table of contents . page number . 1. introduction...

Hamilton City Proposed District Plan

Section 42A Hearing Report 3, 4, 9 and 11 June 2014

Report on Submissions and Further Submissions

Business 3 and 4 Zones – Addendum Report

1

Table of Contents Page Number 1. Introduction ................................................................................... 3 2. Background ................................................................................... 4 3. Submissions ................................................................................... 4 4. Further consultation ...................................................................... 4 4. Analysis .......................................................................................... 5 5. Conclusions ..................................................................................... 5 Appendix A – Analysis and recommendations Appendix B – Tracked change versions –

Appendix B1: Chapter 6 Business Zones

Appendix B2: Proposed change to Zoning Maps 15-16, 25A

Appendix B3: Location of Business 4 (for information)

Appendix B4: CDP Resource Consent Lot 2 – The Base Appendix C – Technical Report – B4 land provision and Large Format Retailing capacity in

Te Rapa, Tim Heath, Property Economics, 22 May 2014 Appendix D – List of submitters and further submitters

2

1.0 Introduction 1.1 My name is Paul Bowman. I hold the qualifications of Bachelor of Science (Hons)

from the University of Kingston, UK, Post Graduate Diploma and Masters of Urban Design and Town Planning from London South Bank University. I have been a corporate member of the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) for 10 years and have over 16 years’ experience in regulatory, policy planning and urban design roles in Local Government and consultancy both within UK and New Zealand. This experience is related to urban design strategies, structure planning, urban design guidance and development controls, master planning, and regulatory and policy development under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) the Local Government Act 2002 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

1.2 At present I hold the position of Principal Planner for Hamilton City Council in the

City Planning team reviewing the District Plan, a position I have now held for 2 years. Prior to this, I held the position of Principal Planner at East Hampshire District Council in the UK with jurisdiction for the consents and policy planning of the South Downs National Park.

1.3 Previously in New Zealand I was the Lead Urban Designer at Hamilton City Council responsible for implementing the City Scope Urban Design Strategy, providing urban design advice both within Council and externally. I was project leader for the consultation and production of the VISTA design guide and setting up the Councils first Urban Design Panel.

1.4 My role in preparing this report is that of an expert policy planner and urban

designer. Although this is a Council Hearing, I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court's Practice Note dated 1 November 2011. I have complied with that Code when preparing my written statement of evidence and I agree to comply with it when I give any oral evidence.

1.5 In preparing this addendum report I rely on additional expert advice sought from

Tim Heath of Property Economics, who is a retail specialist.

1.6 The scope of my evidence relates to comments on submissions and further submissions received and evidence heard in relation to the extent of the Business 3 and 4 Zone for the Hamilton City Proposed District Plan (notified 10 December 2012).

1.7 The data, information, facts, and assumptions I have considered in forming my opinions are set out in my evidence. Where I have set out opinions in my evidence, I have given reasons for those opinions. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed.

1.8 No formal pre-hearing meetings concerning submissions covered by this evidence have been undertaken pursuant to clause 8AA of the First Schedule of the RMA.

3

2.0 Background 2.1 In response to hearings evidence presented by Tainui Group Holdings Limited (TGH),

Kiwi Income Property Trust Limited (Kiwi), Porters and others on the extent of Business 4 Zoning proposed in the Business S42A Report and Planning Maps, Council has undertaken a further detailed analysis of the extent and need for Large Format Retail (LFR) in location of Te Rapa Sub-regional centre.

2.2 Kiwi and TGH both hold the view that the area zoned Business 4 is too extensive and

would be detrimental to the centres hierarchy approach of the Plan while opposing submissions from Porters, request an increased coverage (12ha) of Business 4 zoning across their land holding. Other submitters identified within the original Business S42a Report which seek either a retention or additional Business 4 zoning in this location have been included within this report.

2.3 Given the interrelated submissions made by Kiwi and TGH with regard to the

amount of Business 4 and extent of the Business 3 zoning at The Base, Te Rapa sub-regional centre, the report also includes analysis and recommendations for the amount of Business 3 zoning in this part of Te Rapa.

2.4 This hearing report in terms of the Business 3 zone has also had regard to the

ongoing Proposed Regional Policy Statement (PRPS) negotiations on the commercial hierarchy provisions in the PRPS between HCC, Kiwi and TGH in terms of their agreed position on the above issues within the Proposed District Plan.

3.0 Submissions 3.1 Seventeen submissions and thirteen further submissions have been drawn from the

original S42a Business report and Planning Maps report and are included within this addendum report.

4.0 Further Consultation 4.1 Those owners of sites that were identified as potentially being affected by the

proposed zoning changes to the B4 land in Te Rapa were contacted during March this year. Ownership was established through Council’s GIS and rates database. Where phone numbers were available or were able to be established through the white pages or the telecom directory owners were contacted to provide them advance notice of the upcoming hearings as a result of further evidence needing to be considered. Contact was not able to be made in all cases, as some numbers were not able to be obtained, or contact was not established despite multiple attempts. Where this was the case a hard copy letter was sent to the address attached to the property on Council files, and individual notices with an explanation of the need to re-convene the hearing were distributed by the Hearings Administrator in March 2014.

4.2 Feedback received from this consultation varied. Some owners were content with an

Industrial Zoning as this is what they considered their business to be. Others preferred to remain in the B4 zone as notified, with some that had not submitted on the Plan indicating that they would seek to lodge a late submission. Those that had

4

previously submitted on the PDP indicated they would present evidence in support of their preferred position.

5.0 Analysis 5.1 The supplementary Business zone analysis concerns itself with two key issues:

1) A proposed reduction in the Business 4 zoned land in the Te Rapa north area 2) An enlarged Business 3 zone for the Lot 1 and Lot 2, The Base.

5.2 Appendix A contains an overview of the original S42a Business 3 and Business 4 zone

analysis and new further analysis in response to evidence heard and expert advice sought from Property Economics (See Appendix C). The analysis in this addendum report is in response to the relevant Business 3 and 4 submissions that cut across both the Business and Planning Maps s42a reports.

5.3 Given the duplication of issues on Business 3 and 4 zoning from the original Business

S42a report, only those submissions and further submissions relevant to Business 3 and 4 zoning have been listed in this addendum report and grouped as follows:

• Purpose • Objectives and Policies • Planning Maps

5.4 For ease of consideration of issues the Business 4 zone is considered first within the

analysis. 6.0 Conclusion

6.1 On the basis of my analysis within this report, I recommend that the changes within

the Track Changed Versions (Appendix B) are accepted.

6.2 The changes will improve the clarity and administration of the Plan; contribute towards achieving the objectives of the Plan, Future Proof and the PRPS in an effective and efficient manner; and give effect to the purpose and principles of the RMA. P.S Bowman Principal Planner June 2014

5

Appendix A Analysis and recommendations

Business 3 and 4 Zone - Addendum Report S42a Report

Analysis: Business 4 related submissions in Business Chapter and Planning Maps S42a – Purpose, Objectives, Policies and Planning Maps

Tainui Group Holdings Limited (1199.003) and Kiwi Income Property Group (1198.018) in their submissions to the plan raised objection to the extent of Large Format Retail (LFR) zoning on the periphery of The Base, Sub-regional centre. TGH sought a rezoning to Industrial until such time as a demand for LFR had been proven and Kiwi sought a more restrictive Business 1 zoning which would only provide for LFR as a Restricted Discretionary activity and be subject to a centres function and viability assessment. The above submission was opposed by Waikato Regional Council (FS72.31), Kiwi Income Property Trust and Kiwi Property Holdings Limited (FS123.015), AMP Capital Property Portfolio (FS198.003), Porter Developments Ltd (FS239.005) and NZ Transport Agency (270.031). These submissions argue that a commercial fringe albeit lower intensity zoning on the periphery of The Base as part of a wider Te Rapa North commercial centre is more reflective of the previous commercial zoning and should be supported. Porters Development Ltd (1153.034) submitted that their entire land holding (12ha) from Te-Rapa Road to Eagle Way should be rezoned Business 4. They argue that Large Format Retail is appropriate in terms of reverse sensitivity issues in this location and that the CBD is not an appropriate location for it. AMP Capital Property Portfolio (312.002) and Parkwood Trade Centre Limited (606.001) both sought either retention or rezoning to Business 4 for their respective sites in this periphery location. The Business S42A (October 2013) report recommended to Accept in Part the submissions from TGH and Kiwi, in so far as the extent of the Sub-regional centre identified in Fig 6.1b was recommended to be reduced and some, not all of the Business 4 zone land was to be rezoned Industrial. The Proposed Plan in developing the Business 4 zone responds in part to the existing aggregation of large format retail in Te Rapa. The request from Porters to rezone their entire site Business 4 was rejected on the grounds that it would be contrary to the business hierarchy approach. Only the western front section fronting onto Te Rapa Road was recommended to be retained a Business 4 zoning as originally notified. The request for retention and expansion of Business 4 zone by AMP Capital Property Portfolio and Parkwood Trade Centre Ltd were also rejected for the same reasons. 1.Business 4 S42A Background Analysis: It is evident from the previous reasoning in the S42a report that the strategic approach to the plan already identified the need to restrict the degree of LFR in this location, given the need to recognise and give credence to the centres hierarchy approach. The previous reasoning recommended a ‘roll back’ of business zoning across the Supa Centre land and a more discretionary stance for retail activities was proposed in the Business 4 zone in order to enable a centres viability assessment. The recommended changes (October 2013) are shown in Appendix B2. It is worth noting, that subsequent evidence from various submitters during hearings, questioned the logic of provisions that made LFR activities in an identified LFR zone, a discretionary activity. (Mr Russell Baikie on behalf of DNZ Property Holdings Ltd, ref 866.001). I summarise the previous analysis relevant to Business 4 zoning submissions taken from the October 2013 Business S42A Report below: TGH also seek to change the zoning of the land around the periphery of The Base from Large Format Retail to Industrial and request deletion of Purpose 6.1h). Their rationale is that no supporting studies have demonstrated the need to zone this land for additional retail at this time. The Council assessment is that provision of a large format retail zone

1

reflects the existing established consented land use in this location which is predominantly large format retail best suited to this peripheral gateway location adjacent to good access routes. It is accepted that the large format zoning is an acknowledgement of historical ad hoc development that has occurred under the previous permissive Industrial and Commercial Services zoning of the Operative District Plan Consideration has to be given to the Environmental Court decision in 2003 – commonly referred to as Kiwi Property Management Ltd and others v Hamilton City Council. This decision was clearly influenced by acknowledgement of the need to provide for large format retail development unlikely to locate within centres but arguably underestimated the impact (with the benefit of hindsight) of the liberalisation of retailing into previously dedicated Industrial areas of the City. In relation to the consequential effects, the Court at that time accepted evidence that Large Format Retail was unlikely to have significant adverse effects on established centres. This analysis with the benefit of hindsight and retail evidence provided by Property Economics (Appendix C refers) has been shown to be incorrect. It has been outlined in the previous Strategic chapter of these hearings that it is now evident that expansion of retail outside of the CBD has deprived the CBD of its primacy as a retail centre and as such its vitality, vibrancy and contribution to the social and economic wellbeing of its inhabitants and visitors. Given the above concerns and trends for retail leakage highlighted, it is important to note that assessment of the Plan provisions for Large Format Retail are now set in the stricter context of assessing their impact upon the proposed business hierarchy which has been absent under the ODP. Advice from Property Economics on the approach to be taken for Large Format Retail within the Business 4 zone is commensurate with the approach taken for the Sub-regional centre zoning and that is to accept that such ‘legacy’ development has now occurred, and to now recognize that any further retail expansion in this zone should not undermine the vitality, primacy and viability of the Central City. To this end, amendments have been recommended later in this report to the provisions for small to medium size retail in Business 3 zone such that they are subject to a discretionary activity assessment depending on floor area, whilst retail activities below 399m2 is proposed to be a non-complying activity in the Business 4 zone. Further relief can be given concerning the extent of the proposed Business 4 zone in Te-Rapa North commercial centre with the proposed rezoning of the former ‘Supa Centre site’ off The Boulevard to the north of Te Kowhai Road. This development formerly zoned ‘Commercial Services’ in the Operative District Plan enjoyed a historic land use consent in 2004 for a large integrated retail development referred to as the ‘Supa Centre’ which despite an extension of time never eventuated and has now lapsed with only the subdivision consents being implemented. Notwithstanding the more recent commercial subdivision consents for several large lots ranging from 1830-8024m2 it is now considered appropriate to scale back the proposed Business 4 zoning in what is in effect a predominantly industrial area. This approach is considered appropriate given the retail advice and strategic approach to consolidate existing centres first and maintain the primacy of the business hierarchy. As such with the exception of the two lots identified fronting Te Kowhai Road in order to maintain a suitable commercial interface on this high profile gateway intersection to the City, the remaining lots are on both east and west sides of The Boulevard are proposed to be changed to a Industrial Zone. (author underlining) 2.Background analysis - extent of Te-Rapa North Sub-regional Centre – Fig 6.1b (S42a Business Zones Report, October 2013) AMP Capital Property Portfolio (312.003), Chartwell Investments Ltd (355.001) and Parkwood Trade Centre Limited (606.004) seek amendment to Fig 6.1b) in order that there respective sites at The Boulevard, 6 Parkinson Road, and 8A and 8B Maui Street be included within the Te Rapa North Sub-Regional Centre area map. Tainui Group (FS196.005.006,007) oppose this relief sought on the basis that the Te Rapa North Sub-regional centre already contains an excessive land area on its fringes for large format retail that is not needed to meet likely demand in the foreseeable future, therefore no further land should be added.

2

All of these sites fall within the proposed Industrial zone and are adjacent to either the Large Format Retail zone (Business 4) or Commercial fringe zoning (Business 1), both out of centre zones in the Plan. The submitters contend that as for their immediate neighbours, their sites should also be included as within the Te-Rapa North Sub-regional centre area. The issue of the physical extent of land identified in Fig 6.1b as Te-Rapa North Sub Regional Centre is inherent in the submissions of both TGH and Kiwi Income Property Ltd both of which raise concern over the size and extent of retail and commercial activity that could occur in this wider area to the detriment of the Business hierarchy. The issue of extent of the ‘Business 4 zoning’ has already been considered above; however, it is acknowledged that this diagram does not accurately reflect the zoning maps in this vicinity and as such contradicts the size of the ‘Sub-Regional Centre’ which the Council intends for this location. Whilst the existing legacy of the Large Format Retail activities is acknowledged in the Planning Maps, the proposed Objectives and Policies identify both the Business 1 and Business 4 zones as ‘out of centre’ zones. As such it is now considered inappropriate and misleading to identify all the Business 1 and 4 zoning in this location as being part of the Sub-Regional Centre. To do so would represent additional sprawl of Business zoning which could signal the potential for further unnecessary expansion of commercial land that could undermine the centres hierarchy advocated by the Plan, Future Proof and PRPS. For these reasons the submissions by AMP Capital Property Portfolio (312.003), Chartwell Investments Ltd (355.001) and Parkwood Trade Centre Limited (606.004) are rejected and it is recommended that Fig 6.1b is amended as follows:

Fig 6.1b As proposed in Business S42a Report (October 2013) Whilst the PRPS does not explicitly define the geographical extent of this centre, it is considered that the centre in this location as for Chartwell is depicted by a range of services and facilities that operate, perform and function as a coherent and integrated centre. To this extent it is considered that the multiple fragmented ownership of Large Format

3

Retail in this location severed by a Major Arterial Transport corridor do not perform or function as part of an integrated centre. Whilst the area and extent of what constitutes the physical size of a Sub-Regional centre may well be debated in the Hearings, based on advice from Property Economics it is considered appropriate to identify the land bounded by Te Kowhai Road to the north, Te Rapa Road to the east, Avalon Drive to the south and the North Island Main Trunk Railway to the west as shown in the proposed amendments to Fig 6.1b above. This amendment is considered to best align with the strategic compact centres approach advocated by Future Proof and the PRPS, and reflected in the provisions of the Strategic Chapter. 3. June 2014 Addendum and further consideration of Business 4 zoning In light of submissions and evidence heard in Hearings in October 2013, Council undertook further consideration and analysis of the extent of Business 4 zoning in the Te-Rapa North Sub-regional Centre location (as identified in Property Economics evidence Appendix C ). I outline below the following in response to further Business 4 zone assessment now undertaken:

• Further assessment • Location of other Business 4 zones in the Plan in addition to Te-Rapa area • Case to reduce Business 4 zoning further • Options available within PDP hierarchy • Highways consideration • Consequential changes to Objectives, policies and rules • Recommendations.

