Regulatory Committee

Open Agenda

 

Meeting Date:

Wednesday 22 November 2017

Time:

Following the Extraordinary Council and Strategy and Infrastructure Committee meetings at 3pm

Venue:

East Coast Lab

National Aquarium of New Zealand

Marine Parade

Napier

 

 

Council Members

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

Officer Responsible

Director City Strategy

Administration

Governance Team

 

 

 

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Open Agenda

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Apologies

Nil

Conflicts of interest

Public forum

Nil

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, 30 August 2017 be taken as a true and accurate record of the meeting (page 262 refers)

Notification and justification of matters of extraordinary business

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

Agenda items

1      Adoption and Notification of Plan Change 11 - Park Island Reconfiguration.................... 3

2      Temporary Liquor Ban - Christmas in the Park............................................................ 256

 

Public excluded ........................................................................................................... 261


Regulatory Committee22 November 2017Open Agenda

Agenda Items

 

1.      Adoption and Notification of Plan Change 11 - Park Island Reconfiguration

Type of Report:

Operational and Procedural

Legal Reference:

Resource Management Act 1991

Document ID:

399787

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Dean Moriarity, Team Leader Policy Planning

 

1.1     Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is for Council to adopt Plan Change 11 - Park Island Reconfiguration, its accompanying Section 32 report and authorise officers to publicly notify the change for public submissions. This plan change is to give effect to the newly adopted Park Island Master Plan (May 2017).

 

 

Officer’s Recommendation

a.       That the Council resolve:

b.       That Council adopt Plan Change 11, its accompanying Section 32 report and authorise officers to publicly notify the change for public submissions.

c.       That the closing date for submissions be an extended period no less than 1.5x the statutory minimum of 20 working days after the date of public notification (to recognise and provide for the holiday period).

d.       To enable the plan change to be notified prior to the impending holiday period a DECISION OF COUNCIL is requested.  This will require the following resolution to be passed before the Decision of Council is taken before being heard by an independent commissioner:

e.       That a DECISION OF COUNCIL is required urgently in order to enable timely processing of the proposed plan change. This will require the following resolution to be passed before the decision of Council is taken:

That, in terms of Section 82 (3) of the Local Government Act 2002, that the principles set out in that section have been observed in such manner that the Napier City Council considers, in its discretion, is appropriate to make decisions on the recommendation.

 

 

CHAIRPERSON’S RECOMMENDATION

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

 

 

 

1.2     Background Summary

 

The original Park Island Master Plan was developed in 2013.  The plan provides a blueprint for development over a 30 year timeframe to meet the community’s current and growing sport and recreation needs.  The Master Plan sets out the overall direction for Park Island, which includes the development of new sporting and recreational areas and various environmental enhancements throughout the 68 hectares.  The Master Plan also considers Park Island in the broader context and the relationship and linkages to surrounding areas, particularly Parklands subdivision and Mana Ahuriri’s Westminster Block.  The ‘sportsville’ concept is the basis of the Master Plan with reorganisation and development focused around sporting ‘hubs’.  A major component of the original Master Plan development was the inclusion of the substantial Northern Sporting Hub on a greenfields site.

 

Following the adoption of the Master Plan in 2013, a number of smaller scale projects were completed in the Southern and Central Sports Hubs. However, before proceeding with some of the more significant capital developments, it was identified that that a comprehensive review of the Master Plan was warranted.

 

During the 2016 stakeholder consultation, most sports organisations identified the need for greater capacity in sports fields based on growth of their sports.  However, the consultation also confirmed a trend that has dramatically impacted on land requirements for sport demand, i.e. a recent increase in the acceptability of the use of artificial turf pitches for sporting codes other than hockey, including football and rugby. What this means is that sports demand can be better met by the implementation and utilization of artificial turf pitches that can be more intensively utilised and even shared between different codes. 

 

An updated Masterplan was subsequently presented to, and adopted by Council in April 2017 and a resolution passed to initiate a District Plan Change “to rezone Park Islands Northern Sports Hub to meet the Master Plan objectives”

 

Updates to the Master Plan have seen a consolidation of the park layout giving the Northern Sports Hub a more compact urban form and better connectivity to the wider park and surrounds.  The Northern Sports Hub has contracted and shifted towards the southeast direction to overlay currently vacant Residential zoned land bordered by the corner of Orotu Drive and Westminster Avenue.

 

The Northern Sports Hub now includes additional car parking to support the inclusion of a new high performance facility and game standard training field for the HBRU which will contribute to the creation of an additional 527 car parks on Park Island in total.

 

Another significant change to the Plan is the removal of twelve tennis courts from the Northern Sports Hub as they are no longer seen as needed.  This was confirmed by the findings of the Indicative Business Case (IBC) carried out for the Clay Tennis Court proposal in 2015. 

 

The Central and Southern Sports Hubs are essentially unchanged from the 2013 Plan with the exception of the addition of the two artificial turf fields, one for rugby on the Tremains field and the other for football outside the Bluewater Stadium.

 

In summary, most changes to the Park Island Master Plan 2017 update have occurred in the Northern Sports Hub.  The main changes are:

 

·         a reduction in the overall number of fields,

·         an increase in the total number of artificial turfs, and

·         the establishment of the HBRU high performance training facility. 

 

The redesign of the Northern Sports Hub in particular now necessitates a District Plan Change proposing to rezone the Residential Zone on the southeastern boundary to Sports Park Zone, and to rezone much of the current Sports Park Zone in the northeast, to a Main Residential Zone.

 

1.3     Issues

 

District Plan change processes are required to comply with statutory processes stipulated in the Resource Management Act and include opportunities for submissions, summary of submissions, further submissions, preparation of a hearing report and ultimately a hearing.  

 

Council should also be aware that generally rules of plan changes do not have any legal status until such time as Council issues decisions on submissions, i.e. the end of the process. 

 

The HBRFU have signalled a strong desire to establish in the newly proposed Northern Sports Hub, the first sporting group to do so, and are wanting to initiate development of their facility as soon as possible.

 

Even straight forward plan changes can easily take the better part of the year to complete and so any opportunities to avoid unnecessary delay assist in the timely processing of the plan changes. An indicative plan change process is shown below assuming a decision of Council is made in November.

 

 

 

 

 

For these reasons it is suggested that Council adopt Plan Change 11 as a decision of Council so that the plan change can be notified before the Christmas holiday period albeit with an extended submission period from early December through until early February so as not to disadvantage any potential submitters.  The alternative option is for the report and its recommendations to be referred to the next Ordinary meeting of Council (December 20) in which case the statutory non-working days stipulated in the RMA would then in effect mean that the plan change would not be able to be notified until mid to late January at the earliest.

 

1.4     Significance and Consultation

Adjacent owners/occupiers and other residents in the Parklands and Tamatea areas were provided an opportunity to provide feedback on the redesign and reconfiguration proposal during June and July 2017. Feedback from this initial engagement was to help inform the proposed Plan Change.

 

Adjacent residents were personally invited to an information sharing evening in mid-June 2017. They were also welcomed to meet individually with Napier City Council (NCC) planning staff. Six parties took this opportunity up. 

 

A second community information evening was held with invitations extended to adjacent residents, all other Parklands residents, and a portion of residents along Westminster Avenue. In addition, notices about the community meeting were distributed through key contacts and locations within the Tamatea community. Information about the proposed redesign and reconfiguration was posted on NCC’s website, providing residents in the area (and more widely) with a further opportunity to seek information and/or provide comment.

 

Issues raised by residents attending the information sharing sessions was wide reaching. A large portion of the feedback centred on concerns about the possibility of two-storey housing in the next stages of Parklands, and the impact this type of housing may have on outlook, housing quality, and residential amenity. This feedback was in response to a separate process NCC is undertaking around changing the nature and form of covenants applying to residential development within the existing zoned and consented Parklands area.  The intent of the changes to the covenants is to improve the urban design of the new Parklands residential area.

 

A number of concerns were also raised around plans for extra car parking to accommodate users of the Northern Sports Hub. Residents asked questions about the capacity of the proposed car park in the hub, the likelihood of overflow parking on Orotu Drive and the impact of extra traffic generally. Several residents were concerned about the current excess speeding along both Orotu and Prebensen Drives. Some residents were interested in hours, hireage and licensing arrangements for the clubrooms envisaged to be established in the Northern Sports Hub area.

 

Residents were generally supportive of the greenspaces, neighbourhood playgrounds and linkages for pedestrians and cyclists proposed for the area as part of the Master Plan.

 

In terms of the visual impact implications of the reconfiguration, the focused one-on-one sessions raised concern around changes in outlook, the location and type of potential two-storey houses, interruptions to landscape and skyline views towards the west/north west, and treatment of the interface along Orotu Drive. 

 

In response to the concerns about visual impacts, Council engaged a landscape architect to provide an assessment of the potential effects of the reconfiguration.  This assessment concluded that the combined width (60 metres) of the road and drainage reserve along Orotu Drive combined with two recommendations for additional mitigation (clustered planting of specimen trees and a building height restriction for an additional 30 metres into the proposed residential area) were sufficient to address these concerns.

 

There was interest in the likely timeframe and sequence of the proposed District Plan Change and development of the new Parklands area and Northern Sports Hub.   All participants in the initial stage of engagement were advised of the opportunity to make formal submissions on the District Plan Change following public notification.

 

The accompanying Section 32 report examines in detail the response to these concerns and the proposed means of mitigation to these concerns where it was considered necessary to address valid RMA matters.

1.5     Implications

Financial

The only financial implication is the cost of processing the plan change in accordance with the statutory requirements of the Resource Management Act.  This can be done utilising existing operational budgets.

 

Social & Policy

Managing and providing for urban growth as well as facilitating the delivery of recreational facilities enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety.

 

The proposed Plan Change is intended to give effect to the 2017 Park Island Masterplan which represents the latest aspirations and best practice thinking around the needs of community and sports groups.   The Master Plan requires a change to the District Plan so that it can meet the demands and needs of the Napier community for the next 20-30 years.   

 

Risk

The main risk is that the Plan Change may not be approved through the process by either the commissioner/s hearing it, or subsequently by the Environment Court by way of a possible appeal.

1.6     Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

 

1.   Adopt Plan Change 11 and its accompanying Section 32 report as a decision of Council now and authorise officers to publicly notify the change for public submissions before Christmas (albeit with an extended submission period).

2.   Adopt Plan Change 11 and its accompanying Section 32 report at the next Ordinary meeting of Council (December 20) and authorise officers to publicly notify the change for public submissions early in 2018.

 

3.   Not adopt the plan change and do not publicly notify the change for public submissions.

 

1.7     Development of Preferred Option

Adopt Plan Change 11 and its accompanying Section 32 report as a decision of Council now and authorise officers to publicly notify the change for public submissions before Christmas (albeit with an extended submission period.

 

1.8     Attachments

a     Stradegy S32 Evaluation Report

b     Schedule of PC11 Amendments

c     Current and Proposed Park Island Masterplans

d     Current Planning Map

e     Proposed Planning Map

f     Community Engagement Report

g     GLG Sports Provision Perspective Report

h     Visual Assessment Report

i       Visual Assessment Appendices - Photo Montages

j      Contaminated Land Report

k     Structure Plan 

l      Park Island Lighting Report

m     Park Island Lighting Report - Design and Calculations 

n     Park Island Lighting Report - Obtrusive Light Compliance   


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plan Change 11 to the City of Napier District Plan 

 

Park Island Re-configuration

 

Section 32 Evaluation Report

 

17016S32EVAL

10 November 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments a

 

 

Plan Change 11 to the City of Napier District Plan 

 

Park Island Re-configuration

 

Section 32 Evaluation Report

 

17016S32EVAL

10 November 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prepared by:

 

Reviewed and Approved for Release by Napier City Council:

 

Cameron Drury BRP(HONS) MNZPI

Principal Planner   I   Director

Dean Moriarity

Team Leader Policy Planning  

 

 

 

This document is the property of Stradegy Planning Limited.  Any unauthorised employment or reproduction, in full or part is forbidden. This document has been prepared for a specific purpose for the above client and shall not be used for any other unauthorised purpose.  Stradegy Planning Limited does not acknowledge any duty of care or responsibility to any other party.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1.    INTRODUCTION. 1

2.    PLAN CHANGE REQUIREMENTS. 4

3.    DISTRICT PLAN FRAMEWORK. 7

4.    CONSULTATION. 12

4.1   Consultation with the Hawkes Bay Regional Council 12

4.2   Consultation with Mana Ahuriri 13

4.3   Consultation with Sport Groups. 14

4.4   Consultation with Residential Parties. 15

5.    RE-CONFIGURATION OF ZONES. 17

5.1   Councils Statutory Role in Managing Sports Grounds and Urban Growth. 18

5.2   Why Was the Park Island Master Plan Reviewed?. 18

5.3   What Was Considered in Arriving Upon the Proposed Re-Configuration?. 19

5.3.1 Review of the 2013 Master Plan. 19

5.3.2 Change in Visual Outlooks. 23

5.3.3 Servicing. 23

5.3.4 Traffic Generation and Effects Along Orotu Drive. 26

5.3.5 Land Suitability. 29

5.3.6 Provision for Specific Outcomes Via a Structure Plan. 32

5.4   Will there be Sufficient Sports Ground?. 33

5.5   Does the Plan Change Give Effect to the Regional Policy Statement?. 33

5.6   Summary. 45

6.    APPROPRIATENSS OF PLAN PROVISIONS. 46

6.1   Visual Outlook Along the Interface of Orotu Drive. 46

6.2   Appropriateness of Sports Park Zone Provisions. 50

6.3   Noise Arising from the Sports Park Zone. 53

6.4   Light Spill Arising from the Sports Park Zone. 53

7.    SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. 55

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendices –

 

1.       Current and Proposed Park Island Master Plan Maps 

2.       Park Island Master Plan May 2017 (Full document)

3.       Current and Proposed District Plan Planning Maps

4.       Community Engagement Report

5.       Park Island Plan Change, Sport Provision Perspective, March 2017, Global Leisure Group

6.       Visual Impact Report, September 2017 Isthmus Group

7.       Detailed Site Investigation, EAM

8.       Structure Plan 

9.       Plan Change Edits

10.     Park Island Regional Sports Park: Evaluation of off-site lighting effects, XYST


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments a

 

1.     INTRODUCTION

 

The purpose of this report is to satisfy the requirements of Section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) in proposing and notifying Plan Change 11 (PC11) to the City of Napier District Plan (the Plan).

 

The purpose of PC11 is to give effect to the recently adopted May 2017 Park Island Master Plan, which seeks to reconfigure the size and location of the Northern Sport Hub alongside Oruto Drive.  The original 2013 Master Plan and proposed 2017 Master Plan are provided in Appendix 1, with the full 2017 Master Plan document provided in Appendix 2.

 

Council’s review of the current (2013) Master Plan and associated configuration came about in response to changes in user demands as well as questions around other matters such as appropriate turf material, layout, connectivity, and anticipated demands over the next 30 years for delivering and managing recreational facilities throughout the City.  

 

As an outcome of this review the physical area of the Northern Sports Hub is proposed to be reduced and moved southward to allow better connectivity between Park Island’s Southern and Central Sport Hub. Consequently, the two residential areas at each end will be merged to form one consolidated area as conceptually shown in Figure 1 below, with a reserve running west-east through the centre. The current and proposed Planning Maps are provided in Appendix 3.

 

With the Northern Sports Hub located within the Sports Park Zone of the Plan and the residential areas at either end within the Main Residential Zone, the Plan Change process is required to consider and decide upon this reconfiguration of Zones and associated matters.    

