Before the Whangarei District Council Hearings Panel

Under the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA)

In the matter of a submission by the New Zealand Transport Agency

(submitter number 453) on the Whangarei District Plan

and in the matter of Plan Changes 85 A-D, 86A-B, 87, 102 and 114

Primary statement of evidence of Catherine Lynda Heppelthwaite for the New Zealand Transport Agency regarding Plan Changes 85 A-D, 86A-B, 87, 102 and 114

Dated 23 June 2017

1

Summary of Evidence

1 I have read the relevant s42A reports where the Agency’s

submissions have been considered and accepted / supported

provision retained and generally concur with the reasons provided

within those reports.

2 I also specifically support the following:

a. Changes made to LAN.3.1.4 which provides for more suitable

vegetation clearance rules within Outstanding Natural Features.

b. Changes within RUEE.2.1, RUEE.2.4, RUEE.3.1, RUEE.3.4,

RUEE.3.5 as these better address potential transport effects of

the Plan Changes.

c. Changes to Rule 47.2.12 Living Overlay and its restricted

discretionary activity status as this is an appropriate trigger for

consideration of potential transport effects.

3 I consider the following matters require further amendment:

a. Rule QRA.5.1(1) (quarry vehicle movements): It remains, in my

opinion, unclear. I agree with the rule’s intent and have

suggested an additional change for clarification.

b. Rule CA.2.3(4)(b) (vegetation clearance): This rule appears to

apply an exclusion for operation and maintenance to all lawfully

established activities. I consider this would include the State

highway network. If this is not the Council’s interpretation, I

request a specific addition to this rule to include network utilities.

c. Objectives and Policies RA.1.2 and RA.1.3: I support inclusion of

a transport network focused objective and two policies. The Plan

Changes lack overarching support for the transport provisions

which are existing or proposed to be introduced.

d. Rule RPE.2.3, Rule RVE.2.3, RLE.2.3(7), RUEE.2.3

(discretionary activities): I propose an amendment to include a

2

traffic generation control (applicable where access is to State

highways) for specific activities which I consider could otherwise

establish as permitted.

e. I recommend two new rules (within the SRIE provisions) which

provides for, as a restricted discretionary activity within the

Fonterra Kauri Site, Golden Bay Cement and Croft Timber site,

any activity not associated with the existing principle activity on

the site and expansion of existing activities which generate more

than 200 vehicles per day. I also recommend criteria which focus

on transport effects.

f. RUEE Toe Toe Road / Whau Road provisions: I recommend

these areas are delineated by mapping.

Qualifications and Experience

4 My full name is Catherine Lynda Heppelthwaite. I am a principal

planner for Eclipse Group Limited.

5 I hold a Bachelor Degree in Resource Studies obtained from Lincoln

University in 1993. I am a full member of the New Zealand Planning

Institute, a member of the Resource Management Law Association

and the Acoustical Society of New Zealand. I have 20 years’

experience within the planning and resource management field which

has included work for local authorities, central government agencies,

private companies and private individuals. Currently, I am practicing

as an independent consultant planner and have done so for the past

14 years.

6 I have been engaged by the NZ Transport Agency (‘Agency’) to

provide planning advice to assist on its submission in relation to Plan

Changes 85 A-D, 86A-B, 87, 102 and 114 (‘Plan Changes’) of the

Whangarei District Plan (‘WDP’ or ‘Plan’).

3

Code of Conduct

7 I have read the Environment Court’s Code of Conduct for Expert

Witnesses (2014) and I agree to comply with it. My qualifications as

an expert are set out above. I confirm that the issues addressed in

this brief of evidence are within my areas of expertise. I have not

omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or

detract from the opinions expressed.

Scope of Evidence

8 My evidence will address the following:

a. Statutory matters;

b. Transport Agency submissions and further submissions;

c. Plan Structure

d. Landscape (LAN) provisions;

e. Quarry Resource Areas (QRA) provisions;

f. Coastal Area (CA) provisions;

g. Rural Area (RA) provisions;

h. Rural Production (RPE) provisions;

i. Strategic Rural Industry (SRIE) provisions;

j. Rural Village (RVE) provisions (including three sub-zones);

k. Rural Living (RLE) provisions;

l. Rural Urban Expansion (RUEE) provisions;

m. Rural Urban Expansion Living (RUELE) provisions; and

n. Inclusion of Transport Agency Standards.

