Summary of Decision Requested to Plan Change 6: Hautapu Industrial Structure Plan by Submitter. March / 2018

Transcription

1 Summary of Decision Requested to Plan Change 6: Hautapu Industrial Structure Plan by Submitter March / 2018

2 Page 2 of 29

3 Table of Contents Reader s Guide... 5 How to read the summary:... 5 How to make a further submission... 6 Submitter Contact Details... 7 Aztam Family Trust... 9 Bennett, Martin... 9 Boyd, Ashley and Christine C & R Construction C & R Developments Cambridge Capital Cambridge Janbry Trustee Limited Cambridge Storage (Hautapu) Limited Carter, Tim & Carter, Adam & Carter, Margaret and Gilbert, Rewa Future Proof Implementation Committee Hautapu Veterinary Clinic Ltd Hefin Lloyd Davis Horticulture New Zealand HW Industries NZ Transport Agency The Straw Warehouse Waikato Regional Council Waipa District Council Wang, Jun & Yanot, Bin Page 3 of 29

4 Page 4 of 29

5 Reader s Guide This document is a summary of the 19 submissions received and the relief sought/decision(s) requested. This summary is ordered in alphabetical order by the submitters surname or the name of the organization. This summary helps readers to see all the decisions requested by a specific submitter (e.g. Jo Smith). If you would like to see all the submissions lodged on a specific topics within the Plan Change, then refer to Summary of Decisions Requested to Plan Change 6: Hautapu Industrial Structure Plan by Topic. The summary of submissions was publicly notified on 15 March 2018 for further submissions. The closing date for making further submissions is 28 March 2018 at 5pm. No late further submissions will be accepted. In the summary, every submitter has been allocated a submitter number and each submission is referenced by a unique number. This whole number (e.g. 12/7) is required to be referenced when you make a further submission. EXAMPLE: 12/7 12 is the submitter number 7 is the submission number How to read the summary: This summary is ordered by submitter surname. The summary is ordered alphabetically by surname and or name of the company or organisation. The summary lists all of the submission s made by the submitter. Where a submission has been lodged by two people with different surnames, it has been listed by the surname that is first in alphabetical order. If after looking at this summary you wish to look at all the submission s to a icular Topic then you need to refer to the Summary of Decisions Requested to Plan Change 6: Hautapu Industrial Structure Plan by Topic. For your information separate spell checks have been carried out on the Topic and Submitter reports. In the event of there being any discrepancy the Summary of Decisions Requested to Plan Change 6: Hautapu Industrial Structure Plan by Topic will be predominant. Page 5 of 29

6 How to make a further submission People can make a further submission if they represent a relevant aspect of the public interest and/or have an interest in Plan Change 6 greater than the interest of the general public. A further submission can only be made in support or opposition of matters raised in the submissions. No new s can be raised. Further submissions should be set out in the format shown in the submission form. Copies of the further submission form are available at Council offices or Libraries at Cambridge and Te Awamutu as well as online at In accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991 a copy of the further submission must be sent to the person who made the original submission within five (5) working days of sending the further submission to the Waipa District Council. To assist you with this an address list of all submitters is included in this report. s can be: Posted to: Delivered to: Delivered to: ed to: Online: Waipa District Council Private Bag 2402 Te Awamutu 3840 Waipa District Council Te Awamutu Office 101 Bank Street Te Awamutu Waipa District Council Cambridge Office 23 Wilson Street Cambridge submissions@waipadc.govt.nz waipadc.govt.nz/haveyoursay Page 6 of 29

7 Submitter Contact Details Submitter Name Submitter's Contact Details Submitter No. Aztam Family Trust Mitchell Daysh Limited Attn: Ian Johnson PO Box 1307 Hamilton 3240 Bennett, Martin C/- Ricarnie Imports Ltd 57 Hautapu Road Cambridge 3493 Boyd, Ashley and Christine 326 Peake Road RD 1 Cambridge 3493 C & R Construction Attn: Steve Ross, Tim Ross, Simon Ross & Tony Ross PO Box 332 Cambridge 3450 C & R Developments Attn: Steve Ross, Tim Ross & Simon Ross PO Box 332 Cambridge 3450 Cambridge Capital Attn: Steve Ross, Tim Ross, Simon Ross & Tony Ross PO Box 332 Cambridge 3450 Cambridge Janbry Trustee Limited PO Box 603 Cambridge 3450 Cambridge Storage (Hautapu) Limited PO Box 603 Carter, Tim & Carter, Adam & Carter, Margaret and Gilbert, Rewa Future Proof Implementation Committee Hautapu Veterinary Clinic Ltd Cambridge Hautapu Road RD 1 Cambridge 3493 Attn.: Bill Wasley PO Box 381 Tauranga 3141 Attn: Brian O'Shea PO Box 74 Cambridge Page 7 of 29

