ ranked buildings through the resource consent activity status.

7.3.57Whilst Dr McEwan’s points may have merit, it would be inappropriate at this stage if the Variation process to now seek to protect the interiors of buildings when no survey of these has yet been undertaken. This issue is one that would more appropriately be tackled at the time of the District Plan review. As a result, there have been no changes to the Council’s policy stance on the protection of the interiors of any listed buildings.

7.3.58Therefore, it is recommended that, although Dr McEwan does provide support in part, due to the amendments proposed by the submitter the submission point can not be supported.Recommendation: That the submission, Dr McEwan (submission points 5.04 and 5.05) be

rejected; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (further

submission F.07/03.03) be rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Bh)


requests the amendment of Rule 2.3.1(a), 2nd bullet point to read: “The following activities are Permitted Activities: Minor Work on any heritage item in Appendix 2.3-II

7.3.60The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (further submission F.07/03.05) is opposed to the submission by NZHPT (submission point 1.16) stating that the submission fails “to recognise that the proposed changes to the District Plan may have an adverse effect on the long term sustainable use of scheduled buildings in a manner which meets the social, economic and cultural needs of the land owner and the community.” Comments:

7.3.61Although this bullet point has not been proposed to be altered through the variation the submission has highlighted a grammatical error which should be corrected. Recommendation: That the submission, New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT)

(submission point 1.16) be accepted; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (further

submission F.07/03.05) be rejected. of 102 Last modified:

8/09/2008 07:46:00 AM

(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Bh)


requests the amendment of Rule 2.3.1(a), 3rd bullet point to read: ‘Changes to the interior of any heritage item in Appendix 2.3-II unless

the interior is listed as integral to the heritage value of any heritage item in Appendix 2.3-II’

7.3.63The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (further submission F.07/03.05) is opposed to the submission by NZHPT (submission point 1.17); stating that the submission fails “to recognise that the proposed changes to the District Plan may have an adverse effect on the long term sustainable use of scheduled buildings in a manner which meets the social, economic and cultural needs of the land owner and the community.” Comments:

7.3.64Changes to the interior of any heritage item listed in Appendix 2.3-II are a Permitted Activity. As stated in part 6.3.21 – 6.3.24 of this report, it is not the policy direction of the Council to protect the interiors of listed buildings nor are there any interiors protected. However, it should be noted that the protection of interiors may be considered as part of the formulation of the Heritage Policy and as part of the District Plan review scheduled to be started in 2009. This bullet point has not been subject to any proposed alterations through the variation. Recommendation: That the submission, New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT)

(submission point 1.17) be rejected; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (further


Rule 2.3.1(b) – Controlled ActivitiesSubmission:

7.3.65New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) (submission point 1.18) requests the amendment of Rule 2.3.1(b), 1st bullet point to read: “Accessory buildings or new buildings within the site of any heritage item ranked A in Appendix 2.3-II“The amendment suggested by NZHPT, in essence deletes the specific limitation on the location of accessory buildings applying to heritage items ranked ‘A’ only and extends the provision in requiring a controlled activity being applied to all listed items.

7.3.66The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (further submission F.07/03.05) oppose the submission by NZHPT (submission point 1.18) stating that the submission fails “to recognise that the proposed changes to the District Plan may have an adverse effect on the long term sustainable use of scheduled buildings in a manner which meets the social, economic and cultural needs of the land owner and the community.” Comments:


7.3.67The approach adopted through the District Plan process to control the establishment of accessory buildings and new buildings on sites of ‘A+’ and ‘A’ ranked items only was identified in the “Hamilton City Built Heritage Review” undertaken by Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner for the Council in 1998. In that report it states:

“..the visual appearance of scheduled Heritage Items in the City is generally considered important, however, it is recognised that it may be unduly restrictive to control the surrounds of those Items rankled ‘B’ and ‘C’. In this regard, Council will exercise its discretion for any application to alter the built environment surrounds of a site of any ‘A+’ and ‘A’ Heritage Item. While Council will not decline an application of an accessory building, fence or built structure on the site of an ‘A’ Heritage item the application of a controlled activity consent provides Council with an opportunity to encourage the applicant to adopt a sensitive design and to maintain visual links to the Heritage Item from the street.”

7.3.68This approach reflects the status of heritage pre the 2003 amendment to the RMA in which heritage was under section 7 rather than section 6 of the RMA post the amendment. As part B of the variation is intending to reflect the elevated status for heritage afforded under the RMA through the provision of heritage protection in the District Plan there is validity in considering the suggested amendment by NZHPT.

7.3.69In considering the reasoning for the approach taken in 1998 for controlling the surrounds of ‘A’ ranked items, the same argument could be used to extend the protection to encompass ‘B’ and ‘C’ ranked items, in light of the elevated heritage status under the RMA. However, with the wording proposed by NZHPT it could be interpreted as including ‘A+’ ranked buildings. Part B proposes that accessory buildings or new buildings within a site of an ‘A+’ ranked building require assessment as a discretionary activity, therefore, weakening the protection afforded these items while strengthening the ‘B’ and ‘C’ ranked items is not within the intention or objective of this variation. It is considered that this is not the intention of NZHPT.

7.3.70Notwithstanding the interpretation of the proposed amendment by NZHPT, it is considered appropriate to elevate the protection of ‘B’ and ‘C’ ranked items with regard to the introduction of accessory buildings or new buildings on the sites on which they are located. It is agreed that the introduction of such buildings could detract or affect the heritage value of these ranked items. Through a controlled activity status Council could consider the effects of the proposal on the specific heritage item and while not being able to decline the application could place conditions on the consent to ensure the accessory building is respectful of the heritage value of the item.

7.3.71Accordingly it is recommended that Rule 2.3.1(b) first bullet be amended to reference ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ ranked items follows:

“Accessory buildings or new buildings within the site of any heritage item ranked A, B or C in Appendix 2.3-II’

Recommendation: That the submission, New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT)

(submission point 1.18) be accepted in part; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (further




supports the amendment of Rule 2.3.1(b) 2nd bullet point relating to the control of exterior lighting to any heritage item in the Heritage Items Schedule (Appendix 2.3-II).

7.3.73The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (further submission F.07/03.05) is opposed to the submission by NZHPT (submission point 1.19); stating that the submission fails “to recognise that the proposed changes to the District Plan may have an adverse effect on the long term sustainable use of scheduled buildings in a manner which meets the social, economic and cultural needs of the land owner and the community.” Comments:

7.3.74Under the variation the control of exterior lighting has been included in Rule 2.3.1(b) as a controlled activity as it is seen that there is the potential for such attachments to detract from the heritage value of the protected item. Therefore as a controlled activity Council has the ability to require that such lighting be in keeping with the architectural style over the heritage item to which they are proposed to be attached. Recommendation: That the submission, New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT)

(submission point 1.19) be accepted; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (further


Submission:7.3.75Dr McEwan (submission point 5.06) supports proposed additions and

deletions to Rule 2.3.1(b) Controlled Activities. However, two further submissions, in opposition were lodged against the submission. Hamilton Methodist Parish (further submission F.07/02.02) and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (further submission F.07/03.03) opposing the submission points raised by Dr McEwan with regard to Rule 2.3.1(b). Comments:

7.3.76The proposed changes in Rule 2.3.1(b) remove the following existing activities and insert a new activity:

“Rule 2.3.1(b) Controlled ActivitiesThe following activities are Controlled Activities provided they comply with the standards in Rule 2.3.2, and will be controlled in respect of the matters identified. Demolition of the exterior of any heritage item ranked C in

Appendix 2.3-II With respect to the quality of material provided as a record of

the item Alterations or additions to the exterior of any heritage item ranked

B or C in Appendix 2.3-II With respect to design and external appearance of buildings

Accessory buildings or new buildings within the site of any heritage item ranked A in Appendix 2.3-II With respect to design and external appearance of buildings,

and streetscape visibility of 102 Last modified:

8/09/2008 07:46:00 AM

Exterior lighting attached to any heritage item in the Heritage Items Schedule (appendix 2.3-II)

With respect to design and external appearance of buildings” These deleted matters have been elevated to fall under the provisions for Discretionary Activities while the introduction of the control over exterior lights acknowledges the importance of how attachments may affect the heritage value of protected items. These changes reflect the elevated status given to the historic heritage through the RMA. Recommendation: That the submission, Dr Ann McEwan (submission point 5.06) be

accepted; That the further submissions, Hamilton Methodist Parish (further

submission F.07/02.02) and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (further submission F.07/03.03) be rejected.


Rule 2.3.1(c) – Discretionary ActivitiesSubmission:

7.3.77New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) (submission point 1.20) supports the adoption of proposed additions and deletions to Rule 2.3.1(c).

7.3.78Dr McEwan (submission point 5.07) supports the proposed additions and deletions to Rule 2.3.1(c) Discretionary Activities. Hamilton Methodist Parish lodged a further submission (F.07/02.02) opposing the submission point raised by Dr McEwan with regard to Rule 2.3.1(c) and giving the reason for opposition being “(1) no recognition of the cost to the incumbent owner; (2) no criteria that clearly defines discretionary activities or management controls”.

7.3.79The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board lodged further submissions (F.07/03.02 and F.07/03.03) opposing the submission point raised by Dr McEwan (further submission F.07/03.03) and the submission point raised by NZHPT (further submission F.07/03.03). Comment:

7.3.80The proposed changes in Rule 2.3.1(c) remove the following existing activities and insert a new activity as follows:

“Rule 2.3.1(c) Discretionary ActivitiesThe following activities are Discretionary Activities: Erecting, constructing, painting or extending a sign in association

with any heritage item ranked A+ or A in Appendix 2.3-II Exterior lighting attached to any heritage item ranked A= or A in

Appendix 2.3-II Relocation of any heritage item ranked A, B or C in Appendix 2.3-II Alterations or additions to the exterior of any heritage item in the

Heritage Items Schedule s ranked A+ or A in Appendix 2.3-II Accessory Buildings or new buildings within the site of any heritage

item ranked A+ in Appendix 2.3-II Demolition of exterior of any heritage item ranked B in Appendix

2.3-IIThese changes reflect the historic heritage elevation through the RMA. Recommendation:


That the submission, New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) (submission point 1.20) be accepted.

That the submission, Dr Ann McEwan (submission point 5.07) be accepted;

That the further submission Hamilton Methodist Parish (further submission F.07/02.02) be rejected.

That the further submissions, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (further submissions F.07/03.02 and F.07/03.03) be rejected.


Rule 2.3.1 (d) – Non-Complying ActivitiesSubmission:

7.3.81New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) (submission point 1.21) supports the amendment proposed in the variation to delete the words “the exterior of’ in the 1st bullet point of Rule 2.3.1(d).

7.3.82The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board lodged a further submission F.07/03.03) opposing the submission point raised by NZHPT.Comment:

7.3.83The proposed changes in Rule 2.3.1(d) are as follows: “Rule 2.3.1(d) Non Complying Activities‘The following activities are Non-Complying Activities: Demolition of the exterior of any heritage item ranked A+ or A in

Appendix 2.3-II’ Relocation of any heritage item ranked A+ in Appendix 2.3-II”The change is for clarity, as demolition is the removal in total and the use of the phrase ‘the exterior of’ is unnecessary. Recommendation: That the submission, New Zealand Historic Places Trust submission

point (1.21) be accepted; That the further submission, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day

Saints Trust Board lodged a further submission F.07/03.03) be rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Bh)

Submission:7.3.84New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) (submission point 1.22) seeks

the amendment of Rule 2.3.1(d), 2nd bullet point to read:‘Relocation of any heritage item ranked A+ or A in Appendix 2.3-II’

7.3.85The reason given by NZHPT for the addition of ‘A’ ranked items being that the relocation of heritage items should be viewed in the same way as demolition. NZHPT submits that relocation has the same effect as demolition in that it destroys the historical integrity of the item.

