proposed change 14 to the auckland regional … · 6b, and proposed variation 3 to the proposed...

of 163

PROPOSED CHANGE 14 TO THE AUCKLAND REGIONAL POLICY STATEMENT – EXTENSION TO THE METROPOLITAN URBAN

LIMITS, TAKANINI STRUCTURE PLAN AREA 6A AND 6B

PROPOSED VARIATION 3 TO THE PROPOSED AUCKLAND REGIONAL PLAN: AIR, LAND AND WATER – EXTENSION TO THE URBAN AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AREAS AND INDUSTRIAL AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AREAS, TAKANINI STRUCTURE PLAN AREA 6A AND 6B.

PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 15 TO THE AUCKLAND COUNCIL DISTRICT PLAN (PAPAKURA SECTION) – REZONING 53.3 HA OF LAND IN TAKANINI STRUCTURE PLAN AREA 6 FROM RURAL TAKANINI/DRURY (FUTURE URBAN UNDER PC13) TO INDUSTRIAL 1 AND 3, RESIDENTIAL 1 AND 8 AND RESERVE ZONES.

NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT 047 – DESIGNATION SOUGHT FOR A PUBLIC WORK (STORMWATER POND)

From: The Hearings Commissioners

Mr Greg Hill (Chair), Ms Patricia Fordyce, Ms Dorothy Wakeling and Ms Caroline Conroy (Papakura Local Board Member)

Date: 21st March 2012

CONTENTS

1.0 Summary of the Decision 2.0 Delegation 3.0 Introduction/Overview 4.0 Notification/ Submissions/Further Submissions/Hearings Process 5.0 The Auckland Council - Organisational Changes and Submitter status changes 6.0 Statutory Requirements 7.0 Structure and Contents of this Report 8.0 Submissions to other Plan Changes 9.0 Support for the Changes

of 163

Proposed Change 15 To The Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura Section)

10.0 Index of Submitters and Further Submitters by Name and Topic 11.0 Consideration of Submissions and Further Submissions. 11.1 Submissions Relating to The National, Regional and District Context and

Legislative 11.2 Submissions Relating to Business Land Supply 11.3 Submissions Relating to Zoning and Land Uses 11.4 Submissions Relating to Reserve Land and Landscape 11.5 Submissions Relating to Stormwater/Stream/Infrastructure/ Geotechnical 11.6 Submissions Relating to Amenity 11.7 Submissions Relating to Subdivision 11.8 Submissions Relating to Generated Effects – General 11.9 Submissions Relating to Generated Effects – Noise and Industrial Vibration 11.10 Submissions Relating to Traffic 12.0 Amendments Under Clause 16(2) of the First Schedule of the RMA 1991 13.0 Proposed Change 14 to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement

13.1 Overview 13.2 Submissions 13.3 Decisions on Submissions Relating to the Extension of the Metropolitan Urban

Limit.

13.4 The Strategic Direction 14.0 Proposed Variation 3 to the Proposed Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land

And Water 14.1 Overview 14.2 Decisions on Submissions Relating to the Change to the Air Quality

Management Area.

15.0 Overall Findings And Conclusion With Respect To The Statutory Tests

16.0 Decision on the Notice of Requirement to Designate Land for the

Construction, Operation and Maintenance of a Stormwater Management Pond

16.1 Description of the Activity 16.2 Application Details 16.3 Site, Proposal and Context 16.4 Statutory Context 16.5 Notification 16.6 Evaluation 16.7 Actual and Potential Effects on the Environment

16.8 National Policy Statement 16.9 Auckland Regional Policy Statement 16.10 Assessment of District Plan Objectives and Policies 16.11 Regional Plan Objectives and Policies 16.12 Consideration of Alternative Sites and Methods 16.13 Whether the work and designation are reasonably necessary for achieving the

objectives of the Requiring Authority

of 163

16.14 Other Relevant Documents 16.15 Submissions 16.16 Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 16.17 Decision of the Hearings Panel 16.18 Conditions

Appendices Appendix 1 -Submissions and Further Submissions by Name And Topic for PC 15

Appendix 2 – Overview of Key Submissions and a Summary of Evidence for PC 15

Appendix 3 – Plan change 15 Appendix 4 – Map : Proposed Change 14 To The Auckland Regional Policy

Statement – Moving the Metropolitan Urban Limit

Appendix 5 – Map; Proposed Variation 3 to the Proposed Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water – Extension to the Urban Air Quality Management Area.

Appendix 6 – Map: Notice Of Requirement 047 – Stormwater Pond.

1.0 Summary of the Decisions

The Commissioners have determined that:

Proposed Change 14 to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS) – extension to the Metropolitan Urban Limit, Takanini Structure Plan Area 6a and 6b, and

Proposed Variation 3 to the Proposed Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water (ARP: ALW) – extension to the urban air quality management areas, Takanini Structure Plan area 6a and 6b, and

Proposed Plan Change 15 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura Section)(PC 15) – rezoning 53.3 ha of land in Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 from Rural Takanini/Drury (Future Urban under PC13) to industrial 1 and 3, residential 1 and 8 and reserve zones plus proposed Porchester road widening.

be APPROVED subject to the amendments as described below and in the planning documents (attached), and

That the submissions be accepted, accepted in part or rejected as set out below.

The Commissioners also recommend to the Auckland Council (as the Designating Authority) pursuant to section 171 (2) of the Resource Management Act that:

The Notice of Requirement 047 (NOR) – Designation for a public work - stormwater Pond be confirmed subject to the conditions attached to the Recommendation.

Summary of the Main Findings

Having heard all of the evidence and considered all of the material presented to us a summary of the main findings are:

of 163

To extend the MUL and to provide for an Urban Air Quality Management Area

(and not an Industrial Air Quality Management Area) over the area of PC 15.

To confirm the Stormwater Pond NOR, with the pond in the same location as notified.

To not impose a traffic generation cap rule requiring a resource consent when

a particular traffic volume is reached. While it is accepted that roads and some intersections will need to be upgraded due to PC 15 and other developments within the Takanini Structure Plan Area, these need to be funded (in part) by „development levies‟ (financial contributions and /or Development Contributions) at the time development takes place .

To retain the reserve zoning at the northern end of the PC 15 area notified

and not be zoned as industrial as requested by some submitters.

To not provide additional retail activity, particularly in relation to 55 Takanini School Road.

To amend the rules and assessment criteria to further protect amenity. In particular amendments are proposed to: o Landscape provisions o Bulk and location provisions – in particular height and yard provisions o Noise standards

To retain the Utility Yard provision for the „construction‟ phase of the wastewater pipeline, but not for the period post construction.

To modify Overland flowpath and soakage pit references, in particular to

modify the proposed overland flowpath configuration shown on the Structure Plan.

2.0 Delegation

The Commissioners were delegated full responsibility by the Auckland Council‟s Hearings Committee to make decisions on submissions to on Proposed Change 14 (RPS). Variation 3 (RPALW) and PC 15, pursuant to section 34 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”).

The Commissioners were also delegated to make the decision on the NOR for the

stormwater pond pursuant to section 168A (4).

3.0 Introduction/Overview

Proposed Plan Change 15 - Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 (PC 15)

PC15 involves Area 6A and 6B of the Takanini Structure Plan (TSP) and covers approximately 53.5 hectares of land located in northern Takanini, immediately to the east of the Spartan Road industrial area and is currently used predominantly for rural activities. The PC15 area is bounded by Takanini School Road to the west, the Papakura Stream to the north, Porchester Road to the east, and a row of houses gaining access to Manuroa Road to the south. Popes Road bisects the land in an east-west direction. The use of land immediately adjacent the subject site includes:

of 163

To the north of the Papakura Stream, predominantly single-storey housing. This area was within the boundaries of the former Manukau City.

To the west, land has been developed for residential, manufacturing and other industrial uses. This area was within the former Papakura District and is zoned Urban Industrial 3.

To the east of Porchester Road, land is occupied by rural uses, predominantly grazing. This area was within the former Papakura District and is zoned Rural Takanini / Drury.

To the south, land has been developed for suburban housing, including a rest home. Road frontage is provided via Manuroa Road. This residential area was within the former Papakura District, and is zoned Urban Residential 1.

The plan change area involves nine separately owned land parcels.

The key elements of PC 15 are:

To introduce new urban planning provisions to rezone 53.5 hectares of land from Rural Takanini/Drury zone to:

Industrial 1 zone: 16.64 hectares

Industrial 3 zone: 24.77 hectares

Residential 8 zone: 5.04 hectares

Reserve zone: 4.7 hectares (Esplanade reserve area, Stormwater pond area,

Recreational Reserve)

118 Manuroa Road which has an area of 22,653m2 and which currently has a

split zoning of Urban Residential 1 and Rural Takanini / Drury is proposed to

have the Urban Residential 8 zoning applied.

148A Manuroa Road, which has an area of 2680m2 and which currently has a

split zoning of Urban Residential 1 and Rural Takanini / Drury is proposed to

have the Urban Residential 1 zoning applied to that part of the site which is

currently zoned Rural Takanini / Drury.

Specific provisions are included to address issues regarding potential amenity, traffic, stormwater and geotechnical effects and protect the amenity of neighbouring residential and reserve areas.

Moving the Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL)

Proposed Change 14 to the ARPS was a request by the former PDC to extend the MUL at Area 6A and 6B of the Takanini Structure Plan. The extension is to provide additional urban capacity for industrial/business related development (41.4ha); residential development (0.3 ha) and reserve areas (4.7ha) within Takanini. PC 15 could not be promoted without the corresponding movement of the MUL over the area proposed in PC15.

The MUL is the key mechanism utilised within the ARPS to delineate and contain the Auckland‟s urban area, and manage its growth. In this case Area 6A and 6B of the Takanini Structure Plan had been identified in Change 6 to the ARPS (detailed elsewhere in this report) as an area of future urban development subject to the appropriate District Plan provisions.

Our findings are that subject to the amendments to PC and that this area is identified as a further urban area, it is appropriate to extend the MUL in this location. In this

of 163

respect the MUL extension satisfies the requirements of section 32 (set out below) and would assist in the promotion of the sustainable management of the area‟s natural and physical resources.

Urban and Industrial Air Quality Management Areas.

Areas 6A and 6B of the Takanini Structure Plan are currently within the Rural Air Quality Management Area (RAQMA) in the ARP: ALW. In the event that the MUL extension is confirmed (as it has been by this decision), a Variation is required under this Plan to change the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA)1 to reflect the proposed change in land use from rural to urban.

Proposed Variation 3 to the ARP: ALW has been sought (and approved) to reflect the corresponding MUL extension. Variation 3 involves the application of two different air quality management areas (urban and industrial) to the site. These different air quality management areas reflect the proposed land use mix and district plan zoning.

Urban Air Quality Management Areas (UAQMAs) seek to ensure a high level of amenity and to protect human health particularly for sensitive sectors of the population from the adverse effects of air discharges. The urban areas of Papakura are largely covered by Urban AQMAs. Industrial Air Quality Management Areas (IAQMAs) generally cater for heavier industrial activities and overlay specific industrial zones within district plans. Within Industrial AQMAs, it is expected that amenity values will be reduced in order to promote industrial intensification. The Spartan Road industrial area to the west of Takanini Area 6 is an IAQMA. The IAQMA would apply to that part of the site where the zoning proposed under PC15 is Industrial 3. The Urban Air Quality Management Area (UAQMA) will apply to those parts of the site where the zoning proposed are Residential, Industrial 1 and Reserve. It is noted here that the officer‟s recommendation to us was that the UAQMA apply to the entire PC 15 area and not the split UAQMA/IAQMA. This is due to the nature of the activities proposed in PC 15 and to ensure a high level of amenity and to protect human health particularly for sensitive sectors of the population from the adverse effects of air discharges.

NOR 047 – Stormwater Pond

A Notice of Requirement (NOR) was submitted by former PDC seeking to designate the north western part of the subject site, as „Public Work‟ to construct, operate and maintain a stormwater management pond to service the new urban area proposed in PC 15 and the existing urban area to the south of the plan change area (located between Manuroa Road and Airfield Road)..

The pond will function as a detention and water quality pond for both the Plan Change area and the existing residential area to the south (located between Manuroa Road and Airfield Road) and will discharge treated stormwater from the site into the Papakura Stream.

1 Under the PARP: ALW two urban air quality management areas apply in the urban area. These are (1) Urban Air Quality

Management Areas (UAQMAs); these areas seek to ensure a high level of amenity and to protect human health particularly for sensitive sectors of the population from the adverse effects of air discharges and (2) Industrial Air Quality Management Areas (IAQMAs); these areas generally cater for heavier industrial activities and overlay specific industrial zones within district plans.

of 163

The pond features a margin for landscape planting, a footpath and mow-able edge for public access and maintenance access. A contingency area of 15-20% provided for within the designation being sought will allow for pond benches, forebays, berms and other related structures.

4.0 Notification / Submissions / Further Submissions/Hearing Process

All of the proposed changes/variations and the NOR were jointly notified on 9 December 2009. Submissions closed on all matters on 26 February 2010. 98 submissions were received to PC15 (one late submission was received from ARTA (Submission 11) for which a Section 37 waiver was approved by Papakura District Council on 31 August 2010). The Summary of Submissions was notified on 7 April 2010 with the Further Submission period closing 23 April 2010. Further Submissions (referencing multiple submissions) were received from 9 parties.

Eleven submissions were received, either in opposition to or in support of the PC 14 to the ARPS and/or Proposed Variation 3 to the ARP: ALW. Six submitters lodged further submissions either in support of or in opposition to the primary submission(s) received to PC 14 to the ARPS and Variation 3 to the ARP: ALW.

The NOR received seven submissions. One submission was in opposition and six submissions supported the NOR but with requests regarding pond design and location.

The hearing of submissions to the plan changes, and the NOR opened on the 6th September 2011 and adjourned on the 8th September 2011. At the adjournment all submitters who wished to be heard had presented to the Hearings Panel.

The Panel posed a number of questions to the reporting officers regarding matters arising from the hearing, and a written response was sought. The reporting officers provided their response in a written document dated the 10 October 2011 - Clarification of Issues. This report was circulated to all submitters and they were provided an opportunity to address any matters raised in that report at the reconvened hearing. The hearing was reconvened on the 14th November 2011. Having heard additional submissions, evidence and report back from the reporting officers, the hearing was closed on the 14th November 2011.

Plan Changes PC15, RPS14 and Variation No.3 were publicly notified on 9 December 2009. Under Clause 10(4) of the First Schedule to the RMA, the Council must publicly notify its decision on by 9 December 2011 (i.e. a 2 year time period).

As the hearings on these plan changes concluded on the 14th November 2011, the complex nature of the plan changes and the number of issues raised by submitters, there was insufficient time to write the decisions report and meet the 9 December 2011 deadline. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Panel resolved to extend

of 163

the time period in which to issue its decision on these plan changes (and the Notice of Requirement)2.

5.0 The Auckland Council - Organisational Changes and

Submitter status changes

On 1 November 2010 the Auckland Council came into existence. The former regional, city, and district councils no longer exist. Auckland Transport also came into existence on 1 November 2010 as a Council-Controlled Organisation. Transport combines the transport expertise of the eight former regional and local councils and the former Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA). Auckland Transport is responsible for all of Auckland‟s transport requirements (excluding state highways) - from roads and footpaths, to parking and train, bus and ferry services. Auckland Transport was both a submitter to the plan changes and provided input to the Officers report in response to submissions. While we were advised by the Council‟s legal counsel that there was a clear separation between the different parts of the organisation, we were uncomfortable with the dual role undertaken by Auckland Transport. This is particularly so given that transport issues (particularly roading capacity and upgrades and their funding) were a significant issue at the hearing. Part of this dual role may have been due to transitional issues. However in the future we would expect that its role was more clearly defined and the organisation was not on „both sides of the fence‟. MCC‟s submission (Submission 2) refers to employment, interface, land use and building, reverse sensitivity, amenity, landscaping, traffic and land transport issues. The ARC‟s submission (Submission 10) refers to Group 1 business activities, height and yard controls, and the protection of residential amenity.

On 4 May 2011 Auckland Council‟s Hearings Committee resolved that the submissions by the former MCC and ARC remain, but as the issues raised by them are also raised by other submitters and these will be addressed in the officers‟ hearing report but that no separate evidence or representation of these submissions would be presented at the hearing.

6.0 Statutory Requirements

As the Plan Change/Variation and ARPS change were notified after 1 October 2009,

they have been considered under the provisions of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”) as amended by the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009. The key provisions for consideration of a plan change are sections 32, 75 and 76 as well as Part 2 and the second Part of the First Schedule to the Act. The sections noted and the relevant provisions of the First Schedule have been incorporated into the following discussion, although they may not be expressly referred to at times.

Similarly, all the submissions lodged on the Changes, the Council‟s reports evaluating

the Plan Change proposals and their potential effects, and the evidence presented at the hearing have all been taken into account when compiling this decision report and

2 The Panel, having the full delegations of the Council was able to extend the timeframe by which it must make a

decision (clause 1(2) of the First Schedule and section 37 of the Act). The Panel exercised this power and

resolved to extend the time in which to issue the decisions.

of 163

again, while they may not necessarily have been expressly referred to, they have nevertheless been paid regard when making the decision.

Section 32

Section 32 seeks to ensure that the costs and benefits of proposed plan provisions are

considered and that the proposed controls are justified. Each objective that is proposed has to be examined with regard to the extent to which it is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA. This examination must take account of the benefits and costs of the proposed 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 those policies, rules or other methods3. Any rules or other methods should be aimed at achieving the objectives and policies.

To meet the section 32 requirements, an assessment report must be prepared on the content of the proposed plan change4 before the change/variation is notified. This report must consider a number of matters, including whether there has been sufficient consideration of alternative methods of achieving the plan change objectives. The hearing itself forms part of the section 32 process. A section 32 assessment report was provided by the officers and evaluated the proposed Change against the relevant statutory planning documents. It was accompanied by specialist reports which examined the proposed changes in terms of the principal effects on the environment, notably traffic, urban design, stormwater and flooding issues, noise and amenity issues. The report also assessed the proposed change in terms of the ARPS and other regional planning documents.

The decision of the Environment Court decision on Long Bay-Okura Great Park

Society Incorporated v North Shore City Council5 provides a framework for conducting a section 32 analysis and also includes a detailed discussion of the requirements of sections 72, 74 and 756. That decision is referred to for its content, but the following requirements so far as a section 32 assessment is concerned have been distilled from it7:

The plan change should be designed to accord with section 74(1) of the Act and assist the Council to carry out its functions, set out in section 31, so as to achieve the purpose of the Act;

Any national policy statement or New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement or operative regional policy statement must be given effect to;

The plan change must not be inconsistent with an operative regional plan for any matter specified in section 30(1) [section 75(4)]. That sub-section lists 13 matters8 as being the functions of a regional council. In Auckland‟s case, the Auckland Council fulfils a dual function as both the district and regional council (known as a “unitary council”);

3 Section 32 (4)

4 Section 32 (1)(d)

5 Decision No. A78/08

6 As they stood prior to the 2009 Amendment Act. The provisions referred to here have been updated

to take account of the 2009 Amendment 7 See Nolan, D.A. (ed) Looseleaf Edition, Environmental and Resource Management Law (2008),

para 3.91 et seq 8 Following the 2009 Amendment Act

of 163

The Commissioners are to have regard to any proposed regional policy statement and to any proposed regional plan on any matter of regional significance [section 74(2)];

We are also to have regard to any relevant management plans and strategies under other Acts and to consistency with plans and proposed plans of adjacent territorial authorities [section 74 (2)];

We must take account of any relevant planning document recognised by an iwi authority, and is not to have regard to trade competition [section 74]. No relevant iwi planning document was drawn to our attention;

The plan change must be prepared in accordance with any regulation [section 74(1)];

There is a formal requirement that the plan change must state its objectives, policies and the rules (if any), and may also state other matters [section 75];

Each proposed objective in the plan change is to be evaluated by the extent to which it is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the Act [section 32 (3)(a)];

The policies are to implement the objectives, and the rules (if any) are to implement the policies [section 75 (1)(b) and (c];

Each proposed policy or method (including each rule) is to be examined, having regard to its efficiency and effectiveness, as to whether it is the most appropriate method for achieving the objectives taking into account the benefits and costs of each and also 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 [section 32 (3)(a) and (4)];

In making (approving) a rule, the Commissioners must have regard to the actual or potential effect of activities on the environment, particularly any adverse effect [section 76 (3)]; and

We are required to comply with other statutes.

Not all of the above requirements are applicable in this particular case. For instance, being located inland, the site is beyond the reach of the NZ Coastal Policy Statement. On the other hand, and as discussed elsewhere, regional policy documents and plans, and District Plan strategies, are all highly relevant and underpin the ARPS and Plan Change/Variation proposals. These are set out in the following sections of this report.

A very comprehensive evaluation of the relevant matters in the context of the

submissions and further submissions lodged was compiled by the reporting officers on behalf of the Council for the purpose of section 42A of the Act. In addition to the Section 32 report the following further technical reports were commissioned by the former PDC in response to matters raised in submissions:

Noise: o “Plan Change 15, Area 6 Review of Proposed Noise and Vibration

Controls” JPStyles Ltd (dated 15 November 2010)

Retail: o “The Former Papakura Council Area and Proposed Plan Change 15

(PC15) – Retail Considerations” by Speer and Speer Associates (dated 15 March 2011)

Transport:

of 163

o “Plan Change 15 Takanini Area 6: Transport Assessment Final March 2011” by Opus International Consultants Ltd (received 15 March 2011)

Urban Design: o “Papakura District Council Proposed Plan Change 15 – Urban Design

Review” by Beca Carter Hollings and Ferner Ltd (dated 29 September 2010)

As a result of the findings in Opus‟ March 2011 traffic report, Auckland Council

commissioned further traffic modelling and expert advice:

Transport: o “Plan Change 15 Takanini Area 6: Transport Assessment Draft Addendum

1 – Sensitivity Testing June 2011” by Opus International Consultants Ltd o “Plan Change 15 Takanini Area 6: Transport Assessment Addendum 2 –

Extended Study Area Assessment” (received 11 August 2011)

Two memos from Auckland Transport to Auckland Council responding to Opus‟ March and August 2011 reports were also received :“Traffic Memorandum from Auckland Transport to Auckland Council” (7 June 2011) and “Auckland Transport‟s response as the Road Controlling Authority to the OPUS Addendum 1 and 2 Reports: Plan Change 15 Takanini Area 6: Transport Assessment” (10 August 2011)

Technical Stormwater information has also received in the form of a memo: “Papakura District Plan PC15 Stormwater Related Issues Raised in Submissions” (dated 30 June 2011) from Auckland Council Catchment Planning South Stormwater

We also received the following from the Council‟s officers in informing their evidence

Retail:

o “The Former Papakura Council Area and Proposed Plan Change 15

(PC15) – Retail Considerations Specifically and Assessment of Issues

Arising from the Submissions Hearing During 6-7-8 September” by Speer

and Speer Associates (dated 26 September 2011).

Transport:

o “Plan Change 15 – Response to Commissioners Queries” by Opus

International Consultants Ltd (dated 30 September 2011).

Urban Design:

o “Plan Change 15, Takanini Area 6 – Urban design response to the

request for further information from the commissioners” by Beca Carter

Hollings and Ferner Ltd (dated 26 September 2011).

Financial and Development Contributions:

o “Contribution Support Statement Updated version with addendum

Section 5” memorandum by Auckland Council Contributions Policy Team

– Finance, Planning and Policy (3 October 2011).

As mentioned, section 75(3)(c) of the RMA requires that district plans and changes to district plans must “give effect to” any regional policy statement9. A recent Environment Court decision, Clevedon Cares Incorporated v Manukau City Council10, stated that the phrase “give effect to” is a strong direction. This is understandably the case for two reasons:

9 A requirement introduced by the 2005 amendments to the Resource Management Act

10 [2010] NZ EnvC 211

of 163

(a) the hierarchy of planning instruments makes it important that objectives and policies formulated at the regional level are given effect to at the district level; and

(b) a regional policy statement, having passed through the Resource Management Act processes, is deemed to give effect to Part 2 matters as a result.

In making a decision on this PC 15, we need to ensure that it will “give effect to” the

operative RPS (and the changes proposed to it – ie the extension of the MUL and the AQMA). Subject to the amendments discussed at the hearing, and those made in the course of reaching this decision, the Commissioners‟ view is that PC 15 will meet that requirement.

7.0 Structure and Contents of this Report

This report addresses Plan Change 15, Change 14 to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement, Variation 3 to the Proposed Regional Plan – Air Land and Water, and the Notice of Requirement for the Stormwater Pond. All of the matters are inextricably linked and accordingly dealt with together. The report as follows sets out our consideration and decision on the submissions and further submissions by topic as set out in the table of contents. PC 15 is considered first. We accept that the area covered by PC 15 is outside of the Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL), and could not proceed unless the MUL is extended and an urban and/or an industrial air quality management area applied. Given that all relevant changes have been applied for together (i.e. an integrated management approach), we address the regional and strategic issues related to PC 15 as part of that change. As a Hearings Panel, having reviewed all of the material provided to us and heard all of the evidence, we determined that if PC 15 satisfied the relevant regional and district requirements (which we have addressed below) in terms of section 32 and Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991, then it would, as a consequence warrant the moving of the MUL. Accordingly the „justification‟ for the movement of the MUL is largely addressed under PC 15. However we also do, as we are required to, address the submissions and further submissions to the MUL Change. Following this we address the relevant matters of Variation 3 to the regional plan, and then the NOR. However we note again that due to the integrated nature of the entire „package‟ it is inevitable and desirable that we provide, as much as possible, and integrated assessment. Most of this is provided as part of the land use issues (and PC 15). For logistic reasons (so that this decision report is not too long and is more „readable) this report is set out as a series of topics (groupings of submissions). Within each topic grouping there is a decisions table, the reasons why the submissions have been accepted, accepted in part or rejected11 and the amendments to the planning documents due to the decision on the submissions. An overview of the key submissions and a summary of evidence presented are provided in a separate document containing a number of Appendices.

A separate document of the revised Plan Change 15 (in track mode so the changes are easily discernable) is also provided.

11

Noting that under the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009 (2009 No

31) that it is no longer necessary to make a decision on each individual submission made on PC15 (clause 10(3) of the First Schedule.

of 163

A summary of the submissions/further submissions and the relief sought is provided in the Appendices. Decisions and reasons are not specified for each further submission point, but are to be read as being in accordance with the decision relating to the principal submission point. Provisions to be inserted as part of PC15 as notified are in underlined font, for example “Takanini Structure Plan Area 6A and 6B”. Existing District Plan text to be deleted in PC15 as notified is in strikethrough font, for example “in the rural area”. Amendments recommended to PC15 in this decision report are shown with double underlining, for example “Use of buildings”. Deletions recommended to PC15 in this decision report are shown with double strike through, for example “all lots shall have…”

8.0 Submissions to Other Plan Changes

Submitter 17 (Takanini Industrial Trust) made a number of submissions relating to the decision versions of Papakura District Council Plan Changes 12 and 13. Such submissions are beyond the scope of PC15 and therefore have been REJECTED.

9.0 Support for the Changes

A number of submissions supported the provisions of the plan changes. These are acknowledged. However, in addressing other submissions amendments have been made to PC15 and Change 3 to the regional Plan as proposed. It is for this reason that some of the decisions on the supporting submissions are that they be accepted in part only.

10.0 Index of Submissions and Further Submissions by Name and Topic

Submitters and further submitters raised a number of issues which have been grouped into issue topics within this Report. The tables set out in Appendix 1 show the Submitter Number, Name and Topic area. With respect to PC 15 - Submitters 20 to 98 are grouped together and generally described as “multiple submitters” as their submissions contain the same submission points. This does not mean that the points raised in each of these individual submissions are not considered. Where additional points are raised in Submissions 20 to 98, a separate reference to the submitter‟s number and name has been made.

11.0 CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS AND FURTHER SUBMISSIONS

11.1 Decisions on Submissions Relating to - The National, Regional and District Context, and Legislative Consistency:

The issues addressed in this section include:

Regional Policy Statement Proposed Plan Change 6 and Papakura Proposed Plan Change 10, Consistency

Takanini Structure Plan Consistency

of 163

District Plan Consistency

Metropolitan Urban Limits (“MUL”)

Proposed Plan Change 15 Consultation

Staging / Timing/Cumulative Effects

Review of Proposed Plan Change 15

Resource Management Act Consistency (Both in Relation to Part 2 and Section 32)

See Appendix 2 (2.1) for the summary of key submissions and a summary of the evidence heard.

Submission/Further Submission Number

Support/Oppose Submitter Name Decision

3.1a Support Cosgrave Residents and Landowners Association Inc

Accept in Part

FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group)

and D and K Mahay

3.1b Support Cosgrave Residents and Landowners Association Inc

Accept in Part

FS01 Oppose Manukau City Council FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group)

and D and K Mahay

3.1d Support Cosgrave Residents and Landowners Association Inc

Accept in Part


and D and K Mahay

4.1a Support Retail Holdings Ltd and Southgate Centre Ltd

Accept in Part

FS01 Oppose Manukau City Council FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust 4.1b Support

Retail Holdings Ltd and Southgate Accept in Part

of 163

Centre Ltd

FS01 Oppose Manukau City Council FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust 4.1d Support

Retail Holdings Ltd and Southgate Centre Ltd

Accept in Part

FS01 Oppose Manukau City Council FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust 8.4 Oppose New Zealand Transport Agency Accept in Part

FS01 Support Manukau City Council FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Support G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group)

and D and K Mahay

10.1 Support (with amendments)

Auckland Regional Council Accept in Part


and D and K Mahay




and D and K Mahay


Auckland Regional Council Accept

FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd

of 163

FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group)

and D and K Mahay


Auckland Regional Transport Authority

Accept in Part

FS01 Support Manukau City Council FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust 12.1 Support Nigel Hosken Accept in Part

FS01 Oppose Manukau City Council FS04 Support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group)

and D and K Mahay


Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd Accept in Part

FS01 Oppose Manukau City Council FS03 Support Nigel Hosken FS05 Support Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group)

and D and K Mahay

14.1 Mellviews Ltd Support (with amendments) Accept in Part

FS01 Oppose Manukau City Council FS03 Support Nigel Hosken FS04 Support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS06 Support Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group)

and D and K Mahay


Zabeel Investments Ltd Accept in Part

FS01 Oppose Manukau City Council FS03 Support Nigel Hosken FS04 Support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support Mellviews Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group)

and D and K Mahay


Village Farms Ltd Accept in Part

FS01 Oppose Manukau City Council

of 163

FS03 Support Nigel Hosken FS04 Support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support Zabeel Investments Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group)

and D and K Mahay

17.4 Support (with amendments

Takanini Industrial Trust Accept in Part

FS03 Support Nigel Hosken

FS04 Support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd

FS05 Support Mellviews Ltd

FS06 Support Zabeel Investments Ltd

FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd

18.1 Oppose Alfriston Residents Group – Lifestyle Blocks

Reject

FS01 Support in part Manukau City Council FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust 18.2 Oppose Alfriston Residents Group – Lifestyle

Blocks Accept in Part

FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust 18.3 Oppose Alfriston Residents Group – Lifestyle


FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken

FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd

FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd

FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd

FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd

FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust


Reject

FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust 19.1 Opposes (seeks

changes) D Newman Reject

FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Support G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group)

and D and K Mahay

of 163

19.9 Opposes (seeks changes)

D Newman Reject


and D and K Mahay

20.4 to 98.4 Oppose (seeks changes)

multiple Reject

FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust 20.8 to 98.8 Oppose (seeks

changes) multiple Reject

FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust

Reasons:

Regional Policy Statement and Change 6 and Papakura Proposed Plan Change 10 - Consistency Some submitters sought that Area 6a and b (the area covered by PC 15) not be urbanised – and that it remain rural – i.e. it remain outside of the MUL. Others sought that it not be rezoned or the MUL extended until all infrastructure, particularly roading including the „Mill Road‟ regional road is completed. Others, including the reporting officers, outlined how at a regional, sub-regional and district level, this land had been identified for future urban growth for many years– and why, subject to appropriate district and regional planning controls, this area should be able to be urbanised. Having heard all of the evidence we find that the land covered by PC 15 has been identified as suitable for urban development, is identified by the regional and district planning documents for this purpose as set out below. Takanini has been identified in the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy 1999 (RGS) as a „Greenfield‟ area suitable for future urban expansion and for intensification of some existing urban areas. To support the outcomes sought through the ARGS, Papakura District Council embarked on a process of preparing structure plans to guide Greenfield land development. The Takanini Structure Plan (2000) (TSP) became the adopted growth management policy for this area and along with other structure plans, to inform the development of council‟s growth management required under the ARGS. The TSP

of 163

was broken into sub areas for the purpose of its implementation. PC15 seeks to implement Area 6, being an amalgam of Area 6A and 6B of the TSP.

The Southern Sector Agreement between Papakura District Council, Franklin District Council, Manukau City Council, and the Auckland Regional Council (ARC) was signed in March 2001 and formed a Memorandum of Understanding between the parties about the form and location of future growth. The anticipated land release timing and development stages for the Papakura growth areas (specifically Takanini and Hingaia) identified in the ARGS are specified in the Southern Sector Agreement. The timing reflected the staging previously identified in the structure plans.

The Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004 („LGAAA‟) came into effect on 1 July 2004. It required that all councils in the Auckland region integrate their land transport and land use provisions to ensure that they:

Are consistent with the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy (ARGS);

Give effect to the ARGS‟s Growth Concept;

Contribute to the land transport and land use matters specified in Schedule 5 of

the LGAAA; and

Support the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) in

promoting sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

In response to the LGAAA, Proposed Change 6 to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement (RPS6) was promulgated by the ARC while Proposed Plan Change 10 (PC10) to the operative Papakura District Plan was promulgated by Papakura District Council (PDC).

PC10 modifies Part 5 of Section One of the operative District Plan by introducing Appendix One - Schedule of Papakura Growth Areas in parallel with RPS6 - based on the Southern Sector Agreement 2001. Schedule 1 of Change 6 sets out the list of: High Density Centres, Intensive Corridors and Future Urban Areas. Takanini is identified as a Future Urban Area – with the timing for proposed plan changes for TSP Area 6 identified as 2005 – 2010.

The Council‟s Regional Development and Operations Committee on 15 September 2011 approved Proposed Change 6 to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement pursuant to Clause 17 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 to be made operative and incorporated into the Auckland Regional Policy Statement.

Proposed PC10 (and PC13 – see below) is currently subject to appeals before the Environment Court. However the provision and timing for Area 6‟s development as described within the growth schedules within PC10 is not subject to appeal. Plan Change 13 to the Operative Papakura District Plan was notified on 05 August 2009. PC13 zoned Area 6 as Future Urban. The Future Urban Zone policy and rule provisions seek to avoid inappropriate subdivision and land use that would compromise future land use options for urban development. In effect the Future Urban Zone places a holding pattern on subdivision and land use in these areas. Accordingly the future of this area is one of some form of urban development – it will not in our view remain as rural land.