 

Figure 1: Conceptual Reconfiguration

 

                          Existing 2013 Masterplan                                     Proposed 2017 Masterplan

 

 

                    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A number of minor consequential changes are also proposed. These include:

(1)  Rezoning areas of the Sports Park Zone to a Reserve Zone that already act as reserves, such as the area of land between Prebsensen Drive and existing Main Residential Zone,

(2)  Rezoning areas of the Main Residential Zone to Reserve Zone that are now reserves, such as the area in the south east corner of the existing Main Residential Zone alongside Orotu Drive,

(3)  Rezoning areas of the subject site to better provide for anticipated road linkages as follows:

    Rezoning the existing link opposite Kapiti Drive from Reserve to Main Residential,

    Rezoning the existing link opposite Pacific Drive from Reserve to Main Residential,

(4)  Rezoning areas of the drainage reserve along Orotu Drive from Main Residential to Reserve now that these areas are no longer required for roading. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2: Minor Changes

 

 

 

2.     Plan change requiRements

 

The process for preparing, changing or reviewing a Policy Statement or Plan is provided for in Schedule 1 of the RMA, a key component of which is the preparation of the Section 32 evaluation Report as required under Clause 5(1) of Schedule 1.

Section 32 provides the vehicle for new proposals to be examined for their appropriateness in achieving the purpose of the RMA and requires:

     the benefits, costs, and risks of new policies and rules on the community, the economy and the environment to be clearly identified and assessed,

     advice received from iwi authorities and the response to the advice to be summarised,

     analysis of the proposal to be documented so that stakeholders and decision-makers can understand the rationale for policy choices.

 

An evaluation report is required to examine both:

•      the extent to which the objectives of the proposal (or the purpose of the proposal) are/is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA (s32(1)(a)); and

•      whether the provisions in the proposal are the most appropriate way in which to achieve the objectives ((or the purpose of the proposal) by identifying other reasonably practicable options for achieving the objectives (or purpose); assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of the provisions in achieving the objectives (purpose); and summarizing the reasons for deciding on the provisions (s32(1)(b)).

 

The evaluation report must contain a level of detail that corresponds to the scale and significance of the environmental, economic, social, and cultural effects that are anticipated from the implementation of the proposal (s32(1)(c)).

 

In considering the efficiency and effectiveness of the provisions in achieving the objectives (or purpose) the: 

     benefits and costs of the environmental, economic, social, and cultural effects that are anticipated from the implementation of the provisions, including opportunities for economic growth and employment that are anticipated to be provided or reduced (s32(2)(a)) must be identified and assessed, and, if practicable, quantified s32(2)(b)).

     risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the provisions must also be assessed (s32(2)(c)).

 

In this case, PC11 does not, of itself, contain or state ‘objectives’. Indeed, the existing objectives pertaining to Residential Environments and the Sports Park Zone as contained in Chapters 4-13 and 48 of the District Plan respectively are proposed be retained/adopted. Therefore, pursuant to Section 32(6), ‘objectives’ in this setting relate to ‘the purpose of the proposal’, which is to:

‘Reconfigure the Sports Park and Main Residential Zones alongside Oruto Drive’

 

Similarly, the ‘provisions’ to be evaluated are essentially:

The Policies of the Sports Park and Main Residential Zones, as currently contained in the District Plan, that will ‘fall down’ over these areas of the City,

and,

The Rules and Conditions, Standards and Terms of the Sports Park and Main Residential Zones, as currently contained in the Activity and Condition Tables of each Zone that will apply over these areas of the City - together with any new Rules and Conditions, Standards and Terms that may be proposed.

 

The first part of the evaluation therefore has to address:

‘Whether reconfiguring the Sports Park and Main Residential Zones alongside Oruto Drive is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA’.

 

Included in this is a reduction in the area of the Sports Park Zone and subsequent increase in the area of the Main Residential Zone. The evaluation must therefore address matters associated with both recreation and urban growth.

 

This higher-level evaluation in terms of achieving the purpose of the RMA is undertaken in Section 5 where the following is outlined and considered:

     Councils statutory role in managing sports grounds and urban growth,

     Why the Park Island Master Plan was reviewed?

     What was considered in arriving upon the proposed reconfiguration?

     Will there be sufficient sports ground?

     Does the Plan Change give effect to the Regional Policy Statement?

 

Secondly, it is a matter of evaluating the provisions of the proposal in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. As the starting points are the existing provisions of the two Zones, the evaluation has to address:

‘Are any amendments to the existing Policies, Structure Plan, Rules and Conditions of the existing Zones needed to achieve the reconfiguration and to ensure that any environmental effects are appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated.’

 

This more focused evaluation of the provisions themselves is undertaken in Section 6 where key issues are identified and the following matters in particular are considered:

     Whether the Main Residential Zone includes sufficient provision to manage the effects of the reconfiguration, particularly along the interfaces where there will be a change in Zone,

     The appropriateness of the existing Rules of the Sports Park Zone to deliver the intentions of the Park Island Master Plan and Condition 48.12 in particular, which limits the floorspace of buildings,

     The effectiveness of Condition 48.13 of the Sports Park Zone to manage the effects of noise on the residential environment along Westminster Avenue and Orotu Drive that will adjoin the proposed Sports Park Zone,

     The effectiveness of Condition 48.14 of the Sports Park Zone to provide for Sport Park purposes while also managing the effects of light spill along Westminster Avenue and Orotu Drive that will adjoin the proposed Sports Park Zone,

 

Prior to these assessments however, Section 3 provides an outline of the existing framework of the District Plan and the nature and form of development that is currently provided for along the west side of Orotu Drive, followed in Section 4 by an outline of consultation undertaken with the community and key stakeholders as part of developing this proposed Plan Change.

3.     EXISTING District plan framework

 

The land subject to this Plan Change is shown in Figure 3 below. It is characterised by various Zones and Designations, and is included within the Park Island Structure Plan and Park Island Master Plan documents contained in Appendices 27 and 34 of the District Plan.

 

Although the “site” containing the Northern Sports hub and residential zones (subject to this Plan Change) is not a ‘Reserve’ in itself, much of the surrounding land is classified as either Recreation or Drainage Reserve.

 

Figure 3: Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Designations

Designations D47 and D48 are for Electricity Distribution Purposes, with the Requiring Authority being Unison Networks Limited. The easements running north-south and west-east from these Designations are in favour of Unison Networks Limited to convey electricity, telecommunications and electronic data.

 

Residential Areas

The configuration of the Main Residential Zone to the north and south, with the Sports Park Zone in the centre, is the product of the Park Island Master Plan that was developed in 2013, and which is provided in Appendix 34 of the District Plan (and Appendix 1 of this report). 

 

The northern residential area is now consented and being progressively developed in stages and is therefore not subject to this Plan Change process.  This is expanded on below. Lot layout within the southern residential area has not been confirmed via the subdivision process so is indicative only.

 

Access to the northern area of the Main Residential Zone was to be via two new roads, one approximately 60m north of the existing Orotu Drive/Kapiti Drive roundabout and one approximately 70m south. Access to the southern area was to be via the Orotu Drive/Akaroa intersection and the Orotu Drive/Tasman Drive roundabout. Access to the Sports Park Zone was via the Orotu Drive/Pacific Avenue roundabout. These access points are identified in Figure 4. 

 

Figure 4: 2013 Master Plan Access Points

 

 

 


  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Activities within the Main Residential Zone are subject to the provisions contained in Chapter 5 of the District Plan. Residential activities are provided for as a Permitted Activity under Rule 5.2 subject to compliance with a range of conditions. Here Condition 5.38 states that “the relevant provisions of any Structure Plan must be complied with” (namely Appendix 27 which prescribes the key infrastructure necessary to enable development to proceed). 

 

Northern Residential Area - Subdivision Consent RMS15019

Subdivision Consent RMS15019 was approved on 8 January 2016 allowing the creation of 219 residential lots across the full extent of the northern pocket of the Main Residential Zone. Residential development within these lots is regulated by the Conditions of the Condition Table in Chapter 5 of the District Plan, such as an 8m height limit.

 

Access to this area is different to that anticipated on the existing Master Plan, in that it is accessed via the existing Orotu Drive/Kapiti Drive roundabout via Aspiring Drive rather than new roads on either side. This was to utilise the existing roundabout control and avoid ‘puncturing’ the Reserve along the western side of Orotu Drive with an additional road. 

 

A similar approach has been taken along the southern extents of Orotu Drive where the configuration of the Reserves has been developed to provide access to the Sports Park Zone via the Orotu Drive/Pacific Avenue roundabout, and to the southern pocket of the Main Residential Zone via the Orotu Drive/Tasman Drive roundabout. This was undertaken for the same reasons as outlined above and is shown in Figure 5 below, where Lot 3 DP503709 extends between the Reserves to adjoin the Orotu Drive Road Reserve and where conversely the existing Road Reserve opposite Tasman Drive extends through the Reserves to adjoin Lot 3 DP503709.

 

In terms of traffic generation, the Code of Practice for Subdivision and Land Development assumes an average 8 vehicle movements per dwelling per day. Based on a total of 219 lots, an average of 1,752 vehicle movements could be expected at the western arm of the Orotu Drive/Kapiti Drive roundabout.

 

Although a subdivision proposal has not been confirmed for the southern pocket, based on an average yield of 15 lots or dwellings per hectare pursuant to POL UD8(a) of the RPS, approximately 112 lots could reasonably be expected from this area. Based on an average of 8 vehicle movements per dwelling per day again, an average of 896 vehicle movements could be expected at the western arm of the Orotu Drive/Tasman Drive roundabout.

 

In terms of the sport hub in the middle, Robin Malley (Team Leader Transportation, Napier City Council) has advised that 1,090 vehicle movements could be expected during peak days at the western arm of the Orotu Drive/Pacific Avenue roundabout.

 

These existing vehicle movement figures are also illustrated in Figure 5 below.

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5: Access Points and Anticipated Vehicle Movements West of Orotu Drive

 

 

 

 


Text Box: 1,752 vehicle movements/day (average)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Text Box: 1,090 vehicle movements/day
(peak)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Text Box: 896 vehicle movements/day (average)

 

 

 

 

 

Covenants

In addition to the Rules and Conditions of the District Plan for the Main Residential Zone, there are also covenants that have been imposed by the developer that development upon each site must be undertaken in accordance with. A similar approach had been adopted by the developer on land east of Orotu Drive, although it is understood that the covenants have varied slightly over time.

 

Covenants sit outside the District Plan. They are not tools to provide for, or manage, urban outcomes in terms of the achieving the purpose of the RMA, rather they are specific tools determined by a developer to achieve a certain vision or housing typology that they seek to achieve/deliver to the market.

 

The District Plan development process does not anticipate, nor rely on covenants to achieve the purpose of the RMA. This is the role of the District Plan itself, and any covenants that a developer may, or may not, choose to impose at the time of a future subdivision within a Zone created via a Plan Change is not a Plan Change matter. It is also noted that there is no obligation for a developer to impose covenants, and under these situations development may occur within the full ambit of the Conditions for Permitted Activities within the Zone.  

 

Sports Park Zone

Activities within the Sports Park Zone are subject to the provisions contained in Chapter 48 of the District Plan.  The following are classified as Permitted Activities under Rule 48.2 subject to compliance with a range of conditions:

(a)   Maintenance repair of buildings and structures,

(b)   Recreational Activities,

(c)   Vehicle parking areas,

(d)   Activities identified in an approved Management Plan under the Reserves Act 1997,

(e)   Activities identified on the Park Island Master Plan in Appendix 34 including commercial offices and commercial activities ancillary to sports activities undertaken on the Park.

 

Condition 48.12 limits the maximum floorspace of buildings identified on the Park Island Master Plan to 1,000m2 gross floor area, and any other building on a site not covered by the Master Plan for Park Island to 500m2 gross floor area.

 

Licensed premises in particular are classified as a Discretionary Activity under Rule 48.7.

 

Summary

The existing environment is therefore one that is planned to accommodate both residential and sport park development, all accessed off Oruto Drive. Although much of this development has not yet commenced, it is provided for in the District Plan and is anticipated to establish over time. 

 


 

4.     Consultation

 

It is stated in Clause 3(1) that the local authority shall consult with the following parties during the preparation of a proposed Plan:

(a)   the Minister for the Environment; and

(b)   those other Ministers of the Crown who may be affected by the policy statement or plan; and

(c)   local authorities who may be so affected; and

(d)   the tangata whenua of the area who may be so affected, through iwi authorities; and

(e)   any customary marine title group in the area.

 

In terms of the Minister for the Environment as referred to in (a), a draft of the Section 32 Evaluation Report was provided for comment. No response was received. Regarding (b), the proposed Plan Change is not considered to raise any specific matters that would render specific Ministers of the Crown affected.

 

Turning to (c), consultation has been undertaken with the Hawkes Bay Regional Council, and with Mana Ahuriri in terms of (d). This is expanded upon in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 below. There are no Customary Marine Title Groups in the area concerned by the Plan Change in terms of (e).

 

Clause 3(2) goes onto to state that the local authority may consult anyone else during the preparation of a proposed Plan. No specific parties in addition to those outlined in Clause 3(1) are referred to however.

 

Consultation in addition to the Clause 3(1) requirements has involved two main streams of work, (1), consultation with key stakeholder groups in reviewing the Park Island Master Plan from a sports demand perspective, and (2), consultation with Tamatea and Parklands residents on matters associated with the proposed reconfiguration This is expanded upon in Sections 4.3 and 4.4 below. Acting for Unison, opportunity was also provided to Opus International Consultants Limited to review the draft Plan Change prior to notification. Opus confirmed that the Proposed Plan Change is unlikely to have an impact on Unison interests, being Designations D47 and D48.

 

 

4.1     Consultation with the Hawkes Bay Regional Council

 

A meeting was held with the Hawkes Bay Regional Council to introduce the project, explain the reasons for the proposal and to provide an overview of the matters being considered as part of the Plan Change process.

 

A draft of the Section 32 Evaluation Report was provided for comment. Owing to project milestones the timeframe for feedback was limited, and this is acknowledged. Feedback was received as follows:

(1)   The need for a Structure Plan was emphasised,

(2)   It was considered that a fuller assessment of Policies pertaining to matters in the RPS in addition to those relating solely to managing urban growth was required,

(3)   Clarity around the stormwater solution was requested and queries raised as to whether consideration had been given to the potential to move more towards low impact design solutions,

(4)   Potential changes at a national level in terms of how development within liquefaction-prone areas may be managed in the future was highlighted,

(5)   Further clarity around the soil sampling and how the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health currently applies to the site and how it will apply was requested,

(6)   As an aside the potential to work with Napier City Council on shared interests and functions around cycle paths and pedestrian linkages was emphasised.

 

Matters (1) – (5) are expanded upon in the body of this report.

 

 

4.2     Consultation with Mana Ahuriri

 

In terms of Tangata Whenua, Section 32(4A) requires the following to be summarised:

(a)      advice received from iwi authorities on the proposal, 

(b)     the response to the advice, including any provisions of the proposal that are intended to give effect to the advice.

 

Mana Ahuriri was identified by the Council to be the appropriate Iwi authority with which to undertake consultation, and this was confirmed by Mana Ahuriri at a meeting following. 

 

The proposed reconfiguration was presented to a group of representatives from Mana Ahuriri. The reasons for the proposal were explained together with an overview of the matters being considered as part of the Plan Change process and the consultation processes being undertaken with members of the Parklands and Tamatea communities.