7.3.86The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board lodged a further submission F.07/03.03) opposing the submission point raised by NZHPT.

7.3.87Dr McEwan (submission point 5.09) also seeks a Non-Complying Activity status for the relocation of ‘A’ listed Heritage Items. Comments:

7.3.88Relocation results in a lesser loss of the heritage value than demolition as the physical structure of the heritage item is retained, albeit, in some


instances removed from the surrounds to which it relates. It is noted that through relocation the heritage value of the item may be affected, which in turn could affect its ranking under the 5 tier ranking under the District Plan, however, the feature is not lost. A recent example of the importance of relocation as a tool is the Claudelands Grandstand.

7.3.89The classification difference between ‘A’ and ‘A+’ ranked buildings is that ‘A’ ranked heritage items are of “highly significant heritage value” while ‘A+’ items have an “outstanding heritage value”. Therefore, the relocation of an ‘A+’ ranked building may in fact destroy its historic integrity. The effects of relocating of A+ ranked buildings are therefore potentially greater than they would be for an A ranked building. This difference warrants a greater level of protection.

7.3.90The activity status for the relocation of ‘A’ ranked buildings is as a Discretionary Activity while the relocation of ‘A+’ ranked buildings is a Non Complying Activity in the District Plan. The proposed amendments under Variation 15 do not change this activity status. Recommendation: That the submissions, New Zealand Historic Places Trust (submission

point 1.22) and Dr McEwan (submission point 5.09) be rejected. That the further submission, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day

Saints Trust Board (further submission F.07/03.03) be rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Bh)

Rule 2.3.2 – General StandardsSubmission:

7.3.91New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) (submission point 1.23) supports the deletion of Rule 2.3.2 (General Standards) and the adoption of proposed Rule 2.3.2 Application Requirements (Demolition of Buildings).

7.3.92The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board lodged a further submission F.07/03.03) opposing the submission point raised by NZHPT.Comments:

7.3.93The amendment in Variation 15 is to delete in its entirety the existing Rule 2.3.2 and replace it with proposed Rule 2.3.2 Application Requirements (Demolition of Buildings). The existing rule states:

“Rule 2.3.2 general StandardsThe following general standard applies to all Controlled Activities:a) demolition of a Heritage Item Identified as Ranking CThe applicant shall be required to submit to Council a Heritage Record no less than 2 months prior to commencement of any demolition work.”

7.3.94It is proposed, under Variation 15 to replace the above rule with the following:

“2.3.2 Application Requirements – demolition of buildingsAny application to demolish any heritage item listed in the Heritage Items Schedule in Appendix 2.3-II as a Discretionary Activity shall be accompanied by a Heritage Record. The record shall include the following matters: A photographic record of the interior and exterior of the item; and


Any land title records; and Any structural architectural plans; and Building or site survey plans which currently exist relating to the

item.”7.3.95This amendment reflects the elevated activity status of the activity of

demolition and clarifies the minimum required to be provided in the Heritage Report.Recommendation: That the submission, New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT)

(submission point 1.23) be accepted. That the further submission, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day

Saints Trust Board (further submission F.07/03.03) be rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Bi)

Rule 2.3.3 – Failure to Meet StandardsSubmission:

7.3.96New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) (submission point 1.24) supports the deletion of Rule 2.3.3 Failure to Meet Standards.Comments:

7.3.97With the elevation of the activity status of some activities that relate to ‘C’ ranked buildings from a Controlled Activity to a Discretionary Activity Rule 2.3.3 Failure to Meet Standards becomes redundant.Recommendation: That the submission, New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT)

(submission point 1.24) be accepted.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Bj)

Rule 2.3.4(a) – Quality of Information Provided as a Record of a Heritage ItemSubmission:

7.3.98New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) (submission point 1.25) supports the deletion of Rule 2.3.4(a).Comments:

7.3.99With the elevation of the activity status of some activities that relate to ‘C’ ranked buildings from a Controlled Activity to a Discretionary Activity Rule 2.3.4(a) is no longer applicable.Recommendation: That the submission, New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT)

(submission point 1.25) be accepted.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Bk)

Rule 2.3.4(b) – Design and External Appearance of BuildingsSubmission:

7.3.100 New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) (submission point 1.26) supports the adoption of proposed Rule 2.3.4(b)(iv).

7.3.101 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board lodged a further submission F.07/03.03) opposing the submission point raised by NZHPT.


Comments:7.3.102 As set out in paragraphs 7.3.70 to 7.3.72 of this report New Zealand

Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) (submission point 1.19) also gives support to the amendment of Rule 2.3.1(b) 2nd bullet point relating to the introduction of the control of exterior lighting to any heritage item in the Heritage Items Schedule (Appendix 2.3-II) as a controlled activity.

7.3.103 As it is proposed to control the attachment of exterior lighting as a controlled activity (Rule 2.3.1(b) the inclusion of an assessment criteria for assessment is required. The proposed assessment under Rule 2.3.4(b)(iv) Design and External Appearance of Buildings provides the parameters for the assessment of such lighting and the ability to condition a resource consent to achieve the intent of the rule. Recommendation: That the submission, New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT)

(submission point 1.26) be accepted; That the further submission, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day

Saints Trust Board (further submission F.07/03.03) be rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Bl)

Rule 2.3.5(a) – General Criteria, clause (iii)Submission:

7.3.104 New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) (submission point 1.27) requests the amendment of Rule 2.3.5(a) iii) General Criteria to read as follows (the underlining highlights the additional wording proposed by NZHPT):

“Whether the proposed work is necessary. In the case of demolition of A+ or A ranked heritage items, it is expected that these reasons would be extraordinary for example: for safety or if retaining the items would cause unreasonable financial hardship on the owner. In the case of demolition of B and C ranked heritage items, it is expected that there would be a compelling reason for demolishing the item. In the case of demolition A+ or A ranked heritage items where retention of the item might cause unreasonable financial hardship, consideration will be given to assistance through the Building permits process to avoid demolition of the heritage item’

7.3.105 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board lodged a further submission (F.07/03.03) opposing the submission point raised by NZHPT.Comments:

7.3.106 Under the Variation Rule 2.3.5(a) iii) is proposed to be amended (as shown by the underlining) to read:

“Whether the proposed work is necessary. In the case of demolition of A+ or A ranked heritage items, it is expected that these reasons would be extraordinary for example: for safety or if retaining the items would cause unreasonable financial hardship on the owner. In the case of demolition of B and C ranked heritage items, it is expected that there would be a compelling reason for demolishing the item.”

7.3.107 NZHPT’s have submitted that the additional wording is appropriate as a result of the statutory responsibility to protect historic heritage. They also identify that under Section 47(j) of the Building Act 1991 a territorial authority can adopt a flexible approach with regard to heritage buildings.


This may include a waiver to permit something required in the Building Code in order to retain the historic integrity of the item.

7.3.108 It is noted that the 1991 Building Act was rescinded when the Building Act 2004 was introduced. Part 4 of the Building Act 2004 sets out the principles to be applied in performing functions or duties; or exercising powers. This section underpins the Act. Section 4(2) sets out how the purpose of the Act is to be achieved through a set of principles. The two principles pertaining to heritage within Section 4(2)(d) “the importance of recognising any special traditional and cultural aspects of the intended use of a building” and Section 4(2)(l) “ the need to facilitate the preservation of buildings of significant cultural, historical, or heritage value” .

7.3.109 Although quoted by NZHPT, Section 47(j) of the 1991 Building Act has not been replicated. However, under the Building Act 2004 section 35(1)(f) and Section 39 require a territorial authority to notify the Historic Places Trust of any work proposed to a registered historic place, heritage area, wahi tapu or wahi tapu area.

7.3.110 In addition to the above, under section 131 of the Building Act 2004 Council is required to adopt policy with regard to earthquake-prone, dangerous and insanitary buildings. On 24 May 2006 Council approved the ‘Earthquake-Prone, Dangerous & Insanitary Buildings’ policy. Section 9.0 Heritage Buildings of this policy takes into account any special traditional and cultural aspects of the intended use of a building and the need to facilitate the preservation of buildings of significant cultural, historical or heritage value.

7.3.111 It is stated in the policy that in implementing the provisions of section 124 – 129 of the Building Act Council will consider alternative methods to avoid unnecessary demolition of heritage buildings deemed to be unsafe. The methods listed being (section 9.1 of the policy): Restricted public access, erecting public warning signs; Consulting owners and NZHPT in relation to any proposed written

notice requiring work; Providing extended timeframes for heritage buildings in relation to any

written notice requiring work; Ensuring that any written notice requiring work provides options to

repair the building as appropriate; Examining options for Council to repair buildings under Section 126 of

the Building Act, with negotiation on the terms and methods of recovering costs.

NZHPT would also be provided with a copy of any notice issued in relation to a heritage building under Section 124 of the Building Act 2004.

7.3.112 Council’s ‘Earthquake-Prone, Dangerous & Insanitary Buildings’ policy also provides for financial assistance. Section 9.2 of the Policy sets out how the provision for financial assistance is determined. In particular it is stated that Council will meet the cost of an engineering assessment for heritage buildings as listed, including buildings on the NZHPT register and heritage items schedule of the District Plan.

7.3.113 Council’s obligations under the Building Act 2004 means that the potential for the retention of an item to cause unreasonable financial hardship, due to the structural state of a heritage item is addressed through the assistance afforded to all heritage buildings under the Council’s ‘Earthquake-Prone, Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings’ policy.


Therefore it is not considered necessary to stipulate such assistance in the assessment criteria, Rule 2.3.5(a) General Criteria. Recommendation: That the submission, New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT)

(submission point 1.27) be rejected. That the further submission, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day

Saints Trust Board (further submission F.07/03.03) be rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Bm)

Submission:7.3.114 In the submission by Dr McEwan (submission point 5.08) requests a

review of the Assessment Criteria in regards to demolition. Dr McEwan believes that ‘unreasonable financial hardship’ is too easily argued by owners of all items, including A and A+ ones.

7.3.115 The matters raised in this submission point have also been discussed in paragraph 7.3.33 of this report pertaining to Dr McEwan’s submission point (submission point 5.03). That submission point outlined Dr McEwan’s opposition to the Permitted status for all interior changes and the assessment criteria in regard to demolition as ‘unreasonable financial hardship’ could be too easily argued by owners of all heritage items as outlined in the corresponding Reasons in the District Plan. Dr McEwan requests the controlled management of A and A+ listed items. Comments:

7.3.116 The amendments in Part B of Variation 15 do not proposed to alter the ranking of any heritage item listed for protection in Appendix 2.3-II. The amendments relate to aligning existing protection with the elevated protection of heritage under the Resource Management Act. One mechanism is the elevation of the activity status of certain activities that may occur to ‘B’ and ‘C’ ranked buildings (i.e. additions and alterations/relocation/demolition). The philosophy underpinning the Variation recognises that while it is important to avoid the demolition or relocation of heritage items, a balance must still be maintained which gives some flexibility towards the owner. Retaining the five-tier system of prioritisation allows administrators of the Plan to do this and it is envisaged that the proposed amendments will provide a workable balance in this regard.

7.3.117 In addition, following best practice, it would be most desirable for the management of heritage items to occur through an integrated package including incentives, education, support, and regulation. As part of the Council’s commitment to, and acknowledgement of the importance heritage in the City, strategies and policies are being formulated and implemented to reflect this (e.g. CityScope; Heritage Policy; Earthquake-Prone, Dangerous & Insanitary Buildings Policy). As part of the strategy work set out in CityScope Council is presently formulating a Heritage Policy. It is anticipated that the formulation of a heritage funding package maybe considered as part of the Policy. Should the Council adopt this policy, this would need to be incorporated in the Long Term Plan (LTCCP).