Overall we find that Change 14 (MUL extension) and PC 15 represents a further step in the planning to provide for additional business and residential land in order to accommodate Auckland‟s increasing population and demand for additional business land.

Draft Auckland Plan

of 163

The Council notified the “Draft Auckland Plan” on 20 September 2011. Submissions to it closed on 25 October 2011. While this document has no statutory weight, we considered it useful to at least the „current thinking‟ of the Council with respect to the growth management of Auckland. Section D “Auckland‟s High-level Development Strategy” of the Draft Auckland Plan includes Takanini and environs in the “Southern Initiative Area” as “13. South Rapid Transit Network focused growth, strong employment opportunities and residential intensification”. Chapter 12 “Implementation Framework” of the Plan shows Takanini as a “development area” and Takanini town centre as a “development centre” for place-based projects from 2012 onwards. Table 12.4 “”Indicative priorities and timeline for development areas to 2040” lists “Takanini (stage 1-3)” from 2012 and “Takanini Later Stages” from 2025/2026.

Takanini Structure Plan Consistency

The TSP is a non statutory document, which shows Takanini Area 6a and 6b as a mixture of employment zone, mixed use and low density residential development. We accept that PC15 does not show the exact same configuration of land use as shown in the TSP. The zonings and provisions proposed in PC15 have been developed from the TSP as a response to national, regional and local planning initiatives and documents as has been explained above. PC10 identifies Areas 6a and 6b as “future business area” and PC 13 identifies that the area as “future urban”. We are satisfied that PC 15 generally reflects the TSP, but accept that the TSP is a non-statutory document used to guide the more detailed development – and as expressed in PC 15. PC 15 has been publicly notified and all views and evidence have been considered in determining the appropriateness of the provisions of PC 15 (and subsequently in terms of PC 14 to move the MUL). District Plan Consistency PC15 reflects the type of development envisaged for Takanini Area 6 by PC10. As PC10 incorporates TSP growth areas and their scheduled timings into the District Plan, the rezoning of Takanini Area 6 has been given statutory weight.

Change 14 – the Movement of the Metropolitan Urban Limits (“MUL”)

As Takanini Area 6 is outside of the MUL the land in Takanini Area 6 cannot be rezoned unless an extension to the MUL is granted. Papakura District Council‟s application to extend the MUL is part of the process for the implementation of plan changes for the first stage of the growth areas in the TSP. This identification and staging has been confirmed in regional and local planning documents as set out above. Given this, and for all the reasons that follow in this report, we find that it is appropriate to enable the MUL to be extended to cover the area proposed by PC 15. The decisions on the submissions reflect this.

Proposed Plan Change 15 Consultation

of 163

In relation to those submissions which consider further consultation is required, Submission 18.1 (Alfriston Residents Group – Lifestyle Blocks) and Submissions 20.8 to 98.8 (multiple submitters) the following comments are made. Consultation began in 2006 prior to notification by Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd as the initiator of the then private plan change request. This consultation included a public open day where the plan change proposal put forward was for Industrial 1 and 3 land. As a result of feedback the applicant modified the plan change to remove Industrial 3 zoning from the northern end of the land and to incorporate residential development to the south. Post notification, Council has followed RMA 1991 procedures, calling for submissions and further submissions. An information day was notified for potential submitters in February 2010, which nobody attended. A Transportation Information Session was held by Council for transport submitters to PC15 at the former Papakura District Council Chambers on 15 June 2011 and was attended by approximately 40 people. This was initiated by Council. Having made the PC15 experts‟ reports available to submitters, in March 2011 a number of enquiries from submitters were received, and it was considered that it would be helpful for submitters to have the Opus March 2011 report explained to them. An independent facilitator ran the session and emphasised that the session was not to pre-empt the hearing. The plan change process was explained to submitters. Opus Consultants representatives explained their report and modelling methodology. Auckland Transport also attended and explained their role and functions. NZTA also attended and outlined their future planning in the area. Staging / Timing/Cumulative Effects Three submissions are critical of the timing of the plan change especially in relation to roading improvements (Submission 8.4 (New Zealand Transport Agency), Submission 18.3 (Alfriston Residents Group – Lifestyle Blocks), and Submission 18.4 (Alfriston Residents Group – Lifestyle Blocks). The timing of the plan change is in accordance with regional and district planning documents. Roading changes are not however tied to the timing of development. The effects of permitting the plan change to proceed without sufficient traffic mitigation need to be considered. There is more discussion of this issue in Section 11.10 (Traffic) of this report. Review of Proposed Plan Change 15 Some submitters Submission 18.1 (Alfriston Residents Group – Lifestyle Blocks), Submission 18.2 (Alfriston Residents Group – Lifestyle Blocks) and Submissions 20.4 to 98.4 and 20.8 to 98.8 (multiple submitters) seek a review of the plan change. It is acknowledged that these submissions are related to the issue above relating to timing. It is therefore considered that these submissions need to be considered primarily in the context of the transport issues associated with PC15 and set out in Section 11.10 (Traffic) of this report. Resource Management Act Consistency – notification issues Changes that were made to the RMA on 1 October 2009 included the repeal of Section 94 Notification of Applications and introduced new sections 95 and 95A – G, Public Notification and Limited Notification of Applications.

of 163

As Submission 17.4 (Takanini Industrial Trust) submitter states, changes are required to provide for legislative amendments to the RMA 1991. To provide consistency with other sections of the Operative Plan which have already been updated through plan changes or Clause 20A of the RMA, specific reference to “public” notification as sought by the submitter is not required, nor is a reference to Section 95A(2)(c). Council‟s lawyers have advised that the following wording is instead appropriate: For controlled activities: ―Except as provided for by section 95A(2)(b) and (4) of the Resource Management Act 1991, applications for a controlled activity will be considered without notification or the need to obtain approval from affected persons.‖ For restricted discretionary activities ―Except as provided for by Section 95A(2)(b) and (4) of the Resource Management Act 1991, applications will be considered without notification or the need to obtain approval from affected persons.‖ The amendments do not apply to discretionary activities. It is therefore determined that Submission 17.4 (Takanini Industrial Trust) which seeks the modification of non notification provisions to make them consistent with the October 2009 amendments to the RMA be accepted in part to the extent that some changes are required to PC15. Changes sought by the submitter relate specifically to subdivision provisions and to the industrial zone restricted discretionary activity assessment criteria. The specific plan amendments sought by the submitter are discussed in Sections 11.3 and 11.7 (Zoning and Land Uses) and (Subdivision) where those provisions are assessed.

Amendments to the Plan Changes in response to the decision on the submissions.

No amendments have been made due to these submissions

of 163

11.2 Submissions Relating to Business Land Supply


Business Land Supply Regional Context: Auckland Business Land Strategy Existing Papakura District Council Business Zoned Land, Location and Types Papakura Vacant Business Land Proposed Papakura District Business Land: Employment Opportunities

Decisions on Submissions Relating to Business Land Supply





Chan Li Chun Fa Accept

FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group)

and D and K Mahay

3.2a Support Cosgrave Residents and Landowners Association Inc

Accept


and D and K Mahay

3.2b Support Cosgrave Residents and Landowners Association Inc

Accept in Part

FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken S04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group)

and D and K Mahay

3.2c Support Cosgrave Residents and Landowners Association Inc

Accept in Part


of 163

and D and K Mahay

4.2a Support


Accept

FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust 4.2b

Support Retail Holdings Ltd and Southgate Centre Ltd

Accept in Part

FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust 4.2c

Support Retail Holdings Ltd and Southgate Centre Ltd

Accept in Part

FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust 5.15 Oppose G & A Goldring Reject


and D and K Mahay




and D and K Mahay


Auckland Regional Transport Authority Accept

FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose in part Takanini Industrial Trust 17.2 Support (with

amendments Takanini Industrial Trust Accept in Part

FS01 Support in part Manukau City Council

of 163

FS03 Support Nigel Hosken FS04 Support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd 18.3 Oppose Alfriston Residents Group – Lifestyle


FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust 20.9 to 98.9 Oppose (seeks

changes) multiple Accept in Part

FS03 Nigel Hosken Oppose FS04 Takanini Structure

Plan Area 6 Ltd Oppose in part

FS05 Mellviews Ltd Oppose in part FS06 Zabeel

Investments Ltd Oppose in part

FS07 Village Farms Ltd Oppose in part FS08 Takanini Industrial

Trust Oppose in part

Reasons:

Business Land Supply

A number of submissions raised the issue of whether there was need for additional business/industrial land – and in particular in this location. This was based on their view that there was vacant business in South Auckland (such Marphona Crescent, Wiri, Hunua and Drury) and sufficient had already been provided for. These submitters stated that if the land were to be urban, it should be a combination of residential and open space. The Stevenson Group‟s private plan change application for some 350ha of Group 1 business land beyond the MUL in the Drury area was also mentioned. It is noted that while this plan change was lodged with Auckland Council in May 2011 it has yet to be assessed in terms whether the Council accepts, adopts, or rejects the plan change (Clause 25 of the First Schedule of the RMA 1991). Accordingly we have had no regard to it. Other submitters and the reporting officers stated that there was a demand and need for additional business land, and in particular that catering for Group 1 type activities (see below). Moreover this land was conveniently located within an area already developed for residential and business land activities (and planned for further development) - and therefore potentially able to provide work places closer to where people live. Having heard all of the evidence we are satisfied, for the reasons set out below, that there is a need for additional business land within the region.

Regional Context: Auckland Business Land Strategy

of 163

In 2006 the ARC released the “Auckland Business Land Strategy” (“BLS”) a non–statutory document as a subset of the Regional Growth Strategy. It was developed in consultation with local authorities, and endorsed by the ARC. The BLS identified a framework for future business growth in the Auckland region to 2031. A key focus of the BLS was to identify how much vacant business zoned land remained in the region and how fast it was being used up. This included looking at Greenfield business land identified as part of RGS implementation. The BLS predicted a regional shortage of vacant business land in the Auckland region somewhere between 2011 and 2020. Accordingly an outcome identified in the BLS for the Auckland region was the need for additional business zoned land to cater for the anticipated growth in the land-extensive Group 1 business sectors. Group 1 business sectors are defined in the BLS glossary as follows: “Group 1 Business Sectors – for the purposes of this strategy these sectors are grouped together because of their locational requirements. All of the following sectors require land extensive sites and can contribute to reverse sensitivity issues due to noise, odour emissions etc:

Manufacturing Construction Wholesale Trade Transport and Storage

The BLS recommended that the Auckland Regional Growth Forum (“Forum”) identify sites for future Greenfield business land and states on page 35 that, ―In line with the regional outcomes contained in the Business Land Strategy, it is anticipated that such Greenfield business land will cater predominantly for group 1 business sectors.‖ The BLS figures relating to regional uptake rates of business land and shortage prediction dates remain the most up to date figures endorsed by legacy councils.

Papakura Vacant Business Land

In 2006 partly to quantify PDC‟s vacant business zoned land by area and zone, a survey of Papakura District‟s business zoned land was undertaken. This was summarised in “Papakura District Employment Characteristics and Business Land Capacity Analysis June 2006”, noting that land within the extractive industry Quarry Zone (some 391ha in 2006) was excluded from the survey. An update to this survey “Papakura District Business Land Use Survey 2008” was undertaken by the Council in 2008. In 2006 there was approximately 80ha of vacant business zoned land in Papakura. Between 2006 and 2008, 26ha of this land was used, leaving 54ha of vacant land. If 36 ha of vacant land subject to Ardmore Aerodrome designation is excluded, only 18 ha of the 54 ha remain. Some of the vacant land is also subject to constraints such as its location in possible/flood hazard areas. When the 2006 survey was undertaken there were 27 vacant sites in the Takanini North Industrial Area. Another five sites contained buildings under construction. The 2008 survey did not review full building and land use records. A check of Papakura District Council land use and building consent records shows that up to the end of 2010, land use or building consent has since been granted for development on 16 of the sites which were vacant in 2006.

of 163

Papakura‟s recent growth indicates that it is strengthening its position as a manufacturing centre within the wider Auckland region, with manufacturing, transport and storage dominating local employment and investment. Future growth pressure is likely be sustained on the north-south arterial, meaning that Papakura and its surrounding area is likely to be faced with increasing pressure on business land, as alternative sites close to the Auckland and Manukau centres (e.g. Penrose and East Tamaki) become substantially redeveloped or fully occupied

Proposed Papakura District Business Land:

Future business aspirations of PDC were outlined in the “Papakura Economic Development Strategy” adopted by the Council in July 2007. The Economic Development Strategy identifies a Heavy Construction Centre and a Technical Education Centre as a high priority, and a trades park as a medium priority. The District Plan identifies Takanini and Hingaia as possible future business areas and the timing for plan changes in these areas is set out in PC10. The Takanini Structure Plan shows Takanini Areas 6a and 6b (a total of 53ha) as being developed with at least 30ha of employment land by 2010. This area is currently beyond the MUL. Proposed Plan Change PC15 applies to this area. The Hingaia Structure Plan 2002 identifies approximately 50ha of possible future employment land in southern Hingaia (post 2020). This area is beyond the MUL and no plan changes have been notified for this area. Papakura District Council has undertaken some preliminary stormwater and transport investigations for this area. Partly in response to the identification of a Heavy Construction Centre as a high priority in the Economic Development Strategy, the Stevenson Group lodged a private plan change for some 350ha of Group 1 business land beyond the MUL in the Drury area with Auckland Council in May 2011. This is at a very early stage as set out above.

Employment Opportunities

Another strategy identified by the BLS is maximising local employment. Papakura District has one of the highest employment self-containment ratios in the Auckland region (comparison of number of people who live in Papakura with number of jobs located in Papakura). This rose from 75% in 2001 to 82% in 2006. One of the aims of PDC when it agreed to adopt PC15 was to maximise local employment. Most people who work in the Papakura Local Board area are employed in the manufacturing sector (20%), followed by the retail sector (14%), construction, and education and training (both at 11%). During the period from 2000 to 2009, employment in Papakura grew by 18%, adding 1,998 employees (compared to 20% growth across the region). The biggest growth in number of jobs was in the education and training sector, followed by construction jobs. There were small losses in manufacturing during that time but it still remains the area‟s largest employer (source: Papakura Local Board demographics, Social and Economic Research Team, Auckland Council December 2010). Not all the employment generated by land uses in PC15 will be in the industrial sector, but it is appropriate to provide opportunity for such jobs, particularly given the high proportion of Papakura residents who work in the industrial sector and the low proportion of residents with formal education. The proposed zoning does not preclude uses which can provide a diversity of skilled employment as sought by the submitters.

Overall Findings on the need for additional Business Land.

of 163

We are satisfied based on the expert evidence that the Papakura area has little remaining vacant business land – and that this plan change will help alleviate that situation taking a medium term view of the need for business land. PDC has advanced a number of recent or current plan changes which confirm its commitment to the Growth Strategy including the area of land which is the subject of PC15. Zoning Takanini Area 6 for business land is in accordance with strategic regional policy. Submitters‟ comments querying the necessity and demand for of greenfield business zoned land are not borne out by the expert evidence and the various regional and district strategies as set out above. We find that that the use of Area 6 for business land is in accordance with regional and district strategy and policy and that the proposed zoning, land uses and appropriate development controls required to protect amenity are discussed further in other sections of this report.


No amendments have been made due to these submissions

of 163

11.3 Submissions Relating to PC15 Zoning and Land Use


Zoning

Reserve Zoning12

Residential Zoning Rural, Rural/Residential, Lifestyle Block Zoning Industrial Zoning Retail

PDC Plan Change 12 (PC12)

Studio Warehousing

Childcare

Household unit definition

Mixed use / Zoning of “northern interface area” as Mixed Use Zone

Infringements Across Zone Boundaries

Amendments to Resource Management Act 1991

Decisions on Submissions Relating to Zoning and Land Use See Appendix 2 (2.3) for the summary of key submissions and a summary of the evidence heard.




Manukau City Council Accept in Part

FS02 Oppose Retail Holdings Ltd and Southgate Centre Ltd

FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust 2.2 Support (with

amendments) Manukau City Council Rejected


FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken

FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd

FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd

FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd


FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust

3.2d Support Cosgrave Residents and Landowners Association Inc

Accept in part






FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group)

12

The need for and zoning of a reserve area are further discussed in Section 11.4 (“Reserve Land and

Landscape”) of this decision. Amenity issues relating to a reserve area are discussed in Section 11.6 (“Amenity”) of this decision.

of 163

and D and K Mahay

4.2d Support Retail Holdings Ltd and Southgate Centre Ltd

Accept in Part







4.2e Support


Accept in Part







4.2f Support


Accept in Part





FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust 4.3 Support


Accept in Part

FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust 5.1 Oppose G & A Goldring Reject FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken






FS09 Support G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group) and D and K Mahay

5.2 Oppose G & A Goldring Reject FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken







6.1 Oppose L & F Morgan Reject

FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust 6.2 Oppose L & F Morgan Accept in Part FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken

of 163

FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust 6.7 Oppose L & F Morgan Reject FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust 6.8 Oppose L & F Morgan Reject FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust 10.4 Support (with

amendments) Auckland Regional Council Accept


and D and K Mahay




and D and K Mahay



FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose in part Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group)

and D and K Mahay



FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd

of 163

FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose in part Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group)

and D and K Mahay



Accept

FS01 Support Manukau City Council FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust 11.1 Support (with

amendments) Auckland Regional Transport Authority

Accept

FS01 Support Manukau City Council









Accept



Accept



Accept









Takanini Industrial Trust Reject


of 163

FS04 Support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd 17.4 Support (with


FS03 Support Nigel Hosken FS04 Support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd 17.9 Support (with

amendments Takanini Industrial Trust Reject








changes) D Newman Accept in Part


and D and K Mahay


multiple Accept in Part

FS01 Support in part Manukau City Council FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken

of 163

FS04 Oppose in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose in part Takanini Industrial Trust 20.8 to 98.8 Oppose (seeks


FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose in part Takanini Industrial Trust

Reasons

Submissions relating to Zoning and Land Uses are discussed by issue as follows: A number of submissions were received relating to the type of zoning and land uses that should be provided for in Takanini Area 6. Amenity protection measures which support the zoning as proposed are discussed in Sections 11.4 (Reserve Land and Landscape), 11.5 (Stormwater /Stream/ Infrastructure/ Geotechnical), 11.6 (Amenity), 11.7 (Subdivision), 11.8 (Generated Effects – General), 11.9 (Generated Effects – Noise and Industrial Vibration) and 11.10 (Traffic) of this report.

ZONING Surrounding Zoning Context

To the north of the Papakura Stream existing residential development in the former Manukau City is separated from the stream by a reserve area. Existing Residential 1 land to the west of Takanini School Road is opposite the southern part of the western boundary of Takanini Area 6 for a length of approx 240 metres. The southern half of the Takanini Area 6 frontage opposite this land is proposed Residential 8; the other half is proposed Industrial 1. North of the Residential 1 land on the western side of Takanini School Road is a Sikh Temple, which is in the Industrial 3 zone. To the north of the temple, more Industrial 3 land is used for industrial purposes. Opposite the temple and northern Industrial 3 land, Industrial 1, Industrial 3 and reserve land are proposed in Takanini Area 6. Land to the east of Porchester Road is currently zoned Takanini /Drury, with a proposed zoning under Papakura Plan Change 13 (Rural Plan Change) of Future Urban Zone. Reserve, Industrial 1 and Residential 8 zones are proposed opposite this land. Reserve Zoning – the need for and zoning of a reserve area are discussed in Section 11.4 (Reserve Land and Landscape) of this report.

Residential Zoning

Several submitters sought that all of Area 6 becomes residentially zoned rather than being industrially zoned. Given the demonstrated district and region wide business /industrial land shortage (as set out above), that the business land is supported by the

of 163

regional and district planning documents including the Takanini Structure Plan, and as residential development is also provided in these documents in a number of other areas; we have rejected those submissions seeking the entire area be rezoned for residential purposes only. Submission 5.2 (G and A Goldring) opposes the rezoning to Residential 8 „high density housing like the Addison Development‟. The proposed Residential 8 zoning in consistent with the adjacent and nearby residential areas, and this zoning in the Takanini Area 6 is in accordance with regional and district planning documents. It is also noted that The Draft Auckland Plan as notified states that evidence suggests a current shortfall of approximately 10,000 homes in Auckland (paragraph 563 Chapter 9 “Auckland‟s Housing”). To meet the projected demand for a population increase to between 2.2 and 2.5 million people over the next 30 years, between 330 000 and 400 000 additional dwellings will be required by 2040, which means that Auckland will need at least 11 000 additional houses each year to meet this demand (paragraph 564 Chapter 9 “Auckland‟s Housing”). The provision of residentially zoned land within Takanini Area 6, and in other areas will contribute to meeting the regional demand for housing, while the business zoned will contribute to meeting the need for business/industrial land.

Rural, Rural/Residential, Lifestyle Block Zoning

Several submitters sought that the land remain rurally zoned or be zoned for lifestyle blocks. PDC rezoned the land to Future Urban Zone under the Rural Plan Change. This issue has been addressed earlier in this report. The Future Urban Zone aligns with those greenfield areas signaled in the Southern Sector Agreement 2001 and the Growth Strategy and reinforced in Change 6 to the ARPS and PC10. The Future Urban Zone restricts development in those areas (including Takanini Area 6) until rezoning for urban development occurs. The rezoning of Area 6 for urban purposes under PC15 aligns with the rezoning of greenfield growth areas which has been signaled in regional and district policy documents. As such it is not appropriate to either retain a rural zoning for the Takanini Area 6 or rezone it for lifestyle blocks.

Industrial Zoning

The issue of the appropriateness of the Industrial zoning has been fully addressed earlier. However in summary there is an identified need for additional industrial/business/employment land in the region and in this location. The zoning proposed in PC15 is in accordance with regional and district planning documents. Also (as set out later in this report) appropriate controls have been placed on Industrial development (including the location and retention of the Open Space at the northern portion of the site and the nature of the air quality management areas imposed). These provisions and controls will ensure that the amenity of the surrounding, within an urban context, will be appropriate. It is also notes that a number of submitters, including the landowners, support the Industrial zonings.

Retail

To assist in the assessment of matters raised in submissions relating to retail issues, the Council commissioned a report, “The Former Papakura Council Area and Proposed Plan Change 15 (PC15) – Retail Considerations” by Speer and Speer Associates (dated 15 March 2011). The Council requested Speer and Speer

of 163

Associates to specifically review the retail component to PC15 and also review associated submissions on this topic. The report concluded that Area 6 is not a suitable location for large format retail and there is no need to provide for it in Area 6. The report did however suggest that small scale convenience retail could be appropriate in Area 6 and that a small scale retail centre of up to 2300m² could be provided. In their report, Speer and Speer Associates identify two key issues: (i) what is the nature of retail demand applicable to Area 6, and (ii) how does this “demand” relate to the proposed zone provisions within PC15

covering retail activities? They advised that (page 19),

―Area 6 has (or will have in the near future) relatively convenient access to a wide range of retail centres. While the findings from Part E+F show that the overall size of the residential base and the employment base in and around Area 6 is on the small side, and the general location of Area 6 is not high-profile in terms of directly fronting any major roadway that will generate significant levels of extra business from ―passing traffic‖. ―Therefore, while Area 6 has limited retailing directly in or nearby to the local area (only Manuroa Rd local shops), it certainly has a range of retail centres that are ―conveniently accessible‖ and provide a wide range in types of retail goods and services. Accordingly, it is not reasonable to assume that Area 6 is a ―retail void‖.

They further advised that ―the type of retailing needing to be provided for in Area 6 is a degree of very local convenience shopping expressed in the form of some food and beverage-type retail targeting the industrial areas and workforce, and possibly a small convenience centre/local shops that would target new residential development as well as provide some services to the nearby industrial workforce.‖ In conclusion, Speer and Speer Associates recommended (page 24) that regard be given to amending the retail provisions in PC 15 as follows:

(i) maintain provision for ancillary retail, subject to the prescribed limitations of a maximum size of 30% of site building area or 200m2gfa whichever is the lesser;

(ii) maintain provision for food and beverage outlets under 200m2GFA in the

industrial zones; (iii) add the provision for 1 x small retail centre up to 2300m2GFA, to be located

within the residential zone in Area 6, and with individual shop sizes no more than 200m2GFA;

(iv) delete the provision for retail shop space over 400m2GFA:

and that

―Therefore, it could be desirable for Council to amend PC15 so as to specifically target the new residential area around Takanini School Road as the desirable position for a small-scale retail centre with the size controls as noted above ―.

of 163

Since the preparation of Speer and Speer Associates‟ report, the final Environment Court decision relating to retail and mixed use development in Takanini Area 1A has been released, and a summary is set out in the next section of this report. Further expert input was requested from Speer and Speer Associates in relation to matters arising from the Submissions Hearing. This report concludes that there was agreement between:

the tabled submissions of Ms J Goodyer for Submitter 4 (Retail Holdings Ltd

and Southgate Centre Ltd),

the evidence of Mr B Waddell for Submitter 11 (ARTA (now Auckland

Transport)),

the evidence of Mr J Hook for Submitter 17 (Takanini Industrial Trust Ltd),

The planner‟s report “Hearing Of Submissions To Papakura Proposed Plan

Change Number 15”, and

Speer and Speer Associates‟ “The Former Papakura Council Area and

Proposed Plan Change 15 (PC15) – Retail Considerations” (dated 15 March

2011) regarding the aspects of:

―maintaining provisions for the status quo in the Industrial 1 Zone to

provide for ancillary retail up to 30% of the total building area or 200m² gfa

whichever is the smaller;

and maintaining in The industrial 3 Zone the provision for food and

beverage outlets up to 200m² gfa;

and that retail over 400m² gfa will not be permitted in any industrial zone in

Area 6

The sole issue of disagreement was on the retail provisions relating to the proposal for a small local convenience centre to be specifically sited at 55 Takanini School Road. The Takanini Industrial Trust and Auckland Transport and the Speer Report all agree on the suitability of this local centre. The Planner‟s Hearing report, and the Retail Holdings submission opposed this centre. Speer and Speer Associates‟ September 2011 report recommended the provision of a local convenience centre with a maximum size of 2300m² gfa as a Restricted Discretionary Activity in Industrial 1 at 55 Takanini School Road with a maximum shop size of 200m². They consider that the Industrial 1 section of Takanini Area 6 and in particular 55 Takanini School Road is the optimum location for a local retail convenience centre. We find that the key question is – what are the effects of making provision for a local retail centre as part of this plan change which rezones land to industrial and residential. To assist in the assessment of this matter further urban design evidence was sought from Beca Carter Hollings and Ferner, “Plan Change 15, Takanini Area 6 – Urban Design response to the request to further information from the Commissioners” (dated 26 September 2011). This report considered the provision of increased retail activity and concluded that it is appropriate to provide for some local convenience amenities such as may include a

of 163

small grocery store, bakery or similar, which may be used by local employees. The Beca‟s report recommends the provision of up to 2300m² GFA retail activities as per page 9 of the evidence of Mr J Hook (planner) for Submitter 17 (Takanini Industrial Trust Ltd) subject to the inclusion of assessment matters recommended within the same evidence and that individual retail premises/units be limited to 200m² (page 7). We note that PC15 as modified by the recommendations in the planner‟s report “Hearing of Submissions to Papakura Proposed Plan Change Number 15” permits:

ancillary retail activities provided they occupy no more than 30% gfa or 200m²

whichever is lesser as a controlled activity in both Industrial 1 and Industrial 3

within Takanini Area 6

retail activities in Industrial 3 within Takanini Area 6 with a gfa of less than

200m² and offering only food and beverages as a permitted activity.

We note from the Plan Change that the number of retail activities able to be established within Takanini Area 6 is not restricted. The Industrial 1 provisions as proposed in PC15 do not preclude more than one use per site and therefore do not preclude more than one ancillary retail activity per site. It is appropriate to limit each shop size to a maximum of 200m² (as provided for) to prevent large format retail from establishing in Takanini Area 6. The issue is whether it is appropriate to permit non ancillary retail in the Industrial 1 zone within Takanini Area 6. Having considered the Speer and Speer Associates‟ September 2011 report we find that „in principle‟ retail activities with a gfa less than 200m² and offering food and beverages could be provided for in Industrial 1 in Takanini Area 6 as a controlled activity. This would enable convenience food and beverage outlets to locate on 55 Takanini School Road if they met District Plan requirements. Site specific amendments would not be required to enable the development of convenience retail in Industrial 1 in Takanini Area 6, as this could be enabled by providing for ancillary retail and food and beverage retail with size limits. However we were informed by the reporting planner at the hearing that there is no scope within the submissions lodged for a modification to provide for retail activities with a gfa less than 200m² and offering food and beverages in Industrial 1. Furthermore we understand that a resource consent has been lodged for a retail development at 55 Takanini School Road. The hearing for this has commenced but has been adjourned (as we understand it) pending the outcome of this Plan Change process. Overall it is our view that while there is some evidential support for a retail centre on 55 Takanini School Road, we are not convinced that we had sufficient detailed evidence to provide for this specific „proposal‟ under the auspices of a Plan Change seeking to rezone land for Residential and Industrial activities (where some level of retailing is permitted). Accordingly we have rejected the submissions and consider it more appropriate that the proposal be determined on its merits as a resource consent, or as a variation to this plan change to be promoted specifically addressing this matter.

PDC Plan Change 12 (PC12)

The key relevance of PC12 to PC15 (notwithstanding the appeals to the High Court) is that there will be additional retail provision, including a mixed use zone, which will serve the wider surrounding catchment. It is also relevant with respect to the issue of Traffic Matters in Section 11.10.

of 163

(PC12) relates to Takanini Structure Plan Area 1A. The Environment Court issued its final decision on this plan change on 3 June 2011. Ray Wallace, the owner of the land affected by the mixed use provisions has appealed the Environment Court‟s decision to the High Court. Environment Court decisions ([2010] NZEnvC407 and [2011]NZEnvC146) confirmed a new mixed use zone to apply to the block of vacant land bounded by the North Island Main Trunk Railway to the west, Walters Road to the south, and the new “Addison” residential development to the north and east (the “Wallace land” as shown on the map below “Location of Parties‟ Land”). The new mixed use provisions allow for up to 12,500m2 GFA of retail (either large format or small) and 7,500m2 of residential. There are a number of controls on mixed use development to ensure that it integrates well with the surrounding residential and commercial sites and to minimise any adverse effects. The location and size of the “Addison Neighbourhood Centre” (ANC), being 4.5 ha at the location (“Addison Master Plan”) have also been confirmed. The provisions applying to the ANC limit the cumulative Gross Floor Area for all retail, commercial, service station and community activities to 10,000m²; including a supermarket with a maximum gross floor area of 3,500m², and retail units with a maximum GFA of 400m². A Comprehensive Development Plan is required to be approved by Council prior to any subdivision or development within the ANC. The Comprehensive Development Plan will require that the ANC shall not exceed 4.5ha in area (net, excluding roads and reserves). The High Court appeal does not relate to the matters set out above and relates to land holdings held by Ray Wallace Ltd.

Retail Conclusion

Given the objectives and policies for Area 6, the intent of which is primarily for industrial purposes, Speer and Speer Associates‟ recommendation that large format retail is not desirable in Takanini Area 6 is strongly endorsed. The recommendation to delete all retail activities having a gross floor greater than 400m² is also supported. While the wider Industrial 3 Zone provides for this use, we find that there is no demonstrated need for such an amount of retail use within Takanini Area 6. Similarly there is no demonstrated need for retail activity with a maximum gross floor area of 5000m² developed in conjunction with or as part of an overall development (involving industrial activity) on Industrial 1 zoned land at 55 Takanini School Road as sought by Submission 17.10 (Takanini Industrial Trust). Speer and Speer Associates‟ recommendation is that a local retail convenience centre would be appropriate. However given that the plan change is primarily for industrial purposes, that it does provide for some convenience retail, and that the Addison Neighbourhood Centre is within a kilometre of the closest part of Area 6, we find that identifying and making provision for a specific retail convenience centre within Takanini Area 6 is neither appropriate nor necessary at this stage.

Studio Warehousing

Submission 17.1 (Takanini Industrial Trust) sought specific changes to Section 3 Rule 6.15.2.3.6 relating to Industrial 1 studio warehousing assessment criteria. The submitter sought the modification of criteria 6.15.2.3.6 (a) to read, ―The area of the unit to be used for residential purposes should be proportionally less than or equal to the warehouse office component‖

of 163

The submitter also sought the modification of criteria 6.15.2.3.6 (b) to enable more residential storage space, to read,

“Residential storage space shall be provided in each studio warehousing of at least 6m² per unit should be provided”.

Changing the proportion of area able to be used for residential purposes from ―proportionally less than‖ to ―proportionally less than or equal to‖ the warehouse/office component is not considered necessary. The current wording adequately reflects the District Plan‟s intention, and gives certainty to designers. The submitter states that they wish to enable more residential storage space, but removing the minimum residential storage size as they request does not guarantee a minimum storage area. Accordingly we do not see any need or the desirability of changing the provision in this respect.

Childcare Facilities

Submissions 17.9 and 17.11 (Takanini Industrial Trust) sought provisions to enable the development of a childcare centre as part of an overall development on the submitters‟ landholdings. Neither the existing Industrial 1 zone nor the Industrial 1 Zone as modified by PC15 provide for childcare centres. The intention of the Industrial 1 zone is to be a light industrial zone which enables a limited range of ancillary activities. To assist in the assessment of where it was appropriate or not to provide for childcare centres, the Commissioners sought additional expert evidence from Beca Carter Hollings and Ferner, “Plan Change 15, Takanini Area 6 – Urban Design response (dated 26 September 2011). This information was presented at the reconvened hearing. The Beca‟s report considered the inclusion of childcare facilities in the Industrial 1 Zone in Takanini Area 6 in detail, including the consideration of national requirements and guidelines. It was their recommendation that childcare facilities remain a non complying activity. The report states that given the uses provided for in the Industrial 1 zone and the heavier industrial uses provided for in the Industrial 3 zone (which borders the Industrial 1 Zone in Takanini Area 6), it would be difficult to control what uses could establish next to a childcare facility. While effects generated by industrial uses such as noise can be mitigated inside a building used for childcare, such effects cannot be mitigated outside for example within required play areas. The report comments, ―While it may be argued that the provision of childcare facilities within an industrial area enables positive sustainable urban outcomes by reducing trip generation, this is at the detriment of child wellbeing and does not promote sustainability associated with social or community wellbeing.‖ (page 6). We find, based on the evidence, that: the Papakura District Plan makes sufficient provision for childcare centres in non industrial zones (for example as discretionary activities in Residential Zones, including the Residential 8 zone); and the effects both on the child care facilities with the industrial zones and from a reverse sensitivity perspective may be inappropriate. Accordingly we do not find it necessary or desirable to provide for childcare centres in a specific area of Industrial 1 land in Area

of 163

6. We also find that it is beyond the scope of the submission to consider the provision of childcare centres beyond the submitters‟ land.