8 Submitter Name Submitter's Contact Details Submitter No. Hefin Lloyd Davis Horticulture New Zealand HW Industries NZ Transport Agency The Straw Warehouse Waikato Regional Council Waipa District Council Wang, Jun & Yanot, Bin Burton Planning Consultants Limited Attn: Karen Blair PO Box Takapuna Auckland 0740 Attn: Lucy Deverall PO Box Wellington 6143 Mitchell Daysh Limited Attn: Ian Johnson PO Box 1307 Hamilton 3240 Attn: James Bevan PO Box 973 Waikato Mail Centre Hamilton 3240 Attn: Neville Ogle PO Box 1156 Cambridge 3450 Attn: Leslie Vyfhuis Private Bag 3038 Waikato Mail Centre Hamilton 3240 Attn: David Totman Private Bag 2402 Te Awamutu /35 Hydro Road Cambridge Page 8 of 29

9 Aztam Family Trust In Part Section 7 - Industrial Support Section 7, Industrial Zone. Retain. Zone Zone 5/1 Section 7 - Industrial 5/2 Appendix S5 Provision S5.1 Support Hautapu Industrial Structure Plan Urban Design and Landscape Guidelines - Section 5.1 Introduction. 5/3 Appendix S5 Provision S5.2 Support in 5/4 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Support in 5/5 Appendix S5 Stormwater Diagram Support in Amend wording of final sentence of paragraph S5.2 to read: The specific guidelines are provided to help direct the design of the development thereby achieving identify potential design solutions that will achieve the overarching design objectives. Amend the Hautapu Structure Plan Diagram to label Local Roads as Indicative. Amend the Indicative Stormwater Layout Diagram to show the overflow from Area 1 being directed to the swale and stormwater channel in Areas 4 and 5 rather than through Area 3. Amend Sheets 1-3 to read: Typical Indicative Stormwater Sections. 5/6 Appendix S5 Stormwater Diagram Support in 5/7 Planning Maps Planning Maps Support Retain 222 Peake Road (SEC 11 SO ) as Deferred Industrial Zone. Retain. Amend as proposed. Amend as proposed. Amend as proposed. Amend as proposed. Retain. Bennett, Martin 16/1 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose Amend the proposed road layout to leave Hannon Road open as the Allwill Drive Hautapu Road roundabout will become very congested with the proposed new industrial estate. Leave Hannon Road open as a second access, directly to the existing businesses on Hannon Road and then as the second access to future planned industrial area. Utilise of the corner section as a substantial double land roundabout allowing traffic to flow through to Hautapu Road and use its own new lane into and out of Hannon Road. Page 9 of 29

10 Boyd, Ashley and Christine 15/1 Whole of Plan Change 6 C & R Construction Generic Oppose Reverse sensitivity from the spraying operations for their asparagus farming and due to the increased heavy traffic and noise from industrial activities. 10/1 Whole of Plan Change 6 Generic Oppose That the structure plan layout, provisions and guidelines do not give adequate consideration to the integration of land use, transport and access. 10/2 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose The Plan Change doubles the size of the area zoned as industrial to 100 hectares with only one for vehicle access to a local road. This is not consistent with the structure plan principles (S5.1.4) which seek "an industrial area that is readily accessible. 10/3 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose All vehicle access is via Allwill Drive and Hautapu Road which are both identified as a local roads in the District Plan Road Hierarchy. The industrial area is likely to generate high volumes of traffic at this single intersection which could result in safety problems, increase maintenance costs on these local roads not constructed for high volumes of heavy vehicles, creates longer vehicles trips for access to some properties and reduces amenity through additional noise and vibration from vehicle movements. 10/4 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose The proposed access via Allwill Drive is not integrated with arterial and state highway transport networks that form the regional transport network. This is not consistent with the structure plan principles (S5.1.4) which seek "a The land that is currently zoned rural in the Hautapu area to remain zoned rural. Seek amendments to the structure plan that address the concerns raised in the submission. Amend the layout to improve connectivity from the structure plan area to the arterial and state highway networks. Amend the layout to include access via a roundabout at the intersection of Hautapu Road and Victoria Road (SH1B). Removing the 5ha limit or other equivalent relief. Page 10 of 29

11 local transport network that is fully integrated with the regional transport network." We believe access to the structure plan area via a roundabout at the intersection of Hautapu Road and Victoria Road would provide a safer, more efficient access and gateway to the Hautapu area with a direction connection to the regional network. 10/5 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose The staging is not practicable as access to Allwill Drive relies on other ies to build the proposed internal roads ahead of other development. 10/6 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose The structure plan layout does not give adequate consideration to the District Plan objectives for transportation (District Plan, Section 16.3). In icular, Objective which relates to "integrating land use and transport; ensuring a pattern of land uses and land transport system which is safe, effective and compatible." We do not believe that the proposed access at Allwill Drive will contribute to the transportation objectives as well as other options would. It is not clear what alternatives have been considered as the supporting technical information has not been made available on Council s website. Not stated. Not stated. C & R Developments 8/1 Whole of Plan Change 6 Generic Oppose That the structure plan layout, provisions and guidelines do not give adequate consideration to the integration of land use, transport and access. Seek amendments to the structure plan that address the concerns raised in the submission. Page 11 of 29