7.3.118 However, presently, the resource consent process allows for considerations such as the reasonableness of any financial costs to be balanced with the protection of the heritage resource. Accordingly, it is considered that the level of regulation along with other methods available to both the Council and owners of heritage items provides adequate tools


for sound judgement to be made when considering whether it would be appropriate to allow demolition on the grounds of hardship.

Recommendation: That the submission, Dr McEwan (submission point 5.08) be rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Bn)

Appendix 2.3-IISubmission:

7.3.119 Never Ending Abundance (submission point 3.02) requests the heritage downgrade of the NZ Dairy Co Building (1) (H62) at 130 Norton Road from a Category ‘B’ to a Category ‘C’. Although the stated reason for this submission is for the retention of existing rules applying to the alteration of buildings, the decision sought is the downgrade of a specific listed building.Comments:

7.3.120 The purpose of Part B of Variation 15 was not to review the ranking of the heritage buildings as listed in Appendix 2.3-II. The intent is to ensure that the current heritage provisions recognise and provide for historic heritage as defined by the Act by providing a more discretionary approach to the assessment of applications for resource consents. As a result, the decision sought by the submitter is outside the scope of this variation

7.3.121 However, notwithstanding that, in February 2007 a preliminary study was undertaken of the buildings contain within 130 Norton. The results of that study may form part of the work being undertaken on the development of the Heritage Policy and will form part of work undertaken as part of the District Plan review (commencing in 2009). Recommendation: That the submission, Never Ending Abundance (submission point 3.02)

be rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Bo)

Submission:7.3.122 Dr McEwan (submission point 5.10) requests D ranked items be merged

with C ranked items to bring them within the range of management controls. Comments:

7.3.123 ‘C’ ranked items are items of ‘Recognised Heritage Value’. ‘D’ ranked items are listed in the District Plan for their heritage value, identified for information purposes only and only included with the agreement of the owners. There is no protection afforded to these items under the District Plan. Therefore, to merge the ‘D’ ranked items with the ‘C’ ranked items would require an extensive re-evaluation of each item, consultation with owners along with a change to the exiting Council policy direction relating to ‘D’ protected items.

7.3.124 The submission point is beyond the scope of the variation. The proposed changes within Variation 15 are to ensure that the current heritage provisions are recognised and provide for historic heritage as


defined by the Act by providing a more discretionary approach to the assessment of applications for resource consents. There was no intention to consider the individual classifications of listed buildings. As a result, no specific study was undertaken on the ranking of the heritage items listed in appendix 2.3-II. Recommendation: That the submission, Dr McEwan (submission point 5.10) is rejected.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Bo)

Further Submissions – GeneralIn addition to the matters the further submissions by both The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board and the Hamilton Methodist Parish, the following outlines the general opposition both parties have to the submissions by New Zealand Historic Places Trust and Dr McEwan.

Submission:7.3.125 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (further

submission F.07/03.05) and the Hamilton Methodist Parish (further submission F.07/02.01) lodged further submissions opposing the full submission by New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT).

7.3.126 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (further submission F.07/03.03) lodged a further submission against the full submission by Dr McEwan.Comments:

7.3.127 The reason given by the Hamilton Methodist Parish for opposing NZHPT was that there is “no clarity on how an item will be recognised by the Hamilton City Council in Appendix 2.3-II”. As a result, they seek the following decision from Council, that a “definition on how items will be qualified for inclusion by the Hamilton City Council in Appendix 2.3-II”.

7.3.128 It is to be noted that the submission points raised by NZHPT do not specifically seek amendments to Appendix 2.3-II although through a number of their submission points they make reference to Appendix 2.3-II. However, although the submission does not reflect either the reason or the decision sought by the further submission from the Hamilton Methodist Parish (further submission F.07/02) it is considered beneficial to address the points raised.

7.3.129 The list of heritage items in Appendix 2.3-II was formulated through the preparation of the Proposed District Plan and finalised as a result of the hearing of submissions to the Proposed District Plan. The addition or deletion of any items on the list is not arbitrary but is required to be considered through a statutory process (i.e. a variation or plan change). The list of heritage items was formulated and the ranking is set out in the District Plan and is not affected by the proposed amendments through Variation 15.

7.3.130 The reason given by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board for their further submission to both NZHPT and Dr McEwan was because the submissions “fails to recognise that the proposed changes to the District Plan may have an adverse effect on the long term sustainable use of scheduled buildings in a manner which meets the


social, economic and cultural needs of the landowner and the community”. The decision sought by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board is the withdrawal of the proposed heritage amendments in Variation 15.

7.3.131 In the paragraphs above relating to Part B matters of Variation 15 the specific submission points raised by NZHPT and Dr McEwan have been discussed in detail. These submitters support the elevated heritage status proposed through the Variation. Albeit, that not all of the points raised by these submitters are considered appropriate to accept, it is not considered that either submission as a whole “….fails to recognise that the proposed changes to the District Plan may have an adverse effect on the long term sustainable use of scheduled building….”. It is considered that the proposed amendments set out in the variation align the District Plan with the elevated importance heritage now has under the Resource Management Act and nationally along with contributing towards the purpose and principles of the Act.

Recommendation: That the submissions, New Zealand Historic Places Trust (submission

V15/06/01) and Dr McEwan (submission V15/06/05 be accepted in part That the further submission, Hamilton Methodist Parish (further

submission F.07/02.01) be rejected; That the further submissions, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day

Saints Trust Board (further submissions F.07/03.03 and F.07/03.05) be rejected.

(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Bp)

7.4 PART C: Amendments Relating To The Special Provisions For Commercial And Community Development In New Growth Areas Affecting Rule 4.1.1e)

Withdrawal of Part C of Variation CSubmission:

7.4.1 Parkwood Retail and Office Limited (submission point 14.01) requests the withdrawal of Variation 15 in its entirety pursuant to Council’s powers under Clause 8D of the First Schedule to the RMA (1991) or withdraw part of Variation 15 as it relates to Part C: Amendments relating to the special provisions for commercial and community development in new growth areas affecting Rule 4.1.1(e)Comments:

7.4.2 The request by Parkwood Retail and Office Limited (submission point 14.01) for the withdrawal of Variation 15 in its entirety pursuant to Council’s powers under Clause 8D of the First Schedule to the RMA (1991) has been addressed in section 6.1 of this report.

7.4.3 The submitter’s reasons are that the Section 32 analysis is flawed. In their submission they state that there has been no analysis of the land parcels affected by the deletion of the rule; no analysis to determine if the development of land parcels afforded development opportunities by the rule will actually result in significant adverse effects on the provision of commercial opportunities in the remainder of the Rototuna area and no


analysis undertaken for the need to provide for or deny the opportunity for commercial development to occur on Lot 1 DP 32102.

7.4.4 They have also cited that the removal of the Rule is:“(b) contrary to the statutory processes and judicial climate enshrined

in the Resource Management Act, that that the sole reason provided to delete Rule 4.1.1(e) is based on:

The pre-emption of the implementation of structure plans which are yet to be finalised and subjected to public scrutiny;

A predetermination of the perceived inadequacy of existing rules within any consultation or consideration of the financial impacts imposed on landowners as a consequence of these actions.

(c) Is contrary to the stance promoted by council in both the Environment Court and the High Court, where substantial public resources were expended to defend Rule 4.1.1(e) and to ensure its retention in the District Plan against challenge..”

Deletion of Rule 4.1.1(e)Submission:

7.4.5 Tui 2000 (submission point 6.04) supports the deletion of Rule 4.1.1(e). Their reason is that if the strategic plans for the new development areas are detailed sufficiently new commercial and community facilities will be provided in planned locations and harmonise with overall development patterns. Tui 2000 states that with such developments the flexibility that Rule 4.1.1(e) provides would not now be required in the new growth areas.

7.4.6 Gokul Developments Limited (further submission F.07.06) lodged a further submission opposing the submission by Tui 2000 and requests Rule 4.1.1(e) is retained. In support of their further submission they outlined that:1. Rule 4.1.1(e) does not conflict with the objectives and policies of the

Proposed District Plan;2. Council’s proposed Variation 12 to the Rototuna Structure Plan has no

legal status and hence, there currently exists no contemporary structure plan framework to direct new development in this new growth area;

3. Rule 4.1.1(e) provides flexibility for the market to deliver commercial and community facilities within the new growth areas;

4. Removal of Rule 4.1.1(e) is therefore premature in the circumstances and will compromise Council’s ability to achieve its Expected Outcome(s) for the residential Zone.”

Retention of Rule 4.1.1(e)Submission:

7.4.7 Gokul Developments Limited (submission point 11.01) request the retention of Rule 4.1.1(e) or revise the application of the Rule to specific strategic sites or retain Rule over Lot 1 DP 32102 as a minimum interim measure pending the preparation of structure plans.

7.4.8 Gokul Development Limited stated its objection for the removal as being: Inconsistent with number of key Objectives, Policies and Expected

Outcomes of the District Plan and the purpose and principles of the Act;


There are no valid resource management reasons to justify the removal in the absence of a comprehensive structure plan for the area and significant new development pressures that will be generated by the proposed Hamilton Eastern Arterial Road and the Waikato Expressway;

The removal of the Rule insofar as the submitters land would remove the only means by which a positive planning outcome may be generated.

7.4.9 Parkwood Retail and Office Limited (submission point 14.01) requests that Lot 1 DP 32102 be rezoned as part of the proposed Variation to suburban centre or retain Rule 4.1.1(e) and amend to read: ‘Any permitted, controlled or discretionary activity specified for the suburban centre zone in Rule 4.2 shall be a permitted, controlled or discretionary activity and subject to the provisions of that rule, but only that site in the residential zone described as Lot1 DP 32102’

7.4.10Parkwood Retail and Office Limited (submission point 14.01) has stated its objection to the removal of the rule as being: directly affect the commercial opportunities available to their land; contrary to the stance promoted by Council in defending the rule; there has been no pre-consultation; Rule 4.1.1(e) does not conflict with any of the provisions of the

Rototuna Structure Plan; the s.32 analysis is flawed; and Proposed Variation 12 (Rototuna) has no legal status.

7.4.11There are two further submissions pertaining to the above submissions, one from Gokul Developments (further submission F.07/06) in support of Parkwood Retail Offices Limited (submission point 14.01) and one from Parkwood Retail Offices Limited (further submission F.07/04) in support of Gokul Developments Limited (submission point 11.01).

Assessment of Rule 4.1.1(e)Comments:

7.4.12The deletion of Rule 4.1.1(e) is considered to be a necessary response to a very permissive rule in the Proposed District Plan that has the potential to undermine the future planning of new growth areas. As it stands the rule effectively removes the ability of Council to have input into the strategic development of and consideration of impacts on existing or future planned centres. The deletion of the rule will assist with keeping the Proposed District Plan aligned with good planning practice and will enable more effective long term planning and future public investment to take place.

The Formulation of the Rule and Council’s approach since then7.4.13Rule 4.1.1(e) evolved through the preparation of the Proposed District Plan

in the late 1990s. It was part of a suite of changes to address the desire of the then Council, to move away form a structured retail hierarchy and thereby provide a greater degree of flexibility for the market. It was seen at that time that the flexibility would be capably managed by the market. This approach is documented through issues and option papers prepared during the formulation of the District Plan.

7.4.14In 1998 the District Plan Review Committee was advised in an Issues and Options Paper for the Suburban Commercial zone (dated January 1998)


that “it is envisaged that potential key locations would be identified through ‘indicative’ or ‘floating’ zones which would specify localities while giving flexibility as to the actual site. Provisions could be made within the residential zone for communal facilities in Greenfield locations to be established as a controlled or discretionary use. Such provision could be based on threshold standards relating to site area and frontage to primary roads. In keeping with the ‘urban village’ concept, a mix of uses, including community and high density housing could be made a prerequisite”. This approach was adopted in principle by the District Plan Review Committee.