4

Matters Considered

9 I have specifically considered the following statutory matters and

documents:

a The purpose and principles of the RMA (sections 5-8);

b The functions of a regional council (section 30) and territorial

authorities (section 31);

c National Policy Statement Urban Development Capacity

d Northland Regional Policy Statement

e Whangarei Operative District Plan

f Section 42A Hearings Reports Parts 1 (General), 2

(Landscapes), 3 (Minerals), 4 (Coastal), 5 (Rural Areas), 7

(Rural Production), 8 (Strategic Rural Industry), 9 (Rural

Village), 10 (Rural Living) 11 (Rural Urban Expansion

Environment) and 12 (Rural Urban Expansion Living

Environment) and relevant attachments.

10 I concur with the statutory considerations set out by Ms McGrath in

Section 5 of her s42A report1.

The New Zealand Transport Agency’s submissions

11 The Agency made 29 primary submissions on the Plan Changes in

October 2016. Further submissions were on 37 additional matters.

These are summarised and allocated specific numbers on Councils

website2 and Part 1 Attachment 1 of the s42A reports.

12 I record that the Agency’s following Primary Submission points: 7, 12,

13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 26, 27, 28 and Further Submission points: 117

1 Part 1 Proposed Plan Changes 85, 85A-D, 86A & B, 87, 102 and 114 General Topics Section 42A Hearings Report 2 June 2017. 2 http://www.wdc.govt.nz/PlansPoliciesandBylaws/Plans/DistrictPlan/DistrictPlanChanges/Pages/Proposed-Plan-Changes-Aug-2016.aspx#Expand

5

(2) and (3), 336, 408(1), 410(22), 429(2), 429(11), 429(12), 444(4),

462(2), 462(4), 479(15), 479(16), 479(17), 479(23) and 479 (24) have

been adopted/provisions retained. I have reviewed the s42A reports

in which these matters are addressed and generally concur with the

respective reporting planners’ reasons and conclusions.

13 To reflect the layout of the Councils s42A reports, my evidence

addresses submissions in the same order as Attachment 2 –

Recommended WDP Text provided in conjunction Ms McGraths s42A

Part 1 report.

14 Where I have proposed amendments, additions are underlined and

deletions are shown as strikethrough.

Commentary

Plan Structure

15 The Agency submitted3 that the various layers and lack of cross

referencing made the Plan Changes difficult to navigate. I agree to a

large extent; particularly the apparent need to apply both RA

provisions as well as other Rural (eg. RPE, SRIE) provisions. I

support having overarching RA zone objectives and policies but it is

unclear why RA rules could not simply be applied within the specific

zones or within a ‘district wide’ chapter of rules. For example;

RA.3.3(1)(n) (subdivision) lists a number of zone specific controls for

SRIE, RVCE and RVIE, these could be transferred to sit within the

relevant zone provisions.

LAN – Landscapes [Attachment 2A]

16 There are two Outstanding Natural Landscape (Pukenui Forest and

Brynderwyns) areas overlaying the State highway network in the

Whangarei District.

17 The Agency’s designation facilitates operation and maintenance in

these locations. However, works outside the designation in these

3 453/5 and /9

6

areas would be subject to the LAN provisions. In this regard, the

changes proposed to LAN.3.1.4 are supported as they provide for

broader provision for vegetation clearance for network utilities.

QRA – Quarry Resource Areas [Attachment 2B]

18 A number of QRA’s are identified, several of which have direct or

near direct access to the State highway network (eg. MEA2 and

MEA9). Traffic generation rule QRA.2.5 is proposed 4 to read:

QRA.2.5 Discretionary Activities

1. Traffic generation from the QRA which exceeds:

a. 100 traffic movements in any 24-hour period; or the site directly

connects to a public road with a sealed carriageway of at least 6

metres wide and all vehicle manoeuvring occurs within the site or

b. the limit allowed by the traffic movements rules in the underlying

Environment.

19 I suggest that a minor amendment is made to ensure the ‘or’ and

‘and’ provisions are better placed and that the ‘lower’ trip generation

of the two options is applied.

QRA.2.5 Discretionary Activities

1. Traffic generation from the QRA which exceeds either:

a. 100 traffic movements in any 24-hour period; and or the site

directly connects to a public road with a sealed carriageway of at

least 6 metres wide and all vehicle manoeuvring occurs within the

site or

b. the limit allowed by the traffic movements rules in the underlying

Environment.

4 Section 42A Report, Part 3, paragraph 175.

7

20 It is my view that the proposed amendment provides more certainty

for rule interpretation.

CA – Coastal Areas [Attachment 2C]

21 There are a number of areas which pass through or immediately

adjoin either Coastal Areas (eg SH1 near Mangapai Road) or High

Natural Character Areas (eg SH1 near Oakleigh Wharf Road and

Totara Road).