 

The proposal was supported in principal, and it was acknowledged that the reconfiguration and associated development was not in the area of identified sites of cultural significance to the north west. 

 

The primary issue of interest was stormwater servicing, and in this regard Mana Ahuriri emphasized its position that improvements were required across the City in relation to stormwater management and treatment prior to discharge. 

 

Different Council initiatives around this matter were discussed and Mana Ahuriri were invited through a follow up email to meet with Councils Manager Environmental Solutions to further discuss the matter.

 

Council has had in addition ongoing dialogue with Mana Ahuriri and other interested parties in developing the “Draft Ahuriri Estuary and Coastal Edge Master Plan” and in commencing the process of authorising a number of existing discharges into the Estuary and replacing Resource Consent CD990516Wa, which allows the discharge of stormwater from part of Napier’s urban area and surrounding rural land into the Ahuriri Estuary via the Westshore tidal gates.   Dialogue with Iwi is ongoing and iterative in nature, but overall Council is increasingly working towards improving the quality of all its stormwater discharges through a variety of measures.

 

 

4.3     Consultation with Sport Groups

 

The first phase of community consultation on the original Master Plan in terms of sport demand was completed in 2011 and is reported on in the 2012 Needs Analysis report provided in Appendix 2 of the 2017 Master Plan (provided in Appendix 2 of this report). In summary, consultation involved:

  A resident’s questionnaire to seek wider views on Park Island,

  A questionnaire to gather data from schools,

  A questionnaire to gather data from sports organisations with a known interest in Park Island

  Face to face meetings with 15 sport organisations.

 

The second phase of consultation, as reported on in the May 2012 report (provided in Appendix 5 of the 2017 Master Plan), involved a presentation of the draft Master Plan and face to face meetings with 12 sport organisations following the presentation.

 

Further consultation was then undertaken in 2016 as part of reviewing the original needs analysis exercise and considering issues and options moving forward. This is reported on in Appendix 6 of the 2017 Master Plan.  In summary, consultation involved meetings with the following parties to ascertain any changes in direction and participation levels/ trends:

    Mana Ahuriri

    Dog Action Group

    Richmondvale Archery Club

    Napier Old Boys Marist Sports Club

    Pirate Rugby Sport Club

    Napier City Rovers

    Hawkes Bay Rugby Union

    Central Football

    HB Hockey

 

 

4.4     Consultation with Residential Parties 

 

Adjacent owners/occupiers and other residents in the Parklands and Tamatea areas were provided an opportunity to provide feedback on the redesign and reconfiguration proposal during June and July 2017. Feedback from this initial engagement was to help inform the proposed Plan Change.

 

Adjacent residents were personally invited to an information sharing evening in mid-June 2017. They were also welcomed to meet individually with Napier City Council (NCC) planning staff. Six parties took this opportunity up. 

 

A second community information evening was held with invitations extended to adjacent residents, all other Parklands residents, and a portion of residents along Westminster Avenue. In addition, notices about the community meeting were distributed through key contacts and locations within the Tamatea community. Information about the proposed redesign and reconfiguration was posted on NCC’s website, providing residents in the area (and more widely) with a further opportunity to seek information and/or provide comment.

 

Issues raised by residents attending the information sharing sessions was wide reaching. A large portion of the feedback centred on concerns about the possibility of two-storey housing in the next stages of Parklands, and the impact this type of housing may have on outlook, housing quality, and residential amenity. This feedback was in response to a separate process NCC was undertaking around changing the nature and form of covenants applying to residential development within the existing zoned and consented Parklands area.

 

A number of concerns were also raised around plans for extra car parking to accommodate users of the Northern Sports Hub. Residents asked questions about the capacity of the proposed car park in the hub, the likelihood of overflow parking on Orotu Drive and the impact of extra traffic generally. Several residents were concerned about the current excess speeding along both Orotu and Prebensen Drives.

 

Some residents were interested in hours, hireage and licensing arrangements for the clubrooms envisaged to be established in the Northern Sports Hub area.

 

Residents were generally supportive of the greenspaces, neighbourhood playgrounds and linkages for pedestrians and cyclists proposed for the area as part of the Master Plan.

 

In terms of the visual impact implications of the reconfiguration, the more focused one-on-one sessions raised concern around changes in outlook, the location and type of potential two-storey houses, interruptions to landscape and skyline views towards the west/north west and treatment of the interface along Orotu Drive.

 

There was interest in the likely timeframe and sequence of the proposed District Plan Change and development of the new Parklands area and Northern Sports Hub. All participants in the initial stage of engagement were advised of the opportunity to make formal submissions on the District Plan Change following public notification.

 

A record of all community engagement is provided in Appendix 4.   

5.     RE-CONFIGURATION OF ZONES

 

The proposed reconfiguration will result in an area of (approx.) 13ha zoned Sports Park, 14ha Reserve Zone and 19ha Main Residential alongside the existing northern Main Residential Zone.

 

Combined with the adjoining existing consented area, the consolidated residential area is expected to accommodate in the order of 500 lots based on a proposed yield of 15 dwellings per hectare (rather than the more traditional basis of 12 dwellings per hectare previously used). This is approximately 150 lots greater than the indicative yield of 345 dwellings (Figure 6 HPUDS2017) i.e. the number of dwellings expected to be accommodated west of Orotu Drive, and 170 lots greater than the potential yield of the existing configuration[1].  

 

This section of the evaluation considers:

‘Whether reconfiguring the Sports Park and Main Residential Zones alongside Oruto Drive is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA’.

 

The following matters are considered as part of this exercise:

  Councils statutory role in managing sports grounds and urban growth,

  Why the Park Island Master Plan was reviewed,

  What was considered in arriving upon the proposed reconfiguration,  

o   Sports demand and the sports clubs/organizations own preferences and willingness to commit to opportunities within Park Island,

o   Changes in visual outlooks,

o   Servicing and the potential for any increased effects in terms of stormwater management in response to an expanded Main Residential Zone in particular,

o   Traffic generation and effects along Orutu Drive,

o   Land suitability

o   Provision for Specific Outcomes via a Structure Plan

  Will there be sufficient sports ground?

  Does the Plan Change give effect to the Regional Policy Statement?

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.1     Councils Statutory Role in Managing Sports Grounds and Urban Growth

 

The purpose of the RMA is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. In this regard, sustainable management is defined in section 5(2) as:

managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while—

(a)    sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

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

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

 

Managing and providing for urban growth as well as facilitating the delivery of recreational facilities is clearly consistent with enabling people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety.

 

This is further mandated in section 31(1)(aa) pertaining to the functions of a District Council, where ensuring that there is sufficient development capacity in respect of housing and business land to meet the expected demands of the district is a specific function Councils are required to achieve.

 

In the context of this proposal it is actually the ‘way’ in which the natural and physical resources concerned are managed and developed - in that the District Council is reviewing the configuration under which it plans to deliver recreational facilities and consequently also provide capacity to manage housing rather than introducing entirely new zones and activities.

 

 

5.2     Why Was the Park Island Master Plan Reviewed?

 

Development of Park Island commenced in 1981 and it is now an important hub for sport in Napier. In 2013 a Master Plan was completed to guide further development taking user needs and aspirations into account. The outcome of this process resulted in a Southern, Central and Northern Sporting Hub - the Northern Sporting Hub being the area of the Sports Park Zone subject to this Plan Change.

 

Since the adoption of the 2013 Park Island Master Plan there have been substantial changes in user aspirations and increased acceptability of artificial turf pitches along with intensive and co-use of these pitches by various sporting codes, rather than the traditional reliance on low intensity use of a large number of grass pitches.

 

Combined, these factors were identified to have the potential to give rise to an over allocation of single types of sports ground facilities as promoted in the original 2013 Master Plan. This could in turn give rise to affordability issues and would not reflect the efficient use of the land resource. It was for this reason that the Council commenced a review of the ‘way’ in which it should develop Park Island. In addition, the tennis community have now decided not to pursue a tennis hub in this location making a significant portion of the 2013 Master Plan redundant.

 

Owing to the location of the Main Residential Zone on each end of the Northern Sports Hub in the 2013 Master Plan, the review also considered options and opportunities for those areas of the Main Residential Zone where subdivision consent for residential development had not yet been granted.    

 

The Hawkes Bay Rugby Football Union Incorporated has now expressed a strong commitment to establish a community rugby facility in the northern sporting hub and has proposed to establish it alongside Westminster Avenue and Orotu Drive to link with the existing Marist Old Boys Rugby Club facility to the west.

 

While the aspirations of the Hawkes Bay Rugby Football Union have been a factor in the review, particularly as they are the first sporting group to commit to development within the area, this has come about by way of timing, and was not the primary purpose for the review.

 

 

5.3     What Was Considered in Arriving Upon the Proposed Re-Configuration?

 

Arriving upon the proposed re-configuration has been a somewhat two-step exercise, with the first being a review of the 2013 Master Plan, which focused primarily on the provision of sport facilities, and the second being the consideration of broader matters to test its merits as part of the Plan Change process, including:

  Servicing,

  Change in visual outlooks, 

  Traffic generation and effects along Orotu Drive,

  Land Suitability.

 

The following outlines the findings of these exercises.

 

5.3.1     Review of the 2013 Master Plan 

 

The overall aim of the 2013 Master Plan was to build on the considerable success of Park Island, both within Hawke’s Bay and nationally, and to realise its potential through a cohesive long-term plan that could be implemented in stages to ensure it would meet the current and growing needs of the community.

 

For this reason, the review commenced with a focus on sport demand and its implications for the most efficient layout of the Northern Sports Hub. Of all the matters and topics covered in the Master Plan, these are the most relevant in the context of this Plan Change.

 

The 2013 Master Plan and associated quantum of sport ground was developed through a needs analysis and stakeholder feedback process undertake by Global Leisure Group and Boffa Miskell and was reported on in Appendices 2 and 5 of the proposed Master Plan (Appendix 2 of this report):

1.    Park Island Needs Analysis Report, January 2012,

2.    Park Island Mater Plan, Sport Stakeholder Feedback and Suggested Changes to Draft Master Plan, May 2012.

 

To commence the review in 2016, a further issues and options and needs analysis process was undertaken and is reported on in the November 2016 report prepared by Global Leisure Group provided in Appendix 6 of the proposed Master Plan (Appendix 2 of this report). Key changes in demand between the original demand analysis and the 2016 analysis were then summarised in the March 2017 report provided in Appendix 5 of this report and include the following.

      Tennis has indicated that Park Island is not now part of its future plans for the sport,

      Although Napier Pirates Rugby and Sports Club has reported no growth of membership since 2011, it has insufficient fields at Tamatea Park and so the Club’s activities are fragmented with games split between Tamatea Park and Park Island. Tamatea Park suffers from chronic over-use with two Saturday senior games (3 hours per week) plus training loads (close to 20 hours per week), 

      Hawkes Bay Rugby Union does not anticipate significant growth in player numbers, and is now in a stable state. Growth in juniors is continuing but is slowing. Senior numbers are in decline,

      Napier Old Boys Marist Sports Club has a stable membership with no major change since 2011 and no foreseeable change.

 

Key issues identified as part of the second aspect of the report included:

     Decreasing senior members,

     The increasing proportion of junior numbers leading to higher peak demand on Saturday morning,

     Overcrowded and aging administration and stadium facilities,

     Lack of floodlit fields,

     Fragmentation of Napier Pirates Rugby and Sports Club activities and lack of capacity at Tamatea Park.

 

Options to address these issues included:

     Artificial turf fields,

     Co-use of administration and other buildings,

     Installation of floodlighting, 

     Relocation of Napier Pirates Rugby and Sports Club from Tamatea Park to Park Island.  

 

Incorporating the use of artificial turf into the Master Plan was a common option presented by stakeholders.  In its March 2017 report, Global Leisure Group has advised that one artificial field can increase useable hours from approximately 10-15 hours per week (for a well-drained natural grass field) to more than 45 hours, enabling demand to be spread across the week.

 

Enabling greater use of the same area of land provides opportunity to accommodate demand within a smaller area, as well as the opportunity to accommodate additional demand either within existing facilities or within smaller expansions. These opportunities can be applied to the Park Island Sports Hubs in the following two ways:

1.    Projected demand can be provided within a smaller footprint,

2.    Additional demand such as relocation of the Napier Pirates Rugby and Sports Club from Tamatea Park can be accommodated. 

 

The following comments were also provided in the March 2017 report in relation to the emergence of artificial turf:

     Hockey in New Zealand was originally driven to adopt artificial turf to remain internationally competitive. The use of artificial turf has now cascaded down through all levels of hockey. Hockey now uses a fraction of the land area once dedicated to providing natural grass fields for the sport prior to adoption of artificial turf. Over this 30-year period participation in hockey has also increased. Locally, HB Hockey reflects the national journey in use of artificial fields 7-days per week and increased participation.

     Use of artificial fields is now more widely accepted than in 2013 by Local Government for sports other than hockey. Major urban local authorities are investing in artificial turf where demand pressures are evident, particularly Auckland and Wellington. Some smaller centres are also adopting artificial fields e.g. Masterton.

     The Central Football League (the premier regional competition) has most its games played on artificial turf. Standards for artificial fields is codified in FIFA regulations.

     Standards for artificial fields for rugby union is codified in IRB regulations. Locally, HBRU is now adopting artificial fields for training purposes at high performance and academy levels. Clubs are now wanting to adopt artificial turf, mostly for training/ practice purposes.

 

It was also advised from operators in the parks sector that cost per use hour is close to neutral on a whole of life comparison between an artificial turf field compared to other sand carpet and hybrid fibre reinforced soil fields. Conventional soil based fields have lower operating and renewal costs but their service reliability (wet weather) and lower carrying capacity 8-15 hours per week mean more fields are required. The cost of cleaning and grooming artificial turf is also less than the mowing, irrigating and fertilising a larger land area of natural turf.

 

In addition to more intensive use, co-use of sport fields also provides opportunity for the co-use of administration buildings and other physical resources such as lighting, enabling the opportunity for more cost effective and higher quality facilities to be established. This is facilitated in the Master Plan to address the issue of overcrowded and aging administration and stadium facilities throughout the city. 

 

In relation to the opportunity to accommodate and spread demand across the week, Global Leisure Group has also suggested that the provision of artificial turf will enable greater access to facilities and will contribute to addressing wider societal trends impacting on sport participation. For example:

     Saturday, the traditional peak day for sport demand on sports fields is now a busy retail day (as is Sunday). Many working age players are no longer able to participate on a Saturday and to an extent on Sundays. This also impacts on availability of team coaches and managers,

     Children have less free play and have more programmed lives outside of school than previous generations. Organised sport practices and games are a key occupation of their after-school time,

     Parents and young people are expecting greater reliability and are less tolerant of cancellations due to wet weather closing sports fields. Hockey has benefited from its all-weather reliability provided by its artificial turf fields,

     Some secondary school students who are old enough to work are seeking more income and are making choices between sport on Saturday or working. Sport is responding by providing alternative timing for sports competition for this age group.

 

Peak traffic movements and parking demand is also expected to reduce.

 

Overall, there is a significant improvement in the efficiency of land use with artificial turf as opposed to natural turf, and there is potential for positive flow-on effects in terms of managing and providing associated infrastructure and enabling/retaining participation in sport. On this basis, and in the Park Island situation, it is considered by Global Leisure Group that artificial turf should be incorporated into the Master Plan, and that as a result, land for the Northern Sports Hub can be reduced in area – while still accommodating anticipated demand including relocation of Napier Pirates Rugby and Sports Club from Tamatea Park to Park Island.

