AUCKLAND

COUNCIL

DECISION OF THE HEARINGS COMMISSIONERS FOR:

PROPOSED PRIVATE PLAN CHANGE 37 - PATUMAHOE HILL STRUCTURE PLAN AREA - FRANKLIN SECTION OF THE AUCKLAND COUNCIL
DISTRICT PLAN. The Hearings Commissioners were: Mr Greg Hill (Chair), Mr Mark Farnsworth and Mr Harry Bhana. The Hearing was held on 11th to the 13th September inclusive. The three commissioners undertook a joint site visit on the 13th September prior to closing the hearing. The hearing formally closed on 16th September 2013. 1. Summary of the Decision The Commissioners have decided that: Proposed Private Plan Change 37 (PPC37) to the Auckland District Plan (Franklin Section) (ADP:FS) be APPROVED, subject to the amendments made as set out in the attached Plan Change document. The text of the Plan Changes in terms of our decision is attached. We note that most of the changes made to the provisions of the notified version of PPC37 were identified at the hearing (and largely agreed by the Applicant). We set out below those changes that we accepted which include the majority accepted or offered by the Applicant at the hearing. However further changes have been made by us. We set these out in summary here so that the rest of this decision can be read in context. The main changes we have made, that were not already agreed at the hearing by the Applicant, include: The deletion of the proposed commercial zoning (1750m2) and its replacement with the Village residential zoning, The removal of the restriction of no private open space between the dwelling and Kingseat Road (54.9.6.9 (3), and The removal of the words Potential Summit Viewing Area from the Landscape Concept Plan Diagram 54 D(VIII). The reasons for this are set out below. The addition of the following assessment in 54.9.5.2.8.1 Discretionary (RA) Activities Cultural and Heritage Values

2.

Delegation The Commissioners were delegated full responsibility by the Auckland Councils Hearings Committee to make decisions on submissions on PPC 37 pursuant to section 34A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

-2-

3.

Summary of the Plan Change Relevant Regional District Plan/s of Auckland Council Status of document or Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin Section) the Operative

Number and name of Plan Patumahoe Hill Structure Plan Area Plan Change Private Plan Change 37 to the Auckland Council District Change / Variation Plan (Franklin Section) We note that a resource consent seeking a Variation to the existing Network Stormwater Discharge Consent for the Patumahoe Area was heard and decided by us concurrent with this Plan change. The decision on that application, while made concurrently with the decision on this Plan change has been issued as a separate decision. Type of Change Plan Change: Private Plan Change.

Date of or adoption for 15 May 2012 notification Parts (sections) of Plan Text affected by the Change Map Other Date of notification Private Plan Change of 15 May 2012 19 Part 54.9 Diagrams 54.9 55 Diagram 54.D(I-VII)

Submissions received (total Submissions numbers) Date summary of 31 July 2012 submissions notified Number of submissions (numbers) further 1 received

Summary of the main issues or topics emerging from the submissions

Strategic issues/ Need for Growth Character and Amenity Design Cultural Social Effects Urban Design/Design Transport Infrastructure Provisions Stormwater Soils Reverse Sensitivity Consultation

-3-

We note that the format of decision beyond reflects this list of the main issues raised in submissions.

4.

The Hearing and Appearances Hearing The hearing was held on the 11th to the 13th September 2013 inclusive at the Pukekohe Service Centre (Council Chamber) Manukau Road. The hearing was closed on the 16th September 2013.

Hearing Closed

The following people appeared at the hearing Council Officers: Lisa Myers Carolyn Wratt Claire Wingfield John Gottler Jessica Laing Rob Pryor Gemma Chuah Wendy Stephenson Reporting Officer Reporting Officer Reporting Officer Traffic Engineer Urban Designer Landscape Architect Reporting Officer Democracy Advisor Hearings

For the applicant:

Greg Milner-White (Legal Counsel) Jonathan Cutler (Planner) Bruce and Trevor McMiken (Applicants) Stuart Crosswell (Planner) Tony Reynolds (Environmental Scientist) Bruno Petrenas (Engineer) Bridget Gilbert (Landscape Architect) Scott Fraser (Soil Scientist) Tim Heath (Property Consultant) Mike Savage (Legal Counsel for Searle Holdings Ltd), with Mr Lawrie (surveyor). Scott MacArthur (Senior Transport Planner) and Mr Moller for Auckland Transport Lucie Rutherford, Karl Flavell and Dennis Kirkwood Ngati Tamaoho and Ngati Te Ata Waiohua Paula Crosswell, Andrew Sinclair, Sam Sinclair and Vicki Lacy Patumahoe Village Inc. Louise Brotherton

Submitters:

5. 5.1

Overview of the Plan Change Applicants Proposal and Evidence, the Officers Section 42A report and Submitters Evidence. We received extensive and detailed information from the Applicant in terms of their application (including the thorough section 32 report with supporting expert/technical reports and evidence); the officers detailed and helpful section 42A report; and information and evidence from the submitters.

-4-

We record here that we have, in approving PPC 37, adopted the application material and the officers section 42A report (which recommends that the plan change be approved) as part of this decision, expect as otherwise stated. That is - we generally agree with the contents of those documents, and so as not to extensively repeat it, we have adopted it into this decision. We address this and the concerns raised by submitters below. 5.2 Introduction As fully set out by the Applicant, the purpose of PPC37 is the expansion of Patumahoe Village1 by approximately 9.93 hectares of land, by re-zoning this land from its current Rural Zoning to Village and Village Business Zones2 and to integrate the Patumahoe Hill Structure Plan into Part 54.9 of the District Plan. PPC37 as notified would enable 70 residential lots3 and 1750m2 of commercial area. The request also proposed amendments to some of the existing Patumahoe Structure Plan provisions that apply to both the existing and the proposed structure plan areas. PPC37 is underpinned by a structure planning process which provides a vision and framework for the development of the site. Development is required to be in accordance with the structure plan. The structure plan diagram as proposed for Part 54.9 has the following components: A total of 9.93 hectares of land A 3,200m2 central neighbourhood park 1.13 hectares of rural-urban buffer with a minimum of 20m intended for walking and horse riding located on the western boundary of the site A road network with connections to Maukau, Kingseat and Day Roads A potential stormwater management area should this be required in the northeastern corner of the site 1,750m2 of Village Business zoned land 5.9 hectares of Village zoned land A transport network with alternative modes of transport such as walking and cycling In addition to the structure plan (and supporting diagrams to be inserted into the District Plan), the plan change also relies on the existing Village Zone and Village Business Zone provisions (both for subdivision and land use), although the plan change proposes specific amendments relating to the Patumahoe Hill Structure Plan. Amendments to provisions include: A description of the structure plan area Resource management issues Objectives Policies
1 2

24 Kingseat Road and the eastern portion of the property at 36A Kingseat Road We have deleted the commercial zoning from this land, and applied the Village zoning to it to enable it to be used for residential purposes.

-5-

Explanations Implementation methods Activity classifications Development and performance standards for subdivision Assessment criteria for subdivision activities Performance standards for residential land use activities Performance standards for business land use activities Design diagrams 54.D(I-VII) PPC37 also amends Map 55 to reflect the re-zoning of the site. The details of PPC37 were set out in detail in the application and in the Council Officers section 42A report. We adopt the descriptions, explanation and background in those documents and do not repeat them in any detail here. 5.3 Location and Existing Environment Patumahoe Village is located approximately 40km south of the Auckland Central Business District. It is a rural village surrounding by predominantly pastoral and cropping enterprises. It has in recent years had a significant amount of land subdivision for residential purposes, with many of the sites having been built on. Evidence from the Applicant4 states that of the 85 available vacant lots, by July 2013 there were only 15 available lots. The village itself and the surrounding local area is flat to moderately rolling in contour and has a series of relatively shallow meandering stream gullies. However the PPC site comprises 9.93 hectares of the north eastern slopes of Patumahoe Hill which is an eroding volcanic cone. The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of residential and rural uses, rural cropping to the west of the site and residential uses on the opposite side of Kingseat Road. The site is currently used for cropping and has three existing dwellings; one at 24 Kingseat Road and two at 36 Kingseat Road. The dwellings and other buildings are reasonably significant features in the landscape, being highly visible for the surrounding area. In terms of mature vegetation, there are several isolated trees and some hedging. Stormwater from the site flows into two separate catchments - the Patumahoe catchment to the east and Mauku catchment to the west. The plan change site is entirely contained within the Patumahoe stormwater catchment. 6. 6.1 Statutory Requirements Overview As the Plan Change was notified after 1 October 2009, it has been considered under the provisions of RMA as amended by the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009.
3 4

Due to the deletion of the Business zoned land we have increased the residential yield from 70 to 73. Mr Cutler paragraph 40 of his evidence.

-6-

The key provisions for consideration of a change to the District Plan are sections 32, 75 and 76 of the Act, Part 2 and the second Part of the First Schedule to the Act. These are all addressed below. The proposed plan changes have been considered in light of the relevant statutory matters. These were summarised by the Environment Court in Long Bay-Okura Great Park Society Incorporated and Others v North Shore City Council (Decision A078/2008) where the Court set out the measures for evaluating objectives, policies, rules and other methods in the various planning documents. These were detailed in the officer report provided to us and we have not repeated them here. In addition to the matters from the Long Bay decision: (i) (ii) (iii) The Plan must give effect to any national policy statement and any New Zealand coastal policy statement (s75 (3) (a) and (b)). The Plan must give effect to the regional policy statement (s75 (3) (c)). The Plan must be not inconsistent with any regional plan (s75 (4)).