12 8/2 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose The Plan Change doubles the size of the area zoned as industrial to 100 hectares with only one for vehicle access to a local road. This is not consistent with the structure plan principles (S5.1.4) which seek "an industrial area that is readily accessible..." 8/3 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose All vehicle access is via Allwill Drive and Hautapu Road which are both identified as a local roads in the District Plan Road Hierarchy. The industrial area is likely to generate high volumes of traffic at this single intersection which could result in safety problems, increase maintenance costs on these local roads not constructed for high volumes of heavy vehicles, creates longer vehicles trips for access to some properties and reduces amenity through additional noise and vibration from vehicle movements. 8/4 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose The proposed access via Allwill Drive is not integrated with arterial and state highway transport networks that form the regional transport network. This is not consistent with the structure plan principles (S5.1.4) which seek "a local transport network that is fully integrated with the regional transport network." We believe access to the structure plan area via a roundabout at the intersection of Hautapu Road and Victoria Road would provide a safer, more efficient access and gateway to the Hautapu area with a direction connection to the regional network. 8/5 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose The staging is not practicable as access to Allwill Drive relies on other ies to build the proposed internal roads ahead of other development 8/6 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose The structure plan layout does not give adequate consideration to the District Plan objectives for transportation (District Plan, Section 16.3). In icular, Objective which relates to "integrating land use and transport; ensuring a Amend the layout to improve connectivity from the structure plan area to the arterial and state highway networks. Amend the layout to include access via a roundabout at the intersection of Hautapu Road and Victoria Road (SH1B). Removing the 5ha limit or other equivalent relief. Not stated. Not stated. Page 12 of 29

13 pattern of land uses and land transport system which is safe, effective and compatible." We do not believe that the proposed access at Allwill Drive will contribute to the transportation objectives as well as other options would. It is not clear what alternatives have been considered as the supporting technical information has not been made available on Council s website. Cambridge Capital 11/1 Whole of Plan Change 6 Generic Oppose That the structure plan layout, provisions and guidelines do not give adequate consideration to the integration of land use, transport and access. 11/2 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose The Plan Change doubles the size of the area zoned as industrial to 100 hectares with only one for vehicle access to a local road. This is not consistent with the structure plan principles (S5.1.4) which seek "an industrial area that is readily accessible. 11/3 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose All vehicle access is via Allwill Drive and Hautapu Road which are both identified as a local roads in the District Plan Road Hierarchy. The industrial area is likely to generate high volumes of traffic at this single intersection which could result in safety problems, increase maintenance costs on these local roads not constructed for high volumes of heavy vehicles, creates longer vehicles trips for access to some properties and reduces amenity through additional noise and vibration from vehicle movements. 11/4 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose The proposed access via Allwill Drive is not integrated with arterial and state highway transport networks that form the regional Seek amendments to the structure plan that address the concerns raised in the submission. Amend the layout to improve connectivity from the structure plan area to the arterial and state highway networks. Amend the layout to include access via a roundabout at the intersection of Hautapu Road and Victoria Road (SH1B). Removing the 5ha limit or other equivalent relief. Page 13 of 29

14 transport network. This is not consistent with the structure plan principles (S5.1.4) which seek "a local transport network that is fully integrated with the regional transport network." We believe access to the structure plan area via a roundabout at the intersection of Hautapu Road and Victoria Road would provide a safer, more efficient access and gateway to the Hautapu area with a direction connection to the regional network. 11/5 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose The staging is not practicable as access to Allwill Drive relies on other ies to build the proposed internal roads ahead of other development. 11/6 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose The structure plan layout does not give adequate consideration to the District Plan objectives for transportation (District Plan, Section 16.3). In icular, Objective which relates to "integrating land use and transport; ensuring a pattern of land uses and land transport system which is safe, effective and compatible." We do not believe that the proposed access at Allwill Drive will contribute to the transportation objectives as well as other options would. It is not clear what alternatives have been considered as the supporting technical information has not been made available on Council s website. Not stated. Not stated. Cambridge Janbry Trustee Limited 14/1 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose The proposal to close off the end of Hannon Road at the intersection with Hautapu Road will seriously affect the accessibility. The company seeks for the structure plan to include a roundabout that allows for Hannon Road to continue to have direct access to Hautapu Road. Page 14 of 29

15 14/2 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose Amend the placement of the connecting road between Hannon Road and Allwill Road to go along a boundary as expected and planned for. The company seeks for the connection to Allwill Drive to run along existing boundaries. Cambridge Storage (Hautapu) Limited 13/1 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose The proposal to close off the end of Hannon Road at the intersection with Hautapu Road will seriously affect the accessibility. 13/2 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose Amend the placement of the connecting road between Hannon Road and Allwill Road to go along a boundary as expected and planned for. The company seeks for the structure plan to include a roundabout that allows for Hannon Road to continue to have direct access to Hautapu Road. The company seeks for the connection to Allwill Drive to run along existing boundaries. Carter, Tim & Carter, Adam & Carter, Margaret and Gilbert, Rewa 2/1 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Support Seek the inclusion of their property within the proposed Deferred Industrial Zone as their land will be surrounded by industrial activity and is to be seriously affected by the proposed storm water discharge plan. Also, due to the continued encroachment of industrial activity - they will be forced to cease their current activity (Racehorse Training). Seek the inclusion of their property (90 Hautapu Road) within the proposed Deferred Industrial Zone. Page 15 of 29