22 The Agency submitted5 that an addition to Rule CA.2.3(4) was

necessary to clearly enable vegetation removal for the operation of

the transport network. I note however that the current wording

includes the following ‘exceptions’ to requiring consent:

CA.2.3

4 The destruction or clearance of an area of predominantly indigenous

vegetation exceeding 500m2 in the Coastal Area; with the exception of

vegetation clearance associated with:

b. Operation, maintenance and repair of existing tracks, lawns, gardens,

fences, drains and other lawfully established activities, or

23 It is my view that other lawfully established activities would include

existing roads. If this is the case, then an addition to the rule (as

requested by the Agency) would not be necessary. If however, this is

not the intention, then I support the Agency’s submission as it

provides certainty to transport network operators in regards to

network maintenance.

24 For ease of reference, I record that Agency requested the following

addition (new point (f)):

4. The destruction or clearance of an area of predominantly indigenous

vegetation exceeding 500m2 in the Coastal Area; with the exception of

vegetation clearance associated with:

5 453/22.

8

[…]

(f) Routine maintenance for the safe operation of the transport network

RA – Rural Areas [Attachment 2D]

25 The Agency requested6 objectives and policies linking land use /

subdivision and all transport modes to ensure adverse effects of

traffic generation on the transport network are managed. This relief

has not been granted. In my opinion, inclusion of an objective and

two policies in RA.1.2 and RA.1.3 respectively would provide an

overarching objective and policy framework to achieve:

a. Support for transport and land use integration; particularly noting

the extent of development anticipated within the RUEE and

RUELE (on which I expand further below);

b. Alleviate the need to include specific transportation objectives and

policies in each Rural zone;

c. Protect the transport networks ability to operate; and

d. Provide appropriate consideration to the transport network where

Transport Chapter 22 rules are not infringed (therefore the

objectives and policies are not considered).

26 The following objective and policies are recommended for inclusion:

Proposed Objective:

1. Land use and all modes of transport are integrated in a manner that

enables:

(a) the benefits of an integrated transport network to be realised; and

(b) the adverse effects of traffic generation on the transport network to

be managed.

6 453/2 and /3.

9

Proposed Policies

1. Subdivision, use and development which results in potentially more

than minor adverse effects on the safe, efficient and effective

operation of the transport network are required to manage adverse

effects on the transport network.

2. Restrict or manage vehicle access to and from sites adjacent to

intersections, adjacent motorway interchanges, and on arterial

roads, so that:

(a) the location, number, and design of vehicle crossings and

associated access provides for the efficient movement of people

and goods on the road network; and

(b) any adverse effect on the effective, efficient and safe operation

of the State highway and adjacent arterial roads arising from

vehicle access adjacent to a State highway or arterial road is

avoided, remedied or mitigated.

27 I consider a rural specific objective and policy are necessary because

a significant amount of development potential is enabled by the

proposed RUEE and RUELE provisions which require consideration

of transport network.

RPE – Rural Production Environment [Attachment 2E]

28 The Plan has a generally permissive approach to land use activities

which effectively results in any activity which is not listed requiring

consent being a permitted activity. The Agency raised some

concerns7 with this. I consider there are a number of potential ‘gaps’

in the Plan which would enable activities to commence as a permitted

activity without consideration of potential adverse effects.

29 Although Commercial, Industrial and some other specific activities

require consent in the RPE, there remains a range of other activities

which could be permitted. Some of these activities have potential to

7 S453/1, /8, /11 and /14.

10

result in adverse effects on the transport network in terms of traffic

generation. These activities include:

• Child care, education facilities, equestrian centres, ancillary

activities in buildings <500m² and recreational facilities/sports

fields.

30 There are no vehicle movement controls proposed (such as those

found within the RVRE for home occupations). I consider a ‘blanket’

traffic generation rule is not appropriate for all roads within the

Whangarei region. In this regard, I propose that trip generation

controls are imposed within the RPE only where access is from a

State highway. As outlined by Mr Webb8, the Agency’s priorities

include road safety and effects caused by vehicles slowing / turning to

gain access to sites may impact this.

31 The Plan already sets a level of 200 vehicle per day (Rule RVE.2(3))

for business activities and I propose to rely on that trigger as suitable

for application within the RPE. A new rule is proposed as follows:

RPE.2.3

15. Any activity that generates more than 200 traffic movements per

site, per day which has direct access to the State highway.

SRIE – Strategic Rural Industries Environment [Attachment 2F]

32 The Fonterra Kauri, Croft Timber and Golden Bay Cement sites all

have direct access from State Highway 1 and the Agency submitted9

seeking some control on activities within SRIE.