The matters above and the relevant provisions of the First Schedule have been incorporated into our decision. All submissions lodged on the plan change, the Councils reports evaluating the plan change proposal and its potential effects, and the evidence presented at the hearing have all been taken into account and, as with the statutory provisions, while they may not necessarily be expressly referred to, they have nevertheless been taken into account when making our decision. 6.2 Section 32 Section 32 seeks to ensure that the costs and benefits of proposed plan provisions are considered and that the proposed controls are justified. Each objective that is proposed has to be examined with regard to the extent to which it is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA. Any rules or other methods should be aimed at achieving the objectives and policies. This assessment must take account of the benefits and costs of the proposed policies, rules or other methods and the risk of acting, or not acting, if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of those policies, rules or other methods5. To meet the section 32 requirements, an assessment report must be prepared on the content of the proposed plan change6 before the change is notified. The hearing itself forms part of the section 32 process. A detailed section 32 assessment was provided by the Applicant with respect to the private plan change. The section 32 assessment was accompanied by a range of specialist reports which examined the plan changes in terms of the principal issues and the effects on the environment from those proposed changes. These included the: Patumahoe Hill Planning Context report, Design Brief, Land Use/ Soil Capacity Report,

5 6

Section 32(4) Section 32(1)(d)

-7-

Site Contamination Report, Archaeological Assessment, Cultural Impact Assessment, Stormwater Modelling Report, Services Capability Report, Landscape and Visual Assessment, Integrated Transport Assessment, Population and Land Uptake Report, Patumahoe Commercial Centre Assessment, and Geotechnical Investigation Report.

A key issue for us in section 32 terms is whether the proposed land use zone change provides an appropriate management regime. We set out our findings in relation to section 32 below. 7. Overall Findings and our Decision We have considered the PPC37 in terms of the requirements of section 32 RMA, including in terms of s32(3): (a) (b) the extent to which each objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of this Act; and whether, having regard to their efficiency and effectiveness, the policies, rules, or other methods are the most appropriate for achieving the objectives.

and in terms of s32(4): (a) (b) the benefits and costs of policies, rules, or other methods; and the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, rules, or other methods.

We have borne in mind the other relevant matters as identified in Long Bay-Okura Great Park Society Inc v North Shore City Council A78/08 as cited to us by counsel, which direct us also to consider the requirements and matters for assessment in: (a) (b) Schedule 1 to the RMA; and Sections 74, 75 and 76 (district plan provisions).

We also accept Counsels submissions7 that Overall, you must weigh up all of the relevant considerations both for and against PPC 37 and the status quo, and then decide which better achieves the purpose of the RMA (our emphasis).

Mr Milner-White, paragraph 32 of Legal Submissions.

-8-

We accept the section 32 assessments that have been presented to us by the Applicant and which are the subject of the submissions and evidence before us, including the Council officers report pursuant to section 42A of the RMA. Subject to the changes we have made to the plan change provisions, the main changes being identified at the beginning of this decision report, and for the reasons set out below, we find that the plan change satisfies the section 32 requirements, and we have approved it accordingly. We note here that we have also granted the resource consent (a section 127 Application a change of conditions) to the Auckland Council (Applicant) to amend the existing Network Discharge Consent. The essential change to the existing consent is to incorporate the area covered by PPC37. A separate decision has been written for this resource consent. 8. 8.1 Strategic Growth Considerations /Need for Growth Overview This section addresses all of those submissions set out in the officers report under the heading of General (that are not otherwise more specifically addressed in the other sections below) and Need for Growth. This section therefore addresses all of those submissions regarding the overall strategic planning for Auckland, the need to accommodate growth in Auckland and how this relates to Patumahoe. Expert reports and evidence were presented to us by the Applicant mainly from Mr Cutler (planner) of McCormick Rankin Cagney and included the report Population Growth and Land Uptake Report - January 2011. This was in terms of the strategic growth considerations for Auckland, the population and demographic changes likely with respect to Auckland and Patumahoe and the need for additional land to accommodate and/or provide for this growth. This was supported by the Councils expert planners. We set out our findings below. 8.2 The Auckland Plan The Auckland Plan provides a development strategy for the region, including how growth in rural areas is to be managed. Section D of the Auckland Plan requires the focus of future rural population growth be on existing towns and villages with eight rural and coastal towns being expected to have limited growth (including Patumahoe), particularly where they can be readily serviced with infrastructure. They are to provide for additional growth on a scale that is appropriate to their local character, the sensitivity of their surroundings, and the practicality of providing isolated infrastructure. 8.3 The Auckland Regional Policy Statement The Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS) is the key strategic document which seeks to delineate and contain Aucklands urban area; in terms of its form, urban efficiency and to protect the important natural resources present in the rural parts of the region. The Act and the ARPS, via the now operative Change 6 to the ARPS, requires integrated land use planning as part of any proposal expand rural villages to accommodate Auckland Growth. This has been provided by the Applicant in terms of its section 32 report and accompanying specialist reports. There was no disagreement between the Applicants or the Councils expert planners, on the strategic context of the proposal in terms of the relevant higher order strategic provisions and policies of the Auckland Plan and the ARPS. Chapter 2 (Regional Overview and Strategic Direction) of the ARPS is the most relevance to this plan

-9-

change request. It is the provisions of this chapter that integrates the issues, objectives and policies of the many other chapters in the context of the Strategic Direction for the Auckland Region. In our view PPC37 gives effect to the ARPS in that the proposed extension to Patumahoe is contiguous with the existing settlement, it can be serviced, the new boundary is defensible, it is not on elite soil (but we accept it is high quality - and this is addressed in the section titled Versatile Soils) and, based in the expert evidence we received from the Applicant and supported by the Councils experts, there is a demonstrated need for additional residential land to be provided. In addition, urban design outcomes are central to the design principles introduced by PPC37. PPC37 will in our view achieve integrated resource management within the Auckland Region, specifically via the structure planning process. Moreover both the ARPS and Auckland Council Regional Plan: Air, Land and Water (ARP:ALW) promote the integrated management of stormwater management and urban growth planning, particularly through Integrated Catchment Management Planning. Stormwater management is separately addressed below. However we note that concurrent to the Plan Change process we have also considered and granted a variation to the Network Discharge Consent for the Patumahoe catchment. 8.4 Auckland Council District Plan: Franklin Section We also note that the objectives and policies of the Auckland Council District Plan: Franklin Section (District Plan) identifies Patumahoe as a key village in terms of accommodating population growth within the District. The District Plan promotes this through a structure planning process, as proposed by PPC37. Part 3D of the District Plan sets out Objectives for the management of managing growth and with respect to towns and villages: Towns and Villages 3. To provide for the majority of growth, within or as an extension to, existing and planned towns and villages in a structured manner that supports nodal growth; 4. To provide directed and managed residential opportunities associated with the villages in a manner that reduces pressure to develop rural land and supports existing and planned villages; 5. Towns and villages should generally be managed in a flexible way to provide for a wide range of activities. Part 17B.2 outlines Village Growth Objectives, some of which are specific to Patumahoe and recognises the potential for growth in Patumahoe: 2. To manage town and village growth as follows: accommodate the majority of growth within the three main towns (Pukekohe, Waiuku and Tuakau) and identified key villages (Clarks Beach/Glenbrook Beach, Kingseat, Pokeno, Buckland, Patumahoe), through consolidation and expansion where appropriate. (our emphasis) 4. To recognise the significance of Clarks/Waiau/Glenbrook Beach, Kingseat and Patumahoe in the context of the Districts growth management. 8.5 Franklin District Growth Strategy

- 10 -

The Franklin District Growth Strategy (FDGS) is an important document in our view. The FDGS describes Patumahoe as: an established rural community, surrounded by commercial vegetable growing operations. The village has a distinct centre with a small commercial area. By 2051, Patumahoe has the potential to be more self sufficient and sustainable with a moderate population increase. It is close enough to the main towns to access employment opportunities whilst being far enough away to have its own distinct character and identity. With the number of productive and successful horticultural operations located around Patumahoe, the character of Patumahoe will be based on this primary production.

