Civic Building

231 Hastings Street, Napier

Phone:  (06) 835 7579




Regulatory Committee







Meeting Date:

Wednesday 19 April 2017


Following the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee meeting


Main Committee Room
3rd floor Civic Building
231 Hastings Street



Council Members

Councillor Jeffery (In the Chair), the Mayor, Councillors Boag, Brosnan, Dallimore, Hague, McGrath, Price, Tapine, White, and Wise

Officer Responsible

Director City Strategy


Governance Team



Next Regulatory Committee Meeting

Wednesday 31 May 2017

Regulatory Committee19 April 2017 Open Agenda



Cr Tania Wright, Cr Graeme Taylor



Public forum


Announcements by the Mayor


Announcements by the Chairperson


Announcements by the Management


Confirmation of Minutes

That the Minutes of the Regulatory Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 8 March 2017 be taken as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

Notification and Justification of Matters of Extraordinary Business

(Strictly for information and/or referral purposes only).

Agenda Items

1            Adoption of the 2016 Review of the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy....... 3

2            Freedom Camping Working Group Update......................................................................... 20

3            Street Naming - Te Awa Estate........................................................................................... 29  


Public Excluded ........................................................................................................................ 32


Minutes 8 March 2017........................................................................................................................ 33


Regulatory Committee19 April 2017 Open Agenda

Agenda Items

1.      Adoption of the 2016 Review of the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy

Type of Report:

Enter Significance of Report

Legal Reference:

Enter Legal Reference

Document ID:


Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Dean Moriarity, Team Leader Policy Planning


1.1     Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is for the Council to adopt the 2016 Review of the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (HPUDS2016).



Officer’s Recommendation

That Council:

a.       receives and notes the HPUDS Implementation Working Groups Hearing meeting record and the recommendation reports (Attachments A and B).

b.       adopts HPUDS2016 in accordance with the Joint Working Group’s recommendations on submissions, as set out in the appendices attached to this report, as the regional strategy to direct urban development from 2015 to 2045 (Attachments C, D & E).

c.       appoints Councillor White as the second elected member (in addition to Councillor Jeffery) on the Implementation Working Group of HPUDS to represent Napier City Council’s interest.

d.       approves the Terms of Reference for the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy Implementation Working Group for the 2016-19 Triennium (as set out in Attachment F), conditional on the other two partner councils (Hawkes Bay regional Council and Hastings District Council) also agreeing to the same Terms of Reference.




That the Council resolve that the officer’s recommendation be adopted.


1.2     Background Summary

The scheduled five yearly monitoring and review of the HPUDS strategy, as provided for in the implementation section of the previously adopted HPUDS2010, has now been completed. The HPUDS Implementation Working Group has considered submissions on the Draft Review document it published last year and has now formally recommended that the amended strategy be adopted by the Napier City, Hastings District and Hawke’s Bay Regional Councils. 





HPUDS 2010


Before considering the Working Group’s recommendations for the review, it is worth recapping on HPUDS2010.


HPUDS was adopted in August 2010 by the Hastings District, Napier City and Hawke’s Bay Regional Councils (the partner Council’s). The purpose of HPUDS2010 is to provide a comprehensive, integrated and effective growth management strategy for the Heretaunga Plains sub-region (refer Figure 1).  HPUDS 2010 brought together the separate urban development strategies that both Hastings and Napier had in place covering the period from the 1990s through to 2015.


Figure 1 - Location Map of Heretaunga Plains sub-region


HPUDS 2010 takes a long-term view of land use and infrastructure and how growth will be managed in the Heretaunga Plains sub-region for the period 2015-2045.  Other strategies and plans that will influence and be influenced by HPUDS include:


·         the Regional Land Transport Strategy,

·         the Regional Land Transport Programme,

·         each of the partner Councils’ growth strategies; Long Term Plans (LTPs), District Plans and the Regional Policy Statement.


HPUDS 2010’s stated vision is:


“In 2045, the Heretaunga Plains is a place where there are thriving communities, quality living environments with high levels of amenity, and where mana whenua values and aspirations are recognised and provided for, and where:

·         There is a growing and resilient economy which promotes opportunities to live, work, play and invest.

·         The productive value of its soil and water resources are recognised and provided for, and sustainable use is promoted.

·         The urban centres of Napier and Hastings have distinct identities and provide complementary living, working and learning opportunities.

·         Community and physical infrastructure is integrated, sustainable and affordable.”


HPUDS 2010 is also founded on a series of guiding principles as depicted in Figure 2 below.


Figure 2- HPUDS2010 guiding principles





In implementing these principles, HPUDS 2010 seeks to achieve a compact development form. This development form was settled on by the partner Councils after an initial round of consultation in the development of HPUDS. At that time, the approach to achieve compact development was explained as:


“In the move towards more compact urban form for the Heretaunga Plains sub-region, an increasing proportion of the residential growth will need to take place through intensification, by redevelopment within existing residential and rural residential areas, development is expected to transition from current development allocation levels to the following by 2045:


·         60% intensification

·         35% greenfield

·         5% of population in rural areas.


The Strategy was also developed on the basis of achieving balanced supply between Napier and Hastings.”


This change to a more compact form was envisaged to take the form of a transition from largely greenfields development to intensification over time.  HPUDS therefore identified specific areas for greenfields development out to 2045 and seeks to limit such development largely to these areas.  To protect the versatile land resource of the Heretaunga Plains, some tension in greenfields land supply is considered necessary to encourage the intensification of development within the existing urban areas to ensure that the 60% intensification target can be met by 2045. Table 1 below shows this transition:


Table 1: Additional Households for the Heretaunga Plains 2015 – 2045 (HPUDS 2010)


Type of Development

Proposed of Additional Households [No.]