16 Future Proof Implementation Committee 6/1 Whole of Plan Change 6 6/2 Whole of Plan Change 6 6/3 Whole of Plan Change 6 6/4 Section 7 - Industrial Zone Generic Support Support for Plan Change 6 as a whole for its alignment with the Future Proof Strategy and Waikato Regional Policy Statement's advocated settlement pattern by supporting a strategic node. Generic Support Support linkages to Waipa 2050 Growth Strategy and the Future Proof Strategy in Section 4c on Page 10 of the Section 32 report. Generic Section 7 - Industrial Zone Support in Support in - Supports section 4(f) on the Waikato Regional policy Statement but consider that Section 4(f) on pages in the Section 32 report should be amended to add more detail on the RPS, in icularly policy 6.14 and Section 6D of the Built Environment. Support Support for the proposed changes to Section 7 Industrial Zone that require development to be in general accordance with Appendix S5 - Hautapu Industrial Structure Plan, Urban Design and Landscape Guidelines. 6/5 Appendix S5 Provision S5.1.5 Support Support the structure plan principles outlined in S /6 Planning Maps Planning Maps Support Supports the changes to the planning maps as they give effect to the updated structure plan. Retain. Retain. Amend Section 4(f) on pages in the Section 32 report to add more detail on the RPS, in icularly policy 6.14 and Section 6D of the Built Environment. Retain. Retain. Retain. Hautapu Veterinary Clinic Ltd 17/1 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose With the closure of Hannon Road from Hautapu end, with only access via Allwill Drive off Hautapu Road will create traffic chaos with heavy traffic. Amend the proposed road layout to have another entrance via a roundabout off Victoria Road. Hautapu Road intersection to allow easier access Amend the proposed road layout to have another entrance via a roundabout off Victoria Road. Hautapu Road intersection to allow easier access to the State Highway 1 motorway and make the dubious Victoria Road/ Hautapu intersection a lot safer. Page 16 of 29

17 to the State Highway 1 motorway and make the dubious Victoria Road/ Hautapu intersection a lot safer. Hefin Lloyd Davis 12/1 Whole of Plan Change 6 12/2 Section 7 - Industrial Zone Generic Oppose The proposed Hautapu Structure Plan (PHSP) and Landscape Guidelines will significantly, unnecessarily and inappropriately adversely affect the future development rights of both of the Submitter s properties at 167 and 183a Victoria Road, Cambridge. Rule Oppose The wording of Proposed Rule requiring development to be in 'general accordance' is unclear causing confusion as it is inconsistent with the wording in the existing Policy and Policy in the Waipa District Plan. 12/3 Planning Maps Planning Maps 22 and 24 Oppose There is a discrepancy in the mapping between Proposed Hautapu Structure Plan, Appendix B: Perimeter Boundary Treatment and the Proposed Waipa District Plan Planning Maps 22 and /4 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose The proposed public cycle path is shown (at least in ) on private land. The Council is unable to justify the imposition of such a requirement on private property without compensation or purchasing the property. 12/5 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose No key is provided on Appendix B: Perimeter Boundary Treatment which makes interpretation of this map unclear. Decline Plan Change 6 in its entirety. Delete Proposed Rule and amend Policy and Policy to ensure to ensure that the wording within the policies in consistent and provides certain guidance in the event that rules are not met. The guidelines should remain as such, and guidelines should not be imposed as a rule with vague interpretation as to whether compliance is achieved or not. Amend Planning Maps 22 and 24, the Proposed Hautapu Structure Plan and Appendix B: Perimeter Boundary treatment to ensure that maps align with property boundaries and address inconsistencies, mapping errors and other concerns raised herein. Delete cycle path requirements on private property. Include a key on Appendix B: Perimeter Boundary Treatment. Page 17 of 29

18 12/6 Planning Maps Planning Maps 22 and 24 Oppose There is a discrepancy in the mapping between Proposed Hautapu Structure Plan, Appendix B: Perimeter Boundary Treatment and the Proposed Waipa District Plan Planning Maps 22 and /7 Planning Maps Planning Maps 22 and 24 Oppose There is a discrepancy between the Hautapu Structure Plan map and Appendix B: Perimeter Boundary Treatment maps which show the entire property 167 Victoria Road being within the Hautapu Structure Plan Unserviced Industrial Area and proposed Planning Map 22 and Planning Map 24 which show the Hautapu Structure Plan Unserviced Industrial Area boundary dissecting the property in the middle. 12/8 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose The Proposed Hautapu Structure Plan shows the cycle path going through the Hautapu cemetery to the north of the site which is inconsistent with Appendix B Perimeter Boundary Treatment map which shows the cycle path along the northern boundary of the site. 12/9 Planning Maps Planning Maps Oppose The Proposed Hautapu Structure Plan and the associated Planning Maps do not take into account the adjoining NZTA owned property 151 Victoria Road which is surplus to Waikato Expressway purposes and impose planning restrictions between this land and the Submitter s site at 167 Victoria Road. 12/10 Appendix S5 Provision 1.1 Oppose The new design objective in the Proposed Urban Design and Landscape Guidelines for 1. Site and Context Assessment fails to recognise that the land subject to the PHSP is to be developed for industrial purposes or that the land subject to the PHSP is not entirely surrounded by rural land. Design guideline 1.1 requires a site analysis prior to development. It is unclear why such an analysis is required since the Structure Plan Design Guidelines should be sufficient to inform the design process. Amend Planning Maps 22 and 24 to ensure they are consistent with the PHSP. Planning Map 22 and 24 - Remove Deferred Reserve Zone from 167 Victoria Road. Move Hautapu Structure Plan boundary to southern boundary to incorporate the entire site. Zone entire property Industrial. Ensure Appendix B: Perimeter Boundary treatment is consistent with the PHSP. In icular clarify whether the cycle path is proposed to be located within the Hautapu Cemetery or to the north of 183a Victoria Road. Incorporate 151 Victoria Road within the PHSP. Delete design guideline 1.1. Page 18 of 29