7.4.15In an Issues & Options report to the Residential zone (June 1998) it was stated that “there is also a need to promote significant commercial development opportunities at Rototuna notwithstanding a current lack of interest.” As a consequence, the then Council determined that a flexible framework was necessary rather than a prescriptive approach or pre-empting the market by picking possible sites. In September 1998 the District Plan Review Committee adopted the framework for and inclusion of Rule 4.1.1(e) into the proposed District Plan.

7.4.16Therefore, through both the formulation of the rules for the Residential zone and the objectives and policies of the Suburban Commercial zone Rule 4.1.1(e) was adopted. Following notification of the Proposed District Plan only one submission was received on rule 4.1.1(e). This being from the Council to clarify activity status. This submission was not further submitted to and was cordially adopted by Council.

7.4.17The Rule’s prominence through the appeals to the business zones was a result of its inclusion by Westfield Limited in their appeal schedule. The Environment Court determined that all matters pertaining to the business framework of the District Plan would be heard and determined together. Hence Rule 4.1.1(e) was incorporated into those proceedings.

7.4.18The appeal to the Environment Court and the High Court proceedings were lead by the appellant not Council. It is noted that the matters pertaining to Rule 4.1.1(e) were not part of the proceedings dealt with at the High Court. At the time of defending the rule the Council’s policy approach to growth and development was one of enabling within a “relaxed” approach providing flexibility in new growth areas for the provision of non-residential activities and retail.

7.4.19Notwithstanding the Court outcomes, since late 2006 Council’s policy approach has evolved to be more urban design based. This policy direction provides for the sustainability of the future communities in new growth areas along with not impacting on existing urban areas through good urban design and detailed planning aligned with the principles of CityScope.

7.4.20Council’s present policy direction does not favour the ad-hoc development outcomes that can result from Rule 4.1.1e). Ad hoc development undermines good urban design and generates the potential for poor planning outcomes. Council’s approach is now to take a proactive approach to the provision of community and commercial facilities in new growth areas through the preparation of structure plans which are intended to manage development strategically. The use of structure planning also allows for the detail of how such services should be provided, being clearly set out and fully scrutinised through statutory processes. In work prepared by Robert Speer (Waikato Regional Growth


Strategy and the assessment of Tramway Road) it is identified that the City’s longer-term retail strategy requires a more considered approach to retail distribution, and this approach is being implemented through the formulation of a regional retail strategy and the preparation of detailed structure plans for new growth areas which includes the final, as yet to be developed stages within Rototuna. The removal of Rule 4.1.1(e) from the District Plan is therefore consistent with Council’s strategic policy approach.

7.4.21The flexibility of Rule 4.1.1(e) in allowing commercial and community facilities in new growth areas within the residential zone has the effect of enabling large-scale commercial developments to proceed as either permitted, controlled or discretionary activities in prominent locations. This is not the approach to the sustainable development of new growth areas now envisaged by Council. This is apparent through the preparation and notification of the structure plans for Rotokarui and Peacockes and the preparation work being undertaken for the last undeveloped stages within the Rototuna growth area. The structure planning now provides detail of the services to be provided in the growth areas in an integrated manner and in doing so is intended to achieve better design outcomes.

7.4.22Council’s policy direction now opposes developments that could compromise sustainable management and set undesirable precedent for piecemeal development. Accordingly, retaining Rule 4.1.1(e) has the potential for undesirable environmental outcomes as there is the possibility of structure plans to be undermined. Therefore, it is considered that the level of flexibility provided through Rule 4.1.1(e) undermines the urban design concepts promoted in structure plans and has the potential to generate poor planning outcomes.

Consistency with Objectives and Policies and Expected Outcomes7.4.23Gokul Developments Limited (submission point 11.01) states that the

removal of Rule 4.1.1.(e) will be inconsistent with relevant objectives in the District Plan (Objectives 5.1.3, 6.2.1 and 6.3.1) along with compromising Council’s ability to deliver the Expected Outcome for the Residential Zone.

7.4.24It is considered that although the stated objectives lend themselves to commercial and community development in the residential zone they are not so prescriptive or focused on the outcomes of Rule 4.1.1.(e) that renders removal of the Rule as being inconsistent with the stated objectives. With regard to the Expected Outcome, I take the same view.The wording of the Expected Outcomes is:

“A wide range of residential development and associated community, education, health and recreational activities that meet the diverse and changing needs of the community area facilities within the Residential Zone, while maintaining the residential character and high standard of amenity.”

7.4.25The Expected Outcomes will not be undermined with the removal of the rule and particularly as the use of Structure Plans provides the ability for a wide range of residential development and associated activities to occur.

Impacts of removal of Rule 4.1.1(e) on individuals’ development rights; Consultation; and Section 32 analysis


7.4.26The District Plan must be a document that contributes towards the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act continuing to be achieved over time. The philosophy underpinning Rule 4.1.1(e0 is no longer consistent with Council’s approach to planning of the City’s growth areas.

7.4.27Parkwood Retail and Office Limited have stated that it is contrary to statutory processes of predetermining the perceived inadequacy of existing rules without consultation or consideration of the financial impacts imposed on landowners as a consequence of these actions. This is interpreted as being that the deletion of Rule 4.1.1(e) will impact on their development rights as land holders.

7.4.28Although it is acknowledged that the submitter may have relied on the District Plan rules in considering what commercial opportunities were afforded their property at Tramway Road, no resource consents have been sought for the development of their site in any manner nor has a certificate of compliance, pursuant to Section 139 of the Resource Management been obtained.

7.4.29The deletion of the rule would not stop any landowner from applying for a resource consent to develop their land. The Rule’s removal would mean that any such application would need to be assessed as an activity not envisaged within the Residential zone and therefore would very likely be notified. The financial impacts imposed onto landowners as a consequence of a variation or change to a District Plan has to be balanced with the overall impact on the strategic framework of the City.

7.4.30Good planning necessitates the formulation of principles that generate good strategic and sustainable planning outcomes. As a result, over time the greater good of the City must be balanced with the needs of individual land holders. In developing long term planning outcomes the impacts of development on the sustainable growth of the City must be the overriding factor.

7.4.31Both Parkwood Retail and Office Limited and Gokul Development Limited are of the opinion that there should have been consultation at a landowner level.

7.4.32The potential outcomes of Rule 4.1.1(e) are in conflict with Council’s strategic policy approach for the growth and sustainable management of the City. The adoption of this policy directive as articulated by Council’s Strategic Framework (i.e. CityScope, Access Hamilton, Cultural and Identity) followed public input. As a result of that public input and the level of public participation undertaken as part of the Long Term Plan it was determined at the time of preparing the Section 32 analysis that consultation beyond that of relevant statutory bodies was not deemed necessary. Accordingly, no consultation was considered necessary beyond that outlined in section 3.0 of this report.

7.4.33Parkwood Retail and Office Limited citied a flawed section 32 evaluation as one of their reasons for opposing the deletion of Rule 4.1.1(e).

7.4.34The proposed Variation 15, including Part ‘C’ (the removal of Rule 4.1.1(e)) was the subject of a Section 32 evaluation prior to notification. As part of the section 32 evaluation Council was required to examine the costs and benefits of the proposed amendments along with the efficiency and effectiveness of the methods to be used. Following the analysis undertaken it was recommended that the removal of Rule 4.1.1(e) along with the use of structure plans to provide for commercial and community developments in new growth areas was the appropriate option to adopt.


7.4.35As part of the formulation of that option the costs and benefits of deletion were formulated. The following outlines the benefits of removal of the rule and the costs of retaining the rule:a. Benefit of removal:

Sustainable pattern of development Enable community aspirations through the structure planning

process to be met Use of more specific guidance will help to safeguard the character

and amenity of the residential area Improve clarity and certainty for the community, as development will

need to reflect the provisions of the structure planb. Cost of retention:

Undermines urban design concepts promoted in structure plans and proactive approach taken in structure plans

Likely to undermine the intent of structure plans and result in undesirable environmental outcomes

Contrary to the sustainable management of the city’s resources.7.4.36It is considered that the environmental, social and economic benefits for

the community of removing Rule 4.1.1(e) outweighs the potential costs by a significant margin and is the most effective and efficient approach for the growth management of the City. Section 32 of the RMA does not require investigation of all the potential financial implications for individual property owners, particularly when the rule to be removed is a “floating” rule that is not focussed on any particular property or locality.

Structure Planning; Future Development; Strategic Developments7.4.37Rule 4.1.1(e) affects all new growth areas within the City that are covered

by a structure plan. As a result, it is not only the development of Rototuna but Rotokauri and Peacockes that could be affected with the implementation of this rule. There is a high potential that if the flexibility of Rule 4.1.1(e) was implemented within these two areas that it would impact on the strategic development and long term viability of identified commercial and community areas to be established. This in turn could impact on the long term planning Council is required to implement to provide for the development of these areas.

7.4.38 It is the opinion of Gokul Development Limited that it is premature to remove Rule 4.1.1(e) and that Council “must ensure that an up to date, detailed and integrated structure plan framework is in place to direct new development on the eastern side of the City, in particular the corridor of land that will be formed between the proposed Hamilton Eastern Arterial Road and the proposed Waikato Expressway”.

7.4.39The removal of Rule 4.1.1(e) is not seen as being either premature or in a vacuum of integrated structure plan framework.

7.4.40In 2005 Council and Waikato District Council signed the “Strategic Agreement on Future Urban Boundaries”. This agreement assists with addressing the long term growth of the city with regard to the location of future urban boundaries. The goal of the agreement being:

“To ensure that the future expansion of Hamilton City takes place rationally in a well ordered and co-ordinated manner into the most suitably located surrounding areas in the best interests of the present and future inhabitants of the City.”


7.4.41Since 2006 Council has also formulated, both at a City and Regional level a number of strategic initiatives that have been or are being implemented i.e. Future Proof (previously known as the Hamilton Sub-Regional Growth Strategy) to consider cross boundary issues and provide an integrated approach to land use, resource and infrastructure planning; and Waikato Regional Retail Study to review the likely retail demand across the region for the next 20 years (2006-2026).

7.4.42Council has also taken a strategic approach to the development of the remainder of the undeveloped stages in Rototuna. Council is actively preparing a structure plan (known as Variation 12) with the focus on the release of the remaining northern stages within the existing Rototuna Structure Plan. As part of this comprehensive structure plan work, following a determination of the appropriateness of the northern sector of Rototuna for commercial and community development by Robert Speer, Council has recently undertaken the strategic purchase of land to facilitate the development of the future commercial centre (‘Rototuna Town Centre’).

7.4.43Parkwood Retail and Office Limited states that the deletion of Rule 4.1.1(e) is based on “the premise that Variation 12 to the Rototuna Structure Plan (which includes the identification of a Major Arterial Road through Lot 1 DP 32102) is able to be given effect, when clearly this Variation (as specified on Council’s website) has no legal status and has not even yet been subject to public notification proceedings”. This statement is partially correct in the fact that Variation 12 (Rototuna Structure Plan) has no legal status. However, the preparation of the Variation to delete Rule 4.1.1(e) was not due to the formulation of Variation 12. As stated in paragraphs 6.4.11 – 6.4.21 above, the reason for Council proposing the deletion of the rule is due to Council’s strategic policy approach to the development of the City and the indication that the rule conflicts with that approach.

7.4.44In the context of the Rototuna Structure Plan framework (Rule 6.9 ‘Staging of Development’ of the Proposed District Plan) the piece of land identified by both Parkwood and Gokul Developments Limited is located in a small area of land identified as Stage One of the development programme for the Rototuna new growth areas (Appendix 6.9-II ‘Staging of Urban Development’). The release of the stages was determined on the availability of infrastructure. Stage One including the said site was one of the first areas made available for development, and therefore development is able to take place now.