Further assessment Property Economics have been commissioned to undertake an assessment of the potential retail capacity and LFR requirements in the Te-Rapa peripheral area over the next 10-20 years. Their report and area of Business 4 zone study is attached in Appendix C. The aim of this addendum report is to determine whether in light of evidence heard and the strategic objectives of the Plan the extent of Business 4 land zoned originally proposed is appropriate. Locations of other Business 4 zone in the Plan in addition to Te-Rapa The extent of the Business 4 zone applies to two other key locations within the Plan (see Appendix B3)

a) Home Straight Park, off Te-Rapa Road which is considered a standalone ‘self serviced’ enclave of mixed use development, a combination of Business 4 zoning, to reflect Bunning’s (Building Improvement Centre) and Business 1 zone (offices, cafes, gymnasium). This zoning largely reflects the existing established business park in this Te-Rapa location given its integrated planned layout and consented mixed use development.

b) South-west Central City location: Pembroke/Clarence/Palmerston Street enclave has a Business 1 and Business 4 zoning to reflect the existing gentrified small office developments with an established, strong medical services and community services employment profile, with assumed limited re-development potential unless lot

4

aggregation occurs to provide for larger lot redevelopment. These sites are already developed and are on the periphery of the Central City and proposed city living precinct.

Case to Reduce Business 4 zoning The conclusion of the Property Economics report is that based on unimplemented consents of some 47,000m2 at The Base, sub regional centre of which just over 18,000m2 gfa is consented for retail activity and the latent potential for further retail capacity on the remaining balance of this figure that there is no need at this time to rezone further Business 4 land on the periphery as previously recommended. Their advice is to reflect existing and consented LFR activities only. The current Countdown supermarket, impending completion of the K-Mart store (5,300m2 gfa) and vacant LFR land on the corner of Te-kowhai and The Boulevard also have to be taken into consideration as future available supplies of LFR land which will serve predicted demand over the plan period. Of particular note is Paragraph 24 of the attached Property Economics evidence in Appendix C which reiterates that; When considering an appropriate B4 provision for Te Rapa node in the PDP consideration needs to be given to the higher order policies and objectives of the PDP, that is to encourage consolidation of retail development back into the Central City given the shopping pattern trends outlined in my retail evidence for Council at the PDP hearing, the significant diversion of retail expenditure (and office activity) away from the CBD and the on-going retail and economic implications of such, noting much of this is still to ‘play out’ in the market. The need to reduce the Business 4 zoning is further reinforced given the 2013 Census signals lower retail growth and therefore no material demand to justify rezoning additional LFR land certainly over the next 10 years (See Para 12, Appendix C). In short the PDP should focus on the capacity and consolidation of the Central City and existing Sub-regional centre first which provides for better planning and socio-economic outcomes advocated by the Plan and Proposed Regional Policy Statement. The retail advice recommends a reduction in the amount of Business 4 zoning and this is reflected in the changes to Zoning maps shown in Appendix B2. Zoning options available within the PDP Given the submissions put forward in terms of rezoning the Business 4 land around the periphery of The Base to a) Industrial, b) extending Business 4 Land and c) rezoning Business 4 to Business 1 land, the following options for Business 4 land identified are considered in more detail below;

Options

Consideration/ discussion

Retain as Business 4 Land

• The advice from Property Economics (Appendix C) is quite clear that there is no need for the additional LFR zoning over the next 10 years of the plan and potentially longer. They advise that there is surplus capacity within the existing central city and sub-regional centres which should be prioritised first in line with the compact centres approach advocated by the strategic objectives of Plan and PRPS.

• Retention of the existing Business 4 zoning in this location could provide for up to 50-60,000 gfa at grade land for retail activity which

could otherwise be located more sustainably and efficiently in the existing identified centres eg: Central City and Sub-regional centre.

5

• Wider allocation of B4 land presents an inconsistent message in terms of identification of Te-Rapa North Sub-regional centre as identified in Fig 6.1b.

• Evidence presented by the Council’s traffic consultant has advised that the additional Business 4 land shown would not generate

unacceptable adverse effect on the city transport network.

• Reverse sensitivity effects from noise, traffic, lighting, type of activity more aligned with neighbouring land uses.

• It is considered, notwithstanding the minimal transport effects, based on the retail advice given that retaining the proposed amount of Business 4 land as originally shown could serve to undermine the effectiveness of the Business hierarchy.

Deferred Business 4 Land

• One option to be considered as for the Te Rapa North Chapter would be for a deferred zoning in this peripheral location.

• The staging option is usually considered appropriate in order to time new development with the provision of the necessary reticulated infrastructure. In this case the necessary infrastructure is already present. The existing road infrastructure such as the Wairere Drive intersection has been built based on the land use assumptions notified in the PDP.

• Deferred zoning would create an inconsistent message in terms of identification of Te Rapa North Sub-regional centre.

• It is not considered reasonable to defer a business zoning based on as yet unpredicted retail demand patterns. This approach would set

an undesirable ‘holding’ pattern precedent for other parts of the city and it’s Industrial Zone. Such an approach could lead to uncertainty, in terms of identifying and measuring suitable demand triggers and serve to undermine the strategic certainty encouraged as part of a centres based approach.

• It is considered that given the retail and economic evidence provided in terms of need for business land over the life of the plan period,

it is not necessary, sustainable or efficient to require a deferred business overlay in this location.

• A deferred Business zone is contrary to the objectives and policies of the Strategic Framework and PRPS.

Rezone Business 1 zone

Kiwi Income Property Trust (1198.018) in their submission and evidence requested the possibility of rezoning Business 4 land in this location to Business 1. This approach is predicated on the more discretionary status for retail activities in this zone. However the Business S42A Report (October 2013) recommended a more restricted suite of provisions for retail in the Business 4 zone such that there is now little difference between the two zones. If anything the Business 1 zone would be more permissive in office entitlement. The proposed changes to the S42A activity tables in terms of retail provisions are set out below;

6

Rule 6.3 -Business S42A Recommendations (October 2013) The S42a recommended changes show that there is a more restricted discretionary assessment of retail proposed within the Business 4 zone, it is therefore not considered that a Business 1 zoning would be any stricter provisions for retail activities. The purpose of the Business 1 zone is to provide for larger office-type development which already exists on the periphery of identified centres. It enables moderate to intensive office activities with some ancillary services such as gymnasiums, child car ad food and beverage outlets. Small retail activities are not appropriate in the zone as the presence of these activities, in combination with large format retail, will effectively create an unplanned centre. The Business 1 zone is primarily designed to recognise existing large office location that compliment existing centres. In order to be consistent with the centres based approach, new large office activities are expected to locate within and reinforce the roles of the Central City, sub-regional and suburban centres. It is considered that an expanded Business 1 zone would create and inconsistent message in terms of identification of Te Rapa North Sub-regional centre.

7

http://unitaryplan.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/pages/plan/Book.aspx

http://unitaryplan.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/pages/plan/Book.aspx

Paragraph 9.6 of Phil Osborne’s economic evidence tabled on behalf of council is quite clear that offices should be focussed first and foremost towards the Central City. His advice on enabling further office development in Business 4 zone was as follows; ‘Allowing office activity on business 4 land at Te Rapa at the level that would be signalled by the changes sought would further undermine the economic activity generated by the Hamilton CBD, defusing any degree of intensity and allowing the continued scattering of commercial activity throughout the City. There is an absolute need to intensify commercial activity within the Hamilton CBD and not set precedents for allowing it to be accommodated elsewhere’. Based on this advice it is considered to rezone the Business 4 to Business 1 would therefore undermine the strategic objectives of the Plan and for this reason is not recommended.

Rezone Industrial zone

• The retail and economic evidence provided to date in the Strategic , Business and Industrial S42A reports sets out the strategic direction of the plan and the need to prevent the leakage of both office and retail activity away from the identified centres within the Business hierarchy. The compact centres approach is supported by Future Proof and the Proposed Regional Policy Statement. The recent retail advice as far as it pertains to the periphery Business 4 zoning is very clear in that a business zone is not needed at this time and certainly for the life of the PDP.

• All of the land identified as Business 4 zoning between Wairere Drive and Church Road is currently Industrial zoned under the Operative

Plan, to rezone this land from Business 4 to Industrial under the Proposed Plan is appropriate in terms of supporting a centres based approach. Only ancillary retail and offices would be permissible in this location under the PDP.

• As acknowledged by Mr Heath of Property Economics, there are a variety of uses other than heavy Industrial that can be supported

within the Industrial Zone such as Wholesale Retail & trade supplies, yard- based retail and Building improvement centres.

• In addition, retaining an Industrial zone in this location is consistent with the approach for the rest of the city, notably Te Rapa Road corridor south of Wairere Drive where similar uses have sought a more business orientated zoning and have also been rejected

• Mr Heath has advised that reverse sensitivity issues have not ordinarily prevented such LFR and industrial uses locating in the same

vicinity as each other as evident by many of the existing retail uses in place in Te Rapa today. It is considered adverse effects on amenity on adjacent areas can be appropriately addressed through standards and conditions on matters such as noise, light spill, building scale, setback, landscaping and traffic impact assessments within the City wide and Transport chapters of the Plan.

• Rezoning those site identified from Business to Industrial further maintains consistency with approach taken in the Plan to rezone the

former Supa Centre site in the vicinity of The Boulevard and proposed reduction in size of Sub-regional centre as recommended in Fig 6.1b. The reduction in Business 4 zone adds further clarity in terms of focusing future large format retail development towards the Central City and Sub-regional centres first.

8

Highways considerations Hearing evidence has been submitted in the Business hearings by Philip Brown on behalf of TGH, Mr Liam Ryan on behalf of Porters and Alistair Gray on behalf of Hamilton City Council. Mr Brown advises in his evidence that level of Business 4 zoning was not provided for as part of the wider transport modelling for the Te Rapa area. Expert evidence from Mr Gray on behalf of council advises that should the amount of Business 4 land shown in the S42A report be developed then the existing and planned infrastructure is adequate and any potential increased retail traffic would result in delays in the local network but these are not likely to have a significant impact upon the network. Similarly Mr Ryan on behalf of Porters also concluded that LFR in this location would not have a significant impact upon the network. On this basis it is not considered that the amount of Business 4 zoning would result in an adverse effect on the highways network and therefore should not be seen as a reason for a change of zoning from Business 4 to Industrial. Consequential changes to Business 4 Zone, Objective and Policies Notwithstanding the proposal to reduce the amount of Business 4 zoning and the limited extent of the B4 zone in the rest of the City, In order to best meet the objectives and policies for this zone it is recommended Objective 6.2.5 for the Large Format Retail zone is reinforced to make clear that the function, vitality, viability and amenity of the Sub-regional centers is referenced in addition to the Central City. In addition there are subtle changes proposed to text within Policy 6.2.5a around ensuring appropriately zoned land is not first available ‘within’ rather than on the fringe of the Central City and to ensure consistency with assessment criteria ‘adverse effects’ are avoided instead of minimized. It is considered that these consequential changes will best give effect to safeguarding the centres hierarchy and is consistent with the advice given by property Economics which clearly signals that Business 4 zoning in Te-Rapa should be restricted to the existing Sub-regional centre and the Central City should be the preferred location for such activities. Outline of proposed track changes to the Business 4 Objectives and Policies shown below;

Objective Policies

6.2.5 Provide for out-of-centre development comprising a range of moderate to low intensity commercial uses (offices and/or large format retail activities and community services) only in circumstances where the primacy, vitality, viability and amenity of the Central City, the function, vitality, viability and amenity of the

6.2.5a Large format trading activities may be permitted to locate outside zoned business centres where it can be demonstrated that:

I. Appropriately zoned land is not available within the Central City, or Sub-regional centres or Suburban centres; and

II. There is consistency with the assessment criteria to avoid potential adverse effects on the viability and vitality of existing business centres and the Central City; and

III. The proposal cumulatively does not add to the continued loss of developable industrial land to retail uses

6.2.5b Development ensures potential adverse effects on adjacent residential areas are avoided, remedied

9

sub-regional centres and the function and amenity of the lower order centre’s in the business hierarchy are not undermined

or mitigated and the safety and efficiency of the transport network is maintained.

Explanation

It is acknowledged that not all business activities are able to locate within the defined zoned boundaries of the centres that comprise the business hierarchy and that there are often physical, historical and commercial relationships and trading patterns that need to be recognised. The Plan should provide for these circumstances provided there are no suitable alternatives within the centres and the business hierarchy will not be undermined.

The extent to which the new large format trading activities replicate and challenge the functions as to result in adverse effects that are more than minor on the existing services and facilities and amenity of neighbouring business centres must be carefully considered through the provision of a Centre Assessment Report (1.2.2.19 refers).

Several submitters maintained that Business 4 policy framework is unduly restrictive and constraining for the envisaged type of activities in the LFR zones. This point was raised in Business hearings by Mr Russell Baikie on behalf of DNZ Property Holdings Ltd (ref 866.001). However, in light of the retail and economic evidence presented to hearings as part of the original S42a report and the additional retail report undertaken in Appendix C, it is considered that the continuation of an RD approach for LFR retail activities in this zone is considered necessary. In order to best give effect to the Objectives and Policies its is considered that the RD approach for LFR activities in Rule 6.3 t) and u) is retained in order that new LFR retail development in the future can still be considered against the availability of land first in the Central City, Sub-regional or Suburban centres. Recommendation That part of the submission point from Tainui Group Holdings Limited (1199.003) seeking a rezoning of Business 4 (LFR) land around the perimeter of The Te-Rapa North Sub-regional centre to Industrial zone should be accepted in part. This recommendation is based on the further expert retail advice received following a detailed analysis of retail demand and the identified latent capacity for LFR in this location. Not all Business 4 zoning should revert to Industrial and that which remains has been justified in the attached evidence from Property Economics. Rezoning that Business 4 land identified to Industrial for the life of the plan period supports the overall strategic approach to consolidate existing centres first and maintain the primacy of the business hierarchy. The revisions to the lots directly affected by the change of zoning from Business to Industrial zone are outlined in proposed planning maps attached in Appendix B2. Relevant submissions on the Business 4 zone for the areas identified in this report are highlighted in red below. For all other submissions points below pertaining to Business 4 zoning the analysis and recommendation remains the same as for Business S42a Report (October 2013).