19 12/11 Appendix S5 Provision 2. Access and Movement Oppose No analysis has been undertaken to how the cycle network would integrate into the broader cycle route framework, or how the cycle path will be developed over time. 12/12 Appendix S5 Provision 2.9 Oppose There is no reason or justification as to why loading areas need to be located away from cycle paths or separated from vehicle access routes. There is no place for loading. 12/13 Appendix S5 Provision 2.16 Oppose There is no reason or justification as to why staff car parking should be located separately to operational areas such as truck manoeuvring areas, and external storage areas. It is not clear why parking areas should be separated from buildings by landscaping. 12/14 Appendix S5 Provision 2.18 Oppose There is no reason/ justification as to why staff car parking should be located separately to operational areas such as truck manoeuvring areas, and external storage areas. 12/15 Appendix S5 Provision 2.19 Oppose It is unclear what the purpose and cost/benefit is of requiring landscaping of carparks even if the car parking spaces are to the rear of a building and not visible to the road or public open space. 12/16 Appendix S5 Provision 3.2 Oppose There does not appear to be sufficient justification for setting buildings back 15m from Hautapu Road and Peak Road given that only limited parking can be established in this area and no storage of goods or materials can occur in this area. 12/17 Appendix S5 Provision 3.3 Oppose There is no justification for the 25m building set back requirement along the southern boundary of 167 Victoria Road adjacent to the Waikato Expressway, this requirement has a icularly high associated cost and is not required to achieve the design objectives. 12/18 Appendix S5 Provision 4.4 Oppose The requirement for any building within 100m of the Hautapu Cemetery to have a maximum height of 12m, when the maximum height of buildings at Ensure cycle paths are provided within Council land and not on private property. Remove the requirement (2.9) to locate loading areas away from cycle paths. Remove the requirement (2.16) to locate staff car parking away from operation areas such as truck manoeuvring areas and external storage areas. Remove the requirement (2.18) to separate buildings and car parks by landscaped areas. Amend the guidelines (2.19) to ensure that landscaping of carparks is not required where the car parks are located to the rear of a building and not visible from the road. Amend the setback of buildings from Hautapu and Peak road (3.2). Remove the 25m building setback requirement from the Waikato Expressway (3.3). Delete the 12m height requirement for any building within 100m of Hautapu Cemetery and revert to the standard allowance of 20m (4.4). Page 19 of 29

20 all other sites outside of this area is 20m is inappropriate and unjustified. 12/19 Appendix S5 Provision 4.23 Oppose Guideline 4.23 requires signage to incorporate large timber post rounds which is onerous and unnecessary for an industrial site. 12/20 Appendix S5 Provision 4.24 Oppose The restriction on building mounted signs to one per tenant in guideline 4.24 is not justified and inappropriate. 12/21 Appendix S5 Provision 4.25 Oppose Design guideline 4.25 restricting signage to not be directly visible from the Waikato Expressway is inappropriate. Some signage will inherently be visible from this location even if it is not directed to it. 12/22 Appendix S5 Provision 5. Landscaping Oppose It is unclear what is meant by the requirement to provide water sensitive features that incorporate the topography and existing systems. 12/23 Appendix S5 Provision 5.1 Oppose The intent of the requirement for a 5m wide earth mounding and associated landscaping strip is unclear. 12/24 Appendix S5 Provision 5.2 Oppose Amenity planting requirements for front and corner sites is inconsistent with the PHSP which requires a 5m landscaped strip along the Victoria Road frontage. 12/25 Appendix S5 Provision 5.4 Oppose A 5m planting strip is required along Victoria Road is inappropriately located, will result in an inefficient use of the Submitters property and there is no benefits in terms of amenity in this location. 12/26 Appendix S5 Provision 5.5 Oppose The guideline requiring drainage management measures to be integrated into the amenity strips through the installation of vegetated swales is not a practical location. 12/27 Appendix S5 Provision 5.3 Oppose Providing specimen trees at 10m intervals may not be appropriate from the of view of security and/or visibility and is inconsistent with the Appendix B Perimeter Boundary Treatment Delete the requirement (4.23) to incorporate large timber post rounds within signage. Delete the restriction on building mounted signs to one per tenant (4.24). Delete guideline 4.25 restricting signage from being visible from Waikato expressway. Clarify the design objectives in icular what is the purpose of the requirement to provide water sensitive features that incorporate the topography and existing systems. Delete the requirement (5.1) which requires a 5m earth mounding. Amend guideline 5.2 to ensure it is consistent with the PHSP. Remove the requirement (5.4) for a 5m amenity strip adjoining the southern boundary (Waikato Expressway) on 167 Victoria Road. Remove guideline 5.5 requiring drainage management measures to be integrated into amenity strips. Delete Guideline 5.3. Page 20 of 29