7.4.45As outlined within the submission by Gokul Developments Limited, the Tramway site is located immediately opposite the Wairere Drive Extension. The site will also have frontage to the proposed Arterial Ring Road as outlined in the Council’s Long Term Plan and be in close proximity to both the proposed Eastern Arterial and Waikato Expressway.

7.4.46The implementation of the strategic agreement between the Hamilton City Council and Waikato District Council (“Strategic Agreement on Future Urban Boundaries”) and the transfer of any or all land into the City’s jurisdiction is dependant on specific triggers relating to timeframes or on the confirmation of roading developments, including the construction of the Waikato Expressway. The City’s growth strategy currently makes provision for expansion into the areas identified within this agreement. However, the precise details of timing and nature of development have yet to be determined. This would be developed through further work on


the city growth strategy as part of the Long Term Planning process and structure plan exercises once land is transferred to the City.

7.4.47However, although the site would be well positioned in relation to key roading networks and adjoining the area contained within the strategic agreement it is not accepted, as stated by the submitters, that due to the location it would ideally suit the site for commercial or mixed use development and be unsuitable to future residential development. Robert Speer, in providing analysis on the development of the said site for commercial development concluded that:

“Overall, there is no sector in the potential catchment to be served by the Tramway site which is not already served by the direct overlap of at least five centres: directly west is Chartwell, and its “suburban / convenience” shopping

component has a direct trade overlap across all sectors of any Tramway catchment;

to the northwest are the Thomas Road suburban centres which overtrade the “northern half” of the Tramway catchment, and these centre have considerable growth capacity;

further to the northwest is the future Rototuna town centre, and its trading influence will overtrade the “northern half” of the Tramway site;

to the southwest is the existing Enderley suburban centre, and its business base overlaps the “southern half” of the Tramway site;

to the south is the future Ruakura suburban centre, which can be expected to have a trading influence across the “southern half” of a Tramway site.”

7.4.48Therefore, in the context of both the local roading development, the strategic planning for the remaining undeveloped and un-serviced stages within the existing Rototuna Structure Plan and the retail context of the Region there are no merits in supporting a new retail centre at the Tramway site. There are numerous alternative shopping options; existing and new proposals that will better meet the needs of the local residents that would be potentially serviced by a Tramway centre.

7.4.49Notwithstanding the above, it is acknowledged that following notification of the Variation and receipt of Gokul Development Limited’s submission Council staff met with the submitter and discussed the strategic planning matters pertaining with the proposal within the Variation to delete Rule 4.1.1(e). This meeting was held in January 2007. Following that meeting the submitter’s consultant wrote to Council reiterating their client’s concern that the removal of Rule 4.1.1(e) was premature. Nevertheless they also stated that they were encouraged by “Council’s acknowledgement of the strategic importance of our client’s site for future commercial development (we refer to your informal views expressed at the recent meeting and those expressed in writing by Ian Johnson in his letter dated 20 March 2006)”. The letter by Ian Johnson was written prior to the notification of Variation 15 and did not give any Council commitment to the business use of the site.

7.4.50Since the March 2006 letter and the meeting in January 2007 the Waikato Regional Retail Strategy (Speer & Star Consulting July 2008) has been completed. In considering the previous correspondence Robert Speer has also been was engaged to review the potential for a suburban centre development at Tramway Road to determine its potential for commercial development. Robert Speer advised that in the context of the Waikato


Regional Retail Strategy: “specific to the Tramway site, this location is not seen to be a strategic location from which to provide a suburban centre, primarily because its location is far too peripheral to the main growth cells. Even in 20 years time, the Tramway site is expected to still be at the extreme edge of the city with rural land at its rear boundary. There are better alternatives to serve the growing population in the northeast of the City..”

7.4.51Therefore since 2006 Council has undertaken analysis of the overall retail development at both a City and Regional level which has strongly indicated that a sound retail strategy is to continue to emphasise existing centres rather than create any major new centres. The exception being to the provision of more local suburban scaled centres of which there are several proposed around new growth areas. However, Tramway Road is not, as stated above, deemed to be a strategic location for suburban centre development. Robert Speer has concluded that: “There are numerous alternative shopping options, existing and new proposals, that will better meet the needs of the local residents potentially served by a Tramway centre.

7.4.52The City’s longer-term retail strategy requires a more considered approach to retail distribution, and this approach is being implemented through agreement to a regional retail strategy and the preparation of detailed structure plans for new growth cells including the Rototuna area. The deletion of Rule 4.1.1(e) is consistent with this approach”.

Conclusion7.4.53The outcome sought by both Gokul Developments Limited (submission

point 11.01) and Parkwood Retail and Office Limited (submission point 14.01) of retaining the Rule 4.1.1(e), or revising the application of the Rule to specific strategic sites, or retaining the Rule over Lot 1 DP 32102 as a minimum interim measure pending the preparation of structure plans is not supported.

7.4.54It is not seen as appropriate to retain the rule due to its conflict with Council’s strategic policy approach adopted by Council through the Long Term Plan and key strategies (i.e. CityScope).

7.4.55The flexibility of Rule 4.1.1(e) is not considered to achieve sustainable long term development of the new growth areas within the City. In addition, it is inconsistent with the planning approach undertaken in the detailed structure plans for Rotokauri and Peacockes.

7.4.56It is not considered appropriate to retain the rule for specific sites only. Ad hoc ‘spot’ zoning would also be in conflict with the strategic planning approach Council has adopted through the use of integrated structure planning for areas.

7.4.57Accordingly, it is also concluded that it is not appropriate to limit the rule to Lot 1 DP 32102 only. In addition to the matters set out above, limiting the rule to this site is not supported through the conclusions set out by Robert Speer that the site would not be suitable for commercial development.Recommendations: That the submission, Tui 2000 (submission point 6.04) be accepted; That the submissions, Gokul Developments Limited (submission point

11.01) and Parkwood Retail and Office Limited (submission point 14.01) be rejected;


That the further submissions, Gokul Developments Limited (further submission F.07.06) and Parkwood Retail Offices Limited (F.07/04) be rejected.

(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Ca)

7.5 PART D : Miscellaneous Provisions – Analysis Of Submissions

Submission:7.5.1 Hamilton City Council (submission point 20.01) requests the amendment of

Planning Map 10 to exclude a property from the Frankton Railway Village Heritage Precinct.Comments:

7.5.2 In the submission by Hamilton City Council it is stated that:“The proposed amendment within Variation No.15 incorrectly inserts the Frankton Railway Village Heritage Precinct Overlay notation over Lot 1 DPS 82739 within Appendix 2.4-1 of the Proposed district Plan. This is a mistake. The amendment should be redraw the extent of the overlay on Planning Map 10 to exclude Lot 1 DPS 82739 from the Precinct”

7.5.3 In Planning Map 10 of the District Plan, Lot 1 DPS 82739 is within the Frankton Railway Village Heritage Precinct Overlay but in Appendix 2.4-1 Frankton railway Village Heritage Precinct is excluded. Although the intent of the proposed amendment in Variation 15 was to remove the overlay as shown on the planning map to correct the anomaly that was not what was notified in the Variation, in fact the anomaly remained.

7.5.4 The original District Plan Hearing Reports on this matter indicate that the extent of the Heritage Precinct for the Frankton Railway Village is as represented on Appendix 2.4-I.

7.5.5 As the submission highlights that the existing anomaly has not been amended as intended by Variation 15 adopting the decision sought by the further submission will allow for an existing inaccuracy to be rectified.Recommendation: That the submission, Hamilton City Council (submission point 20.01) be

accepted.(Section 8.0 - Recommendation Da)

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS8.1.1 That pursuant to Clause 10 of the First Schedule to the Resource

Management Act (1991) Council resolves to Accept or Reject the submissions relating to Variation 15 – Subdivision Connectivity, Heritage, Special Provisions in Growth Areas and Miscellaneous Provisions in accordance with the following:

General:A) RecommendationThat the Variation as a whole be confirmed subject to the amendments contained in recommendations under the sub-headings: Part A, Part B, Part C and Part D, as follows.


Reasons1. The amendments to the Proposed District Plan contained in Variation

15 are required to achieve the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991.

2. The amendments assist in achieving Council’s strategic direction as confirmed through the 2006-16 Long Term Council Community Plan.

3. The amendments assist in achieving Council’s Key Policy Strategies (CityScope, Access Hamilton and Vista).

4. The amendments to the Proposed District Plan contained in Variation 15 assist in maintaining the integrity of and keeping the District Plan up-to-date.

Submission ScheduleV15/06/04.01 DEL Spence Reject in FullV15/06/08.01 G Holland Accept in FullV15/06/14.01 Parkwood and Office Retail Limited Reject in Full

PART A: Amendments relating to Subdivision Connectivity affecting Policy Sections 4.2 and 4.4 and Rule Sections 6.2, 6.3 and 8.0;

Aa) Recommendation That Part A: ‘Subdivision Connectivity’ be confirmed subject to the amendments contained in the recommendations (Ab) – (Az) as follows:Reasons1. The amendments to the Proposed District Plan contained in Variation


2. The subdivision amendment allows the Proposed District Plan to continue to be consistent with other relevant statutory documents (i.e. Regional Policy Statement).


4. The amendments assist in achieving the Council’s Urban Design Strategy and Access Hamilton initiatives.

5. Connectivity and Permeability is an accepted urban design practice and promotes a more integrated planning approach to the subdivision of land.

6. The subdivision amendments, as proposed in Variation 15 assist in achieving in creating sustainable communities.

Submission ScheduleV15/06/01.01 Historic Places Trust Reject in FullV15/06/01.02 Historic Places Trust Reject in FullV15/06/01.03 Historic Places Trust Reject in FullV15/06/01.04 Historic Places Trust Reject in FullV15/06/01.05 Historic Places Trust Reject in FullV15/06/01.06 Historic Places Trust Reject in FullV15/06/01.07 Historic Places Trust Reject in Full


V15/06/01.08 Historic Places Trust Reject in FullV15/06/02.01 CKL Survey Office Limited Accept in PartV15/06/06.01 Tui 2000 Accept in FullV15/06/07.01 PRS Group Reject in FullV15/06/07.02 PRS Group Reject in FullV15/06/07.03 PRS Group Reject in FullV15/06/07.04 PRS Group Reject in FullV15/06/07.06 PRS Group Reject in FullV15/06/07.07 PRS Group Reject in FullV15/06/07.08 PRS Group Reject in FullV15/06/07.11 PRS Group Reject in FullV15/06/07.15 PRS Group Reject in FullV15/06/07.16 PRS Group Reject in FullV15/06/07.17 PRS Group Reject in FullV15/06/07.18 PRS Group Reject in FullV15/06/07.20 PRS Group Reject in FullV15/06/09.01 New Zealand Transportation Agency Accept in PartV15/06/10.01 Blue Wallace Surveyors Reject in FullV15/06/12.01 Environment Waikato Accept in PartV15/06/13.03 Cycle Action Waikato Accept in PartV15/06/15.01 McPherson Goodwin Surveyors Reject in FullV15/06/15.02 McPherson Goodwin Surveyors Reject in FullV15/06/15.03 McPherson Goodwin Surveyors Reject in FullV15/06/18.01 CKL Surveying and Planning Reject in FullF.07/05.02 Cycle Action Waikato Accept in FullF.07/05.03 Cycle Action Waikato Accept in FullF.07/05.05 Cycle Action Waikato Accept in FullF.07/05.13 Cycle Action Waikato Accept in FullF.07/05.16 Cycle Action Waikato Accept in FullF.07/05.17 Cycle Action Waikato Accept in Full

Ab) Recommendation That the 10 + allotment threshold to require a Concept Plan be confirmed.Reasons1. The amendment to the Proposed District Plan contained in Variation 15

is required to achieve the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991.