 

In terms of layout, improved connectivity with the Central Sports Hub was seen as a key advantage, while the proposed reconfiguration would achieve slightly greater buffer distances from residential environments and keep like activities together. 

 

As evidenced in the 2017 Master Plan, the proposed re-configuration is supported by Global Leisure Group from a sport provision perspective.

 

Light spill from locating the Northern Sports Hub along Westminster Avenue was also considered as part of the Master Plan review. Here the Master Plan states “with LED lighting technology not only are there are greater efficiencies, but also significant reductions in light spill from more directional lighting units. Based on this it is expected that potential effects on adjacent residential properties would be able to be satisfactorily resolved.” Further consideration of lighting is undertaken in Section 6 of this report.

 

5.3.2     Change in Visual Outlooks

 

The change in visual outlooks arising from the proposed reconfiguration has been assessed by Isthmus Group in its report dated September 2017 provided in Appendix 6. This involved the consideration of the existing character of the site and locality, and provided a high-level assessment of the likely visual effects of the proposed Plan Change together with recommendations to ensure any significant adverse effects arising from the reconfiguration would be avoided, remedied or mitigated.

 

The primary matter was the introduction of residential land use to the area currently zoned Sport Park, and how resulting structures viewable from the opposite side of Orotu Drive had the potential to reduce the open character of these viewshafts.

 

The width of the road reserve (approx. 25 metres) and existing drainage reserve (approx. 35 metres) along Orotu Drive was considered sufficient to largely mitigate these concerns however, and further mitigation was limited to the following two recommendations:

  Clustered groupings of specimen trees planted along the western edge of Council owned reserve land along Orotu Drive,

  Restrict building height in the proposed residential zone within a 30m wide strip along the Orotu Drive interface to 6m (generally single storey residential).

 

How these recommendations are best provided for in Plan provisions is considered in Section 6. However overall, it has been concluded by Isthmus Group that the proposed Plan Change integrates well with the surrounding landscape and that the overall visual effects will be no more than minor or inappropriate for the setting.

 

5.3.3     Servicing  

 

The following outlines the water supply, wastewater and stormwater servicing solutions associated with the existing configuration (that would go on to be established in the event that the reconfiguration does not occur), followed by an assessment of any implications of the proposed re-configuration on these planned and adopted outcomes. The following has been contributed to and confirmed by Santha Agas – Napier City Council Team Leader 3 Waters.

 

Water supply

Orotu Drive contains a 300mm diameter PVC trunk main laid in the berm on the western side of the road reserve. The existing configuration involves a series of connections into this infrastructure with reticulation for domestic and firefighting supply throughout the northern and southern pockets of the Main Residential Zone and Northern Sports Hub. 

 

Although the total length of pipe required will be greater for the proposed configuration compared the existing, this is simply a function of an increased number of potential dwellings. The length of pipe required per property will be similar for each layout.

 

Overall, Mr Agas has confirmed that there will be no major changes or impacts on the existing water supply solution or associated infrastructure as a result of the proposed reconfiguration.

 

Wastewater

There are two pump stations located within the berm on the western side of the road reserve, one just north of Aoraki Road and the other just north of Akaroa Road. The existing catchments on the east of Orotu Drive drain in a western direction to the two pump stations from where the sewage is pumped in a southern direction.

 

The existing configuration involves the northern and southern areas of the Main Residential Zone and Northern Sports Hub draining east to these pump stations.  Again, although greater pipe length overall will be required, this is primarily due to greater yield.

 

Overall, Mr Agas has confirmed that there will be no major changes or impacts on the existing wastewater solution or associated infrastructure as a result of the proposed reconfiguration.

 

Stormwater

A minimum floor level of 11.55m was set through the granting of subdivision consent RMS15019, which is the same minimum floor level applying to the Main Residential Zone east of Orotu Drive. It is expected that this will apply to other areas of the Main Residential Zone irrespective of the final configuration, and that these minimum floors levels will be imposed at the time of subdivision as currently occurs.

 

The existing stormwater infrastructure along Orotu Drive consists of a piped and open drainage system. Primary runoff from development east of Orotu Drive is drained to a piped system installed on the western side of Orotu Drive between the road and the open swale drain running alongside and is conveyed to an overflow channel on the north side of Prebensen Drive.

 

Secondary runoff from larger rainfall events drains to the open swale drain along Orotu Drive and is conveyed to the same overflow channel on the north side of Prebensen Drive. Stormwater from the overflow channel is pumped to the Ahuriri estuary via Purimu pump station under Hawkes Regional Council Resource Consent CD990516Wa, together with runoff from other areas of the City conveyed to this point via existing networks. 

 

In developing the layout of the 2013 Master Plan, the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) was engaged to undertake an analysis of the Taipo Stream and drainage in the area to identify potential issues and solutions in relation to the potential for flooding and stormwater management. In terms of the area comprising the Northern Sports Hub and the residential areas west of Orotu Drive, it was identified that development of these areas was likely to increase the amount of runoff and peak flows arriving at the Purimu pump station, however it was stated that these effects could be mitigated by detention storage within the development area or increasing the capacity at the Purimu pump station.

 

In adopting the 2013 Master Plan and associated residential zoning i.e. the existing configuration, primary runoff was to be piped to the overflow channel on the northern side of Prebensen Drive and the majority of secondary runoff to the same channel via the open swale drain along Orotu Drive. A 600mm to 675mm pipe was/is anticipated to be required to connect the southern pocket of the Main Residential Zone.

 

Runoff from the reserve to the northwest and along Prebensen Drive drains to a culvert passing under Prebensen Drive and into a drain running north alongside Long Road, which ultimately discharges into the Estuary via a pump station. This stormwater flow path is also planned to receive secondary runoff from the north-east corner of the Main Residential Zone (under the current configuration). If flows are greater than the pipe can pass, the stormwater is stored in the road side swale beside Prebensen Drive, and in extreme rainfall events this storage feature can ‘tip’ stormwater into the Orotu Drive system at the corner of Orotu and Prebensen Drives.

 

Ultimately, runoff from the proposed re-configuration will be managed in the same manner i.e.  primary runoff piped to the overflow channel on the northern side of Prebensen Drive and secondary runoff conveyed to the same channel via the open swale drain along Orotu Drive with eventual discharge via the Pirimu Pump Station (with the exception of runoff from the reserve and the residential area to the northwest draining to Long Road as outlined above).

 

Owing to the expanded residential area however, additional detention is likely to be required as a mechanism to manage the effects of peak flows on the capacity of the Pirimu pump station. As outlined above, detention was one of the options identified by HBRC as an appropriate response to mitigating the effects of peak discharges.

 

Compared to the level of detention already built into the wider stormwater solution to service the existing configuration, the additional detention that will be required to accommodate a slightly larger residential Zone under the proposed configuration is relatively minor, and options are available to accommodate this either within the development site, the new open swale drain running west-east as shown on the proposed Planning Map provided in Appendix 3, the lower area of the existing swale drain along Orotu Drive or the overflow channel on the northern side of Prebensen Drive. Detailed design of these solutions will occur at the time of subdivision with any necessary discharge consents/variations being obtained as required.    

 

Overall, Mr Agas has confirmed that there will be no major changes or impacts on the existing stormwater solution or associated infrastructure as a result of the proposed reconfiguration.

 

Both Mana Ahuriri and the Hawkes Bay Regional Council raised interest in the ability to move more towards low impact stormwater design solutions. As outlined above, different Council initiatives around this matter are currently in progress. For example, Council has recently notified the “Draft Ahuriri Estuary and Coastal Edge Master Plan” and is working towards authorising a number of existing discharges into the Estuary and replacing Resource Consent CD990516Wa. The collaborative TANK process facilitated by the Hawkes Bay Regional Council is also traversing the urban stormwater matter at a macro level where more efficient overall integrated catchment based solutions can be initiated rather than ad hoc micro level solutions.

 

These are high level planning projects from which various methods to improve water quality will be developed and will fall down to guide development at the subdivision design stage. Acknowledging that this Plan Change is more of a re-configuration rather than the re-zoning of a new greenfield area, this process has not attempted to cut across or pre-empt the outcomes of these higher-level planning projects. Council is increasingly working towards improving the quality of all its stormwater discharges through a variety of measures, and the outcomes or approaches developed as a result of these projects will be implemented holistically by way of a comprehensive review across the City in the near future (just as they would have been under the current configuration).

 

Summary

Previous processes associated with the 2013 Master Plan and subsequent zoning of the residential areas west of Orotu Drive has confirmed that feasible water supply, wastewater and stormwater servicing solutions are able to be implemented, and it has been under this framework that RMS15019 has been issued and residential development has commenced.

 

The proposed re-configuration has been considered against this existing setting, and it has been determined that suitable servicing solutions can be achieved. Implementation and specific design solutions will be refined and secured through the subdivision consent process.

 

5.3.4     Traffic Generation and Effects Along Orotu Drive  

 

The existing configuration involves three access points off Orotu Drive, one opposite Kapiti Drive to service approximately 219 dwellings/lots as consented under RMS15019, one opposite Pacific Avenue to service the Northern Sports Hub and one opposite Tasman Drive to service approximately 112 dwellings/lots.

 

These access points will remain under the proposed reconfiguration; however the Pacific Avenue access point will change to provide access to residential development rather than sports park, and the Tasman Drive access point to sports park rather than residential development.

 

Based on an average of 8 vehicle movements per dwelling per day and 500 lots/dwellings within the expanded Main Residential Zone, Robin Malley (Team Leader Transportation, Napier City Council) has advised that 4,000 vehicle movements could be expected at the western arms of the Orotu Drive/Kapiti Drive and Orotu Drive/Pacific Avenue roundabouts, and that is reasonable to expect a 50/50 split. In terms of the sport park to the south, 580 vehicles movements can be expected at the Orotu Drive/Tasman Drive roundabout.   How traffic generation may change as a result of the reconfiguration at these points is illustrated in Figure 6 below.

Figure 6: Changes in Traffic Generation

             

 


Text Box: Existing
1,752 vehicle movements/day (average)
Proposed
2,000 vehicle movements/day (average)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Text Box: Existing
1,090 vehicle movements/day
(peak)
Proposed
1,845 vehicle movements/day (average)

Lot 3 DP503709

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Text Box: Existing
896 vehicle movements/
day (average)
Proposed
580 vehicle movements/
day (peak)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


A number of questions were raised during consultation as follows. Comments in relation to each have again been provided by Robin Malley.

1.    Will there be enough car parking for the sports hub?

Comment:

The total number of car parks proposed for the Northern Sports Hub is 196 which is considered more than adequate for the proposed layout and calculated demand.  There is likely to be an overspill of parking onto Orutu Drive of approximately 100 vehicles at peak times which would extend about 600m along one side or 300m each side.  This is acceptable and not considered to be a safety or capacity issue with the existing geometry of Orutu Drive.

 

The frequency of “peak” sporting activity times is likely to be once or twice a week including on the weekend and is expected to be outside the usual peak commuter and school times on the urban network.

 

Orutu Drive and the roundabout intersections were originally designed to accommodate the predicted volumes of traffic for the whole development and the proposed internal land use changes are unlikely to exceed the capacity provided.  Moving the residential development to the North may increase the vehicle movements on the section of Orutu Drive between Pacific Avenue and Prebensen Drive to a higher level than previously anticipated.  This is likely to be the more attractive route for drivers to and from the area with shorter distances and fewer / easier to use intersections and is considered beneficial to the operation of the local area network.

 

It is also noted that that the 2017 Master Plan provides for an additional 527 car parks throughout the whole of the Park Island sporting hubs (including 205 dedicated to the Northern Sports Hub).  These additional carparks are likely to distribute parking demand more evenly throughout the whole of Park Island, as well as reducing parking pressures at peak times.

2.    Why not access the sports hub from Westminster Avenue?

Comment:

Orotu Drive has greater spare capacity and space for on-street parking which tends to spread out from the primary access to a facility.  The provision for the extra approach to the Tasman/Orotu roundabout is already designated.  Access from Westminster Drive would also require a new bridge across the drain as the existing one lane bridge is not suitable.  Use of the existing roundabout is preferred.

3.    Should there be another intersection from the north-west area of the main Residential Zone onto Prebensen Drive?

Comment:

Firstly, a left-in/left-out interaction would result in a number of U-turns or additional trips to/through the Puketitiri Road roundabout.  Any new intersection would therefore have to be full access. A new intersection in this regard would compromise the movement function of Prebensen Drive and introduce additional safety issues.  The capacity of the Prebensen Drive/Orotu Drive roundabout has capacity to accommodate the relatively minor increase in traffic generation arising from the expanded residential area.

4.    Is there any benefit in having an internal access road linking the proposed parking area for the northern sports hub through to Clyde Jeffery Drive?

Comment:

Unlikely as this would make the recreational areas more car dominated, introduce additional conflicts and would save very little in terms of distance.  Good walking/cycling paths are appropriate for these internal links.

 

 

Key conclusions in regard to traffic and effects along Orotu Drive include:

     There will be a marginal increase in vehicle movements at the Orotu Drive/Kapiti Drive roundabout,

     There will be a reduction in potential vehicle movements at the Orotu Drive/Tasman Drive roundabout,

     The Orotu Drive/Pacific Drive roundabout has the capacity to accommodate increased  vehicle movements,

     The Northern Sports Hub will provide a sufficient level of on-site car parking, while the extent of anticipated overflow is not inappropriate and will not compromise the safety and efficiency of the roading network,

     The proposed access points are the same as would be established with or without the reconfiguration, and taking the nature of the surrounding roading network into account remain to be the preferred options,

     Peak traffic in relation to the Sport Park is likely to be less due to the change in use patterns that are achievable with artificial turf.

     The additional 527 carparks proposed for the whole of Park Island will more evenly distribute car parking to match demand and overall reduce parking pressure at peak times.  

 

5.3.5     Land Suitability  

 

Soil Contamination

A Detailed Site Investigation under the National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health (the NES) was undertaken by EAM in 2013 over the area of the current Sports Park Zone adjoining Orotu Drive as part of including the original Master Plan into the District Plan (by way of Plan Change 10).  The land was previously zoned Main Residential.

 

Areas of potential risk where sampling was undertaken comprised a previous kiwifruit orchard, existing residence with outsheds and cropping/pastural area. Samples were assessed against the guidelines applying to a park/recreational land use scenario on the basis of the Northern Sports Hub occupying the extent of this area. Following soil testing and laboratory analysis the assessment concluded that contaminants within the shallow soils are at levels well below NES guidelines for recreation land use.

 

Owing to the proposed re-configuration of land use as part of this plan change i.e. residential occurring where sport ground was previously provided for, EAM was engaged to confirm the situation in relation to a residential use over this area. The findings are outlined in the report provided in Appendix 7 where it is concluded that contaminants within the shallow soils were well below the NES guideline values for the (NES identified) Residential (10% produce) landuse scenario.

 

It was noted however that additional soil sampling and assessment should be undertaken once/if the existing house and foundations are removed. Similarly, the area around the residential shed and fuel tanks located in the driveway of the dwelling should be sampled and analysed once the concrete and hardstand has been lifted. 

 

Although the EAM assessment does not do away with the need for further assessment against the NES in these specific areas at the time of any change of use or soil disturbance, it does not raise any issues that would render the area inappropriate for the proposed reconfiguration of Zones. 