33 As noted above10, the Plan has a permissive approach unless

activities are specifically listed. The Agency submitted11 that this

effectively provided very little control on SRIE sites should a change

in use occur or if there is an increase in site intensity. I note the only

8 Statement of Evidence, Todd Webb, paragraph 4. 9 453/10. 10 Paragraph 28. 11 453/10, /11.

11

discretionary activities are those which exceed specific development

controls and beyond non-complying sensitive activities, no other land

use activities require consent.

34 The open nature of the planning provisions and the generous bulk

and location controls provide for substantial development

opportunities.

35 I understand that SH1/Saleyard Road (North and South) are located

in a Crash Reduction Study (CRS) area and a Safer Roads Alliance

corridor (SRA). A CRS identifies sites where there are similar crash

patterns and recommends low cost engineering treatments aimed at

reducing those crashes. The SRA is a national alliance which has

been established to program of road improvements to reduce deaths

and serious injuries over the next six years. Both these indicate

safety concerns in the area which may be increased as a result of

intensification / changes of land use. Saleyard Road South is

currently the subject of a minor safety improvement and the Agency’s

Principal Traffic and Safety Engineer will be attending the hearing to

provide further detail of these programs and to answer questions.

36 It is my opinion that some control traffic generation on alternative

uses for the sites would be appropriate to ensure there is provision to

manage any future changes in use for part or all of the sites. I

recommend a restricted discretionary activity control which applies to

activities not part of the current milk/timber/cement processing

activities with provision with assessment criteria on matters transport.

37 Proposed new restricted discretionary activity rule all three sites:

Any activity not directly associated with or ancillary to the zoned

primary activity and generating more than 200 traffic movements per

site, per day.

38 I consider there is also potential for expansion of existing activities on

the three sites to result in adverse effects on the State highway. This

is due to the direct access and the State highway being a ‘high risk

12

rural road’ in this location. I propose a similar rule to that which

applies to RVIE, RVCE and RPE

Activities directly associated with or ancillary to the zoned primary

activity and generating more than 200 traffic movements per site,

per day.

39 Matters of assessment are proposed to be limited as the intent is not

to limit development, only to ensure safe and suitable access.

The extent to which additional traffic movements are appropriately

serviced by the existing transportation network, including access

and methods to manage significant traffic effects.

RVE – Rural Village Environment [Attachment 2G]

40 RVE is located adjacent to the State highway network at Hikurangi

and Maungatapere. These areas contain a mixture of RVLE, RVCE

and RVIE.

41 Within RVE , Commercial and Industrial activities require consent.

Permitted activities include:

• child care, education facilities, community centres, healthcare

centres, retirement villages

42 Beyond Home Occupations, there are no traffic generation controls

for permitted activities. A number of activities noted above have

potential to be high traffic generators and are not unusual in

residential areas. It is requested that these are included in Rule

RVE.2.3 as an additional discretionary activity:

j. Any community centre, child care or education facility, healthcare

centre or retirement village that generates more than 20 traffic

movements per site, per day and have direct access to the State

highway.

13

RLE – Rural Living Environment [Attachment 2H]

43 For the same reasons as set out for the RVE provisions12, I consider

an alteration to Rule RLE.2.3(7) (Discretionary Activities) is necessary

to manage potential effects of traffic generation on the State highway:

13. Community centre, child care or education facility, place of assembly,

healthcare centre or retirement village that generate more than 20 traffic

movements per day, per site and have direct access to the State highway.

RUEE – Rural (Urban Expansion) Environment [Attachment 2I]

44 The Agency made submissions13 expressing concern regarding

anticipated growth (via controlled activity application), reliance on a

provision of (reticulated) infrastructure to enable what is effectively a

zone change and the corresponding effects on the transport network

(local roads and State highway). Mr Webb14 has explained that the

Agency’s interest extends beyond the State highway network as it is a

significant funder of local roading and has a mandate to take a lead

role in securing integrated planning for the transport system.

45 Mr Webb has also explained requirements of the National Policy

Statement on Urban Development and the Agency’s support of

collaborative forward planning to ensure suitable infrastructure is

available to support growth15.

Activity Status and Assessment Criteria

46 I have considered Mr Badham’s commentary16 and agree with his

description of the risks associated with a rolling Plan review process.

47 I generally support Mr Badham’s suggested changes (with minor

amendment) which; in summary:

12 Paragraph 28. 13 453/17, /18. 14 Statement of Evidence, Todd Webb, paragraph 18. 15 Statement of Evidence, Todd Webb, paragraph 18. 16 Section 42A Report Part 11, paragraphs 58-60, 73-106.