10

Sub Name FS Name

Sub Point FS Point

Plan Provision Sub Type Summary Recomm. Reasoning

AMP Capital Property Portfolio

312.003 6.1 Purpose Support Retain Lots 15-17 DP 456477, Lot 2 DP 321305, Lots 37 & 38 DPS 73160, Pt Lots 1-5 DPS 73160, Sec 6 SO 416905 The Boulevard within the “Te Rapa North Sub-regional Centre”.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to retain the identified lots within The Boulevard as falling within Te Rapa North Sub-regional Centre should be rejected as:

• It reduces the efficient and effective implementation of the Plan to achieve its objectives

• The relief sought is not considered to be valid in the context of ensuring vitality and vibrancy of the higher order centres within the business hierarchy

• In the absence of any evidence to support the relief sought it is considered that the relief sought is inconsistent with the strategic outcomes of Future Proof / PRPS

Tainui Group Holdings Ltd

FS246.005

Oppose Accept in Part FS246.005 is accepted in part because that part of 312.003 which it opposes (notification) has been rejected.

Property Council New Zealand

FS249.026

Support Reject FS249.026 is rejected as the part of 313.003 which it supports has been rejected.

Chartwell Investments Ltd

355.001 6.1 Purpose Oppose Amend Fig 6.1b so that Lot 1 DP 321305 (84991) 6 Parkinson Road is included within the zoning for Te Rapa North sub-regional centre.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment for 6 Parkinson Road to be included within Te Rapa North Sub-regional Centre should be rejected as:



• In the absence of any evidence to support the relief sought it is considered that the relief sought is inconsistent with the strategic outcomes of Future Proof / PRPS.


FS246.006

Oppose Accept in part FS246.006 is accepted in part because that part of 355.001 which it opposes (notification) has been rejected.

Parkwood Trade Centre Limited

606.004 6.1 Purpose Support in part

Amend Figure 6.1b to include 8A and 8B Maui

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Fig 6.1b so that 8A and 8B Maui Street to be included within Te Rapa North Sub-regional

11

Street into the Te Rapa North Sub-Regional Centre.

Centre should be rejected as:





FS246.007

Oppose Accept in part FS246.007 is accepted in part because that part of 606.004 which it opposes (notification) has been rejected.

Tainui Group Holdings Limited

1199.003 6.1 Purpose Support in part

Amend the Plan so that all of that block bounded by Te Kowhai Road, Te Rapa Road, Avalon Drive and the North Island Main Trunk Railway is zoned Business Zone 3. Retain the zoning of land around the perimeter of The Base as Industrial Zone instead of Business Zone 4 (refer to attachment to submission) Amend 6.1d) to include Te Rapa North as a Regional Centre in accordance with the submitter’s appeal on the Proposed Regional Policy Statement. Amend 6.1g) regarding the primacy of the CBD to give effect to Clause 6.15(a) of the Proposed Regional Policy Statement which seeks to “support and

Accept in Part The submissions seeks a rezoning of Business 4 land around the perimeter of the centre to Industrial and should be accepted in part as it:

• Will aid the efficient and effective implementation of the Plan to achieve its objectives

• The relief sought is considered to be valid in the context of ensuring vitality and vibrancy of the higher order centres within the business hierarchy.

The submission point seeking amendment to Purpose 6.1 d) and K) to include Te Rapa North as a Regional Centre in accordance with the submitter’s appeal on the Proposed RPS should be rejected as:




The submission point seeking amendment to Purpose 6.1g) to give effect to Clause 6.15a) of the Proposed RPS should be rejected as:

• It is not necessary for effective implementation of the Plan to

12

sustain the vitality, viability and self-sufficiency of existing commercial centres”. Delete 6.1h as the land surrounding The Base should remain zoned Industrial until any requirement for additional Large Format Retail is established Amend 6.1k) to recognize Te Rapa North as a Regional Centre.

achieve its objectives. The submission point seeking amendment to Purpose 6.1h) for land surrounding The Base to remain zoned Industrial should be accepted in part as:




Waikato Regional Council

FS72.031

Oppose Accept in Part FS72.031, FS123.015, FS198.003, FS239.005, FS270.031 are accepted in part because that part of 1199.003 they opposes (notification) has been accepted in part.

Kiwi Income Property Trust and Kiwi Property Holdings Limited

FS123.015

Oppose Accept in Part


FS198.003


Porter Developments Limited

FS239.005


New Zealand Transport Agency

FS270.031


13

Analysis: Business 4 related submissions in Business S42a - Objectives and Policies

For all submitters referenced below analysis and recommendation remains the same as for Business S42a Report (October 2013).

Sub Name Sub Point Plan Provision Sub Type Summary Recomm. Reasoning


312.004 6.2 Objectives and Policies Business 1 to 7 Zones

Support in part

Amend 6.2 to include Objectives and Policies for Business Zone 4 - Large Format Retail that recognises the role of this zone in providing a range of wide range of moderate to low intensity commercial (retail and office), community, and service activities.

Accept in part These submissions seek amendment to Objectives and Policies for 6.2 to include Objectives and Policies for Business Zone 4 and is accepted because it would improve:

• The effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies

Recommended amendments to 6.2 are contained in Appendix B ( refer to 312.004, 355.002)


FS123.001

Support Accept in Part FS123.001, FS239.014, FS265.001, FS285.008 are accepted in part because that part of 312.004 which they supports (notification) has been accepted in part.


FS239.014

Support Accept in Part


FS249.026

Support Reject FS249.026 is not related to matters contained within 312.004

Tram Lease Limited

FS265.001


DNZ Property Fund Limited (DNZ)

FS285.008




Oppose Amend the Objectives and Policies within 6.2 to specifically mention land zoned Business 1 and 4 that

Accept in Part This submission seeks amendment to Objectives and Policies for 6.2 to include Objectives and Policies for Business Zone 1 & 4 and is accepted in part because it would improve:

14

is outside of a Sub-Regional Centre.

• The effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies

Recommended amendments to 6.2 are contained in Appendix B ( refer to 938.142)

Andrew Yeoman FS2.012 Support Reject FS2.012 is not related to matters contained in 938.142

Peter John Findlay et al (Baruchel Developments Ltd)

FS242.001

Support Reject FS242.001 is not related to matters contained in 938.142

Peter John Findlay et al (Peter Findlay, Peter Findlay & Associates Ltd)

FS277.001



FS285.113

Support Accept in Part FS285.113 is accepted in part because that part of 938.142 which it supports (notification) has been accepted in part.

McCracken Surveys Limited


Oppose Amend 6.2 to provide Objectives and Policies relating to land zoned Business 1 & 4 that are located outside of a Sub-Regional Centre.

Accept in Part This submission seeks amendment to Objectives and Policies for 6.2 to include Objectives and Policies for Business Zone 1 & 4 and is accepted in part because it would improve: • The effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated

objectives and policies Recommended amendments to 6.2 are contained in Appendix B ( refer to 1206.143)


FS285.187

Support Accept in Part FS285.187 is accepted in part because that part of 1206.143 which it supports (notification) has been accepted in part.

The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd

1256.003 6.2.2 Objective and Policies Suburban

Support in part

Retain 6.2.2 Objective and Policies for Suburban Centres with amendments

Accept in Part This submission seeks amendment to Objectives and Policies for 6.2 to combine Business 5 (Suburban Centre Core) and Business 6 (Suburban Centre Fringe) and is accepted in part because it

15

Centres to distinguish between Business 5 and 6 Zones. Include a new objective and policies to provide a policy framework for the Business 4 Zone.

would improve: • The effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated

objectives and policies Recommended amendments to 6.2 are contained in Appendix B ( refer to 1256.003)

Progressive Enterprises Limited

FS237.017

Support Accept in Part While this submission supports 1256.003 it is only accepted in part because amendments have been made in response to other submissions.

Analysis: Business 4 related submission in Business Chapter S42a Planning Maps section (page 243-246)

For all submitters referenced below analysis and recommendation remains the same as for Business S42a Report (October 2013).

Sub. Name FS. Name

Sub. Point FS. Point

Plan Provision Sub. Type Summary Recommendation Reasoning

Harvey Norman Stores Pty (NZ) Ltd/Harvey Norman Properties (NZ) Ltd

73.001 Zoning Map 15A

Support Map 15A-Retain Business 4 zoning of Harvey Norman site.

Accept This submission supports the policies and objectives of the plan and is accepted because while other submissions seek amendments to the extent of the Business 4 zone they have been rejected.


FS198.001

Support Accept FS198.001 is accepted because that part of 73.001 which it supports (notification) has been accepted.



Support Map 15A-Retain Business Zone 4-Large Format Retail for the area known as The Boulevard.

Reject The submission point seeking to retain the Business 4 zone in this location should be rejected as it: • Reduces the efficient and effective implementation of the

Plan to achieve its objectives

• The relief sought is not considered to be valid in the context of ensuring vitality and vibrancy of the higher order centres within the business hierarchy.

Recommended amendments to Zoning Map 15A are contained within Appendix B (refer to 312.002)


FS249.026


16

DNZ Property Fund Limited


Support Map 26A-Support the zoning of 446 Te Rapa Road as Business 4.


Bunnings Ltd


Support in part

Map 26A-Retain the Business 4 zoning for the Bunnings site at 446 Te Rapa Road.



FS285.115

Support Accept FS285.115 is accepted because that part of 968.002 which it supports (notification) has been accepted.

Progressive Enterprises Limited


Support Map 16A-Retain the Business 4 Zoning

Accept

This submission supports the policies and objectives of the plan and is accepted because while other submissions seek amendments to the extent of the Business 4 zone they have been rejected.



Oppose Map 15A-8A Maui Street be rezoned to Business 7 - Neighbourhood Centre and 8B Maui Street be rezoned to Business 4 – Large Format Retail and both be incorporated into the Te Rapa North Sub-Regional Centre area as identified in Figure 6.1b of the Proposed District Plan.

Reject The submission point seeking to rezone 8A Maui Street to Business Zone 7 (Neighbourhood Centre) and 8B to Business 4 zone in this location should be rejected as it:

• Reduces the efficient and effective implementation of the Plan to achieve its objectives


This submission points seeks a change of zoning from Industrial to Business 4 and should be rejected as it:



• Contains no relevant justification as to why the alternative sought would be more appropriate


1024.001 Zoning ap 25A Oppose Map 25A-Rezone all sites fronting Te Rapa Road between Vardon and Wairere Drive as Business 4 Zone OR amend the Industrial Zone to allow for retail activity.

Reject

17


FS123.005

Oppose Accept in Part FS123.005 is accepted in part because that part of 1024.001 which it opposes (notification) has been rejected.



Oppose Map 26A-Rezone all sites fronting Te Rapa Road between Vardon and Wairere Drive to Business 4 or retain industrial zone but amend Purpose, Policies and rules to recognise the existing commercial development along the Te Rapa corridor.

Reject This submission point seeks a change of zoning from Industrial to Business 4 and should be rejected as it:




Porter Developments Ltd


Oppose Map 16A-extend the Business 4 Zone to the land to the north of Eagle Way.

Reject This submission seeks an extension of the Business Zone 4 zoning into the Industrial Zone and should be rejected as it;




Tram Lease Limited FS265.015

Support Reject FS265.015 is rejected because that part of 1153.034 which it supports (notification) has been rejected.

The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd


Support in part

Map 25A-rezone 751 Te Rapa Road to Business 4 (Large Format) Zone, rather than Industrial Zone.

Reject This submission seeks an extension of the Business Zone 4 zoning into the Industrial Zone and should be rejected as it; • Reduces the efficient and effective implementation of the

Plan to achieve its objectives


18



FS285.198

Support Reject FS285.198 is rejected because that part of 1256.015 which it supports (notification) has been rejected.

Analysis: Business 4 related submission in Planning Map S42a (page 11-13)

Kiwi Income Property Trust & Kiwi Property Holdings (1198.018 new) and Tainui Group Holdings Limited (1199.002). Please refer to analysis in Purpose section above. For all submitters referenced below analysis and recommendation remains the same as for Business S42a Report (October 2013).

Sub. Name FS. Name

Sub. Point FS. Point

Plan Provision

Sub. Type Summary Recommendation Reasoning

CR & S Hammerton Trust 348.001 Zoning Map 15A

Oppose Map 15A- rezone 56 The Boulevard and others as necessary around The Boulevard to an appropriate business zone.

Reject The relief sought by this submission is for the rezoning of industrial to an alternative business zone and should be rejected as it:





Oppose Map 15A-8A Maui Street be rezoned to Business 7 - Neighbourhood Centre and 8B Maui Street be rezoned to Business 4 – Large Format Retail and both be incorporated into the Te Rapa North Sub-Regional Centre area as identified in Figure 6.1b of the Proposed District Plan.

Reject See Submission 606.001 in the s42A Report for Chapter 6 Business 1-7 Zones The submission point seeking to rezone 8A Maui Street to Business Zone 7 (Neighbourhood Centre) and 8B to Business 4 zone in this location should be rejected as it:


• The relief sought is not considered to be valid in the context of ensuring vitality and vibrancy of the higher order centres within the business hierarchy.

19

Tainui Group Holdings Ltd FS246.008

Oppose Accept FS246.008 is accepted because that part of 606.001 which it opposes has been rejected

Kiwi Income Property Trust & Kiwi Property Holdings Ltd

1198.018

Zoning Map 15A and 16A

Oppose Oppose Map 15A – Rezone Business 4 to Business 1 within The Base , Te-Rapa North Sub-regional centre Fig 6.1b) Oppose Map 16A - Rezone Business 4 to Business 1 within The Base , Te-Rapa North Sub-regional centre Fig 6.1b)

Reject The submission point seeking a change of zoning from Business 4 to Business 1 within The Base, Te-Rapa North Sub-Regional centre is rejected because: • Reduces the efficient and effective implementation

of the Plan to achieve its objectives. • In the absence of any technical evidence, the relief

sought is considered inconsistent objectives and policies of the Plan.

• Other amendments have been made to the Plan in response to other submissions that may address the concerns of the submitter.



Support in part

…. Rezone the land around the perimeter of The Base to Industrial (refer to Appendix 1 of this submission).

Accept in Part See Submission 1199.001, 1199.002 & 1199.003 in the s42A Report for Chapter 6 Business 1-7 Zones That part of this submission point seeking a rezoning of land around the perimeter of the centre to Industrial and should be accepted in part because given the retail advice and strategic approach to consolidate existing centres first and maintain the primacy of the business hierarchy it is considered appropriate to scale back the proposed Business 4 zoning in what is in effect a predominantly industrial area. The extent to which the Business 4 has been rezoned to Industrial Zone is consistent the efficient and effective implementation of the Plan to achieve its objectives.


FS239.004

Oppose Reject FS239.004 is accepted because that part of 1199.002 which it opposes has been Accepted in Part

Ecostream Irrigation 314.001 Zoning Map 25A

Oppose Map 25A- rezone 791-797 Te Rapa Road to an appropriate business zone.

Reject The relief sought by this submission is for the rezoning of industrial to an alternative business zone and should be rejected as it:


20



FS285.017

Support Reject FS285.017 is rejected because that part of 314.001 which it supports has been rejected.

Delta Property Group 317.001 Zoning Map 26A

Oppose Map 26A-rezone 449-455 Te Rapa Road and others as necessary to an appropriate business zone.