45% [1872]

55% [1502]

60% [674]

51% [4048]


45% [1872]

40% [1092]

35% [394]

41% [3358]

Rural Residential

10% [416]

5% [136]

5% [56]

8% [608]


100% [4160]

100% [2730]

100% [1124]

100% [8014]


Defined growth areas in conjunction with intensification are considered to be more efficient and cost effective from an infrastructure and servicing point of view. It ensures land use and infrastructure can be coordinated, development well planned, and growth on the versatile land of the Heretaunga Plains avoided as much as possible.


The growth areas and their potential dwelling yield have been derived by projecting the dwelling growth needs for the HPUDS study area out to 2045. These projections are based on demographic information and calculate the number of greenfields, infill and rural dwellings that will be required to meet these growth needs in a ratio that achieves the preferred settlement pattern.


The Strategy’s timeframe deliberately started from 2015 in order to provide a lead-in time for establishing policies in statutory planning documents (e.g. the Regional Policy Statement and Hastings District Plan Review).  For the 2010-2015 period, existing growth strategies for Napier and Hastings continued to apply.


Key implementation actions that have been taken since 2010 include:


·         Change 4 to the Regional Policy Statement to embed HPUDS policy direction

·         Review of the Hastings District Plan and a change to the Napier City District Plan to incorporate HPUDS policy and zoning initiatives

·         Incorporated HPUDS in land-use projections for the Regional Land Transport Strategy and Programme.


HPUDS Implementation and Review


Following adoption of the final HPUDS in August 2010, a working group (IWG) was formed to oversee its implementation.  The IWG has no direct decision-making powers, but can make recommendations to the partner councils.  The IWG consists of:


·   Two elected members from each partner council.

·   Mayors of Napier and Hastings councils

·   Chairperson of the Hawke's Bay Regional Council

·   Chief Executives from each partner council

·   Two representatives of mana whenua.


Councillors White and Jeffery represented this Council on the Group over the last triennium, which included overseeing the HPUDS2016 Review and hearing submissions on the Draft document.


This triennium, Napier City Council has appointed Councillor Jeffery to the IWG but under its Terms of Reference Napier City Council has the opportunity to appoint a second elected representative (other than the Mayor) in line with the other partner Councils.  In order to provide balanced numbers with the other partner Councils and for continuity reasons it is recommended that Councillor White should also be appointed to the IWG to represent Napier’s interest.  A small Technical Advisory Group (TAG) supports the Working Group. The TAG comprises senior planning staff from each of the three partner councils.  An updated version of the IWG’s terms of reference is set out in Attachment F for the Council’s endorsement, subject to similar endorsement from the two other partner Councils’.

HPUDS is based on a number of assumptions about future development and infrastructure trends that will likely change over the next thirty years and the Strategy is intended to adapt to changing trends over time. As such, HPUDS specifically provides that the Strategy be reviewed every five years after the results of the national census are available to ensure that it is kept up to date and relevant.  Due to the Canterbury earthquakes delaying the last census, this first five year review programmed for 2015 was delayed until 2016.


Current Situation


The IWG was charged with undertaking the first regular five yearly review and recommending any changes to HPUDS back to the partner Councils. The IWG split the review into three stages as set out in Figure 3 below.



Figure 3 - Representation of the HPUDS Review's key stages




The IWG commenced the first review by doing a ‘stock take’ of a range of local and national factors which may have influenced the Strategy since 2010. Eleven separate reports were completed as part of Stage 1 reports.  These reviewed the assumptions upon which the strategy was based, with a particular focus on the monitoring of growth drivers and trends of the five years to 2015.


Growth Drivers and Emerging Issues


The population growth within the study area from 2009 – 2015, was higher than that projected in 2009 (by 1,080) due mainly to net migration gain (1,106). This migration gain was from internal migration from other parts of New Zealand of 3,172, which more than compensated for a net overseas migration loss of 2,066. However, net migration gains have historically tended to be followed by losses, hence the long term Statistics New Zealand projections assume a migration balance.

Similarly, the total number of ‘households’ in the study area has exceeded the projections made six years ago by 545 households. In addition to population increase, this has resulted from demographic and social changes in the community which has reduced the average number of people per household from 2.6 in 2009 to 2.55 in 2016.

The HPUDS2016 Review therefore provided updated projections, which resulted in both population and dwelling growth increases over the 30 year period (based on the medium – high growth projection scenarios) compared to the HPUDS 2010 projections.


Projected household growth across the HPUDS Study Area for the 2015 – 2045 study period is 10,610 households is based on a Statistics New Zealand ‘Halfway Medium to High’ growth projection scenario.   This is an increase on that projected in 2009 of 8 014 (it should be noted though that this projection was based on a medium-high projection for Napier City, but a ‘middle of the road’ growth projection scenario within the Hastings District).  Total population growth in the area over this timeframe is projected to be 16,455, while average household occupancy falls from 2.55 to 2.38.


Forecast annual average GDP growth for the wider Hawke’s Bay region remains at 1.5% throughout the study period to 2045 with primary industry growth and infrastructural upgrading, underpinning this growth outlook. Employment is similarly forecast to grow at average annual rates of 1 - 1.5% during the study period, so industrial and commercial land requirement projections remain similar to those projected in 2009.

The reports completed as part of the HPUDS Review Stage 1 therefore generally confirmed that the HPUDS 2010 assumptions and directions around urban growth remain sound despite there being a slightly larger than projected increase in population during the period 2009 - 2015.