14

a. Permit only one residential unit per 1ha (RUEE2.1(5));

b. Introduce new transport specific assessment criteria (RUEE.2.4);

c. Specify a minimum lot size (500m²) rather than cross reference to

Living 1 provisions (which are still subject to review)

(RUEE.3.1(1));

d. Provide for subdivision as a restricted discretionary activity

(RUEE3.4(1));

e. Introduce new transport specific assessment criteria (RUEE.3.4)

and matters of control (RUEE.3.5(2));

48 I suggest a change to RUEE.3.4.1(1)(a) to reflect that there may be

no ‘existing’ roading network at the time applications are assessed.

a. Discretion is restricted to:

i. The extent to which the additional allotments or residential

development are appropriately address effects on serviced by the

existing transportation network, including through:

49 For the same reason, I also consider the same amendment is needed

in RUEE.2.4.1(a), RUEE3.4.4.2 and 47.2.12(a)(i) (Roading).

50 I agree with Mr Badham17 in that introducing these provisions will

assist in giving effect to objective RUEE.1.2.2 and policy

RUEE.1.3.13.

51 I note Mr Badham’s commentary18 regarding the provision being

temporary pending the review of Chapter 22 and the urban

provisions. I would like to better understand how the RUEE.3.3.1 and

RUEE.3.3.4 will be altered post decisions on the current Plan

Changes. In particular, I would prefer to see the restricted

discretionary activity status retained (to enable decline of unsuitable

subdivision proposals) along with the assessment criteria which give

effect to objectives and policies for RUEE.

17 Section 42A Report, Part 11, paragraph 76. 18 Section 42A Report, Part 11, paragraph 102.

15

Toe Toe Road and Whau Valley Road

52 If these two areas are to remain RUEE, I recommend the two clusters

are clearly mapped so the application of rules relating to future

development are certain.

53 In the Whau Valley Road area (Map 35)19 it is unclear if only those

with sites road frontage to Whau Valley Road are subject to the

additional controls. I note that the RUEE area extends to Three Mile

Bush Road etc to the north.

54 Toe Toe Road contains two areas of RUEE zone which do not appear

to ‘join’ (Map 45)20. Not all sites have access from Toe Toe Road.

55 If this has not occurred already, these two areas should be spatially

defined on planning maps (perhaps with perimeter line or overlay).

56 Both these clusters have reasonably direct access to the State

highway network so ensuring certainty around development potential

assists forward planning.

Traffic generation:

57 For the same reasons as set out for the RVE provisions21, I consider

an alteration to Rule RUEE.2.3 (Discretionary Activities) is necessary

to manage potential transport effects of activities which are likely to

be otherwise permitted:

RUEE.2.3 Discretionary Activities

[…]

9. Childcare and education facilities, hospitals, health care facilities

and retirement villages which generate more than 200 traffic

movements per day per site and have direct access to the State

highway.

19 Recommended Environments Planning Maps 28-35. 20 Recommended Environments Planning Maps 36-45. 21 Paragraph 28.

16

58 A consequential amendment to enable these items to be assessed

under RUEE2.1.1 is also sought to include the proposed new above

plus RUEE2.3.1(4).

Rural Urban Expansion Living Environment [Part 1 Attachment 3]

59 In response to Agency22 and WCD I&S submissions, Mr Badham has

recommended inclusion of a specific Living Overlay (Rule 47.2.12)

which triggers consideration of specific assessment criteria. I

understand this rule is proposed to apply to all proposed RUELE

Living 1 and Living 3. This will significantly assist in considering

transport effects and I support the maters of discretion/consent

requirement subject to the suggested changes in paragraph 48 of this

evidence.

Inclusion of NZTA Standards/Bylaws

60 The Agency has requested inclusions of references to its access

standards23 (which would apply to activities accessing the State

highway) and this has not been adopted. For example, RA3.3(d) and

QRA.2.5(2) access is required to comply with WDC EES.

61 It is appreciated that the Agency has its own regulatory ability,

however, it is advantageous to alert Plan users to the access

standard which may apply to State highways instead of WDC EES’s.

If the Panel is not mindful to alter the two noted rules, an advice note

to a similar effect is an alternative method of alerting users to the

differing standards.

62 The Agency has also requested24 that reference to The NZ Transport

Agency (Signs on State highways) Bylaw 2010 was included in an

advisory note25 (which also references the WDC equivalent for

managing signs within the road reserve). I consider this a helpful

22 453/18. 23 453/6. 24 453/4. 25 Note following Rule RA2.3(1)(c)(ix).