 

Following consultation with the HBRC it was identified that there is potentially an additional contaminated ‘site’ (what were stock yards and possibly a sheep dip) in the existing currently zoned Main Residential land in the southern part of the site.  As a result of this knowledge, further work has been commissioned to identify whether there is any contaminated soil, and if there is, the extent of the contaminant plume.  Irrespective of the plan change process assessment against the NES will be required over this area at the time of any change of use / soil disturbance / subdivision. The appropriate methodology will be determined at that time but if contaminants are present mitigation measures will be required. 

 

Although the potential contaminated ‘site’  to the south has not yet been assessed, the starting point for development of the Sports Park Zone in this area will be same as for the existing Main Residential Zone i.e. the proposed reconfiguration can be considered suitable from a potential soil contamination perspective on the basis that the NES will still apply at the time of development to manage any soil contamination issues and effects on human health irrespective of the final configuration. 

 

Natural Hazards

The following is noted in regard to projected sea level rise as a result of climatic changes, coastal hazards and liquefaction potential:

     The reconfiguration will occur within an existing urban area where its susceptibility to the effects of the sea level rise will not change, 

     The area is outside coastal erosion and inundation zones (see hbhazards intramaps below),

     The entire site, together with much of Napier, is located within the ‘Tsunami Near Source Inundation Extent’, thus the proposed re-configuration does not change the element of risk in this regard (see below),

     On balance, the re-configuration will place a greater area of the Main Residential Zone within the ‘Tsunami Distance Source Inundation Extent’, however the change is marginal and the outcome will be no different to the existing Parklands residential area on east of Orotu Drive (see below from hbhazards intramaps),

     In regard to liquefaction, the Hawkes Bay Regional Council has advised that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and the Ministry for the Environment have recently published planning and engineering guidance for potentially liquefaction-prone land and contains guidance for Councils on resource and building consent applications to assist with the use and development of potentially liquefaction- prone areas. The Hawkes Bay Regional Council has highlighted that this guidance may result in changes in how this risk has been previously managed.  However, this is yet to be determined and this plan change cannot, and indeed need not, predetermine the outcomes of that process.

     As the entire area west of Orotu Drive, together with most of Napier is located within a ‘Very High Relative Liquefaction Susceptibility’ area (see hbhazards intramaps below), the proposed re-configuration does not materially change the element of risk in this regard or the impact/cost of potential implications on development.

 

Coastal Hazards Zones

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tsunami Extents

 

 

Tsunami Distant Source Inundation Extent

 

Tsunami Near Source Inundation Extent

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Liquefaction Susceptibility Areas 

 

Very High Relative Liquefaction Susceptibility

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Overall, the proposed re-configuration does not pose any issues in regard to land suitability compared to the planned and adopted outcomes of the existing configuration.

 

5.3.6     Provision for Specific Outcomes Via a Structure Plan

 

Although existing infrastructure solutions are already in place as a result of the existing zoning and identified on an existing Structure Plan, the Park Island Master Plan, District Plan and Code of Practice (for Subdivision and Land Development) will also  act to guide the provision of infrastructure solutions.  Although the proposal is therefore essentially a minor reconfiguration of an existing zoning pattern, a Structure Plan has nevertheless been prepared to give effect to Policy UD10.1 of the Regional Policy Statement. This is provided in Appendix 8 and illustrates:

     The proposed Zones,

     Road connections with the surrounding road network,

     Relevant infrastructure and services,

     Indicative drainage paths and land for stormwater management,

     Land for recreation and social infrastructure,

     Indicative landscape planting and building height restriction areas as recommended by Isthmus Group in relation to the reconfiguration of Zones,

     Indicative pedestrian walkways and cycleways,

     Areas of significance to Maori,

     Existing designations and overhead powerlines. 

 

This will be included in the District Plan as Appendix 27A.  Although the same area is covered in Appendix 27, this Appendix will remain unchanged as it also applies to the Park Island area on the corner of Wharerangi Road and Westminster Avenue that has not yet been developed. 

 

 

5.4     Will there be Sufficient Sports Ground?

                                                       

Global Leisure Group has stated in its March 2017 report that the Council can be be confident that sufficient facilities will be provided to meet the current and growing needs of the community on the basis that:

     Provision of more floodlit artificial facilities will increase useable hours by 3 to 5 times, therefore foreseeable demand at Park Island from current users and anticipated future users (e.g. HBRFU and Pirates) at Northern Hub can, and will be, met,

     Growth in demand can be accommodated through conversion of remaining natural turf facilities within Park Island to artificial turf,

     The same strategy of introducing artificial turf can be applied to other parks in the NCC network to increase overall capacity.

 

 

5.5     Does the Plan Change Give Effect to the Regional Policy Statement?

 

It is stated in Section 75(3)(c) that a District Plan must give effect to any Regional Policy Statement (RPS). Here Chapter 3.1B contains a suite of provisions relating to Managing the Built Environment.

 

These provisions set a vision for compact and well-designed urban developments within defined urban limits so as to limit encroachment onto the Heretanga Plains soil resource. They seek a staged approach to releasing different areas of land for development in order to ensure optimal integration with public infrastructure, as well as a balanced supply across different areas of Napier, Hastings and Havelock North in order to provide opportunities for all levels of the market. In summary:

    Objective UD1 seeks to establish a compact and strongly connected urban form that;

o     Avoids, remedies or mitigates reverse sensitivity effects,

o     Avoids unnecessary encroachment on versatile land, 

o     Avoid or mitigates increasing the frequency or severity of risk to people and property from natural hazards,

    Objective UD 2 seeks to accommodate growth through the intensification of residential areas,

    Objective UD3 states that land requirements for the growth of business activities should be provided in a manner consistent with Objective UD1,

    Objectives UD4 and UD5 see to manage urban development through a planned and staged manner that is integrated with the provision of strategic and other infrastructure,

    Objective UD6 seeks to ensure that the planning and provision of transport infrastructure is integrated with development and settlement patterns while limiting network congestion, reducing dependency on private motor vehicles, reducing emission of contaminants to air and energy and promoting the use of active transport nodes.

 

The Park Island / Parklands area is already identified in Policy UD4.3(b) as an appropriate residential growth area having been identified in both the original HPUDS document and subsequent 2017 review.

 

HPUDS2017 emphasizes that its urban growth maps are indicative only, and the purpose is to provide guidance to the Territorial Authorities for when they are developing Master Plans and/or Structure Plans to give effect to the Strategy and RPS. Final areas and configurations are expected to be determined by the Plan Change process.

 

The area’s suitability for residential development has been further validated by the existing zoning pattern and issue of subdivision consent RMS15019. Development within the subject area, regardless of the configuration, is therefore already provided for and anticipated under the RPS. 

 

The proposed plan change is not so much a rezoning of land but a reconfiguration of the zones that enable more efficient and intensive use of the same area of land for both projected additional sports demand and residential use.  The reconfiguration therefore helps prevent urban sprawl and encroachment onto versatile land on the city fringe (or indeed elsewhere).

 

Given then that the same land use activities will essentially occur within the same overall footprint, the following assessment will be limited to the Policies contained in Chapter 3.1B of the RPS. Indeed, the proposed reconfiguration will give rise to essentially the same outcomes as the existing configuration in terms of the remaining Policies of the RPS pertaining to matters such as the sustainable management of coastal resources, effects on conflicting land uses, groundwater quantity and quality, surface water resources, natural hazards, maintenance and enhancement of physical infrastructure and Iwi/hapu matters.

 

Furthermore, as the proposed plan change is not so much a rezoning of land but a reconfiguration of the zones, the level of detail provided acknowledges the proposal is within an area already identified as an appropriate residential growth area and where existing and planned infrastructure already exists. The relatively minor increase in potential yield is nevertheless still considered.


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments a

 

Table 1:       Regional Policy Statement Analysis

 

RPS Provision

Analysis

POL UD1 PROVISION FOR URBAN ACTIVITIES

In providing for urban activities in the Heretaunga Plains sub-region, territorial authorities must place priority on:

a)      the retention of the versatile land of the Heretaunga Plains for existing and foreseeable future primary production, and

 

 

b)      ensuring efficient utilisation of existing infrastructure, or

c)      ensuring efficient utilisation of planned infrastructure already committed to by a local authority, but not yet constructed.

 

 

 

 

The site is located within urban boundaries and an appropriate residential growth area.  More intensive use of this land for meeting both projected sporting demand and residential use will reduce growth pressure on versatile land.

The reconfiguration will enable better integration of the different sporting hubs while both the Sport Park and Main Residential Zone in their new locations can be serviced by existing and already planned infrastructure. 

 

POL UD2 PROVISION FOR BUSINESS ACTIVITIES

In the Heretaunga Plains sub-region, district plans shall provide for business activities to 2045, in a manner which:

a)      Reinforces the role of Napier and Hastings cities as the commercial and business core of the Heretaunga Plains, whilst supporting adequate capacity in defined rural towns and settlements for a range of day-to-day services and activities;

b)     Promotes the utilisation, redevelopment and intensification of existing commercial land;

c)      Promotes the utilisation, redevelopment and intensification of existing industrial land, and provides sufficient additional greenfields industrial land to ensure demand for new land can be met by supply;

d)     Promotes the utilisation of existing infrastructure availability, capacity and quality as far as reasonably practicable;

e)      Avoids unnecessary encroachment onto the versatile land of the Heretaunga Plains;

f)       Avoids, remedies or mitigates reverse sensitivity effects in accordance with Objectives and Policies in Chapters 3.5 and 3.13 of the plan;

g)     Ensures close proximity to, major transport hubs and multi-modal transport networks.

h)     promotes close proximity to labour supply.

i)       Avoids or mitigates the following locational constraints:

 i.       projected sea level rise as a result of climatic changes

ii.       active coastal erosion and inundation

iii.      stormwater infrastructure that is unable to mitigate identified flooding risk

iv.     flood control and drainage schemes that are at or over capacity

v.      active earthquake faults

vi.     high liquefaction potential

vii.    nearby sensitive waterbodies that are susceptible to potential contamination from runoff, stormwater discharges, or wastewater treatment and disposal.

viii.   no current wastewater reticulation and the land is poor draining

ix.     water short areas affecting the provision of adequate water supply.

 

 

Although not particular relevant to residential re-zoning, providing for sport related administration and other services to be located within the Sports Park Zone is considered to be in keeping with the general intent of aspects of this Policy.

 

 

POL UD3 RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LIFESTYLE DEVELOPMENT

In the Heretaunga Plains sub-region, district plans shall include policies and methods discouraging or avoiding ad hoc residential development and further rezoning for rural residential purposes or lifestyle development outside existing rural residential zones.

 

 

Not applicable.

POL UD4.1 ESTABLISHING URBAN LIMITS

Within the Heretaunga Plains sub-region, district plans shall identify urban limits for those urban areas and settlements within which urban activities can occur, sufficient to cater for anticipated population and household growth to 2045.

 

 

The proposed reconfiguration does not challenge this policy as the area is located within urban boundaries and an appropriate residential growth area.

POL UD4.2 NEW RESIDENTIAL GREENFIELD GROWTH AREA CRITERIA

In determining future Residential Greenfield Growth Areas, not already identified within Policy UD4.3, for inclusion within urban limits in the Heretaunga Plains sub-region, the following general criteria shall apply:

a)      Must form an extension contiguous with existing urban areas and settlements.

b)     Land is identified as having low versatility, and/or productive capacity has been compromised by:

i.    Size and shape of land parcels that mitigates against productive use;

ii.   Surrounding land uses and reverse sensitivity;

iii.  Lack of water and/or poor drainage.

c)      Clear natural boundaries exist, or logical greenbelts could be created to establish a defined urban edge.

d)      Supports compact urban form.

e)      Can be serviced at reasonable cost.

f)       Can be integrated with existing development.

 

 

g)     Can be integrated with the provision of strategic and other infrastructure (particularly strategic transport networks in order to limit network congestion, reduce dependency on private motor vehicles and promote the use of active transport modes).

h)     An appropriate separation distance from electricity transmission infrastructure should be maintained in order to ensure the continued safe and efficient operation and development of the electricity transmission network.

i)       Promotes, and does not compromise, social infrastructure including community, education, sport and recreation facilities and public open space.

j)       Avoids or mitigates the following locational constraints:

i.    projected sea level rise as a result of climatic changes

ii.   active coastal erosion and inundation

iii.  stormwater infrastructure that is unable to mitigate identified flooding risk

iv.  flood control and drainage schemes that are at or over capacity

v.   active earthquake faults high liquefaction potential

vii. nearby sensitive waterbodies that are susceptible to potential contamination from on-site wastewater systems or stormwater discharges

viii.         no current wastewater reticulation and the land is poor draining

ix.  identified water short areas with the potential to affect the provision of an adequate water supply.

 

 

The proposed re-configuration is consistent with this Policy in that it is already located within an appropriate residential growth area. The following comments are made in relation to the potential increase in yield:

The expanded residential Zone will be a contiguous extension of the existing Main Residential Zone to the north.

The land is already located within an appropriate residential growth area.

 

 

 

 

The land is already located within an appropriate residential growth area but is surrounded by clear natural and physical boundaries in any case.

The reconfiguration will consolidate existing residential zones.

Servicing costs are expected to be in the order of those already planned for.

The new residential area will be integrated with existing development through edge treatment with the Sports Zone, access onto Orotu Drive and development under the Main Residential Zone provisions.

The new residential area will be serviced by existing and already planned infrastructure. Access onto Orotu Drive, as planned for the area, will ensure the efficient use of the roading network.  

 

Unison infrastructure will be managed as previously planned i.e. undergrounding of power lines and acknowledgement of the existing designations. Residential development will simply approach the substation from the north rather than south.

The reconfiguration will enable consolidation and greater integration of the wider Park Island sport ground.  

 

There will be no change in regard to these matters as a result of the proposed reconfiguration and potential increase in residential yield. The additional yield within the existing urban limits achieves the intended outcomes of both HPUDS and the RPS by consolidating growth within the existing urban area and therefore avoids potential sprawl of growth options outside existing urban limits.

 

POL UD4.3 APPROPRIATE RESIDENTIAL GREENFIELD GROWTH AREAS

Within the Heretaunga Plains sub-region, areas where future residential greenfield growth for the 2015-2045 period has been identified as appropriate and providing choice in location, subject to further assessment referred to in POL UD10.1, POL UD10.3, POL UD10.4 and POL UD12, are:

a)      Bay View

b)      Park Island / Parklands….

 

 

The land is already located within an appropriate residential growth area.

 

 

POL UD4.4 INAPPROPRIATE RESIDENTIAL GREENFIELD GROWTH AREAS

Within the Heretaunga Plains sub-region, areas where future1c residential greenfield growth has been determined as inappropriate, beyond existing settlements are:

 

Not applicable

POL UD4.5 APPROPRIATE INDUSTRIAL GREENFIELD GROWTH AREAS (HERETAUNGA PLAINS SUB-REGION

 

Not applicable

POL UD5 CONTAINING URBAN ACTIVITIES WITHIN URBAN LIMITS

Except as provided for in POL UD6.1 (provision for papakainga and marae-based development), district plans shall include policies and methods to avoid inappropriate urban activities beyond urban limits established in accordance with POL UD4.1 within the Heretaunga Plains sub-region.

 

 

The zoning proposed as part of this Plan variation process will not allow residential development to expand beyond existing urban limits.