The updated projections result in a slight population increase over the 30 year period to 2045 and a more significant increase in dwelling growth (based on adopting the medium – high growth projections). Nevertheless this increase would still be able to be accommodated within the HPUDS identified greenfield growth areas and the infill growth projections over the long term, with some amendments i.e. there is a sufficient buffer.

In summary the demographic analysis undertaken as part of the review for the period 2009-2015 (as compared to that predicted as part of the 2010 strategy) found:

•     1080 extra population (mainly increased due to net migration)

•     545 extra households

Projecting the new demographics over the life of the strategy (30 years) using a standard whole of population projection results in:

•     8000 extra population (now projected to increase by 16,455)

•     2500 extra dwellings required (now 10 610 projected to be required)

•     1387 extra greenfield sites supply required to proportionally meet the increased population

What this means in terms of HPUDS is that projected increase in demand for greenfield sites (+1387) results in a total projected demand over the life of the strategy for:

•     (4745 total sites now compared to 3358  in 2010)

Scope of Review

Despite a long term level of comfort some immediate supply issues   (at Havelock North and Frimley (Lyndhurst) and potentially at Te Awa), suggested further work was needed around current greenfields supply availability issues in some locations.


The Market Demand report also identified that the lifestyle residential housing supply appears to fall short of the likely total demand to the end of the 2045 study period, despite lessening demand beyond the 2020s with an aging population requiring better access to amenities and services.


After considering matters arising from the initial reporting ‘stock take’, the IWG agreed that the scope of this first 5-yearly review (i.e. remaining review Stages 2 and 3) would be to:

(1)     consider councils' requests for alternative sites to include in the strategy and make any required or requested changes to the settlement pattern (including reconsideration of inappropriate areas for development)

(2)     further investigate the rural residential land supply and regulatory responses

(3)     evaluate the retirement sector and options for accommodating retirement villages

(4)     update hazard information

(5)     remove redundant or low value recommended actions from the strategy, and correct omissions and errors.


On this basis the IWG commissioned three further reports as follows:


·         Alternative Greenfield Sites and Review of the HPUDS Settlement Pattern

·         Review of Rural residential Lifestyle Sites

·         Retirement Sector Housing Demands Forecasts 2016-2045


Greenfields Sites/Settlement Pattern


Opus Consultants undertook an independent evaluation of the comparative suitability of the residential greenfield areas (including ‘Reserve’ areas) put forward by the Council’s for inclusion in HPUDS.  They were assessed against the Regional Policy Statement Criteria in Policy 4.2 ‘New Residential Greenfield Growth Area Criteria’


Due to the potential high costs associated with servicing land in Te Awa and concerns around the viability of future stages, South Pirimai was promoted as an alternative option for Napier while Hastings promoted the following:

·   Brookvale as a short-medium term substitute for Arataki Extension

·   Part Romanes Drive as a Reserve Greenfields Growth Area

·   Part Middle/Te Aute Road as a Reserve Greenfields Growth Area

·   Murdoch Road West as a Reserve Greenfields Growth Area

·   Wall Road as a Reserve Greenfields Growth Area.


The Opus review confirmed that it was appropriate to adopt the Hastings District Council’s preference for Arataki Extension to be removed from the list of Greenfield Growth Areas in HPUDS (due to reverse sensitivity issues to odour from the neighbouring Te Mata Mushrooms) and be replaced with an area fronting Brookvale Road, Havelock North. Further to this in responding to immediate greenfields supply availability issues the report recommended the inclusion in HPUDS of additional ‘reserve’ growth areas, as requested.

It needs to be clearly understood that Reserve areas’ are recommended to act as stand-by replacements for the Greenfield Growth Areas. This ensures that there are identified areas available within HPUDS to ‘bring on’ if, as has happened with Arataki Extension, a Greenfields Growth Area proves to be inappropriate upon closer investigation. Having reserve areas that have passed preliminary pre- screening and are on ‘standby’ should a need arise, saves the delay that would be associated with a screening assessment which would otherwise be built into the HPUDS review process to introduce a new replacement area.

Other circumstances where a reserve area could be advanced would be if there is a rapid and significant change in growth demand, or if for example retirement village needs cannot reasonably be met within the preferred greenfields areas. It is not however deemed necessary to have ‘reserve growth areas’ for every identified greenfield growth location in HPUDS, but it is prudent to have them available for the main urban areas of Napier City and Hastings District.

In addition a review of ‘Areas Inappropriate for Greenfields Growth’, specifically identified Whirinaki and South Clive for consideration. The Opus report subsequently recommended, two areas identified in the ‘Inappropriate Areas for development’ list in HPUDS 2010, be removed. These are:

·   Clive South (an area off the end of Read Crescent between SH2 and Muddy Creek); and

·   Whirinaki.

The report concluded that both areas were identified as inappropriate because of servicing issues and concluded that both areas warrant removal from the ‘inappropriate’ list, however neither warranted inclusion as appropriate greenfield growth areas (or reserve areas) in HPUDS.

Rural Residential Supply

A specific planning analysis by Cheal Consultants revealed that there is still available zoned but not yet developed land supplies for rural residential development in the areas identified as being desired by the market. This conclusion however relies on ongoing subdivision to create new lots in areas of market preference, whereas the HPUDS 2010 assumption was that there was already a surplus of available lots.

The creation of new lots in areas of market preference may or may not happen. No action was however deemed necessary at this point in time, but future HPUDS review processes should continue to identify the supply of lifestyle residential sites and monitor whether these are becoming scarce in areas of market preference.