2. The reduction from a 50 allotment to a 10 allotment threshold achieves greater control over subdivision design.

3. Both large and small scale subdivision developments contribute to the overall development of the City.

4. Poor interconnectivity has implications for community integration, increasing reliance on motor vehicles, reduced opportunities for public transport and limits opportunities for social interaction.

5. The utilisation of the roading hierarchy as a trigger is narrow in focus and does not achieve the connectivity and sustainable environmental outcomes sought through the subdivision amendment to the Proposed District Plan.

Submission ScheduleV15/06/07.14 PRS Group Reject in Full


V15/06/09.13 New Zealand Transportation Agency Accept in PartV15/06/09.14 New Zealand Transportation Agency Accept in PartV15/06/09.15 New Zealand Transportation Agency Reject in FullV15/06/12.07 Environment Waikato Accept in FullV15/06/16.01 Attic Homes Reject in FullV15/06/16.02 Attic Homes Accept in FullV15/06/18.01 CKL Surveying and Planning Reject in Full

Ac)Recommendation That the amendment of Policy Section 4.2 be confirmed, subject to the following amendment to the text of the new method:

Subdivision design Guide – will be used to provide an interpretation of a guidance on the Assessment Criteria and Performance Outcomes in relation to residential subdivision: layouts and roading design. The Guidance explains and illustrates the urban design principles of connectivity and permeability

Reasons1. The Design Guidance extends the Proposed District Plan provisions to

address the matters of subdivision design in a more integrated and holistic manner.

2. The Design Guidance provides flexibility for developers to demonstrate that a particular subdivision consent plan complies with the intent of the District Plan in respect of the principles of Connectivity and Permeability.

3. The use of the word ‘guide’ instead of ‘interpretation’ clarifies the anticipated use of the Design Guidance.

Submission ScheduleV15/06/07.05 PRS Group Accept in PartV15/06/07.09 PRS Group Accept in Part

Ad) Recommendation That Rule 6.2.1(a) as proposed in Variation 15 be confirmed, subject to the following amendment to Bullet Point three, sub-point three:

The location and dimension of shared-use pedestrian/cycle accessways.

Reasons1. The Design Guidance extends the Proposed District Plan provisions to

address the matters of subdivision design in a more integrated and holistic manner.

2. The Design Guidance provides flexibility for developers to demonstrate that a particular subdivision consent plan complies with the intent of the District Plan in respect of the principles of Connectivity and Permeability.

3. The deletion of Rule 6.2.1(a) would defeat the purposed of the provision of a concept plan to demonstrate how the various requirements of a subdivision will be achieved and relevant performance standards satisfied.


4. A concept plan is to provide detail to which a subdivision proposal will relate to the surrounding environment.

5. The identification, location and dimension of potential public transport routes occurs through strategic structure planning along with policy direction in Access Hamilton.

Submission ScheduleV15/06/02.03 CKL Survey Office Limited Reject in FullV15/06/09.16 New Zealand Transportation Agency Reject in FullV15/06/12.08 Environment Waikato Reject in FullV15/06/13.06 Cycle Action Waikato Accept in FullV15/06/13.07 Cycle Action Waikato Accept in FullF.07/05.01 Cycle Action Waikato Accept in Full

Ae) Recommendation That there be no reference included in the Reasons sections for Objective 4.2.4A and Objective 4.4.4 and the Design Guidance for the planting of native trees in road corridors or in the planning of new roads.Reasons1. That pursuant to the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act

1991, this submission is outside the scope of Variation 15.2. The amendments to the Proposed District Plan contained in Variation


3. The amendments in Variation 15 of connectivity and permeability are narrow in focus to generate greater linkages for a range of transportation modes to assist in creating sustainable communities.

4. The specific provision of ecological corridors is outside the scope of variation 15.

Submission ScheduleV15/06/08.02 G Holland Reject in Full

Af) Recommendation That the ‘Subdivision Design Guidance under the Methods’ as proposed in Section 4.2, Section 4.4, Rule 6.2.2(d)(ii) and Rule 6.3.6(a)(v) be confirmed without the inclusion of the term “sustainability”. Reasons1. The amendments to the Proposed District Plan contained in Variation


2. The amendments in Variation 15 of connectivity and permeability are in response to Council’s strategic direction and to ensure that the Proposed District Plan achieved the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

3. The ‘Methods Points’ in Section 4.2, Section 4.4, Rule 6.2.2(d)(ii) and Rule 6.3.6(a)(v) specifically relate to the urban design principles set out in the Design Guidance.

4. The ‘sustainability’ is not a specific design principle of the Design Guidance.


Submission ScheduleV15/06/08.03 G Holland Reject in FullV15/06/08.05 G Holland Reject in FullV15/06/08.06 G Holland Reject in FullV15/06/08.08 G Holland Reject in Full

Ag) Recommendation That the Objective 4.4.4; Policy 4.4 and the Issue, bullet point seven under Policy 4.4 as proposed in Variation 15 be confirmed without change.Reasons1. The amendments to the Proposed District Plan contained in Variation


2. The amendments in Variation 15 of connectivity and permeability are in response to Council’s strategic direction and to ensure that the Proposed District Plan achieved the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

3. The protection of nature features and cultural features are already identified in bullet point two of the Introduction and Issues section of Policy 4.4 of the Proposed District Plan.

4. The provision of reserves, at subdivision stage is an existing requirement as set out in Rule 6.5 of the Proposed District Plan and is not subject to amendment by Variation 15.

5. There are adequate linkages in the Proposed District Plan to require the provision of public reserves and green corridors.

Submission ScheduleV15/06/07.12 PRS Group Reject in FullV15/06/07.13 PRS Group Reject in FullV15/06/08.04 G Holland Reject in FullV15/06/12.05 Environment Waikato Accept in FullV15/06/12.06 Environment Waikato Accept in FullF.07/05.04 Cycle Action Waikato Accept in FullF.07/05.14 Cycle Action Waikato Accept in Full

Ah) Recommendation That Rule 6.2.3(a) be confirmed, with no reference to walkways/footpaths included.ReasonsSection 3.9 of the Hamilton Development Manual sets out the requirements for the formation of footpaths.Submission ScheduleV15/06/08.07 G Holland Reject in Full

Ai) Recommendation No additional guidelines, to limit road connections or rules for the provision of cycle lanes shall be included. Reasons1. The amendments to the Proposed District Plan contained in Variation



2. The existing Objective and Policy framework of the Proposed District Plan, the implementation of Rule 5.2 ‘Parking, Loading and Access’ and the management of the Road Hierarchy ensures the distribution of access points does not adversely affect the safe and efficient functioning of the transport network, including pedestrian and cycle ways.

3. The provision of cycle lanes is set out in the Hamilton Development Manual.

Submission ScheduleV15/06/13.01 Cycle Action Waikato Reject in FullV15/06/13.02 Cycle Action Waikato Reject in FullV15/06/13.11 Cycle Action Waikato Reject in FullV15/06/13.13 Cycle Action Waikato Reject in FullV15/06/13.14 Cycle Action Waikato Reject in FullF.07/08 New Zealand Transportation Agency Accept in Full

Aj) Recommendation That Rule 6.2.3(a)(v) be confirmed without change, subject to the inclusion of the definition for the term ‘Local Movement System’ into Part 8 Definitions of the Proposed District Plan as follows:

Local Movement System means any type of resource capable of moving people or vehicles within the transport network and can include roads, pedestrian/cycle accessways, reserves and the River.



2. Rule 6.2.3(a)(v) encapsulates connectivity for transport modes which is not included in the existing criteria (Rules 6.2.3(a)(i) to (iv).

3. The inclusion of the definition ‘Local Movement System’ provides clarity for the administration of the Proposed District Plan.

Submission ScheduleV15/06/07.19 PRS Group Accept in Part

Ak) Recommendation That the Issue ‘Relationship Between Subdivision Layout and Road Design’; Policies 4.2.4(d) and 4.2.4(e); Reasons and Objective 4.2.4(a) be confirmed.Reasons1. The amendments to the Proposed District Plan contained in Variation


2. The amendments assist in the administration of the Proposed District Plan.

Submission Schedule


V15/06/09.02 New Zealand Transportation Agency Accept in FullV15/06/09.03 New Zealand Transportation Agency Accept in FullV15/06/09.04 New Zealand Transportation Agency Accept in FullV15/06/09.05 New Zealand Transportation Agency Accept in FullF.07/05.06 Cycle Action Waikato Accept in Full

Al) Recommendation That the policies of 4.2.4A be confirmed, subject to the following amendment:

Policy 4.2.4A(c) “To improve the design and integration of access (taking into account all modes of transport) within any new subdivisions”.

Reasons1. The amendment to the Proposed District Plan contained in Variation 15


2. The amendment assist in achieving Council’s strategic direction as confirmed through the 2006 -16 Long Term Council Community Plan.

3. The strategic direction set out in Access Hamilton is encompassed into the proposed new Rule 4.2.4A

4. Policy 4.2.4A provides for the recognition that the particulars of a design of infrastructure can impact on a community’s health and safety.

5. The amendment assists in achieving Council policy direction of utilising structure planning.

6. The focus of Rule 4.2.4A is to encompass all aspects of connectivity and permeability.

Submission ScheduleV15/06/09.06 New Zealand Transportation Agency Accept in FullV15/06/09.07 New Zealand Transportation Agency Reject in FullV15/06/09.08 New Zealand Transportation Agency Reject in FullV15/06/09.09 New Zealand Transportation Agency Accept in FullV15/06/09.10 New Zealand Transportation Agency Reject in FullV15/06/12.02 Environment Waikato Accept in FullV15/06/13.04 Cycle Action Waikato Reject in FullV15/06/13.05 Cycle Action Waikato Reject in FullF.07/05.07 Cycle Action Waikato Reject in Full F.07/05.08 Cycle Action Waikato Reject in Full

Am) Recommendation That the ‘reasons’ for Objective 4.2.4A be confirmed without change.Reasons


1. The amendment to the Proposed District Plan contained in Variation 15 is required to achieve the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991.

2. That pursuant to the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, the submissions by Environment Waikato (submission points12.03 and 12.04) are outside the scope of Variation 15.

3. It is not necessary to alter the Reasons section for Policy 4.2.4A.Submission ScheduleV15/06/09.11 New Zealand Transportation Agency Reject in FullV15/06/12.03 Environment Waikato Reject in FullV15/06/12.04 Environment Waikato Reject in FullF.07/05.09 Cycle Action Waikato Reject in FullF.07/05.15 Cycle Action Waikato Reject in Full

An) Recommendation That the references to the Subdivision Design Guidance in “District Plan Method” under Policy section 4.2 be confirmed.Reasons1. The amendment to the Proposed District Plan contained in Variation 15


2. The list of ‘methods’ under the heading ‘District Plan’ are administered through the District Plan.

3. The list of ‘methods’ under the heading ‘Other Methods’ fall outside the jurisdiction and management of the District Plan.

4. The Design Guidance is referenced under Rule 10.0 of the Proposed District Plan; accordingly it is prudent to have it listed under ‘District Plan Methods’.