Reject The relief sought by this submission is for the rezoning of industrial to an alternative business zone and should be rejected as it: • Reduces the efficient and effective implementation

of the Plan to achieve its objectives



FS285.023

Support Reject FS285.023 is rejected because that part of 317.001 which it supports has been rejected.

DNZ Property Fund Limited 1024.002 Zoning Map 26A

Oppose Map 26A-Rezone all sites fronting Te Rapa Road between Vardon and Wairere Drive to Business 4 or retain industrial zone but amend Purpose, Policies and rules to recognise the existing commercial development along the Te Rapa corridor.

Reject

See Submission 1024.001 and 1024.002 is the s42A Report for Chapter 6: Business 1-7 Zones This submission points seeks a change of zoning from Industrial to Business 4 and should be rejected as it:





FS123.006

Oppose Accept FS123.006 is accepted in part because that part of 1024.001 which it opposes (notification) has been rejected.

21

Analysis: Business 3 related submission in Business Chapter S42a

Tainui Group Holdings Limited (1199.001-003), sought to amend the Plan so that all of that block bounded by Te Kowhai Road, Te Rapa Road, Avalon Drive and the North Island Main Trunk Railway is zoned Business Zone 3 rather than conferred a split Business 1 and Business 4 zoning on the consented Lot 2 of this development. The submitter contends that a single zone entitlement which confers permitted activated status for retail activities within an agreed ‘cap’ allows for greater flexibility in future development entitlement and greater efficiency in planning as part of a cohesive and integrated centre. AMP Capital Property Portfolio (FS198.002) oppose this submission The Business S42a report (October 2013) proposed to reject this submission. A cautionary approach was adopted given the availability of LFR on the periphery of this location and absence of a defined retail cap for The Base across Lot 1 and Lot 2. Business 3 S42A Background Analysis: The relevant analysis taken from page 12 of the Business S42a Report in October 2013 considered this issue as follows; To expand the Business 3 zoning to the extent proposed by the submitter would have the potential to undermine the primacy, vitality and viability of the Central City on the basis is it provides for a more permissive range of commercial activities. The proposed B1 (Commercial fringe) and B4 (large format Retail) zone provisions are considered to best reflect the mixed use, office/ retail and large format retail granted under resource consent 10.2010.2210 and more recently under 010.2012.6723.001. These zones importantly still allow for future flexibility but to be considered as part of a discretionary consent process in order that any future adverse effects that may be generated on the business centres hierarchy are appropriately assessed under the Act. June 2014 Addendum and further consideration of Business 3 zoning in Te Rapa North Sub-regional centre. I outline below the following further analysis in response to further Business 3 zone assessment now undertaken;

• TGH evidence in support of a single Business 3 zone • Activity table comparison for Business 1, 3 and 4 • Property Economics evidence for consolidated Business 3 zone. • Split Business 1 and 4 zoning and Business 3 zone discussion • Proposed Ratio approach to limit the quantum of small scale retail within a single Business 3 zone • Regional Policy Statement negotiations between Kiwi, TGH and HCC • Consequential changes to purpose, objectives, policies and rules for Business 3 zone • Recommendations

TGH evidence in support of a single Business 3 zone Evidence presented by Mr John Oliver on behalf of TGH at Business hearings in October 2013 raised concern that the recommended approach whilst attempting to mirror the layout of the consented master plan and CDP for this site unnecessarily constrained future flexibility, something which is encouraged for identified centres within the

22

Plan and Policy 6.15 of the PRPS which supports the vitality, viability and self-sufficiency of existing commercial centres. Secondly, the proposed Plan provisions, whilst restricting all retail activities at The Base to restricted discretionary or discretionary activities, they did not include a retail cap, meaning that LFR on Lot 2 of the Business 4 land would be effectively unconstrained, albeit subject to a centres assessment. Mr Oliver explained the rationale for his proposed cap on retail areas in tenancies less than 400m2 which was based on an analysis of the existing tenancies at The Base (para 8.7 of his evidence). The intent of this proposal is to enable a continued mix of retail activities across the site rather than restrict all future retail to LFR alone. The evidence provided a case for greater flexibility for a mix of LFR and smaller retail based on a ratio of existing consented activities in this location and therefore greater flexibility for future retail activities as permitted activities below a total agreed retail cap across the entire site (Lot 1 and Lot 2). As a consequence and outlined in the activity status table below individual retail activities 150-399sqm, 400-999sqm and 1,000sqm or greater within the overall total cap would be deemed permitted activities. If the retail caps are to be exceeded then it was acknowledged that they should be a restricted discretionary activity. For the benefit of this analysis a copy of the CDP resource consent (ref 10.2012.6723.001) for Lot 2 of The Base, is attached within Appendix B4. The CDP is a mixed use development that includes:

• 18,090sqm of large format retail • 10,750sqm of health care services, including a hospital and ‘Whanau Ora’ • 11,350sqm of office development • 2,240sqm of specialized educational facilities

In light of evidence heard from TGH, and analysis of the Business 4 zone above the following comparison of retail provisions within Rule 6.3 for Business 1, Business 3 and Business 4 follows:

23

Activity table comparison for Business 1, 3 and 4 zones.

Source: John Oliver evidence (Oct 2013). Submitter Ref (1199) A comparison of the above provisions for retail under Rule 6.3q) –t) show that the TGH proposed amendments would lead to a permitted activity status for smaller retail activities less than 150sqm, 150-399sqm and 400-999sqm whereas previously in the S42a Report these activities were recommended to be Restricted Discretionary and subject to a centre assessment. In terms of a comparison with the Business 4 zone as now proposed in this report, the key difference would again be for smaller retail activities less than 399sqm whereon these are a Discretionary activity in the Business 4 zone. This difference would follow the advice of the councils retail consultant given the LFR zone should be primarily for that purpose while the smaller grain more pedestrian orientated retail activities should be focused on existing centres – the Suburban and the Sub-regional centre. The same distinction follows for the Business 1 zone whereupon again smaller retail activities are discretionary compared to permitted activities in the Business 3 zone. The implications that arise form conferring a Sub-regional centre (Business 3) zone across the entire site bounded by Te Kowhai Road, Te Rapa Road, Avalon Drive and the North Island Main Trunk would be a more permissive zoning for retail activities across the entire site and a more permissive status for other activities such as yard based retail, restaurants, cafes and licensed premises, commercial places of assembly (cinema’s and bowling alleys). Other than these activities there remains little difference.

24

Property Economics evidence for a consolidated Business 3 zone. Previous evidence submitted in the Business hearings and advice to officers from Property Economics advised that yard based retail and cafes and restaurants are deemed to be non-threatening to the viability of the Central City. The issue then arises as to the harm of the extended Business 3 zoning in this location and whether it is reasonable to restrict The Base to the current consented CDP layout. Furthermore Lot 1 is already well provided for with Cinemas and it is not considered unreasonable for a Sub-regional centre to provide for entertainment facilities which is encouraged under Objective 6.2.1 in the Plan. The additional retail evidence on Business 4 zoning provided by Property Economics (Appendix C) in relation to the unnecessary surplus of Business 4 zone is clear. In paragraphs 24, 26 and 40 in particular, the excess amount of Business 4 allocation will lead to the redistribution of retail expenditure away from The Base Sub-regional centre towards the fringe Business 4 zone land and further slowdown the rejuvenation of the CBD. The retail evidence outlines that there is enough potential LFR capacity within the existing Sub-regional Centre to accommodate future LFR requirements. It is therefore clear from this evidence that the PDP should focus on the capacity and consolidation of the Central City and existing Sub-regional centre first which provides for better planning and socio-economic outcomes advocated by the business hierarchy and wider strategic framework of the Plan and better aligns with Policy 6.15 of the Proposed Regional Policy Statement. Of further consideration is that under an enlarged Business 3 zoning proposed as part of PRPS discussions, offices greater than 500sqm are non-complying rather than discretionary as proposed within the Business 1 zone. Notwithstanding the ‘cap’ on offices in addition to retail, a non-complying status for additional office development above this cap signals a clear preference for future office activities to be directed towards the Central City which is considered beneficial to the viability of the Central City and will give effect to the Strategic Framework. Split Business 1 and 4 zoning or Business 3 zone comparison Having regard to the submissions received further discussion on the merits of each zone is considered below:

Options

Consideration/ discussion

Retain as Business 1 and 4 zone Advantages

• The Business 4 split zoning at The Base better reflects the existing Mitre 10 superstore and discount retail store.

• The Business 1 split zoning reflects the consented offices and Whanau Ora on the eastern side of Maahanga Drive.

• A split Business 1 and business 4 zoning restricts smaller scale retail across the entire site as it requires a consenting process for ALL retail activities. This in turn gives the council greater certainty over the mix of retail tenancies within an agreed cap.

Disadvantages • The advice from the council’s retail consultants (appendix C) is quite clear that there is no need for the additional Business 4 LFR

zoning over the next 10 years of the plan and potentially longer. They advise that there is surplus capacity within the existing central city and Sub-regional centres which should be prioritised first in line with the compact centres approach advocated by the strategic objectives of Plan and PRPS.

25

• The Business 3 split zoning reflects the 11350sqm office element of the consented development on eastern side of stage 2 of this site (see Appendix D), however there is also some 10,000sqm of retail consented on the eastern side of stage 2 which would fall within the Business 1 zone. This consented retail if built in this location would be inconsistent with the Business 1 zoning.

• The above discrepancy highlights the complexities of trying to ‘layer’ a business zoning over a mixed used CDP layout.

• As previously considered above a split Business 1 zoning on the one hand restricts smaller scale retail to a discretionary activity but

at the same time confers greater office entitlement across the site.

• A split zoning would add further complexity in the consenting process and increased processing costs.

• A split zoning is not the most efficient in terms of achieving the objective of enhancing existing commercial centres as advocated by the PRPS.

A Single Business 3 zone Advantages

• A single zone better reflects the mix of retail and health care services site conferred by the consented CDP.

• A single zone confers greater flexibility within an agreed ratio and cap for small scale retail activities across the site.

• The total quantum of retail consented by the CDP does not change and if the cap is exceeded then this is subject to a centres assessment whereas there was no previous cap as recommended in the S42a report.

• Additional offices above the agreed 11,350sqm consented would be a NC activity whereas this would remain discretionary under

the split zone approach.

• A single Business 3 zone is more consistent with the retail advice presented in this report in terms of consolidating existing centres first

• Improved alignment of Business 3 zone with Fig 6.1b which identifies the Sub-regional centre extent.

• A single zone (with mix of tenancies rules and total cap) confers greater certainty for plan users.

Disadvantages • A single Business 3 zone confers greater entitlement for small to medium retail activities albeit still requiring a centres assessment

report

• A Business 3 zone is more permissive for cafes, restaurants, banks, cinemas and bowling alleys which cumulatively could create a centre that undermines the viability and vibrancy of the central city

• Consequential changes as a result of recommended changes to increase building height in the Business 3 zone would confer such

26

entitlement across Lot1 and Lot 2.

• The proposed ‘ratio’ tenancy mix rule could add additional complexity to monitoring of consents issued.

• A Business 3 zone could create additional uncertainty resulting from traffic movements resulting from a differing format retail/ office mix depending on where they are located on the wider site.

Proposed Ratio approach to limit the quantum of small scale retail within a single Business 3 zone Fundamental to the proposed single Business 3 zone for The Base, Te Rapa north area is that the ‘mix’ of retail across both Lot 1 and lot 2 in the future reflects the existing mix of small/medium to large format retail that is evident currently in Lot 1. John Oliver’s evidence on behalf of TGH (submitter ref 1199) calculates that this mix is currently 70% for retail over 400sqm and 30% less than 400sqm in Lot 1. This 70/30 ratio is proposed to be carried over into stage 2 of the CDP, thus conferring a level of flexibility but at the same time providing council with certainty over the tenancy mix across the wider site. The tenancy mix ratio was derived from the existing lot 1 retail development and was schedule as follows:

Source: John Oliver evidence (Oct 2013). Submitter Ref (1199) In the submitted evidence the above 70/30 split of LFR to smaller retail ratio was proposed to be translated into the activity status table for Lot 2 only as follows:

27

Source: John Oliver evidence (Oct 2013). Submitter Ref (1199) The above proposed changes to Rule 6.3 u) and v) identified the consented large format retail development for lot 2 at 18,090 and extrapolated 30% as less than 400m2 based on the above schedule, leaving a total ‘cap’ for smaller retail at 5400sqm above which a discretionary consent would be required. Regional Policy Statement : Negotiations between Kiwi, TGH and HCC In response to Commissioner questions since the beginning of Hearings in October 2013 last year, further retail evidence and detailed work around the existing supply and demand for LFR Business 4 land in the Te Rapa north location has now taken place. The outcome of which is to scale back the amount of B4 zoned land originally proposed in the S42a Report to reflect that already built and consented only. As part of a parallel process there has also been ongoing mediation as part of the RPS which has resulted in consequential amendments to the relevant parts of the Plan. As a result of this mediation there has been agreement on the retail ‘caps’ associated with Business 3 zoning at Te Rapa North Sub-regional centre which provides certainty on the size and retail function of this centre that has been otherwise absent to date. The ratio/ cap approach originally tabled for Lot 1 is now proposed to cover both Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the Base area in so far as the ‘cap’ and ratio would apply across the entire site. The total agreed retail quantum (in this case 103,700sqm) would thus remain the same as identified in earlier evidence but the flexibility of applying the ratio would cover the total area identified in the planning maps as a single Business 3 zoning ie; that area bounded by Te Kowhai Road to the north, Te Rapa Road to the east, Avalon Drive to the south and the North Island Main Trunk Railway to the west excluding the Porter developments and Tram lease sites on the north-west corner adjoining Te-Kowhai Road which are to be zone Business 4 to reflect the consented LFR activity.

28

For transparency the Retail cap of 103,700sqm for The Base is based on the following agreed schedule, the shaded columns represent Lot 1 existing:

Resource Consent Reference Activities Consented GFA Stage 1 Retail 17,326m2 Stage 2 Retail 14,420m2 Stage 3 Retail 4,700m2 Stage 4 Retail Stage 4A – 1,965m2

Stage 4B – 28,900.5m2 Mitre 10 Mega Agreed Retail element Approx 6,000m2

CDP

Lot 2 Retail 18,090m2 Heathcotes Extension Retail 500m2 Level 1 Te Awa Retail/The Gap 11,890m2 TOTAL RETAIL 103,791 m2

RPS AGREED RETAIL 103,700 m2

Future retail activities that exceed the total cap identified of 103, 700 m2 would be assessed as restricted discretionary activities and be subject to a centres assessment which has already been proposed as part of the previous assessment criteria hearings report and is before commissioners for consideration. Consequential changes to Purpose, Objective, Policies and Rules for Business 3 zone. The key changes proposed within the Business chapter for a single Business 3 zone at the Base are found within a) Purpose 6.1d ii) - with amendments to highlight The Base as the ‘primary’ Sub-Regional Centre, b) Objective 6.2.1 – amendments to acknowledge just The Base and Chartwell as the Sub-regional centres and c) the Explanation text to the Sub-regional centre section which identifies LFR and some visitor accommodation as locating within Business 3. It is however acknowledged that further amendments have been proposed as part of the RPS negotiations to the explanatory text within the Strategic Framework that will have flow on consequences within the Business chapter if accepted by Commissioners. The Strategic Framework changes that have been made to the accompanying explanation of the objectives and policies in so far as there has been a softening in the language around decline in vitality and amenity of the Central City as a result of the dispersal or retail and commercial office activities elsewhere but rather the previous planning framework has resulted in an unplanned dispersal of retail and office development which has contributed to the underperformance of some elements of the Central City with consequential effects on its function, amenity and vitality. It is considered that these changes adequately reflect the revised policy above and sufficiently highlight the importance of maintaining the business hierarchy. The proposed revisions to the activity status and agreed retail caps for the Business 3 zone is shown below and attached in full as track changes along with revisions to Fig 6.1b in Appendix B1.