Retirement Sector


Given the increasing proportion of the population in the 65+ age group, a specific study was undertaken by EMS Consultants on this form of housing and its likely demand, and whether this is likely to be by greenfields or brownfields retirement villages or infill housing (or combinations).


Retirement units are likely to represent 30-40% of all future new build housing in the Heretaunga Plains sub-region between now and 2045, with half of these likely in ‘traditional’ retirement villages. Sites of sufficient size for this are likely to be found primarily on greenfield land, rather than infill sites within existing urban areas.


As retirement housing (with associated higher housing densities) becomes an increasingly significant factor in the overall housing market, it is possible that the amount of greenfield land required for future housing development in the HPUDS study area would be reduced. As these trends develop there will be an increase in supply and potentially a reduction in demand for larger homes as these are sold by older people to help fund their entry into retirement housing.  In providing for retirement villages however, there may be a need to reflect on future housing density rules and ways in which greater densities can be achieved in both greenfields and infill areas, without compromising (and ideally enhancing) the urban living environment.


No immediate change to the HPUDS settlement pattern was considered as a result of this report at this stage; rather what is required is an awareness that the type of homes built within the Heretaunga Plains sub-region is going to change over the study period to meet the demands of the aging population. In addition there will be a need for developers to be able to aggregate larger blocks within residential greenfield growth areas in suitable locations to accommodate retirement villages. Reserve greenfields areas could be used to provide for retirement villages if the aggregation of sufficient areas of greenfields or brownfields land proves to be too difficult in the medium to longer term.


Draft Strategy


The other component of Stage 2 of the Review was to prepare a draft HPUDS Review Strategy document, based on the finding of the Stage 1 reports and the abovementioned Stage 2 reports, for public consultation.


The redrafted HPUDS document removed the implementation actions that were either completed or deemed unnecessary (in some cases because they are being actioned through other existing programmes, plans or strategies). In addition the redrafting involved the correction of errors and omissions and incorporated amendments to the HPUDS document arising from the items discussed above.


Further, it was decided to separate the implementation sections out from the main strategy document so that it would be more coherent and easier to digest for external audiences readers. A separate implementation plan (attached as an Appendix to the report) was produced as a companion document, which would then guide the future activities of the IWG and Council staff between the 5 year monitoring and review phases.


Public Consultation


The third stage featuring public consultation, involved refreshing the long-established website ( with the content updated in July 2016. All the 2015 – 2016 review information, including new maps and submissions is posted on that website. Councillors from the three Council’s were briefed on the draft strategy on 14 July 2016.  Full page advertisement/explanations were included in the community newspapers on 3rd August 2016 and articles were also included in the Hawke’s Bay Today to advise the opportunity to make submissions on the reviewed HPUDS document.


Notices calling for submissions were e-mailed and posted to interested parties in late July 2016. The mailing lists included the following:


•    HPUDS Stakeholder Consultation Group; Submitters to RPS Change 4; and those who submitted on HPUDS last time (if not already in the stakeholder database);


•    Te Awa and South Pirimai landowners, including land owners within 100m of the boundary of the newly proposed South Pirimai area; and


•    Arataki Extension, Brookvale and proposed Hastings District Reserve Area landowners, including land owners within 100m of the boundaries of new areas in Hastings (Brookvale and reserve areas).


That consultation phase resulted in over 50 submissions being made on the Draft Revised Strategy and a hearing being held in early October 2016.  Submissions are available to view on the HPUDS website:


In terms of submission themes and locations the following submissions were received:

·         Brookvale / Arataki Area 


§  Supporting Brookvale as a greenfields development area but seeking immediate rezoning (11 submissions),


§  Opposing Brookvale as a greenfields development area (1),


§  Supporting Romanes Drive as a reserve area (2), and


§  Seeking the retention of the Arataki Extension in HPUDS (1);



·         Other Hastings District Growth or Reserve Areas:


§  Supporting and Opposing Iona / Havelock Hills (4),

§  Supporting Middle Road (2),

§  Supporting Howard Street (1),

§  Supporting Wall Road (2),

§  Opposing Murdoch Road (1),

§  Mapping of Tomoana Industrial (2) and

§  Mapping of Te Awanga (2);


·         Requests for New Hastings District Growth Areas or New Reserve Areas for residential development:


§  Ada Street (1),

§  Pakowhai Road (2),

§  Clive (2),

§  Raymond Road (3),

§  Waiohiki (1)

§  and Whirinaki (1);


·         Issues with Existing Growth Areas, Napier at:


§  Te Awa (2),

§  Taradale Hills (2)

§  and promote infill housing (1)


·         Requests for New Napier Growth Areas / Development Opportunities at:


§  Jervoistown (1),

§  Meeanee Road (1),

§  Cnr Riverbend & Bledisloe (1)

§  and Churchhill Drive (1)


·         Another 10 general submissions (or parts of submissions) were received with a variety of more general requests, notably 3 of them strongly supported the existing strategy and either opposed or urged caution with regards to the introduction of any new areas or reserve areas.



Hearings and Recommendations


The Working Group held hearings over two days in October last year and resolved to write to all submitters thanking them for their submissions and advising them of the IWG’s recommendations in response to their submissions and offering explanations based on the officer comments as amended by the Working Group at the meeting.  Submitters were also advised that the final adoption of a revised HPUDS document could not occur until after the local body elections.


The IWG have now recommended to the individual partner councils the adoption of a revised Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy 2016 as amended by recommendations of the IWG with such consequential amendments to the Draft Revised HPUDS 2016 as may be required to give effect to those recommendations.