Household unit definition

Submission 17.9 (Takanini Industrial Trust) seeks significant modification of the District Plan “Household Unit” definition. The changes sought are considered to be beyond the scope of the plan change as they relate to the Operative Plan as a whole not just to the area covered by PC15. Accordingly we have rejected this submission.

Mixed use / Zoning of “northern interface area” as Mixed Use Zone

Several submissions including submissions from Manukau City Council submission and Manukau residents sought some type of mixed use/ retail activities at the northern fringe to Area 6 which is the interface with the Papakura Stream and existing residential development across the stream in the Manukau City district plan area. Speer and Speer Associates comment that (page 27), ―(i) PC15 provides for a large reserve area to run directly along the Papakura Stream. (ii) Adjacent the reserve is Industrial 1 (light industry), followed by Industrial 3 (medium industry) in the middle of Area 6. (iii) In a retail context, the northern fringe would have to be considered the most ―remote‖ sector of Area 6. Any retail activity in this area would have ―half a catchment‖ at best (confined by the stream, with no overbridge routes locally), and this half-catchment would be based entirely on demand from an industrial workforce. There is no convenient access to any residential areas, and there would be no passing traffic value to take into consideration. (iv) In our opinion, even the odd food and beverage shop would not do well in this location because of the limited customer base. (v) For all the above reason, I do not believe any type of retail will be a viable activity in this interface zone, and therefore I would recommend that you decline that part of the submission from Manukau City Council, and also other submissions on this topic.‖ To assist in the assessment of matters raised in submissions relating to urban design and landscape, Council commissioned the following report, “Papakura District Council Proposed Plan Change 15 – Urban Design Review” by Beca Carter Hollings and Ferner Ltd (dated 29 September 2010) . In summary in terms of the appropriateness of mixed use the report comments that: - The proposed area is not appropriately located for mixed use activities that would be better located at the centre of a residential community (as opposed to within an industrial area). While the land to the north of the Structure Plan area is an established residential community (i.e. Porchester Park and Randwick Park), this community has little relationship with the Structure Plan area, having largely turned its back on the Papakura Stream and surrounding open space. - The housing form is typically single storey single dwellings, and the neighbourhood density is comparatively low to support any new mixed use node. The Papakura Stream and open space currently form a physical barrier between Manukau and Papakura, with no pedestrian or cycle links, and there is no potential for additional road links. - In addition to the above, mixed use at the northern part of the Structure Plan area would remain largely segregated from any other community in the wider area.

of 163

The comments relating to mixed use development made in the Speer and Speer Associates report and the Beca report are supported. We do not find, based on the evidence presented to us that the inclusion of mixed use within the Industrial 1 proposed zoning is appropriate or necessary. It is more appropriate to provide Industrial 1 zoning which encourages lighter industrial activities as a buffer between the heavier Industrial 3 Zone and surrounding development. However for amenity reasons, some modifications to zone provisions are proposed – and set out elsewhere in this report.

Infringements across Zone Boundaries

Mr Hook (planner) for Submitter 17 (Takanini Industrial Trust Ltd) in paragraph 37 of his evidence sought the inclusion of an additional criteria in Section 3 Part 6 15 General Requirements for Industrial Zones section 5 Bulk and Location Controls to allow discretionary activity consideration of infringements created by integrated development in Takanini Area 6 which extends across a zone boundary. While we are unable to find a request for this specific relief in the submitter‟s submission, the matter was considered in Beca‟s September 2011 comments (page 5). The report considers that while there is potential to maximise provision of industrial and commercial land use area there are potential costs in the form of reduction in desirable amenity outcomes appropriate to residential area/residential street and higher potential for reverse sensitivity and residential/industrial conflicts. Accordingly we do not support the inclusion of such a criterion.

Amendments to Resource Management Act 1991

Submission 17.4 (Takanini Industrial Trust) sought the modification of non notification provisions to make them consistent with the October 2009 amendments to the RMA Act 1991. Council‟s lawyers‟ advice relating to these amendments is discussed in the section of this report titled - Consistency/Policy Documents. The submitter sought one change in relation to restricted discretionary activity assessment criteria. Amendment is sought to Section 3 Part 9.8.4, the restricted discretionary activity criteria relating to General Requirements for subdivision in Industrial 1 in Takanini Area 6. Given the recommendations in this section of the report, this change is required.


The following are the amendments to PC 15.

That due to Submission 11.0 (Auckland Regional Transport Authority)

Amend Section 3 Part 6 Industrial 3 Rule 6.11.7.1. Activity Status Tables Table 2 by deleting the row containing the activity ”Retail activities having a gross floor area greater than 400 square metres other than those offering food, beverages or clothing” as a Discretionary Activity. That due to Submission 17.4 (Takanini Industrial Trust)

Amend Section 3 Part 6.15.2.1 (restricted discretionary activity criteria relating to restricted access to road network) in Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 as follows:

6.15.2.1 Restricted Discretionary Activity Assessment Criteria for Restricted Access to

Road Network (applies to Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 only)

of 163

5) … … Except as provided for by section 94C Section 95A(2)(b) and (4) of the Resource Management Act 1991 applications will be considered without notification or the need to obtain approval from affected persons.

of 163

11.4 Submissions Relating to Reserve Land and Landscape


Reserve Land

Need for reserve

Reserve zoning

Reserve location

Landscape and planting

DECISIONS ON SUBMISSIONS RELATING TO RESERVE LAND AND LANDSCAPE





Chan Li Chun Fa Reject






FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group) and D and K Mahay











FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents

Group) and D and K Mahay














of 163





















Chan Li Chun Fa Accept in part











amendments) Manukau City Council Accept in Part

FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose in part Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Support in part G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents






of 163




















FS08 Oppose in part Takanini Industrial Trust

FS09 Support in part G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group) and D and K Mahay













Manukau City Council Reject

of 163















FS09 Support in part G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group) and D and K Mahay

5.1 Oppose G & A Goldring Reject

FS03 Nigel Hosken Oppose

FS04 Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd

Oppose

FS05 Mellviews Ltd Oppose

FS06 Zabeel Investments Ltd Oppose

FS07 Village Farms Ltd Oppose

FS08 Takanini Industrial Trust

Oppose

FS09 G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group) and D and K Mahay

Support


FS03 Nigel Hosken Oppose


Oppose

FS05 Mellviews Ltd Oppose

FS06 Zabeel Investments Ltd Oppose

FS07 Village Farms Ltd Oppose


Oppose


Support

6.8 Oppose L & F Morgan Accept in part








Takanini Residents Action Group Accept

FS01 Support Manukau City Council FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd 7.2 Support (with

amendments) Takanini Residents Action Group Accept

FS01 Support in part Manukau City Council FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd

of 163

FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd 10.14 Support (with

amendments) Auckland Regional Council Accept in Part

FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents












Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd Reject









Mellviews Ltd Accept in Part








Mellviews Ltd Reject









FS03 Nigel Hosken Support


Support

FS05 Mellviews Ltd Support

FS07 Village Farms Ltd Support in part


Oppose in part


Oppose


Zabeel Investments Ltd Reject




of 163













Village Farms Ltd Reject

























FS03 Support Nigel Hosken FS04 Support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd 18.5 Oppose Alfriston Residents Group –

Lifestyle Blocks Accept in Part

FS01 Support in part Manukau City Council FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust 20.1 to 98.1 Oppose (seeks

changes) Multiple Accept in Part



FS03 Oppose in part Nigel Hosken

FS04 Oppose in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd

FS05 Oppose in part Mellviews Ltd

of 163

FS06 Oppose in part Zabeel Investments Ltd

FS07 Oppose in part Village Farms Ltd



Multiple Accept in Part















Reasons:

Submissions relating to Reserve Land and Landscape are discussed by issue as follows:

Reserve

To assist in the assessment and determination of matters raised in submissions relating to urban design and landscape, the Council commissioned the report, “Papakura District Council Proposed Plan Change 15 – Urban Design Review” by Beca Carter Hollings and Ferner Ltd (dated 29 September 2010). PDC asked Beca to assess proposed PC15 and the likely urban and landscape outcomes, and to recommend any amendments that may assist the Council in responding to matters raised through the Plan Change submission process. In particular, PDC asked Beca to recognise that the proposed plan change in land use is driven by a strategic regional demand for industrial land; and to consider the local context and issues raised in submissions, with particular attention to the northern interface area with Papakura Stream and Manukau City. The Beca report, all the other evidence presented to us at the hearing and the submissions have been considered in our decision making on these matters

Need For Reserve

Submission 13.3 (Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd) and Submission 14.3 (Mellviews Ltd) and Submission 15.3 (Zabeel Investments Ltd) and Submission 16.3 (Village Farms Ltd) relate to the Recreational Reserve adjacent to Papakura Stream between Takanini School Rd that the proposed stormwater pond. The submissions state that this Recreational Reserve is unjustified and unsustainable. They considered that the stormwater pond and adjoining esplanade reserve provides amenity to the proposed industrial land and residential land north of Papakura Stream and that that there is no need for an active recreational area within an industrial area. They consider that the land would be more efficiently used for industrial land, of which there is a regional shortage. The submitters state that if there is a need for recreational reserves that they are provided for in the Residential 8 zone.

Section Three Objective 8.6.12 of the Papakura District Plan (“Auckland Council District Plan: Papakura Section”) is “To provide sufficient land to meet the recreation

of 163

and community needs of the District.‖ Policy 8.6.1.1 states that “Reserve land will be provided at a rate not less than 4 hectares per 1000 population.” The Papakura Open Space Strategy (2003) shows a guideline of 0.5ha of reserve to be provided for in Area 6a and 0.6ha to be provided for in Area 6b. The assumed population in the Open Space Strategy was 820. The Takanini Structure Plan and Southern Sector Agreement assume a population of 620. The Residential 8 zone area actually proposed in the plan change would potentially yield a population of 225 people. Discussions with PDC‟s Community Services officers prior to lodgement of the plan change determined that given the primary industrial focus of the proposed rezoning a smaller reserve area would be required. The plan change as notified has approximately 4.7ha of proposed reserve zoning. Of this some 2.08ha is proposed to be designated (under NOR047), which leaves 2.62ha as undesignated “proposed reserve”.

The Section 32 report notified with PC15 states that “The identified growth area in Takanini encompasses approximately 110 hectares of land, and it is expected to accommodate an additional 20,000 people over the next 50 years. The Takanini Structure Plan ("TSP") suggests an open space network, combined with well designed flood management and water quality systems, as well as footpaths, cycleways and bridle paths. The TSP further suggests that the Papakura Stream be developed and re-vegetated as a major open space feature to include footpaths, cycle routes and bridle paths along the stream edges. “The required amount of local neighbourhood parks identified by the Papakura Open Space Strategy is a standard of 1.4 hectares per 1000 people for a 50 year timeframe.”

We understand that calculations of reserve ha per current Takanini Structure Plan Area population have not been undertaken. Approximately 3ha of neighbourhood reserve are shown in the following table, which provides current figures for vested reserves in the Takanini Structure Plan Area:

TAKANINI STRUCTURE PLAN VESTED RESERVES 2010

Reserve Classification Size(square metres) Number of reserves

Community Reserve 9016.71 3

Community Services 6585.00 2

Esplanade Reserve 45564.61 8

Local Purpose 3577.00 4

Miscellaneous Reserve 134511.05 6

Neighbourhood reserve 30060.72 18

Recreation Reserve 1767.00 1

Road Reserve - 2

Sports Park 845852.85 4

Code unallocated 2013.90 1

Building - 1

TOTAL 1078948.80 52

Manukau City Council (2.12) sought in addition to the cycleway a pedestrian bridge connection across Papakura Stream. The land to the north of the Papakura Stream includes approximately 1.3ha of public open space (over and above open space surrounding the Papakura Stream), and includes a playground. A bridge is not provided for as part of the plan change or in the Papakura Walking and Cycling Strategy. The Beca assessment considered that if open space is provided for in the plan change area, provision of a bridge connection, while still desirable, would be less

of 163

critical. Despite this we find that the provision of a pedestrian bridge is outside scope of the plan change. The Council could, at a later date, subject to any relevant planning controls seek in construct a bridge. Having heard all of the evidence we are not convinced that the area of the reserve (which includes the proposed stormwater pond) should be reduced in size (a recommendation is made in section 11.5 titled – Stormwater /Stream/ Infrastructure/ Geotechnical in this report regarding the Mellviews Ltd submission relating to the esplanade reserve which may add to the size of the reserve). Accordingly we do not accept those submissions seeking to reduce its size.

Reserve Location

Submissions from Chan Li Chun Fa (1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7 and 1.8), 13.3 (Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd) and Submission 14.3 (Mellviews Ltd) and Submission 15.3 (Zabeel Investments Ltd) and Submission 16.3 (Village Farms Ltd) all sought that the land identified on the structure plan as “Proposed Reserve” be rezoned to Industrial 1. The reasons stated were that stormwater green belt and esplanade reserve provide a sufficient buffer area between the industrial and residential area, there little necessity for a reserve in an industrial area, there is a shortage of Industrial 1 land, that the reserve would be better located within the residential area. Other submitters including D and K Mahay (Sheriff Place residential area) and the

Alfriston Residents Group did not want the reserve removed as they considered it was

part of the (important) amenity buffer between the proposed industrial activities and

the established residential activity.

The Beca report discusses the appropriateness of provision of open space (reserve) and landscaping within the northern area of the proposed Structure Plan. The report advises that consideration needs to be given to the type of open space necessary to provide for the social wellbeing of local employees and residents, visual mitigation and continuation of surrounding ecological corridors. The assessment concludes that open space provision should be at the north of Area 6, but the report suggests that a number of options exist in terms of the form and location of this open space. Furthermore the PDC‟s Open Space Strategy (2003) identifies the Papakura Stream in Area 6 as a green corridor. Green corridors are multipurpose corridors including walking, cycling and bridle trails. PDC‟s “Walking and Cycling 10 Year Implementation Plan” (2008) indicates that there will be a Papakura Stream off-road path which will be for shared use. The proposed path runs along the southern bank of the stream between Takanini School Road and Porchester Road. We find that that the location for a reserve to serve Takanini Area 6 is as shown on the structure plan is appropriate. This is because the position of a reserve to the north of the area will provide a buffer between industrial and residential land, will provide an area of open space available to those working within the area (provided good urban design principles are followed), will provide a visual and physical connection with the stormwater pond area and the Papakura Stream (again if designed appropriately the stormwater pond area could be a positive attribute to the open space) and complement Papakura District Council‟s Walking and Cycling Strategy and Open Space strategies. We have already found that there is need for a reserve of this size (see above).

Overall there was no compelling evidence that persuaded us to „rezone‟ the land from reserve to Industrial 1. Also there was no viable alternative location proposed and

of 163

even if there was it would have been questionable whether we had the jurisdiction to relocate the open space area within Area 6 A or B.

Reserve Zoning

Some submitters stated that labelling showing “Proposed Reserve” was ambiguous. Submitters also stated that the size and zoning of the reserve should be determined once the land is surveyed, as additional land may then be available for industrial zoning. The Operative District Plan only has one “Reserve” Zone”. Zoning the land labelled “Proposed Reserve” on the Takanini Structure Plan now as “Reserve Zone” will provide more certainty and clearly signal that the land is being zoned as reserve as well as being intended for reserve use. It is recognised that the final size of the reserve will be determined at the time of subdivision as the reserve land will have to be vested in Council. However we do not think this is a reason not to zone the land as reserve and show it as Reserve Zone on the planning maps. Zoning of all the Area 6 land for recreational purposes is suggested by some submitters. This is not the intention of the Papakura Open Space Strategy, RPS Change 6, or PDC Plan Change 10. The large Bruce Pulman Park recreation complex is also less than a km from the closest part of the proposed Residential 8 zone in Takanini Area 6. Overall we find that that zoning the land labelled “Proposed reserve” on the Takanini Area 6 Structure Plan as reserve zone will provide more certainty and clearly signal that the land is intended for reserve use. Landscape and Planting

Submitters raise points relating to continuity of landscaping with existing or proposed landscaping on adjacent sites, including reserves, planting size, location and species, and the achievement of buffering or screening. Several submitters sought amendment to the Landscape Concept Plan as notified in PC15, in particular relating to tree species, planting locations and shelterbelts. Rule 6.15 6. Landscaping and Visual Amenity Controls of PC15 as notified requires landscaping plans for new or altered buildings within the Industrial 1 and 3 zones within Takanini Area 6 to give effect to the Landscape Concept Plan in Appendix 16E. This is entitled, “Landscape Concept Overlay Existing Vegetation Plan”

The “Beca report” suggested a number of amendments to PC15, primarily relating to enhancing amenity and ecological values within Takanini Area 6. In this respect the visual continuity of reserve, stream, and stormwater pond areas is important. At page 25 it states:

―To assist in screening, use of amenity planting around the proposed stormwater basin is considered appropriate, such as is shown within the Landscape Concept for Plan Change 15. This may include appropriate riparian species (refer Indicative species for swale / overland flowpath planting for Takanini 6A & 6B table, within proposed Plan Change 15) at the northern edge of the basin, and use of native trees with a broad high canopy around the southern side of the basin, within the open space area. Such planting should not aim to create a ‗wall‘, but rather to ‗filter‘ the effects of development; in this the open space to the north and south of Papakura Stream

of 163

should appear as one cohesive element within the wider environment. This can be achieved through appropriate assessment criteria within the Papakura District Plan.‖ The Beca report also suggests at 8.4.7, ‖Wherever possible, a comprehensive approach to the retention and enhancement of ecological values on and around the Structure Plan area should be taken. In particular, planting in relation to visual mitigation also has the potential to build upon existing ecological corridors, such as shown on the Takanini Structure Plan (2000, Papakura District Council) and within the Papakura Walking and Cycling Network – 10 Year Implementation Plan (2008, Papakura District Council). Ideally, such corridors will also link with the proposed stormwater basin which, over time, has the potential to become an ecological habitat for wildlife. ―Within the Structure Plan area, consideration should be given to the requirement to provide for a comprehensive landscape concept plan at the time of subdivision, including all lands within the developers and/or subdivider‘s control, building upon any existing comprehensive landscape plans established by adjoining landowners, including Papakura District Council (e.g. such as may relate to the Papakura Stream corridor). The purpose of the landscape plan shall be to assist in establishing a comprehensive approach to maintain and enhance, as far as practical, ecological and amenity values on the site. Wherever appropriate, such a landscape plan should retain and enhance existing vegetation on site.‖ Having heard the evidence we find that Appendix 16E needs to be retained, with the addition of requirements for more prescriptive landscape concept plan criteria and assessment at the time of resource consent for subdivision or development within the Industrial 1 and 3 Zones. This will provide a mechanism for the specific landscaping details to be further refined. As a consequence of decisions set out in Section 11.10(Traffic) of this report, Appendix 16E “Landscape Concept Overlay Existing Vegetation Plan”will need to be

relabelled as Appendix 16D. We also find, as set out in the Officer report (as recommended in the Beca report) that restricted discretionary activity provisions for subdivision in Industrial 1 be amended to insert a requirement for a landscape plan prior to subdivision. This includes the implementation and ongoing maintenance requirements and also addresses landscape matters when subdivision establishes public realm (e.g. public roads, open spaces). This requires that amendments be made to the Industrial 1 Takanini Area 6 Restricted Discretionary Activity subdivision controls (Section 3 Part 6 Rules 6.9.8.7.3 (1)(g) and (2)(e)) and the General Industrial rules relating to Restricted Discretionary Activity Subdivision criteria (Section 3 Part 6 Rule 6.15.2.3(4)). In carrying the above requirement across to the Industrial 3 zone, similar amendments are required to the Industrial 3 Area 6 Restricted Discretionary Activity subdivision controls (Section 3 Part 6 Rules 6.11.7.6.3(1)(g) and (2)(e)) and the General Industrial rules relating to Discretionary Activity Subdivision criteria (Section 3 Part 6 Rule 6.15.3.1(j)(iii)). Given that development can occur in Takanini Area 6 prior to subdivision we find that it is important to include provisions which require the preparation of a landscape concept plan at the land use resource consent stage if subdivision of the land has not yet occurred. Accordingly it is determined that an amendment is made to Section 3 Part 6 Rule 6.15 6 Landscaping and Visual Amenity Controls to include a reference requiring land use resource consent applications for development within Takanini Area 6

of 163

industrial zones to also provide a landscape concept plan if a subdivision landscape concept plan has not been provided. Assessment criteria relating to screening and amenity with their addition to Section 3 Part 16 (General Requirements for Industrial Zones) Rule 6.15.1 Controlled Activity Assessment Criteria have also been in included. Given the above, the alternative landscape concept plans for industrially zoned sites exceeding 3000m² as sought by Submission 17.7 (Takanini Industrial Trust) are not considered necessary. Submission 2.7 (Manukau City Council) sought changes so that front yard landscaping is part of the public domain by requiring screen and security fencing to be behind landscape planting (to be maintained in perpetuity). Given that a comprehensive landscape plan is now required for development these matters can be addressed as part of the landscape plan assessment. With regard to shelter belts, the Beca report notes that attention has also been given to the Landscape Assessment for Plan Change 15 undertaken for Auckland Regional Council by Stephen Brown Environments Ltd (5 February 2010), and generally agrees with that report‟s comments relating to supporting support the retention of as much shelterbelt planting as possible to buffer / filter new development from external views. New shelterbelt provision can also be considered as a landscape concept plan matter at the time of subdivision or resource consent. The specific bulk and location controls are discussed in the Section 11.6 (Amenity) of this report.

Amendments to the Plan Changes in response to the decision on the

submissions.

The following are the amendments to PC 15. That due to Submission 2.5 (Manukau City Council) Amend Section 3 Part 6 Rule 6.15 6 Landscaping and Visual Amenity Controls as follows:

2. Landscaping and Visual Amenity Controls

Upon the construction of, or alteration, or addition to any building, the requirements of this rule shall be complied with. All landscaping required by this rule shall give effect to the provisions in Part 13 and within Takanini Structure Plan Area 6, all landscaping plans shall give effect to the landscape concept plan in Appendix 16E 16D. Within Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 land being subdivided requires the preparation and implementation of a comprehensive landscape concept plan. At the time of land use consent, land within Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 for which such a plan has not been prepared shall require the preparation of a comprehensive landscape concept plan. This plan shall have regard to the following:

As far as practical, demonstrate a comprehensive approach to those matters detailed in Section Three, Part 16, 6.15.6 as they relate to Landscaping and Visual Amenity Controls, including a schedule of preferred plant species proposed for

of 163

use within future landscaped areas (e.g. yards) throughout the development.

Where the interface is with the open space surrounding Papakura Stream, demonstrate a programme for establishment of native species forming a strong connection with the stormwater basin and aiding in visual mitigation of proposed built form.

Have regard to any landscape concept plans for adjoining land including Papakura District Council

The comprehensive landscape concept plan shall be prepared by a suitably qualified landscape architect and shall include a future maintenance plan.

Location of main pedestrian entries and openings within industrial buildings to be located so as to be clearly visible from public streets, particular where a finer grain residential character exists on the other road side.

That due to Submission 2.6 (Manukau City Council)

Amend Landscape Concept Plan for Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 (Appendix 16E 16D) as follows: Amend the two hedge notations in the key to read “hedge”

That due to Submission 2.7 (Manukau City Council)

Amend Section 3 Part 16 (General Requirements for Industrial Zones) Rule 6.15.1 Controlled Activity Assessment Criteria to add an additional criterion as follows:

6.15.1 Controlled Activity Assessment Criteria …

(j) Whether proposed screening (whether in the form of planting, fencing or otherwise) adds positively to the overall amenity of the area in which it is located and, in doing so achieves the following:

Does not detract from local safety by impeding views along public roads or walkways

Is able to be maintained such that the ongoing quality of the environment is retained

Where appropriate, adds value to local bio diversity

That due to Submission 2.8 (Manukau City Council) Amend Section 3 Objective 6.9.6.2 as follows:

Objective 6.9.6.2 To protect environmental quality and the amenities of sensitive, adjoining non-industrial areas.

Policies… 6.9.6.2.13 To require the retention of existing trees where possible

within Takanini Area 6 which contribute to the amenity of the site and surrounding areas, or to provide new planting to buffer/filter new development from external views.

Amend Section 3 Objective 6.11.6.1 as follows:

of 163

Objective 6.11.6.1 To protect environmental quality within industrial areas and the amenities of adjoining industrial and non-industrial from adverse effects.

Policies

6.11.6.1.10 To require the retention of existing trees where possible within Takanini Area 6 which contribute to the amenity of the site and surrounding areas, or to provide new planting to buffer/filter new development from external views.

Amend Section 3 Part 6 Rule 6.9.8.7.3 (1)(g) as follows:

6.9.8.7.3 Restricted Discretionary activities

1) Unless provided for as a Permitted or Controlled activity, any subdivision which complies with the subdivision standards in Part 6.9.9.

Council has restricted the exercise of its discretion to the following matters, and may impose conditions of consent in relation to these:

… (g) Preparation and implementation of a comprehensive landscape

concept plan for land subject to subdivision

Amend Section 3 Part 6 Rule 6.9.8.7.3 (2)(e) as follows: 6.9.8.7.3 Restricted Discretionary activities 2) Any subdivision where any part of a proposed lot (other than a lot created for

a road, service lane, or reserve) which does not form part of the Network Utility to which the Mahia Branch Trunk Wastewater Line Network Utility Yard relates, and lies partly or wholly within that Network Utility Yard.


… (e) Preparation and implementation of a comprehensive landscape


Amend Section 3 Part 6 Rule 6.11.7.6.3(1)(g) as follows: 6.11.7.6.3 Restricted Discretionary activities

1) Unless provided for as a Permitted or Controlled activity, any subdivision

which complies with the subdivision standards in Part 6.11.7.8.


… (g) Preparation and implementation of a comprehensive landscape


Amend Section 3 Part 6 Rule 6.11.7.6.3(2)(e) as follows: 6.11.7.6.3 Restricted Discretionary activities

2) Any subdivision where any part of a proposed lot (other than a lot created for

a road, service lane, or reserve) which does not form part of the Network Utility to which the Mahia Branch Trunk Wastewater Line Network Utility Yard relates, and lies partly or wholly within that Network Utility Yard.


of 163

… (e) Preparation and implementation of a comprehensive landscape


Amend Section 3 Part 6, Rule 6.15.3.1(h) as follows:

(h) Building Design and Configuration

(iv) Whether the proposal gives effect to the landscape concept plan in Appendix 16E 16D or to an approved landscape concept plan for subdivision.

Amend Section 3 Part 6 Rule 6.15 2.3(4) as follows:

6.15.2.3 Restricted Discretionary Activity Assessment Criteria for Subdivision (Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 only) …

4. Design and Layout … In addition, the comprehensive landscape concept plan shall have regard to the following:

As far as practical, demonstrate a comprehensive approach to those matters detailed in Section Three, Part 16, 6.15.6 as they relate to Landscaping and Visual Amenity Controls, including a schedule of preferred plant species proposed for use within future landscaped areas (e.g. yards) throughout the subdivision.

The extent to which existing trees are incorporated into any proposed development or subdivision to either enhance the amenity of the site and/or not compromise the amenity of the surrounding area.



The comprehensive landscape concept plan shall be prepared by a suitably qualified landscape architect and shall include a future maintenance plan. Where subdivision includes establishment of public realm (e.g. public roads, open spaces) the comprehensive landscape concept plan shall address the following matters:

Provision of footpaths on each side of any proposed street, connecting with

wider walking and cycling networks;

Provision of cycle lanes where provided for as part of the Papakura Walking

and Cycle Network;

Provision of street lighting;

Provision of trees and other vegetation within the public realm, which assist to add definition and amenity value to the area;

Location of main pedestrian entries and openings within industrial buildings to be located so as to be clearly visible from public streets,

of 163

particular where a finer grain residential character exists on the other road side.

Amend Section 3 Part 6 Rule 6.15.3.1(j)(iii) as follows:

6.15.2 3.1 General Criteria …Within Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 only … (j) Landscaping …

(iii) In addition, a comprehensive landscape concept plan shall be required

which has regard to the following:

As far as practical, demonstrate a comprehensive approach to those matters detailed in Section Three, Part 16, 6.15.6 as they relate to Landscaping and Visual Amenity Controls, including a schedule of preferred plant species proposed for use within future landscaped areas (e.g. yards) throughout the development or subdivision.



The comprehensive landscape concept plan shall be prepared by a suitably qualified landscape architect and shall include a future maintenance plan. Where a subdivision includes establishment of public realm (e.g. public roads, open spaces) the comprehensive landscape concept plan shall address the following matters:

Provision of footpaths on each side of any proposed street, connecting with wider walking and cycling networks;

Provision of cycle lanes where provided for as part of the Papakura Walking and Cycle Network;

Provision of street lighting;

Provision of trees and other vegetation within the public realm, which assist to add definition and amenity value to the area;

Location of main pedestrian entries and openings within industrial buildings to be located so as to be clearly visible from public streets, particular where a finer grain residential character exists on the other road side.

That due to Submission 13.2 (Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd) and Submission 14.2 (Mellviews Ltd) and Submission 15.2 (Zabeel Investments Ltd) and Submission 16.2 (Village Farms Ltd)

Amend Attachment 1 to PC15 “Proposed Aggregation of Amended Zoning Maps” (C2, C3, D2 and D3) as follows:

Amend the key to remove references to “proposed” and re-label where required as “Industrial 1”, “Industrial 3”, “Residential 8”, “Urban Residential 1” and “Reserve Zone”

of 163

11.5 Submissions Relating to PC15: Stormwater / Stream / Infrastructure / Geotechnical


Stream and stormwater infrastructure

Stormwater pond

Stormwater pond location and esplanade reserve

Stormwater pond and network capacity / environmental degradation/stormwater quality / monitoring

Flooding/overland flowpath

Flood maps

Development in advance of stormwater servicing

Overland flowpath modification

Soakage pits

Water supply

Sewer

Geotechnical

Decisions on Submissions Relating to Stormwater / Stream / Infrastructure / Geotechnical See Appendix 2 (2.5) for the summary of key submissions and a summary of the evidence heard.


Support/Oppose Submitter Name Recommendation

6.8 Oppose L & F Morgan Reject








Takanini Residents Action Group Accept






9.1 Oppose Watercare Services Ltd Accept in Part






FS08 Support Takanini Industrial Trust

9.2 Oppose Watercare Services Ltd Accept in Part












of 163





Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd

Reject

FS01 Oppose Manukau City Council FS03 Support Nigel Hosken FS05 Support Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group) and

D and K Mahay


Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd

Reject

FS03 Support Nigel Hosken FS05 Support Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group) and

D and K Mahay


















FS03 Support Nigel Hosken FS04 Support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS06 Support Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose in part Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group) and

D and K Mahay



FS03 Support Nigel Hosken FS04 Support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS06 Support Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group) and

D and K Mahay






of 163













FS03 Nigel Hosken Support FS04 Takanini

Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd

Support

FS05 Mellviews Ltd Support FS07 Village Farms

Ltd Support in part


Oppose in part


Oppose



FS03 Support Nigel Hosken FS04 Support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support Mellviews Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group) and

D and K Mahay






FS07 Support Village Farms Ltd








FS07 Support Village Farms Ltd













of 163

FS04 Support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support Zabeel Investments Ltd FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group) and

D and K Mahay

















Takanini Industrial Trust Accept
















Takanini Industrial Trust Reject in Part







Reject









multiple Reject









of 163


multiple Reject

FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust 20.5 to 98.5 Oppose (seeks

















multiple Reject







Reasons:

Submissions relating to Stormwater / Stream / Infrastructure / Geotechnical: are discussed by issue as follows:

Stream and Stormwater Infrastructure

Specialist input into the stormwater matters in this part of the Hearings report was provided in a memo: “Papakura District Plan PC15 Stormwater Related Issues Raised in Submissions” 30 June 2011 from Auckland Council. The recommendations made in Council‟s Catchment Planning South Stormwater division‟s memo are supported.

Stormwater Pond

PDC has made an application to designate the area required for the stormwater pond, as the pond is required to service Area 6. NOR 047 was heard concurrently with PC15. It should be noted that as part of the NOR047 assessment an independent stormwater review peer review has occurred because Council is both the requiring authority and the decision maker. The full recommendation on the NOR is set out later in this report (Section 16), where it recommended that the Auckland Council, as the designating authority, confirm the designation subject to conditions. Council‟s Catchment Planning South Stormwater division‟s memo advises (on page 1) that since the notification of PC15, further stormwater infrastructure design in relation to the stormwater quality pond and the trunk conveyance system including the overland flow path along Takanini School Road and the proposed new road has occurred,

of 163

―The investigation and design works completed so far further confirm the engineering viability of these key infrastructure items serving the PC15 area. There has been generally no deviation from the engineering conceptual designs supporting the PC15 documentation except for a minor change of alignment to the proposed overland flow path to the west of the proposed pond…‖

This relocation of the overland flow path means that its position on the structure plan will require amendment. The memo also advises that the Papakura Stream Flood Hazard Mapping & Options Assessment report prepared by Opus/DHI has now been finalised with no change in the final report which affects PC15. Submissions have been separated into groups and comments on the matters raised. Supporting Submissions A number of submitters indicated support for the proposed stormwater pond and stated that the proposed approach to stormwater control achieves a balance that recognises historic stormwater challenges such flooding and maintenance of peat soil groundwater. These are acknowledged.

Stormwater Pond Location and Esplanade Reserve

Submissions were received from Mellviews Ltd (Submitter 14) concerned about the location of the stormwater pond and esplanade reserve. Mellviews Ltd is the owner of land which immediately abuts the banks of the incised channel which contains the Papakura Stream. The reason the submitter has lodged the submission is because in its view more of its land is being taken for esplanade reserve than is allowed under the Act. Mellviews Ltd sought that the esplanade reserve and stormwater pond should be defined based on the existing title boundaries adjoining the Papakura Stream (i.e. the location of the banks of the incised channel), and that the NOR plans should be amended accordingly. It was Ms Kirman‟s13 submission that:

The bed of the Papakura Stream is well defined due to the fact that it is comprised of a man-made channel, and extends only to the clearly defined banks of the incised channel;

The boundaries of the existing esplanade reserves on the southern side of Papakura Stream and on the northern side of the Papakura Stream (i.e. the former Manukau City Council side) have all previously (and correctly in her submission) been identified as being at the banks of the incised channel.

Council‟s Catchment Planning South Stormwater division has stated that:

―The extent of the esplanade reserve between the proposed stormwater pond and the Papakura Stream has been determined in PC15 based on the current stream topography and following the definition in the RMA Section 2: ―Bed means (a) in relation to any river-

13

Mellviews Ltd‟s legal counsel.

of 163

(i) For the purpose of esplanade reserves, esplanade strips, and subdivision, the space of land which waters of the river cover at its annual fullest flow without overtopping its banks:

(ii) In all other cases, the space of land which the waters of the river cover at its fullest flow without overtopping its bank;‖

The mean annual fullest flow was obtained from the former ARC and the width of this flow was calculated by Fraser Thomas Ltd as a part of the concept design for the proposed pond. It is considered the top of the ancient stream bank (prior to changes to the stream channel) or lot boundaries used in the previous subdivision is irrelevant to PC15. We were advised that the location of the stormwater pond was also determined with considerations given to maintaining the integrity of the existing channel geometry at the Papakura Stream as well as engineering requirements on the safe batter slopes for the embankments forming the pond. The recent progress of engineering design of the pond has confirmed the space designated is just adequate to accommodate the proposed pond with little spare area. Council stormwater engineers and planners consider that the stream “bed” has been correctly shown and that the pond is in the correct location in relation to it.