The FDGS, as shown above, identifies some of the Patumahoe Hill Structure Plan Area as a potential area to accommodate urban residential growth. In discussion at the hearing the Councils expert planner (Ms Wratt who had been involved in the development of the FDSG) advised us that the future development areas were indicative rather than specific, and were not based on capacity issues or landscape and visual issues, but rather a general indication that development on both sides of Kingseat Road was considered desirable for urban / village design purposes. The FDGS identifies that the population of Patumahoe is to increase from its level in 2004 of 633 people to 1,671 by 2051. In order to accommodate this level of growth an additional 18 hectares of land will need to be identified for future urban residential purposes. This is addressed in more detail below. It is our findings that the residential portion of PPC37 is in accordance with the vision and principles for Patumahoe outlined in the FDGS. The FDGS also identifies that an additional 3 hectares of business land is required by 2051 to provide adequate services and employment for the increased population. With respect to business land, we accept that at some stage additional business land will be needed. However for the reasons set out in more detail below, we are not convinced that what was proposed in terms PPC37 was appropriate and does not satisfy the section 32 tests. 8.6 Population Growth

- 11 -

A number of submissions questioned why additional land was needed, and that there was already adequate space/land within Patumahoe and that there were plenty of vacant sections in the newly subdivided areas of Patumahoe. The FDGS identified Patumahoe as the third largest village, accommodating 633 people in 2006. It projected that Patumahoe would attract around 1.5% of Franklins population growth by 2051, growing to 1,640 people by 2051, accommodated in 700 households. This constitutes 1,007 additional people living in 466 additional households by 2051. An analysis of the future population growth and demographics was outlined in the report Population Growth and Land Uptake Report (McCormick Rankin Cagney, 2011). The review of the existing land supply in Patumahoe showed that there had been very little land available for growth to occur which has constrained population growth. Since then a significant amount of land has been subdivided, and much of this has now been taken up. As pointed out in evidence by Mr Cutler, the Applicants planner,8 that since around November 2012, the sales of vacant lots have picked up and considerable construction has and is taking place. He sets out that in October 2012 there were 47 lots still available for sale (of the total 85 lots), but by July 2013 there were only 15 available lots. The appropriateness of the FDGS population figures was re-evaluated by the Applicant in that report using three growth scenarios; - low, medium and high levels of growth. Under the low growth scenario 226 additional household units would be required by 2025. Current residential-zoned land provides for 16 years supply. The medium growth scenario projected an addition 310 household units would be required by 2025. This equates to 8 additional hectares being required to provide the shortfall for 71 household units. The high growth indicated 388 additional household units would be required by 2025. This equates to 16 additional hectares being required to accommodate the 149 household shortfall. The report calculates that there is currently the following potential for additional sites to be created from vacant land, infill development and residential-zoned land: Capacity for Growth Study 2006 Patumahoe Adjusted Yield Potential Dwellings (2006) Vacant land and vacant potential dwellings 61 dwellings Existing structure plan capacity 170 dwellings Residential infill potential 8 dwellings Total household growth capacity in 2006 239 dwellings

Patumahoe modified capacity assessment

144 dwellings

(Source: Population Growth and Land Uptake Report (McCormick Rankin Cagney, 2011)) PPC37 as notified would enable the creation of an additional 709 dwellings maximum as contained in Assessment Criterion 54.9.5.2.1.4. An analysis of the future population growth and demographics was outlined in the report Population Growth and Land Uptake Report. It concluded that PPC37 would create a surplus of households up to
8 9

Mr Cutler paragraph 40 of his evidence. This has been amended to 73 lots given the deletion of the Village Commercial zoning proposed in PPC 37.

- 12 -

2025 in the low growth scenario. However if the population growth is higher than the low growth scenario, then additional land will be required to meet the 2025 demand and PPC37 could assist in accommodating this growth. Based on the analysis outlined in the Population Growth and Land Uptake Report, the land provided by PPC37 will be required to accommodate future population in all three scenarios beyond 2025. We accept this and note that no other evidence was provided to us to refute this evidence. 8.7 Is Patumahoe Hill the right location to expand the village? A number of submitters raised the issues that notwithstanding the need to accommodate future growth, Patumahoe Hill was not the right location to do this. This was mainly due to the landscape and visual aspects of the Hill and that many of the current residents considered an important landscape feature (as a volcanic cone) that should not be developed. Others were concerned about the loss of quality soils and the Iwi were concerned about the cultural values of the Hill. These matters are addressed in more detail in the following sections of this decision report. However we note here that while we can understand the concerns of these submitters, we accept that Patumahoe Hill: Is not identified in any planning documents are regionally significant (unlike a number of other volcanic cones), Is not designated as a significant local feature in the District Plan, Is note noted in the ARPS or the District Plan requiring this land to treated differently than any other rurally zoned land, Is a weathered and modified cone which has been farmed (and cropped) for many years, and Already has some built development on it dwellings and other farm buildings

In respect of the above we find that there are no specific strategic or policy provisions in the statutory documents that require us to treat Patumahoe Hill as anything other than a rurally zoned site. However we do address the other issues relating to cultural, landscape, visual amenity, soils and social effects below. 8.8 Village Business Zoning A number of submitters made submissions concerning various aspects of the Village Business Zone provisions. However one submitter, Searle Holdings Ltd, challenged the need for the Village Business zoning.Clause 11 of the submission stated: The proposals inclusion of an extension to the Village Business Zone is not appropriate either in terms of scale or location. Any additional activity should occur within the existing commercial centre and not be separated from the centre by the road intersections. There is sufficient land available for commercial development without extending across the intersection.10 Both the Applicant and the Council section 42A report relied upon the report and evidence of Mr Heath of Property Economics. The report and evidence focused only on the existing and potential demand for retail floor space in the Patumahoe Village. Mr Heath's primary conclusion was that the market would support the addition of 2 x 100 m shops by 2016 (refer his Table 3) but possibly more if growth in the catchment was greater than he had allowed. There was no analysis of the extent of vacant land
10

Submission by Searle Holdings Ltd dated 13 in June 2012 Pages 168-171 of Volume 2 of the agenda

- 13 -

zoned for Village Business purposes and no analysis of the potential for existing underdeveloped business zoned land to be redeveloped. The Applicant also relied on the FDGS which had indicated Patumahoe currently has 3 ha of business zoned land....... will require a further 1 ha by 2021 and another 2 ha by 205111 The section 42A report also references the FDGS indication that an additional 1ha of business zoned land is required by 2021 and another 2 ha by 205112. However we note that the basis for the FDGS estimate of 3 ha of additional land was based on predicted future employment of 100 additional jobs by 2051, of which only 10 would be from retail trade.13 The reporting planner relied on the Heath report conclusion that locating additional land at the intersection of Mauku and Kingseat Roads will strengthen the legibility and identity of the centre and will ensure a compact and contiguous commercial development around the centre. At 9.2.2.6 the reporting planner then refers to the Patumahoe Hill Structure Plan Urban Design Brief (MRC 2011) which states that "the Village Business Zone integrates and enhances the village centre. It ensures compact and contiguous commercial development around the centre to support a more vibrant and sustainable commercial and Civic Centre for the community, ensuring all commercial and community development is located in a cluster enabling it to be walkable...... Locating a commercial building(s) here will help define the corner as a minor activity node and increase legibility in the community.....14 Part 17 B .2 of the District Plan sets out the Village Growth Objectives. Objective 6 is "To safeguard the amenity values of the villages" 15 Part 17 B .3 .1 contains the Village Growth Policies - Policy 2(a) requires structure planning to build on existing activity and infrastructure and Policy 2 (c) provide opportunities for integrated design 8.9 Commissioners Findings Having considered the relevant provisions of the policy/planning documents (as set out by the Applicant and the reporting planners) including the Auckland Plan, the ARPS, the District Plan and the FDGS, we find, subject to the change we have made, that PPC 37: Meets the ARPS and Auckland Plans requirements for accommodating urban (residential) growth, Provides for urban development required to accommodate the predicted population growth within the Franklin District in a manner consistent with the regional and district strategic direction including the Auckland Plan and the FDGS, Gives effect to the FDGS, Provides for residential growth in a sustainable manner, Provides a range of densities and living environments,
11
12

Extract from the DGS set out at page 215 and 216 of Volume 4 of the agenda 9.2.2 on pages 085 & 086 of Volume 2 of the agenda. 13 discussion of DGS at pages 216 & 217 of Volume 4 of the agenda 14 Op.cit. 15 reference pages 192 and 193 of Volume 4 of the agenda

- 14 -

Provides an appropriate level of useable public open space, Introduces design assessment criteria to ensure a high quality urban environment, and Supports a safe, integrated and efficient transport network, accommodating a range of transport modes. With respect to the Village Business zoning, after having visited and inspected the existing commercially zoned land it is our finding that that the proposed zoning of Village Business in PPC37 will not integrate and enhance the village centre and will not ensure compact and contiguous commercial development around the centre.16 The site visit confirmed to us that the Searle submission was correct in indicating that further land was available for commercial development including three vacant sites off Fletcher Lane, a vacant retail building at the intersection of Mauku Road and Patumahoe Road (in the centre of the existing retail area) together with a number of relatively underdeveloped business zoned sites. In response to questions from the Panel, Mr Heath indicated that he did not consider the Fletcher Lane sites would be suitable for retail activities. We observe that this takes a somewhat narrow view of the purpose of the Village Business Zone. We do not see any evidential or policy basis to reject the Searle submission. Furthermore we do not accept that the business zoning proposed is the most effective or efficient way of achieving the District Plan objectives and policies. Accordingly we have deleted the Village Business zoning from PPC37 and applied the Village Residential zone instead. In terms of the structure plan this area is where the smaller sites (typically 600 to 800 m2) would be accommodated. As a consequence of deleting the Business zoning land, we have increased the total lot yield from 70 to 73. Overall, the expansion of the Villages urban zoning for residential purposes is supported and the additional land will be required to accommodate the projected population growth. The issue therefore is have the effects of the proposal been appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated as set out in section 5 Purpose of the RMA. These matters are addressed below. Our decisions on those submissions that are addressed above are: Those submissions supporting the plan change are accepted or accepted in part to the extent that we have made changes to PPC37 namely the deletion of the Business zoning, and Those submissions opposing the plan change and seeking it be declined in its entirely are rejected, Those submissions opposing the plan change, but seeking amendments are accepted in part to the extent that we have modified the plan change provisions. The details of this are those set out in this section and as addressed below.