The hearings record is attached as Appendix A and details the changes recommended as a result of the submissions, with the most notable of these being as follows:


·         Add Romanes Drive as Greenfields Growth Area back to Thompson Road in addition to Brookvale Road, with a yield of around 255 sites between the two areas.


·         Remove south Clive from the list of areas classified as inappropriate for growth and identify the 4 ha block off the end of Read Crescent as being appropriate for growth, approximately 40 sites.


·         Make reference to assessment of Raymond Road as part of Cape Coast master planning following the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy.


·         Expand Western Hills (Taradale Hills/Mission Heights) area and increase indicative yield from 350 to 600 sites (+250).


·         Reclassify Arataki Extension as a Reserve Area and clarify the restricted circumstances for utilising including “reserve areas”” for development.



A number of consequential amendments are required as a result of these changes. All changes both primary and consequential are shown in the tracked changes version of the strategy attached as Appendix 3. Of note is the need to change the intensification targets to reflect the added yield resulting from the inclusion of Romanes Drive and expansion of the Napier Western Hills areas. While the end target percentages between Greenfields, Rural and Intensification remain the same, the transition to those targets (refer Table 3) have been adjusted to reflect the slower intensification take up implied by the increased greenfields land expected to be made available during the earlier years of the strategy.


Table 3: revised allocation of additional residential households 2015-2045


Type of Development

2015  Development

Proposed of Additional Households [No.]







40% [2138]

51% [1706]

60% [1152]

47% [4996]



50% [2673]

42% [1405]

35% [672]

45% [4749]

Rural Residential


10% [534]

7% [234]

5% [96]

8% [875]








National Legislative Developments


In recommending increases in the greenfield growth areas available and adding ‘Reserve Areas’ to HPUDS, the IWG gave consideration to the then impending ‘National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity 2016’ (NPS-UDC), which came into effect on 1 December 2016.  In short this NPS places an obligation on Councils to meet demand for residential development in the short (which must be zoned and serviced), medium (which must be zoned and either serviced or allocated to be serviced in the LTP) and long (identified in plans and strategies) terms. 


There is a potential tension between HPUDS, which seeks to influence the nature of future urban growth (towards greater intensification of existing urban areas) and the NPS which seeks that current and future demand is satisfied (with current demand being for greenfield land).  Just how far reaching the NPS may potentially impact on HPUDS will become clearer once the Ministry for the Environment publishes its implementation guidance.  Preliminary feedback to date indicates that central government will attempt to provide a centralised resource to assist Council’s in implementing the NPS rather than leaving individual Council’s to work through each and every requirement on their own. There may be ways in which both the objectives of HPUDS and the NPS can be satisfied and this is likely to be a focus of some further work overseen by the new IWG.


In the meantime however, it is considered beneficial in terms of being able to progress new developments to adopt the revised HPUDS, which at least moves more in the direction of the NPS requirements in relation to greenfields land availability, rather than delaying matters and continuing with the current strategy in its unmodified form.

1.3     Issues

The first issue has been canvassed above and concerns the fact that NCC has currently only appointed CouncillorJeffery to the IWG but under its Terms of Reference NCC has the opportunity to appoint a second elected representative (other than the Mayor) in line with the other partner Council’s.  The recommendation in this report is, in order to provide balanced numbers with the other partner Councils (and for continuity reasons), Councillor White should also be appointed to the IWG to represent Napier’s interest. 

The second issue that has arisen recently is that both the HDC and now the HBRC have had a similar report (to this one) presented to their Council’s seeking adoption of the IWG’s recommendations and both Council’s have decided (at least for now) to let the matter lie on the table (i.e. not make a decision on the IWG’s recommendations). 

Reasons for the delay from HDC seemingly focus around not having had sufficient time to adequately consider the report and its implications (it went straight to an ordinary meeting of full Council, rather than through a committee first).  In terms of the HBRC, additional concerns identified were in relation to some of the fundamental approaches over the strategy (i.e. some of the HBRC Councillors seem to consider that the strategy does not effectively address the issue of urban development on fertile soils; does not address soil classifications; has a timeframe which is too long; and does not address issues such as ‘land-banking’).

As identified above the NPS-UDC requires all Council’s to provide for urban development that meets demand focusing on sufficient residential and business development capacity; basing plans and regional policy statements on robust, accurate and frequently updated evidence; integrating land use and infrastructure planning; and responding to market activity in the short, medium and long term.  This is effectively what HPUDS does already, although there may in the future need to be some ‘tweaking’ to the strategy to fully deliver the outcomes required by the NPS.  Viewed in this context the concerns of the HBRC, while well intentioned, do not necessarily align with what the NPS now requires Councils to do.

In order to progress the issue, demonstrate leadership, and to better cater for current and future demand for residential development within Napier (including providing a broader range of potential options) it is recommended NCC adopt the recommendations of the IWG.  The net result of this would be to support the proposal for an expanded residential offering on the Western Hills (the Mission land) as well as add South Pirimai into the mix for future residential greenfield land, albeit at this stage only as a reserve area.

The final issue to be addressed is for Council to approve the Terms of Reference for the IWG for the 2016-19 Triennium (as set out in Attachment F) conditional on the two other partner councils also agreeing to the same Terms of Reference.

1.4     Significance and Consultation

HPUDS is a significant strategy document that already largely meets the needs of the newly promoted NPS on Urban Development Capacity.  The review has tested the underlying assumptions on which the strategy is based and found them to be still largely sound, relevant and appropriate.  In response to current and emerging issues a number of amendments to HPUDS have been suggested by the IWG and these simplify, clarify and enhance HPUDS. 