17

addition which would advise Plan users that alternative controls apply

with both the WDC road reserve and State highway network.

63 I note Ms McGraths alternative view26, however, I do not consider the

inclusion has any particular dis-benefit and results in only a very small

addition to existing provisions.

Cath Heppelthwaite 23 June 2017

26 Section 42A Report Part 1, paragraphs 177, 178.

NZ Transport Agency Cameron Law Ph +64 9 928 8821 cameron.law@nzta.govt.nz

Before Independent Hearing Commissioners

Under the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA)

In the matter of Whangarei District Council’s Proposed Plan Changes 85, 85

A – D, 86 A & B, 87, 102 and 114

Statement of Todd Webb for the NZ Transport Agency

Dated 23 June 2017

1

Statement of Evidence of Todd Webb for the NZ Transport Agency

1 My full name is Todd William Webb. I am a Principal Advisor within the

Planning & Investment Team at the NZ Transport Agency.

2 I hold a Masters degree in Planning Practice. I joined the NZ Transport

Agency in 2016. Prior to joining the Transport Agency I was a Senior

Planning Consultant for Hill Young Cooper, during which time I was

engaged by the Auckland Council to prepare planning evidence on

several key rural/ urban growth precincts. I have also worked as a Senior

Analyst for the Ministry for the Environment’s Urban Team, where I led or

contributed to the development of policy and legislation relating to urban

growth and spatial planning. Prior to joining MfE, I was the Senior EPA

Advisor to the Boards of Inquiry for the Waterview Connection and

Transmission Gully Plan Changes. I have worked as Planner or Senior

Planner at Auckland, Wellington and Upper Hutt City Councils.

Scope of Evidence

3 My evidence provides an overview of the strategic context for the

Whangarei District Council’s Proposed Plan Changes 85, 85 A – D, 86 A

& B, 87, 102 and 114 and will address:

a The statutory functions and objectives of the NZ Transport Agency

(the Agency)

b The Agency’s on-going transport investment in the Northland region

and Whangarei District; and

c The need to make provision for growth in the Whangarei District in a

manner that ensures the integrated planning of the land transport

system.

2

NZ Transport Agency functions and objectives

4 The Agency is a Crown entity1 with the sole powers of control for all

purposes of all State highways2 and is responsible for the administration

of the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF)3 . The Agency’s statutory

objective under the Land Transport Management Act 2003 (LTMA) is to

“undertake its functions in a way that contributes to an effective, efficient

and safe land transport system in the public interest”.4

5 The Agency provides integrated transport solutions for a thriving New

Zealand including investing in public transport, walking and cycling

facilities and local road networks, and the construction and operation of

the State highway network.

6 The Agency’s planning function seeks to integrate land use with transport

networks to achieve greater state highway resilience and better levels of

service for our customers, while providing smarter travel connections and

modal choices.

Government Policy Statement

7 The Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2015 – 2025 (GPS)

took effect on 1 July 2015. The GPS outlines the Government’s strategy

to guide land transport investment over the next 10 years.

8 In setting out the Government’s investment strategy for land transport, the

GPS identifies the national land transport objectives it wants pursued,

allocates funding in ranges to different types of activities and sets out the

results it expects from that investment.

9 The GPS 2015-2025 identified three strategic priorities being economic

growth and productivity, road safety and value for money.

10 An objective of the GPS linked to the strategic priority of economic growth

and productivity is: “A land transport system that addresses current and

future demand for access to economic and social opportunities”.

1Section 93(2) LTMA 2 Section 61 GRPA 3 Section 20 LTMA 4 Section 94 LTMA

3

11 The GPS seeks to achieve this objective by directing investment to

support new areas of residential and business growth, in addition to

supporting economic growth of regional New Zealand through the

provision of better access to markets.

12 The Ministry of Transport undertook consultation on the draft GPS 2018-

2021 in February/ March this year, and it is expected the finalised GPS

will be released in the second half of this year.

13 The draft 2018-2021 GPS maintains the three strategic priorities of

economic growth and productivity, road safety and value for money of the

current GPS, however with a stronger focus on providing transport

connections that are needed for better access to markets, employment,

business areas, tourist attractions, and housing development.

14 The Statement of Ministerial expectations included the draft GPS 2018-

2021 identifies the Minister’s expectations as to the Agency will give effect

to the GPS.

15 The Minister’s expectations include the Transport Agency taking “a lead

role in securing integrated planning of the land transport system by

network providers”, and encouraging “integrated network planning that

increases system efficiency”.