29

Proposed retail cap for identified sub-regional centre (May 2014) As a result of the above agreed amendments more certainty has been provided to council over the amount of LFR that is considered appropriate in this location as well as greater confidence provided by the imposition of agreed retail ‘caps’ within the Te Rapa North Sub-regional centre. As a consequence of this additional work it is now accepted that a single Business 3 zone is more appropriate to reflect the land which already enjoys a CDP under consent granted (ref 10.2012.6723.001). The merits of this approach compared to the split zoning originally proposed have been discussed above. Retail advice provided throughout this process and the Strategic Framework is quite clear in that a more sustainable and efficient approach to development is to focus new commercial activity first and foremost towards existing identified commercial centres as part of the business hierarchy rather than promote unplanned liberalisation of these activities on the fringes. Recognition of a single Business 3 zone ensures consistency and clarity with the geographical extent of the Sub-regional centre identified in Fig 6.1b and further aligns with Policy 6.15a) of the PRPS which supports the vitality, viability and self sufficiency of existing commercial centres.

30

Recommendation It is considered appropriate that a level of flexibility to vary the mix of retail tenancies across The Base site would not undermine the centres based approach and wider business hierarchy and is the most appropriate and efficient approach in which to meet Objective 6.2.1 of the Proposed District Plan which seeks to provide a scale and diversity of retail floor space, entertainment facilities and limited office development while not undermining the vitality, viability, function and amenity of the central city. In summary , key changes to the Business 3 zoning maps and consequential changes to the activity status table Rule 6.3 in so far as it relates to retail and office activity with the agreed caps set by all parties are recommended as follows:

(a) The block bounded by Te Rapa Road, Te Kowhai Road, the North Island Main Trunk Railway and Wairere Drive is to be zoned Business 3, except for the Porter Developments and Tram Lease sites on the north-western corner adjoining Te Kowhai Road which are to be zoned Business 4. See Fig 6.1b.

(b) The Activity Status Table will provide for up to 103,700m² GFA total permitted retail floor space on The Base site zoned Business 3. Any tenancies of less than 400m² GFA shall not exceed a total of 34,300m². Retail activities that exceed these “caps” are to be restricted discretionary activities.

(c) Offices up to 11350m2 permitted activity within area outlined in Fig 6.1b and non-complying thereafter.

The above changes to Purpose, Objectives, Policies and Activity status for the Business 3 zone, The Base Sub-regional centre are shown in Appendix B1. The original submission points relevant to the Business 3 zone in Te Rapa north Sub-regional centre and change to recommendations are highlighted in red below.

Sub Name FS Name

Sub Point FS Point

Plan Provision Sub. Type Summary Recommendation Reasoning


1199.003 6.1 Purpose Support in part Amend the Plan so that all of that block bounded by Te Kowhai Road, Te Rapa Road, Avalon Drive and the North Island Main Trunk Railway is zoned Business Zone 3. Retain the zoning of land around the perimeter of The Base as Industrial Zone instead of Business Zone 4 (refer to attachment to submission) Amend 6.1d) to include Te Rapa North as a

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to the amount of Business 3 zoning for the block of land identified should be accepted in part as:

• It will aid the efficient and effective implementation of the Plan to achieve its objectives

• The relief sought is considered to be valid in the context of ensuring vitality and vibrancy of the higher order centres within the business hierarchy

• In light of further retail evidence provided it is considered that the relief sought is consistent with the strategic outcomes and centres based approach of Future Proof / PRPS.

The submission point seeking amendment to Purpose 6.1 d) and K) to include Te Rapa North as a Regional Centre in accordance with the submitter’s appeal on

31

Regional Centre in accordance with the submitter’s appeal on the Proposed Regional Policy Statement. Amend 6.1g) regarding the primacy of the CBD to give effect to Clause 6.15(a) of the Proposed Regional Policy Statement which seeks to “support and sustain the vitality, viability and self-sufficiency of existing commercial centres”. Delete 6.1h as the land surrounding The Base should remain zoned Industrial until any requirement for additional Large Format Retail is established Amend 6.1k) to recognize Te Rapa North as a Regional Centre.

the Proposed RPS should be rejected as:




The submission point seeking amendment to Purpose 6.1g) to give effect to Clause 6.15a) of the Proposed RPS should be rejected as:

• It is not necessary for effective implementation of the Plan to achieve its objectives.

The submission point seeking amendment to Purpose 6.1h) for land surrounding The Base to remain zoned Industrial should be accepted in part as:




Waikato Regional Council

FS72.031

Oppose Accept in Part FS72.031, FS123.015, FS198.003, FS239.005, FS270.031 are accepted in part because that part of 1199.003 they opposes (notification) has been accepted in part.

Kiwi Income Property Trust

FS123.015


32

and Kiwi Property Holdings Limited


FS198.003



FS239.005


New Zealand Transport Agency

FS270.031



1199.001 Zoning Map 15A Support in part

Map 15A-rezone the land bounded by Te Kowhai Road, Te Rapa Road, Avalon Drive and the North Island Main Trunk Railway to Business 3 Zone. Rezone the land around the perimeter of The Base to Industrial (refer to Appendix 1 of this submission).

Accept in Part

The submissions seeks a more permissive zoning for the identified Sub-regional centre and a rezoning of land around the perimeter of the centre to Industrial and should be accepted in part as it:


• The relief sought is considered to be valid in the context of ensuring vitality and vibrancy of the higher order centres within the business hierarchy


FS198.002

Oppose

Reject FS198.002 is accepted in part because that part of 1199.001 which it opposes (notification) has been rejected.


1199.002 Zoning Map 16A Support in part

Map 16A-rezone the land bounded by Te Kowhai Road, Te Rapa Road, Avalon Drive and the North Island Main Trunk Railway to Business 3 Zone. Rezone the land

Accept in Part The submissions seeks a more permissive zoning for the identified Sub-regional centre and a rezoning of land around the perimeter of the centre to Industrial and should be accepted in part as it:


33

around the perimeter of The Base to Industrial (refer to Appendix 1 of this submission).

The relief sought is considered to be valid in the context of ensuring vitality and vibrancy of the higher order centres within the business hierarchy

Kiwi Income Property Trust & Kiwi Property Holdings Ltd

1198.018

Zoning Map 15A and 16A

Oppose Oppose Map 15A – Rezone Business 4 to Business 1 within The Base , Te-Rapa North Sub-regional centre Fig 6.1b) Oppose Map 16A - Rezone Business 4 to Business 1 within The Base, Te-Rapa North Sub-regional centre Fig 6.1b)

Reject The submission point seeking a change of zoning from Business 4 to Business 1 within The Base, Te-Rapa North Sub-Regional centre is rejected because:

• It reduces the efficient and effective implementation of the Plan to achieve its objectives.

• In the absence of any technical evidence, the relief sought is considered inconsistent objectives and policies of the Plan.

• Other amendments have been made to the Plan in response to other submissions that may address the concerns of the submitter.

34

Appendix B Tracked changes version

Appendix B1: Chapter 6 Business Zones

Appendix B2: Proposed change to Zoning Maps 15-16, 25A

Appendix B3: Location of Business 4 (for information)

Appendix B4: CDP Resource Consent Lot 2 – The Base

as per the recommendations contained in this s42A Report.

Additions are underlined; deletions in strikethrough.

Comment boxes identify submission point references to which

amendments relate e.g.

6 Business 1 to 67 Zones

6.1 Purpose

a) Business resources commonly group around a series of centres in Hamilton and include activities such as retailing, offices, business and financial services, manufacturing, warehousing and associated parking, storage and display areas. These areas and the infrastructure that serves them are significant public and private resources and influence the urban form and function of all parts of the City.

b) The focus of the business centres’ hierarchy is to manage existing centres to ensure they retain and enhance their function, vitality, viability and amenityvibrancy as focal points for a diverse range of activities needed by the community. Ongoing public investment is a significant element in any centres-based strategy.

c) A centre is a cohesive or integrated set (cluster) of diverse land-use (business) activities, characterised by high pedestrian levels in a high-amenity public environment and supported by efficient and accessible passenger transport, infrastructure and services.

d) A business centres’ hierarchy has been developed that comprises five tiers. The overall aim being to re-establish the primacy of the Hamilton Central City and define its relationship with the sub-regional centres and suburban centres, in particular, with each centre comprising one or more of the following Business Zones.

i. The Central City Zone (refer to Chapter 7: Central City Zone)

ii. Sub-regional centres zones being at The BaseTe Rapa North and Chartwell that generally comprise some or all the following business zones:

• Business 3 (sub-regional centre core) Zone at The Base, the primary sub-regional centre

• Business 3 (sub-regional centre) and Business 5 (suburban centre) Zone at Chartwell, the secondary sub-regional centre.

• Business 1 (commercial sub regional centre fringe) Zone

• Business 4 (large format retail) Zone

iii. Suburban centres distributed around the City’s residential neighbourhoods that comprise:

• Business 5 (suburban centre core) Zone

• Business 6 (suburban centre fringe) Zone

• Business 1 (commercial fringe) Zone

iv. Neighbourhood centres serving local residential areas that comprise the Business 67 (neighbourhood centre) Zone

v. Localised commercial activity supporting major visitor facilities that comprise the Business 2 (events facilities) Zone

Comment [HCC1]: 1198.002

Comment [HCC2]: HCC/KIWI/TGH Amendment

Comment [HCC3]: 1104.024, 1170.024


Volume 1 6 Business 1 to 67 Zones Page 6-1

Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council

e) The approach taken in this plan is necessary to ensure that investment in infrastructure and services is programmed and used most efficiently. The approach will also support the primacy of the Central City and manage the range and scale of commercial development outside this area to ensure its function, vitality, viability and amenity is enhanced.

f) Zoning and rule provisions provide for a range of activities, scale and format for managing the development of business centres, the principally retail role of the sub-regional centres, the community, mixed use and pedestrian focus of the suburban centres, the neighbourhood function of local facilities and the peak visitor demands associated with visitor facilities.

g) The rule provisions reflect sixeven distinctive business environments, which operate either individually or in combination with each other. In each Business Zone the distribution of office and retail development, outside the Central City Zone, is controlled to ensure that adverse effects on the Central City are avoided. Rules are more permissive in relation to community activities while residential activity above ground floor as part of appropriate mixed use is generally endiscouraged in the business zones. The intention is to encourage the establishment of retail and office activities back to the Central City. The retention, re-development and return of office activities to the Central City is critically important to maintaining a sizeable day-time population to support retail and other activities.

h) The approach also aims to consolidate people-focussed activities within cohesive and integrated business centres, supported by larger-format vehicle based activities in the fringes of these centres. This is reflected in the sub-regional centres zoning and in particular at Te Rapa North, where a grouping of large format activities has established within and on the edge of The Base retail centre.

i) Commercial fringe and large format retail zoning provide for out of centre development such as large format offices and/ or large format retail activities only in circumstances where because of their scale/ floor area they may not be appropriate in centres within the business hierarchy and it can be demonstrated that the primacy, vitality, viability and amenity of the Central City, the function,vitality, viability and amenity of the sub-regional centres and the function of lower order centres within the business hierarchy are not undermined.

j) In some limitedother locations commercial development has occurred outside defined centres on large sites; Home Straight Park is one such example. It can be described as an integrated business park with a unique set of characteristics. These include being reliant on passing motor vehicle custom, shared access and common parking on site, common landscaping themes, and shared services supporting mixed use developments that include offices, small and large format retailing and commercial services.

j) Hamilton East is also recognised as having a unique character, being an important residential and employment area situated close to the Central City, readily accessible from a walkable residential catchment, yet well served by public transport. A greater commercial role for Hamilton East is envisaged as an ‘overflow’ or fringe commercial area to the Central City and as a stand alone suburban centre. A customised set of rule provisions therefore enable retail and

Comment [HCC5]: 539.001, 938.063, 1206.065

Comment [HCC6]: 539.001, 938.063, 1206.065




office activities to establish under managed circumstances that again don’t undermine the viability and vitality of the Central City.

k) The adoption of the business centres hierarchy is consistent with the commercial development framework promoted in the Regional Policy Statement. This recognises the Hamilton Central City as the primary commercial, civicretail, economic, business and social centre in the region ahead of the sub-regional centres of The Base and Chartwell and Te Rapa North. See Figures 6.1a and 6.1b.




Figure 6.1a: Chartwell Sub-regional Centre



Figure 6.1b: The Base, Te Rapa North Sub-regional Centre


6.2 Objectives and Policies: Business 1 to 67 Zones

Sub-regional Centres

Objective Policies

6.2.1 Te Rapa North commercial centre/The Base and Chartwell function as sub-regional centres for business activities providing a scale and diversity of retail floorspace, entertainment facilities and limited offices while not undermining the primacy, vitality ,or viability, function and amenity of the Central City.

6.2.1a The further development expansion of sub-regional centres, the range and trading format of activities and traffic management shall contribute to the development of a cohesive and integrated centre, commensurate with itheirts role in serving an extensive catchment, whilst avoiding adverse effects on the functionality, vitality, viability and amenity of the Central City.

6.2.1b Development shall provides for a diverse range of activities but remain predominantly retail and of a scale that will sustain the centres and complement but not undermine the primary role of the Central City.

6.2.1c The anticipated high levels of travel demand is shall be proactively managed to optimise opportunities for passenger transport, walking and cycling.

6.2.1d Development shall maintains and enhances the amenity values of the centre as a destination for sub-regional visitors.

6.2.1e The scale and nature of activities within sub-regional centres do not generate significant adverse effects on neighbouring amenity valuesThe built form and operational characteristics of centres areshall be consistent with neighbouring activities and amenity values.

6.2.1f Residential development isshall be discouraged from establishing in sub-regional centres.

Explanation

The Regional Policy Statement acknowledges the primacy of the Central City while noting the role of two sub-regional centres in meeting the needs of large sections of


Comment [HCC10]: 714.029, FS123.025



Comment [HCC13]: 698.008, 938.059, FS242.001, FS265.022, FS277.001, 1206.061, 938.060, 1206.062, 938.061, 1206.063, 938.062, 1206.064







the community living within and beyond the City boundary.

The sub-regional centres provide for an integrated pattern of diverse activities which principally include retail activities in a mix of mall and small scale speciality stores, offices, large format retail, community services and entertainment facilities and some visitor accommodation with easy access to the strategic transport network.

Hamilton Central City has experienced a decline in its function, vitality and amenity due to the dispersal of retail and commercial activities. The previous planning framework has enabled an unplanned dispersal of retail and office development which has contributed to the underperformance of some elements of the Central City with consequential effects on its function, amenity and vitality. Therefore, when considering development outside the Central City within the two sub-regional centres it is important to consider the potential for that to result in adverse effects on the role of the Central City. Individual or cumulative establishment of commercial development that may jeopardise the function, vitality and amenity of the Central City should be avoided or managed.