As discussed above the draft strategy has already been consulted on and a significant opportunity provided for public consultation where all submissions were duly considered by the IWG in making their recommendations to the partner Councils. 


Additionally the substantive 2010 strategy was subject to extensive consultation both prior to its preparation, as a draft document and through its subsequent incorporation where relevant in the Regional Policy Statement, City and District plan reviews and Changes and Council Long Term Plans.  Any significant changes arising out of the reviewed strategy will similarly need to be consulted on through normal resource management and asset management processes before they can be implemented.


1.5     Implications


There may be a future requirement to provide proportional financial commitment to the newly formed IWG in line with the other partner Councils in order to fund any proposed work programme.  The newly formed IWG has not yet met to set priorities and timeframes so it is impossible to quantify any such financial implications now.

Social & Policy

HPUDS eventually flows through to the statutory planning documents within Hawke’s Bay (including the Regional Policy Statement and the District Plans of Napier and Hastings) by way of specific recognition, zoning patterns and structure plans for how growth can be coordinated.   This has largely been completed for the 2010 Strategy, but there may be additional requirements due to the 2016 review.  Having land identified in HPUDS as appropriate for residential growth supports in principle any subsequent rezoning process but does not guarantee an outcome in the rezoning process.  Other land that is not included in HPUDS can still be rezoned but will face potentially more difficult hurdles to overcome to find significant policy support in relevant statutory and policy documents.



The risk of not adopting the 2016 HPUDS review is that the issues that have presented over the last 5 years will not be addressed and that potentially the process of reviewing the original strategy will have to be restarted. 

1.6     Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

1.   Option 1 – adopt the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy 2016 Review and Implementation Plan as recommended by the IWG.


2.   Option 2 – seek changes to the Strategy or request that additional work be undertaken or technical reports be prepared to be overseen by the new IWG.


3.   Option 3 – not adopt the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy 2016 Review and Implementation Plan; refer back to the new IWG with clear reasons why the revised strategy was not adopted and instructions for further re-workings.


1.7     Development of Preferred Option

Option 1 would provide the Council with an up to date framework to assist in the planning of its urban development and infrastructure for the next 5 years of the 30 year HPUDS period. It would accord with the delegation given to the IWG to regularly monitor and review HPUDS to ensure its continued relevance and to consult with and hear and recommend changes as a result of submissions.


The IWG has considered a considerable body of monitoring information and new research to come to considered conclusions as to how HPUDS can be amended to ensure it is fit for purpose over the near term to reflect changes over the last five years.  The IWG has recommended some amendments without, in their view, detracting from the essential vision and purpose committed to by the partner Councils when they adopted HPUDS 2010 and signed a Memorandum of Agreement: ‘Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy Implementation’.


In respect of Option 2, it is possible for Council to request some changes to be made to the document, or request further work over and above that recommended by the IWG (other than minor editorial amendments).  However, the principles of natural justice dictate that the request should most appropriately be referred back to the IWG for further consideration as it is the ‘body’ who has heard and considered all the relevant information.   As it stands HPUDS needs to be endorsed by all three partner Councils’ before the strategy can be formally adopted as a joint strategy. 


Option 3 as the opposite of option 1 would mean HPUDS2010 would remain unchanged. It would not be responsive to, nor anticipate, changing circumstances and would risk become less relevant in terms of meeting its strategic objectives and community outcomes it aims to achieve. The flexibility and improved residential supply buffers and mechanisms proposed will not be available to assist with a more agile response to market changes over time, nor to assist with the current supply constraints.  This could compromise our favourable current position in relation to largely complying with the NPS-UDC direction.


The preferred option is therefore Option 1 – “adopt the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy 2016 Review and Implementation Plan as recommended by the IWG”.



1.8     Attachments

a       HPUDS 2016 Submission Hearings Record (Under Separate Cover)

b       HPUDS 2016 Submission Recommendation Reports Themes 1-6 (Under Separate Cover)

c       HPUDS 2016 Tracked Changes Amendments from IWG's recommendations (Under Separate Cover)

d       HPUDS 2016 Final Implementation Plan from IWG's recommendations (Under Separate Cover)

e       HPUDS 2016 Final maps from IWG's recommendations (Under Separate Cover)

f       HPUDS Terms of Reference (Under Separate Cover)   

Regulatory Committee19 April 2017 Open Agenda

2.      Freedom Camping Working Group Update

Type of Report:


Legal Reference:


Document ID:


Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Kim Anstey, Planner Policy/Analyst

Paulina Wilhelm, Manager City Development


2.1     Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is update Council on the progress of the Freedom Camping Working Group and present the terms of reference (ToR) that the group have adopted.


Officer’s Recommendation

That Council

a.       Approve the Freedom Camping Working Group Terms of Reference.



That the Council resolve that the officer’s recommendation be adopted.


2.2     Background Summary


At the Regulatory meeting on 8 March, Council resolved to establish a Freedom Camping working group made up of key stakeholders, Councillors Hague (as chair), Councillor Tapine, Council officers and community representatives. 


The invitation to key stakeholders to join a freedom camping working group was well received. Everyone invited to be on the working group has agreed to take part, and the group adopted the draft terms of reference with minor change at the first workshop on March 30th (Attachment A). 


The feedback received on the meeting was very positive. All members expressed their views respectfully and there was a clear feeling of cooperation amongst members.