National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity 2016

16 The NZ Transport Agency actively engaged with the Ministry for the

Environment and Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment in the

development of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development

Capacity (NPS - UDC).

17 The Transport Agency supports the NPS UDC, including objectives and

policies promoting the need for responsive plan-making to provide

sufficient development capacity to meet the needs of people and

communities and future generations.

18 Noting policy PD4 of the NPS-UDC identifies: ‘Local authorities shall work

with providers of development infrastructure, and other infrastructure, in

preparing a future development strategy under policy PC12’ the Transport

4

Agency strongly encourages collaborative forward planning by local

authorities with infrastructure providers to ensure suitable infrastructure is

available to support growth.

Whangarei Transportation Strategy

19 Whangarei District Council and the NZ Transport Agency have

undertaken significant investment over the last 5 to 10 years to improve

Whangarei’s road network. These improvements have addressed historic

capacity and safety issues and provided for some future traffic growth.

20 The Whangarei District Council is in the process of developing a

programme business case, the “Whangarei Transportation Strategy” to

guide transport investment in the District for the next 30 years.

21 The NZ Transport Agency is working closely with the Northland Transport

Alliance and Whangarei’s Infrastructure and Services team to ensure an

integrated programme of works is developed that ensures the programme

delivers the right infrastructure and services to the right level, and at the

right time at the best cost. The draft objectives for the programme are:

Objective 1 - Ensure capacity of transport system meets forecast

growth aspirations

Objective 2 - Increase PT mode share on transport system

Objective 3 - Increase district wide walking and cycling mode shares

on transport network

Objective 4 - reduce deaths and serious injuries

22 It is expected that the Programme Business Case will be completed in the

second part of this year and will establish a forward investment

programme for Whangarei forming part of the Regional Land Transport

Plan and National Land Transport Programme.

5

Wider Investment in Northland

23 Due to its geographic position and isolation from key markets, transport

connections for the Northland region are critical for its economic

development.

24 Efficient access to the large market and economic opportunities of

metropolitan Auckland as well as connectivity to the Auckland airport and

seaports at Northport, Auckland and Tauranga are expected to help

underpin future growth.

25 The Tai Tokerau Northland Economic Action Plan has identified the

importance of the transport network as a key enabler for economic growth

in Northland and in particular the role of SH1 in providing access to the

rest of the country.

26 Given the economic structure of the region with a high proportion of

primary activities relying on export markets, freight movements within the

region and to Northport are of major strategic importance.

27 Through the ‘Connecting Northland’ work programme, a number of

transport projects are being developed by the Agency with support from

local government partners which are aimed at strengthening the road

transport network connecting Northland and Whangarei with Auckland.

28 Forecasts for the 2015-2018 NLTP period suggest a total spend of $416m

over the three year period in Northland, which includes a suite of

improvements along State Highway 1 through Whangarei, to improve

safety and journey time reliability.

29 Significant investment is also being made on the Ara Tūhono-Pūhoi to

Warkworth - Road of National Significance, while work is continuing on

the development of the Auckland to Whangarei business case, which

looks at improving links between Whangarei, Northport and south to Te

Hana.

30 Collectively these programmes will result in significant improvements to

the efficiency and safety of travel between Whangrei and Auckland, and it

6

is anticipated will spur economic and population growth in the region over

coming decades.

Overview of proposed plan changes

31 Overall the New Zealand Transport Agency is supportive of the changes

proposed through Whangarei District Council’s Proposed Plan Changes

85, 85 A – D, 86 A & B, 87, 102 and 114 .

32 The Agency acknowledges the need for planning rules to reflect changing

land use patterns and the need to accommodate higher rates of growth in

Whangarei.

33 The Agency’s primary submission5 expressed concern with the

subdivision provisions proposed for the Rural (Urban Expansion)

Environment, which cross-referenced the subdivision provisions of the

Living 1 zone - allowing subdivision to a minimum lot size of 1 dwelling per

500m2, subject to the provision of reticulated water and sewerage.

34 The Agency supports the establishment of a restricted discretionary

activity status for subdivision which seek to address transport effects. The

Agency also supports the removal of cross references to the Living 1 zone

in the RUEE. For these reasons on balance the Agency no longer

opposes the proposed new zoning and related provisions.

35 The Transport Agency accepts the proposed provisions will allow for a

high degree of flexibility and responsiveness to meet rising housing

demand from population growth.

36 However, noting the requirements of the NPS including policy PD4, and

the matters raised in the submission of our partners within Whangarei

City’s Infrastructure and Unit6, the Transport Agency considers that further

work is required to ensure the cumulative effects of growth are

appropriately managed. This is addressed in further detail below.