The Base sub-regional centre is significantly larger than the Chartwell sub-regional centre, and with existing consents has greater potential to accommodate additional business activities. For this reason, it is important to address the rules for the management of further business development. Accordingly there is a distinction in rules that apply between the two sub-regional areas.

Assessment criteria related to the establishment of offices, retail activities and community facilities apply to further development of the two sub-regional centres.

Any further development at the two sub-regional centres needs to be carefully managed to safeguard the transport network and ensure consistency with neighbouring activities.

Suburban Centres

Objective Policies

6.2.2 A distribution of suburban centres that provide a mixed use environment with community facilities, goods, services and employment at a scale appropriate to suburban catchments, while not undermining the primacy, function, vitality, amenity or viability of the Central City.

6.2.2a Suburban centres are toshall be retained, expanded, and provided at a scale and nature appropriate to the needs of the surrounding residential areas, taking into account the need for any expansion to avoid adverse affects on the functionality, vitality, viability and amenity values of the Central City.

6.2.2b Suburban centres shall provide an opportunity to reduce the need for travel, by providing for mixed uses, a diverse range of activities, services and trading formats. Residential activities above ground floor level shall be supported.

6.2.2c Suburban centres shall act as focal points for local community development through the control of







Comment [HCC24]: 938.060, FS242.001, FS277.001

Comment [M25]: New policy

Comment [HCC26]: 309.003, 1206.062




size, scale, built form and diversity of activity.

6.2.2d Expansion of existing suburban centres isshall be integrated with existing activities and transport networks.

6.2.2e A comprehensive, urban design-led approach isshall be used to determine the form of suburban centres intended to serve new growth areas.

6.2.2f Recognise Hamilton East as a fringe employment node to the Central City, but ensure potential adverse effects on adjoining areas (including the Central City) and the safety and efficiency of the transport network are avoided.

6.2.2g Recognise the expansion of healthcare services and facilities in Hamilton East to maintain viable and accessible medical services and hospital facilities to the regional and city-wide community.

Explanation

Suburban centres anchor the City’s main residential areas and provide a range of activities and services that can reduce reliance on car travel for meeting day-to-day requirements. These centres provide multi-purpose destinations for customers. Parking is provided onsite and these centres are generally well served by passenger transport.

Suburban centres vary in size and character between 10,000-20,000m² gross floor area and generally serve between 10,000-30,000 people. Supermarkets commonly anchor these centres and between 20-30 outlets, comprising a variety of smaller specialist retailers, provide retail, limited office, community and other services to the suburban population on an integrated basis. Often another large format retailer is located in the centre. Service stations may also be a feature.

Opportunities exist for limited expansion and intensification to ensure the centres continue to meet the needs of growing populations and provide a focal point for communities. Residential activity above ground floor level in suburban centres enhances mixed use outcomes.

Hamilton East is the most likely recipient of new retail and office development and expanded health care services, in recognition of the attractive fringe location to the Central City.

Carefully planned suburban centres will help to anchor and support residential and community development.







Neighbourhood Centres

Objective Policies

6.2.3 A distribution of locally based centresretail facilities that provide services and community facilties capable of meeting the day-to-day needs of their immediate neighbourhoods.

6.2.3a Activities within neighbourhood centres shall principally serve their immediate neighbourhood.

6.2.3b The scale and nature of activities within neighbourhood centres shall not generate significant adverse amenity effects on surrounding residential areas and transport networks.

6.2.3c

Residential activities above ground floor commercial uses are should be encouraged as part of mixed use development.

Explanation

Neighbourhood centres provide a limited range of everyday goods and services and essentially serve a walk-in population. Being situated within residential areas it is essential that the range and scale of activities is compatible with neighbouring residential activity and local amenity values. Very limited opportunities exist for expansion of these centres.

Neighbourhood centres are small in land area and shop sizes are between 100-300m² with the overall floorspace for a centre between 500-5,000m². The anchor store is likely to be a superette.

Major Event Facilities

Objective Policies

6.2.4 Significant City events destinations are supported by complementary commercial activities.

6.2.4a A limited range of commercial activities canshall establish outside recognised business centres where they shall directly relate to major events facilities within the City.

6.2.4b The range and scale of activity and built form doshall not undermine the role of any business centre and areshall be consistent with the amenity values of neighbouring areas.

Explanation

The provision of support activities in the immediate locality of significant events destinations can enhance the attraction of such facilities and meet community needs without adversely affecting the role of business centres. Such activities will assist in meeting the demands of occasional peak visitor numbers but will require careful

Comment [HCC32]: 368.001, 1126.014, 1282.024


Comment [HCC34]: 309.004, 938.061, FS242.001, FS277.001, 1206.063,





management to ensure they will not undermine the amenity values of neighbouring areas. Securing additional commercial development in a limited number of locations aims to bring benefits to, and strengthen the attraction and viability of these stand alone facilities.

Out of Centre Development –Commercial Fringe and Large Format Retail Zones

Objective Policies

6.2.5 Provide for out-of-centre development comprising a range of moderate to low intensity commercial uses (offices and/or large format retail activities and community services) only in circumstances where the primacy, vitality, viability and amenity of the Central City, the function, vitality, viability and amenity of the sub-regional centres and the function and amenity of the lower order centre’s in the business hierarchy are not undermined

6.2.5a Large format trading activities may be permitted to locate outside zoned business centres where it can be demonstrated that:

I. Appropriately zoned land is not available on the fringe of within the Central City, or Sub-regional centres or Suburban centres; and

II. There is consistency with the assessment criteria to avoidminimise potential adverse effects on the viability and vitality of existing business centres and the Central City; and or

III. The proposal cumulatively does not add to the continued loss of developable industrial land to retail uses

6.2.5b Development ensures potential adverse effects on adjacent residential areas are avoided, remedied or mitigated and the safety and efficiency of the transport network is maintained.

Explanation

It is acknowledged that not all business activities are able to locate within the defined zoned boundaries of the centres that comprise the business hierarchy and that there are often physical, historical and commercial relationships and trading patterns that need to be recognised. The Plan should provide for these circumstances provided there are no suitable alternatives within the centres and the business hierarchy will not be undermined.

Opportunities will also become available in the future for new development in ‘out-of-centre’ locations. These free standing sites are often highly visible being adjacent to higher order roads and accessible by public transport as to provide convenient access to the wider community for new business activities.

The extent to which the new large format trading activities replicate and challenge the functions as to result in adverse effects that are more than minor on the existing services and facilities and amenity of neighbouring business centres must be carefully

Comment [HCC37]: 312.005,FS123.001, FS249.014, FS265.001, FS285.008, 539.002, 606.005, 938.142 ,FS285.113, 1206.143, 1117.003, FS213.001, 1256.003, FS237.017




considered through the provision of a CentreViability Assessment Report (1.2.2.194.20 refers).

6.3 Rules – Activity Status Table

Character (for information only) Co

mm

erci

al fr

inge

Even

ts F

acili

ties

frin

ge

Sub-

Regi

onal

cen

tre

Larg

e Fo

rmat

Ret

ail

Subu

rban

Cen

tre

core

Subu

rban

Cen

tre

frin

ge

Nei

ghbo

urho

od

Cent

re

Business Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Buildings

a) New buildings RD RD RD RD RD RD RD

b) Alterations and additions (excluding minor works)

RD RD RD RD RD RD RD

c) Minor works P P P P P P P

d) Accessory buildings RD RD RD RD RD RD RD

e) Demolition, removal , maintenance or repair of existing buildings (except heritage buildings scheduled in Volume 2, Appendix8, Schedule 8A: Built Heritage)

P P P P P - P

f) Demolition or removal of existing buildings on Lot 129 DPS 930

- - - - - - NC

Industry

e) Any industrial activityy except light or service industry

D NC NC D NC NC NC

f) Light industry RD D D D D D NC

g) Service industry P D P P D D D

h) Transport depot (goods) RD D NC D D RD NC

i) Emergency service facility RD D RD RD RD D DNC

j) Noxious or offensive NC NC NC NC NC NC NC

Comment [HCC39]: 913.037, 938.063, 1206.065



Comment [HCC42]: 312.005, 938.064, FS239.015, FS285.009, FS285.097, 1206.066, FS285.172





Character (for information only)

Com

mer

cial

frin

ge

Even

ts F

acili

ties

frin

ge

Sub-

Regi

onal

cen

tre

Larg

e Fo

rmat

Ret

ail

Subu

rban

Cen

tre

core

Subu

rban

Cen

tre

frin

ge

Nei

ghbo

urho

od

Cent

re

Business Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 activities

Ja) Research & innovation activities RD NC NC NC NC - NC

Offices

k) Ancillary office P P P P P P P

l) Office less than 250m2 gross floor area per site P P PDP D P P D

m) Office 250m2- 500m2

gross floor area per site RD D D NC D NC NC

n) Office greater than 500m2 gross floor area per site

D NC NC NC NC NC NC

o) Offices up to greater than 113509300m2 gross floor area on The Base site shown on Fig 6.1b. on Lot 2 DP 89885 approved under resource consent 10.2010.2210 (The Base)

NC - P- NC - - -

p) Offices greater than 11350m2 gross floor area on The Base site shown on Fig 6.1b.

- - NC - - - -

Retail/Commercial

qp) Ancillary retail P P P P P P P

rq) Retail less than 150m2 gross floor area per tenancy

D P P RDP DNCD P P P

sr) Retail 150m2- 399m2 gross floor area per tenancy

D D P RD DNCD P D D

ts) Retail 400m2- 999m2 gross floor area per tenancy

RD D P RDP RDP DNC NC NC

Comment [HCC39]: 913.037, 938.063, 1206.065










Comment [HCC54]: 1198.0018




Com

mer

cial

frin

ge

Even

ts F

acili

ties

frin

ge

Sub-

Regi

onal

cen

tre

Larg

e Fo

rmat

Ret

ail

Subu

rban

Cen

tre

core

Subu

rban

Cen

tre

frin

ge

Nei

ghbo

urho

od

Cent

re


Except for sites in Hamilton East NC - - - - - -

ut) Retail 1,000m2 gross floor area per tenancy or greater

D NC P RDP NC D NC

Except for sites in Hamilton East NC - - - - - -

v) Total retail floorspace in categories q to u and aa to dd up to 103,700m2 gross floor area on The Base site shown on Fig 6.1b

- - P - - - -

w) Total retail floorspace in categories q to u and aa to dd that exceeds 103,700m2 gross floor area on The Base site shown on Fig 6.1b

- - RD - - - -

x) Any retail floorspace described in q to u and aa to dd comprised in tenancies less than 400m2 gross floor area that exceeds a total of 34,300m2 gross floor area on The Base site shown on Fig 6.1b

- - RD - - - -

yu) Banks less than 200m2 gross floor area P NC P NC P P P

zv) Banks 200m2 gross floor area or greater NC NC P NC P NC NC

aaw) Yard-based retail less than 400m2 gross floor area

NC NC D P D P D

bbx) Yard-based retail 400m2 gross floor area or greater

NC NC D P NC P NC

ccy) SupermarketBuilding RDNC NC RDNC RDP RDNC P NC

Comment [HCC39]: 913.037, 938.063, 1206.065






Com

mer

cial

frin

ge

Even

ts F

acili

ties

frin

ge

Sub-

Regi

onal

cen

tre

Larg

e Fo

rmat

Ret

ail

Subu

rban

Cen

tre

core

Subu

rban

Cen

tre

frin

ge

Nei

ghbo

urho

od

Cent

re

Business Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Improvement Centres less than 400m2 gross floor area

ddz) Building Improvement Centres over 400m2 gross floor area

NC NC DNC P DNC D NC

eeaa) Wholesale retail and trade suppliesLicensed premises less than 200m2 gross floor area

NCD NCP NCP PD NCP D NCD

ffbb) Restaurants, and cafes and licensed premises less than 200m2 gross floor area

D P P D P D PD

ggcc) Cafes, restaurants and licensed premises 200m2 gross floor area or greater

D P P NC P NC DNC

hhdd) Commercial places of assembly (excluding cinemas and bowling alleys)

NC P P P P P NC

iiee) Commercial places of assembly (cinemas and bowling alleys only)

NC NC P NC P NC NC

jjff) Drive-through services (excluding automotive fuel retailing)

RD RD RD RD RD RD NC

kkgg) Drive-through services (automotive fuel retailing only)

RD NC D RD DNC RD NC

llhh) Parking lots and parking buildings P P P P D P NC

Except for sites in Hamilton East D - - - - - -

Community

mmii) Passenger P P P P P P P

Comment [HCC39]: 913.037, 938.063, 1206.065

Comment [HCC57]: 1135.004, FS123.027, 1256.002 FS20.003, FS123.02, FS237.016, FS285.193

Comment [HCC58]: 312.005,1206.066, FS285.172

Comment [HCC59]: 39.001, FS20.004, FS158.002, FS212.001, FS269.001, FS278.007, 938.064, FS158.004, FS198.01, FS212.002, FS265.023, FS269.002, FS277.001, FS278.008, FS285.097, 1126.015, FS158.005, FS285.123, 1206.066, FS285.172, 1241.002,FS285.188, 1282.025, FS285.203, FS286.024




Com

mer

cial

frin

ge

Even

ts F

acili

ties

frin

ge

Sub-

Regi

onal

cen

tre

Larg

e Fo

rmat

Ret

ail

Subu

rban

Cen

tre

core

Subu

rban

Cen

tre

frin

ge

Nei

ghbo

urho

od

Cent

re

Business Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 transport facility

nnjj) Health-care services above ground floor

P NC P D P P P

ookk) Health-care services less than 250m2 gross floor area

P NC P D P P P

ppll) Health-care services 250m2 -1,000m² gross floor area at ground floor

P NC P D PRD P RD

qqmm) Health-care services over 1,000m2 gross floor area or greater at ground floor

P NC P RD RD D D

rrnn) Health-care services and hospital including Whanau Ora up to greater than 10,750000m2 gross floor area on The Base site shown on Fig 6.1b area on Lot 2 DP 89885 approved under resource consent 10.20120.6723.0012210 (The Base)

NC - P- - - - -

ss) Health-care services and hospital including Whanau Ora greater than 10,750m2 gross floor area on The Base site shown on Fig 6.1b

- - NC - - - -

ttoo) Childcare facility P NC P PD P P P

uupp) Community centres P RD P P P P P

vvqq) Tertiary education and specialised training facilities less than 250m2 gross floor area

P RD P D P P P

Comment [HCC39]: 913.037, 938.063, 1206.065

Comment [HCC60]: 287.003, 309.005,




Comment [HCC64]: 606.006, FS278.001, 312.005, 1153.004




Com

mer

cial

frin

ge

Even

ts F

acili

ties

frin

ge

Sub-

Regi

onal

cen

tre

Larg

e Fo

rmat

Ret

ail

Subu

rban

Cen

tre

core

Subu

rban

Cen

tre

frin

ge

Nei

ghbo

urho

od

Cent

re


wwrr) Tertiary education and specialised training facilities 250m2 gross floor area or greater

P RD D D D D NC

xxss) Tertiary education and specialised training facilities >1000m2 gross floor area

P RD D NC NC NC NC

yy) Tertiary education and specialised training facilities up to 2,240m2 gross floor area on The Base site shown on Fig 6.1b

- - P - - - -

zztt) Public art

P P P P P P P

abTtt) Hospital D NC NC NC NC NC

Residential

acuu) Ancillary residential units RD RD RD RD RD RD RD

advv) Detached dwellings and duplex dwellings NC NC NC NC NC D D

aeww) Apartments at ground floor NC NC NC NC NC NC NC

afxx) Apartments above ground floor NC NC NC NC RD RD RD

agyy) Managed care facilities NC NC NC NC NC NC NC

ahzz) Residential centres D D D D D D D

aib) Visitor accommodation RD RD RD D D D NC

ajc) Subdivision Refer to Chapter 23: Subdivision and Chapter 24: Financial Contributions

Comment [HCC39]: 913.037, 938.063, 1206.065





6.4 Rules – General Standards

6.4.1 Maximum Building Height

Business Zones Height of buildings

a) Business 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 2015m

b) Business 61, 2, 4, 5 1512.5m

c) Business 67 10m

d) Elements such as flues, flagpoles, open balustrades and aerials shall be exempt from 6.4.1(a), (b) and (c) above

6.4.2 Height in Relation to Boundary a) Where any boundary adjoins a Residential or Special Character Zone, no part of

any building shall penetrate a height control plane rising at an angle of 45 degrees beginning at an elevation of 3m above the boundary.

b) Elements such as flues, flagpoles, open balustrades and aerials shall be exempt from 6.4.2(a) above.