9.0

Urban Design, Character and Amenity The application for the plan change included a comprehensive approach to integration of the development enabled by the plan change into the existing landscape and visual character of Patumahoe Village and a detailed set of provisions specifically targeted at ensuring appropriate urban design outcomes when the development was implemented. The application included a Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment prepared by Ms Bridget Gilbert, landscape architect.

16

9.2.2 on pages 085 & 086 of Volume 2 of the agenda

- 15 -

Ms Gilbert presented evidence confirming the assessment she had prepared in which she addressed various key aspects of the structure plan which had been in produced to effectively manage the landscape and visual effects of the proposal and secure a high quality urban design outcome. She described the detailed provisions in respect of the development layout, building controls, open space strategy, controls in regard to walls, fences, paving, lighting, and parking, and a landscape framework strategy.17 She concluded that the proposed structure plan, the principal component of the plan change, comprised a carefully considered and well-designed low-density, predominantly residential development with a small component of commercial development on the western edge and directly adjoining Patumahoe Village. She considered the site was appropriately located for such development in terms of its close proximity to the existing village and was of the view that the proposed landscape buffer along the western boundary would form a clearly legible and defendable urban edge that will also serve to reinforce the distinctive landform of Patumahoe Hill and form a vegetative backdrop in views of the new residential development for the catchment to the east. In her Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment, Ms Gilbert referenced the relevant provisions of the ARPS and the District Plan.18 We do not propose to repeat those references but acknowledge that they are comprehensive and her commentary on them is relevant. In broad terms the regional and district strategies acknowledge that provision is to be made for growth of identified rural villages (or villages which meet a specific range of criteria) and that they seek to protect and enhance rural landscape and rural village character. Ms Gilbert considered the development was consistent with Regional and District Plan objectives that seek to protect and enhance rural landscape and rural village character and that the development would give rise to landscape and visual effects that were considered to be no more than minor.19 Her assessment concluded that although the landscape effects of the development enabled by the plan change would be high in the short term (0-4 years) they would reduce to low in the medium to term (4 to 7 years) once planting had been established.20 A number of submitters raised the issue that it was inappropriate on landscape and visual amenity grounds for this part of Patumahoe Hill to be developed. While we understand submitters concerns; that this Hill has been undeveloped and is considered by some as a rural/landscape visual amenity, we have already said that Patumahoe Hill has no special status in any policy and planning documents. We further accept that if the PPC37 land is developed as set out in the structure plan, it will change the visual landscape of Patumahoe. The Applicant (and Ms Gilbert) accepts this; however we accept Ms Gilberts evidence as set out above. As partial mitigation, Patumahoe Village Inc, sought a viewing platform/mound at the top of the cone within the area of the buffer strip (to be public open space once vested in the Council). We acknowledge the considerable effort and commitment by these submitters; however for the reasons below we do not support the submitters request. Ms Gilbert did not support viewing platform/mound at the top of the cone from a landscape/visual perspective and considered it could be contrived and /or impact on the visual screening function of the buffer area. As stated, we have not incorporated
17
18

Pages 6 & 7 of Ms Gilbert evidence Section 5, Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment Patumahoe Hill Structure Plan, Bridget Gilbert, March 2011 19 Pages 17 & 18 of Ms Gilberts evidence 20 Page 12 of Ms Gilberts evidence.

- 16 -

this aspect into the plan change and have deleted the wording as suggested by Ms Gilbert if it were to be included Potential Submit Viewing Area. The deletion of these words does not mean we did not support the concept, and clearly some parts of the community would like it. However there is nothing that we can see that would preclude this from occurring. It is matter that should be discussed with the Council if this land is to be vested or with the Applicant should the land not be vested. 9.1 Commissioners Findings We find that Patumahoe Village is identified as a suitable location for controlled growth, subject to a range of policies and criteria to protect the amenity values of the villages and the landscape in rural character of that part of the district. The Applicants proposed plan change, subject to the amendments we have made, is consistent with those policies and criteria in regard to effects on landscape and rural character and on the amenity of Patumahoe Village. During the hearing some minor amendments were made to the detailed design provisions of PPC37. An important change clarified the intention that residential sites fronting Kingseat Road would have no more than 1.2m retaining wall and would not have impermeable fences. We agree that the amendments proposed, including the amendments relating to the Kingseat Road frontage, clarify and enhance the provisions which seek to achieve design outcomes which are compatible with the existing village and rural landscape. We consider that these provisions will ensure as far as practicable, a quality urban design outcome for the residential development which will be enabled by the plan change and will enable the development to comfortably fit within the character of the village with no long-term adverse effects on the amenity values of its residents. Our decisions on those submissions that are addressed above are: Those submissions supporting the plan change are accepted or accepted in part to the extent that we have made changes to PPC 37, Those submissions opposing the plan change and seeking it be declined in its entirely are rejected, and Those submissions opposing the plan change, but seeking amendments are accepted in part to the extent that we have modified the plan change provisions.

10

Cultural Values The Applicant had commissioned, and paid for, a Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA). This was prepared by Ms Rutherford (Resource Management Environmental Officer) and Mr Flavell (Kaitiaki Officer) on behalf of the Ngati Tamaoho Trust and Te Iwi o Ngati Te Ata Waiohua. The CIA noted that Ngati Tamaoho and Ngati Te Ata are mana whenua with regards to the proposed PHSPA and wider surrounds, and that the CIA would consider whether the proposal: Conflicted with our cultural, environmental and social values and our traditional relationship to our taonga within the Patumahoe and Mauku district. Degrade or adversely impact upon our waahi taonga (natural and physical resources) and our waahi tapu.

- 17 -

Visually and physically compromise the integrity of significant landscapes and natural features including landforms, ridgelines, trees, bush, wetlands, waterways, and any other natural outstanding features. Three key considerations drove their approach namely21: 1. The mana of our people is upheld, acknowledged and respected; 2. Our people have rangatiratanga (opportunity to participate, be involved and contribute to decision making) over our ancestral taonga; and 3. As kaitiaki we fulfil our obligation and responsibility to our people (current and future generations) as custodians, protectors and guardians of our cultural interests and taonga. The CIA provided an overview of tnga whenuas historical relationship with the Patumahoe area, and provided the Applicant with recommendations on: water; wastewater; reserves; lot sizes; and the potential visual impact of built form on the volcanic cone. The CIA concluded by noting that if the Council saw fit to approve the plan change in its present format there were specific recommendations that tngta whenua wanted implemented. It was the tngata whenuas view that the CIA, and in particular its recommendations, would provide the means for Ngati Tamaohos and Ngati Te Atas ongoing participation and involvement with the proposal when developing the various management plans and future related consents. The CIA concluded22: On this assessment basis, we are not opposed in principle to the PHSPA proposal and process being undertaken by T.K. and B.W. McMiken Limited, providing that, and notwithstanding, the number of concerns that have been highlighted in this assessment are addressed and provided for. The Officers section 42A Report provided commentary23 on each of the CIAs recommendation and how they could be accommodated. It was also pointed out to us that the submissions from both Ngati Te Ata Waiohua and Ngati Tamaoho opposed the plan change on the basis that the CIA recommendations had not fully been complied with and needed to be worked through further with the Applicant in the areas of stormwater, heritage, rural values and reserves. Mori cultural matters were addressed at the hearing by Ms Rutherford, Mr Flavell and Mr Kirkwood, who all spoke to the concerns highlighted in the CIA, emphasising the need for: off-line stormwater treatment systems; the use of low impact stormwater management systems (LIDs); adherence to Auckland Councils TP10 and TP90 for stormwater and earthworks activities; landscape and urban design criteria that recognised the unique nature of the site and that of the village with the need to reduce lot size to address visual impact; potential impact of the proposal on the Kaawa aquifer.