Having heard Mellviews Ltd‟s legal submissions and expert evidence of the surveyor (Mr Blyde), the Council officer responded that the Council had relied on the “Mean Annual Maximum WSL” as correlating to the “Annual Fullest Flow” as per the RMA definition of “bed” of a river. The Mean Annual Maximum WSL is shown on Fraser Thomas drawing 22482/11E “Pond Shape and Cross Section Location Plan” March 2009 as the boundary to measure the proposed esplanade reserve from.

In terms of the “banks” of Papakura Stream”, the design parameters for Papakura Stream realignment works in the 1970s were determined by the then Manukau City Council so as to have a low-flow channel and a broad vee cross-section of sufficient capacity to provide for 1%AEP flood flow plus 1m freeboard to be contained without flooding of adjacent properties. (This was the basis adopted by MCC Land Development Engineers at the time and continued to be the basis until amalgamation in 2010.) Therefore the reserve boundaries were placed 20 metres from edges of the low-flow channel. The only area of contention is therefore whether the Council has correctly interpreted and applied the definition of “bed” in Section 2 RMA. The definition of “bed” is a factual assessment based on where it is determined the banks are, taking into account the annual fullest flow of the river. The Council consider that the banks are not the edge of the low flow channel but sit back from the channel as shown in the Fraser Thomas drawing for the following reasons:.

Bank “overtopping”

The stream banks mentioned in Mr T Blyde‟s evidence refer to the low flow channel. The low flow channel has been designed to accommodate the baseflow. This has a seasonal variation – high in winter and low in dry summer months. In winter when the baseflow is high, even a minor rainfall event can have flows overtopping the low flow channel banks. The stream banks shown on Fraser Thomas drawing 22482/11E “Pond Shape and Cross Section Location Plan March 2009” do overtop on average

of 163

every 2.33 years during the Mean Annual Maximum WSL (i.e. the Annual Fullest Flow as per RMA definition).

These accommodate the Mean Annual Maximum WSL whereas the banks noted by Mr Blyde (the low flow channel banks only) would not. Having considered the evidence we prefer the Council‟s view. However we note that the vesting the stormwater pond in the Council will require a subdivision. At that time the exact location of the esplanade reserve, and how it is to be calculated will be determined at the time subdivision occurs. Implications of Altered Esplanade Reserve Boundary

Any change to the location of the esplanade reserve as notified in the plan change and NOR would have implications for stormwater pond location, walking and cycling access, planting, maintenance and water main location. It would also have implications in terms of the proposed designation. The supplementary comments “Plan Change 15, Takanini Area 6 – Urban Design from Beca‟s in response to the request to further information from the Commissioners” (dated 26 September 2011) comments that the stormwater pond should be retained in the existing position to maximise potential for walking, cycling, screening, amenity and ecological benefits. The report includes some notional cross sections comparing the area between the stream and the pond with the stormwater pond remaining in the position as notified, and the stormwater pond relocated some 10 metres closer to the stream as sought by Mellviews Ltd. Papakura District Council‟s “Walking and Cycling 10 Year Implementation Plan” (2008) indicates that there will be a Papakura Stream off-road path which will be for shared use. The proposed path runs along the southern bank of the stream between Takanini School Road and Porchester Road. The “Walking and Cycling 10 Year Implementation Plan” specifies a minimum 3 metre width for shared use paths for commuting and recreation. Other reasons for our findings in terms of the location of the stormwater ponds are set out in our decision on the NOR – set out later in this report. Questions were raised whether we had the legal ability to move the stormwater pond in terms of what was publicly notified. Ms Kirman submitted that we did, and set out her legal position in her submissions. We have not needed to make any finding in this regard, as irrespective of the legal position; we do not consider it appropriate to move the pond, for the other reasons already set out. However we do accept that the situation with respect to the Mellviews Ltd‟s land and the esplanade reserve is unusual. Notwithstanding the correct method of calculating the width of the esplanade reserve, it is possible the Mellviews Ltd‟s land will have a narrow strip of land between the stormwater pond and the esplanade reserve. Should this arise it would be our recommendation to the Council that it purchase that narrow strip to incorporate into the reserve

Stormwater Pond and Network Capacity / Environmental Degradation/ Stormwater Quality / Monitoring A number of submissions were received concerning water quality treatment for contaminated stormwater runoff from the proposed industrial development and the

of 163

ecological impact on the receiving Papakura Stream / Pahurehure Inlet and potential degradation of Papakura Stream. Council‟s Catchment Planning South Stormwater division advised that:

―A suite of stormwater quality management measures including the proposed stormwater quality pond in PC15 has been proposed in the Takanini North Catchment Management Plan (TNCMP) to mitigate the adverse effects from future industrial development in this catchment. A Discharge Consent (Permit No. 24814) was issued for the Takanini North Catchment in Feb 2003, following the completion of the TNCMP‖.

We accept that stormwater quality management objectives, principles and measures promoted in the TNCMP, have been followed in the preparation of PC15. The proposed stormwater quality management system in the future PC15 area will comprise at-source management at all high risk industries, recharge of 15mm runoff from all roof areas and roads, selection of roof materials with low zinc emission and installation of a stormwater treatment pond with forebays adjacent to Papakura Stream designed to fully comply with requirements in TP10 (which sets the technical standards required for stormwater treatment devices in the Auckland region). The proposed stormwater quality management system will be capable of detaining a range of other contaminants including potential spillages from industrial operations, should these pass through the on-site management devices. The recent progress of in-depth engineering design on the stormwater quality pond further confirmed its viability and performance. An operation and maintenance plan is being prepared to specify requirements on monitoring and maintenance including frequencies of inspection, debris/sediments removal and weeds removal, etc. Insect infestations (mosquito and fly) associated with stormwater pond can be avoided by proper engineering design and landscape of the pond to avoid shallow stagnant water and to have a large varieties of riparian plantings. Good maintenance practice by removing floating debris from the pond water surface will reduce habitat for insects. Also the capacity of the proposed stormwater quality pond and monitoring and maintenance to manage „public health issues‟ such as insect infestations (mosquito, fly) and ongoing industrial contamination, can be carried out in the future. The potential temporary environmental effect due to earthworks and construction activity in the area will be managed by provisions in the Auckland Regional Plan: Sediment Control and the Operative Papakura District Plan. Flooding / Overland Flowpath Concerns were raised by submitters on flood risk management at the PC15 area and impact on flood hazards at Papakura Stream. The Council‟s Catchment Planning South Stormwater division stated:

―The proposed drainage system coupled with the future grading of the site during development will mitigate the effects of localised flooding of the area.

The impact of future development in PC15 on the flood risk at the Papakura Stream and downstream properties has been assessed in the TNCMP (set out above) and the more recent Papakura Flood Hazard Mapping & Options Assessment report. These studies have shown that the proposed development in PC15 will not have noticeable effects on flood levels at the Papakura Stream downstream from the development, primarily due to the location of the development being in the lower part of the

of 163

Papakura Stream catchment and its close proximity to the stream outfall at Pahurehure Inlet. Flood Maps Concerns on the flood hazards overlay on District Plan Maps for PC 15 were raised that the retention of the flood hazards overlay in PC15 is superfluous, onerous and imposed an unnecessary transaction cost. The Council‟s Catchment Planning South Stormwater division comments on this were:,

―The flood hazard area and possible flood hazard area concerning PC15 are shown on Drawing No. 3114215 in the TNCMP. Council has an obligation to maintain the flood hazards maps to warn the general public and potential buyers the potential hazards associated with the lands before the hazards have been fully mitigated or removed by works. Therefore, until the topography of the land has been modified and the proposed drainage system including overland flow paths have been installed and become fully operational, the flood hazards warning should be retained to ensure the development of the sites will be carried out will full considerations given to the possible flood hazards, by the owners and their agents.‖

We agree with the Council officers in this respect. Development in advance of stormwater servicing Some submitters sought changes to the provisions to allow development in advance of the installation and operation of a public stormwater drainage and treatment systems by providing interim on-site management measures. The Council‟s position was14:

―It is the intention of the PC15 and TNCMP to require development to progress only after the installation and operation of the proposed stormwater drainage conveyance system including overland flow paths and the stormwater treatment pond, to manage the potential effects of the development on the receiving environments and other properties, in terms of impact of possible contaminated runoff and flood risks. These works are critical parts of the proposed development to ensure the desired environmental outcomes. Therefore, we recommend no amendment to this provision in PC15.”

We were advised by Council officers that interim stormwater management measures are discouraged due to potential risks associated with maintenance and operation responsibilities and potential wastage of resources. Also as there is no provision in the existing Discharge Consent for accepting interim stormwater management measures, either a variation or Manager‟s Approval would need to be sought from the Authority regulating the Discharge Consent in terms of the Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water. Approval or refusal of any interim stormwater management measures will be determined through resource consent processes. While we can understand the Council‟s concern, we also heard from submitters (in particular those with landholding interests) who considered it appropriate to enable development in advance of the installation and operation of a public stormwater drainage and treatment systems. The concern was that it may take sometime before

14

The Council‟s Catchment Planning South Stormwater division‟s memo

of 163

the installation and operation of a public stormwater drainage and treatment systems is achieved – and some developments could be appropriate ahead of this. We find that interim measures should not be encouraged due to the reasons set out by the officer, but more by the fact that the purpose of PC 15 is to provide for and encourage high quality development with good urban design. This means development should as far as possible be integrated and comprehensive. Accordingly any interim stormwater management measures should be non-complying with any proposal needing to demonstrate that the adverse effects on the environment are no more than minor or that relevant objectives and policies are not „compromised‟. In terms of objectives and policies a proposal would need to demonstrate how the temporary water detention devices do not compromise achieving an efficient and effective stormwater management response for the entire structure plan area.

Overland Flowpath Modification

A submitter sought amendments to Rule 6.11.7.2 Industrial 3 Activity Table 2 to provide for modification of indicative overland flowpaths depicted on the Takanini Structure Plan Area 6A/6B at Appendix 16A as a Restricted Discretionary Activity. The submitter also sought a consequential new clause 6.15.2.6 to provide assessment criteria for the modification of the indicative overland flowpaths, with the heading “Restricted Activity Assessment Criteria for modification of Overland Flowpaths within the Takanini Structure Plan Area 6a/6B as part of a comprehensive development proposal involving site specific stormwater design”, and specific wording. The Council‟s Catchment Planning South Stormwater division advised:

“We agree that overland flowpaths depicted on the Takanini Structure Plan Area 6A/6B at Appendix 16A are indicative. The proposed provision for modification of the overland flow paths by amendments to Rule 6.11.7.2 is generally acceptable; however the proposed assessment criteria should be modified as below”

The following are the recommended changes which we accept from Submission 17.6; and as recommended in Council‟s Catchment Planning South Stormwater division‟s memo:

Insert new assessment criteria for in 6.15.2.4 to provide for the modification of the indicative overland flowpaths in the Structure Plan for Area 6 as follows:

6.15.2.4 Restricted Discretionary Activity Assessment Criteria for modification of Overland Flowpaths within the Takanini Structure Plan Area 6A/6B as part of a comprehensive development proposal involving site specific stormwater design.

Council has restricted the exercise of its discretion to the following matters, and may impose any conditions of consent in relation to these:

(a) The capability of the proposed overland flowpaths to adequately accommodate the 1% AEP peak flows in accordance with the general intent of the Structure Plan and/or Catchment Management Plan and if the general alignments and gradients of the overland flow paths have been followed;

(b) If the proposed overland flowpaths are the best practicable option;

of 163

(b) If the proposed modification(s) to the indicative overland flow paths will have less than minor impact on the downstream and upstream properties in terms of increased flood hazards and erosion potential;

(c) The ability of sites in the upstream and downstream catchment to continue to provide for the overland flow paths in terms of reasonable engineering efforts, constructability and ease of maintenance and operation of the overland flow paths;

(d) The potential for blockage and encroachment into the overland flow paths by other permitted land use activities at the properties; and

(e) If the proposed modifications to the general alignment of the overland flow paths will be limited within the boundaries of properties included in a specific resource consent application.

All aspects of proposed overland flowpath modification shall be assessed in terms of the following criteria:

(i) The extent to which the establishment and operation of the proposed overland flowpaths will prevent the operation of existing (and future) flowpaths within the catchment; and

(ii) The extent to which the modified overland flowpath(s) result in reduction in actual or potential offsite flooding/hazard effects, improved maintenance access and safety outcomes.

Similar amendments are required to Residential 8 zone provisions as they apply to Takanini Area 6, specifically Section 3 Part 16.1.4.2 Restricted Discretionary Activities and Section 3 Part 16.1.5.1 Restricted Discretionary Activity Criteria. The planner‟s report recommended that the text references and notation on the Proposed Structure Plan should continue to refer to “Overland Flowpath” rather than being changed to “ „Indicative‟ ” Overland Flowpath” to provide certainty about the overall flowpath alignment. Again we accept this.

Soakage Pits

A submitter sought changes to Section 3 Part 6.15(11) Stormwater (b) relating to temporary soakage pit requirements,“...The design soakage pit requirements are based on a design storm of 15mm rainfall over a 1 hour period the first 155mm of any rainfall event.” The Council‟s Catchment Planning South Stormwater division advised,

―We generally agree that the wording for rule 6.5(11)(b) should be amended. The proposed changes to the wording are as below‖.

6.15(11)(b): A groundwater recharge pit providing temporary storage for stormwater runoff is required for all development sites underlain by the peat soil aquifer. Groundwater recharge pits are to be designed in accordance with the Code of Urban Subdivision and storage volume is to be provided between 1.5m below ground level and 0.5m below ground level. The groundwater recharge pits shall be designed to be capable of holding the first 15mm of stormwater runoff from the impervious surface areas of any proposed development. The contributing catchment for each individual recharge pit shall be limited to a maximum of 500 m2 to encourage an even spatial distribution of groundwater recharge across the site. The recharge pits shall be kept at least 3 metres away

of 163

from the edge of any building foundations and at least 2 metres away from the site boundaries, unless a specific geotechnical investigation has indicated that the long term effects on the building foundations in close proximity are less than minor.

Water Supply Prior to notification United Water confirmed to Papakura District Council that there is sufficient water supply for the proposed plan change.

Sewer Pipes and The Utility Yard

The Mahia Branch sewer is intended to pass through the area parallel to the Papakura Stream. The construction of the Mahia sewer is essential to enabling development in the Takanini Structure Plan area as proposed by Proposed PC 15. However it has not yet subject to detailed design, but its indicative location has been reflected in the plan change requiring the provision of a 10 metre utility yard for this Trunk Sewer Line. Mr Gowans (a Senior Engineer at Watercare) stated that:

The Mahia Branch Trunk Wastewater Line (Network Utility Yard) shown on the Takanini Structure Plan Map Area 6, is located where Watercare intends to lay the pipe, and

There will be no clash between the proposed stormwater drainage pipes and structures and the proposed Mahia branch sewer extension.

In evidence Ms Urquhart for Watercare stated that Watercare was generally supportive of the notified version of the Plan Change, and in particular the Proposed Mahia Branch Utility Yard which would require all buildings/structures to be erected at least 10 metres from the branch sewer line, unless a resource consent is obtained to be closer than this. Watercare stated that this was necessary to ensure it had access to its wastewater network so as to be able to undertake planned and reactive maintenance works, as well as responding to emergencies. In terms of the Mahia Branch Utility Yard, it is defined as a 10 metre yard measured from both sides of the centre line of an existing or proposed network utility, the location which is shown on a Structure Plan Map or District Plan map. The rule as written only applies to the construction phase of the pipeline – and not its ongoing use and maintenance. Watercare advised that its wastewater assets were formerly statutorily protected by the Auckland Metropolitan Drainage Act 1952 ("AMDA"); however, the Auckland local governance reform has resulted in the repeal of most of the ADMA and the protections it formerly provided. The notified version of the Takanini Structure Plan contains rules providing for a “Network Utility Yard” that provides protection for the indicative alignment of the Mahia sewer. Watercare supports these rules, but, due in part to the repeal of the AMDA, has sought amendments to the rules to ensure that they will continue to provide protection for the sewer even after the sewer has been constructed – i.e. that it applies pre and post construction. Submission 13.6 (Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd) and Submission 14.6 (Mellviews Ltd) and Submission 15.6 (Zabeel Investments Ltd) and Submission 16.6 (Village Farms Ltd) opposed the Utility Yard for the Mahia Trunk Sewer Line. The submitters consider that the installation of the sewer will need to precede development; however they believe on the other hand that the location of the sewer does not need to be taken into account in any land use or subdivision consent applications. These submitters sought the deletion of the rules on the basis that they are unnecessary (i.e.

of 163

construction of the Mahia sewer will precede subdivision and/or development) and are an inefficient use of land (i.e. property values will be affected if the rules are confirmed.

The Officer's report recommends that the Committee reject the submissions to delete the Network Utility Yard rules. However Ms LaNauze stated in her report that the Section 32 report states that Watercare Services Ltd had informed Papakura District Council that it would not be designating the sewer route, and that the District Plan rules in PC15, as notified, are designed to protect the sewer alignment until the pipeline is constructed. She considered this to be an appropriate mechanism to signal that sewer construction is proposed in the area. The Auckland Metropolitan Drainage Act 1960 was expected to provide legal protection following construction of the sewer, however as set out in Watercare‟s statement the relevant parts of that have now been repealed. In reviewing Watercare Services Ltd‟s evidence, while she stated she appreciated that Watercare has been affected by legislation changes, she did not consider it was the role of the District Plan to protect Watercare Services Ltd‟s constructed infrastructure unless this is done through a designation process. We agree. Ms LaNauze was therefore unable to support the rule changes sought by the submitter to provide ongoing protection (including access rights) for the sewer corridor and sewer main.

The Commissioners were concerned about the proposed approach and the changes sought to the yard provisions. This was for a number of reasons, which included why Watercare were not designating the site/route (and therefore being „transparent‟ about that process in terms of the tests set out in section 168A (3) of the RMA). Also the location and extent of the utility yard has the ability to significantly impact on the urban design and layout. The Plan Change and other amendments we have made „encourage‟ building to overlook the street and open space adjacent to the Papakura Stream. The implications of the yard could be that it will be used to carparking and/or storage, thereby „nullifying‟ the potential for good urban design outcomes – something that is needed in modern „industrial estates‟. However we accept Watercare‟s position that this route has been selected after consideration of alternative locations.

Having heard Watercare‟s evidence the Commissioners requested that Watercare provide the Committee with an options paper setting out the "pros and cons" of four options identified for protecting the Mahia sewer. Watercare set out the following options:

(a) Easements in favour of Watercare over the Mahia sewer registered against

the relevant certificates of title. (b) A "bylaw" protecting the Mahia sewer. (c) A "designation" of the Mahia sewer under the RMA. (d) Confirmation of the Network Utility Yard rules (with the amendments sought

by Watercare) in the Committee‟s decision on the Takanini Structure Plan.

We accept Watercare‟s view that the “easement and bylaw‟ options may not be appropriate. We then considered the other two – designation and the Network Utility Yard rules, Watercare accepts that a designation is an option. Watercare is a "requiring authority" under the RMA, and can give notice to Auckland Council of its requirement for a designation requiring rules similar to the Network Utility Yard rules currently proposed to be inserted into the District Plan. However Watercare did not consider this the „appropriate‟ option in terms of section 32 of the RMA. This was because

of 163

―to confirm any designation inserting these rules into the District Plan, Watercare must go through the notification, submission, hearing and appeals process set out in the RMA. Effectively, exactly the same consideration currently being given by the Hearing Committee to the Network Yard Utility rules will be undertaken all over again, but will involve more time and expense (which will ultimately be passed onto to ratepayers). That is inefficient‖.15

Watercare‟s view was the same outcome could be achieved by simply including the Network Utility Yard rules in the Committee's decision. Also as construction of the Mahia sewer must precede development in the Takanini Structure Plan area, Watercare considers that confirmation of the Network Utility Rules (including the amendments sought by Watercare) in the Takanini Structure Plan is the most efficient method of inserting appropriate protections for the Mahia sewer into the District Plan. While we accept Watercare‟s position with respect to construction of the pipeline, and accept it needs to precede development in the Takanini Structure Plan area, we do not accept that the rule should be amended as sought by Watercare post construction. We not accept that that the plan making provisions and the designations is “Effectively, exactly the same consideration currently being given by the Hearing Committee‖. The „tests‟ in terms of section 32 and 168A (s) are quite different. As mentioned the utility yard provisions (i.e. its widths and restrictions within it) will impact on a number of outcomes sought by PC 15. While we accept Watercare‟s evidence that this is the most likely route of the pipeline, and it is appropriate to acknowledge this in the plan for future, we do not accept that it should necessarily apply post construction. Watercare should be required in our opinion, to pursue the designation process so that all relevant parties can be involved and the relevant „tests‟ applied. Accordingly we do not accept the amendments sought by Watercare to the change to the Utility yard provision post the pipeline construction. Geotechnical

Submission 6.8 (L and F Morgan) stated that the land covered by PC 15 is more suitable for residential purposes, sportsfields etc given the nature of the peat soil. Submission 18.5 (Alfriston Residents Group – Lifestyle Blocks) stated in part that the plan change provisions do not adequately address geotechnical suitability for development and that is poor planning practice to sort out geotechnical problems after the plan change has been adopted. Geotechnical investigations were undertaken as part of the plan change process to consider the suitability of soil conditions for the proposed land uses. The report provided as part of the PC15 application titled “Geotechnical Assessment Report on Takanini Structure Plan Area 6” (Coffey Geotechnics, Nov 2008) reviewed existing geotechnical reports and specifically investigated the suitability of Area 6 for the land use proposed by PC15. Coffey Geotechnics was of the opinion that with appropriate engineering measures, the identified geotechnical conditions alone should not constrain the expected density of development envisaged by PC15. In addition, appropriate engineering techniques are available in regards to foundation design, preloading and groundwater recharge to ensure that this envisaged development can be successfully established in a manner which is economically viable.

15

Options Paper - options for protection of the proposed extension of the Mahia sewer corridor once the sewer

main has been constructed, para 21.

of 163

Coffey Geotechnics also considered that future subdivision plans and building proposals will need to be the subject of further site specific geotechnical investigations. The Residential 8 zone already requires a geotechnical report to be submitted and assessed by the Council at the time of subdivision. PC15 has imposed a rule in the General Requirements For Industrial Zones in Section Three Part 6.15 13 Geotechnical matters of the Plan which requires that all resource consent applications for subdivision and development within the Industrial 1 and Industrial 3 zone (within Takanini Structure Plan Area 6) are to provide a site specific Geotechnical Investigation Report.

Investigations have confirmed the geotechnical feasibility of the proposed land uses. Provisions introduced by PC15 appropriately require further site / development specific investigations at the time of consent.


The following are the amendments to PC 15. That due to Submission 17.6 (Takanini Industrial Trust) Amend Appendix 16A to PC15 “Takanini Structure Plan Area 6” as follows: Amend the location of the western overland flow path in the north western corner of Area 6 to run parallel along the eastern edge of Takanini School Road instead of turning east and then north. Amend Section 3 Part 6 Rule 6.11.7.2 Table 2 (Industrial 3 Activity Status Table for Takanini Area 6) to include as a Restricted Discretionary Activity: “The modification of the indicative overland flowpaths depicted on Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 in Appendix 16A where it forms an integral part of a comprehensive development proposal involving site specific stormwater design” Amend Section 3 Part 6.15 General Requirements for Industrial Zones Rule 6.15.2 Restricted Discretionary Activity Assessment Criteria by adding clause 6.15.2.4 as follows:

6.15.2.4 Restricted Discretionary Activity Assessment Criteria for modification of Overland Flowpaths within the Takanini Structure Plan Area 6A/6B as part of a comprehensive development proposal involving site specific stormwater design.


(f) The capability of the proposed overland flowpaths to adequately accommodate the 1% AEP peak flows in accordance with the general intent of the Structure Plan and/or Catchment Management Plan and if the general alignments and gradients of the overland flow paths have been followed;

(g) If the proposed overland flowpaths are the best practicable option;

(h) If the proposed modification(s) to the indicative overland flow paths will have less than minor impact on the downstream and upstream properties in terms of increased flood hazards and erosion potential;

of 163

(i) The ability of sites in the upstream and downstream catchment to continue to provide for the overland flow paths in terms of reasonable engineering efforts, constructability and ease of maintenance and operation of the overland flow paths;

(j) The potential for blockage and encroachment into the overland flow paths by other permitted land use activities at the properties; and

(k) If the proposed modifications to the general alignment of the overland flow paths will be limited within the boundaries of properties included in a specific resource consent application.


(ii) The extent to which the establishment and operation of the proposed overland flowpaths will prevent the operation of existing (and future) flowpaths within the catchment; and

(ii) The extent to which the modified overland flowpath(s) result in reduction in actual or potential offsite flooding/hazard effects, improved maintenance access and safety outcomes.

Amend Section 3 Part 16 (Residential 8) 16.1.4.2 Restricted Discretionary Activities by adding 16.1.4.2 (5) as follows:

5. The modification of the indicative overland flowpaths depicted on Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 in Appendix 16A where it forms an integral part of a comprehensive development proposal involving site specific stormwater design


(a) The capability of the proposed overland flowpaths to adequately accommodate the 1% AEP peak flows in accordance with the general intent of the Structure Plan and/or Catchment Management Plan and if the general alignments and gradients of the overland flow paths have been followed;

(b) If the proposed overland flowpaths are the best practicable option;

(c) If the proposed modification(s) to the indicative overland flow paths will have less than minor impact on the downstream and upstream properties in terms of increased flood hazards and erosion potential;

(d) The ability of sites in the upstream and downstream catchment to continue to provide for the overland flow paths in terms of reasonable engineering efforts, constructability and ease of maintenance and operation of the overland flow paths;

(e) The potential for blockage and encroachment into the overland flow paths by other permitted land use activities at the properties; and

(f) If the proposed modifications to the general alignment of the overland flow paths will be limited within the boundaries of properties included in a specific resource consent application.

of 163

Amend Section 3 Section 3 Part 16 (Residential 8) 16.1.5 1 Restricted Discretionary Activity Assessment Criteria by adding clause 6.1.5.1.3. as follows:

6.1.5.1.3 The modification of the indicative overland flowpaths depicted on Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 in Appendix 16A where it forms an integral part of a comprehensive development proposal involving site specific stormwater design


1. The extent to which the establishment and operation of the proposed overland flowpaths will prevent the operation of existing (and future) flowpaths within the catchment; and

2. The extent to which the modified overland flowpath(s) result in reduction in actual or potential offsite flooding/hazard effects, improved maintenance access and safety outcomes.

That due to Submission 17.7 (Takanini Industrial Trust)

Amend Section 3 Part 6 15 General Requirements for Industrial Zones (11) Stormwater (b) as follows

6.15(11)(b) A soakage pit groundwater recharge pit providing temporary storage for

the stormwater runoff is required for all development sites underlain by the peat soil aquifer. SoakageGroundwater recharge pits are to be designed in accordance with the Code of Urban Subdivision and storage volume is to be provided between 1.5metres below ground level and 0.5metres below ground level. The design soakage pit requirements are based on a design storm of 15mm of rainfall over a 1 hour period. The groundwater recharge pits shall be designed to be capable of holding the first 15mm of stormwater runoff from the impervious surface areas of any proposed development. The contributing catchment for each individual recharge pit shall be limited to a maximum of 500m² to encourage an even spatial distribution of groundwater recharge across the site. The recharge pits shall be kept at least 3 metres away from the edge of any building foundations and at least 2 metres away from the site boundaries, unless a specific geotechnical investigation has indicated that the long term effects on the building foundations in close proximity are less than minor.

11.6 Submissions Relating to Amenity (Bulk and Location Controls)


Height

Height In Relation To Boundary

Residential 8 Interface With Industrial 1

Residential 8 Interface With Existing Residential 1

Industrial Interface with Reserve

Yards

Decisions on Submissions Relating to Amenity

of 163






FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS09 Support in part G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group) and

D and K Mahay



FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose in part Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Support in part G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group) and

D and K Mahay

6.2 Oppose L & F Morgan Accept in Part

FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust 10.8 Support (with

amendments) Auckland Regional Council Accept in Part

FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group) and

D and K Mahay




D and K Mahay



FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd

of 163




FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose in part Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group) and

D and K Mahay




D and K Mahay


Takanini Industrial Trust Accept in Part (and subparts rejected)



FS01 Support in part Manukau City Council FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust 19.7 Opposes

(seeks changes)

D Newman Accept in Part

FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Support G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group) and

D and K Mahay



FS01 Support in part Manukau City Council FS02 Oppose Retail Holdings Ltd and Southgate Centre

Ltd

FS03 Oppose in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd

of 163

FS05 Oppose in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose in part Takanini Industrial Trust

Reasons:

Submissions relating to Amenity are discussed by issue as follows: A number of submitters raise matters relating to bulk and location controls. This section of the report specifically relates to yards, height, and height in relation to boundary controls.

To assist in the assessment of matters raised in submissions relating to urban design and landscape, the Council commissioned the following report, “Papakura District Council Proposed Plan Change 15 – Urban Design Review” by Beca Carter Hollings and Ferner Ltd (dated 29 September 2010).

Height of Buildings The existing District Plan Industrial 1 maximum height is 9 metres, with 12 metres possible for discretionary activities. PC15 as notified proposed a maximum 15 metre height for Industrial 1 in Takanini Area 6, with 18 metres possible as a discretionary activity. No changes were proposed to the existing Industrial 3 maximum 24 metre height, with 30 metres possible for as a discretionary activity.

The Beca report considered that it was appropriate to provide graduated maximum height controls within the Takanini Area 6 Industrial 1 zone based on whether where sites adjoin public reserve, land in a reserve zone and/or a residential zone. A 9 metre maximum height for permitted and controlled activities was suggested where sites adjoin public reserve, land in a reserve zone and/or a residential zone, with a 15 metre maximum height otherwise proposed. A 12 metre maximum height for discretionary activities was suggested where sites adjoin public reserve, land in a reserve zone and/or a residential zone, with an 18 metre maximum height otherwise proposed. The report recommended assessment criteria relating to maximum height be included in the District Plan. The report states, (page 27),

“Height Having regard to PDC‘s vision for Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 it is considered appropriate to retain a maximum 9.0m height limit as a permitted / controlled activity in the Industrial 1 zone. Such an approach will:

Assist in protecting residential amenity and privacy. Reduce potential adverse visual effects of future industrial development in

relation to existing residential areas to the north of the Plan Change area. Assist to ensure that activities undertaken within the Industrial 1 zone are

compatible with the light industrial vision for the area (i.e. by limiting the scale of activities).

A lower height provision will encourage smaller scale buildings with smaller footprints, appropriate within the context of providing for light industrial activities as a buffer between non-industrial land uses and the more intensive Industrial 3 zone. Such an approach will not restrict the Industrial 1 zone, as can be evidenced by building heights throughout existing Industrial 1 zones within the Papakura District (refer Appendix B for a list of existing Industrial 1 activities).‖

of 163

In a clarification of that report Beca‟s stated ―...., it is considered appropriate to provide for building height up to 15.0m that where industrial sites do not interface with residential sites, subject to appropriate assessment matters.‖

Mr N Rae (urban designer) and Ms K Kurzeja (planner) for Submitters 13, 14, 15 and 16 (Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd, Zabeel Investments Ltd, Mellviews Ltd, and Village Farms Ltd) pointed out that confusion was created in the planner‟s report as specified maximum industrial height infringements in Takanini Area 6 have activity status of both restricted discretionary activity (in assessment criteria 6.15.2.5) and discretionary activity (in Section 3 Part 6 Table 6.2). Mr Rae suggests that restricted discretionary activity status is the appropriate status.

Mr Rae also suggested amendments to the restricted discretionary activity

assessment criteria, and that maximum height in Industrial 1 in Takanini Area 6 be increased to 15 metres where a road exists between the residential and Industrial 1 Zone. While beyond the scope of the submission, this is in accordance with the scope of other submissions seeking increased amenity protection, namely Submissions 10.8 and 10.10 (Auckland Regional Council) and Submission 19.7 (D Newman).

Beca‟s supplementary comments include comments relating to bulk and location.

That report concurs that restricted discretionary activity status is the appropriate activity status for maximum height non compliance of up to 3 metres as specified in Section 3 Part 6 Table 6.2, and considers that the changes recommended to 6.15.2.5 (“Restricted Discretionary Activity Assessment Criteria for Building Height (within Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 only) in the planner‟s report should remain.

We agree with the above and consider the simplest way to amend the District Plan to

remove confusion about the activity status of specified maximum industrial height infringements in Takanini Area 6 would be to retain 6.15.5 Bulk and Location Controls Table 6.1 (Standards for Permitted and Controlled and Restricted Discretionary Activities) which includes reference to restricted discretionary activities, and to amend Table 6.2 (Standards for Discretionary Activities) so as to differentiate between specified maximum industrial height infringements in Takanini Area 6 as restricted discretionary activities while retaining discretionary activity status for specified maximum industrial height infringements beyond Takanini Area 6.

Having considered the recommendations of the Beca report relating to maximum height and the evidence received we find that that a lower height limit than that proposed in the plan change as notified will provide greater amenity protection for adjoining activities. However rather than providing for a graduated greater height it is our determination that the lower 9 metre maximum height is appropriate throughout the Industrial 1 Zone, and that graduated height controls are not warranted. The retention of the existing 12 metre Industrial 1 discretionary activity height limit is retained. This will provide consistency but still allow flexibility for activities requiring a greater height. It is our determination that the permitted and discretionary activity height limits should be the same throughout the Industrial 1 zone. While mindful of PC15 yard and height in relation to boundary provisions to increase amenity, there is not sufficient justification for the Industrial 1 Zone in Takanini Area 6 to permit greater heights than the existing Industrial 1 zone provisions permit. The introduction into PC15 of the Beca report‟s suggested assessment criteria for maximum height infringements which will assist to protect amenity and provide guidance for District Plan users is supported

of 163

Height in Relation to Boundary

PC15 as notified introduced height in relation to boundary provisions for Industrial 1 residential, road, and reserve frontages within Takanini Area 6. Height in relation to boundary provisions are also introduced for road and reserve frontages for Industrial 3 in Takanini Area 6 (Other than Porchester Road, which Industrial 3 does not adjoin). It is not considered that a seven metre rather than a two metre measurement point above ground level (as proposed in Submission 17.7 (Takanini Industrial Trust)) is appropriate for determining height in relation to boundary as it would significantly increase shadowing and building bulk at the residential, road and reserve interfaces. The Beca report recommended the retention of the height in relation to boundary provisions as notified. Having heard all the evidence we agree with the Officers and that no change has been made to the height in relation to boundary provisions. It is our finding that these provisions will provide better protection of amenity for the surrounding residential and reserve land.