 

POL UD6.1 PROVISION FOR PAPAKAINGA AND MARAE-BASED DEVELOPMENT (REGION)

 

No applicable

POL UD6.2 PAPAKAINGA AND MARAE-BASED DEVELOPMENT (REGION)

 

No applicable

POL UD7 INTENSIFICATION IN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS

In the Heretaunga Plains sub-region, district plans shall include objectives, policies and methods promoting intensification by redevelopment of suitable locations within existing residential areas.

 

 

Expanding the existing Main Residential Zone onto land not now required for Sports Park is consistent with this Policy.

POL UD8 DENSITY OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS

In the Heretaunga Plains sub-region, residential subdivision and development shall seek to achieve the following minimum net densities, where appropriate, within greenfield growth or intensification development areas, to be achieved in a staged manner by 2045:

a)   an average yield of 15 lots or dwellings per hectare in each greenfield growth area developed post 31 December 2015;

b)   an average yield of 20 lots or dwellings per hectare within each intensification development area

 

The planning framework applied over the expanded Main Residential Zone will enable these densities to be achieved.

POL UD9.1 SEQUENCING

In the Heretaunga Plains sub-region, district plans shall provide for the strategic integration of infrastructure and development through the staged release of new greenfield growth areas.

 

 

Existing and planned infrastructure is available to allow for continued development in the area. 

POL UD9.2 SEQUENCING DECISION-MAKING CRITERIA

In the Heretaunga Plains sub-region, the sequencing of development for greenfield growth areas shall be based on the following criteria:

a)   Availability and costs of infrastructure services (water, wastewater, stormwater, transport and electricity distribution);

b)   The operational capacity of strategic infrastructure (particularly strategic transport networks); and

c)   Balanced supply and locational choice across the sub-region.

 

Other factors that may be taken into account include (but are not limited to):

d)   The accessibility and capacity of social infrastructure (particularly community, education, sport and recreation facilities and public open space);

e)   The sustainable management of natural and physical resources;

f)    The availability of employment opportunities in and near the greenfield growth areas;

g)   The willingness and timeframe of landowners to participate in greenfield growth plans;

h)   The opinion of developers regarding land for greenfield growth to ensure the sequencing is feasible and will result in positive growth and investment.

 

 

The increase in potential yield is relatively insignificant in terms of how HPUDS provides for supply and choice across the region, and ongoing development into the expanded area is considered appropriate having regard to the availability of existing infrastructure and traffic networks with surplus capacity. 

 

POL UD10.1 STRUCTURE PLANS

In the Heretaunga Plains sub-region, development of urban activities within greenfield growth areas shall occur in accordance with a comprehensive structure plan. Structure plans shall be prepared when it is proposed to amend the district plan, and shall be included in the district plan to provide for urban activities.

 

A Structure Plan has been prepared.

 

POL UD10.2 AD HOC URBAN DEVELOPMENT

In the Heretaunga Plains sub-region, avoid inappropriate ad hoc urban development within the residential greenfield growth areas identified in Policy UD4.3 or created under Policy UD4.2 prior to rezoning taking place.

 

 

The proposed reconfiguration meets this Policy in that re-zoning is proposed to occur ahead of development within the expanded area, and that the development is within an appropriately identified urban growth option.

POL UD10.3 STRUCTURE PLANS

Notwithstanding Policy UD10.1, structure plans for any area in the Region shall:

a)      Be prepared as a single plan for the whole of a greenfield growth area;

b)      Be prepared in accordance with the matters set out in POL UD12;

c)      Show indicative land uses, including:

i.    principal roads and connections with the surrounding road network and relevant infrastructure and services;

ii.   land required for stormwater treatment, retention and drainage paths;

iii.  any land to be set aside for business activities, recreation, social infrastructure, environmental or landscape protection or enhancement, or set aside from development for any other reason; and

iv.  pedestrian walkways, cycleways, and potential public passenger transport routes both within and adjoining the area to be developed;

d)      Identify significant natural, cultural and historic or heritage features;

e)      Identify existing strategic infrastructure; and

f)       Identify the National Grid (including an appropriate buffer corridor).

 

 

A Structure Plan covering these matters has been prepared.

 

 

POL UD10.4 STRUCTURE PLANS

Notwithstanding Policy UD10.1, in developing structure plans for any area in the Region, supporting documentation should address:

a)      The infrastructure required, and when it will be required to service the development area;

b)      How development may present opportunities for improvements to existing infrastructure provision;

c)      How effective provision is made for a range of transport options and integration between transport modes;

d)      How provision is made for the continued use, maintenance and development of strategic infrastructure;

e)      How effective management of stormwater and wastewater discharges is to be achieved;

f)       How significant natural, cultural and historic or heritage features and values are to be protected and/or enhanced;

g)      How any natural hazards will be avoided or mitigated; and

h)      Any other aspects relevant to an understanding of the development and its proposed zoning

 

 

These matters have been addressed in developing the Master Plan and proposed Plan Change.

POL UD11 REZONING FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Notwithstanding Policy UD10.1, within the Region, any rezoning for the development of urban activities should be accompanied by a structure plan for inclusion in the district plan, in accordance with the matters in POL UD10.3 and POL UD10.4, and POL UD12.

 

 

A Structure Plan covering these matters has been prepared.

POL UD12 MATTERS FOR DECISION-MAKING

In preparing or assessing any rezoning, structure plans, or other provisions for the urban development of land within the Region, territorial authorities shall have regard to:

a)      The principles of the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol (Ministry for the Environment, 2005);

b)      New Zealand Standard NZS4404:2010 Land Development and Subdivision Infrastructure, and subsequent revisions;

c)      Good, safe connectivity within the area, and to surrounding areas, by a variety of transport modes, including motor vehicles, cycling, pedestrian and public transport, and provision for easy and safe transfer between modes of transport;

d)      Location within walkable distance to community, social and commercial facilities;

e)      Provision for a range of residential densities and lot sizes, with higher residential densities located within walking distance of commercial centres;

f)       Provision for the maintenance and enhancement of water in waterbodies, including appropriate stormwater management facilities to avoid downstream flooding and to maintain or enhance water quality;

g)      Provision for sufficient and integrated open spaces and parks to enable people to meet their recreation needs, with higher levels of public open space for areas of higher residential density;

h)      Protection and enhancement of significant natural, ecological, landscape, cultural and historic heritage features;

 

i)        Provision for a high standard of visual interest and amenity;

j)       Provision for people’s health and well-being through good building design, including energy efficiency and the provision of natural light;

k)      Provision for low impact stormwater treatment and disposal;

 

l)        Avoidance, remediation or mitigation of reverse sensitivity effects arising from the location of conflicting land use activities;

m)     Avoidance of reverse sensitivity effects on existing strategic and other physical infrastructure, to the extent reasonably possible;

 

n)      Effective and efficient use of existing and new infrastructure networks, including opportunities to leverage improvements to existing infrastructure off the back of proposed development;

o)      Location and operational constraints of existing and planned strategic infrastructure;

 

p)      Appropriate relationships in terms of scale and style with the surrounding neighbourhood; and

 

 

q)      Provision of social infrastructure.

 

 

 

 

The following can be considered in regard to these matters:

Generally applying the Main Residential Zone provisions over the expanded residential area will produce residential outcomes consistent with its surrounds,

 

 

The expanded area is surrounded by existing pedestrian, cycle and road networks and will provide further linkages throughout via the west-east stormwater reserve and compliance with the Code of Practice for Subdivision and Land Development,

The expanded residential area will occur within an existing residential growth area close to community, social and commercial facilities,

The Main Residential Zone provisions to be applied will enable a range of densities,

 

Large open swale drains will be established to manage stormwater and provide opportunities for treatment within the network prior to discharge,

 

The existing and expanded residential zone borders large areas of open space,

 

 

The existing and expanded zone are not specifically characterized by any significant natural, ecological, landscape, cultural and historic heritage features,

In principal, and as with all other Main Residential Zone environments in the City, application of the Main Residential Zone provisions can be relied upon to ensure a high standard of visual interest and amenity,

The proposed stormwater solution will enable opportunities to adopt low impact treatment and disposal principles,

The area south of Prebensen Drive is already zoned Main Residential, while the

Unison infrastructure will be managed as previously planned i.e. undergrounding of power lines and acknowledgement of the existing designations. Residential development will simply approach the substation from the north rather than south,

The expanded residential area will be served by existing and already planned infrastructure,

 

Access onto Orotu Drive, as originally planned for, and as would occur without the reconfiguration is the preferred option in terms of managing the wider roading network,  

In principal, applying the Main Residential Zone provisions to the expanded area, which are the same as the provisions applied to its surrounds, will ensure appropriate relationships with the surrounding neighbourhood in terms of scale and style. Minor amendments are considered in Section 6 below.

Located within the middle of existing residential zones, the expanded residential Zone will have good access to social infrastructure. 

 

POL UD13 SERVICING OF DEVELOPMENTS

Within the region, territorial authorities shall ensure development is appropriately and efficiently serviced for the collection, treatment, disposal or re-use of sewage and stormwater, and the provision of potable water by:

a)      Avoiding development which will not be serviced in a timely manner to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on the environment and human health; and

b)      Requiring these services to be designed, built, managed or upgraded to maximise their ongoing effectiveness

 

 

The expanded residential area will be serviced by existing and already planned infrastructure and will not give rise to any lead or sequencing issues. 

POL UD14.1 MONITORING 

 

Not applicable

POL UD14.2 REVIEWS

 

Not applicable


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments a

 

 

The proposed reconfiguration will raise no issue with the original intent of the Parklands greenfield growth area or the basis on which it was originally advanced. Furthermore, although the proposal will involve an increase in potential yield, there are benefits in terms of the efficient use of infrastructure and maintenance of supply in that the minor increase will result in a more intensively developed and compact city within existing urban limits. Indeed, the expanded area:

   Has already been identified as a suitable greenfield growth area in HPUDS and the RPS;

   Can be serviced by existing and already planned infrastructure,

   Is located in close proximity to established social infrastructure including schools, commercial services, sport and recreation facilities and public open space,

   Has good access to main arterials and areas of employment,

   Will continue a proven pattern of active and continuous development.

 

Overall, it is considered that the proposed reconfiguration gives effect to the RPS.

 

 

5.6      Summary

 

To date, Section 32 case law has interpreted ‘most appropriate’ to mean “suitable, but not necessarily superior”[2]. Overall, the proposed reconfiguration is considered an appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA. The following key points have been considered in coming to this view:

    The reconfiguration will improve the integration and connectivity of sport facilities within Park Island,

    The area of the Sports Park Zone will be large enough to meet the current and growing needs of the community,

    Effects associated with changes in visual outlook will be less than minor and appropriate for the setting,

    Development will be serviced by existing and planned infrastructure solutions, and there will essentially be no change in this regard as a result of reconfiguring the zones,    

    Traffic related outcomes will remain within those planned and anticipated for the area,

    There will be no increase in risks associated with soil contamination or natural hazards as a result of zoning areas of the Sports Park Zone to Main Residential, 

    The proposal continues to give effect to the RPS,

    That due to all of the above factors the proposed plan change is considered to serve the purpose of sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

6.     APPROPRIATENESS OF PLAN PROVISIONS 

 

Having determined that the proposed reconfiguration is an appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA, it is a matter of determining whether the provisions of the proposal are the most appropriate way to achieve this in terms of their efficiency and effectiveness. Again, Section 32 case law has interpreted ‘most appropriate’ to mean “suitable, but not necessarily superior”.

 

In the context of this particular Plan Change, as the proposal is essentially a ‘switch’ of zones that carry with them established provisions to provide for specific landuse outcomes and to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects, it is really only a matter of determining the need for any amendments to these existing Policies, Rules and Conditions.

 

In this regard, the assessments above have pointed towards the matters around which focus is required to undertake this evaluation. These include:

(1)  Visual outlook along the interface of the new Main Residential Zone along Orotu Drive,

(2)  Noise arising from the Sports Park Zone in its new location,

(3)  Light spill arising from the Sports Park Zone in its new location.

 

The appropriateness of the existing Rules of the Sports Park Zone to deliver the intentions of the Park Island Master Plan and Condition 48.12 in particular, which limits the floorspace of buildings are also relevant matters.

 

Taking the above assessments into account, the way in which the existing provisions of the zones manage all other matters, including traffic and on-site car parking is considered an appropriate way to achieve the reconfiguration.

 

The following examination will therefore focus on (1) – (3) above together with the rule framework of the Sports Park Zone to deliver the intentions of the Park Island Master Plan. Plan Change edits arising from this exercise are provided in Appendix 9.

 

 

6.1     Visual Outlook Along the Interface of Orotu Drive

 

The change in visual outlook from Orotu Drive has been assessed by Isthmus Group in its report dated September 2017 provided in Appendix 7, where the following was recommended as part of a mitigation strategy:

(1)  Clustered groupings of specimen trees planted along the western edge of Council owned reserve land (as shown indicatively in Figure 7 below),

(2)  Restrict building height within a 30m wide strip along the Orotu Drive interface (as shown in Figure 7 below) to 6m (generally single storey residential).

 

No other recommendations were made in regard to any other matters, or other ‘edges’ of the zones.

 

Figure 7: Building Height Restriction Zone

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planting within the Reserve along the western side of Orotu Drive will be provided for within the commentary on the Master Plan itself in Appendix 34 as follows, as well as via a new Method to be inserted in relation to Objective 4.7 of the District Plan as shown further below:

 

Changes to Appendix 34

 

Appendix 34                                 Park Island Master Plan

 

Explanation

 

The Park Island Sports Ground is the focus of many of the sporting codes undertaken within the city. With changing sports requirements including overlapping between sporting codes, and hybrid sports, together with the need to make better and more efficient use of existing sports grounds, the Council has undertaken a master plan for Park Island to ensure that the City's sporting needs are provided for over the next 20+ years.

 

The Park Island Master Plan has been developed by clearly identifying user needs and demands, and considering the potential for better use of the existing sports park land within the city and the ability to extend the boundaries of Park Island. The stakeholder consultation has provided opportunities to gauge what currently makes Park Island successful and to identify where provision for sports and related facilities as well as passive recreation can be improved to deliver greater value to users. It also considers Park Island in its broader context and the relationship and linkages to surrounding areas, particularly Parklands subdivision.

 

Currently, ‘sportsville’ concepts are being developed around the country providing opportunities to develop more sustainable clubs sharing facilities and services. The ‘sportsville’ concept is the basis of the Park Island Master Plan with reorganisation and development focused around three ‘sports hubs’. Two of these, the Southern Sports Hub and the Central Sports Hub essentially involve reorganisation and some re-development of the current Park Island facilities. The Southern Sports Hub is centered around the existing Hockey Turf facilities and the Football Stadium. The Central Sports Hub incorporates the Marist Rugby Club and adjoining ruby fields and also the Shrimpton Fields. The Northern Sports Hub will be a new development on a ‘greenfields’ site to the north of the Central Hub.

 

The Northern Hub will adjoin the next stages of the Parklands subdivision and the master plan has considered how the interface between the two activities can be successfully achieved. In particular, planting as recommended in the Isthmus Group September 2017 report will be undertaken by Council within the Reserve alongside Orotu Drive ahead of development wherever practicable within this area. Vehicular access to the Northern Hub will be off Orotu Drive. A network of existing and new pedestrian and cycle paths will provide internal linkages between the sports hubs and also provide new opportunities for informal recreational use of Park Island.

 

The overall aim of the master plan is to build on the considerable success of Park Island, both within Hawkes Bay and nationally, and to realise its potential through a cohesive long term plan that can be implemented in stages. The concept revolves around the sharing of facilities and recognising that the focus of Park Island is on outdoor sport and recreation but that it has the potential to be ‘more than a sports park’ through enhancement of its facilities and infrastructure for passive recreation. The overall concept is based on a series of separate but interrelated ‘sports hubs’, which are linked together by a network of multi- use pedestrian walkways and cycleways.