21
22

Cultural Assessment Report at section 5.3 Ibid at section 6.43 23 Section 42A Report at section 15.2.2

- 18 -

Mr Flavell then addressed a different or changed CIA recommendation; moving from the original position of conditional opposition to one of total opposition to PPC37 on the grounds that the area is of high cultural significance to the local tngata whenua. Mr Flavell indicated to the panel that local tngata whenua would be able to provide the panel with documentation which would support this position; but that information was not yet completed (it was being complied in respect of Treaty claim). This changed position was unknown to the Applicant of the Council reporting officers. The Applicant responded by noting that they had predicated their approach to evidence preparation and the hearing on the recommendations in the CIA. We were very disappointed that this change had not been communicated to the Applicant prior to the hearing, especially as Mr Flavell had indicated that consultation and engagement between the Applicant and the Iwi had been good. It is disappointing, concerning and unfair to an Applicant for a matter of this significance and importance to be raised so late in the piece, especially as the Applicant had prepared their case on the basis of a commissioned CIA. However we accept that the submitters opposed PPC37, and presented to us that the Patumahoe Hill and surrounding area was culturally significant to tngata whenua. In addressing this matter (later in the hearing) the Applicants counsel noted that the Applicant accepts that the PPC37 site, the village of Patumahoe and the surrounding area, was once a Native Reserve (as shown on SO Plan 641). 10.1 Commissioners Findings In terms of our findings and making a determination we are required to address the specific provisions that relate to Mori under Part 2 of RMA, namely: sections 6(e), 7(a) and 8 matters. Section 6 identifies those matters that decision makers shall recognise and provide for as a matter of national importance. In relation to Mori and PPC37 this is namely: Section 6(e) the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga; Patumahoe and its surrounds have a rich and well documented history. The ongoing cultural association of the tngata whenua to the area was clearly established in the CIA. The need to meaningfully engage and involve tngata whenua has been recognised by the Applicant, who opted to consult and engage at an early stage, commissioning a CIA. Measures that have been offered by the Applicant include: keeping the crown of the cone free from buildings, the setting aside of a buffer zone which is proposed to be vested in the Council as public open space thereby enabling public access over the hill and onto the cone, and the accidental discovery protocol. All of these will help to meet the aspirations of tngata whenua. Matters or water quality are addressed in other sections of this decision report. Overall, in consideration of the entire plan change, we find that the section 6 (e) matters have been appropriately recognised and provided for. Under Section 7(a) of the RMA we are required to have particular regard to kaitiakitanga (the exercise of guardianship by the tngata whenua of an area in accordance with tikanga Mori in relation to natural and physical resources; and includes the ethic of stewardship. The measures proposed by Applicant satisfy us on how the on-going kaitiakitanga interests of tngata whenua will be met.

- 19 -

Section 8 of the RMA refers to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Judgements of the Environment Court have elaborated on the core principles and what they entail. These principles include: Duty to act in good faith; Duty to make informed decisions through consultation; Principles of redress and in a duty not to create grievances; Principle of reciprocity; Principle of mutual benefit.

There has been consultation with tngata whenua (who reported that it had been good consultation), a CIA prepared; written submissions were received and an oral representation from tngata whenua all of which were consistent in their adherence to the principles of the Treaty. We accept that the Patumahoe Hill, the surrounding area and the PPC37 site are culturally significant to tngata whenua. However we do not agree that the plan change should be rejected on this point alone, as there are wider considerations. The following are relevant in making this finding. The area occupied by PPC37 is only a part of the total area which constituted the area of the native reservation, The hill is not identified in any planning documents as being of regional significance (unlike a number of other volcanic cones), Is not designated as a significant local feature in the District Plan, There is nothing in the ARPS or the District Plan requiring this land to treated differently than any other rurally zoned land, It is a weathered and highly modified cone which has been farmed (and cropped) for many years, It already has some built development on it dwellings and other farm buildings, and The Applicant has recommendations. implemented measures to met tngata whenuas

Overall, we find that the Applicant and the proposal have met the obligations to tngata whenua as required by the RMA and the relevant statutory planning documents. We accept that the area is culturally significant to tngata whenua, but that the mitigation proposed (as set out above) is appropriate to satisfy us the part 2 matters of the RMA are given effect to. Section 15 of the section 42A Report addresses submissions that deal with cultural matters - submissions from Ngati Te Ata Waiohua Ngati Tamaoho and the further submission of TK & BW McMiken Ltd. We agree and adopt the analysis and recommendations contained within Section 15 of the section 42A Report including that the following assessment criteria be added to 54.9.5.2.8.1 - Discretionary (RA) Activities
The extent of effects on cultural and heritage values

- 20 -

Accordingly those submissions opposing the plan are either rejected or accepted in part to the extent that we have modified PPC37 as set out in this decision report and in the plan change itself. 11 Social Effects There were a range of submissions which generally opposed the plan change as it would have, in their view, adverse effects on the social aspect of Patumahoe. This was generally in terms of the loss or diminution of the village feel due to the expansion of the village. That is, Patumahoe would change from a rural village to a more urban/suburban settlement. At the hearing these matters were raised by Patumahoe Village Inc and Ms Brotherton. Ms Brotherton view in terms of not wanting the village to expand further, and which reflected the views of others, was We do not need or want more. This view is in part informed by the current new development in Patumahoe (eg the Searle subdivision) where the development appears similar in scale, design, layout and appearance to many new suburban development within the existing Metropolitan Urban Limits. Ms Gilbert, the Applicants landscape architect referred to this type of development as could be anywhere24. She considered it was important that any subdivision and subsequent development of this land needed to fit comfortably within the low-key and rural character of Patumahoe25. To this end Ms Gilbert considered that the plan change had taken care to reference successful aspects of the existing village character26 in the development controls such as the range of front yard treatments (including fences and hedging), retaining wall, materials etc so that final development would be in keeping with the rural village and not as a standard suburban development. While we accept this evidence was given in terms of landscape and design, it does go some way to addressing the concerns of some submitters about the implications on the social effects of the expansion of the village (in terms of design). Landscape and design issues are addressed more fully in another section of this decision. One specific submission about the social implications of the plan change was received from Mr Kevan Thompson. He, amongst other things, expressed concern that there is no provision of medical, dental or other health related services in the village. Our findings on these submissions are set out below 11.1 Commissioners Findings We understand the concerns raised by a number of submitters about the social impacts on the plan change and the expansion of the village. However, for the reasons set out in the section Strategic Growth Considerations /Need for Growth, we have found that Patumahoe Village (including this site) is identified as one of the villages for growth in a range of planning and policy documents including the Franklin District Growth Strategy. In this respect it is evident that the village would grow and change; a major issue then being how it should grow. In this respect we accept the evidence of the Applicant that they have attempted to ensure that the expansion occurs in a way that respects the rural village character, and that this in turn will, to some extent, address the issues of the social effects of the plan change.

24 25 26

Ms Gilbert paragraph 53 of her evidence

ibid ibid

- 21 -

In terms of the provision of medical, dental or other health related services in the village, these are permitted activities (can occur as of right). The commercial part of Patumahoe is zoned Village Business zone (as was the eastern corner of the PPC37 site). Rule 29A.1.1 identifies permitted activities for this zone which include childcare and learning centres, community facilities, schools, health centres and hospitals. These activities are also permitted in the Village Zone under Rule 23C.1.1. While the zone and activity status can enable these activities to be established, it is up to the landowners to propose such development. However as set out in the section Strategic Growth Considerations /Need for Growth, we have deleted the Business zoning form PPC37. For the reasons above those submissions that oppose the plan change due to the social effects are rejected. Those submissions that support the plan change are accepted. 12 Transport The application for PPC37 included an Integrated Transport Assessment, (ITA) which comprehensively assessed all of the relevant matters relating to the potential effects of traffic generated by the development enabled by this plan change, on the surrounding roading network. It concluded that the provisions of PPC 37 were considered consistent with the principles of the New Zealand Transport Agency and Auckland Transport and consistent with National, Regional and Local Policies. The ITA noted that existing travel characteristics revealed that private vehicle use was the preferred vehicle mode for the majority of trips within and outside the former Franklin District and that Patumahoe had limited transport networks with respect to Active Transportation and Passenger Transportation. The report noted that a village the size of Patumahoe was potentially well-suited for walking and cycling and that the volume of traffic generated by the development would have an insignificant impact on the existing roading network.27 The internal layout of roads, and safety matters within the development, were discussed in the PHSP Urban Design Brief which explained the Kingseat Road frontage and access proposals, the design of roundabouts within the development and the design of minor roads or lanes. Entrance features at each intersection of internal roads with the external road network were also addressed.28 There were a number of submissions regarding the internal layout and the traffic effects of the development. Those from the New Zealand Fire Service Commission and most of those from Auckland Transport (AT) were accepted by the Applicant and suitable amendments were made. A number of local residents were opposed to the entire plan change on the grounds that the traffic generated by the development enabled by the plan change would have significant adverse effects on the road network with particular concerns expressed regarding road safety as a result of increased traffic flows. A major focus of the AT submission related to the Applicants proposal that residential sites fronting Kingseat Road would not have vehicle access from that road, and instead would use rear access from one of the proposed internal roads. Mr MacArthur the planning witness for AT acknowledged that with the further extension of the village along Kingseat Road it would be desirable to lower the speed limit to 50 kph. However he indicated that the criteria that were used to justify lowering the speed limit in these

27
28

pages 489 - 517 of Volume 4 of the agenda refer PHS P 11 Design Brief 01-02-11 at pages 251-254 of Volume 4 of the agenda

- 22 -

situations were significantly dependent on the effects of multiple vehicle access ways interrupting the frontage of such roads29. In response to questions he advised that without the side friction created by regular urban spacing of vehicle crossings, passing traffic would not perceive any justification for travelling at a slower speed regardless of road signage and he did not consider that other devices to slow traffic would necessarily be accepted as providing justification for lowering the speed limit. The counter argument advanced through the section 42A report was that: the footpath/cycleway which was planned to be created along the Kingseat Road frontage would be adversely affected by potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists; that due to the level differences on the southern side of Kingseat Road a greater depth of driveway access would be required resulting in dwellings being setback further from the street; the deeper setback had difficulty of reversing onto Kingseat Road would have additional adverts design implications affecting the relationship between the houses in the street; and, that there were a range of other methods to create side friction and to create the perception for motorists that they were entering a built-up area.30