6.4.3 Building Setbacks

Front boundary Minimum distance

a) All Business Zones 5m when fronting an arterial transport corridor

Rear and side boundaries Minimum distance

b) Business 1, 2, 5, 56 5m where the boundary adjoins a Residential or Special Character Zone

c) Business 4 5m (except for any internal sitezone boundary within the Business 4 Zone)

d) Business 67 1.5m where the boundary adjoins a Residential or Special Character Zone

6.4.4 Minimum Floor Area a) The minimum gross floor area of any individual tenancy used for the following

activities within Business Zone 4 shall be:

i. Retail activities: 400m2.

6.4.5 Building Intensity a) The following maximum building intensities (floor area ratios) shall apply.

Business Zones Maximum ratio of floor area to net site area

i. Business Zones 1, 3, 5 2:1

ii. Business Zones 2, 4, 6, 7 1:1

Comment [HCC67]: 938.065, FS198.013, 199.008,1206.067, FS285.173


Comment [HCC69]: 938.066,1206.068




b) In determining the floor-area ratio:

i. Floor space used for parking within Business Zones 3 and 5 shall be excluded when it does not increase the maximum permitted floor area by more than 50%.

ii. Underground parking is fully excluded.

6.4.6 Maximum Tenancy Size a) Notwithstanding any other rule within this chapter, the gross retail floorspace of

any individual retail tenancy within any of the following centres shall not exceed:

Suburban Centre (Business 5 and 6 Zones) Maximum gross floor area

i. Dinsdale 3,500m2

ii. Glenview 3,500m2

iii. Thomas Road 3,500m2

iv. Rotokauri 3,500m2

v. Hamilton East 3,500m2

vi. Five Cross Roads 3,500m2

vii. Nawton 2,500m2

viii. Frankton 5,000m2

ix. Hillcrest – Clyde Street 2,500m2

x. Hillcrest – Cambridge Road roundabout 3,500m2

xi. Rototuna 4,000m2

Neighbourhood Centre (Business 7 Zone) Maximum gross floor area

xii. Heaphy Terrace One tenancy: 1,000m2

One tenancy: 400m2 All others: 200m2

xiii. Rototuna West All tenancies: 2,000m2 One tenancy: 400m2 All others: 200m2

xiv. Any other neighbourhood centre One tenancy: 400m2 All others: 200m2

6.4.7 Service Areas a) Any building shall provide service areas as follows.

i. At least one service area of not less than 10m2 or 1% of the gross floor area of the building, whichever is the greater.

ii. Any additional service areas shall not:

• Be less than 5m2

• Have a minimum dimension of less than 2.5m

Comment [HCC71]: 913.038, 938.068, FS237.001, 1206.070, 1256.004, FS237.018



iii. Any outdoor service area shall be maintained with an all-weather, dust-free surface.

iv. A service area may be located within a building provided that it is separately partitioned with an exterior door directly accessible by service vehicles.

v. Any service area shall not encroach on to areas required by this District Plan for other purposes (e.g. parking, loading, landscaping and screening).

6.4.8 Outdoor Storage a) Any outdoor storage area used for the storage of goods or materials shall:

i. Be laid out and used in a manner that does not conflict with vehicle access.

ii. Be maintained with an all-weather, dust-free surface.

iii. Be located away from public view or otherwise screened by fencing and landscaping.

iv. Not encroach on areas required by this District Plan for other purposes (e.g. parking, loading, landscaping and screening).

6.4.9 Residential Development a) Only one ancillary residential unit is allowed per site.

b) Except for providing an entrance, no residential activities shall be undertaken at ground-floor level.

c) The following standards shall apply to residential units, including apartments above ground floor, residential centres and ancillary residential units. Unless specifically noted, they do not apply to visitor accommodation.

d) Density

Minimum densities within the Business Zones shall be 30 residential units/ha; based on net site area.

e) Where mixed-use is provided for within a development (e.g. office or retail with residential above), the density requirements of Rule 6.4.9 (d) shall be applied on a pro rata basis relative to the percentage of development that is residential (e.g. where a development is made up of 40% residential activities, a density requirement of 40% of 30 residential units/ha (30 dwellings/ha x 40%) shall be required).

f) Outdoor Living Areas

i. Each residential unit shall be provided with an outdoor living area that is:

• For the exclusive use of each residential unit.

• Readily accessible from a living area inside the residential unit.

• Free of driveways, manoeuvring areas, parking spaces, accessory buildings and service areas.

• Located on a side of the residential unit which faces north of east or west (refer Figure 6.1c).

Comment [HCC72]: 309.007,938.143, 1206.144,



Figure 6.1c: Outdoor living area – north of east or west

ii. Outdoor living areas for residential units shall have areas and dimensions as follows.

Residential units Outdoor living area per residential unit1

Shape

A. Ancillary residential units 12m2 No dimension less than

2.5m

B. Apartments above ground-floor level 12m2 No dimension less than

2.5m

C. All other residential units 40m²

Capable of containing a 5m diameter circle

1 The outdoor living area for an ancillary residential unit shall be separate from the outdoor living area provided for the principal residential unit.

Note 1. Any communal open space is optional and is additional to the above provisions.

g) Storage Areas

Each residential unit shall be provided with a service area:

• Located at or below ground-floor level, readily accessible to that residential unit, secure and weatherproof.

• A minimum of 1.8m long by 1m high by 1m deep.

h) Residential Unit Size

i. The minimum gross floor area required in respect of each residential unit shall be:

Form of Residential Unit Gross Floor Area

A. Studio unit Minimum 40m2

B. 1 bedroom unit Minimum 45m2



C. 2 bedroom unit Minimum 70m2

D. 3 or more bedroom unit Minimum 90m2

ii. In any one apartment building containing in excess of 20 residential units, the combined number of one-bedroom units and studio units shall not exceed 50% of the total number of residential units within the building.

i) Daylight Standards

Residential units shall be designed to achieve the following minimum daylight standards.

i. Living rooms and living/dining areas: a total clear-glazed area of exterior wall no less than 20% of the floor area of that space.

ii. Bedrooms: a minimum of one bedroom with a total clear-glazed area of exterior wall no less than 20% of the floor area of that space.

iii. No more than one bedroom in an apartment may rely on natural light borrowed from another naturally lit room provided:

• The maximum distance of the bedroom from the natural light source window shall be 6m.

• The minimum total clear-glazed area of the light source shall be no less than 20% of the floor area of that bedroom.

j) External Outlook Area

Each residential unit shall have an external outlook area that:

i. Is provided from each face of the building containing windows to habitable rooms. Where windows to a habitable room are provided from two or more faces of a building, outlook areas shall be provided from the face with the greatest window area.

ii. Has a minimum depth of 6m, perpendicular from the window.

6.4.10 Development Flexibility a) Provided that the maximum floor area ratio shall not be exceeded by more than

20%, additional floor area in excess of the maximum gross floor area specified in Rule 6.4.7 may be granted within Business Zone 5 in the following circumstances.

i. Pedestrian arcades or plazas – 10m² for each 1m2 of arcade or plaza.

ii. Areas of tree planting, landscaping, play equipment or seating for public use – 10m2 for each 1m2 of provision in excess of District Plan requirements.

iii. Public toilets – 10m2 for each 1m2 of space occupied for this use.

iv. Public art or sculpture, either on or off site and displayed on public view at all times – 50m2 for each sculpture or public art display.

6.4.11 Active Frontages a) No roller doors, or similar, which may obscure windows or entranceways may be

installed on the front of any building fronting a public space within Business Zones

Comment [HCC73]: 309.008,355.005



5-6 (Suburban Centre Core and Fringe) and Business Zone 67 (Neighbourhood Centre).

Note 1. For the purpose of clarification, security grills which allow views between the street and

premises are an acceptable means of compliance with this standard.

6.4.12 Provisions in Other Chapters The provisions of the following chapters apply to activities within this chapter where relevant.

• Chapter 3: Structure Plans • Chapter 19: Historic Heritage • Chapter 20: Natural Environments • Chapter 21: Waikato River Corridor and Gullies • Chapter 22: Natural Hazards • Chapter 23: Subdivision • Chapter 24: Financial Contributions • Chapter 25: City-wide

6.5 Rules – Specific Standards

6.5.1 Rototuna Western Neighbourhood Centre There shall be:

a) A maximum individual gross floor area of 250m2 for each office activity.

b) A maximum individual gross floor area of 250m2 for each education and training facility.

c) A front building setback of 10m maximum when fronting an arterial transport corridor.

d) No service areas within the front building setback or forward of the front building line.

e) A maximum of 50% of the ground floor wall of any activity facing the road/ transport corridor or public space shall consist of clear glazing and be capable of displaying goods and services.

6.5.2 Rotokauri Suburban Centre Primary Frontage Interface a) For buildings within the primary frontage as defined in Volume 2, Appendix 2,

Figure 2-13 Rotokauri Suburban Centre Concept Plan:

i. Buildings shall include a minimum of two storeys of usable floor space.

ii. The width of any ground floor tenancy shall not exceed a maximum of 1.5 times the height of the building above that tenancy. For the purposes of this standard, tenancy is defined as ‘the gross floor area occupied by way of exclusive use by a tenant and includes both freehold and leasehold areas’.

iii. A minimum of 75% of the ground floor wall facing the main shopping street, as defined in the Rotokauri Suburban Centre Concept Plan set out in Volume 2,



Appendix 2, Figure 2-13, shall be of clear glass and capable of being used for displaying goods and services to passing pedestrians.

iv. A continuous verandah not less than 2.5m deep shall be provided which extends along the full street frontage, except that no verandah over a footpath may encroach to within 600mm from the kerb.

b) There shall be no vehicle access or parking within the primary frontage area.

6.6 Restricted Discretionary Activities: Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria

a) In determining any application for resource consent for a restricted discretionary activity, Council shall have regard to the matters referenced below, to which Council has restricted the exercise of its discretion.

Activity Specific Matter of Discretion and Assessment Criteria Reference Number

(Refer to Volume 2, Appendix 1.2)

i. New buildings, alterations and additions to buildings, and accessory buildings*

A2, A3, A4, B1, C1-C21, E1, E2, G1,H1, J1, L1, E1-E3, P1-P7, R1-9, S1, V1-V18

ii. Ancillary residential units* A2, A3, A4, B1, C1-C13, D4-D5, E3, F1, P6,S1

iii. Light industry and transport depots (goods)

A2, A3, A4, B1, C2-C6, D1-D6, E1-E2, F2- F3, G1, K3, P1-P5, S1, V1-V18

iv. Emergency service facility* A2, A3, A4, B1, C2-C10, C13, C23, D1, D6, E1-E2, G1, P2-P5, R1-R9, S1, V1-V18

v. Retail activities* A2, A3, A4, B1, C2-C23, D3-D5, E1-E3, F2-F6, G1, N1-N5, P2, R1-2, R9, S1, V1-V18

vi. Offices* A2, A3, A4, B1, C2-C23, D3-D5, E1-E3, F2-F6, G1, N1-N5, P2, R1-2, R9, S1, V1-V18

vii. Drive-through services (Business 1, 2, 6 Zones)

A2, A3, A4, B1, C2-C10, C13-C23, D4-D6, G1, P2, S1, V1-V18

viii. Drive-through services (Business 3, 4, 5 Zones)*


ix. Community centres, tertiary education and specialised training facilities


x. Apartments and visitor accommodation*

A2, A3, A4, B1, C1-C10, C13-C23, D4-D6, E1-E3, F1, G1, P2 ,P6, S1, V1-V18




xi. Health-care services A2, A3, A4, B1, C2-C10, C13-C23, D4-D6, G1, P2, S1, V1-V18

XII. Supermarkets* A2-A4,B1, B4, C2-C7,C13-C21, D1-D6,E1-E2, F2-F4,G1,G5,J5,P2-P5,Q1,R1-R9,S1,T1,V1-V18

XIII Research and Innovation activities A2, A3, A4, B1, C2-C6, D1-D6, E1-E2, F2- F3, G1, K3, P1-P5, S1, V1-V18

Standard Specific Matter of Discretion and Assessment Criteria Reference Number

(Refer to Volume 2, Appendix 1.2)

xii. Any activity not complying with any relevant building height standard in Rule 6.4.1

A1, A2, A3, B1, C6, C21-C23

xiii Any activity not complying with any relevant height in relation to boundary standard in Rule 6.4.2

A1, A2, B1, C2, C6-7, D3, P4, C21-C23

xiv. Any activity not complying with any relevant building setback standard in Rule 6.4.3

A1, A2, A3, B1, C2, C4-C5, C19, E1

xv. Any activity not complying with any minimum floor area standard in Rule 6.4.4

A1, A2, A3, B1, C7, F2-F6

xvi. Any activity not complying with any building intensity standard in Rule 6.4.5

A1, A2, A3, B1, C6, C21-C23, D3

xvii. Any activity not complying with any maximum tenancy size standard in Rule 6.4.6

A1, A2, A3, B1, F2-F6

xviii. Any activity not complying with any relevant service and outdoor storage standard in Rule 6.4.7 and Rule 6.4.8

A1, A2, A3, B1, C2, C6-C7, C13-C17, D3, G5, P4

xix. Any activity not complying with any residential development standard in

A1, A2, A3, B1, F1, F5

Comment [HCC75]: 1135.004, FS123.027




Rule 6.4.9

xx. Any activity not complying with any development flexibility standard in Rule 6.4.10

A1, A2, A3, B1, C2, G1, Z9

xxi. Any activity not complying with any active frontages standard in Rule 6.4.11

A1, A2, A3, C2, Z5, Z7, Z9

xxi. Any activity not complying with any relevant Rototuna Western Neighbourhood Centre standard in Rule 6.5.1

A1, A2, A3, B1, C2- C7, C13-C17, D3, E1, F2-F6

xxii. Any activity not complying with any relevant Rotokauri Suburban Centre Primary Frontage standard in Rule 6.5.2

A1, A2, A3, B1, C2- C7, C13-C17, D3, E1

Note

1. Refer to Chapter 1.1.9 for activities marked with an asterisk (*)

6.7 Notification Rule

a) Except as provided for by Section 95A(2)(b) and (c), 95B(2) and (3) and 95C(1) to (4) of the Act applications for any Restricted Discretionary Activity identified with an asterisk(*) in the table above will be considered without notification or the need to obtain approval from affected persons.