Submission ScheduleV15/06/09.12 New Zealand Transportation Agency Reject in Full

Ao) Recommendation That the Rule Statement in Rule 6.2 Subdivision Planning be confirmed without change.Reasons1. The amendment to the Proposed District Plan contained in Variation 15


2. The proposed amendments to the Rule Statement provide guidance as to what the rules are to achieve.

3. Through the ‘Means of Compliance’ set out how the urban design principles are to be implemented.

Submission ScheduleV15/06/07.10 PRS Group Reject in Full

Ap) Recommendation of 102 Last modified:

8/09/2008 07:46:00 AM

That the Rule Statement in Rule 10.0 be confirmed without change.Reasons1. The amendment to the Proposed District Plan contained in Variation 15


2. There adequate protection of natural heritage features and significant trees in the Proposed District Plan (Rule 6.2.2(a)(ii), bullet point five General Provisions, Rule 6.2.3(d) Natural Features and Open Spaces Network and Rule section 2.0 Overlays).

Submission ScheduleV15/06/08.10 G Holland Reject in Full

Aq) Recommendation That spelling and grammatical errors in the Introduction Statement under the heading ‘Site Analysis and Layout, clause (6) bullet point three of the Design Guidance be corrected as follows:

The availability of exiting existing infrastructure such a as water pipers pipes, sewer pipes and roading.

Reasons1. The Proposed District Plan is to be grammatically correct.Submission ScheduleV15/06/02.05 CKL Survey Office Limited Accept in Full

Ar)Recommendation That the text under the headings ‘Introduction’ and ‘Purpose of this Guidance’ of the Design Guidance be confirmed subject to the following amendment:Introduction of the Design Guidance:

“Hamilton City Council wishes to take a stronger and more visionary role in the guiding the future development of Hamilton’s built environment to ensure that it can better reflect the dreams and aspirations of the City’s community. To this end, Council has articulated its strategy for urban design in CityScope.CityScope recognises that for new urban development to be sustainable, it needs to be integrated with the natural environment whilst ensuring that the resulting buildings and spaces contribute to making attractive places for people. In order to achieve this, it is important that future development in the City is based on sound urban design principles.The process of land subdivision Urban design planning, zoning and determination of the main transportation links and their connections to the existing roading network in accordance with the roading hierarchy and transport networks is the first stage in developing the City’s form and sets the pattern for subsequent built environment. The second stage involves the process of land subdivision. In particular, the way in which land is subdivided for residential purposes has a major bearing on the type of living environments and the amenity created for residents of the City. The quality of these environments is heavily dependant on their connectivity and permeability. It is crucial therefore, that these elements of urban design area incorporated into


the design of all residential subdivisions at the very earliest stage of their planning.Inadequate connectivity and permeability in all residential subdivisions are extremely difficult to correct later on as land ownership becomes fragmented and built development begins to take place

Paragraph 4 under the heading ‘Purpose of this Guidance’:

‘The well-designed subdivision of land and buildings is integral to the sustainable management of land. The principles in this guide are intended to help developers shape the site and create a more vibrant sense of place. The layout of roads and the linkages between different sections are critical elements in the achievement of streetscapes, enjoyable and stimulating urban environments and distinctiveness for the city. Applications for subdivision will therefore need to Anyone wishing to subdivide land needs to be familiar with the urban design planning for the area. Accordingly, any application to subdivide land must first demonstrate an understanding of the existing character of the site, and its place within the context of the wider neighbourhood and Hamilton City.”



2. The proposed wording provides a clear statement as to what is proposed to be achieved through the implementation of the Design Guidance.

Submission ScheduleV15/06/09.19 New Zealand Transportation Agency Accept in FullV15/06/09.20 New Zealand Transportation Agency Accept in PartV15/06/09.21 New Zealand Transportation Agency Accept in PartV15/06/09.22 New Zealand Transportation Agency Accept in PartF.07/05.12 Cycle Action Waikato Accept in Part

As)Recommendation That the text under the heading ‘Key Landscape Features’ of the Design Guidance be confirmed without change.Reasons1. The amendment to the Proposed District Plan contained in Variation 15


2. That pursuant to the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, this submission is outside the scope of Variation 15.

Submission ScheduleV15/06/06.02 Tui 2000 Reject in Full

At)Recommendation


No implementation of development levies for the provision of new infrastructure associated with the establishment of new bus routes.ReasonsThat pursuant to the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, this submission is outside the scope of Variation 15.Submission ScheduleSubmission 12.10 Environment Waikato Reject in Full

Au) Recommendation That the text under the heading ‘Key Principles for Connectivity and Permeability’ in the Design Guidance be confirmed, subject to the inclusion of the following: A new first bullet point:

A connected street network provides more direct routes for pedestrians, reducing walking distances. Streets shared with vehicles and overlooked by houses provide a safer environment, particularly after dark, than pedestrian-only routes away from passing traffic.

Reword of bullet point three:‘Enable a choice of modes of transport and provide a layout with good links and connections to surrounding neighbourhoods, residential areas, schools, local shops, recreation parks and reserves.’



2. The addition of the text in new bullet point one provides a rationale for why connected streets are important in making more sustainable subdivisions.

Submission ScheduleV15/06/13.08 Cycle Action Waikato Accept in Part

Av) Recommendation That the text under the heading ‘Good Practice’ in the Design Guidance be confirmed, subject to the insertion as follows:

2nd bullet point to read: provide shared-use pedestrian/cycle public accessway links that connect residential areas with public transport services, parks, reserves, schools and local shops. Pedestrian or cycle only routes should be avoided.



2. The connected network of roads allows for a safer and more efficient movement of traffic and enables more efficient provision of infrastructure.



4. The amendments assist in achieving the Council’s Urban Design Strategy (CityScope) and Access Hamilton initiatives.

5. Connectivity and Permeability are accepted urban design practices and promotes a more integrated planning approach to the subdivision of land.

6. The subdivision amendments, as proposed in Variation 15 assist in achieving in creating sustainable communities.

Submission ScheduleV15/06/10.01 Blue Wallace Surveyors Reject in FullV15/06/13.09 Cycle Action Waikato Accept in FullV15/06/13.10 Cycle Action Waikato Reject in FullV15/06/13.12 Cycle Action Waikato Reject in FullV15/06/15.04 McPherson Goodwin Surveyors Reject in FullV15/06/18.01 CKL Surveying and Planning Reject in FullF.07/05.13 Cycle Action Waikato Accept in FullF.07/05.16 Cycle Action Waikato Accept in Full

Aw) Recommendation That no definition for Concept Plan be inserted.Reasons1. The amendment to the Proposed District Plan contained in Variation 15


2. No definition of ‘concept plan’ is necessary as the detail contained in Rule 6.2.1(a) defines what a subdivision concept plan should demonstrate and the information to be included.

Submission ScheduleV15/06/02.02 CKL Survey Office Limited Reject in Full

Ax)Recommendation That the definition of ‘Good Subdivision Guidance’ be confirmed without change.Reasons1. The amendment to the Proposed District Plan contained in Variation 15


2. The use of the term ‘formally approved’ would limit the materials available for consideration of good subdivision guidance; limiting the ability of designers to provided a concept plan utilising the most up-to-date literature.

Submission ScheduleV15/06/02.04 CKL Survey Office Limited Reject in Full

Ay) Recommendation That no definition of ‘sustainability’ be inserted.Reasons1. ‘Sustainable Management’ is defined under Section 5 of the Resource

Management Act 1991.Submission Schedule


V15/06/08.09 G Holland Reject in Full

Az)Recommendation That the definition for Permeability be confirmed; that the definition for Connectivity be confirmed subject to the following amendments:

Connectivity – connectivity in terms of subdivision planning, means the ability to provide a well-connected local movement system which makes connections to adjoining land, local facilities and surrounding neighbourhoods through interconnectivity of the local road, pedestrian and cycle network. The starting point for a well connected development is the existing system of linkages into and through the site from the surrounding neighbourhood.



2. The definitions for Connectivity and Permeability, as outlined in Variation 15 incorporate all modes of transportation.

3. The proposed amendment to the definition of Connectivity provides further clarification as to the intent of the term.

4. The inclusion of an additional bullet point under the ‘Key Principles for Connectivity and Permeability’ in the Design Guidance to clarify the importance of the road network addresses the matters as sought by the suggested amendments to the definitions without affecting the broader intent of either definition.

Submission ScheduleV15/06/09.17 New Zealand Transportation Agency Accept in PartV15/06/09.18 New Zealand Transportation Agency Accept in PartV15/06/12.09 Environment Waikato Reject in FullF.07/05.10 Cycle Action Waikato Accept in Part

PART B: Amendments relating to the Heritage Items Overlay affecting Policy Section 7.1 and Rule Section 2.3;

Ba) Recommendation That Part B ‘Amendments relating to the Heritage Items Overlay affecting Policy Section 7.1 and Rule Section 2.3’ of the Variation be confirmed subject to the amendments contained in recommendations (Bb) – (Bp) as follows. Reasons1. The amendments to the Proposed District Plan contained in Variation


2. The amendments to the Proposed District Plan ensure that the current heritage provisions recognise and provide for historic heritage as defined in the Resource Management Act 1991.


3. The amendments assist in achieving one of Council’s Key Policy Strategies (CityScope).

4. The existing Objectives and Policies in Policy Section 4.0 afford historic heritage cover when considering the development of new growth areas.

5. The amendments do not alter the existing list of built heritage protected under Schedule 2.3-II.

Submission ScheduleV15/06/03.01 Never Ending Abundance Reject in FullV15/06/06.03 Tui 2000 Accept in FullV15/06/10.9 New Zealand Historic Places Trust Reject in Full V15/06/19.01 Hamilton Methodist Parish Reject in FullF.07/03.01 The Church of Jesus Christ of Reject in Full

Latter Day Saints Trust BoardF.07/03.04 The Church of Jesus Christ of Reject in Full

Latter Day Saints Trust Board

Bb) Recommendation That the amendments to Policy 7.1(b) as set out in the variation be confirmed.Reasons1. The amendment to Policy 7.1.b) contained in Variation 15 is required to

achieve the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991.

2. The amendment recognises the heritage value loss potential of all buildings if demolition or relocation occurs.

3. The amendment to the Proposed District Plan ensures that the current heritage provisions recognise and provide for historic heritage as defined in the Resource Management Act 1991.

5. The amendment does not alter the existing list of built heritage protected under Schedule 2.3-II.

Submission ScheduleV15/06/01.10 New Zealand Historic Places Trust Accept in FullV15/06/01.12 New Zealand Historic Places Trust Accept in FullV15/06/05.01 Dr McEwan Accept in FullF.07/02.01 Hamilton Methodist Parish Reject in FullF.07/03.03 The Church of Jesus Christ of Reject in Full


Bc)RecommendationThat the deletion of Policy 7.1(c) be confirmed.Reasons1. The deletion of Policy 7.1.c) contained in Variation 15 is required to

achieve the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991.

2. The amendment emphases the importance of all heritage items and aligns the protection afforded under the District Plan with the Resource Management Act 1991.


3. The amendment does not alter the existing list of built heritage protected under Schedule 2.3-II.

Submission ScheduleV15/06/01.11 New Zealand Historic Places Trust Accept in FullV15/06/05.02 Dr McEwan Accept in FullF.07/02.01 Hamilton Methodist Parish Reject in FullF.07/03.03 The Church of Jesus Christ of Reject in Full



Bd) RecommendationThat the amendment to the reasons for Objective 7.1.1 be confirmed.Reasons1. The amendment to the Reasons for Objective 7.1.1, contained in

Variation 15 is required to achieve the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act 1991.

2. The amendment assists in achieving one of Council’s Key Policy Strategies (CityScope).

3. The amendments to the Proposed District Plan ensure that the current heritage provisions recognise and provide for historic heritage as defined in the Resource Management Act 1991.

4. There were no changes sought through Variation 15 on the activity status of or the protection of interiors.

5. There is not currently a policy approach adopted by Council for the protection of the interiors of heritage items.

6. Through the development of the Heritage Policy and as part of the District Plan review the reassessment of the extent of protection maybe considered.