 

To remain viable a master plan has to be dynamic and have a degree of flexibility because it needs to be able to respond to change as well as guide it.

 

Changes to Objective 4.7 Methods

 

Objective 4.7 states:

“To maintain and enhance residential amenity through the retention and planting of trees within the residential environment.”

 

The following changes to the Methods associated with Objective 4.7 are proposed in order to provide for the implementation of Master Plans where these involve specific works within Reserves.

 

Methods

 

(1)   District Plan Rules.

 

(2)   Other Methods.

 

The Council will prepare a brochure explaining the contribution of trees to the residential environment, offering guidance to the public on the planting, maintenance and suitability of tree species and explaining how and why certain activities can cause harm to trees.

 

The Council will work with local communities to develop road planting and maintenance programmes. In addition, a policy document for work affecting trees adjacent to roads and public places will be prepared by the Council.

 

Council will also undertake planting within Reserves in accordance with Master Plans.

 

In terms of building height, this is already regulated through Condition 5.17 as follows, and in the area concerned allows for a maximum building height of 8m. 

 

The options that present themselves are therefore:

(1)  Do nothing i.e. retain Condition 5.17 in its current form,

(2)  Amend Condition 5.17 to accommodate the recommendations of Isthmus Group,

(3)  Consider further amendments in addition to those recommended by Isthmus Group. 

 

On the basis of the expert opinion of Isthmus Group, and in acknowledging the matters raised in consultation, the ‘do nothing option’ is not considered appropriate.

 

Similarly, as Isthmus Group have not recommended any further mitigation that would raise the need to amend other bulk and location Conditions as provided for under Option (3), Option (2) of amending Condition 5.17 to limit height to 6m within a 30m wide strip along the Orotu Drive interface is proposed as follows:

 

5.17 Height

 

1.      The following maximum height conditions shall apply to all land uses, other than aerials, lines and support structures:

a)         Any part of a building or structure must not exceed 8 metres in height, except that:

iii)    For sites within the Orotu Drive Height Restriction Zone as shown on the Structure Plan in Appendix 27A, any part of a building or structure must not exceed 6 metres in height.

 

All other sub-clauses of Condition 5.17 will remain unaffected. Condition 5.17(c) states “where there is conflict between any of the height control lines or limits, the lowest height must prevail.”

 

The expert advice from Isthmus Group has been relied on to address the concerns raised during consultation in regard to changes in visual outlook.  

 

 

6.2      Appropriateness of Sports Park Zone Provisions 

 

Rule 48.2 provides for the following to be undertaken as a Permitted Activity within the Sports Park Zone:

 

1.      The following land uses are permitted provided they comply in all respects with the relevant conditions in the Sports Park Zone activity table and condition table:

a)    Maintenance and repair of buildings and structures.

b)    Recreational activities.

c)     Vehicle parking areas.

d)    Activities identified in an approved management plan under the Reserves Act 1977.

e)    Activities identified on the Park Island Master Plan in Appendix 34 including commercial offices and commercial activities ancillary to sports activities undertaken on the Park.

 

In terms of (b), Recreational Activities are defined in the District Plan as:

“means any land and/or buildings whose primary use is for passive or active leisure, whether competitive or non-competitive, casual or organised, including shelter, public conveniences, the use of outdoor school grounds between the hours of sunrise and sunset, and other accessory buildings”

 

Sub clause (e) relates specifically to the Park Island Master Plan in which the area of the Sports Park Zone subject to this Plan Change is located. Commercial Activities, a referred to, are defined in the District Plan as:

“means the use of land and buildings for the display, offering, provision, sale or hire of goods, equipment or service and includes retailing, travellers’ accommodation, day care centre and off-licence premises and wholesale liquor outlets, but does not include education facilities or any business of prostitution”

 

As previously outlined, the Hawkes Bay Rugby Football Union are first sporting group to commit to development within the area. The Master Plan states that Hawkes Bay Rugby Union needs an operating base including offices for professional staff, meeting rooms and high-performance training facilities including seminar room, fitness gym, a covered training area with an artificial surface suitable for rugby activity, as well as facilities for related services such as sport massage and physiotherapy.

 

Although many of these activities are either identified on the Park Island Master Plan or fall within the definition of Commercial Offices, Commercial Activities or Recreational Activities as referred to in the Rule, to ensure the intentions of the Master Plan are enabled through Rule 48.2, it is proposed to amend sub clause (e) as follows:

e)      New buildings and activities identified on the Park Island Master Plan in Appendix 34 (including but not limited to; commercial offices, and commercial activities, gymnasiums, indoor sports facilities and healthcare centres provided they are ancillary to sports activities undertaken on the Park as either single or multiunit development activities).

 

Licensed Premises will continue to be classified as a Discretionary Activity under Rule 48.7(b), for which resource consent is required.

 

Also relevant to the efficient delivery of sport facilities is Condition 48.12, which limits the maximum floorspace of buildings as follows:

 

48.12 Floorspace

 

1.      The following floorspace condition shall apply to all land uses:

a)      The maximum floorspace of buildings on a site must not exceed 500m2 gross floor area.

b)      The maximum floorspace of buildings identified on the Park Island Master Plan is 1000m2 gross floor area.

 

The combined floorspace of existing buildings within the Southern Sports Hub is already in the order of 2,000m2, and 1,000m2 for the Central Sports Hub.  A rule limiting building floorspace to a maximum of 1,000m2 over the entire Master Plan area, which includes all three Sports Hubs, is not the most appropriate or efficient way to enable the provision of already identified and known sport facilities. This is particularly so when unduly limiting the floorspace of buildings has the potential to limit the integrated use of buildings by various codes which in itself would risk one of the Master Plan clearly stated intentions of avoiding the duplication of facilities.

 

There are a number of options to address this as follows:

(1)  Do nothing,

(2)  Remove the limitations,

(3)  Amend the limitations. 

 

As outlined above, the ‘do nothing’ option is not appropriate as any new building within the Master Plan would require a resource consent despite already being identified and anticipated in the Master Plan.

 

Removing the limitations altogether would result in no controls around the extent of buildings however, and this would pose a risk of unintended outcomes in the absence of a resource consent process to properly consider such proposals.

 

For this reason, it is proposed to retain a level of control but to amend the current provision. Although there are a number of options in this regard, the following key criteria have been considered to arrive upon a proposed approach:

(1)  The specified limit should allow for growth without resulting in overly obtrusive buildings or compromising the area for sport grounds,

(2)  Given the size of Park Island compared to other Sports Park Zones in the City and that the Master Plan separates it into three distinct Hubs, limits should apply on a ‘Hub’ basis. 

 

On the basis of the combined floorspace of existing buildings within the Southern Sports Hub already being in order to 2,000m2 without resulting in an obtrusive scale of building bulk, and that the Master Plan signals the need for additional buildings in the order of 2,000m2 gross floor area, it is proposed to amend the limit, per ‘hub, to 4,000m2 in order to enable the efficient delivery of the Master Plan outcomes.

 

Condition 48.12 is therefore proposed to be amended as follows:

 

48.12 Floorspace

 

1.      The following floorspace condition shall apply to all land uses:

a)      The maximum floorspace of buildings on a site must not exceed 500m2 gross floor area, except where:

b)      In Park Island the combined maximum floorspace of buildings within each Sports Hub, as identified on the Park Island Master Plan, must not exceed is 1000m2 4,000m2 gross floor area, provided:

i)    no one building shall exceed 2,000m2 gross floor area,

ii)   buildings exceeding 500m2 gross floor area shall be located no less than 30m apart.

 

The overall limit of 4,000m2 per ‘Hub’ will provide for the outcomes of the Master Plan, while the limit of 2,000m2 for each individual building together with existing provisions around yard setbacks and height will provide a control around the visual appearance of bulk. This limit has been based around the approximate size of the new building identified for the Southern Sports Hub.

 

The proposed separation control of 30 metres between large buildings is intended to avoid the conglomeration of bulk without compromising the benefits of consolidation and has been developed on the basis of the width of a Major Residential Road (18m) with the existing 6m front yard setback on either side to reflect a permitted baseline scenario.

 

Proposals that do not comply with these limits would be assessed on their merits and effects though the resource consent process.

 

The existing 10m maximum height and 6m yard setback provisions in Conditions 48.9 and 48.10 will remain. With these still in place, the proposed amendments are considered to be an appropriate and efficient way of providing for the outcomes of the Master Plan while having regard to the maintenance of visual amenity values.

 

In respect to the visual outlook from Orotu and Westminster Drives, it is also noted that any built development within the Northern Sports Hub under these provisions will be significantly less than the quantum of built development that is currently provided for under the existing residential zoning of this area.

6.3      Noise Arising from the Sports Park Zone

 

Noise arising from Sports Park Zones is currently regulated by Condition 48.13 as follows:

 

48.13 Noise

 

1.      The following noise conditions shall apply to all land uses, other than those exempted in Rule 57.9:

a)      All land uses within the zone must be conducted so as not to exceed the following limits at point within a residential zone:

Control Hours

Noise Level

0700 to 1900 hours

55 dB L Aeq (15 min)

1900 to 2200 hours

50 dB L Aeq (15 min)

2200 to 0700 hours the following day

45 dB L Aeq (15 min)

2200 to 0700 hours the following day

75 dB L AFmax

 

b)      All land uses must comply in all respects with the relevant conditions in Chapter 57 (Noise) of this Plan.

 

These limits are applied on a consistent basis to all Sports Park Zones within the City, many of which, like the Sports Park Zone subject to this Plan Change process in its existing location, adjoin residential Zones. On this basis, no amendments are considered necessary in regard to the managing the effects of the proposed reconfiguration.

 

It is also noted that under Rule 57.9.1 (b) that recreational activities of a normal recreational nature such as sporting events and playground activities are exempted from the maximum noise limits in any case.  This type of noise is likely to be the predominant one generated within the proposed Northern Sports Hub (irrespective of its location).

 

 

6.4      Light Spill Arising from the Sports Park Zone  

 

Locating the Northern Sports Hub along Westminster Avenue together with the proposed lighting plan requires light spill to be considered. Here the Master Plan states “with LED lighting technology not only are there are greater efficiencies, but also significant reductions in light spill from more directional lighting units. Based on this it is expected that potential effects on adjacent residential properties would be able to be satisfactorily resolved.”

 

Light Spill arising from Sports Park Zones is currently regulated by Condition 48.14 as follows:

 

48.14 Light Spill

 

1.      The following light spill conditions shall apply to all land uses other than for the purposes of illuminating a road:

a)      Between the hours of 2200 and 0700 the following day, any outdoor lighting must not cause an added illuminance in excess of 10 lux, measured horizontally or vertically as an average (at any window of a habitable space within a building located on any other site).

b)      The outdoor lighting must be so selected, located aimed, adjusted, screened and maintained to ensure that glare resulting from the lighting does not cause significant adverse effects on the occupants of residential activities, road users or aircraft.

 

NOTE: Where the measurement of any added illuminance cannot be made because any person refuses to turn off outdoor lighting, measurements may be made in locations which the Council considers is of a similar nature which are not affected by such outdoor lighting. Those measurements may be used to determine the added illuminance, if any, of the subject lighting. Measurement should be made in clear sky conditions, or should take into account the effect of weather conditions on illuminance.

 

The intentions of the Master Plan in terms of lighting have been considered by XYST in its report provided in Appendix 10. This involved preparing a lighting design and performing light spill calculations with all lights “on” at 100% power with no allowance for depreciation of light output. Based on design assumptions and report limitations it was concluded that the limits in Condition 48.14 can be complied with. This existing provision is therefore appropriate in terms of both enabling Sport Park activities and managing light spill effects.

 


 

7.     SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

 

Reconfiguring the Northern Sports Hub and developing Park Island in line with the 2016 Park Island Master Plan will improve the way in which the Council provides for and delivers sport facilities for the community.

 

Residential development alongside will remain within the area identified in HPUDS as an appropriate residential growth area and outcomes in this regard will be similar to those anticipated under the existing zoning scenario.

 

In summary, this section 32 evaluation confirms:

1.    Providing for residential development as proposed is appropriate as following:

     The area has already been identified as a suitable greenfield growth area for Napier in HPUDS and the RPS,

     The area will be serviced by existing and planned infrastructure,

     The expanded residential Zone will provide for residential growth within urban limits close to social infrastructure including community, education, sport and recreation facilities, public open space and employment opportunities,

2.    Whilst there are some perceived concerns in relation to traffic and changes in visual outlook, there is demonstrable community support for development of Park Island to meet sporting demand, 

3.    The proposed reconfiguration is an appropriate way to provide for the sustainable management of the City’s resources in terms of the purpose of the RMA.

4.    Adopting the existing provisions of the Sport Park and Main Residential Zones with minor amendments (as a means to mitigate any potential adverse effects) is as an efficient, effective and appropriate way to provide for and achieve the reconfiguration. 

 

Therefore, adoption of Plan Change 11 to the Napier District Plan is efficient, effective, and appropriate in terms of section 32 of the RMA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments a

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 1

 

 

Current and Proposed Park Island Master Plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 2

 

 

2017 Park Island Master Plan (Full Document)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 3

 

 

Current and Proposed Planning Maps

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 4

 

 

Community Engagement Report

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 5

 

 

Park Island Plan Change – Sport Provision Perspective

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 6

 

 

Visual Impact Assessment  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 7

 

 

Detailed Site Investigation - National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 8

 

 

Structure Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 9

 

 

Plan Change Edits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 10

 

 

Lighting Assessment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments b

 

Schedule of District Plan Amendments

 

Amend the following District Plan provisions by adding additional text shown in bold highlighted and underlined italics and deleting those provisions shown as struck through.

 

Amendments are shown in numerical District Plan order.

 

 

Chapter 4                  RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTS

 

 

Objective 4.7

 

Methods

 

(1)                District Plan Rules.

 

(2)                Other Methods.

 

The Council will prepare a brochure explaining the contribution of trees to the residential environment, offering guidance to the public on the planting, maintenance and suitability of tree species and explaining how and why certain activities can cause harm to trees.

 

The Council will work with local communities to develop road planting and maintenance programmes. In addition, a policy document for work affecting trees adjacent to roads and public places will be prepared by the Council.

 

Council will also undertake planting within Reserves in accordance with Master Plans.

 

 

 

Chapter 5                  MAIN RESIDENTIAL ZONE – RULES

 

 

5.1         Summary of Main Residential Zone Rules

 

             

Rule Number and Description

Classification

Page Number

Rule 5.13.1(e)

The establishment of any noise sensitive activity within the Airport Noise Boundary as shown on Planning Map G5 or Appendix 27 and 27A.

Discretionary

5

 

 

 

MAIN RESIDENTIAL ZONE – ACTIVITY TABLE

 

DISCRETIONARY ACTIVITIES

 

 

 

5.13     Discretionary Activities

 

1.   The following land uses are discretionary activities.  A resource consent application must be made and consent may be declined or granted with or without conditions.  The Council will have regard to the objectives and policies of this Plan and the assessment criteria in Chapter 12.  The Council’s discretion is unrestricted.

 

e)   The establishment of any noise sensitive activity within the Airport Noise Boundary as shown on Planning Map G5 or Appendix 27 and 27A.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MAIN RESIDENTIAL ZONE – CONDITION TABLE

 

CONDITIONS FOR PERMITTED ACTIVITIES AND CONTROLLED ACTIVITIES

Matters the Council will restrict its discretion to for restricted discretionary activities.