21 12/28 Section 7 - Industrial Zone Policies & , Rule Oppose which requires amenity street tree planting - min 30m spacing. The inconsistent wording between proposed new Policy , Policy and proposed new Rule and the proposed Urban Design and Landscape Guidelines causes confusion and does not provide for the efficient use and development of the subject industrial land. The guidelines should remain as such, and guidelines should not be imposed as a rule with vague interpretation as to whether compliance is achieved or not. Make any consequential relief as required to give effect to this submission, including any consequential relief required to ensure a consistent approach is taken throughout the document; and any other relief required to give effect to the issues raised in this submission. Horticulture New Zealand 4/1 Whole of Plan Change 6 Generic Oppose The whole of the Hautapu Structure Plan and Growth Cell C8 area is located on Class 1 soil and is typically rural in nature. The Section 32 report does not adequately consider trade-offs or implication for existing rural activities due to the proposed change in zoning to allow for future industrial development. Not specified. It is noted that the other relief sought by the submitter relate to District Wide issues and therefore have more appropriately been captured under plan change 5. HW Industries Section 7 - Industrial Support Retain. Retain. Zone Zone 7/1 Section 7 - Industrial 7/2 Appendix S5 Provision S5.1.3 Support in Retain subject to amendment of the 2nd sentence of Paragraph S5.1.3 to read: The structure plan area does not include the existing industrial land includes a limited area extending north of Amend as proposed. Page 21 of 29

22 Hautapu Road adjoining existing industrial activities. 7/3 Appendix S5 Hautapu Design Support Retain. Retain. Objective 7/4 Appendix S5 Provision S5.2.6 Support in Amend the final sentence to read: The specific Amend as proposed. guidelines are provided to help direct the design of the development, thereby achieving identify potential design solutions that will achieve the overarching design objectives. 7/5 Appendix S5 Stormwater Diagram Support in Amend Sheets 1-3 to read: Typical Indicative Stormwater Sections. Amend as proposed. 7/6 Planning Maps Planning Maps 4, 22 and 24 Support in Amend Planning Maps 4, 22 and 24 to identify additional Deferred Industrial Land comprising approximately 6ha, at 84 and 90 Hautapu Road. Amend as proposed. NZ Transport Agency 18/1 Whole of Plan Change 6 Generic Support Supports the use of a robust planning framework to guide the future growth of the Hautapu Structure Plan Area and provide certainty to developers and the community generally on future growth locations. Retain. The Straw Warehouse 9/1 Whole of Plan Change 6 Generic Oppose That the structure plan layout, provisions and guidelines do not give adequate consideration to the integration of land use, transport and access. 9/2 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose The Plan Change doubles the size of the area zoned as industrial to 100 hectares with only one Seek amendments to the structure plan that address the concerns raised in the submission. Amend the layout to improve connectivity from the structure plan area to the arterial and state Page 22 of 29

23 for vehicle access to a local road. This is not consistent with the structure plan principles (S5.1.4) which seek "an industrial area that is readily accessible. 9/3 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose All vehicle access is via Allwill Drive and Hautapu Road which are both identified as a local roads in the District Plan Road Hierarchy. The industrial area is likely to generate high volumes of traffic at this single intersection which could result in safety problems, increase maintenance costs on these local roads not constructed for high volumes of heavy vehicles, creates longer vehicles trips for access to some properties and reduces amenity through additional noise and vibration from vehicle movements. 9/4 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose The proposed access via Allwill Drive is not integrated with arterial and state highway transport networks that form the regional transport network. This is not consistent with the structure plan principles (S5.1.4) which seek "a local transport network that is fully integrated with the regional transport network." We believe access to the structure plan area via a roundabout at the intersection of Hautapu Road and Victoria Road would provide a safer, more efficient access and gateway to the Hautapu area with a direction connection to the regional network. 9/5 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose The staging is not practicable as access to Allwill Drive relies on other ies to build the proposed internal roads ahead of other development. 9/6 Appendix S5 Hautapu Structure Plan Oppose The structure plan layout does not give adequate consideration to the District Plan objectives for transportation (District Plan, Section 16.3). In icular, Objective which relates to "integrating land use and transport; ensuring a pattern of land uses and land transport system which is safe, effective and compatible." We do highway networks. Amend the layout to include access via a roundabout at the intersection of Hautapu Road and Victoria Road (SH1B). Removing the 5ha limit or other equivalent relief. Not stated. Not stated. Page 23 of 29