Mr Petrenas, the transport expert of the Applicant, addressed the principles set out in the New Zealand Transport Strategy (2008 and the Government Policy Statement Transport dated 1 August 2008). He also addressed the Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010 and the Passenger Transport Network Plan 2006 both of which specifically related to transport issues in the Auckland Region. A peer review of the ITA was prepared for the Council by Steve Dudley of Aurecon. Mr Dudley noted that the ITA followed the structure and process defined by the ARTA Integrated Transport Assessment Guidelines (2007) which he said formed an accepted method for the development of ITAs.31 Overall he agreed with the findings of the ITA but was also supportive of the AT position regarding vehicle access onto Kingseat Road. 12.1 Commissioners Findings We were satisfied that the traffic implications of PPC37 had been comprehensively assessed in accordance with the statutory provisions addressed above and that with the changes which we have adopted, the plan change provisions will ensure that any potential adverse effects on the road network and on surrounding development can be satisfactorily and appropriately managed. We acknowledge AT concerns regarding the provision of vehicle access from Kingseat Road to the residential sites fronting it. However, on balance, we agree with the Applicant and the Council officers that the merits of providing a safer and more attractive pedestrian/cycleway along the frontage should not be discarded solely because the current criteria governing the lowering of speed limits on rural roads place such emphasis on the presence of multiple vehicle crossings. We would hope that a more objective assessment of methods to enhance motorist perception of the need to

29

Refer paragraphs 8.2.10.14-8.2.10.20 of the s42A report at page 71 and 72 of Volume 2 of the agenda 31 refer page 20 of Appendix 4 to Volume 2 of the agenda

30

paragraphs 4.1- 4.11 of Scott Macarthurs evidence

- 23 -

travel more slowly can be undertaken at the time that development of this area proceeds. However we do accept ATs view that the sites fronting Kingseat Road should interact with the street as much as possible, notwithstanding that there would be no vehicle accesses. In response to this, and in addition to the considerable plan provisions which require it, we have deleted from 54.9.6.9 Public- Private Interface for Kingseat Road, number 3: Private open space shall not locate between the dwelling and Kingseat Road. This will help ensure there is, as far as practicable, interaction of the site with the road frontage. Our decisions on those submissions that are addressed above are: Those submissions supporting the plan change are accepted or accepted in part to the extent that we have made changes to PPC37, Those submissions opposing the plan change and seeking it be declined in its entirely are rejected, and Those submissions opposing the plan change, but seeking amendments are accepted in part to the extent that we have modified the plan change provisions.

13

Infrastructure Provisions Submissions relating to infrastructure were from received from the New Zealand Fire Service (NZFS) and Watercare Services Limited (WSL). NZFS sought: The provision of infrastructure being coordinated with development, That connection to the Kaawa Waitemata Aquifer must be approved before resource consent is obtained, and Provisions that ensure adequate water supply for fire fighting and that there will be sufficient flow, pressure and connection points in accordance with the Water Supplies Code of Practice.

NZFS sought an additional bullet point to Rule 54.9.3.4.4 to ensure consistency of water supply with the Fire Fighting Water Supplies Code of Practice: The water supply system shall be consistent with the Fire Fighting Water Supplies Code of Practice SNZ PAS 4509: 2008. It is clear to us that the provision of a water supply via WSL effectively resolves the matters raised by NZFS over water supply for fire fighting and renders the requested wording change to 54.9.5.4 unnecessary. WSL sought the following: Amendments to policy 54.9.2.2(6) to reflect WSLs Infrastructure Growth Charge and which explains that WSLs Infrastructure Growth Charge is a contractual charge in accordance with WSLs customer contract,

- 24 -

Amendments to Assessment Criteria 54.9.3.2.8(1), (2) and (3) to reflect WSLs Infrastructure Growth Charge, and That an Infrastructure Funding Agreement (IFA) is formed between WSL and the developer to agree funding for water or wastewater upgrades required to service the development.

The Applicant in addressing this matter was of the view that an IFA could be a more effective option for funding water and/or wastewater infrastructure if it is in the best interests of both parties. Mr Milner-White advised us that the Applicant had worked with WSL and that a Memorandum of Understanding had been developed. WSL tabled a letter noting that on the basis that the recommended section 42A Report text changes were made they would not appear at the hearing. All of the matters raised by WSL had been appropriately addressed and agreed by the Applicant and the reporting officer, and we accept those changes made to the plan change text as provided to us at the hearing. 13.1 Commissioners Findings We find that infrastructure concerns of: The New Zealand Fire Service with regards to the provision for water fire fighting have been met by an agreement with WSL to provide reticulated water, WSL concerns have been met by an agreement between them and the Applicant, Agreed wording to the plan change text have been made.

Our decisions on those submissions that are addressed above are: Those submissions supporting the plan change are accepted or accepted in part to the extent that we have made changes to PPC37, and Those submissions opposing the plan change, but seeking amendments are accepted to the extent that we have modified the plan change provisions.

14

Stormwater Stormwater management and treatment was one of the principle issues in contention between Submitters and the Applicant. The officer section 42A report correctly noted that stormwater is a complex issue and is addressed through both the plan change and discharge consent processes. In summary the issues and concerns raised by submitters are: Searle Holdings Limited articulated: - That the rules and provisions do not satisfactorily address the control and management of stormwater. - The structure plan map (54.D(ii)) does not identify the water reservoir referred to in the background technical reports. - The lack of assessment of groundwater recharge. - There is no adequate analysis or consideration of the alternative methods of stormwater management identified in the rules. - The practical implications of stormwater rules have not been adequately addressed including downstream effects, including a failure to consider downstream effects of discharges of excess stormwater on both the stream system and any impacts on the west wetland and main wetland. - There is a lack of clarity around limitations on stormwater management onsite, the consequences of discharges of larger volumes of stormwater from

- 25 -

the site in terms of stream beds, pond sizing and the implications for ground water recharge to the aquifer. The CIA on behalf of the Ngati Tamaoho Trust and Te Iwi o Ngati Te Ata Waiohua when addressing the issue of stormwater made a number of observations and provided a number of recommendations: - The application which does not adequately address the assessment criteria requiring Low Impact Design (LID) stormwater treatment systems to be used. - The western wetland has insufficient freeboard and either needs to be enlarged or additional detention provided elsewhere to reduce the freeboard to acceptable levels. - As constructed, the main wetland satisfactorily provides for the treatment and detention requirements of its contributing Catchment. It has enough capacity to allow for the proposed PHSPA when developed. - The main wetland is an online system - the wetland is built in an existing stream, and discharges straight back into the Taihiki stream. The preferred option for iwi is an off-line approach where all stormwater is directed to a series of wetlands prior to it reaching the natural stream, or the online treatment system. - Preference for streams and waterways be left in an open natural state, with the appropriate riparian plantings that will enhance the health of the waterway. The section 42A report and the Applicants evidence comprehensively addressed all of the issues and concerns raised both by Seale Holding Limited and the CIA. It is not our intention to repeat that analysis in this decision other than to highlight some key points. Mr Crosswell, in his evidence for the Applicant, noted that the plan provisions proposed by PPC37 had been developed in light of detailed technical analysis and that applicant supported the analysis of the reporting officers. Key points made in the section 42A Report include: The need for the Water Reservoir has been superseded by the provision of a reticulated water supply from Watercare Services Limited. Investigations confirm that there is sufficient capacity within the existing wetland (located within the Searle subdivision) to accommodate 84% of the runoff generated from the Patumahoe Hill Structure Plan Area. The balance of stormwater will be managed through either enlarging the wetland, altering the gradient of the table drain running along the north-western corner of the PPC37 site or by creating a new, off-line, wetland in the north-western corner of the site. The capacity of the Main Drain to convey water has been addressed and it was indicated that the constraints identified in the upper section of the drain fall within the scope of general network maintenance activities. The Applicant recognises that work is required on the pipes to carry water from the PPC37 site to the Main Drain and the Western Wetland. In addressing the issues of whether there has been an adequate analysis or consideration of the alternative methods of stormwater management it was noted that two main options were canvassed in the initial consideration of stormwater management. Options considered were as follows: a. Existing Patumahoe Structure Plan wetlands b. On-site Stormwater Wetland