5 453/17, /18 6 479

7

Issues arising out of 86A & B

RUEE – Rural (Urban Expansion) Environment

37 RUEE.1.1 indicates a reliance on existing adopted structure plans to

support the proposed RUEE areas.

38 Three of the structure plans (Maunu, Kamo and Tikipunga) were adopted

in 2009. Some substantial areas of (now proposed) RUEE do not appear

within the adopted structure plans (eg. RUEE east of Vinegar Hill Road,

south of Three Mile Bush Road and between SH14 and Otaika Road).

39 The Transport Agency is not aware of updates having been made to the

adopted structure plans to either cater for these ‘new’ areas or other

changes which may have occurred since 2009.

40 The changes made to the area and density of urbanisation (by way of

resource consent) being proposed are substantive in the context on the

three structure plans reviewed.

41 While the Agency acknowledges the existing structure plans include some

indicative roads, and have sought to consider land use capacity issues,

the Agency supports the submission of Whangarei District Council’s

Infrastructure & Services Department7, and specifically the department’s

call for:

“additional, and reviewed, Structure Plans as a mechanism to identify,

program and deliver infrastructure through a planning exercise that

bridges the requirements under the RMA 1991 and LGA 2002”

42 In the Agency’s view, without more detailed structure planning identifying

the location of indicative (collector) roads, public open space, and wider

transport connections (including provision for walking and cycling) there is

a high degree of risk that new development will be highly fragmented –

generating greater infrastructure servicing costs and potentially giving rise

to adverse transport effects.

7 479/7,9,10,14

8

43 More broadly, without a more integrated and aligned approach to the

future urban development in these areas, there is a risk of significant

missed opportunities, particularly with respect to urban form and the

integrated management of Whangarei’s transport network.

44 Noting the commentary of Council’s s42A report author - Mr Badham – in

respect of the risks associated with a rolling Plan review process8 , the

Transport Agency considers that provision for structure planning could be

established through adding appropriate requirements as part of the review

of the Transport chapter. Alternatively, it may be appropriate for the

current provisions to include rules preventing subdivision until the

completion of new structure plans which address the wider area of re –

zoning, and the provision of transport infrastructure including the location

of collector roads, pedestrian and cycling connections and public open

space.

45 Should the Council pursue a structure planning process for these areas,

the Council will need to work closely with landowners, the community and

infrastructure providers to ensure wider buy-in and support.

46 A new structure planning exercise should aim to identify the location of

any new or additional indicative roads required within the areas and

promote efficient subdivision layouts that encourage a sustainable urban

form.

47 The Agency would strongly encourage WDC (including WDC I&S) to

collaborate early in determining which areas it proposes to reticulate to

ensure the Transport Agency along with other infrastructure providers can

ensure a co-ordinated response.

Rural Urban Expansion Living Environment

48 As detailed in the Agency’s planning evidence prepared by Ms Cath

Heppelthwaite; Council’s section 42A report author Mr Badham has

recommended inclusion of a specific Living Overlay, which triggers

consideration of specific assessment criteria and will assist in considering

the transport effects arising from new development.

8 Section 42A Report Part 11, paragraphs 58-60, 73-106.

9

49 The Transport Agency strongly supports the establishment of the overlay

and controls to ensure the transport effects of development occurring on

live zoned (Living 1 & 3) is appropriately managed.

50 The Transport Agency considers the Whangarei District Council will need

to work with the Agency to ensure the cumulative transport effects of

development, particularly with respect to the State Highway network (SH1

& SH14) are appropriately managed.

51 Noting the need for integrated planning, the Transport Agency would

support further work occurring to ensure the adequate provision of public

open space and walking and cycling facilities to service these areas.

Conclusion

52 The Agency supports responsive and flexible planning processes to

ensure there is sufficient development capacity available to meet demand

for housing and business land uses.

53 The Agency considers that where possible the rezoning of rural land for

residential or business purposes should be undertaken in a co-ordinated

manner with infrastructure providers.

54 The Agency anticipates a significant amount of work will be required to

ensure appropriate infrastructure and services are in place to support the

live-zoned land established through PC86B, and to be established by

PC86A (once reticulated water and sewerage are provided).

55 The development of more detailed structure plans that bridge the

requirements of the Local Government Act, Resource Management Act

and Land Transport Management Act represent an important starting

point for the provision of new infrastructure and should help ensure

development is co-ordinated in a manner that improves social,

environmental and economic outcomes for the region.