Residential 8 Interface with Industrial 1

The Beca report suggested specific streetscape design guidelines for the east west street proposed in the structure plan which separates Industrial 1 and Residential 8 zones. The Beca report recommends Industrial 1 building orientation and roof pitch/orientation controlled activity assessment criteria. This suggestion, is supported which requires an addition to Section 3 Part 6 Rule 6.15.1 Controlled Activity Assessment for Industrial 1. The evidence of Mr N Rae for Submitters 13, 14, 15 and 16 (Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd, Zabeel Investments Ltd, Mellviews Ltd, and Village Farms Ltd) suggests modifications to the wording of Section 3 Part 6 Objective 6.6.6 which reads, “Development and subdivision within Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 does not compromise the amenity of adjoining residential activities.” to refer to “adjacent or “surrounding” residential activities rather than “adjoining”. While this is beyond the scope of the submission, the addition of the word “surrounding” would provide a stronger increased amenity objective and would be in accordance with the scope of other submissions seeking increased amenity protection, namely Submissions 10.8 and 10.10 (Auckland Regional Council) and Submission 19.7 (D Newman). Overall we find that the existing PC15 and Residential 8 District Plan provisions combined with amendments set out above to amenity and bulk and location requirements will provide adequate amenity in this location.

Residential 8 Interface with Existing Residential 1

Submission 6.2 (L and F Morgan) opposed multi storey dwellings to the rear of the submitters‟ property at 158 Manuroa Road. Amongst the submitters‟ concerns is that the proposed residential area adjoining the rear of their property will create loss of sunlight / overshadowing, and loss of privacy.

While the submitters‟ site currently backs onto rural land, Takanini Area 6 has been signalled for urban development, and Section 11.3 (Zoning and Land Uses) of this report concludes that the Residential 8 zone is appropriate for the land. The submitters‟ site is zoned Residential 1, which is the main Papakura residential zone. The Residential 1 maximum height is 9 metres, and the height in relation to

of 163

boundary control is 45 degrees measured two metres above the site boundary, with a possible exemption of up to 2.7 metres in height for a length of 8 metres with adjoining owners‟ consent. The density in the zone is a maximum of two dwellings per site, each with a minimum 400m² delineated area. The Residential 8 zone also has a maximum height of 9 metres (with 12 metres discretionary activity consent possible provided amenity of adjoining sites is maintained). Height in relation to boundary is determined by recession planes (which vary with boundary orientation) measured two metres above any site boundary, with a possible exemption of up to 3 metres in height for 7 metres along a side boundary. If adjoining owners‟ consent is obtained the height in relation to boundary rule does not apply. The zone density is between one unit per 350m² and one unit per 525m² of site. While the Residential 8 zone provides for more development than the Residential 1 zone, the bulk and location controls of the Residential 8 zone are designed to protect the amenity of adjoining residential sites. The Residential 8 zone contains a number of design assessment criteria. The Residential 8 zone “Explanation” (Section 3 Part 16.1.1.3 states, ―…At these higher densities it is important to ensure that subdivision and design deliver acceptable amenity outcomes. Accordingly, a range of amenity outcomes are specified, and the Plan includes rules and criteria which seek to ensure that these are achieved.‖

Industrial Interface with Reserve

The evidence of Mr N Rae for Submitters 13, 14, 15 and 16 (Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd, Zabeel Investments Ltd, Mellviews Ltd, and Village Farms Ltd) suggested modifications to provisions relating to buildings on sites overlooking the indicative northern street and the proposed reserve so as to promote passive surveillance of the road and reserve areas (paragraph 4.4.22). Beca Carter Hollings and Ferner‟s supplementary comments “Plan Change 15, Takanini Area 6 – Urban Design response to the request to further information from the Commissioners” (dated 26 September 2011) supported this suggestion as it would in their opinion enhance amenity outcomes and increase passive surveillance. We accept that passive surveillance is important at the reserve interface contributing to safety and visibility. While this change is technically beyond the scope of the submission, the change is in accordance with other submissions seeking better amenity controls (eg Submissions 10.8 and 10.10 (Auckland Regional Council) and Submission 19.7 (D Newman). We agree that the modifications need to be made to the provisions relating to buildings on sites overlooking the indicative northern street and the proposed reserve so as to promote passive surveillance of the road and reserve areas. Yards Industrial

The current District Plan Industrial 1 standards require a 7.5 metre front yard. Side and rear yards of 5 metres are required where the side or rear boundaries of a site adjoin land zoned for residential, reserve, or future development purposes or where yards are required for fire fighting purposes. Discretionary activity provision is made for reduction of the front yard to 5 metres. PC15 as notified requires the same yard sizes for Industrial 1 land in Takanini Area 6 but requires a wider side or rear yard of 10 metres where the site adjoins public reserve or land in the reserve zone. Discretionary activity provision remains for reduction of the front yard to 5 metres.

of 163

No changes are proposed to Industrial 3 yard requirements. Section 3 Part 6.15 6 Landscaping and Visual Amenity Controls sets out landscaping requirements for yards in all industrial zones. Fifty percent of the front yard is required to be landscaped with a two metre landscaped strip adjacent to the front boundary. Side and rear yards require a five metre wide landscaped strip parallel to the boundary (with exclusions for fire safety purposes) which can be reduced to three metres if there is a 2 metre block wall fence or screen on the boundary. The intention of this landscaping is to provide a dense visual screen and a physical barrier between uses on the industrial site and boundary of adjoining land zoned for residential, reserve, or future development purposes. PC15 as notified retains this rule and introduces a separate rule for front yard landscaping within overland flow paths. Overland flowpaths are shown on the Structure Plan. It is noted that existing sites with frontage to Takanini School Road become subject to front yard landscaping overland flowpath requirements. The Beca report recommended screening also where an Industrial 1 site is at a rear boundary of a residential site, suggesting that a 2.0m high solid wall (e.g. solid block or brick construction) should be constructed along the length of the boundary. The report states (page 28) that such an approach will:

―Assist in protecting residential amenity and privacy Reduce potential for nuisance effects such as may relate to noise, odour and

visual effects.‖

The landscape concept plan and controlled activity screening assessment criteria provisions in Section 11.4 (Reserve Land and Landscape) allow consideration of screening. Existing side and rear yard landscaping provisions (Section 3 Part 6 Rule 6.15.6 Landscaping and Visual Amenity Controls (b)) also allow consideration of boundary screening. Given the existence of these provisions it is preferable to leave planting or other screening as an alternative to solid wall screening rather than requiring a 2 metre high solid wall in all situations when an Industrial 1 site boundary adjoins a residential site. The amendments proposed by PC15 to yard requirements (Section 3 Part 6 Table 6.1) introduce 10 metre (rather than 5 metre) rear or side yard for sites adjoining public reserve or land in the Reserve Zone, but do not introduce a similar requirement for yards adjoining residential land. Wider side and rear yards should also be required for amenity purposes where a site adjoins residential land. The Beca report recommended a ten metre minimum Industrial 1 front yard to residential including where a road separates the industrial and residential zones, stating (page 27) that such an approach will:

―Assist in protecting residential amenity and privacy, including those accentuated by buildings overlooking neighbours.

Reduce potential of shading effects. Potentially enhance the amenity values of the industrial site.

Landscaping should be provided to mitigate visual effects, as well as those relating to noise and other nuisances and, accordingly, should be detailed at the time of design and submitted as part of the overall application for development.‖

This is supported for the reasons stated in the Beca report. It is also considered that this increased front yard requirement should apply to Industrial 1 land separated by a road from land zoned for future development purposes, which would mean that it applies to sites along the eastern side of Porchester Road which are zoned under Plan Change 13 as “Future Urban Zone”.

of 163

As the yard standards requirements have been increased for permitted, controlled, and restricted discretionary activities it is appropriate to „increase‟ the yard standards requirements for discretionary activities in Section 3 Part 6 Table 6.2 to reflect an increased side and rear yard requirement for Industrial 1 sites within Takanini Area 6 which adjoin residential and reserve zones, or public reserve, and an increased front yard requirement for Industrial 1 sites within Takanini Area 6 which are opposite residential, and reserve zoned, and public reserves.

Yards Residential 8

Existing Residential 8 provisions (Section Three Part 16 Rule 6.1.6.3) require a front yard setback of between 3 and 5 metres. There is no rule requiring a specific amount of front yard landscaping but medium density development in Residential 8 is expected to be part of a comprehensive development plan, to which design criteria, including relationship to public interface are applied. PC15, recognising that the Residential 8 and Industrial 1 interface does not occur elsewhere in the district, proposes a minimum 6 metre setback for front sites in Residential 8 at this interface. While it is acknowledged that comprehensive development plans may address some interface issues, it is important to ensure that minimum amenity standards are not compromised by reducing this setback, and the proposed minimum 6 metre setback as notified is supported.



That due to Submissions 10.8 and 10.10 (Auckland Regional Council) and 19.7 (D Newman) Amend Section 3 Part 6.15 General Requirements for Industrial Zones 6.15.1 Controlled Activity Assessment Criteria to add a criterion as follows:

(k) Whether building/s on sites zoned Industrial 1 which adjoin or face land zoned Reserve are sited and designed to:

Provide informal surveillance of streets and public spaces

Orientate the building/s, windows and doors towards the reserve area

Avoid solid blank walls facing the reserve area

That due to Submission 10.10 (Auckland Regional Council)

Amend Section 3 Part 6.15 General Requirements for Industrial Zones 6.15.5 Bulk and Location Controls Table 6.1 (Standards for Permitted and Controlled and Restricted Discretionary Activities) and Table 6.2 (Standards for Discretionary Activities) as follows:

Table 6.1: amend the row titled “Industrial 1* (within Takanini Structure Plan Area 6)” to change the maximum height from 15m to 9m.

Table 6.2: amend the row titled “Industrial 1 (within Takanini Structure Plan Area 6)” to change the maximum height from 18m to 12m.

Table 6.2: amend the column titled “Height” as it relates to:

- Industrial 1 (within Takanini Structure Plan Area 6) to read “12m (as

Restricted Discretionary Activity)”

of 163

- Industrial 3 to read “30m (as Restricted Discretionary Activity within

Takanini Structure Plan Area 6)”

That due to Submission 10.12 (Auckland Regional Council)

Amend Section 3 Part 6.15 General Requirements for Industrial Zones 6.15.5 Bulk and Location Controls Table 6.1 (Standards for Permitted and Controlled and Restricted Discretionary Activities) as follows

Table 6.1: amend the row titled “Industrial 1* (within Takanini Structure Plan Area 6)” in the front yard column to read 7.5m***

Amend Section 3 Part 6.15 General Requirements for Industrial Zones 6.15.5 Bulk and Location Controls Table 6.1 (Standards for Permitted and Controlled and Restricted Discretionary Activities) footnotes as follows:

**a side or rear yard of 10 metres is required where the site adjoins Public Reserve or land in the Reserve Zone or land in a residential zone

*** a front yard of 10 metres is required where the site adjoins or faces land in a residential zone or land zoned for future development purposes.

Amend Section 3 Part 6.15 General Requirements for Industrial Zones 6.15.5 Bulk and Location Controls Table 6.2 (Standards for Discretionary Activities) as follows

Table 6.2: amend the row titled “Industrial 1 (within Takanini Structure Plan Area 6)” in the front yard column to read 7.5m* instead of 5m, in the rear yard column to read 5m**, and in the side yard column to read 5m**

Amend Section 3 Part 6.15 General Requirements for Industrial Zones 6.15.5 Bulk and Location Controls Table 6.2 (Standards for Discretionary Activities) to add a footnote as follows

* a front yard of 10 metres is required where the site adjoins or faces land in a residential zone or land zoned for future development purposes.

**a side or rear yard of 10 metres is required where the site adjoins Public Reserve or land in the Reserve Zone or land in a residential zone

That due to Submission 19.7 (D Newman) Amend Section 3 Part 6 Objective 6.6.6 as follows:

6.6.6 Development and subdivision within Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 does not compromise the amenity of adjoining and surrounding residential activities.

That due to Submissions 20.1 to 98.1 (multiple submitters)

Amend Section 3 Part 16 6.15.2 Restricted Discretionary Activity Assessment Criteria to add additional criterion 6.15.2.5 as follows: 6.15.2.5 Restricted Discretionary Activity Assessment Criteria for Building Height (within Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 only)

of 163

Applications for Restricted Discretionary Activity Resource Consent for Building Height will be assessed in terms of the following matters: 1. Residential and Public Amenity

The extent to which the additional height adversely effects or otherwise reduces amenity values associated with residential areas. Consideration shall be given to: (a) Residential privacy of adjoining residential sites (b) Whether the scale of the building is overly dominant in relation to

adjoining residential sites (c) Whether the proposed buildings dominates the views of adjoining

residential sites (d) Shading effects of the proposed building on adjoining residential sites (e) The potential for the building to be screened to reduce any of the effects

listed above (any proposed screening should be achievable in the short term, i.e. 3-5 years)

(f). The potential for other mitigating measures, such as building and or roof pitch orientation, and the use of recessive colours to reduce dominance

Amend Part 6.15 General Requirements for Industrial Zones 6.15.1 Controlled Activity Assessment Criteria to add an additional criterion as follows:

6.15.1 Controlled Activity Assessment Criteria …

(j) Whether building orientation, roof pitch / orientation and/or proposed external colour scheme are proposed in such a way so as to minimise the bulk of the building when viewed from residential areas and public reserves. In particular, large blank facades should be orientated away from residential areas; roof pitch should be orientated so as to slope towards residential areas (where practical); and use of recessive colours consistent with surrounding vegetation.

of 163

11.7 Submissions Relating to Subdivision Controls


Subdivision provisions

Decisions on Submissions Relating to Subdivision Controls See Appendix 2 (2.7) for the summary of key submissions and a summary of the evidence heard.







FS01 Support in part Manukau City Council FS03 Support Nigel Hosken FS04 Support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd 17.3 Support (with


FS01 Support in part Manukau City Council FS03 Support Nigel Hosken FS04 Support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd 17.4 Support (with


FS03 Support Nigel Hosken FS04 Support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd

Reasons:

Submissions relating to Subdivision Controls are discussed by issue as follows: Geotechnical reporting requirements relating to subdivision are discussed in Section 11.5 (Stormwater/Stream/Infrastructure/Geotechnical) of this report. Submissions 17.1, 17.2, 17.3 and 17.4 from (Takanini Industrial Trust) sought a number of amendments to relax the Industrial 3 freehold subdivision controls and assessment criteria when the development being subdivided is existing (legally

of 163

established) or consented development (for which land use consent has been granted). Freehold subdivision around existing or proposed development in industrial zones can create additional development potential or create vacant sites. Similarly, while a development may have land use consent it does not necessarily mean that it will be built. Council has a responsibility when approving a subdivision to consider environmental effects and that people buying a subdivided site can be confident that its subdivision has satisfied Resource Management Act criteria. It is acknowledged that the Takanini Area 6 provisions require a high standard of information to be provided when a land use consent is made, and that some of the assessment information provided with a land use consent application may well be relevant to a later subdivision assessment. Nevertheless to be sufficiently satisfied that a freehold subdivision does not create adverse environmental effects and to retain the option of refusal if an important standard is not met, the Council needs to retain ability to have discretion over the criteria already set out under the restricted discretionary activity provisions. Consequently the submitter‟s requests that subdivision of existing (legally established) development or consented development (for which land use consent has been granted) be exempted from compliance with Industrial 3 subdivision standards and from compliance with landscape concept plan requirements is not supported. It is also consequently our decision that the submitter‟s request to amend the Code of Urban Subdivision be rejected. The submitter‟s request relating to on site servicing is discussed in Section 11.5 (Stormwater/Stream/Infrastructure/Geotechnical) of this report.

Submission 17.4 (Takanini Industrial Trust) sought the modification of non notification provisions to make them consistent with the October 2009 amendments to the Resource Management Act 1991. Council‟s lawyers‟ advice relating to these amendments is discussed in Section 11.1 of this report (The National, Regional and District Context and Legislative Consistency). The submitter sought five changes in relation to subdivision criteria. These are:

Section 3 Part 6.9.8.7.2: no change is required to the provisions proposed by the submitter because this report has determined that freehold subdivision in Industrial 1 in Takanini Area 6 should not be a controlled activity

Section 3 Part 6.9.8.7.3: amendment is required to the restricted discretionary activity criteria relating to subdivision in Industrial 1 in Takanini Area 6

Section 3 Part 6.11.7.6.2: no change is required to the provisions proposed by the submitter because this report has determined that freehold subdivision in Industrial 3 in Takanini Area 6 should not be a controlled activity

Section 3 Part 6.11.7.6.3: amendment is required to the restricted discretionary activity criteria relating to subdivision in Industrial 3 in Takanini Area 6

Section 3 Part 9.8.4: no change is required to the provisions proposed by the submitter because this report has determined that freehold subdivision should not be a controlled activity within Residential 8 in Takanini Area 6.

Amendments to the Plan Changes in response to the decision on the submissions. The following are the amendments to PC 15.

of 163


Amend Section 3 Part 6.9.8.7.3 (restricted discretionary activity criteria relating to subdivision in Industrial 1 in Takanini Area 6) as follows:

6.9.8.7.3 Restricted Discretionary activities


Amend Section 3 Part 6.11.7.6.3(restricted discretionary activity criteria relating to

subdivision in Industrial 3 in Takanini Area 6) as follows: 6.11.7.6.3 Restricted Discretionary activities


Also as a consequence of other recommended change re the deletion of the specific issue relating to road widening, the following rule has been included at 6.9.8.7.7.4 and 6.11.7.6.7.4 Road Widening The Any land identified for road widening in Section Three, Part 16, Appendix 16D

shall be vested in Council upon subdivision.

of 163

11.8 Submissions Relating to PC15: Generated Effects - General


Avoidance of Adverse Effects

Air Pollution, Emissions and Odour

Light and Glare

Earthworks and Construction

Contaminant Seepage

Scale, intensity and hours of industrial operations

Monitoring

Crime, Graffiti, Vandalism, Car racing

Property Values

Decisions on Submissions Relating to Generated Effects - General




3.1c Support Cosgrave Residents and Landowners Association Inc

Accept in Part


FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group) and

D and K Mahay

4.1c Support


Accept in Part

FS01 Oppose Manukau City Council FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust 5.3 Oppose G & A Goldring Accept in Part


D and K Mahay

5.11 Oppose G & A Goldring Reject FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd

of 163

FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Support G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group) and

D and K Mahay

5.12 Oppose G & A Goldring Reject FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Support G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group) and

D and K Mahay




D and K Mahay

12.1 Support Nigel Hosken Accept in Part FS01 Oppose Manukau City Council FS04 Support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group) and

D and K Mahay



FS01 Oppose Manukau City Council FS03 Support Nigel Hosken FS05 Support Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group) and

D and K Mahay



FS01 Oppose Manukau City Council FS03 Support Nigel Hosken FS04 Support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS06 Support Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group) and

D and K Mahay




of 163

FS03 Support Nigel Hosken FS04 Support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support Mellviews Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group) and

D and K Mahay



FS01 Oppose Manukau City Council FS03 Support Nigel Hosken FS04 Support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support Zabeel Investments Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group) and

D and K Mahay


Takanini Industrial Trust Accept



FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust 19.7 Opposes

(seeks changes)



D and K Mahay



FS01 Support in part Manukau City Council FS02 Oppose Retail Holdings Ltd and Southgate Centre

Ltd

FS03 Oppose in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose in part Takanini Industrial Trust 20.7 to 98.7 Oppose (seeks

changes) multiple Reject

of 163

FS03 Oppose in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose in part Takanini Industrial Trust 80.13 Oppose (seeks

changes) K and B Meehan Reject


98.13 Oppose (seeks changes)

Derek Trent Accept in Part


Reasons:

Submissions relating to Generated Effects – General are discussed by issue as follows:

Avoidance of Adverse Effects

Submission 10.8 (Auckland Regional Council) supported the intent of and sought the retention of those objectives and policies (specifically 6.6.5, 6.6.6, 6.6.6.1 and 6.6.6.2, 6.9.6.2.4-6.9.6.2.12). In particular Policy 6.9.6.2.4 states, “To adopt controls on noise, vibration, air pollution, glare and soil and water contamination.” This submission is accepted in part as some changes have been made due to other submissions.

Air Pollution, Emissions and Odour

As part of PDC‟s application to extend the MUL and vary the Proposed Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water, the provisions of PC15 must satisfy regional requirements relating to Air Quality (odour, particle and dust emissions). Industries and processes requiring maximum segregation from other uses because of offensive, noxious or dangerous elements (Schedule 6A), those which may require segregation because of possible objectionable elements (Schedule 6B), those which are potentially capable of producing a high degree of air pollution (Schedule 6C) or a moderate degree of air pollution (Schedule 6D) are not permitted in the Industrial 1 zone. Under PC15, Schedule 6A uses or Schedule 6C processes are non complying activities in Industrial 3 within Takanini Area 6. Rule 6.15.3.Air Pollution and Odour Control notes that owners or occupiers have a duty under Section 17 of the RMA to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any discernable odour or dust nuisance from any activity.

Light and Glare

Section 3 Part 6 Rule 6.15 2. Glare protects residentially zoned land from outdoor lighting within industrial zones. Residential development in industrial zones must comply with a number of general requirements, including Section 3 Part 6 Rule 6.15 2. Glare. The outdoor lighting levels between the hours of 2200 and 0700 are however limited where adjacent land is used for residential purposes, except in business zones. Submission 17.7 (Takanini Industrial Trust) sought the addition of industrial zones to this exception. Given that the industrial zones are business zones, this clarification is acceptable. Controlling vehicle lighting and street lighting is beyond the scope of the plan change. Street lighting in New Zealand is controlled by a series of standards (AS/NZS1158). Auckland Transport is now responsible for street lighting design and location.

of 163

Earthworks and Construction

Submission 19.7 (D Newman) stated that the Industrial 1 controls do not address concerns about protection of the amenity of adjacent residents. Specific controls identified as being inadequate include the effects of earthworks and construction activities. Section 3 Part 2 of the District Plan (Protection of the Urban Environment) contains Rule 2.10.1 1 relating to earthworks, which states that no earthworks involving quantities greater than 50m3 shall be permitted in any zone except where the Council has granted consent to an application for a controlled activity. Section 3 Rule 12.4.1 of the District Plan (Applications, Monitoring and Designations) lists details of information to be provided with resource consent applications, which includes details of any proposed site works, including earthworks, to show any cut and/or fill and removal of vegetation As noted in Section 7.5 (Stormwater/Stream/Infrastructure/Geotechnical) of this report, PC15 also imposes a rule in the General Requirements For Industrial Zones in Section Three Part 6.15 13 Geotechnical matters of the Plan which requires that all resource consent applications for subdivision and development within the Industrial 1 and Industrial 3 zone (within Takanini Structure Plan Area 6) are to provide a site specific Geotechnical Investigation Report. Earthworks within Industrial 1 are therefore subject to very specific controls. Construction noise is controlled by New Zealand Standard NZS6803: 1999. Incorporation of this Standard within PC15 is discussed in Section 11.9 of this report (Generated Effects - Noise and Industrial Vibration). We find in relation to this and other submissions that subject ot all of the amendments made to PC 15 the Industrial 1 controls do adequately address the protection of the amenity of adjacent residents.

Contaminant Seepage

Investigations have identified some limited risk to human health caused by contamination of soil by rural servicing activity; horticultural chemical residue and previous land fill activity in specified locations. The District Plan and provisions of PC15 recognise this risk and adopt a precautionary approach in respect of this risk and requires site specific investigation and rehabilitation as part of the subdivision and development process and prior to occupation by new residents. In particular, Section 3 Part 5B Rule 2.4.1 requires soil sampling and testing prior to development of land within the Takanini Structure Plan area. Contaminated soil can pollute underground and surface waterways over a long period of time through the gradual leaching of the soil. Controls in the District Plan limit the use of certain substances and will require adequate safeguards. Any activity which may pollute the water or soil will be required to ensure that any potentially polluting materials are contained or discharged in an approved manner. In particular, Rule 5B.2.4.1 of Section 10 Part 2 of the District Plan (Protection of the Urban Environment) contains rules controlling potentially contaminating materials associated with activities.

Scale, intensity and hours of industrial operations.

The scale and intensity of activities are controlled by the District Plan. Zones list specific activities, and the nature of the zone determines which activities are permitted, which require resource consent, and which are not provided for. For example as the Industrial 1 zone in Takanini Area 6 adjoins some sensitive non-industrial uses, the

of 163

industrial uses permitted in that zone are lighter than those permitted in the Industrial 3 zone which do not adjoin such uses in Takanini Area 6. The bulk and location controls for each zone determine the size of development permitted. The effects of the activities are controlled by rules relating for example to noise and lighting. By requiring resource consent to establish some activities, the Council can impose conditions to control the effects of the activity. For example PC15 introduces specific controlled activity assessment criteria for the Industrial 1 zone in Takanini Area 6 for Council to consider whether the hours of operation of the activity will be compatible with the amenity values of any land adjoining land zoned for residential purposes (Rule 6.15.1(g)). PC15 also introduces hours of operation and their effects on residential activities as activity assessment criteria. The existing District Plan provisions and those in PC15 which control scale, intensity and hours of industrial operations are therefore considered to be compatible with existing residential activities.

Monitoring

The RMA requires councils to monitor resource consents, compliance, and complaints. Auckland Council has staff whose role is to monitor consents, compliance and complaints. An Environmental Health officer‟s check in June 2011 of Papakura Council‟s Knowledge Base (“KBase”) going back to 2007 only found only find five complaints (3 noise and 2 air quality) for the following roads: Rangi, Spartan, Marphona, Westbrook, Rawson, Heb, Oakleigh and Takanini School Rd.

Crime, Graffiti, Vandalism, Car Racing

Some Submitters expressed concern that an influx of workers from beyond the existing residential area will lead to an increase in crime, and that vandalism, graffiti and car racing will occur in the new industrial area. The “Papakura District Council Proposed Plan Change 15 – Urban Design Review” by Beca Carter Hollings and Ferner Ltd (dated 29 September 2010) included consideration of the National Guidelines for Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) in New Zealand. Landscaping placement can contribute to safety and visibility, and can be taken into account at the landscape concept plan stage. District Plan provisions cannot however exhaustively control who uses an area or their behaviour. For the submitters‟ information, we were advised that the Council promotes a number of non District Plan mechanisms to promote safety and discourage crime. For example Neighbourhood Support groups exist in Papakura and Takanini and are organised by Council and residents. Takanini also has a residents‟ and ratepayers‟ association who can bring issues of safety to Council‟s attention. Police can empower community patrols patrol areas of Papakura where complaints about community safety have occurred. The “Safer Papakura Trust” removes graffiti from Council properties, and private businesses can also arrange contracts with them. Volunteers can also “adopt a spot” to discourage graffiti. Illegal racing is a police matter.

Property Values

A number of submitters were concerned that industrial activities in the vicinity will devalue their properties. Devaluation is not a matter for the plan change to address, but it is noted that this report supports the rezoning to industrial, which is part of a development process which has been signalled in planning policy documents. We

of 163

find that the provisions of PC15 have been designed to provide a high standard of amenity for development within industrial zones, and amendments are proposed to further enhance amenity, in particular at the residential and reserve interface.




Amend Section 3 Part 6 Rule 6.15 2. Glare as follows:

6.15 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INDUSTRIAL ZONES 6.15.2.Glare

(a) ….

(b) At no time between the hours of 2200 and 0700 shall any outdoor lighting be used in a manner that the use of such lighting causes:

an added illuminance in excess of 10 lux measured horizontally or vertically at any window of an adjoining building within a Residential Zone;

an added illuminance in excess of 20 lux measured horizontally or vertically at any point along any adjacent boundary of any adjacent land used for residential purposes, except for those in the Business and Industrial Zones.

of 163

11.9 Submissions Relating to: Generated Effects: Noise and Industrial Vibration


Noise Measurement Changes

Construction Noise

Industrial Noise and Residential Land

Noise Within Industrial Zones

Residential and Childcare within Industrial 1

Acoustic Engineer Certification

Residential 8 Noise Controls

Vibration

Decisions on Submissions Relating to Generated Effects - Noise and Industrial Vibration




5.4 Oppose G & A Goldring Accept in Part








5.5 Oppose G & A Goldring Accept in Part
















6.2 Oppose L & F Morgan Reject FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust 6.6 Oppose L & F Morgan Reject FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken

of 163

FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust 10.8

Support (with amendments)


FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents Group)

and D and K Mahay





FS01 Support in part Manukau City Council FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust 20.1 to 98.1 Oppose (seeks


FS01 Support in part Manukau City Council FS02 Oppose Retail Holdings Ltd and Southgate

Centre Ltd

FS03 Oppose in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose in part Takanini Industrial Trust

Reasons:

The noise standards in the Papakura District Plan (“Auckland Council District Plan: Papakura Section”) have not been comprehensively reviewed since 1999. They will be as part of the Unitary Plan process. PC 15 notified does not propose any changes to the noise provisions of the Operative District Plan.

of 163

To assist in the assessment of matters raised in submissions relating to noise, the Council commissioned the following report, “Plan Change 15, Area 6 Review of Proposed Noise and Vibration Controls” by JPStyles Ltd (dated 15 November 2010)16.

Noise Measurement Changes

Submission 17.7 (Takanini Industrial Trust) sought to change the permitted noise thresholds to provide consistency with the relevant 2001 and 2008 New Zealand Standards. Standards New Zealand (SNZ) published on 30 May 2008, new editions of the two commonly used noise standards; NZS 6801:2008 Acoustics - Measurement of Environmental Sound and NZS 6802:2008 Acoustics - Environmental Noise. There are changes to the assessment standards which expand the methods used in the 1999 and 1991 editions. Guidelines for setting noise limits and writing consent conditions have been revised, along with new assessment methods which update and modify the traditional approaches and include more objective methods of rating noise. The standard includes working examples and extensive commentary to assist readers. In their report, JPStyles Ltd advise that the Leq metric should be adopted in place of the L10 measure. Given the publication of the 2008 standards we agree that references to the former standards be consequentially amended where they apply to Takanini Area 6.

Construction Noise

Construction noise is controlled by New Zealand Standard NZS6803: 1999. Submission 17.7 (Takanini Industrial Trust) sought the incorporation of references to this Standard within controls for Area 6. This is also considered appropriate by JPStyles Ltd: and suggested the following wording with respect to Part 6.15 1.Noise (c): ―Noise arising from construction or demolition activities shall be measured and assessed in accordance with NZS6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise and shall comply with the limits therein. Construction Work is defined in section 3.1 of the Standard.‖ We support this proposed wording, but note that Part 6.15 1. Noise (c) will need further amendment to provide it with a separate reference to Area 6. This is set out in the amended PC 15.

Industrial Noise and Residential Land

The protection of residential land from industrial noise is an important consideration set out in the objectives, policies and rules of the Papakura District Plan. Support expressed by Submission 10.8b (Auckland Regional Council) to protect residential amenity is acknowledged. This submission reinforces that the outcomes sought by PC15 are in accordance with southern sector and regional growth and environmental management policies. Submission 17.7 (Takanini Industrial Trust) sought amendment of Part 6.15 1.Noise (b) to read ―The noise levels (L10) (LAeq and LAFmax) shall be measured on the nearest

16

Note: submissions relating to traffic noise and traffic vibration are discussed in the Section 11.10 (Traffic) of

this report.

of 163

residential boundary at any point on or within the nearest residential boundary and shall not exceed the limit set out in Table A‖.

The changes to the L10 measurement have already been discussed. In respect of the wording relating to the residential boundary JPStyles Ltd recommended that rural/residential as well as residential be the receiving zones. Current District Plan provisions omit specific protection for rural zoned land from noise generated on industrially zoned land. Plan Change 13 (Rural Review (PC13) – subject to appeal) introduced provisions into the rural zones to control noise generated in rural zones. JPStyles Ltd suggested amending the wording of Table A (which will be relabelled as Table C to apply to Takanini Area 6) to include noise levels measured at the “notional boundary” of a rural/residential property boundary. The District Plan defines “Notional Boundary” in Section 1 Part 10 (Definitions) as “Unless otherwise provided, means a line 20 metres from the façade of any rural dwelling or the legal boundary where this is closer to the dwelling. In particular, unless otherwise provided, the Notional Boundary shall apply for the purposes of noise assessment in all rural zones.” The suggested amended wording of Table C will give noise protection to uses on the rurally zoned land east of Porchester Road (while zoned “Future Urban” under PC13, this is a rural zone). JPStyles Ltd also recommended the introduction of a maximum level (Lmax) for night time noise. With respect to Part 6.15 1.Noise (b), JPStyles Ltd suggested the following: ―The noise levels (LAeq and LAFmax) shall be measured and assessed at any point on or within the nearest any residential boundary and shall not exceed the limits set out in Table A.‖ Given that JPStyles Ltd recommended these changes to Table A, we have also determined that their recommended changes to Part 6.15 1.Noise (b) be expanded to include reference to the notional boundary of any rural/residential property to read, “The noise levels (LAeq and LAFmax) shall be measured and assessed at any point on or within the nearest any residential boundary or at the notional boundary of any rural/residential property and shall not exceed the limits set out in Table A.‖. Part 6.15 1.Noise (b) will consequently need further amendment to provide it with a separate reference to Area 6. JPStyles Ltd advise that by adopting the suggested controls and rules set out in their assessment, the concerns of Submissions 5.4 and 5.5 (G and A Goldring) in relation to noise sources controlled by the District Plan will be adequately addressed. We agree. With respect to Submission 18.5 (Alfriston Residents Group – Lifestyle Blocks) JPStyles Ltd did not consider that there are any unique topographical or other natural features that would affect the generation of noise from the PC15 area to the area covered by the submitters. The “amphitheatre” effect referred to in the submission was not in JPStyles Ltd‟s opinion technically appropriate, and the perceived effect is a result of there being no physical screening between the source and receivers. Accordingly no changes are made in response to this submission. With respect to Submissions 20.1 to 98.1 (multiple submitters) relating to noise, JPStyles Ltd advised that the relatively broad submission made in respect of noise is adequately dealt with by the recommendations made in their assessment. Again we agree and no additional changes have been made to the provisions of PC 15.

of 163

Noise within Industrial Zones

Apart from as proposed in Takanini Area 6 by PC15, the Industrial 1 and 3 zones in Papakura District do not share a common boundary. Rules in Section 3 Part 6.15 General Requirements for Industrial Zones 1.Noise relate to noise levels at the nearest residential boundaries or noise levels at industrial zone boundaries. Submission 17.7 (Takanini Industrial Trust), sought the replacement of Tables A and B in Section 3 Part 6.15 General Requirements for Industrial Zones 1.Noise. Table A in Section 3 Part 6.15 General Requirements for Industrial Zones 1.Noise relates to industrial noise measured on the nearest residential boundary and Table B relates to industrial noise measured at or within the boundary of a site zoned for industrial purposes. JPStyles Ltd‟s report recommended that: - the noise limit between Industrial 1 sites is increased to Leq 55dBA. - the night time noise limit in Table A for noise generated in the Industrial 3 zone should be reduced from 50dBA to 45dBA - the increase in Table B for the limit between Industrial 3 sites should be increased from 55dBA to 65dBA. JPStyles Ltd also recommended slightly higher daytime noise limits than those in the Operative District Plan, ―In terms of the noise limits to the residential receivers, I consider that the limits below are most appropriate in that they are slightly higher during the day than the relatively conservative limits in the Operative District Plan, but are still sufficiently low to ensure a good level of acoustic amenity for the receivers. At night, the limits are slightly lower than those in the District Plan currently, and there is the additional Lmax control to adequately protect sleep disturbance. The proposed Lmax levels are 5dB lower than those suggested by TIT [Takanini Industrial Trust] and are commensurate with the HAC [Hegley Acoustic Consultants] proposals. I consider that the slightly lower Lmax level is reasonable and will be quite practicable for activities in the Industrial 1 & 3 zones to comply with. The TIT submission seeks to increase the noise limits applying to residential receivers on Saturday afternoons, Sundays and Public Holidays, and has amended Table A to set noise limits simply for between 0700 to 2200 and 2200 to 0700 for all days of the week. I consider that the more conservative limits should continue to be applied during the Saturday afternoons, daytime on Sundays and Public Holidays by including these periods within the definition of ―At all other times‖. Overleaf is my suggested version of Table A:‖ The JPStyles Ltd‟s recommendation is supported but we have determined that Table A needs to be modified to only refer to Area 6 and that it be relabelled as Table C to read as follows:

Table C (applies to Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 only)

The noise level measured at or within the boundary of any residential property or at the notional boundary of any rural/residential property shall not exceed the following levels:

Monday to Friday 0700 – 2200 & Saturday 0700 - 1200

Zone of noise-emitting site Noise limit

Industrial 1 50dB LAeq


of 163

At all other times including Public Holidays


Industrial 1 40dB LAeq and 70dB LAFmax


Existing Table A needs to be consequently annotated as not applying to Takanini Structure Plan Area 6. Table B in Section 3 Part 6.15 General Requirements for Industrial Zones 1.Noise refers to noise within and between industrial zones. JPStyles Ltd‟s report advised that the limits proposed between sites in the Industrial 1 zone as set out in Submission 17.7 (Takanini Industrial Trust), (60dB LAeq) with respect to the residential zone, would, in practical terms, limit the usefulness of the Industrial 1 zone as a buffer to noisier activities in the Industrial 3 zone. The report stated that in order to maintain a reasonable level of amenity between the Industrial 1 sites and to maximise the Industrial 1 zone‟s potential as a buffer between the Industrial 3 zone and residential, the noise limits proposed in their Table B should instead be imposed. The JPStyles Ltd‟s report also commented that, “Also inherent in the proposed limits is that although the limits for Industrial 3 activities seem high, they will be bound to comply not only with the limits between Industrial 3 sites, but also the much lower limits for sites zoned Industrial 1 and Residential.‖ Again the JPStyles Ltd‟s recommendation is supported but that Table B needs to be modified to only refer to Area 6 and that it be relabelled as Table D to read as follows.