- 26 -

Rules in the plan change establish expectations and methods for managing stormwater. The use of water harvesting for individual dwellings is required by Policy 54.9.2.2.3 for non-potable uses. This will provide a means of achieving stormwater management and to promote water conservation and efficiency. Potentially conflicting outcomes were identified - if roof water is captured, it reduces the amount of stormwater available to permeate the ground and recharge the aquifer. This has been overcome by Rule 54.9.6.7 which provides for one or a combination of management measures. The use of low impact stormwater management techniques is required to be integrated into the design of the stormwater network by Policy 54.9.2.2.4. Stormwater management for the catchment is already consented; the Variation to the Discharge Consent (set out in the decision on the resource consent) deals with increase the volume of discharge to ensure that stormwater generated by the development can be appropriately managed. The variation addresses the management of stormwater from the Patumahoe Hill site, and it has been concluded the resulting effects in the downstream receiving environment will be no more than minor. Downstream flooding will be mitigated by several measures: a. The first option will require all runoff from impervious surfaces to be discharged to soakage. b. Alternatively if soakage is demonstrated as not suitable, rain tanks will be required on each lot to capture roof runoff. c. Runoff in excess of either of these at source controls will be reticulated to the Main Wetland for the eastern 85% of the Patumahoe Hill site or the Western Wetland for the western 15% of the site. The Applicant has also demonstrated that the Main Wetland has capacity to accommodate the additional runoff from the PPPC37 site and it has been indicated that it is feasible to extend the Western Wetland. In addition the Applicant has proposed an alternative stormwater management solution, in the case that the capacity in the Main Wetland is unavailable or the Western Wetland extension cannot be constructed, provision has been made for an offline wetland to be constructed within the Patumahoe Hill site which will provide equivalent attenuation as well as extended detention and water quality. The wetlands (Main, Western and /or additional Patumahoe Hill wetland) will be designed in accordance to TP10to remove at least 75% of total suspended solids (TSS) on a long term average basis. Mr Savage, counsel for Searle Holding Limited, reinforced the points made in his clients submission. In doing so he raised the matter of the costs of the establishment of the stormwater system and the relative benefits that landowners receive. In particular he pointed out the costs to his client of establishing the Main Drain/Main Wetland system, a system which will now be used by the area covered by PPC37. Mr Savage sought an addition to 54.9.2.2 policy 6 so that as adequate consideration can be given to cost remissions associated with the establishment and servicing of infrastructure. 14.1 Commissioners Findings We accept and adopt the following recommendations of the section 42A report:

- 27 -

Stormwater is a complex issue and PPC37 address the matter starting with policies which are implemented by performance standards and assessment criteria. Assessment Criteria 54.9.5.2.4 Stormwater Management determines that the subdivision will give effect to the Patumahoe Stormwater Network Discharge Consent with the rules enabling the flexibility of detailed design. In the consideration of alternatives, two main options were canvassed in the initial consideration of stormwater management, being the existing Patumahoe Structure Plan wetlands, and on-site Stormwater Wetland. The rules in the plan change establish expectations and methods for managing stormwater. The provisions of PPC37 enable options of the detailed stormwater design to be considered. This combination of rules enables options for stormwater to be considered provided they are in accordance with the approved stormwater network discharge consent. The rules in the Plan Change require stormwater to be managed in accordance with the Network Discharge Consent effectively linking these two processes and ensuring a consistent approach to stormwater. Assessment Criterion 54.9.5.2.4 requires an assessment of whether the subdivision will give effect to the Patumahoe Stormwater Network Discharge Consent. The processing officers in addressing the variation to the Network consent have concluded the resulting effects in the downstream receiving environment will be less than minor. The control and management of stormwater has been thoroughly considered and the rules of PPPC37 adopt the best practicable option. The type, sizing and location of stormwater management devices ultimately implemented cannot be determined until subdivision is designed to a sufficient level of detail be accepted. The practical implications of the stormwater rules of PPC37, including downstream effects, have been thoroughly considered be accepted. To ensure a consistent message regarding stormwater management, it is recommended Rule 54.9.5.4 be amended to remove references to Rule 22D.6.11 Open Drains for the PPC37 area.

We also find that: The need for water reservoir within the PHSPA has been superseded by an agreement with Watercare Services to provide reticulated water. An addition be made to 54.9.2.2 policy 6 to cover the matter of the consideration of the remissions of costs associated with the cost of the establishment of infrastructure as requested by the Searle submission.

Our decisions on these submissions are: Those submissions supporting the plan change are accepted or accepted in part to the extent that we have made changes to PPC37, and Those submissions opposing the plan change, but seeking amendments are accepted in part to the extent that we have modified the plan change provisions (as set out below).

- 28 -

Those submissions opposing the plan change in its entirety are rejected.

14.2 Change to the Plan The following changes to the proposed plan provisions have been made: 1. Rule 54.9.5.4 be amended to remove references to Rule 22D.6.11 Open Drains for the PPPC37 area. 2. Additional wording be added to the end of policy 6 in 54.9.2.2 In considering remissions, Council shall recognise the costs associated with establishing the Stormwater Network, including the Main Wetland and Main Drain, and the relative benefit derived from land within the catchment 15 Recharge of Kaawa Aquifer At the time the PPC37 was being prepared the Patumahoe Village was reliant on Kaawa Aquifer for its water supply and it was project that the proposed development would draw it water from the same resource. Any proposal which has the potential to impact on the recharge of the aquifer would naturally attract close scrutiny. The potential adverse impacts of PPC37 on the recharge of the Kaawa Aquifer were raised by Auckland Council and by Searle Holdings Limited in their submission. The CIA prepared by tngata whenua also raised an issue about the potential overuse of Kaawa Aquifer. Given the strong reservations expressed by Auckland Council, the Applicant commissioned Tonkin & Taylor Limited to prepare a report on recharge32. The report concluded that assuming no mitigation is undertaken; development of the subject site could result in a 1.5% reduction in recharge via the Day Road Cone or 0.1% reduction in total recharge to the Kaawa Aquifer. It was also noted that the amount of stormwater soakage to ground that would be required to fully mitigate any adverse effect on the aquifer was very minor. Mr Reynolds, Senior Hydro-geologist for Tonkin & Taylor, had prepared the report and he provided the hearing with a summary overview of recharge and a cross sectional diagram (Pukekohe Hill to the mouth of the Taihiki River) to help illustrate the processes which drive the recharge of Kaawa Aquifer. He also highlighted the work which was undertaken, the result of which demonstrated the poor groundwater soakage ability of the site. Mr Viljevac, a Senior Hydro-geologist of Soil & Rock Consultants was asked by Auckland Council to review the Tonkin & Taylor Report. The review concluded that recharge into Day Road Cone exits, regardless of the differences between Councils estimation and the estimation presented in the Tonkin and Taylor report; and that there is some potential for infiltration from the site. The Applicant is proposing that each lot will have individual soakage devices for all runoff from impervious surfaces. Mr Savage for Searle Holdings Limited submitted raised the issue of soakage and submitted that there has been insufficient consideration of recharge effects but no technical or even observational evidence was presented.

32

Impact on Recharge to the Kaawa Aquifer Tonkin & Taylor April 2013

- 29 -

The section 42A report advised33 that despite Councils Water Allocation Team, 2013 expressing some uncertainties about methodology used in the Tonkin & Taylor Report and thus uncertainty about the reduction in infiltration to the aquifer as a result of development, it was concluded that the proposed site development is unlikely to have an adverse effect on recharge provided adequate mitigation is provided through ground soakage. The section 42A report considered that there are sufficient rules and assessment criteria to ensure ground soakage is considered both through the subdivision consent and any subsequent land use activities. It was also suggested that the methodology for calculating the volume of soakage is most appropriately considered through the subdivision consent process and conditions of consent. Assessment Criterion 54.9.5.2.4.1 as proposed will ensure this matter is considered 15.1 Commissioners Findings We accept, and find, that the proposed site development, with the appropriate measure to encourage soakage is unlikely to have any more than a very minor adverse effect on the recharge of the Kaawa Aquifer. We also note that the PPC37 area will be fully reticulated for water supply. We adopt the section 42A report recommendations on submissions and further submissions, and we also adopted the reasons as outlined in B14.4.3
The initial geotechnical and infiltration assessments undertaken to support PPC37 indicated that the site was not especially effective in terms of stormwater soakage and recharge of the aquifer. The initial assessments concluded the site is not suitable for the disposal of stormwater to ground soakage. Further assessment confirmed limited ability to recharge the aquifer due to subsurface clayey silts. Given the size of the aquifer and the number of potential recharge points across the district, the calculated 1.5% loss of recharge due to the development is not considered significant. PPC37 rules allow for situations such as this - Assessment Criterion 54.9.5.2.4.1 requires on-site stormwater detention (such as soakage pits) except where it can be demonstrated that geotechnical conditions within the PHSPA do not allow for on-site soakage.

Our decisions on those submissions that are addressed above are: 16 Those submissions supporting the plan change are accepted or accepted in part, Those submissions opposing the plan change or seeking amendments are rejected and no changes have been made to the plan provisions as a result of submissions, and Those submissions opposing the plan change in its entirety are rejected. .

Versatile Soils The quality of the soils in the PPC37 was a significant issue raised by submitters in opposition to PPC37. It was their view that the land is fertile and productive and should not be used for a greenfields urban development, but reserved for agricultural/horticultural production. The Applicant accepted that the site had high quality versatile soil, but noted that it was inevitable that high quality soils will be used for urban development if Patumahoe Village is to expand as identified by the statutory planning documents set out earlier.

33

Section 42A Report at [14.2.2]

- 30 -

While acknowledging the soils within the PPC37 area are high quality, they are Class II soils and not classified as Elite Soils (Class I). Dr Fraser a soil scientist for the Applicant offered the opinion that the site at 36A Kingseat Road is categorised under the Land Use Capability Survey as Class II with approximately 95% of the area as IIe1 and the remaining as IIw3. He added a rider that it could not be categorically be stated that the McMiken Property did not contain elite land34. Section 11 of the section 42A report provided a full analysis of the submissions and further submissions and we do intend to repeat that that analysis. We accept that analysis. 16.1 Commissioners Findings We accept that: It was agreed by all parties that the site has high quality versatile soils; and It is inevitable that urban growth in and around Patumahoe will use some high quality versatile soils.