5.17     Height

 

1.    The following maximum height conditions shall apply to all land uses, other than aerials, lines and support structures:

 

a)   Any part of a building or structure must not exceed 8 metres in height, except that:

 

iii)  For sites within the Orotu Drive Height Restriction Zone as shown on the Structure plan in Appendix 27A, any part of a building or structure must not exceed 6 metres in height.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 48                           SPORT PARK ZONE

 

 

SPORTS PARK ZONE – ACTIVITY TABLE

 

PERMITTED ACTIVITIES

Matters the Council will restrict its discretion to for restricted discretionary activities.

48.2     Land Uses Generally

 

1.    The following land uses are permitted provided they comply in all respects with the relevant conditions in the Sports Park Zone activity table and condition table:

 

e)         New buildings and activities identified on the Park Island Master Plan in Appendix 34 (including but not limited to; commercial offices, and commercial activities, gymnasiums, indoor sports facilities and healthcare centres provided they are ancillary to sports activities undertaken on the Park as either single or multiunit development activities).

 

 

 

 

 

SPORTS PARK ZONE – CONDITION TABLE

 

CONDITIONS FOR PERMITTED ACTIVITIES AND CONTROLLED ACTIVITIES

Matters the Council will restrict its discretion to for restricted discretionary activities.

48.12   Floorspace

 

1.    The following floorspace condition shall apply to all land uses:

 

a)   The maximum floorspace of buildings on a site must not exceed 500m2 gross floor area except where:

 

b)  In Park Island the combined maximum floorspace of buildings within each Sports Hub, as identified on the Park Island Master Plan, must not exceed is 1000m2 4,000m2 gross floor area, provided:

 

i)    no one building shall exceed 2,000m2 gross floor area,

 

ii)   buildings exceeding 500m2 gross floor area shall be located no less than 30m apart.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INDEX OF APPENDICES

 

 

STRUCTURE PLANS

 

27        Lagoon Farm, Citrus Grove, and Park Island Structure Plan 28A Lifestyle Character Zone Structure Plan

27A   Parkland West Structure Plan

28A   Lifestyle Character Zone Structure Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Add new Structure Plan 27A

 

Appendix 27A - Parklands West Structure Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Appendix 34                  Park Island Master Plan

 

Add the following text to the fourth paragraph of the Explanation to Appendix 34

 

Explanation

 

The Northern Hub will adjoin the next stages of the Parklands subdivision and the master plan has considered how the interface between the two activities can be successfully achieved. In particular, planting as recommended in the Isthmus Group September 2017 report will be undertaken by Council within the Reserve alongside Orotu Drive ahead of development wherever practicable within this area.


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments b

 

Delete existing Park Island Masterplan and replace with new 2017 Masterplan.

 

Park Island Master Plan 2017


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments c

 

Current Park Island Master Plan

 

Proposed Park Island Master Plan



Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments d

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments e

 



Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments f

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments f

 


 


 


 


 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments f

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments f

 


 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments g

 


 


 


 


 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments g

 


 


 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments h

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 



Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments i

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments i

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments i

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments i

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments i

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments i

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments i

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments i

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments i

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments i

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments i

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments i

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments i

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments i

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments i

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments i

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments i

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments i

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments i

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments i

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments i

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments i

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments i

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments i

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments i

 



Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments a

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 



Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments a

 



Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments a

 


 


 


 


 



Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments a

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments a

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments a

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments a

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments a

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments a

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments a

 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments a

 



Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 1

Attachments a

 


 


 


 


 


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Open Agenda                                                                                                                                      Item 2

2.    Temporary Liquor Ban - Christmas in the Park

Type of Report:

Legal and Operational

Legal Reference:

Local Government Act 2002

Document ID:

400881

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Hayleigh Brereton, Manager Regulatory Solutions 

 

2.1   Purpose of Report

To consider the request from the New Zealand Police for a temporary liquor ban at Anderson Park and the surrounding roads during 2017 Christmas in the Park event.

 

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council

 

a.     Approve, pursuant to section 147 of the Local Government Act 2002 and the Napier City Council Public Places Liquor Control Bylaw 2014, the following areas as a “Specified Public Place” where consumption, possession and bringing of alcohol into is prohibited from 1200 hours on the 9th December 2017 to 2359 hours on the 9th December 2017.

b.     That the following areas be designated as “Specified Public Place” are all those public, places, reserves, roads and footpaths on both sides of the road within the area described as;

·         Auckland Road         from Lannie Place to York Avenue

·         Freyberg Avenue      from York Avenue to Islington Place

·         Islington Place          full length

·         Kennedy Road          from Auckland Road to Taradale Road and 424                                    Kennedy Road

·         Taradale Road          from Kennedy Road to adjacent to the boundary of 362                        & 360 Taradale Road

·         York Avenue              from Auckland Road to Freyberg Avenue

 

c.     That a DECISION OF COUNCIL is required urgently to ensure a decision is made before the event takes place on 9 December 2017. This will require the following resolution to be passed before the decision of Council is taken:

That, in terms of Section 82 (3) of the Local Government Act 2002, that the principles set out in that section have been observed in such manner that the Napier City Council considers, in its discretion, is appropriate to make decisions on the recommendation.

 

 

Chairperson’s Recommendation

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

2.2   Background Summary

The application is made pursuant to Councils Public Places Liquor Control Bylaw 2014 Clause 4 which states:

 

“From time to time additional areas may be designated as a Specified Public Place for particular time periods, related to specified events or times of the year.  Where additional areas are so designated, a minimum of 14 days public notice shall be given prior to the event or particular time of years, specifying the additional areas, and the period when the specification applies. Public notices shall also be affixed in or adjacent to the additional specified public place(s) at such times that the liquor control applies.” [Extract]

 

The request has been made by Senior Sergeant Ross Smith of the New Zealand Police. Police are requesting that a temporary liquor ban is imposed on the roads adjacent to Anderson Park during the 2017 Christmas in the Park event.

 

The temporary liquor ban would encompass all public places, reserves, roads and footpaths on both sides of the road within the areas described as:

Auckland Road

from Lannie Place to York Avenue

Freyberg Avenue 

from York Avenue to Islington Place

Islington Place

full length

Kennedy Road 

from Auckland Road to Taradale Road and 424 Kennedy Road

Taradale Road

from Kennedy Road to adjacent to the boundary of 362 & 360 Taradale Road

York Avenue

from Auckland Road to Freyberg Avenue

 

        Please refer to the map at Attachment A.

                    

2.3   Issues

The temporary liquor ban is at the request of the Police (see attachment B). If approved appropriate signage is required to be displayed at all major entry points to the ban area prior to the initiation of a temporary liquor ban.

In previous years Christmas in the Park events, Council has imposed a temporary liquor ban.

2.4   Significance and Consultation

N/A

2.5   Implications

Financial

N/A

Social & Policy

N/A

Risk

There is risk if the temporary liquor ban is not approved that the police may not be able to effectively reduce any incidents of alcohol related harm.

2.6   Options

The options available to Council are as follows:

a.     That the application be approved.

b.     That the application be approved with amendments.

c.     That the application be declined.

2.7   Development of Preferred Option

The preferred option is the temporary liquor ban for the annual Christmas in the Park event be approved in the form described above. This option is at the request of the Police and would be enforced by the Police at the event.

 

2.8   Attachments

a     Temporary Liquor ban - Christmas in the Park map 2017

b     Temporary Liquor Ban - Request from NZ Police   


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 2

Attachments a

 



Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Attachments

 

Item 2

Attachments b

 


 

      


Regulatory Committee - 22 November 2017 - Open Agenda

PUBLIC EXCLUDED ITEMS

 

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

AGENDA ITEMS

1.         Property Acquisition - 286 Hastings Street, Napier

 

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:

General subject of each matter to be considered.

 

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter.

 

Ground(s) under section 48(1) to the passing of this resolution.

 

1.  Property Acquisition - 286 Hastings Street, Napier

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.

 

 


NAPIER CITY COUNCIL

Civic Building

231 Hastings Street, Napier

Phone:  (06) 835 7579

www.napier.govt.nz

 

Regulatory Committee

 

 

Open

MINUTES   

 

 

Meeting Date:

Wednesday 30 August 2017

Time:

3.54pm – 4.25pm

Venue:

Taradale Town Hall

Lee Road

Taradale

 

 

Present:

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

In Attendance:

Chief Executive, Director City Strategy, Director Infrastructure Services, Director Corporate Services, Director Community Services, Manager Communications and Marketing, Manager Business Transformation and Excellence, Manager Regulatory Solutions, Manager City Development, Policy Planner

Administration:

Governance Team

 

 

 


 

Apologies

 

Apologies

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors Brosnan/ Wright

That the apology from Deputy Mayor Faye White and Cr Graeme Taylor be accepted.

CARRIED

 

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

There were no new declarations of interest made; those already declared in relation to the Freedom Camping item were carried over.

Public forum

Nil

Announcements by the Mayor

Nil

Announcements by the Chairperson

Nil

Announcements by the Management

Nil

Confirmation of Minutes

Councillors Wise / Brosnan

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 July 2017 were taken as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

CARRIED

 

Notification and Justification of Matters of Extraordinary Business

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda Items

1.    Freedom Camping Working Group Recommendations

Type of Report:

Legal and Operational

Legal Reference:

Local Government Act 2002

Document ID:

382371

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Kim Anstey, Planner Policy/Analyst

Paulina Wilhelm, Manager City Development

 

1.1   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council adopt the Napier City Council Freedom Camping Working Group recommendations to manage freedom camping in Napier.

 

At the Meeting

Cr Price noted an interest in the Foreshore site, and directed his comments to the Westshore site only.

The Chair invited Cr Hague, Chair of the Freedom Camping Working Group, to speak to the item. Cr Hague provided an overview of the process undertaken and noted that the recommendations brought to Council today are supported by the majority of the Group but consensus was not reached; an indication of the complexity of the matter at hand. The officers involved were thanked for the support they had provided to the Working Group. 

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

·         The numbers of freedom campers in the area were calculated form observations across the city and not just allocated sites.

·         If the recommendations are not passed into resolution by Council the status quo is maintained, including the current number of berths at each site.

 

Councillors made the following points in their discussion on the item:

·         The current Bylaw has not been in place long enough to have been tested fully; the proposed changes provide the opportunity to assess a peak season with reduced sites, following which the success or otherwise of the approach can be reviewed.

·         Freedom Camping is under discussion not just in Napier but at a national level and it is yet to be seen what legislative changes may be made in this space.

·         Napier is relatively small in size and there are only so many options where the approximately 6,600 campers per 3 months can be directed. It is expected that numbers of campers will only grow.

·         The different sites were looked at from a ‘footprint’ perspective; hence, the non-self-contained camper site has more berths as overall the size of the vehicles tends to be much smaller.

·         Having created the Working Group and tasked them with making considered recommendations, Council would be best to then listen to the recommendations made.

Concerns expressed were primarily centred around a need to protect local ratepayers, rather than prioritising campers. There were no complaints about camp grounds that did not have residents overlooking them. Trepidation was also expressed that bad behaviours will continue around Westshore and that reducing the number of berths will only create expensive and challenging monitoring requirements.

 

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors Hague / Boag

That the Council

a.       Adopt the following working group recommendations:

i.    That the current provision of freedom camping sites for self-contained vehicles be confirmed.

ii.    That the foreshore reserve site for non-self-contained vehicles be reduced from 35 spaces to 8 clearly marked spaces from 1 November 2017.

iii.   That officers report back to Council on the monitoring outcomes for the foreshore reserve non-self-contained site by May 2018.

b.       That the revised programme of non-regulatory and regulatory methods and tools to manage freedom camping over the coming summer be undertaken and monitored.

 

CARRIED

Crs Price and McGrath against

Cr Dallimore abstained

 

 

2.    Set Time Restrictions for Riverside Park Parking

Type of Report:

Legal and Operational

Legal Reference:

Traffic Regulations

Document ID:

380071

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Hayleigh  Brereton, Manager Regulatory Solutions 

 

2.1   Purpose of Report

To consider enforcing P120 time restriction for parking at the recreational facilities at Riverside Park.

 

At the Meeting

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

·         Although the riverside parking area is separate from other parking areas in Taradale, the beat is still readily accessible for the parking officers in that area. 

·         There is no desire to penalise those using the bike trails and infringement notices may be appealed by those who are bona fide cyclists.

·         Flyers will be placed on windscreens around the area and communications will take place with EIT on the change.

 

 

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors Wise / Wright

a.       That a P120 time restriction apply to the Riverside Park parking area accessed from Gloucester Street.

 

CARRIED

 

 

3.    Annual Dog Control Report 2016/17

Type of Report:

Legal

Legal Reference:

Dog Control Act  1996

Document ID:

380169

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 2016 – 30 June 2017, 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  

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

·         With regards to the nature of complaints “worrying stock” referred to incidents where dogs were worrying stock and “other stock” referred to incidents involving stock other than dogs, for example where an animal had been found on the road.

·         The wording in the report draws directly from terms used when someone reported an incident, so it may have been reported as a “dog attack” when investigation sometimes found that this was not necessarily the case. Reporting will be refined to address this in future.

·         Officers are very proud of the increased number of dogs rehomed this year.

·         Councils are not required to report on all the areas we cover in our report. However, other Councils’ statistics will be available over the next couple of months allowing for a comparison in areas such as numbers euthanised.

·         While education continues to be important, the statistics demonstrate that a regulatory presence is still required in relation to dogs.

 

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors Brosnan / Price

a.       That the Napier City Council Annual Dog Control Report 2016/17 be adopted by Council, submitted to the Secretary for Local Government, and published in accordance with the Dog Control Act 1996. 

 

CARRIED

 

 

 

4.    City Strategy Regulatory Activity Reports

Type of Report:

Information

Legal Reference:

N/A

Document ID:

374549

Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Hayleigh  Brereton, Manager Regulatory Solutions

Malcolm Smith, Manager Building Consents

Paul O'Shaughnessy, Team Leader Resource Consents

 

4.1   Purpose of Report

To provide an information update on regulatory activity in the city in each quarter. The attached reports covers cover the quarters from 1 January until 31 March 2017 and 1 April until 30 June 2017.

 

At the Meeting

In response to questions from Councillors, it was advised that the response from Police had been mixed to noise complaints; they attend when they can, but there had been a reduction in seizures over the last two quarters. It was noted that the public need to be able to rely on Police to respond promptly.

 

More formal detail will be provided in future reports on commercial and residential consents.

Committee's Recommendation

Councillors Brosnan / Wright

That Council

a.   Receive the Quarterly City Strategy Regulatory Activity Report for the period 1 January 2017 to 31 March 2017.

b.   Receive the Quarterly City Strategy Regulatory Activity Report for the period 1 April 2017 to 30 June 2017.

 

CARRIED

  

The meeting closed at 4.25pm. 

 



[1] A total of 219 lots are approved across the existing Northern Main Residential Zone under Subdivision Consent RMS15019, and based on an average yield of 15 lots or dwellings per hectare pursuant to POL UD8(a) of the RPS, the southern area could accommodate approximately 112 lots, giving a combined total of approximately 331 lots.

 

[2] Rational Transport Soc Inc v New Zealand Transport Agency HC Wellington CIV-2011-485-2259, 15 December 2011.