Table D (applies to Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 only)

The noise level arising from any activity measured at or within the boundary of any Industrial site shall not exceed the following levels:

Zone of receiving site Noise limit



Existing Table B needs to be consequently annotated as not applying to Takanini Structure Plan Area 6. Submission 18.5 (Alfriston Residents Group – Lifestyle Blocks), also raised concerns about noise from the existing Marphona Crescent industrial area. This area is outside of the Plan Change area and we have no justification to address concerns the submitter has with respect to this noise.

Childcare and Studio Warehousing within Industrial 1

Submission 17.7 (Takanini Industrial Trust) sought that noise thresholds be specifically differentiated between habitable rooms and bedrooms within the Industrial 1 zone in studio warehouse developments. The submitter also seeks the addition of acoustic assessment criteria for childcare centres within the Industrial 1 zone. Ancillary residential activity to a permitted activity or discretionary activity is permitted in both the Industrial 1 and 3 zones. Studio warehousing is a discretionary activity in the Industrial 1 zone. This report has already determined in Section 11.3 (Zoning and Land Uses) that childcare centres not be provided for in the Industrial 1 zone. Accordingly we have not addressed the noise and ventilation issues relating to them.

of 163

Rules in Section 3 Part 6.15 General Requirements for Industrial Zones 1.Noise h) relate to noise levels for Studio Warehousing. JPStyles Ltd‟s report did suggest noise and ventilation controls specifically for studio warehousing and childcare centres in the Industrial 1 zone, but commented that these recommendations may be applied to general residential in the PC15 Industrial 1 zone. The amendments proposed by JPStyles Ltd for residential accommodation and studio warehousing in Industrial 1 are supported for Takanini Area 6 only as they would improve the level of amenity offered by current District Plan controls. JPStyles Ltd‟s report suggests amended wording, which is also supported subject to amendment to remove references to childcare centres and include references to residential accommodation, and limit its application to Takanini Area 6 to read: ―With respect to Studio Warehousing and residential activity in the Industrial 1 Zone in Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 only, the buildings shall be designed and constructed to comply with the following internal noise limits:

i) 35dB LAeq in bedrooms; and ii) 45dB LAeq in all other habitable rooms Based on the Leq noise level incident on the facade of the building being:

Frequency (Hz)

63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 dBA

dB 64 63 57 51 49 47 43 55

At the same time and under the same physical conditions as the internal noise levels are measured and assessed, all bedrooms and other habitable rooms will be adequately ventilated in accordance with the Building Code. In assessing compliance with the ventilation requirements of the Building Code for the purposes of this rule, no source or means of ventilation shall be taken into account unless it is available at all times while achieving the internal noise levels required of this rule. For example, adjustable doors, windows or louvres may not be relied upon to meet the ventilation requirements of the Building Code if, in order to meet those requirements they must be adjusted such that the internal noise level exceeds the limit specified in parts (i) and (ii) of this rule.‖

Acoustic Engineer Certification

Submission 17.7 (Takanini Industrial Trust), sought amendment to Section 3 Part 6.15 General Requirements for Industrial Zones 1.Noise e) relating to the provision of acoustic engineer certification to read as follows:

“6.15(1)(e) For all controlled, restricted discretionary, and discretionary and non-

complying activity applications within the Industrial 1 zone and in any other case wWhere doubt arises as to the ability of an industry to comply with these controls, the applicant/operator shall provide the Council with a certificate from a registered engineer with acoustical qualifications confirming that the activity will comply with the foregoing noise controls. In the case of a new activity, this information must be provided before the activity commences.‖

With respect to 6.15(1)(e), JPStyles Ltd suggested the following alternative wording,

of 163

―Upon the reasonable request of the Council, the applicant or operator shall provide the Council with a report from a suitably qualified acoustician setting out the measured actual or predicted noise levels comparing them with the foregoing noise controls. In the case of a new activity, this information must be provided before the activity commences.‖, stating that ―This removes the ability for anyone with ―doubt‖ to request the report, and also removes several other ambiguities in the other proposed wordings. Requiring a comparison of measured or predicted noise levels from an activity instead of ―confirming compliance‖ will not pre-empt the outcome of any such assessment, as it may be that the activity does not comply at all.‖ We find that the existing wording is more appropriate (and we have retained it.) This wording is not considered to be so ambiguous as to justify a different requirement for Industrial 1 land in Area 6. It is also beyond the scope of the plan change to alter the requirement for all Industrial 1 development.

Residential 8 Noise Controls

Submission 17.7 (Takanini Industrial Trust) also sought changes to noise controls within the Residential 8 zone within Takanini Area 6 and sought the replacement of noise standards at Rule 16.1.6.8 (as referenced at rule 16.1.7.6 of the operative District Plan) with standards permitting higher daytime noise, but introducing a maximum noise level.

JPStyles Ltd considered that although the LAeq numerical limits and the use of the Leq descriptor proposed by the submitter were appropriate, that the LAFmax limit should be reduced and that lower noise limits should apply on Sundays and Public Holidays. The submitter did not provide further justification for allowing more permissive noise controls. Given that the Residential 8 zone is a relatively recently developed zone and is considered appropriate for Area 6, we find no good reason for increasing the noise standards generated by residential development. Despite JPStyles Ltd‟s recommendation we have rejected the submission. Submission 6.2 (L and F Morgan) was concerned about loss of peacefulness and noise created by residential development adjacent to the submitter‟s site. The submitter‟s site is in the Residential 1 zone. The land adjacent to their site is proposed to be rezoned to Residential 8 and the Residential 8 noise controls are considered sufficient to protect the adjoining Residential 1 use.

Vibration

With respect to Submissions 20.1 to 98.1 (multiple submitters) and their concerns about industrial vibration, JPStyles Ltd‟s report makes the following points on page 15, ―Potential Vibration Effects There is always the potential for any activity to generate ground-borne vibration that may propagate off-site, potentially generating a noticeable adverse effect. The most common sources of vibration are construction activities, heavy traffic and to a lesser extent industrial activities. In most cases, the effects of vibration are adequately dealt with by Councils using the provisions of s17 of the [Resource Management] Act.‖

of 163

Given the nature of the activities proposed within PC 15, we do not consider that specific vibration controls are necessary. Although activities that may foreseeably generate vibration could be located in the Industrial 3 area, the separation distance to the nearest residential activity will provide more than sufficient attenuation. We do not anticipate that those activities expected to be established in the Industrial 1 zone would be likely to generate vibration effects that would be felt off site. We also note that owners or occupiers have an overriding duty to avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse effects – including vibration (Section 17 of the RMA).


That due to Submission 17.7 (Takanini Industrial Trust) Amend Section 3 Part 6 General requirements for Industrial Zones 6.15 1.Noise (a) to read as follows:

6.15 1.Noise (a) Any use of land or buildings in an industrial zone shall be conducted and

buildings shall be designed and laid out so as to ensure that the following noise levels in

in Tables A and B, measured and assessed in accordance with the standards prescribed in NZS 6801:1991 Measurement of Sound and 6802:1991 Assessment of Environmental Sound, or

in Takanini Structure Plan Area 6, Tables C and D, measured and assessed in accordance with the standards prescribed in NZS 6801:2008 Acoustics - Measurement of Environmental Sound and NZS 6802:2008 Acoustics - Environmental Noise.

are not exceeded as a result of any activity involved in that use. The noise shall be measured with a sound level meter complying with the International Standard IEC 651 (1979) Sound Level Meters Type 1 or other instruments or standards that the Council considers should supersede these.

Amend Section 3 Part 6 General requirements for Industrial Zones 6.15 1.Noise (c) to

read as follows: 6.15 1.Noise (c) The noise standards in Tables A, and B, C and D shall not apply to the

construction or maintenance of buildings that have been approved by the Council. Where construction noise is emanating from a site where construction is ancillary to the principal use, it shall meet the limits recommended in, and be measured and assessed in accordance with:

New Zealand Standard NZS 6803P:1984 The Measurement and Assessment of Noise from Construction Maintenance and Demolition Work, or

in Takanini Structure Plan Area 6, noise arising from construction or demolition activities shall be measured and assessed in accordance with NZS6803:1999 Acoustics – Construction Noise and shall comply with the limits therein. Construction Work is defined in section 3.1 of the Standard or

other instruments or standards that Council considers should supersede these.

That due to Submission 17.7 (Takanini Industrial Trust) Amend Section 3 part 6.15 1 Noise (b) as follows:

6.15 1.Noise

of 163

(b) The noise level (L10) shall be measured on the nearest residential boundary and shall not exceed the limits set out in Table A except in Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 where the noise levels (LAeq and LAFmax) shall be measured and assessed at any point on or within the nearest any residential boundary or at the notional boundary of any rural/residential property and shall not exceed the limits set out in Table C.

Amend Section 3 part 6.15 1 Noise Table A as follows;

TABLE A

The noise level (L10) shall be measured on the nearest residential boundary except for Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 which is subject to Table C.

Monday – Friday between the hours 0700 – 2200

Saturday 0700 – 1200

L10*

Industrial 1 45 dBA

Industrial 2 50 dBA

Industrial 3 55 dBA

Industrial 4 55 dBA

All other times including public holidays

L10*

Industrial 1 40dBA

Industrial 2 45 dBA

Industrial 3 50 dBA

Industrial 4 50 dBA

Amend Section 3 part 6.15 1 Noise Table B as follows;

TABLE B

The noise level (L10) as measured at or within the boundary of a site zoned for an industrial purpose shall not exceed the following limits except for Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 which is subject to Table D:

Industrial 1 50 dBA

Industrial 2 50 dBA

Industrial 3 55 dBA

Industrial 4 55 dBA

Amend Section 3 part 6.15 1 Noise by inserting a new Table C as follows;

TABLE C (applies to Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 only)

The noise level measured at or within the boundary of any residential property or at the notional boundary of any rural/residential property shall not exceed the following levels:

Monday to Friday 0700 – 2200 & Saturday 0700 - 1200




At all other times including Public Holidays




Amend Section 3 part 6.15 1 Noise by inserting a new Table D as follows:

Table D (applies to Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 only) The noise level arising from any activity measured at or within the boundary

of 163

of any Industrial site shall not exceed the following levels: Zone of receiving site Noise limit Industrial 1 55dB LAeq Industrial 3 65dB LAeq

Amend Section 3 part 6.15 1 Noise (d) as follows: 6.15 1.Noise

(d) Notwithstanding the noise standards in Tables A B, C, and BD…


Amend Section 3 part 6.15 1 Noise (h) as follows: 6.15 1.Noise

(h) (i) With respect to Studio Warehousing only except within Takanini Structure Plan Area 6:

…causes a disturbance. (iii) With respect to Studio Warehousing and residential

activity in the Industrial 1 Zone in Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 only, the buildings shall be designed and constructed to comply with the following internal noise limits:

i) 35dB LAeq in bedrooms; and

ii) 45dB LAeq in all other habitable rooms

Based on the Leq noise level incident on the facade of the building

being:

At the same time and under the same physical conditions as the internal noise levels are measured and assessed, all bedrooms and other habitable rooms will be adequately ventilated in accordance with the Building Code. In assessing compliance with the ventilation requirements of the Building Code for the purposes of this rule, no source or means of ventilation shall be taken into account unless it is available at all times while achieving the internal noise levels required of this rule. For example, adjustable doors, windows or louvres may not be relied upon to meet the ventilation requirements of the Building Code if, in order to meet those requirements they must be adjusted such that the internal noise level exceeds the limit specified in parts (i) and (ii) of this rule.

Frequency (Hz)

63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 dBA

dB 64 63 57 51 49 47 43 55

of 163

11.10 Submissions Relating to PC15: Traffic


Local Road Network / State Highway1 / Network Capacity

Development Timing

Mitigation Funding and Mechanisms

PC15 as Notified

Road Completion Responsibilities

Road Improvements

Spartan Road

Corridor Management Plan

Cycleway

Cyclist Safety/Safety/Pedestrians/School and Shop Safety

Travel Plan and Alternative Transport Modes

Sustainable Trips with Employment

Passenger Transport Services and Routes

Accessibility

Speed

Access to Property 158 and 160 Manuroa Road

Residential 8 Parking Standards

Increased Retail Traffic

Traffic Vibration

Air Pollution from Traffic

Increased Heavy Vehicles and Industrial Traffic in Residential Zones

Traffic Noise

Decisions on Submissions Relating to Traffic















FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd 2.12 Support (with

amendments) Manukau City Council Reject

FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd

of 163

FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose in part Takanini Industrial Trust 2.15 Support (with



amendments) Manukau City Council Reject in Part

FS03 Nigel Hosken Support in part FS04 Takanini Structure

Plan Area 6 Ltd Support in part

FS05 Mellviews Ltd Support in part FS06 Zabeel Investments

Ltd Support in part

FS07 Village Farms Ltd Support in part FS08 Takanini Industrial

Trust Support in part




amendments) Manukau City Council Accept





FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose in part Takanini Industrial Trust

of 163















FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd

of 163

FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose in part Takanini Industrial Trust 2.28 Support (with


FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose in part Takanini Industrial Trust 5.4 Oppose G & A Goldring Accept in Part FS03 Nigel Hosken Oppose FS04 Takanini Structure

Plan Area 6 Ltd Oppose

FS05 Mellviews Ltd Oppose FS06 Zabeel Investments

Ltd Oppose

FS07 Village Farms Ltd Oppose FS08 Takanini Industrial

Trust Oppose


Support

5.6 Oppose G & A Goldring Accept in Part FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Support G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents






5.9 Oppose G & A Goldring Accept in Part FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd

of 163

FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Support G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents


5.10 Oppose G & A Goldring Accept

FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Support G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents


5.13 Oppose G & A Goldring Accept in Part FS01 Support Manukau City Council








5.14 G & A Goldring Oppose Accept in Part FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken





















6.5 Oppose L & F Morgan Accept in Part FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust 6.6 Oppose L & F Morgan Accept in Part FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust 7.5 Support (with Takanini Residents Action Group Accept in Part

of 163

amendments)

FS01 Support Manukau City Council FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose in part Takanini Industrial Trust 7.6 Support (with

amendments) Takanini Residents Action Group Accept in Part

FS01 Support Manukau City Council FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd 7.7 Support (with


FS01 Support Manukau City Council








Takanini Residents Action Group Accept in Part



FS01 Support Manukau City Council FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose in part Takanini Industrial Trust 7.10 Support (with


FS01 Support Manukau City Council FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose in part Takanini Industrial Trust 8.1 Oppose New Zealand Transport Agency Accept in Part FS01 Support Manukau City Council FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd

of 163

FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Support G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents


8.2 Oppose New Zealand Transport Agency Accept in Part FS01 Support Manukau City Council FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Support G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents






8.5 New Zealand Transport Agency

Oppose Accept in Part

FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS09 Support G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents


8.6 New Zealand Transport Agency

Oppose Accept in Part

FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS09 Support G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents




Accept

of 163

FS01 Support Manukau City Council FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust 11.3 Support (with


Accept in Part

FS01 Support in part Manukau City Council FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Support G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents




Accept in Part

FS01 Support in part Manukau City Council FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Support G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents




Accept in Part

FS01 Support in part Manukau City Council FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Support in part Takanini Industrial Trust 11.7 Support (with


Accept



Accept

FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose in part Takanini Industrial Trust

of 163



Reject in Part

FS03 Support in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Support in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS09 Support G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents




FS01 Oppose Manukau City Council FS03 Support Nigel Hosken FS05 Support Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents




FS01 Oppose Manukau City Council FS03 Support Nigel Hosken FS04 Support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS06 Support Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents




FS01 Oppose Manukau City Council FS03 Support Nigel Hosken FS04 Support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support Mellviews Ltd FS07 Support Village Farms Ltd FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents




FS01 Oppose Manukau City Council FS03 Support Nigel Hosken FS04 Support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support Zabeel Investments Ltd FS09 Oppose G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents


17.2

Support (with amendments












of 163

FS04 Support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd 17.8 Support (with



FS03 Support Nigel Hosken FS04 Support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Support Mellviews Ltd FS06 Support Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Support in part Village Farms Ltd 18.2 Oppose Alfriston Residents Group –


FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust 18.5 Oppose Alfriston Residents Group –


FS01 Support in part Manukau City Council FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust 18.7 Oppose Alfriston Residents Group –


FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust 18.8 Oppose Alfriston Residents Group –


FS01 Support in part Manukau City Council FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust 18.9 Oppose Alfriston Residents Group –


FS01 Support Manukau City Council FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd

of 163

FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust 18.10 Oppose Alfriston Residents Group –



changes) D Newman Accept in Part

FS01 Support Manukau City Council FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Support G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents




FS01 Support in part Manukau City Council FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Support G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents




FS01 Support Manukau City Council FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose Takanini Industrial Trust FS09 Support G. Rudolph (Alfriston Residents






19.6 Opposes (seeks D Newman Accept in Part

of 163

changes)





FS01 Support in part Manukau City Council FS02 Oppose Retail Holdings Ltd and Southgate

Centre Ltd

FS03 Oppose in part Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose in part Takanini Industrial Trust 20.2 to 98.2 Oppose (seeks

changes) Multiple Accept in Part

FS03 Oppose Nigel Hosken FS04 Oppose in part Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS05 Oppose in part Mellviews Ltd FS06 Oppose in part Zabeel Investments Ltd FS07 Oppose in part Village Farms Ltd FS08 Oppose in part Takanini Industrial Trust

Reasons:

The impact of additional traffic on the surrounding road network as a consequence of the rezoning of the PC 15 land was a significant focus at the hearing (and of submissions – see Appendix 2 (2.10) for a summary of the submissions and evidence). All parties, the Council‟s reporting officer and the Council‟s consultant traffic expert (Opus), and submitters (both supporting and opposing the Plan Change) all agreed that that there would be significant change in traffic volumes and a new pattern of road-network usage resulting from all of the development changes occurring or will occur within the entire Takanini Structure Plan Area and as a result of PC 15. What was not agreed was how this matter should be dealt with. In summary the differing views were (and set out in more detail below):

The reporting officer - that development be limited in the Takanini Area 6 until the required network/traffic upgrades were in place. Her opinion was informed by the Opus reports/findings that the modelling work undertaken indicated that PC15 would create significant detrimental traffic effects. She supported the staged development approach (outlined in more detail later) but accepted that no other plan changes in the Takanini Structure Plan Area are subject to staged development controls.

Takanini Industrial Trust (a landowner – represented by Mr Bartlett) submitted that development could be staged based upon a traffic generation cap – and

of 163

that development beyond a traffic generation cap of 483 vehicles per hour at pm peak should trigger a restricted discretionary application and permitted below this (it was „agreed‟ to „round‟ this figure to 500 vehicles per hour).

Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd, Zabeel Investments Ltd, Mellviews Ltd, and Village Farms Ltd (landowners – represented by Mr Brabant). Mr Brabant‟s submissions were that a road/intersection staging rule is not necessary and as for other parts of the Takanini Structure Plan Area (ie wider than PC 15) development contributions should be required from development

to contribute towards the required road network upgrades. Other submitters including: Alfriston Residents Group – Lifestyle Blocks,

Sheriff Place Residents Group, Daniel Newman and others, sought that the rezoning not be confirmed until the necessary roading (including the Mill Rd arterial route) was funded and constructed.

For the reasons set out below we prefer the arguments put forward by Mr Brabant on behalf of his clients.

Overview of the Issues re Road Network upgrade.

The Integrated Traffic Assessment An ITA (Integrated Traffic Assessment) was notified with PC15 as a supporting technical report. Originally prepared by the private plan change applicant in conjunction with Papakura District Council, it was adopted with PC15. The ITA as notified is based on 100% of Takanini Area 6 being developed in 2016. It did not tie roading changes to the timing of development. The PC15 ITA identified transport improvements required to cater for the level of traffic anticipated by the development of Takanini Area 6 as upgrades to: 1. Manuroa Road / Takanini School Road Intersection 2. Manuroa Road / Porchester Road Intersection 3. Airfield Road / Porchester Road Intersection 4. Popes Road / Porchester Road Intersection 5. Manuroa Road / Great South Road Intersection 6. Manuroa Road Widening. Manuroa Road / Takanini School Road Intersection This intersection would require the installation of traffic signals to provide for the traffic generated by Area 6A and B. Manuroa Road / Porchester Road Intersection This intersection would require the installation of traffic signals to provide for the traffic anticipated in the future. Airfield Road / Porchester Road Intersection This intersection would require the installation of traffic signals to provide for the traffic anticipated in the future. Popes Road / Porchester Road Intersection

of 163

This intersection would require the installation of traffic signals to provide for the traffic generated by Area 6A and B. Manuroa Road / Great South Road Intersection This intersection would need to be upgraded to provide for the traffic anticipated in the future by Area 6A and B, as well as other traffic growth in the Takanini area. Manuroa Road Widening. Manuroa Road between Great South Road and Takanini School Road would need to be widened in the future to accommodate the level of traffic anticipated in the future by Area 6A and B as well as other growth in the Takanini area. The ITA stated (7.1.9) that if the intersection upgrades were in place, the levels of additional traffic generated by the proposal (PC15) could be provided for in an appropriate manner without unduly compromising their respective function, capacity or safety. Moreover – the Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 shown in Appendix 16A of PC15 as notified proposes road widening along the western side of Porchester Road. Appendix 16D of PC15 as notified showed: 1. Figure 1 – Intersection Upgrade of Popes and Porchester Roads 2. Figure 2 - Road Cross Section Takanini School Road 3. Figure 3 - Road Cross Section Porchester Road 4. Figure 4 - Road Cross Section Popes Road Council‟s Expert Traffic Reports - Opus Reports Opus International Consultants Ltd were contracted by the Council to prepare a report - “Plan Change 15 Takanini Area 6: Transport Assessment Final March 2011” (called the “Opus March 2011 report”) It stated that PC15 would have a significant impact on the local and wider transport network unless a much greater amount of upgrading/ mitigation works than anticipated in the ITA and in PC15 as notified were undertaken, and that the nature of those wider network improvements was uncertain.

Opus‟ August 2011 report “Plan Change 15 Takanini Area 6: Transport Assessment Addendum 2 – Extended Study Area Assessment” stated that three specific intersections will have network deficiencies as a result of PC15. Mitigation measures to address the impact of PC15 were modelled for these:

Popes and Porchester Roads,

Porchester and Airfield Roads,

Manuroa and Takanini School Roads.

The report also suggested mitigation measures for a fourth intersection at Manuroa and Popes Roads are necessary due to its proximity to PC15. While exact designs for these mitigation measures would have to be determined some indicative intersection layouts were suggested in Opus‟ August 2011 report. The modelling in the Opus March 2011 report assumed that Takanini Area 6 would be fully developed by 2016. Additional modelling was commissioned to determine whether a full build out of Takanini Area 6 by 2026 instead of 2016 made any

of 163

difference to the traffic impacts. This modelling was continued in the following report: “Plan Change 15 Takanini Area 6: Transport Assessment Draft Addendum 1 – Sensitivity Testing June 2011” by Opus International Consultants Ltd. To determine at what point in the development of the land within Takanini Area 6 the recommended intersection traffic mitigation measures would need to be in place, the Council requested further advice from Opus International Consultants Ltd. Their response was set out in “Plan Change 15 Development Level Assessment” memorandum by Opus International Consultants Ltd (10 August 2011) The modelling in the Opus August 2011 report was based on 28% of Takanini Area 6 being developed in 2016, with 100% of Takanini Area 6 assumed to be developed by 2026. This is based on an assumption of a constant rate of development across Takanini Area 6 because PC15 does not specify a sequence of development within Area 6. The NZTA Takanini Interchange and State Highway 1 improvements were included in some of the modelling for 2026. Overall the Opus report (August 2011) advised that based on the future land use and forecast level of traffic there were a number of significant deficiencies in the current road network that are affecting the network operation. Modelling undertaken to inform the report identifies which intersections will have network deficiencies in 2026 whether or not PC15 proceeds, and which intersections which will have network deficiencies as a direct result of PC15. As already mentioned no party disputed that major roading network upgrading would be required. The issue was – what response to this information should be taken in terms of addressing the submissions to the Plan Change as well as to the requested movement of the Metropolitan Urban Limit. This is addressed in the next section - Development Timing and Staging. Development Timing and Staging The plan change as notified does not tie roading changes to the timing of development, but would require certain stated intersections to be upgraded. The summary of the „positions‟ of the various parties with respect to the issue of road upgrading, timing and staging has been set out earlier. However with respect to the road capacity issues some parties, including the reporting officer and Mr Bartlett and his expert planning witness (Mr Hook) supported a „staged‟ approach. That is development could be „permitted‟ up to a certain stage (maximum traffic generation) and beyond that a consent would be required – with the emphasis being on addressing traffic issues. We note here that other submitters stated that the Plan changes not proceed until all necessary infrastructure, including roading, was provided. We had difficulty with the approaches proposed above from both a strategic and practical perspective. Our reasons are as follows.

Strategic perspective - growth management

We have fully set out in section 11.1 above -The national, regional and district context, and legislative consistency issues, and the issues with respect to the extension of the MUL (Change 14) below. Takanini is one of the major greenfield growth areas in the Auckland Region. The Takanini Structure Plan Area (and the number of Plan Changes already completed) „fits very strongly‟ within a settled regional and district

of 163

framework. In short this area is being and will be urbanised. The issues are „how, what and when‟ and not „if‟. In this context it is accepted that the roading network (and intersection upgrades) would be required due to the rezoning of this land. However roading network (and intersection upgrades) are also required as part of the wider planning for the Takanini Structure Plan Area. PC 15 cannot be seen in „isolation‟ as it must be considered from a planning perspective as part of a „bigger picture‟ - i.e. the planning for and development of the Takanini Structure Plan Area. In this respect we support Mr Brabant‟s legal submission (see the Appendices with the summary of the evidence) Mr Brabant discussed the relevance of a number of Environment Court decisions. Of particular note to us was a recent decision relating to PC 12 and the Ray Wallace Ltd land (RWL) in Takanini (part of the Takanini Structure Plan Area). He quoted from the decision and a particularly relevant section is (para 25, pg 111 of his legal submissions)17:

We note that PC 12 is about changing the Plan at a strategic level, and is not a site-specific consent. In that context estimates of future traffic generation and network capacity can be affected by many factors over a long period of time and a high level of analysis is appropriate. Improvements to the existing infrastructure are to be anticipated as the wider structure plan area, not just the RWL land, transitions from rural to urban. There are standard methods, including development contributions available to the relevant agencies to plan and implement any necessary improvements.

Mr Brabant submitted (and evidence was provided by his expert witnesses) that there was no doubt that there would be significant change in traffic volumes and a new pattern of road-network usage resulting from all of the development changes occurring or will occur within the Takanini Structure Plan Area. In this respect he considered that the traffic report commissioned by the Council (the Opus report) which attempted to predict the timing and extent of these future effects, rather than assessing the ability to achieve the necessary improvements the predicted increased traffic volumes may necessitate, was misconceived and inappropriate. He stated that roading network effects should be addressed at time of subdivision and land use consents, as provided for in PC 15. We agree that roading network effects should be addressed at time of subdivision and land use consents, as provided for in PC 15. In saying this we accept all of the evidence presented to us that there are no physical reasons why the roading upgrades can not (and should) be undertaken. The issue is funding – and we address this below.

Traffic Generation Cap – is it a Practical and Appropriate Method. We were not convinced that imposing a traffic generation cap was the most appropriate or practical method to manage the traffic issues. This would require the Council to know exactly what traffic was being generated from developments within the PC 15 area. While resource consents would be required for most developments, and traffic generation capped (as part of the consent) this would be a difficult, expensive and time consuming exercise to monitor (either the consent holder would be required to maintain a log or the Council would need to regularly monitor). Moreover while consents may be granted, they may not be „actioned‟, may not be developed for 5 years (i.e. up to the lapse period), or the total development consented may not be built or the traffic generation less than expected. All of these would create

17

Mr Bryce Hall in his expert traffic evidence also addressed this decision.

of 163

inefficiencies as the „allowable traffic generation cap‟ may be fully allocated to one or only a few developments, which are not actually developed. Subsequent development proposals would be required to demonstrate the traffic effects can be managed and /or undertake roading network upgrades. Also as set out in the ITA, it is clear that some of the needed intersection/road upgrades are not solely related to area 6A and B – but are required to accommodate growth in the broader area. In this respect we find it may be difficult when assessing any consent on a „traffic cap‟ basis to determine a cause and effects relationship. We do not think that „one off‟ roading network upgrades on a consent by consent basis is practical or efficient. It is also unlikely to be the preferred option of Auckland Transport as it this organisation who is responsible for overall network and its upgrading and maintenance. As already set out extensive roading network upgrades are required for much to the Takanini Structure Plan Area of which PC 15 is only one part. We reiterate that from a strategic regional planning perspective, it is not efficient or practical to deal with infrastructure upgrades other than on a coordinated and comprehensive basis. In this respect it would be difficult to satisfy the section 32 criteria. Overall our view is that developers should pay a development contribution/financial contribution towards the works, so that the relevant authorities can undertake the work. This is „standard practice‟.

Funding Mechanisms

The Opus report (August 2011) identifies specific mitigation works associated with PC15 and their rough order costs, identifies a funding shortfall, and discusses funding requirements. It also estimates the costs to mitigate the PC15 traffic impacts. Advice was also given by Auckland Transport (August 2011 memo) which quoted Opus‟ August 2011 figures and added a “Totals” column: Estimated Mitigation Costs

Auckland Transport‟s Funding Envelope

Plan Change 15 Mitigation Measures

Totals

Current LTCCP Funding $9.82M N/A $9.82M

Cost to Improve Intersections

Do Minimum Improvements

$8.46M N/A $8.46M

Additional Network Improvements required for Plan Change 15

$1.8M[1] $7.62M $9.42

Total Costs to Improve Intersections

$10.26M $7.62M $17.88M

Funding Shortfall: $0.44M $7.62M $8.06M

Auckland Transport‟s also advised (August 2011 memo) that:

―Auckland Transport is currently drafting the transport component of the Long Term Plan (LTP) for 2012-2022. Auckland Transport has included the total costs of improvements ($17.88M identified in the table) in the programme which is subject to approval by Auckland Council. Auckland Transport concurs from the

of 163

review of the OPUS reports that the effects of Plan Change 15 can be mitigated through the identified improvements to the network. ―There is however a risk as to whether the improvements will be committed in the 2012-2015 LTP as the works will be assessed and prioritised against all transport projects across the region put forward for funding. If the improvements are not committed in the 2012-2015 LTP and the Plan Change is adopted, Auckland Transport as the Road Controlling Authority would support an alternative funding mechanism or development cap be considered by Auckland Council until such improvements can be funded and constructed.‖

Council Contribution Regimes We were advised that the PC15 area is currently subject to three different contribution regimes. This advice was received from Council‟s Contribution Policy Team, who advise that these regimes are: a. Financial contribution provisions in the operative Papakura District Plan: Section Three Part 10 of the Papakura District Plan (“Auckland Council District Plan: Papakura Section”) relates to Development Levies, Reserves Contributions, Financial Contributions, Esplanade Reserves, Works and Services. b. Development Contributions Policy: The proposed traffic works as notified in PC15 are already budgeted for as development contributions. Papakura District Council had a Development Contributions Policy. Part of the interim Auckland Council Development Contributions Policy applies to the former Papakura District. A new Auckland Long Term Plan (“LTP”) is due 1 July 2012, and a new Development Contributions Policy for Auckland Council comes into effect on the same date. If the new Auckland LTP includes the required work within its roading budget (the setting of which Auckland Transport is responsible for), the works would then be recoverable through development contributions and the LTP can be used as a means of co-ordinating methods other than RMA District Plan rules to ensure that the required works are scheduled and funded. In conclusion, Council‟s Contribution Policy Team advised that the most practical options, based on current knowledge of the infrastructure needed to support Plan Change 15 and the options available are to:

a) continue to rely on the operative financial contribution provisions in the District plan to fund local reserves infrastructure only until such time as the operative provisions are replaced by the development contributions policy or the unitary plan;

b) continue to rely on the operative development contribution policy for funding council roading, stormwater and community infrastructure serving the plan change area until July 2012 when the 2012 development contribution policy is adopted;

c) incorporate the proposed roading mitigation works associated with Plan Change 15 into the 2012-22 capital programme for recovery through the 2012 development contributions policy.