In making these finding we record that the Auckland Plan and more specifically the FDGS has identified Patumahoe as a key village for accommodating population growth. We accept and adopt the recommendations as set out in section11.3 of the section 42A Report. Moreover we agree with, and adopt the reason stated in section 11.4:
Background soil analysis undertaken to inform the development of the structure plan showed that there is no elite land (Land Use Capability Class I) present in the PPC37 area. The land within the Plan Change area is categorised as Class II soil. It is considered that the loss of versatile Class II soils will be outweighed by the positive effects of PPC37.

Our decisions on those submissions that are addressed above are: 17 Those submissions supporting the plan change are accepted, and Those submissions opposing the plan change on the basis of soils are rejected.

Reverse Sensitivity We understand, from the evidence we received, that reverse sensitivity can potentially arise when residential property owners are confronted by the reality of the adverse effects of rural farming practices (and other common rural activities). The statutory identification of these concerns is identified below. In the case of the urban development enabled by this plan change, there is no interface with rural or horticultural activities on the opposing frontages of Mauku Road and Kingseat Road which are predominantly developed with small residential lots. The main area of concern in respect of potential reverse sensitivity effects arises in relation to the south-western boundary which is contiguous with adjacent horticultural farm areas. A 20m wide reserve area is proposed along the entire length of this boundary and additional buffering is provided by the landform which generally slopes to the North

34

Paragraph 19 of Dr Frasers evidence.

- 31 -

East and by placing larger residential lots adjoining the 20m wide reserve. This reserve/buffer also provides pedestrian access and bridle path which will cross the top of the hill. Larger lots in the southern part of the site will also assist in buffering residential activities in the PPC37 area from horticultural activities on the opposite side of Day Road. Submissions by Mr Wayne Carter expressed concern about the potential for reverse sensitivity arising from a growing population of people who have accustomed to essential rural practices which could lead to endeavours to restrict necessary rural activities. He recommended that any LIM report to be provided for sites within the PPC37 area should contain a specific statement that pointed out that existing horticultural and agriculture activities in the surrounding area were ongoing and protected. He included a copy of a similar statement that had been issued by the Waipa District Council. The issue of reverse sensitivity is identified in the ARPS. Strategic Policy 2.6.2 which states the criteria for extensions to the limits of rural and coastal settlements includes under (2)(viii) Conflicts or incompatibilities between adjoining land uses are avoided or mitigated to ensure that existing activities are able to continue;35 The theme is continued under Strategic Policy 2.6.8-Urban Design which requires the design of such urban extensions to occur so that: (l) conflicts between incompatible land uses are avoided, remedied or mitigated;36

Under the District Plan Objectives 17.2.5: Managing Conflicts sets the following purpose: To avoid, remedy or mitigate conflicts between rural residents and primary productive activities and between different primary productive activities Policy 3 attached to this objective has the following aim: Priority shall be given to avoiding the potential for conflicts between urban areas and intensive farming operations through the use of buffer distances with respect to urban areas. Outside the buffer distances the priority shall be to mitigate any adverse effects.37 17.1 Commissioners Findings We are satisfied that the design approach provided in PPC37 including the provision of a 20m buffer will assist in so far as practicable, in reducing the potential for reverse sensitivity. We agree with Mr Carter that the Council should adopt processes to ensure that incoming residents to any rural village area are aware of the nature of legitimate rural activities which already occur in the area or which may occur in the future and that they understand that normal rural practices such as spraying and seasonal variations in the hours of activity are necessary to enable that rural productive activity to continue and are protected by district plan provisions.

35 36

Patumahoe Hill SP Planning Context Report at page 167 of Volume 4 of the agenda. op. cit. at page 168 37 op. cit. at page 191

- 32 -

However this is a region wide matter and not one solely related to PPC37. We have not included any provision in PPC37 to address this matter. However we suggest that the Council, if it doesnt already have information on this, provide information to people who intend to move to rural and coastal villages where there is considerable rural productive activities occurring so as to avoid as far as practicable issues of reverse sensitivity. Our decisions on those submissions that are addressed above are: Those submissions supporting the plan change are accepted or accepted in part to the extent that we have made changes to PPC37, and Those submissions opposing the plan change, but seeking amendments are accepted in part to the extent that we have modified the plan change provisions.

18

Consultation Two submitters - Brendon and Chloe Lawson and Kevan Thompson raised issues in relation to consultation. This was either that an inadequate level of consultation was undertaken or that if the plan change occurs, further consultation with residents should happen. The further submission from TK & BW McMiken Ltd opposed these as they considered a significant amount of consultation occurred before the notification process commenced and the hearings processes offers further opportunities for public involvement. The Applicant (in their Application documents and in evidence) and the Council officers in the section 42A report set out all of the consultation that was undertaken. As outlined in Part 4 of the Patumahoe Hill Structure Plan report (McCormick Rankin Cagney, 2011) consultation had been undertaken with local residents, stakeholders, iwi, the former Franklin District Council and Auckland Regional Council, and the Auckland Council. Also set out was the consultation strategy was developed to inform about the project, seek input and feedback and consequently address issues raised through consultation. The following were identified as relevant stakeholders for consultation: Ministry for the Environment Ministry of Education Auckland Council Auckland Regional Council Franklin District Council NZ Transport Agency Watercare Services Ngati Tamaoho Ngati Te Ata Auckland Regional Transport Authority Auckland Transport Vector Limited NZ Geological Society Patumahoe Village 2050 Inc Adjoining and surrounding properties Wider Patumahoe community

As advised to us, preliminary consultation was undertaken with the parties listed above to assist in shaping the development of the structure plan. Feedback was received from the local community, including various founding members of the Patumahoe

- 33 -

Village 2050 Inc who submitted comments and answered questionnaires at the public open day. In terms of wider community consultation, letters were sent to adjoining and surrounding properties informing them of the proposal. Background information was provided and three preliminary development concept options were presented and feedback sought by way of a questionnaire. The recipients of the letters were invited to a public open day held in Patumahoe on 6 October 2010, as was the wider public. The public open day was publicised through two advertisements in the Franklin Times and flyers posted within the village. At the open day, material was displayed and the public were able to ask questions of the proponents of the structure plan and their consultants. Since the public open day was held, follow up letters were sent to all respondents that provided contact details seeking further comments. The letter contained a refined and more detailed version of option C and further comments sought. No further comments were received. Since the private plan change request was lodged in April 2011, the Applicant has continued consultation, particularly with Council officers and the key stakeholders being Auckland Transport, Iwi (Ngati Tamaoho and Ngati Te Ata), Patumahoe Village Inc, and Searle Holdings Limited. 18.1 Commissioners Findings The RMA does not specifically require consultation as part of a private plan change request. However, it is considered good practice and as set out about a significant amount of consultation has occurred. Several methods of consultation were employed throughout the structure planning process. Overall we find that the consultation undertaken to date is sufficient and has enabled the local community and the general public to be informed and to provide feedback on the proposal. We also note at the hearing that Mr Karl Flavell, representing Iwi said that from his perspective, consultation with Ngati Tamaohe and Ngati Te Ata Waiohua had been very good. It is our finding that the submissions concerning the adequacy of consultation be rejected, and we accept those that stated consultation had been appropriate. 19. Part 2 of the RMA and Our Overall Findings Having considered all of the information and evidence presented to us, our findings in terms of Part 2 of the Act are set out below. In relation to this Plan Change the only relevant matter of national importance (section 6) is section 6 (e) the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga. This matter has been set out in the Cultural Values Section above. The Other section 7 matters relevant to Maori (subsections a and bb), and section 8 Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, have also been addressed in the section Cultural Values above. The other relevant section 7 matters that the Plan Changes have had particular regard to and satisfy (for the reasons that have been outlined above) include:

- 34 -

The Plan Change as modified by us, will result in an efficient use and development of natural and physical resources (subsection b); The Plan Change will generally maintain amenity values and the quality of the environment by providing a 3,200m2 central neighbourhood park, 1.13 hectares of rural-urban buffer with a minimum of 20m intended for walking and horse riding located on the western boundary of the site and comprehensive set out planning provisions to ensure, as far as practicable, a quality urban design outcome for the residential development which will be enabled by the plan change and will enable the development to comfortably fit within the character of the village with no long-term adverse effects on the amenity values of its residents (subsections c and f). It is our overall finding and conclusion that, for the reasons set out above, PPC37 and the Patumahoe Hill Structure Plan, is appropriate, efficient and effective. The rezoning of the land, and the provisions which accompany it, satisfy the section 32 requirements, being an appropriate form of development given all of the reasons set out in this decision. Overall, the purpose of the Act set out in Section 5 - promoting sustainable management of natural and physical resources, is met by PPC37 as amended in terms of this decision report and the revised text of PPC37. 20. Decision For all the foregoing reasons, we accordingly decide in relation to the submissions and further submissions lodged to the plan change: That the submissions in support of the plan change are accepted or accepted in part to the extent that we have modified the pan change. That the submissions in opposition to the plan change, seeking that it be declined in its entirety are rejected. That the submissions in opposition to the plan change but sought amendments to it are accepted to the extent that the change address the concerned raised by submitters, or rejected if no change has been made in relation to the submissions.

We repeat our decision approving the plan change in respect of the Patumahoe Hill Structure Plan (PPC 37).

Greg Hill Chair of the Hearings Panel

Dated 26th September 2013

- 35 -