24 not believe that the proposed access at Allwill Drive will contribute to the transportation objectives as well as other options would. It is not clear what alternatives have been considered as the supporting technical information has not been made available on Council s website. Waikato Regional Council Generic Support in Change 6 3/1 Whole of Plan 3/2 Appendix S5 Provision S5.1 Support in 3/3 Whole of Plan Change 6 Support for the whole of Plan Change 6. Approve Plan Change 6. Amend the introduction in Appendix S5.1 to include the following sentence after the first two sentences as follows: The staging of development in the structure plan area has been divided into defined 'areas' that are available for development. These areas have been segmented according to the services that need to be put into place before the site can be occupied by a development. All infrastructure elements within each 'area' identified on the structure plan maps must be in place prior to any development occurring within that 'area'. The areas have no... Generic Support Note that consents are likely to be required for storm water discharge from the Hautapu Structure Plan area since it drains to Pukeroro Drainage area to the north and west. Amend the wording of introduction in S5.1 to include the new sentence. No decision required. Page 24 of 29

25 Waipa District Council 19/1 Appendix S5 Provision S5.2.7 Oppose The design guideline conflicts with Rule which allows two vehicle crossings when a site has a frontage greater than 50m to a road which is not a state highway or major arterial. 19/2 Appendix S5 Provision 2.13 and Figure 6 Oppose Delete design guideline 2.13 as it is an unnecessary repetition of Rule and Figure 6 is a breach of the same rule. 19/3 Appendix S5 Provision 2.17 Oppose Design Guideline 2.17 is regarded as unnecessarily prescriptive and inappropriate for industrial operational related parking. 19/4 Section 7 Industrial Zone Rule and related Appendix S5 - Provision 2.14 Support in 19/5 Appendix S5 Provision 2.20 Support in Recommend amending Rule in order to better achieve better operational safety outcomes on industrial sites in the Hautapu Industrial area, Similarly to avoid duplication recommend amending Design Guideline 2.14 to delete the first sentence as an unrequired duplication. Deleting of Design Guideline 2.20 addressing the ratio of trees to carparks as this ratio is contrary to the ratio already stipulated in Rule /6 Appendix S5 Provision 4.2 Oppose Design Guideline 4.2 is an unnecessary duplication of Rule and should be deleted as superfluous. 19/7 Appendix S5 Provisions 4.8 and 4.9 Oppose Both these design guidelines are addressed in Rule and are therefore unnecessary and should be deleted as superfluous. 19/8 Appendix S5 Provisions 4.10 and 4.11 Oppose There is an error in the maximum building height specified for the area within100m of Hautapu Cemetery and SH1. The proposed design guideline says the maximum height shall be 12m whereas Delete the entire design guideline 2.7. Delete Design Guideline 2.13 and Figure 6. Delete Design Guideline Amend Rule as follows: Except for visitor parking, in the Hautapu Industrial Structure Plan Area, parking and loading areas shall be located at the rear or side of buildings. And amend Design Guideline 2.14 in Appendix S5.3.7 as follows: Car parking within the front setback of the site should generally be restricted to visitor parking. Visitor spaces should be clearly distinguished with suitable signage or markings. Amend Design Guideline 2.20 as follows: Car parking areas should be designed with a regular grid of shade trees, of a suitable species, between parking rows at a ratio of approximately 1 tree per 8 carbays. Refer to Appendix C for a list of appropriate species. Delete Design Guideline 4.2. Delete Design Guidelines 4.8 and 4.9. Delete Design Guidelines 4.10 and Page 25 of 29

26 19/9 Appendix S5 Appendix B: Perimeter Boundary Treatment Support in 19/10 Appendix S5 Provision 4.21 Support in 19/11 Appendix S5 Provision 4.22 Support in existing District Plan Rule specifies a maximum height of 10m is allowed within 100m of Hautapu Cemetery and SH1 Cambridge Bypass. The annotation in the figure in Appendix B: Perimeter Boundary Treatment which refers to the FUTURE INDUSTRIAL ZONE should be amended to correct and extend the maximum height exceptions that apply to areas within 100m of the Hautapu Cemetery and the Cambridge Bypass from 12m maximum height to 10m maximum height. The recommendation for direct lighting for signs is regarded as unclear and unnecessarily detailed for an industrial areas in Hautapu. The recommendation for allowance of no more than 50% of the sign coverage to include corporate colours and logos is regarded as unnecessarily prescriptive and onerous for the Hautapu industrial area. 19/12 Appendix S5 Provision 4.23 Oppose Recommend deleting Design Guideline 4.23 as it contradicts District Plan Rule Whereas Design Guideline 4.23 says that Free standing tenant signs may be placed at locations near entry driveways District Plan Rule specifies that signs must be placed so that where visible from Hautapu Road, Peak Road and Victoria Road or adjacent to Hautapu cemetery, they are setback from the road boundary by 15m. 19/13 Appendix S5 Provision 4.24 and Figure 19 Oppose Recommend deleting Design Guideline and associated Figure 19 as Rule specifies no more than two signs on a site whereas Design Guideline 24 says that Building mounted signs should be and limited to a maximum one per tenant (refer Figure 19). 19/14 Appendix S5 Provision 4.25 Oppose Recommend deleting Design Guideline 4.25 as it duplicates Rule and is therefore superfluous. Rule specifies that all Amend the annotation in Appendix B Perimeter Boundary Treatment referring to the FUTURE INDUSTRIAL ZONE as follows: 20m maximum height except 12m 10m maximum height within 100m of the Hautapu Cemetery and the Cambridge Bypass. Amend Design Guideline 4.21 as follows: All signs should be high quality and low maintenance with direct lighting. Amend Design Guideline 4.22 as follows: Sign colours should be a similar colour to those used in buildings with allowance of no more than 50% of the sign coverage to include corporate colours and logos. Delete Design Guideline Delete Design Guideline 4.24 and Figure 19. Delete Design Guideline Page 26 of 29