Council‟s Contribution Policy Team advised that for b) above, it is accepted that the additional roading mitigation works for Plan Change 15 are unfunded at present and are therefore not included in the transport development contribution currently payable

of 163

for the area. However, the chances of significant amounts of development occurring in the plan change area before the introduction of the 2012 development contribution policy are small. While we accept the advice of the Council regarding funding mechanisms, we find that development contributions provisions are the most fair and appropriate funding mechanism for roading improvements needed as a consequence of land use changes. If Auckland Transport is successful in getting capital expenditure into the 2012-22 capital programme, then this will reflect in development contributions applicable to Takanini Area 6 from 1 July 2012. However, funding of infrastructure should not wholly rely on development contributions as the benefits of improvements are community-wide. We accept we are not able to directly influence the funding and timing of decisions made by the Council and Auckland Transport. However given the strategic importance to the Auckland Region of the Takanini Structure Plan Area, and the area of PC 15 – particularly in terms of business land focus, we find that an emphasis needs to be placed on integrating the planning for Auckland growth and the funding of the infrastructure upgrades. Accordingly while we accept that currently only some of the roading upgrades are funded, and others unfunded, this is not sufficient reason to either refuse the plan change or to introduce a traffic generation cap. Some proposals for development will require a resource consent, and site-specific traffic matters will need to be addressed at that time. Conditions on timing and staging could be imposed then. Other proposals may be permitted. However, in both cases Development Contributions (under the Local Government Act) will be payable. In our view, this is the appropriate method in which to advance PC 15.

Other Roading/Transport related matters. Submitters raised a number of issues related to „Other Roading/Transport‟ matters. These are addressed below.

Spartan Road

Some submitters express specific safety concerns about the intersection of Spartan Road and Great South Road. The March 2011 Opus report states (page 72 at 10.2.2), ―In the past five years there have been no reported accidents at the intersection of Spartan Road and Great South Road. However, this intersection is a known crash black spot to Police and Council. To improve safety at the intersection the right turn lane from Spartan Road into Great South Road has recently been removed. The Traffic Management Study report has referenced the concerns and proposals at the Spartan Road and Great South Road intersection. No testing has been carried out taking into account a full closure of the Spartan Road intersection.‖ As addressed above the entire roading / transport network needs to be considered with respect to the management of the planned growth in Takanini.

Cycleway Submission 2.12 (Manukau City Council) sought a cycle / pedestrian bridge connection across Papakura Stream. The March 2011 Opus report states (page 77), As previously discussed - Reserve Land and Landscape section, Papakura District Council‟s “Walking and Cycling 10 Year Implementation Plan” (2008) indicates that there would be a Papakura Stream off-road path which will be for shared use. The

of 163

proposed path runs along the southern bank of the stream between Takanini School Road and Porchester Road. We understand that the construction of the cycle path is provided for whether or not PC15 occurs, and that under PC15 its specific location could be determined as part of the landscape concept plan requirements introduced by PC15. As we found earlier a bridge over the river is outside the scope of this plan change.

Travel Plan and Alternative Transport Modes As drafted, the Plan Change has a requirement to provide cycle stands and motorcycle parking but does not require preparation and assessment of travel plans to occur as part of the consent process. While we support the concept it is not considered necessary to make Travel Plans within Takanini Area 6 a District Plan requirement. PC15 requires parking for multi modal transport and is accessible by public transport. Staff travel plans can be implemented by businesses that establish in the area and the provision of cyclist and motorcyclist facilities required on individual sites by PC15. The availability of public transport will also assist in promoting these modes to workers in the area. The potential development of a Transport Management Association for the Takanini area would potentially result in significant improvements to travel in and through the area. However the development of such an association would be dependent on a number of parties being involved and is outside the scope of the measures able to be applied directly to the Takanini Area 6 proposal.

Passenger Transport Services and Routes

PC15 will provide opportunities for future potential passenger transport services through the area by upgrading roads and providing safe and convenient pedestrian crossing points. PC10 to the Papakura District Plan (“Auckland Council District Plan: Papakura Section”) includes timetables for the development of growth areas, which advise transportation planners which areas will need to be serviced by passenger transport, and what the timing for development of those areas is. The District Plan is not the appropriate mechanism to specify the timing of individual bus routes.

Accessibility Clause 8.2.2 of the ITA notified with the PC15 states that, ―To support the Papakura Walking and Cycling Strategy, footpaths will be provided throughout the plan change area including a 20 metre esplanade reserve along the northern part of the site. Footpaths will be provided on both sides of the existing and proposed roads within Area 6a and 6b which is consistent with the Walking Strategy to provide road safety for pedestrians. ―There are also easy pedestrian connections to the Takanini rail station located to the south of the plan change area within a 5 to 10 minute walk. In addition, pedestrian safety and amenity will be improved at the following intersections via the installation of traffic signal control for vehicles and all pedestrian movements:

Takanini School Road / Manuroa Road,

Popes Road / Porchester Road,

Manuroa Road / Porchester Road.

of 163

PC15 adequately addresses accessibility, in particular through the upgrade of roads and footpaths associated with the development in PC15, the implementation of the cycleway along the Papakura Stream, access to public transport and parking provision for bicycles and motorcycles.

Speed The roads serving the plan change area are public roads (some being arterials) and therefore speed concerns are unlikely to be resolved by road form. However speeds can be set through bylaws and this usually occurs in conjunction with development. For example Auckland Transport plans to reduce the speed on the residential sections of Porchester Road to 50km/hr to better serve the surrounding land use. Given the planned land uses it is more appropriate that this issue is dealt with outside of the plan change process.

Satisfying submitters‟ concerns about speed is therefore beyond the scope of PC15.

Access to Property 158 And 160 Manuroa Road Submission 5.6 (G and A Goldring) live at 160 Manuroa Road (on the corner of Manuroa and Porchester Roads). They oppose the plan change and state that proposed changes will exacerbate existing traffic congestion along Porchester Rd and Manuroa Rd and make it difficult for them to access their property. The submitters seek changes so that the land either remains rurally zoned; or is developed by Council into park areas/ adventure playgrounds or is zoned for lifestyle blocks. Submission 6.3 (L and F Morgan) live at 158 Manuroa Road and state their concerns that roading network upgrades that may be required could create physical access problems for them and seek confirmation that physical property access will be maintained for them. They are also concerned in their Submission 6.4 that roading network upgrades could require the acquisition of their property at 158 Manuroa Road. The submitter‟s properties are on or near the corner of the Manuroa Road / Porchester Road intersection. This intersection will be over capacity and will experience traffic congestion and delays in 2026 with or without the Plan Change proceeding, according to the Opus report. The Transport Assessment identifies that the intersection will need to be widened and that this work may require the acquisition of part of these submitter‟s properties. The issues raised by the submitters can only be addressed as part of an exercise to confirm the ultimate design of the intersection and associated route protection and acquisition. Property access is usually dealt with at that time and not as part of the Plan Change process. Therefore, although the Transport Assessment has identified widening of the intersection is required, no decision can be made via this process regarding property acquisition and appropriate compensation. Residential 8 Parking Standards

The changes sought by Submission 17.8 (Takanini Industrial Trust) to specific parking

provisions in Residential 8 to provide for comprehensive Medium Density Housing

Developments involving at least 75 units and public road and reserve areas are not

considered necessary. The Residential 8 zone is a recently developed zone which

already provides for Medium Density Housing Developments to be considered as a

Restricted Discretionary Activity if they do not meet parking and access standards

(Section 3 Part 16 Rule 16.1.4.2).

of 163

Increased Retail Traffic In the section - Zoning and Land Uses we have made the decision that retail activities having a gross floor area greater than 400 square metres in the Industrial 3 Zone in Takanini Area 6 be a non complying activity. Further modelling of retail uses as suggested by Submission 11.7 (Auckland Regional Transport Authority) is not therefore required.

Air Pollution from Traffic

Management of the discharge of contaminants to air from vehicles is a regional issue and is dealt with in the context of the Proposed Regional Plan: Air, land and Water. Regulating air pollution from vehicles is beyond the scope of the plan change Increased Heavy Vehicles and Industrial Traffic in Residential Zones From the information presented, it is expected that there is the potential for development in Area 6 to generate between 1300 and 2300 heavy vehicles per day. These heavy vehicles will access the Motorway by utilising Manuroa Road, Porchester Road, Popes Road and Takanini School Road. The increase in heavy vehicles will increase journey times, cause delays and over capacity at intersections. The existing land use patterns and the decision to remove the ability for right turns from Spartan Road (which has less sensitive business uses) mean it is unavoidable that some sections of road with adjoining residential development will experience additional heavy traffic. The issues associated with east west travel to Great South Road will mean that more heavy traffic will utilise Porchester and Alfriston /Stratford Roads. These roads are identified as District Arterials within the Manukau District Plan, as is Manuroa Road in Papakura, and are expected to handle some intra district heavy traffic. Notwithstanding this, these roads are largely adjoined by residential activities as well as some sensitive activities such as schools and rest homes. The Plan Change development would add additional heavy traffic to these routes. Banning vehicles from specific roads is not a mechanism that is appropriate in a District Plan. The District Plan can categorise road use for certain vehicle types but banning of particular vehicles can only be achieved by way of a bylaw under the relevant transport legislation. As has been fully set out earlier Takanini Area 6 has been determined as appropriate location for additional business zoned land, notwithstanding that the implementation of PC15 will lead to increased industrial traffic past some existing residential development on arterial roads. Part of the intention of intersection and roading upgrades proposed in association with the mitigation of traffic effects associated with the plan change is to encourage heavy traffic to use arterial road routes rather than diverting through narrow residential streets.

Traffic Noise JPStyles Ltd‟s report comments (page 12) that, ―With regard to the concerns raised by this submitter [Submission 5.3 (G and A Goldring)] relating to increased traffic noise, I consider that regard should be had to the routing of roads likely to carry large volumes of traffic and large proportions of heavy traffic away from existing residential activity if practicable.

of 163

―Such roads should be routed through industrial or areas otherwise less-sensitive to noise, or if necessary, areas zoned residential where new development is predominant and where internal acoustic amenity controls are in place to deal with roads as noise sources, (as discussed earlier). ―I note that the consideration of the routing of such roads in relation to PC15 is outside the scope of this assessment.‖ It is acknowledged that the implementation of PC15, along with the development of the entire Takanini Structure Plan area, will lead to increased traffic (including industrial traffic in relation to PC 15) and associated noise. This is inevitable and while insulation and noise attenuation can be undertaken to new and existing dwellings, PC 15 of itself would not trigger the need to this. Other controls and regulations (Building Act) require certain standards to be met.



Amend Section 3 Part 6 Appendix 16D of the Papakura District Plan as follows:

Delete Figure 1 - Intersection Upgrade of Popes and Porchester Roads and Figure 3- Road Cross Section Porchester Road.

Amend Section 3 Part 6 Rule 6.9.9. Subdivision Standards (Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 only) as follows:

Renumber Rule 6.9.9. as Rule 6.9.8.7.7.9: 4. Road Widening The Any land identified for road widening in Section Three, Part 16, Appendix 16D shall be vested in Council upon subdivision. This applies to: (a) sites adjoining the intersection of Porchester Road and Popes Road,

where road widening shall be in accordance with Figure 1 (Appendix 16D).

(b) sites adjacent to Takanini School Road, where road widening shall be in accordance with Figure 2 (Appendix 16D).

(c) sites adjacent to Porchester Road, where road widening shall be in accordance with Figure 3 (Appendix 16D).

(d) sites adjacent to Popes Road, where road widening shall be in accordance with Figure 4 (Appendix 16D).

Amend Section 3 Part 6 Rule 6.11.7.8. Subdivision Standards (Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 only) as follows:

Renumber Rule 6.11.7.8.as Rule 6.11.7.6.7: 4. Road Widening The Any land identified for road widening in Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Section Three, Part 16, Appendix 16D shall be vested in Council upon subdivision. This applies to: (a) sites adjoining the intersection of Porchester Road and Popes Road,

where road widening shall be in accordance with Figure 1 (Appendix 16D).

(b) sites adjacent to Takanini School Road, where road widening shall be in accordance with Figure 2 (Appendix 16D).

of 163

(c) sites adjacent to Porchester Road, where road widening shall be in accordance with Figure 3 (Appendix 16D). (d) sites adjacent to Popes Road, where road widening shall be in accordance with Figure 4 (Appendix 16D).


Amend Section 3 Part 6 Appendix 16D of the Papakura District Plan (“Auckland Council District Plan: Papakura Section”) as follows:

Delete Figure 1 - Intersection Upgrade of Popes and Porchester Roads and Figure 3- Road Cross Section Porchester Road.

That due to Submission 17.5 (Takanini Industrial Trust) Amend Section 3 Part 6

Appendix 16D of the Papakura District Plan (“Auckland Council District Plan: Papakura

Section”) as follows:

Delete Figure 2 - Road Cross Section Takanini School Road and Figure 4 - Road Cross Section Popes Road. Delete Appendix 16D as notified and rename Appendix 16E as notified (“Landscape Concept Overlay Existing Vegetation Plan” for Takanini Structure Plan Area 6) as Appendix 16D.

of 163

12.0 Amendments under Clause 16(2) of the First Schedule of the RMA 1991

Narrative: Clause 16(2) Amendments

The following errors have been identified in PC15 with a recommendation that they are corrected pursuant to Clause 16(2) of the First Schedule of the RMA 1991: The notified version of PC15 contains the following changes made since it was adopted on 21 July 2009:

Amended Figure 3: Road cross section for Porchester Road – Clause 16(2) RMA 1991 amendment by Papakura District Council Resource Management and Regulatory Committee 11 August 2009.

Fixed numbering and inserted new titles for Parts 6.9.8.2, 6.9.8.3, 6.11.7.2 and 6.11.7.3, these are to be formally confirmed as Clause 16(2) changes as part of the decision.

Renumbering of the District Plan text and finalisation of the format of planning maps and diagrams relating to PC15 will also need to be made as part of consequential editorial changes when the decision on PC15 is made by the Hearing Panel.

Assessment: Clause 16(2) Amendments

Pursuant to Clause 16(2) of the First Schedule of the RMA 1991, Council has the capacity to correct errors and ―make an amendment without further formality, to its proposed policy statement or plan to alter any information, where such an alteration is of minor effect, or may correct any minor errors‖. The correction of errors pursuant to Clause 16(2) has to be considered according to guidelines developed through case law. Case law states that the test in determining whether an amendment is authorised by Clause 16(2) is “does the amendment affect (prejudicially or beneficially) the rights of some members of the public, or is it neutral? Only if it is neutral is an amendment permitted by Clause 16(2). The effect of this interpretation of Clause 16(2) is that amendments such as spelling, grammar, numbering and layout may be altered without formality or the need for decision by the Council. Similarly, wording can be amended so long as it does not alter the effect of a rule or statement. However, if there is a need to change wording which may appear to be clearly incorrect, but the effect of the amendment could provide a benefit or a penalty to any person, the change is outside the scope of Clause 16(2).

Reasons:

Pursuant to Clause 16 the amendments proposed are considered consistent with the intent and interpretation of Clause 16(2) of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991. Changes proposed will ensure a more robust planning document assisting in consistent administration and interpretation of the provisions.

of 163

13.0 Proposed Change 14 to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement – Extension to the Metropolitan Urban Limits, Takanini Structure Plan Area 6a and 6b.

13.1 Overview

Proposed Change 14 to the ARPS is a request by PDC to extend the MUL at Area 6A and 6B (Area 6) of the Takanini Structure Plan. The extension will provide additional urban capacity for industrial/business related development (41.4ha); residential development (0.3 ha) and reserve areas (4.7ha) within Takanini.

Plan Change No. 14 (PC14) seeks to amend to Map 1 – Sheet 20 of the ARPS Map Series 1A, by extending the MUL at the north-eastern most part of the former PDC boundary.

The movement of the MUL does not in itself allow urbanisation to occur. Accordingly, contemporaneous with this application to extend the MUL, PDC submitted Proposed Plan Change No. 15 – Takanini Stage 6; to rezone Areas 6a and 6b of the Takanini Structure Plan from a rural zoning to various urban zones as fully set out earlier in this report. PDC also sought the change of the rural air quality management area that currently applies to the area covered by PC 15 to an urban and industrial air quality management area (Variation 3 to the ARP:ALW). Variation 3 is addressed in the next section.

13.2 Submissions

The submitters and the decision made on them are set out below. However in summary a number of submitters supported the proposal which would contribute to meeting in part, the growth-related business, employment and settlement needs of the District and Region.

A number of submitters opposed the application because of concerns relating to

transportation effects

the level of consultation

deviation of the proposal from the Takanini Structure Plan

urban design effects

impacts on the environment (stormwater, air quality, visual); and

reverse sensitivity issues associated with the co-location of industrial activities in proximity to residential areas.

All of these issues have been fully set out under the decision made on the submissions to PC 15.

13.3 Decisions on Submissions Relating to the Extension of the Metropolitan Urban

Limit. See Appendix 1 for the summary of submissions

Submission/Further Submission

Number


1/1 Support Takanini Industrial Trust

Accept

of 163

FS3 support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd FS4 support Mellviews Limited FS5 support Zabeel Investments Limited; FS6 support Village Farms Ltd FS10 support Nigel Hosken 2.1 Support Takanini Residents Action Group Accept

FS1 support Takanini Industrial Trust

FS3 support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd

FS4 support Mellviews Limited

FS5 support Zabeel Investments Limited;

FS6 support Village Farms Ltd

FS10 support Nigel Hosken

3/1 Support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd Accept

FS1 Support and oppose

Takanini Industrial Trust





FS10 support Nigel Hosken 4.1 Support Mellviews Ltd Accept







5.1 support Zabeel Investments Limited Accept







6/1 Support Village Farms Ltd Accept







10/1 Support Hosken and Associates Ltd Accept





11/1 Support Cosgrave Residents and Landowners Association Inc

Accept

FS1 support Takanini Industrial Trust






7/1- 7/5 Oppose Alfriston Residents Group (Lifestyle Blocks)

Reject

FS1 oppose Takanini Industrial Trust

FS3 oppose Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd

FS4 oppose Mellviews Limited

of 163

FS5 oppose Zabeel Investments Limited;

FS6 oppose Village Farms Ltd

FS10 oppose Nigel Hosken

8/1- 8/5 Oppose Daniel Newman Reject







9/1 – 9/9 Oppose Sherriff Place Residents Group Reject







Reasons:

The Operative ARPS, in both the Strategic Direction and Urban Growth Management sections (policies and methods) provides for future regional growth that is managed through an integrated process, particularly integrated land use and transport.

Change 6 to the ARPS provides very specific policies and methods for assessing the appropriateness of an extension to the MUL. In accordance with Method 2.6.3 of Change 6, PDC submitted, with the request to extend the MUL, the following technical information:

Proposed Plan Change No. 15 to the Operative Papakura District Plan, which seeks to change the zoning of Area 6A and 6B from rural to urban.

An Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA) and structure plan, plus other technical reports which assess matters such as geotechnical conditions, infrastructure servicing feasibility, economic impact, visual and landscape effects, aboricultural matters, archaeological matters, noise assessment, cultural values, preliminary landscape plans, stormwater pond concept plan and consultation record.

The Papakura Stream Integrated Catchment Management Report (ICMP) is not currently being prepared by the Auckland Council. This is an information requirement under method 2.6.3. However, ARC, Manukau City Council and PDC have completed the Flood Management Study and Stream Ecological Value Study. These are the two main elements of an ICMP. ARC stormwater officers confirmed that these studies in conjunction with the technical reports submitted, in particular the Fraser Thomas infrastructure report, are sufficient to meet the information requirements for an ICMP.

Having reviewed all of the relevant material and considered all of the evidence presented to us, we have assessed the application against the relevant objectives and policies of the Operative ARPS as set out under 2.6 The Strategic Direction, as amended by PC6. Primary reference in tis section is made to the Urban Containment objectives and policies (Policies 2.6.2.1 – 2.6.2.2) contained in PC6 which outlines the critical „tests‟ any request to extend the MUL, must meet. The other relevant provisions have been more fully address in the decision/reason in PC 15 above. Our findings are:

13.4 The Strategic Direction

of 163

Strategic Objectives Those particularly relevant relate to:

Ensuring provision is made to accommodate to regions growth while meeting the purpose of the RMA.

Maintaining and enhancing the overall quality of the Auckland Region

Achieving a compact and well designed more sustainable urban form.

To development and maintain the region‟s transport system

Strategic Policies – Urban Containment Those relevant include:

…..2. Extensions may be made to the metropolitan urban limits shown on Map Series

1 and to the limits of rural and coastal settlements from time to time, but only where:

i. The strategic direction of containment and intensification is not

compromised. In particular the extension does not compromise intensification within the areas identified for intensification in: a. Schedule 1 that are within the same geographical sector (North/West,

Central or South) where the extension is located; and b. The district plan(s) that relate to the geographical sector

The Growth Concept 2050 included within the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy 205018, shows the subject area as “Future Urban”, outside of the metropolitan urban limit. Subsequently, Schedule 1 of the ARPS as amended by PC6, also lists Area 6A and 6B which is part of Takanini (First Stages), as a „Future Urban Area‟ under Schedule 1B as highlighted in the following excerpts from that table:

Schedule 1. High Density Centres and Intensive Corridors and Future Urban Areas

Schedule 1A Schedule 1B

Growth Area Type

High Density Centres and Intensive Corridors

Future Urban Areas

TA initiating change

Date District Plans Changes Notified

…..

Future Urban Area

Takanini (First Stages^)

PDC 2005-2010

……

^ Takanini First Stages means Stages 1,2,3,6 and Spartan Rd. * Takanini Later Stages means Stages 4,5,7,8,9 and 10

Area 6 has also been identified in Proposed Plan Change 10 to the Operative Papakura District Plan (PC10) as a “Future Business Area”. PC10 is the plan change that gives effect to the ARGS via the legislative mechanism provide by the Local Government Auckland Amendment Act 2004 (LGAAA).

18

Page 35, Auckland Regional Growth Strategy: 2050, (November 1999), Regional Growth Forum

of 163

In addition, the Southern Sector Agreement 200119 endorsed by the southern legacy Councils of Papakura District, Manukau City and Franklin District, agreed subject to adherence to the principles set out in clause 4.1.3 of the SSA, that Stage 2 (Areas 6a and 6b of the TSP) and those areas shown in Map 4 and 5, would be released for green-fields development to accommodate residential areas and employment (mixed use and home industries). We find that the proposal to extend the MUL at Area 6 of the TSP is in accordance with the strategic direction of containment and intensification as per Schedule 1 and the relevant district plan and is not contrary to the principles set out in the Southern Sector Agreement 2001.

In addition to the above the regional and district context of Chance 6, Variation 3, PC 15 and the NOR have also already been (fully) set out in the section titled - Decisions on Submissions Relating to the National, Regional and District Context, and Legislative Consistency Issues – and is not repeated here.

Having regard to the reason set out in this part of the report and those under PC 15 we are satisfied that the relevant „tests‟ to „justify‟ the movement of the MUL have been met. In summary:

Takanini, including area 6A and B, has been identified in regional and district planning documents (both statutory and non-statutory) for a number of years as an area for urban growth and intensification.

Area 6A and B no longer has an effective rural zoning – if PC 15 were not confirmed it would be Future Urban under PC 13.

PC 15, with its business and employment focus and some residential is consider with the ARPS and the Regional Business Land Strategy.

PC 15, subject to the changes made in this decisions report ensure that the plan provisions are appropriate, will ensure integrated land management and overall satisfies section 32 and Part 2 of the RMA 2.

Amendments to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement in response to the decision on the submissions.

That Map 1 – Sheet 20 of the ARPS Map Series 1A, be amended by extending the MUL at the north-eastern most part of the former PDC boundary.

19

Pp 7 – 9, Memorandum of Understanding: Southern Sector Agreement (March 2001), Manukau City Council, Papakura

District Council, Franklin District Council, Auckland Regional Council

of 163

14.0 PROPOSED VARIATION 3 TO THE PROPOSED AUCKLAND

REGIONAL PLAN: AIR, LAND AND WATER – EXTENSION TO

THE URBAN AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AREAS AND INDUSTRIAL AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AREAS, TAKANINI STRUCTURE PLAN AREA 6A AND 6B.

14.1 Overview

Areas 6A and 6B of the Takanini Structure Plan are currently within the Rural Air Quality Management Area (RAQMA) of the Proposed Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water (ARP: ALW). Given we have confirmed the MUL extension a variation to the ARP: ALW is required to change the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) to reflect the proposed change in land use from rural to urban.

Proposed Variation 3 to the ARP: ALW was been prepared to reflect the corresponding (proposed) MUL extension. It involved the application of two different air quality management areas (urban and industrial) to the site

Proposed Variation 3 involves an amendment to Map Series 1A – Maps 89 + 90 of the Proposed Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land & Water (PARP:ALW). As mentioned it sought to apply two different air quality management areas (urban and industrial) to the site. An UAQMA was proposed for those parts of the site where the zoning proposed under PC 15 would be Residential 8, Industrial 1 and Reserve. UAQMA‟s seek to ensure a high level of amenity and to protect human health particularly for sensitive sectors of the population from the adverse effects of air discharges. An IAQMA was proposed to apply to that part of the site where the zoning proposed under PC 15 would be Industrial 3. IAQMAs generally cater for heavier industrial activities and overlay specific industrial zones within district plans. Within an IAQMA, it is expected that amenity values will be reduced in order to promote industrial intensification.

14.2 Decisions on Submissions Relating to the Change to the Air Quality

Management Area. See Appendix 1 for the summary of submissions

Submission/Further Submission

Number


Support Takanini Industrial Trust Accept in Part






2/2 Support Takanini Residents Action Group Accept in Part


3/2 Support Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd Accept in Part




of 163




4/2 Support Mellviews Limited Accept in Part







5/2 Support Zabeel Investments Ltd Accept in Part







6/2 Support Village Farms Ltd Accept in Part







10/2 Support Nigel Hosken Accept in Part






11/2 Support Cosgrave Residents and Landowners Association Inc

Accept in Part







7/6 Oppose Alfriston Residents Group (Life Style Blocks)

Accept in Part







8/5 Oppose Daniel Newman Accept in Part







9/10 Oppose Sherriff Place Residents Group Accept in Part







of 163

Reasons:

A number of submitters supported Variation 3, as without it (subject to confirming Change 14 and PC15), industrial activity as envisaged by PC 15 would not be able to establish and operate. Moreover there was little opposition from those supporting Variation 3 in terms of the reporting officer‟s recommendation to us that the entire area have only one Air Quality Management Area; the Urban Air Quality Management Area – and not the Industrial Air Quality Management Area. A number of submitters opposed the change to the Air Quality Management Area. The reason for this in summary included that many did not want this area urbanised and if it was sought that it not be industrial, but residential. Others were concerned about the compatibility of the industrial activities and the adjacent established residential and recreational areas. This included that industrial activities release emissions of particulate matter, odour and contaminants and that this as well as visual issues would adversely their health, safety and amenity values. We have already agreed that the MUL should be extended to enable this part of Takanini to be urbanised; being consistent with regional policy and that PC 15 with the amendments proposed is both an appropriate response to regional policy and in terms of section 32 of the RMA – that is the Plan Change is appropriate and would meet the purpose of the Act. Accordingly we find it is both necessary and desirable to change the Air Quality Management Area from Rural to one that would enable urban development. The issue to determine is should the Air Quality Management Area be a single Urban Air Quality Management Area (as recommended by the reporting officer) or a combination of Urban Air Quality Management Area and an Industrial Urban Air Quality Management Area (as was publicly notified).

We are persuaded that the entire area should only have an Urban Air Quality Management Area. Making the whole site subject to an UAQMA would be consistent with the underlying proposed Industrial 3 zoning (Proposed PDC Plan Change No 15) which is intended to encourage medium industry and not heavy industry. This would mean that, under both the district and regional plan, activities with heavy industrial discharges to air would not be encouraged. It would also mean that policy 4.4.7 from the ARP: ALW, would be able to be invoked to deal with potential reverse sensitivity effects and ensure adequate separation distances are established and maintained. PC15 contains a number of provisions which are intended to limit the establishment of activities which are capable or potentially capable of a high or moderate degree of air pollution. In particular rule 6.11.7.1 lists activities involving Schedule 6A or 6C processes as non-complying in the Industrial 3 zone. Schedule 6A processes are those industries and processes requiring maximum segregation from other uses because of offensive, noxious or dangerous elements. Schedule 6C processes are processes which are potentially capable of producing a high degree of air pollution.

On the above basis, we have determined that Variation 3 be amended so that the UAQMA extends to the whole site.

Amendments to the Proposed Regional Plan: Air Land and water in

response to the decision on the submissions.

The amendments be made to Map Series 1A – Maps 89 + 90 of the Proposed Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land & Water to show an Urban Air Quality Management

of 163

Area over the area of Plan Change 15 to the Auckland District Plan (Papakura Section).

of 163

15.0 OVERALL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION WITH RESPECT TO

THE STATUTORY TESTS

The statutory requirements as noted in Section 6 of this report have been considered in making our decision on the submissions relating to the three plan processes set out above (changing the ARPS, the ARALW and the District Plan including:

The requirements of section 32 of the RMA, relating to the duty to consider alternatives, costs and benefits; and

The provisions of Part 2, being the purpose and principles of the RMA

Section 32 For all the reasons and recommendations stated above (both the regional and district planning framework) we find that that the requirements of section 32 have been appropriately addressed. Also with respect to section 74 of the RMA the Council, when changing a district plan shall have regard to “higher order” planning documents. In particular the plan change must give effect to the ARPS. PC 15 achieves this. Part 2 - Resource Management Act 1991

With respect to Part 2 matters, there are no relevant Section 6 matters that we need to recognise or provide for with respect to these plan changes. In terms of section 7 of the Act, which requires that particular regard be given to a number of matters, those of relevance to these changes are: (b) The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources (c) The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values. (f) Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment In respect of matters (b), (c) and (f), these have already been addressed in the report above and we find that the changes are consistent with those matters. Section 8 requires the Council to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. These have also been addressed as set out above

Overall we find the proposed Plan Changes, subject to the recommended changes, are consistent with Part 2 of the Act and meet its purpose as set out in section 5.

of 163

16.0 DECISION ON THE NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT TO DESIGNATE LAND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT POND

16.1 Description of the Activity

The activity is a Notice of Requirement (NOR) to designate and area of approximately 2.2 hectares for a public work for the construction, operation and maintenance of a stormwater management pond (stormwater pond). The purpose of the stormwater pond is to service the new urban area proposed in Proposed Plan Change 15 (Takanini Structure Plan Area 6) and the existing urban area to the south of the plan change area (located between Manuroa Road and Airfield Road in Takanini). Note – the submissions to the NOR were heard at the same time as the submission to:

Proposed Change 14 to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS) – extension to the Metropolitan Urban Limit, Takanini Structure Plan Area 6a and 6b, and

Proposed Variation 3 to the Proposed Auckland Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water (ARP: ALW) – extension to the urban air quality management areas, Takanini Structure Plan area 6a and 6b, and

Proposed Plan Change 15 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura Section)(PC 15) – rezoning 53.3 ha of land in Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 from Rural Takanini/Drury (Future Urban under PC13) to industrial 1 and 3, residential 1 and 8 and reserve zones plus proposed Porchester road widening.

The decision on the NOR needs to be read in conjunction with the decisions on the submissions to those proposed changes. Moreover the reasons set out in the report and decision on those proposed changes form a significant part the reasons for recommending to the Auckland Council (as the designating authority) it confirm the NOR subject to the conditions we have recommended (attached below).

16.2 Application Details

Application No: NOR047 Requiring Authority: Auckland Council ___________________________________________________________________ Site Address: 2 Popes Road & 22 Popes Road Takanini Legal Description: 22 Popes Road: 2 Popes Road: Lot 1 DP 163055 Lot 2 DP 136772 CT NA98B/472 CT NA80C/590 Site Area: 22 Popes Road: 2 Popes Road:

of 163

4.16ha 11.54ha Requirement Area: 2. 2ha Operative District Plan Zoning: Rural Takanini/Drury (Planning Map C2) Proposed District Plan Zoning: Proposed Plan Change 13: Future Urban Proposed Plan Change 15: Reserve Heritage item/Archaeological site/Protected Trees: None known Site restrictions/Hazards: No relevant title restrictions. Both sites are

within the Flood Hazard Area/Potential Flood Hazard Area.

Locality Diagram Aerial Map of Requirement Area

16.3 Site, Proposal and Context

Site and Neighbourhood Description The sites at 2 and 22 Popes Road have a combined area of 15.6923ha (2 Popes Road is 11.5371ha and 22 Popes Road 4.1552ha). The sites are bounded to the north by the Papakura Stream and three small esplanade reserves which are in grass. The sites are bounded to the east by an adjoining property at 354 Porchester Road and to the west by Takanini School Road. The southern boundaries of the sites front Popes Road. The northern most portions of the sites, adjoining the Papakura Stream, are located within the Flood Hazard Area.

Indicative location of requirement

area

of 163

The sites are currently zoned Rural Takanini/Drury in the Auckland Council District Plan: Papakura Section (Operative District Plan) and Future Urban within Auckland Council District Plan: Papakura Section -Proposed Plan Change 13 (PC13). PC15 proposes to rezone the requirement area as reserve. The surrounding area comprises a mix of different land uses. The Papakura Stream and two small esplanade reserves adjoin the requirement area to the north. A 20m esplanade reserve adjoins the northern side of the stream, running the length of the sites and continuing in an easterly and westerly direction. The land and esplanade reserve to the north of the stream is located in the area regulated by the Auckland Council District Plan: Manukau Section (within the former Manukau City Council area). The area to the north of the stream and reserves comprises of a recreation reserve and residential housing. The land to the west of Takanini School Road is zoned Industrial 3 with many sites developed with industrial activities, however there are a number of vacant sites as well. The sites to the east and west of the requirement area are currently zoned Rural Takanini/Drury in the Operative District Plan and Future Urban within PC13. These are proposed to be rezoned to Industrial 1 and 3 in PC15. Proposal

The Auckland Council has sought a Notice of Requirement to designate approximately 2.2ha in the northern portion of the site at 2 Popes Road and the north-western portion of the site at 22 Popes Road for the construction, operation and maintenance and maintenance of a stormwater management pond. Its purpose is to enable the construction and subsequent operation and maintenance of a stormwater management pond to service the proposed and existing urban areas discussed above. The proposed pond was identified in the Takanini North Catchment Management Plan (TNCMP), dated September 2004, as an appropriate mechanism for stormwater treatment and disposal from sub-catchments I to P (inclusive). These sub-catchments consist of the proposed urban development area of PC15, and the existing residential area to the south (located between Manuroa Road and Airfield Road). The Requiring Authority suggested in the requirement document that conditions relating to construction hours, noise, earthworks, traffic, landscaping, heritage, and any other conditions be imposed on the NOR to ensure that methods to avoid, remedy or mitigate effects can be addressed at the Outline Plan stage. A detailed design of the stormwater pond has not been submitted by the Requiring Authority for the NOR. An Outline Plan will be required to address aspects of final the design/detail once (and if) the NOR is confirmed. Planning Context

The planning context that underpins the NOR is, PC15, the Auckland Regional Policy Statement Proposed Change 14 and Variation 3 to Proposed Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water.