7. The amendments do not alter the existing list of built heritage protected under Appendix 2.3-II.

Submission ScheduleV15/06/01.13 New Zealand Historic Places Trust Accept in PartV15/06/05.03 Dr McEwan Reject in FullF.07/02.02 Hamilton Methodist Parish Accept in PartF.07/03.03 The Church of Jesus Christ of Reject in Full



Be) RecommendationThat the amendments as set out in Variation 15 to Rule 2.3 be confirmed.Reasons1. The amendment to Rule 2.3, contained in Variation 15 achieves the

purpose and principles and of the Resource Management Act 1991.2. The amendment to Rule 2.3 ensures that the current heritage

provisions recognise and provide for historic heritage as defined in the Resource Management Act 1991.


2. The elevated activity status of certain activities to ‘B’ and ‘C’ ranked items reflects the emphasis placed on the importance of such heritage items.

3. No changes were sought through Variation 15 on the activity status of or the protection of interiors.


Submission ScheduleV15/06/17.01 Jack House Limited Reject in FullF.07/02.03 Hamilton Methodist Parish Reject in FullF.07/03.02 The Church of Jesus Christ of Reject in Full


Bf) RecommendationThat the deletion of paragraph 2 of the ‘Means of Compliance’ be confirmed.Reasons1. The deletion assists with the administration of the District Plan. Submission ScheduleV15/06/01.14 New Zealand Historic Places Trust Accept in Full

Bg) RecommendationThat the Advisory Note in Rule 2.3 be confirmed without change.Reasons1. The Advisory Note in Rule 2.3 as contained in the Proposed District Plan

clearly identifies the statutory requirements applicants need to adhere to, including when written approval is required from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust.


Submission ScheduleV15/06/01.15 New Zealand Historic Places Trust Reject in FullF.07/03.05 The Church of Jesus Christ of Reject in Full


Bh) RecommendationThat Rule 2.3.1, Rule 2.3.1(a), Rule 2.3.1(b), Rule 2.3.1(c) Rule 2.3.1(d) and Rule 2.3.5 be confirmed subject to the following: That the grammatical error in Rule 2.3.1(a) be corrected as follows;

“The following activities are Permitted Activities:Minor works Works on any heritage item in Appendix 2.3-II”

That the text of Rule 2.3.19(b) first bullet point be amended as follows:“Accessory buildings or new buildings within the site of any heritage items ranked A, B or C in Appendix 2.3-II.

Reasons


1. The amendment to Rule 2.3.1, Rule 2.3.1(a), Rule 2.3.1(b), Rule 2.3.1(c) Rule 2.3.1(d) and Rule 2.3.5 contained in Variation 15 achieves the purpose and principles and of the Resource Management Act 1991.

2. The amendment to Rule 2.3.1, Rule 2.3.1(a), Rule 2.3.1(b), Rule 2.3.1(c) Rule 2.3.1(d) and Rule 2.3.5 ensures that the current heritage provisions recognise and provide for historic heritage as defined in the Resource Management Act 1991.

3. The elevated activity status of certain activities to ‘B’ and ‘C’ ranked items reflects the emphasis placed on the importance of such heritage items.

4. The amendment assists in achieving one of Council’s Key Policy Strategies (CityScope).

5. No changes were sought through Variation 15 on the activity status of or the protection of interiors.

6. There is not currently a policy approach adopted by Council for the protection of the interiors of heritage items.


8. The amendments do not alter the existing list of built heritage protected under Appendix 2.3-II.

9. The Proposed District Plan is to be grammatically correct.Submission ScheduleV15/06/05.04 Dr McEwan Reject in FullV15/06/05.05 Dr McEwan Reject in FullV15/06/05.06 Dr McEwan Accept in FullV15/06/05.07 Dr McEwan Accept in FullV15/06/05.09 Dr McEwan Reject in FullV15/06/01.16 New Zealand Historic Places Trust Accept in FullV15/06/01.17 New Zealand Historic Places Trust Reject in FullV15/06/01.18 New Zealand Historic Places Trust Accept in PartV15/06/01.19 New Zealand Historic Places Trust Accept in FullV15/06/01.20 New Zealand Historic Places Trust Accept in FullV15/06/01.21 New Zealand Historic Places Trust Accept in FullV15/06/01.22 New Zealand Historic Places Trust Reject in FullF.07/02.02 Hamilton Methodist Parish Reject in FullF.07/03.02 The Church of Jesus Christ of Reject in Full




Bi) RecommendationThat Rule 2.3.2 as set out in the Proposed District Plan be deleted and that a new Rule 2.3.2, as set out in Variation 15 be confirmed.


15 achieves the purpose and principles and of the Resource Management Act 1991.


2. The deletion and provision of a new Rule 2.3.2 assists with the administration of the District Plan.

Submission ScheduleV15/06/01.23 New Zealand Historic Places Trust Accept in FullF.07/03.03 The Church of Jesus Christ of Reject in Full


Bj) RecommendationThat Rule 2.3.3 ‘failure to meet Standards’ be deleted.


achieves the purpose and principles and of the Resource Management Act 1991.

2. The elevation of some activities that relate to ‘C’ ranked buildings, from controlled activities to Discretionary Activities, results in Rule 2.3.3 becoming redundant.

Submission ScheduleV15/06/01.24 New Zealand Historic Places Trust Accept in Full

Bk) RecommendationThat Rule 2.3.4(a) be deleted.



2. The elevation of some activities that relate to ‘C’ ranked buildings, from controlled activities to Discretionary Activities, results in Rule 2.3.4(a) is no longer applicable.

3. The deletion assists with the administration of the District Plan. Submission ScheduleV15/06/01.25 New Zealand Historic Places Trust Accept in Full

Bl) RecommendationThat Rule 2.3.4(b)(iv) is confirmed.



2. The inclusion of the assessment criteria assists with the administration of the District Plan.

Submission ScheduleV15/06/01.26 New Zealand Historic Places Trust Accept in FullF.07/03.03 The Church of Jesus Christ of Reject in Full


Bm) RecommendationThat Rule 2.3.5(a)(iii), as set out in the variation be confirmed.Reasons


1. The amendment to the Proposed District Plan contained in Variation 15 achieves the purpose and principles and of the Resource Management Act 1991;

2. Council already meets its obligations under the Building Act 2004 through its ‘Earthquake-prone, Dangerous and insanitary Buildings’ policy.

3. It is not necessary to stipulate the particulars regarding the protection of heritage buildings under Building Act in the assessment criteria, Rule 2.3.5(a).

Submission ScheduleV15/06/01.27 New Zealand Historic Places Trust Reject in FullF.07/03.03 The Church of Jesus Christ of Reject in Full


Bn) RecommendationThat there be no change to the assessment criteria in the Proposed District Plan with regard to “financial hardship” of resource consent applications for the demolition of buildings.Reasons1. The current approach adopted by Council is to avoid demolition while

providing a balance which gives some flexibility for the owner.2. The level of regulation and other methods available to both Council and

owners of heritage items provides adequate tools to determine the appropriateness of allowing demolition on the grounds of financial hardship.


Submission ScheduleV15/06/05.08 Dr McEwan Reject in Full

Bo) RecommendationThat there be no changes to the ranking of listed buildings in Appendix 2.3-II, in particular: the ranking of the heritage item – ‘NZ Dairy Co Building’ (H62); the merging of D and C ranked items.Reasons1. That pursuant to the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act

1991, the submissions by Never Ending Abundance (submission point 3.02) is outside the scope of Variation 15.

2. Variation 15 is to ensure that the current heritage provisions of the Proposed District Plan recognise and provide for historic heritage as defined in the Resource Management Act 1991.

3. The amendments proposed under Variation 15 do not alter the existing list of built heritage protected under Appendix 2.3-II.



Submission ScheduleV15/06/03.02 Never Ending Abundance Reject in FullV15/06/05.10 Dr McEwan Reject in Full

Bp) RecommendationThat there be no change to the list of protected heritage items contained in Appendix 2.3-II of the Proposed District Plan.Reasons1. Variation 15 is to ensure that the current heritage provisions of the

Proposed District Plan recognise and provide for historic heritage as defined in the Resource Management Act 1991.

2. The amendments proposed under Variation 15 do not alter the existing list of built heritage protected under Appendix 2.3-II.


Submission ScheduleV15/06/01 New Zealand Historic Places Trust Accept in PartV15/06/05 Dr McEwan Accept in PartF.07/02.01 Hamilton Methodist Parish Reject in FullF.07/03.03 The Church of Jesus Christ of Reject in Full



PART C: Amendments relating to the special provisions for commercial and community development in new growth areas affecting Rule 4.1.1e);

Ca)Recommendation That Part C ‘Amendments relating to the special provisions for commercial and community development in new growth areas affecting Rule 4.1.1e)’ be confirmed.Reasons1. The deletion of Rule 4.1.1(e) assists with keeping the Proposed District

Plan aligned with good planning practice and will enable more effective long term planning and future public investment to take place.


3. The amendment to the Proposed District Plan assists in maintaining the integrity of the District Plan.

4. Rule 4.1.1(e) conflicts with Council’s strategic policy direction adopted through the 2006-16 Long Term Council Community Plan.

5. The deletion of Rule 4.1.1(e) assists in achieving Council’s Key Policy Strategies (i.e. CityScope).


6. The outcomes arising from Rule 4.1.1(e) have the potential to undermine the sustainable long term development and is inconsistent with the planning approach undertaken in detailed structure planning.

7. Ad-hoc or ‘spot’ zoning conflicts with the strategic planning approach Council has adopted.

8. The Waikato Regional Retail Strategy, completed in July 2008 and an assessment of the suitability of Lot 1 DP 32102 for commercial development does not support such development in that area.

9. The deletion of Rule 4.1.1(e) will not prevent Lot 1 DP 32102 from being used for other purposes usually carried out within the Residential zone.

Submission ScheduleV15/06/06.04 Tui 2000 Accept in FullV15/06/11.01 Gokul Development Limited Reject in FullV15/06/14.01 Parkwood Office and Retail Limited Reject in FullF.07/04 Parkwood Office and Retail Limited Reject in FullF.07/06 Gokul Development Limited Reject in Full

PART D: Minor amendments relating to miscellaneous provisions affecting Appendices 2.2-I and 2.4-I, Rule 5.1 and Planning Maps 11 and 11a.

Da) Recommendation That Part D ‘Minor amendments relating to miscellaneous provisions affecting Appendices 2.2-I and 2.4-I, Rule 5.1 and Planning Maps 11 and 11a’ be confirmed, subject to: Rejecting the proposed change as stated in the Variation amending

Appendix 2.4-1 to show the Frankton Railway Village Heritage Precinct Overlay on Lot 1 DPS 82739.

Planning Map 10 being amended to remove the notation for the ‘Frankton Railway Village Heritage Precinct Overlay on Lot 1 DPS 82739 in accordance with the following plan:

Reasons of 102 Last modified:

8/09/2008 07:46:00 AM


2. The proposed amendment of Appendix 2.4-I is not the intended change to correct an existing anomaly between Appendix 2.4-I and Planning Map 10.

3. The correction of Planning Map 10 removes an existing anomaly of the Proposed District Plan.

4. The amendment to the Proposed District Plan contained in Variation 15 assist in maintaining the integrity of and keeping the District Plan up-to-date.

Submission ScheduleV15/06/20.01 Hamilton City Council Accept in Full

Attachments Appendix A Variation 15 (notified and tracked changed versions) Appendix B Section 32 Evaluation (notified and re-evaluation

versions) Appendix C Summary of Submissions Appendix D Submissions and further submissions

Brian Croad Robert HodgesGeneral Manager Unit Manager


· Web viewVariation 15 – Subdivision Connectivity, Heritage, Special Provisions in Growth...

Documents

Transcript of · Web viewVariation 15 – Subdivision Connectivity, Heritage, Special Provisions in Growth...