27 signs must be: (b) not visible from the SH1 Cambridge Bypass and Design Guideline 4.25 says that Signage shall not be directed at, or directly visible from the Waikato expressway. 19/15 Appendix S5 Figure 18 Oppose Recommend deleting Figure 18 as the sign shown is large and therefore misleading when compared with the Sign size permitted in Rule which specifies that in the Hautapu Industrial Structure Plan Area there must be no more than two signs on a site with no sign exceeding 2m 2. 19/16 Appendix S5 Provision 5.1 and related Section 7 - Rule Support in Recommend that Design Guideline 5.1 which is written as a rule rather be deleted as a Design Guideline and included as a new clause under Rule /17 Appendix S5 Provision 5.2 Oppose Recommend deleting Design Guideline 5.2 as it overlaps with and is already addressed in Rule (a) which specifies that and landscaping must meet the following minimum depths:(i) Where adjoining a road 2.5m Design Guideline 5.2 currently reads as Front and corner sites shall have an amenity planting strip along the entire road boundary to the minimum depth of 2.5m, except for access and egress s. 19/18 Appendix S5 Provision 5.4 Support in Recommend that Design Guideline 5.4 which is written as a rule rather be deleted as a Design Guideline and included as a new rule clause under Rule Delete Figure 18. Delete Design Guideline 5.1 and include the wording of Design Guideline 5.1 as a new clause to Rule to read as follows: Within the Hautapu Industrial Structure Plan Area, a 5m wide minimum amenity planting strip with earth mounding will be provided from housing on opposing rural zoned properties. More specifically, along Peake Road and s of Hautapu Road, Hannon Road and Victoria Road (refer to Appendix B in the Hautapu Urban Design and Landscape Guidelines in Appendix S5.2). Delete Design Guideline 5.2. Delete Design Guideline 5.4 and include the wording of Design Guideline 5.4 as a new clause to Rule to read as follows: Within the Hautapu Industrial Structure Plan Area, a 5m amenity planting strip to provide visual screening shall be provided along the southern boundary, adjacent to the Waikato Expressway (refer to Page 27 of 29

28 19/19 Appendix S5 Provision 5.8 and related Section 7 - Rule Support in Recommend that Design Guideline 5.8 which is written as a rule rather be deleted as a Design Guideline and included as a new rule clause under Rule /20 Appendix S5 Provision 5.11 Oppose Recommend that Design Guideline 5.11 be deleted as it is contrary to and is already addressed in Rule which specifies that all car parks must: (a) Provide at least one tree planted for every 5 car parking spaces 19/21 Appendix S5 Provision 5.16 Oppose Recommend deleting Design Guideline 5.16 as the wording is currently better suited to being a condition of consent than a design guideline. 19/22 Appendix S5 Provision 5.19 Support in 19/23 Appendix S5 Provision S5.2.3 Support in 19/24 Appendix S5 Provision S5.2.7 and related Section 7 - Rule Support in Recommend rewording Design Guideline 5.19 since there is no fencing rule in the District Plan to which this design guideline would refer where it says Where fencing is permitted.. Recommend an amendment to correct the wording in section S5.2.3 which refers to development within the study area. The word study area should be replaced with Hautapu Industrial Structure Plan. Recommend reordering the numbering of the design guidelines and figures in Appendix S5.2.7 and clauses in Rule to account for changes introduced by this submission. Appendix B in the Hautapu Urban Design and Landscape Guidelines in Appendix S5.2). Delete Design Guideline 5.8 and include the wording of Design Guideline 5.8 as a new clause to Rule to read as follows: Within the Hautapu Industrial Structure Plan Area, two entry s into the industrial area, along Hautapu Road and Hannon Road, will require special streetscape planting to provide a site feature (refer to Appendix B in the Hautapu Urban Design and Landscape Guidelines in Appendix S5.2). Delete Design Guideline 5.11 And reword the numbering of successive existing clauses (b) and (c) under Rule as follows: change (b) to (f) and (c) to (g). Delete Design Guideline Amend Design Guideline 5.19 as follows: Where front fencing is permitted and is not required for security, the fence any fencing should be: Unobtrusive and not exceed 1.5m in height Allow clear views between the street and the business Utilise Use materials and colours appropriate to the location, and building and landscape design Avoid the use of high and/or solid structures / materials. Amend section s5.2.3 as follows: 'the following sections outline guidelines for the future industrial development within the study Hautapu Industrial Structure Plan area'. Amend numbering of design guidelines, figures in Appendix S5.2.7 as well as clauses in Rule Page 28 of 29

29 Wang, Jun & Yanot, Bin 1/1 Whole of Plan Change 6 Generic Support Support for Plan Change 6. Not stated. Page 29 of 29