16.4 Statutory Context

Pursuant to s168A(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act), a Territorial Authority who has financial responsibility for a public work in it District may at any time give notice in accordance with Form 18 of the Resource Management (Forms, Fees, and Procedure) Regulations 2003 of its requirement for a designation –

a) for a public work; or

of 163

b) in respect of any land, water, subsoil, or airspace where a restriction is

reasonably necessary for the safe or efficient functioning or operation of such a project or work.

The proposed pond is a public work for which the Auckland Council has financial responsibility. No work has been approved under the Act for this NOR, and the Council has not waived its requirement for an Outline Plan. As we have recommended the NOR be confirmed, the Council as the Requiring Authority will need to apply to the Auckland Council for an Outline Plan for the pond as required under s176A of the Act.

16.5 Notification

The NOR was publically notified on 9 December 2009 and submissions closed on 26 February 2010.

Seven submissions were received by the Council. One submission is in opposition and six submissions support the NOR but request amendments regarding pond design and location. These are addressed below.

16.6 Evaluation - Section 168A(3)

Statutory Framework

Section 168A(3) of the Act requires that when considering a Notice of Requirement and any submissions received, Council must subject to Part 2, consider the effects on the environment of allowing the requirement, having particular regard to –

(a) any relevant provisions of—

(i) a national policy statement: (ii) a New Zealand coastal policy statement: (iii) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement: (iv) a plan or proposed plan; and

(b) whether adequate consideration has been given to alternative sites, routes, or

methods of undertaking the work if—

(i) the Requiring Authority does not have an interest in the land sufficient for undertaking the work; or

(ii) it is likely that the work will have a significant adverse effect on the environment; and

(c) whether the work and designation are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the Requiring Authority for which the designation is sought; and

(d) any other matter the territorial authority considers reasonably necessary in order to make a recommendation on the requirement.

In accordance with s168A(4), the territorial authority may decide to confirm or modify the requirement and/or impose conditions on the designation.

16.7 Actual and Potential Effects on the Environment

Positive Effects

of 163

The purpose of the designation is to enable the construction and subsequent operation and maintenance of a stormwater management pond to service the plan change area and the existing urban area to the south of Area 6. This will provide for the social, cultural and economic well-being of the existing and future communities as the designation will service existing and future residential and employment (industrial) areas. The proposed pond will also mitigate potential flooding effects that may be generated through urban development within the catchment. The requirement area will serve as a wetland; with landscaping, including native planting, enhancing the amenity of the surrounding area and providing a buffer between the existing residential area to the north and the proposed industrial area to the south. Park benches and a grassed buffer will provide for passive recreation. A walking and cycling path will be provided within the designation area to the west and south of the pond, providing connectivity through proposed pedestrian areas.

Landscape, Visual and Amenity Effects

The landscape of the requirement area is currently pasture, trees, gorse and weed species reflecting a rural environment which is not used for productive rural land. The stormwater pond will result in amenity and landscape effects on the surrounding area, namely the existing urban area to the north. In particular, the removal of several large Gum and Oak trees in the eastern extremity of the requirement area and the earthworks to be undertaken for the construction of the pond will result in some loss of visual amenity. We find that in the context of PC 15, the adverse effects on the surrounding environment will be appropriately addressed by:

Landscaping of the pond edges and surrounding area. This will, subject to the conditions of the NOR, include planting specimen trees and native species. A condition ensuring that an appropriate level of landscaping is provided and maintained has been imposed on the designation.

A condition restricting construction noise.

A condition restricting construction hours.

We agree that construction of the pond is short term, and once completed and landscaped will create an amenity feature providing a buffer between the existing residential area and the proposed industrial area. The pond will serve as a wetland with landscaping, including native planting, enhancing the amenity of the surrounding urban area and providing for passive recreation and walking and cycling linkages.

Subject to the imposition of conditions, any adverse amenity and landscape effects will be appropriately mitigated.

Noise Effects

The requirement area is located approximately 50m to the nearest residential property. There is likely to be minor adverse noise effects during the construction period on the closest residential properties. However any effects will be minor and appropriately mitigated due to the limited duration of construction and as conditions have been imposed (at the request of the Requiring Authority) to ensure that construction complies with the construction noise standard and that construction hours are restricted to between 0800 and 1700 hours, Monday to Friday.

The long term noise effects associated with the operation and maintenance of the pond are considered to be less than minor.

of 163

Stormwater Effects

The proposed pond was identified in the TNCMP as an appropriate mechanism for stormwater treatment and disposal from identified sub-catchments to serve Area 6 and the existing urban development to the south. A Network Discharge Consent that permits the discharge from the pond was granted in February 2003. The requirement document also states that the proposed stormwater management pond (and associated system) also seeks to address existing flooding issues and uncontrolled discharges which can result in adverse environmental effects.

We accept the technical evidence (an Infrastructure Report by Fraser Thomas in March 2009 provided in support of the NOR - Appendix 4 of the requirement document), the review by Council‟s Development Engineer and an independent review specific to stormwater was undertaken by GHD Limited.

In response to the technical information the Council has recommended that we impose conditions on the designation will require that:

The pond to be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the Fraser Thomas Infrastructure Report.

An Operation and Maintenance Manual is submitted with the Outline Plan of Works.

Detailed design shall be submitted with the Outline Plan of Works to address a number of engineering matters to mitigate adverse effects on the surrounding environment. These are-

o Effects of discharge from the pond from high intensity storms, where the base flow in the Papakura Stream is still relatively low

o Extended detention and stormwater attenuation for the 2 year storm, including an analysis of peak flow control and discharge to the Papakura Stream for the full range of operating levels in the pond and the range of stream levels within the adjacent stream

o Details of a mechanism or shut off valve system to be installed at the outlet that can be manually activated in the event of a spillage

o Overland flow paths and stormwater network leading to the pond shall be designed in conjunction with the pond design to establish any critical levels on incoming pipes that have a potential impact on pond operational levels

o Ensuring the pond outfall does not interfere with the proposed Watercare watermain parallel to the Papakura Stream and that this does not affect pond operating levels

o Ensuring the MfE guideline recommendations for climate change to year 2090 are considered

We agree those conditions are required, and have imposed them. Subject to these conditions, the adverse stormwater effects on the environment from the pond will be appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Earthworks Effects

The construction of the proposed pond will involve earthworks of approximately 40,000m3. The earthworks will involve cuts of up to approximately 2.5 metres and fill batters of up to approximately 2.5 metres to form the northern pond batter. Details of the proposed earthworks are provided in the requirement document on pages 7-9.

A geotechnical report by Coffey Geotechnics, dated 13 August 2008, was provided in support of the NOR application. This report was undertaken in accordance with the Auckland Regional Council Technical Publication 109 “Dam Safety guidelines” and indicated that the requirement area is suitable for the proposed pond subject to the

of 163

design being undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of the report. Conditions have been imposed to ensure that the earthworks for the construction of the pond are undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of the report.

The earthworks component of the NOR was independently reviewed by Bryant Environmental Solutions Limited. This review of the application concluded that adverse earthworks effects of the pond can be mitigated with the imposition of additional conditions upon the designation. These conditions will require that:

The location for disposal of excess fill shall be confirmed.

Erosion and sediment controls shall be in accordance with TP90 to control runoff, mitigate and prevent soil erosion and sediment loss (including amendments dated December 2007.

A comprehensive dust management and mitigation plan shall be provided to minimise the dust generation and dispersal from the site.

No vegetation removal or earthworks shall be undertaken between 30 April and 1 October in any year.

Stabilisation shall be completed by 30 April in the year of bulk earthworks in accordance with measures detailed in TP90.

We have imposed conditions with respect to earthworks in line with the technical evidence. Given these we find that any adverse effects on the environment from the proposed earthworks will be appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Traffic Effects

Traffic Demand during Construction Additional traffic will be generated during the construction period of the proposed pond. The requirement document states that vehicle movements during construction, including the frequency, number of movements and proposed routes will be specified in the Outline Plan of Works for the development. A condition has been imposed requiring a Traffic Management Plan to be prepared prior to any works to commencing on the site. The Traffic Management Plan will detail frequency, number of movements and routes to mitigate adverse traffic effects on the road network and nuisance effects on nearby residents and businesses. Traffic Demand during Operation and Maintenance The requirement document states that it is anticipated there will be no long term traffic effects from the operation and maintenance of the pond. We find that any long term traffic effects from operational and maintenance of the stormwater pond will be negligible.

Archaeology and Heritage Values

An archaeological assessment prepared by Clough and Associates in April 2006 was submitted to support PC15. The archaeological assessment does not identify any known archaeological features that would be adversely affected by the pond. In addition through Te Roopu Kaitiaki O Papakura, local iwi provided a Cultural Values Assessment (CVA) for Area 6 in December 2007. The CVA confirmed that if the recommendations of the CVA were honoured, local Iwi have no objection. The recommendations of the CVA that relate to the construction, operation and maintenance of the stormwater pond include:

of 163

Adherence with applicable Auckland Council standards and guidelines such as Regional Plans and Technical Publications

A preference for the use of native planting and wetlands

Procedures for the discovery of waahi tapu, koiwi, and sites of significance

The requirement document states that during the construction period, an archaeological discoveries procedure will be in place. In the event that an archaeological site is found or Koiwi are exposed, construction works would cease immediately and Iwi and the other relevant authorities would be notified. A condition has been imposed to ensure that these measures are undertaken should Koiwi or an archaeological site be discovered. The Requiring Authority also proposes to undertake all work in accordance with the relevant Auckland Council standards and guideline such as ARC TP10 and TP90. In assessing the pond design and proposed landscaping against the CVA recommendations, we find that the proposed designation would be in general accordance with the CVA recommendations.

Conclusion of Assessment of Effects

After consideration of the requirement for the construction, operation and maintenance of the stormwater pond in the context of PC 15 and the statutory requirements of s168A of the Act, we find that the actual or potential adverse effects on the existing rural environment and future urban environment can be appropriately avoided or mitigated by the imposition of conditions. These conditions relate to mitigating adverse traffic, amenity, noise, stormwater, earthworks, vegetation and archaeology and heritage effects.

16.8 National Policy Statement

There are no National Policy Statements relevant to this notice of requirement.

16.9 Auckland Regional Policy Statement (including Change 6).

The requirement document identified and assessed the proposal against the objectives and policies of the Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS) relevant to the proposed pond. The objectives and policies relevant to the proposal are those already fully addressed in the decision report on submissions to PC 15 – mainly under the hearing - The national, regional and district context, and legislative consistency issues.

The findings in that report are adopted here – and it is not repeated. Our findings are that in the context of Proposed Change 14 and PC 15 the proposed requirement is consistent with the relevant policies of the ARPS including change 6.

16.10Assessment of District Plan Objectives and Policies

District Plan Context The subject site is subject to multiple District Plan provision and zones. These are:

The Rural Takanini/Drury Zone and the Network Utility provisions for rural zones (Rules That Apply throughout the Rural Area, Network Utilities) in the Operative District Plan.

The Future Urban Zone and the network utility provisions for rural zones (Section 2, Part 3-General Rules, Network Utilities) in PC13.

The Reserve Zone, the network utility provisions for urban areas (Section 3, Part 11, Network Utilities, Transport and Roading) and the structure plan area provisions (Section 1, Part 5B, Structure Plan Areas) in PC15.

of 163

The construction, operation and maintenance of a stormwater management pond on the proposed site would be a discretionary activity under the network provisions of the Operative District Plan, PC13 and PC15. Although some recognition has been given to the zone provisions of the Operative District Plan and PC13, we have undertaken an evaluation against objectives and policies of PC15, given our decision is to approve that plan change.

The relevant Objectives and Policies were fully set out in the officer‟s report. We provide some commentary on these which from the reason why we find that proposal is consistent with those plan provisions.

In response to the objectives and policies we find that the construction, operation and maintenance of the stormwater management pond will provide an efficient and effective network utility infrastructure to the future development of Area 6 and the residential area to the south of this area. The pond will provide stormwater treatment and disposal and will also serve as a reserve area and buffer between the proposed industrial development and the existing residential development to the north of the Papakura Stream. The pond will provide a passive recreation area to the public and is not considered to affect the surrounding community‟s health and safety.

In terms of the provisions relating to environmental constraints we note that the proposed stormwater management pond was identified in the TNCMP as an appropriate mechanism for stormwater treatment and disposal from Area 6 and the existing residential area to the south (located between Manuroa Road and Airfield Road). We have already addressed out findings in terms of the adverse stormwater effects and earthworks effects above. We concluded that subject to conditions imposed on the designation regarding stormwater and earthworks requirements, any adverse effects would be appropriately avoided, remedied and mitigated.

With respect to urban amenity values, as already set out the proposed pond will serve the future development for Area 6 and a number of existing residential properties to the south. The notification and timing of the requirement coincides with PC15. This is in order to meet the needs of the existing and future community of Takanini by providing a key infrastructure service to provide for the community‟s growth.

The designation will be zoned for reserve purposes, serving as a wetland; with landscaping (including native planting) and a walking and cycling path providing connectivity with the proposed adjoining recreation reserve, esplanade reserve and footpaths. This will enhance the amenity of the surrounding area once it is urbanised. The designation will also provide a buffer between the existing residential area to the north and the proposed industrial area to the south. We find that the proposed pond meets the relevant objectives and policies for the structure plan area.

The relevant Reserve Zone objectives and policies are also „met‟ by the proposal. The requirement area is proposed to be zoned as reserve as set already, through PC15. As discussed previously the requirement area will serve as a wetland; with landscaping and a walking and cycling path providing connectivity with the proposed adjoining recreation reserve, esplanade reserve and footpaths. All vegetation within the requirement area will be removed for the construction of the pond. None of this is native or significant, and landscaping the pond margin and designation area will mitigate the adverse effects from the vegetation removal.

of 163

With respect to the Network Utilities objectives and policies the proposed pond will be constructed in accordance with the relevant Auckland Council Technical Publications and New Zealand Standards. Landscaping of the pond edges and requirement area will enhance the amenity of the surrounding area once urbanised. Furthermore conditions have been imposed to ensure that the environmental quality of the surrounding area will not be compromised.

16.11 Regional Plan Objectives and Policies

The Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water addresses, amongst other thinks, stormwater discharges. Given that this area has been identified as one to be urbanised, the proposed stormwater pond was identified in the TNCMP as an appropriate mechanism for stormwater treatment and disposal from sub-catchments I to P (inclusive). A Network discharge consent under the regional plan was consented and enables the discharge from the pond was issued in February 2003.

Based on our findings above the proposed stormwater pond is consistent with objectives 5.3.5-5.3.8 of the Regional Plan.

Summary

Overall, in terms of the relevant objectives and polices, and in the context of Change 14 and PC 15, the NOR is, subject to the condition set out below, consistent with the relevant objectives and policies of the regional and district planning documents.

16.12 Consideration of Alternative Sites and Methods

Consideration of Alternative Sites

Section 168(3)(b) of the Act requires the territorial authority to have particular regard to consideration of alternative sites, methods and routes if the territorial authority does not have sufficient interest in the land to undertake the work, or if it is likely that the work will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The requirement document advised that no alternative sites were considered to be appropriate. Alternative sites were not considered by the Requiring Authority for the following reasons:

The pond location was identified in accordance with the TNCMP.

The pond location is located in the lowest point in the catchment. The stormwater entering the pond can be therefore be gravity fed.

Alternative sites were considered at the time that a Comprehensive Stormwater Discharge Consent for the catchment was granted. The investigation concluded that the requirement area is the most suitable location as it is an existing ponding area.

Consideration of Alternative Methods The method of disposing stormwater via a stormwater management pond was initially identified in the TNCMP. The requirement document discussed the alternative methods that could be considered and the reasons why these were not considered to be appropriate. The alternative methods are:

of 163

- The construction of a series of small ponds at appropriate locations across the sub-catchments. This would require less land for this particular pond to be used, but would result in more land being required overall. This would be a less efficient land use and would require greater maintenance costs.

- No stormwater pond. However this would allow stormwater runoff to enter the Papakura Stream untreated.

Consideration of alternative methods to designating the site

In addition to the consideration of alternative stormwater disposal methods consideration should also be afforded to alternative methods to the designation process. The requirement document discussed an alternative method to designating the site. This would be for the pond to be constructed by the developer at subdivision stage and vested in Council as a Drainage Reserve.

The requiring authority considered that a designation was the most appropriate method for the following reasons:

The pond will serve multiple landowners, including existing urban properties and there is no surety of provision in respect of timing.

The designation process is an appropriate method to ensure the timely and co-ordinated provision of stormwater management for the catchment to facilitate development within the catchment.

The designation process also enables costs of the public work to be recovered through a combination of rates and development contributions from all landowners that will benefit from the pond, in a fair and equitable manner.

We accept all of the issues raised above. More we accept that a designation with relevant conditions (outlined in the District Plan) will provide surrounding landowners and the public in general more certainty about the purpose of the pond, its operation, and details about how it is managed and maintained.

Summary

Based on the above, we find that the proposed stormwater management pond is the most appropriate stormwater disposal method; and a designation is the most appropriate mechanism to provide for the construction, operation and maintenance of the pond.

16.13 Whether the work and designation are reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the Requiring Authority

In this respect we accept that the proposed stormwater pond is reasonable necessary for achieving the objectives of the Requiring Authority for the following reasons:

The pond is required to service the new urban area proposed in PC15 and the existing urban area to the south of the plan change area.

The pond will mitigate potential flooding effects that may be generated through urban development within the catchment. This would enable the Auckland Council to carry out its statutory function under S31(b)(i) which requires a territorial authority to control any actual and potential effects of the use, development or protection of land, for the purpose of the avoidance of natural hazards.

The designation will be zoned for reserve purposes and will also serve as a wetland; with landscaping, including native planting, enhancing the amenity of the surrounding area. A walking and cycling path will be provided within the designation area to the west south of the pond.

of 163

The pond will reduce the input of sediments, heavy metals and other pollutants into the Papakura Stream.

16.14 Other Relevant Documents

Takanini North Catchment Management Plan 2004

The TNCMP was developed based on full development of the catchment in accordance with PDC's development planning for the Takanini North Catchment in 2000, which anticipated future industrial activities in Area 6. It assesses the anticipated stormwater discharge from the catchment, the effects of this discharge, and the stormwater management mechanisms required to mitigate the effects of the discharge, and includes the Discharge Consent from the Auckland Regional Council for the catchment area. The proposed pond is intended to serve eight of the 18 sub-catchments, I to P (inclusive) which would comprise the new urban area proposed in PC15 (Area 6) and the existing urban area to the south of the plan change area. The Discharge Consent for the TNCMP was approved by the Auckland Regional Council in February 2003. The TNCMP recommends a stormwater management pond at the base of sub-catchment N to provide improved stormwater disposal for existing development and to provide effective stormwater disposal for future development in Area 6. It is considered that the proposed pond is consistent with the recommendations of the TNCMP.

16.15 Submissions

Summary of Submissions

A summary of the submissions is provided below:

Submitter Support/Oppose Submission Points

Chan Li Chun Fa Oppose - Oppose the size and area of the stormwater pond

- The size of the pond should be reduced and lengthened in design

Takanini Residents Action Group

Support - Will provide an aesthetically pleasing buffer between the proposed industrial area and residential area to the north

- Proposed landscaping will rehabilitate an area of low natural value

- Supportive of proposed maintenance program and operation maintenance manual

- Pleased that the supporting technical reports provided reassurance that the Area 6 is capable of supporting the proposed development

Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd,

Mellviews Ltd,

Zabeel Investments Ltd,

Support- subject to changes

- Detailed design should be undertaken prior to approval of the requirement to determine the exact area required for the pond and drainage reserve

- The location of the proposed stormwater pond and esplanade reserve should be defined based on the existing title boundaries adjoining the Papakura

of 163

Village Farms Ltd

Stream and the requirement plans be amended accordingly

- The proposed pond should be shifted further north in accordance with the recommendations of the infrastructure report

- Such other additional or consequential relief as is necessary to achieve consistency with the above and satisfy the concerns of the submitter

- Such other alternative relief to satisfy the concerns of the submitter


Supports - The requirement for the designation is granted

- Submissions opposing or requesting amendments to the proposed designation that would prevent timely servicing of urban development at 55 Takanini school Road and 3 Popes Road are rejected

- Such further or alternative relief as necessary to address the issues or concerns above

The submissions in support of the NOR from the Takanini Residential Action Group and the Takanini Industrial Trust are acknowledged. The concerns expressed in the other submissions (summarised above) are addressed below, and as already set out above. Overall it is our findings that the adverse effects of the application on the environment can be appropriately avoided or mitigated through the imposition of the proposed conditions.

Findings on the Submission Points

Size and shape of Stormwater Management Pond

Several submissions expressed concern about the size of the proposed pond. Submitter Chan Li Chun Fa sought a reduction in the size of the stormwater pond and it lengthening across adjoining properties. The submitters, Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd, Mellviews Ltd, Zabeel Investments Ltd, Village Farms Ltd generally supported the NOR but sought detailed designed to be done so that the exact areas of the pond and drainage reserve can be determined prior to the approval of the NOR. These points are addressed below:

Reduction of size and lengthening shape The location of the stormwater pond was identified through the TNCMP. The TNCMP identified that a minimum area of 1.44 hectares would be required to service the catchment. Based on further modelling and preliminary design for the NOR application undertaken by Fraser Thomas in 2009, the pond area was increased to 1.66ha, and includes a margin for public use, maintenance access and amenity planning. As the detailed design for the pond has not yet been undertaken, the requirement area includes a contingency area of 15-20% which will allow for the construction of associate structures. Lengthening the pond east onto higher land is not appropriate as the proposed location of the pond is within the lowest point in the catchment, and lengthening the pond eastwards would likely require more land for the pond and overland flow paths to be able to cater for the intended catchment.

of 163

Based on the evidence presented to us, in terms of the catchment area the pond is designed to serve, the pond size cannot be reduced and lengthened as sought by the submitter. Detailed design to determine size

Detailed design of the pond has not been submitted by the Requiring Authority for the NOR. The submissions sought detailed design to be undertaken at the NOR stage to ensure that that size and area of the pond and esplanade reserve can be determined now. The requirement document (independently reviewed by GHD Limited and Council‟s Development Engineer to determine if the requirement area proposed is an adequate size to cater for the sub-catchments) set out the preliminary design and calculations provided with the NOR and further information provided from the Requiring Authority. From the evidence presented to us we find that the requirement area is large enough to contain the stormwater pond and associated infrastructure. If the pond is smaller than anticipated, more space will be available within the requirement area for landscaping and amenity planting. Also as the requirement area is large enough to contain the pond, the final pond design can be appropriately addressed through the Outline Plan of Works.

Location of Stormwater Management Pond

Several submissions expressed concern about the location of the proposed stormwater management pond. The submitters, Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 Ltd, Mellviews Ltd, Zabeel Investments Ltd and Village Farms Ltd generally support the NOR but consider that the location of the proposed stormwater pond and esplanade reserve should be defined based on the existing title boundaries and that the pond should be shifted north towards the Papakura Stream. There was considerable „debate‟ at the hearing whether it was legally and technically feasible to move the pond northwards and we have addressed this issue earlier in this report under the section titled: 11.5 Submissions Relating to PC15: Stormwater / Stream / Infrastructure / Geotechnical. Our decision on these matters is set out below Shifting the pond northwards in relation to the esplanade reserves

The purpose of esplanade reserves and strips is set out in Section 229 of the Act. Section 229 states:

“229 Purposes of esplanade reserves and esplanade strips

An esplanade reserve or an esplanade strip has 1 or more of the following

purposes: (a) to contribute to the protection of conservation values by, in particular,— (i) maintaining or enhancing the natural functioning of the adjacent sea, river,

or lake; or (ii) maintaining or enhancing water quality; or (iii) maintaining or enhancing aquatic habitats; or (iv) protecting the natural values associated with the esplanade reserve or

esplanade strip; or (v) mitigating natural hazards; or (b) to enable public access to or along any sea, river, or lake; or (c) to enable public recreational use of the esplanade reserve or esplanade

strip and adjacent sea, river, or lake, where the use is compatible with conservation values‖.

of 163

The submitters are correct in recognising that the Fraser Thomas infrastructure report identified that it is feasible for the pond to be located further north. However, in consideration of S229 of the Act, requiring a 20m esplanade reserve provides a number of ecological, social and cultural benefits. In particular, a 20m esplanade reserve will enable public access and recreation use in accordance with Papakura District Councils Open Space Strategy and Walking and Cycling 10 Year Implementation Plan. We also note that the independent review undertaken by GHD Limited commented that moving the pond north may reduce the floodway for the Papakura Stream, consequently increasing flood levels in the stream. Water quality in the stream may also be reduced. The review also considered that if the same level of attenuation in the pond was to be achieved, there would be a need for steeper pond batters and space for operation and maintenance of the pond would be reduced. This was also the view held by Ms Atimalala (dealing with regional issues) and that by moving the pond northward could effectively make it an „on line‟ pond as opposed to the intended „off line‟.

The reasons set out in the section titled: Submissions Relating to PC15: Stormwater / Stream / Infrastructure / Geotechnical, above are also relevant. Overall we do not support the movement of the pond‟s northward move.

In relation to title boundaries

Our reasoning with respect to the location of the stormwater pond and the esplanade reserve has been fully set out in the section titled: Submissions Relating to PC15: Stormwater / Stream / Infrastructure / Geotechnical, above are also relevant. Other Matters /Conditions of the NOR.

Evidence presented by Karyn Kurzeja on behalf of Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 LTD, Zabel Investments LTD, Mellviews LTD and Village Farms LTD raised points regarding the recommended conditions 1, 12, and 16. These are:

Extending the lapse period from 5 to 10 years

Altering condition 12 (landscaping) so that the specific recommendations in the CVA are referred to, and

Altering condition 16 to exclude public holidays from the permitted construction times,

These suggestions were supported by the reporting office as; extending the designation period was appropriate given the potential timing of future development, and the altered conditions provided more clarity and certainty. We agree.

16.16 Part 2 - Resource Management Act

The purpose of the designation is to enable the construction and subsequent operation and maintenance of a stormwater management pond to service Area 6 and the existing urban development to the south of the plan change area. It is considered that this will provide for the social, cultural and economic well-being of the existing and future communities as the designation will service existing and future residential and employment (industrial) areas. The proposed pond will mitigate potential flooding effects that may be generated through urban development within the catchment.

The designation will be zoned for reserve purposes under PC15 and will also serve as a wetland, with landscaping, including native planting, to enhance the amenity of the

of 163

surrounding area. A walking and cycling path will be provided within the designation area to the west south of the pond. Potential adverse effects on the environment are able to be appropriately mitigated by the imposition of conditions and further mitigated by the positive effects of the pond. There are no relevant Section 6 matters that we need to recognise or provide for with respect the NOR. Section 7 of the Act requires that particular regard be given to a number of matters. Of relevance to this Notice of Requirement are: (a) Kaitiakitanga (b) The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources (c) The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values. (f) Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment Regard has been given to Kaitiakitanga and the ethic of stewardship by ensuring that the iwi recommendations from the CVA are addressed by recommended conditions on the designation. In respect of matters (b), (c) and (f), these have already been addressed above and we find that the NOR is consistent with those matters. Section 8 requires the Council to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. As discussed previously, local Iwi completed a CVA for Area 6 which confirmed that provided that the recommendations of the CVA are honoured, Iwi have no objection.

Overall we find the proposed requirement is consistent with Part 2 of the Act and meets its purpose as set out in section 5.

16.17 DECISION OF THE HEARINGS PANEL

In accordance with section 168A(4) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Hearings Panel has determined that:

(a) That the requirement for a public work, being a designation for construction,

operation and maintenance of a stormwater pond at 2 Popes Road, Takanini, described as Lot 2 DP 136772, contained within CT NA80C/590; and 22 Popes Road, Takanini, Described as Lot 1, DP 163055, contained within CT NA98B/472, be confirmed, AND

(b) it be subject to the conditions as listed below.

16.18 CONDITIONS

General

1. The designation shall lapse on the expiry of 10 years from the date on which it is included in the District Plan if it has not been given effect to before the end of that period.

2. The works to give effect to the designation shall be generally in accordance with the plans and information submitted by the Requiring Authority in support of the Notice of Requirement for construction, operation and maintenance of a stormwater management pond.

of 163

3. Any development or redevelopment authorised by this designation is subject to the Outline Plan of Works requirements in section 176A of the Resource Management Act 1991 and shall be carried out in accordance with the conditions of this designation and recommendations in the subsequent Outline Plan of Works.

4. The spatial extent of the designation shall be in accordance with the area shown on the designation plan submitted with the notice of requirement entitled Proposed Designation Plan by Hosken Associates, dated 29/07/09 and shall be illustrated on the planning maps. Upon survey of the site for land purchase, the spatial extent of the designation shall be accurately defined. If the spatial extent of the designation differs, if necessary, the provisions of Section 181 of the Resource Management Act 1991 will apply.

5. In addition to the information required to be provided pursuant to Section 176A of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Requiring Authority shall provide detailed design of the stormwater management pond with the application for the Outline Plan of Works for the development that includes: a. The provision of extended detention and stormwater attenuation for the 2

year ARI event, including the provision of peak flow control and discharge to the Papakura Stream for the full range of operating levels in the pond and the range of stream levels within the Papakura Stream to ensure that erosion effects on the Papakura Stream are eliminated or minimised.

b. An assessment of the effects of discharge from the pond from high intensity storm events, where the base flow in the Papakura Stream is relatively low.

c. Details of a mechanism or shut off valve system to be installed at the outlet that can be manually activated in the event of a spillage of contaminants within the contributing catchment.

d. Design of the associated overland flow paths and stormwater network leading to the pond to establish any critical levels on incoming pipes that have a potential impact on pond operational levels.

e. Details showing that the design of the pond outfall does not interfere with the proposed Watercare watermain to be constructed within the immediate stream banks of the Papakura Stream and that this shall not affect the operating levels of the pond.

f. Details showing that the water level in the stormwater management pond allows drainage into the Papakura Stream without the need for pumping and allows stormwater from the contributing catchment to drain into the stormwater management pond without causing suspended materials to settle in the stormwater pipes.

g. An assessment demonstrating how the design incorporates the Ministry of the Environment guideline recommendations for climate change to year 2090.

6. At the completion of works for the construction of the stormwater management

pond, the Requiring Authority shall provide as-built plans to the Auckland Council for approval by the Development Control Manager. The as-built plans shall include (but are not limited to): a. The surveyed location (to the nearest 0.1m) and level (to the nearest

0.01m) of the treatment devices, with co-ordinates expressed in terms of the New Zealand Map Grid and LINZ datum.

b. Documentation of any discrepancies between the design plans and the as-built plans.

of 163

c. The location, dimensions and levels (including cross sections and long sections) of the associated major overland flow paths.

d. Plans and cross sections of all stormwater management devices, including confirmation of the water quality volume, storage volumes and levels of any outflow control structure. The plans and cross sections shall provide sufficient details of the stormwater management devices to enable them to be compared to the design plans.

Earthworks

7. In addition to the information required to be provided pursuant to Section 176A of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Requiring Authority shall provide the following information with the application for the Outline Plan of Works for the development of the stormwater management pond to address earthworks: a. Confirmation of the location for stockpiling and disposal of excess fill and

appropriate erosion and sediment controls in accordance with ARC TP90 to control runoff and mitigate and prevent soil erosion and sediment loss from stockpiling the excess fill.

b. Conceptual erosion and sediment control plans and methodologies in accordance with ARC TP90 to control runoff, mitigate and prevent soil erosion and sediment loss.

c. A comprehensive dust management and mitigation plan to minimise dust generation and dispersal.

Noise

8. Noise from construction activity shall not exceed the limits recommended in, and shall be measured and assessed in accordance with, New Zealand Standard NZS 6803: “Acoustics- Construction Noise”.

Traffic

9. The temporary vehicle access shall be constructed in accordance with the layout shown on the the designation plan submitted with the Notice of Requirement entitled Proposed Designation Plan by Hosken Associates, dated 29/07/09, and the engineering and construction standards set out in the relevant Auckland Council District Plan and Development Code.

10. The temporary vehicle access shall be removed when the internal road network

for Takanini Structure Plan Area 6 is constructed.

11. In addition to the information required to be provided pursuant to Section 176A of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Requiring Authority shall provide a Traffic Management Plan to the Auckland Council Development Control Manager for construction traffic associated with the development of the stormwater management pond. The Traffic Management Plan shall include (but is not limited to) methods for managing the effects of construction traffic to and within the site and shall include information regarding the frequency, number of movements and proposed routes.

Landscaping

of 163

12. Landscaping of the pond edges and requirement area shall be provided. A detailed landscape management plan showing details of plant species, spacing and planting program shall be submitted with the application for the Outline Plan of Works for the development of the stormwater management pond. The landscape management plan shall be to the satisfaction of the Auckland Council and shall: a. Be in general accordance with the Landscape Concept Plan prepared by

Hoskin Associates, dated March 2009, b. Be in general accordance with the provisions of Rule 13.8, Section 3, part

13- Landscape Design, of the Auckland Council District Plan, Papakura Section.

c. Be in general accordance with recommendations 6 and 12 of the Cultural Values Assessment, Prepared by Te Roopu Kaitiaki O Papakura, dated December 2007.

d. Include provisions and methods to ensure landscaping works do not interfere with overland flow paths.

13. The Landscape Management Plan shall be implemented within the first planting season following the completion of works on the site, or the operation of the stormwater management pond, whichever is sooner.

Maintenance and Monitoring

14. An Operational Maintenance Manual shall be prepared for the designation area and shall be submitted with the application for the Outline Plan of Works for the development of the stormwater management pond. The Operational Maintenance Manual shall be to the satisfaction of the Auckland Council. All maintenance works shall be undertaken in accordance with this manual. The Operational Maintenance Manual shall be in accordance with ARC TP10 and shall address the following maintenance requirements:

Removal of litter, debris or pollution affecting the pond and outlet structures or causing blockages;

Removal of sediment from the forebay areas as required (approximately once every 3-5 years),

Removal of sediment from the base of the pond on an infrequent basis

(approximately once every 20-30 years),

Drying and testing of removed sediment on site and transportation of sediment to an approved landfill,

Aesthetic maintenance (for example landscaping, grass mowing, tree pruning, litter control, erosion monitoring).

The management of pests (for example Mosquitoes and Flies).

Heritage

15. Where evidence of an archaeological site, taonga, koiwi waahi tapu, or artefacts is discovered whilst undertaking site works, works shall cease immediately and the Council, Tangata Whenua and the New Zealand Historic Places Trust shall be notified.

Construction

of 163

16. Construction activity shall only occur between the hours of 8.00 am and 5.00pm Monday to Friday excluding public holidays.

Chair:

Date: 21st March 2012