2.3     Terms of Reference


As a result of the interest expressed by Hastings District Council, Department of Conservation and Tourism Hawke’s Bay to being part of the working group, it was deemed appropriate to amend the regional approach section of the ToR to develop some clear objectives for a regional work stream.  Minor changes to this section of the ToR were made in consultation with Councillors Hague and Tapine and approved by the Chief Executive, prior to distributing the ToR to the group. The amendment included refining the general discussion on a regional approach into some clear objectives that include:


·         Sharing information on the overall provision of freedom camping in the region;


·         Discussing the costs and benefits of providing for non-self-contained campers in the region; and


·         Exploring any gaps or improvements that could be made to Hawke’s Bay as a destination for freedom camping. 


Taking a regional approach in exploring freedom camping issues is a recommendation made in the National Situational Analysis report released by the Department of Internal Affairs late last year.


There was only one change made to the ToR at the suggestion of Api Robin from Te Taiwhenua O Te Whanganui A Orutu. This was to expand on the objective of reinforcing Napier as a popular and safe tourist destination to include “….where visitors are encouraged to respect the environment”.

2.4     Significance and Consultation


A draft community engagement plan (Attachment B) was presented to the group at the first meeting and adopted without change.  Council’s Community Strategies team assisted in developing this engagement plan and staff from this team will be assisting in carrying out the tasks required.  Community engagement will commence early April and it is hoped that most tasks will be completed prior to the next workshop on May 11th.

2.5     Implications


This report is for information and procedural purposes and therefore does not generate any financial implications.  Any costs associated with community engagement will be met through existing operational budgets.

Social & Policy




2.6     Options


2.7     Development of Preferred Option

Considering this report is procedural and that the formulation of the working group was a direction of Council, there are no other practical options for Council to take other than to endorse the terms of reference adopted by the group.



2.8     Attachments

a       Terms of Reference - Freedom Camping Working Group

b       Community Engagement Plan - Freedom Camping Working Group   

Regulatory Committee19 April 2017 Open Agenda




Regulatory Committee19 April 2017 Open Agenda



Regulatory Committee19 April 2017 Open Agenda

3.      Street Naming - Te Awa Estate

Type of Report:


Legal Reference:


Document ID:


Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Paul O'Shaughnessy, Team Leader Resource Consents


3.1     Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is obtain Council approval for three new street names within stages X, XI, XII and XIII of the Te Awa Estates residential subdivision


Officer’s Recommendation

That the Council

a.       Approve three new streets within the Te Awa Estates subdivision (consent plan 09067 approved in August 2010) as follows:

Road 3 (stages XI and XII) - Hurunui Drive

Road 12 (stage X) - Kaituna Place

Road 11 (stage XIII) - Arrow Place




That the Council resolve that the officer’s recommendation be adopted.


3.2     Background Summary

The on-going development of the Te Awa Estates subdivision is continuing with 2017 seeing the development of Stages X, XI, XII and XIII as indicated on the aerial photograph (Attachment A).


A more definitive plan of the overall layout of the Te Awa development and Stages X, XI, XII and XIII is indicated on Attachment A.


The developers have requested three new street names within Stages X, XI, XII and XIII of the subdivision as follows


·         HURUNUI DRIVE (Road 3/Stages XI and XII) – Hurunui Drive would provide a thoroughfare linking Te Awa Avenue with Eriksen Road


·         KAITUNA PLACE (Road 12/Stage X) – Kaituna Place would serve 21 lots and comes off Hurunui Drive


·         ARROW PLACE (Road 11/XIII) – Arrow Place would also exit off Hurunui Drive and service approximately 23-residential lots







3.3     Issues

In April 2011 Council approved a list of street names for the Te Awa Estates subdivision. The theme of the list was New Zealand Rivers with Council requiring a resolution for all new names.


To date Council have approved a total of nine streets within the subdivision, with eight of these street names having been derived from the approved list.


Research indicates that the use of these three names will not conflict with any other known street names within Napier City, Hastings District or the wider Hawkes Bay Region.


3.4     Significance and Consultation

The approved list of street names has been perused by the Māori Consultative Committee with no concerns raised.


It is not considered that this item raises any additional issues in terms of significance or required consultation.


3.5     Implications


The introduction of new street names requires Council to update their information systems, advise Land Information New Zealand, emergency services, utility operators and erect signage. These tasks can be completed within current budgets.

Social & Policy



The approved list of Te Awa street names has been reported to the Māori Consultative Committee, and no concerns were raised regarding their appropriateness.

3.6     Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

1.    Adopt the three street names as suggested by the developer

2.    Adopt an alternative name(s) from the approved list


3.7     Development of Preferred Option

The developer has requested these names and this is supported by the reporting officer. The names are on the approved list of Te Awa Estate street names.


3.8     Attachments

a       Te Awa Estates Location Plans & Aerial Photograph   

Regulatory Committee19 April 2017 Open Agenda


Regulatory Committee19 April 2017 Open Agenda

Regulatory Committee19 April 2017 Open Agenda






That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely:



1.         Property Acquisition 


The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public was excluded, the reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution were as follows:






1.  Property Acquisition

7(2)(i) Enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

48(1)A That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist:
(i) Where the local authority is named or specified in Schedule 1 of this Act, under Section 6 or 7  (except 7(2)(f)(i)) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.





Civic Building

231 Hastings Street, Napier

Phone:  (06) 835 7579




Regulatory Committee







Meeting Date:

Wednesday 8 March 2017


3.02pm – 3.40pm


Main Committee Room
3rd floor Civic Building
231 Hastings Street




Councillor Jeffery (In the Chair), the Mayor, Councillors Boag, Brosnan, Dallimore, Hague, McGrath, Price, Tapine, Taylor, White, Wise and Wright

In Attendance:

Chief Executive, Senior Leadership Team, Manager City Development, Team Leader Policy Planning, Policy Planner, Team Leader Governance, Governance Advisor




Regulatory Committee19 April 2017 Open Agenda






Public forum


Announcements by the Mayor


Announcements by the Chairperson


Announcements by the Management


Confirmation of Minutes

Councillors Boag / Wright

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 27 January 2017 were taken as a true and accurate record of the meeting.




Agenda Items

1.      Gambling Venues Policy Review

Type of Report:


Legal Reference:

Gambling Act 2003

Document ID:


Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Kim Anstey, Planner Policy/Analyst


1.1     Purpose of Report

For Council to adopt the Statement of Proposal for the draft Gambling Venues Policy to enable public consultation to commence.


Committee's Recommendation

Councillors White / Wright

That Council approve the draft Gambling Venues Policy and Statement of Proposal and authorise officers to proceed with public notification through the special consultative procedure as prescribed in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.




2.         Establishment of a Freedom Camping Working Group and Draft Terms of Reference

Type of Report:


Legal Reference:


Document ID:


Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Paulina Wilhelm, Manager City Development

Kim Anstey, Planner Policy/Analyst


2.1     Purpose of Report

To provide Council with a draft Project Plan and Terms of Reference for a Freedom Camping Working Group, in order that Council may agree on the composition of the Working Group, including the appointment of a Chair, Council and community representatives.


At the Meeting

In response to questions from Councillors, it was clarified that:

-       the working party is intended to work collectively to bring advice back to Council (so it is not a voting body).

-       the working party would be able to task council officers to undertake particular research, to contact and draw on the knowledge and skills on those outside the working party, and to speak to other interested groups or organisations.

-       while it would be ideal to have a representative on the working party from non-self-contained vehicles, by their very nature, they are itinerant and there may be other ways to obtain their feedback. It was noted that the Nelson Park ward includes the non-self-contained freedom camping and Cr Tapine is on the working party.

-       the working party structure was based on the Taupo model with some adjustments to recognise the particular local needs.

-       in the final structure of the working party there will be no distinction between those who have been invited and those who have been appointed to the working party.

-       the working party will have a broad enough mandate to look at new and different practices as they see fit.  

-       the intention of the working party is to draw on, and represent views from, the whole of Napier including those residents not on the working party or in coastal areas. To this end, the Chair has recommended that the Chair of the Taradale Development Association (Mr Bob Morrison) and the Secretary of the Westshore Residents and Development Association (Mrs Dorothy Pilkington) be invited to participate on the working party, subject to the approval of their Associations.

Some discussion took place on whether the draft Terms of Reference should be adopted at the meeting, but it was decided that the working party should have the opportunity to amend it as necessary and then bring it back to Council for adoption.  

It was generally agreed that included in the guiding principles for the working party (as outlined in the draft Terms of Reference), should be the expectation that the needs of local residents are given priority.  Based on the discussion around this matter, the Chair elected to add a further part to his recommendation.



Officer’s Recommendation

That Council establish a Freedom Camping Working Group composed of key stakeholders, Councillors and Council officers to consider freedom camping issues and to report back to Council with recommendations on potential solutions.

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors Dallimore / Taylor

a.   That the Council resolve that the Officer’s Recommendation be adopted:That Council establish a Freedom Camping Working Group composed of key stakeholders, Councillors and Council officers to consider freedom camping issues and to report back to Council with recommendations on potential solutions; and


b.   That Council invites and appoints the following community representatives to the Working Group:


·         President of the Taradale Development Association to represent general residents; and

·         Secretary of the Westshore Resident and Development Association to represent coastal residents; and  


c.  That Council appoint Councillor Hague (as Chair) and Councillor Tapine to the Working Group.


d.  That the third guiding principle outlined in the draft Terms of Reference be expanded to read  develop guiding principles on how freedom camping should be managed whilst minimising impact on the residents of Napier.  




3.      Annual Dog Control Report 2015/16

Type of Report:


Legal Reference:

Dog Control Act  1996

Document ID:


Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Hayleigh  Brereton, Manager Regulatory Solutions 


3.1     Purpose of Report

To present the territorial authority report on dog control policies and practices for the dog control registration year 1 July 2015 – 30 June 2016, for adoption by Council as required under Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996, prior to being submitted to the Secretary for Local Government and being made publically available.


At the Meeting

An updated report was tabled due to a couple of small errors identified in the report.   

In response to questions from Councillors, it was clarified that:

-       the procedural change utilised by Napier City Council was not a nation-wide programme, but a pro-active approach developed by Napier with the intention of encouraging good behaviours and helping residents of Napier become good dog owners. 

-       while Napier City Council does not have the regulatory ability to stop people breeding or owning breed types classified as menacing, recent funding has been received for a programme called Operation Underdog, which offers free neutering for menacing breed types and encouraging people to take this up on their own accord.

-       the increase in menacing dogs is proportional to the greater numbers of dogs being registered.

-       the noted significant decreases in complaint numbers across a variety of dog-related issues, suggests that the change in procedure is working, however it was reiterated that ultimately the purpose of animal control is compliance. 

-       Council intends to continue requesting feedback from the public on all its activities including animal control.  

The Mayor extended congratulations to all staff involved in the recent handling of the dog pound matter from the chief executive to animal control officers.

Action: Director City Strategy to provide information to Councillors on how Napier City Council’s statistics in the report compare with that of other councils. 

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors Wright / Taylor

That the Napier City Council Annual Dog Control Report 2015/16 be adopted by Council, submitted to the Secretary for Local Government, and published in accordance with the Dog Control Act 1996. 



The meeting concluded at 3.40 pm.