6.8 Other Resource Consent Information

Refer to Chapter 1: Plan Overview for guidance on the following.

• How to Use this District Plan • Explanation of Activity Status • Activity Status Defaults • Notification / Non-notification RulesDefaults • Rules Having Early or Delayed Effect

Refer to Volume 2, Appendix 1: District Plan Administration for the following.

• Controlled Activities – Matters of Control • Restricted Discretionary Activities – Matters for Discretion and Assessment Criteria • Discretionary Activity Assessment Criteria • Design Guides and Design Assessment Criteria • Information Requirements • Acronyms Used in the District Plan • Definitions Used in the District Plan • Other Methods of Implementation




St Andrews Park

Ashurst Park

SylvesterEsplanade

BraithwaitePark

KAIMIROSTREET

TA W N P L A C E

BEADLEPL

SIMSEY PLACE

OAKFIELDCRESCENT

CHURCH ROAD

PERCLO PLACE

SHERWOOD DRIVE

C U L L IM O R E S T R E E T

MINNIE PLACE

O R M S BY L A N E

SEQUOIAPLACE

EMMA PL

TERAPAROAD

NORMAN

HAYWA

R D P L A C E

JUDENAPL

KAREWA

P LA C E

P O H U T U K A W A D R IV E

CLEMATISAVENUE

TASMANRO ADTASMAN ROAD

ELMWOODCRESCENTSANDWICH ROAD

EAGLE WAY

ASHURSTAVENUE

TAKSANPLACE

FOREMANROAD

THEBOULEVARD

CHURCH ROAD

AVALON DRIVE

MANCHESTER PLACE

PUKETEROAD

M A NU K A ST R E E TWaikato River

NORTHPARKDR

TE KOWHAI ROAD

C Y P R E S S C R E S C E N T

TOTARA DRIVE

MOVERLEY PL

TUPELO STREET

MORE LA N D

AVENUE

TERAPAROAD

RONALDCOURT

TERAPAROAD

FUCHSIAAV

E N U E

PUKETEROAD

HIGHLANDDRIVE

WAIRERE DRIVECAM

DEN

P L A CE

TE RAPA BYPASS

C H A L L IN O R S T R E E T

TITOKI PL

TANEKAHAPLACE

KOHEKOHEPL

BALMERINOCRESCENT

MORROW AVENUEFROSTPL

BROUGH PL

VICKERY STREET

TASMAN ROAD

See Rotokauri Structure Plan

in Appendix 2 - Figures 2-8 to 2-13

North Island Main Trunk Railway Line

7

11

44

4

4

4

3

14

4

4

1

St Andrews Park

Ashurst Park

SylvesterEsplanade

BraithwaitePark

KAIMIROSTREET

TA W N P L A C E

BEADLEPL

SIMSEY PLACE

OAKFIELDCRESCENT

CHURCH ROAD

PERCLO PLACE

SHERWOOD DRIVE


MINNIE PLACE

O R M S BY L A N E

SEQUOIAPLACE

N O R T H W AY S T R E E T

EMMA PL

TERAPAROAD

NORMAN

HAYWA

R D P L A C E

JUDENAPL

KAREWA

P LA CE


CLEMATISAVENUE

TASMANROADTASMAN ROAD

ELMWOODCRESCENT

SANDWICH ROAD

EAGLE WAY

ASHURSTAVENUE

TAKSANPLACE

FOREMANROAD

THEBOULEVARD

CHURCH ROAD

AVALON DRIVE

MANCHESTER PLACE

PUKETEROAD

M A NU K A ST R E E T

Waikato River

NORTHPARKDR

TE KOWHAI ROAD


TOTARA DRIVE

MOVERLEY PL

TUPELO STREET

MOR ELA N D

AVENUE

TERAPAROAD

RONALDCOURT

TERAPAROAD

FUCHSIAAV

E N U E

PUKETEROAD

HIGHLANDDRIVE

WAIRERE DRIVE

CAMDE

N

P L A CE

TE RAPA BYPASS

C H A L L IN O R S T R E E T

TITOKI PL

TANEKAHAPLACE

KOHEKOHEPL

BALMERINOCRESCENT

MORROW AVENUE

FROSTPL

BROUGH PL

VICKERY STREET

TASMAN ROAD




1

1

4

4

14

4

4

1

4

3

41

1

4

4

44 4

4

S42a Report

±

Chapter 6:- Business ZoneProposed Change to Zoning Map Appendix B2

As Notified Previously Recommended

MAP: 15A, 16A & 25A Date:24 February 2014 V1

St Andrews Park

Ashurst Park

SylvesterEsplanade

BraithwaitePark

KAIMIROSTREET

TA W N P L A C E

BEADLEPL

SIMSEY PLACE

OAKFIELDCRESCENT

CHURCH ROAD

PERCLO PLACE

SHERWOOD DRIVE


MINNIE PLACE

O R M S BY L A N E

SEQUOIAPLAC E

EMMA PL

T ERAP AROA D

NORMAN

HAYWA

R D P L A C E

JUDENAPL

KAREWA

P L A C E


CLEMATISAVENUE

TASMA N RO ADTASMAN ROAD

ELMWOODCRESCENT

SANDWICH ROAD

EAGLE WAY

ASHURSTAVENUE

TAKSANPLACE

FOREMANROAD

THEBOU LEVARD

CHURCH ROAD

AVALON DRIVE

MANCHESTER PLACE

PUKETEROAD

MA NU K A S T R E E T

Waikato River

NORTHPARK DR

TE KOWHAI ROAD


TOTARA DRIVE

MOVERLEY PL

TUPELO STREET

MORELA N D

AVENUE

TERAPAROAD

RONALDCOURT

TERAPAROAD

FUCHSIAAV

E N U E

PUKETEROAD

HIGHLANDDRIVE

WAIRERE DRIVE

CAMDE

N

P L A CE

TE RAPA BYPASS C H A L L IN O R S T R E E T

TITOKI PL

TANEKAHAPLACE

KOHEKOHEPL

BALMERINOCRESCENT

MORROW AVENUE

FROSTPL

BROUGH PL

VICKERY STREET

TASMAN ROAD




4

3

4 1

1

4

4 44

4

3

3

±

As Now Recommended

0 125 250 375 50062.5Meters

Minogue Park

MaeroaRoadReserve

BolmuirPark

BeerescourtPark

Vardon Park

DaysPark

HeathPark

VickeryPark

PuketePark

MnoguePark

TE RAPA ROAD

H I N TO N

AVEN UE

HILTON ROAD

NORRIS AVENUE

PORTALCRESCENT

MAINSTREETPLACE

HEATHSTREET

WARWICK AVE

GARLANDD R IV E

GARRICK P LACE

N O R T H W A Y S T R E E T

MENZIES ST

TE RAPARACECOURSE

V E R C O E R O A D

C UN NIN GH AMRO AD

CROAL L C R ES C E N T

FORSYTHSTREET

SHEFFIELDSTREET

TE RAPARACECOURSE

SIR TRISTRAM AVENUE

BOLMUIR ROAD

S U N S H IN E A V E N U E

SANDWICHROAD

TE RAPARACECOURSE

GARNETT AVENUE

HOLLOWAY PL

CARDRONAROAD

ALANBROOKE PL

HOLDENAVE

BOWEN P L

M INO G U E D R IV E

TE RAPA RACECOURSE

GUDEX COURT

TAYLORTERRACEHAM PTON PL

SEAMERPLACE

DUNCAN ROAD

MAHANA ROAD

VARDON ROAD

STOREY AVENUE

B R I ST O L P L A C E

EUCLID AVENUE

COTTON STREET

S E IF E R T S T R E E T

TERAPAROAD

KINGSWAYCR E SC EN T

MITCHAMAVENUE

JA M IE S O N C R E S C E N T

AN NSTREET

DOVERROAD

STEELEROAD

WESTNEY PLKINGSLEYST

M IN CHIN CRES

KELL Y PL

WINDSOR ROAD

GLASGOW ST

BOLLARDST

AWATEREAVENUE

HOBSONSTREET

FOREST LAKE ROAD

DALGLIESH AVENUE

CHARLES CRESCENT

GALBRA IT HAVE

PA RTING TO N P L

KENBROW NEDRI VE

G AR NE TT AV ENU E

PHILIPST

ELIZABETH ST

ME WS P L

MAEROA ROAD

ULSTER

STREET

G ARN ET TA VE NU E

BRYANT ROAD

ST ANDR EWST ERRACE

DAN IEL P L

BRAID ROAD

VICKERY STREET

BRAID RD

TERAPAR OA D

BEERESCOURTROAD

M ACD IAR MI DR OA D

BEERESCOURT RD

NorthIslandMainTrunkRailwayLine

NorthIslandMainTrunkRailwayLine

72

7

7

7

7

7

1

4

7

4

GrahamPark

YendellPark

DillicarPark

GrahamIsland

Lake Domain

PalmerstonStreet

Reserve

RooseCommercePark

SteelePark

PembrokePark

Ferrybank

MemorialPark

WardPark

ParanaPark

GrahamPark

GardenPlace

HayesPaddock

Casey'sGarden

NewMemorialPark

SEDDONROAD

WORLEYPL

WaikatoRiver

HILLSBOROUGH T E R R A C E

COLLINGWOOD STREET

B E A L E S T R E E T

VICTORIASTREET

FOWSTREET

HUNTER STREET

L A K E CRESCENT

S E LW Y N S T R EE T

HAMMONDSTREET

ALEXANDRASTREET

B L E D I SLO E T ER

RA CE

VONTEM

PSKYSTREET

RADNOR STREET

HILL STREET

VICTORIABRIDGEPALMERSTON STREET TISDALLSTREET

KO W H A I STR EE T

PEMBRO

KESTR

EET

Waikato River

G R A NT H A MSTR EE T

B E A L E S T R E E T

KNOX STREET

THACKERAY STREET

D A W S O N S T R E E T

JELL IC OE DR IV E

G AL W AY A V E N U E

FOWLERSAVE

B R O O K F IE L D STREET

MANNINGSTREET

SEDDONPARK

DEVONROAD

PLUNKETTERRACE

TRISTRAMSTREET

JELLICOE DRIVE

N IS B E T S T R E E T

PAR K

T E R R AC E

MEM

ORIALDRIVE

CLARENCE STREET

GREYSTREET

HOOD STREET

FERGU SSON ST

BRIDGE STREET

R UA K IWI R O A D

BRYCE STREET

L A K E D O M A IN D R IV E

MACFARLANESTREET

PEMBROKESTR

EET

S O M E R S E T S T R E E T

ALMA ST

COBHAMBRIDGE

T A IN U I S T R E E T

VALLEYTER

WINTEC CITY CAMPUS

WAIKATO HOSPITAL

CAMPUS

WARD STREET

ALISON STREET

RIRO STREET

SILLARY S TREET

ONSLOW ST

GREYSTREET

MARAMA STREET

MOANA ST

L AKE ROAD

HIBISCUS AVENUE

ANGLESEASTREET

WIREMU ST

CARO ST

GARDENPLACE

TRISTRAM STREET

MACFARLANESTREET

Lake Rotoroa

(Hamilton Lake)

Lake Rotoroa

(Hamilton Lake)

BRYCE STREETMARAMA ST

TRISTRAM STREET

COBHAM DRIVE

COBHAM DRIVECO

BHAM

DRIVE

COBHAMDRIVENORMANDY AVENUE

SANDLEIGH ROAD

HORNE STREET

NEWALL ST

TIDD ST

CAMELLIA PL

East Coast Main Trunk Railway Line

East Coast Main Trunk Railway Line

S42a Report

±

Chapter 6:- Business ZoneLocation of Key Business 4 Sites Appendix B3

Home Straight Park Clarence Street

Date:16 May 2014

St Andrews Park

Ashurst Park

SylvesterEsplanade

BraithwaitePark

KAIMIROSTREET

TA W N P L A C E

BEADLEPL

SIMSEY PLACE

OAKFIELDCRESCENT

CHURCH ROAD

PERCLO PLACE

SHERWOOD DRIVE


MINNIE PLACE

O R M S B Y L A N E

SEQUOIAPLACE

N O R T H W AY S T R E E T

TERAPAROAD

NORMAN

HAYWA

R D P L A C E

JUDENAPL

KAREWA

P L AC E


CLEMATISAVENUE

TASM ANROADTASMAN ROAD

ELMWOODCRESCENT

SANDWICH ROAD

EAGLE WAY

ASHURSTAVENUE

TAKSANPLACE

FOREMANROAD

THEBOULEVARD

CHURCH ROAD

AVALON DRIVE

MANCHESTER PLACE

PUKETEROAD

M A NU K A S TR E E T

Waikato River

NO RTHPA RK DR

TE KOWHAI ROAD


MOVERLEY PL

TUPELO STREET

MORE L AND

AVENUE

TERAPAROAD

RONALDCOURT

TERAPAROAD

FUCHSIAAV

E N U E

HIGHLANDDRIVE

WAIRERE DRIVE

CAMDE

N

P L A C E

TE RAPA BYPASS C H A L L IN O R S T R E E T

TITOKI PL

TANEKAHAPLACE

KOHEKOHEPL

BALMERINOCRESCENT

MORROW AVENUE

FROSTPL

BROUGH PL

VICKERY STREET

TASMAN ROAD




4

3

4 1

1

4

4 44

4

3

3

±

The Base

0 125 250 375 50062.5Meters

4

41

1

Appendix B4

Appendix C Technical Report

Property Economics Report on B4 land provision and Large Format capacity in Te Rapa,

Tim Heath, 22 May 2014

BEFORE HEARINGS COMMISSIONERS ON BEHALF OF HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL

IN THE MATTTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER Proposed Hamilton City District Plan

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF TIMOTHY JAMES HEATH ON BEHALF OF HAMILTON DISTRICT COUNCIL

RETAIL ECONOMICS

22 May 2014

H e a t h | 2

Introduction

1. My name is Timothy James Heath.

2. I am a Property Consultant and Analyst for the company Property Economics

Limited, based in Auckland. I hold a double degree from the University of Auckland –

Bachelor of Arts 1991 (Geography major) and Bachelor of Planning 1993.

3. I am a registered member of The Property Council of New Zealand and proprietor

and founding Director of Property Economics Limited, a consultancy providing

property research services to both the private and public sectors throughout New

Zealand. I have undertaken such work for 17 years, with the last 11 years of these as

Director of Property Economics Limited.

4. I advise local and regional councils throughout New Zealand in relation to retail,

industrial and business land use issues as well as strategic forward planning. I also

provide consultancy services to a number of private sector clients in respect of a

wide range of property issues, including retail and economic impact assessments,

industrial market assessments, and forecasting market growth and land

requirements for the retail and industrial sectors.

5. I am fully familiar with the Hamilton retail environment and wider Waikato markets

having undertaken detailed retail, commercial and industrial assessments across the

region for both private and public sector clients over the last 17 years. Much of this

work involved assessing the retail distributional and economic effects of new

development and their implications in respect of forward land use planning.

Scope of Evidence

6. I have been engaged by Hamilton City Council (“HCC”) to provide evidence on the B4

land provision and Large Format Retailing (“LFR”) capacity in Te Rapa, Hamilton.

7. This statement will have a specific focus on matters pertaining to determining an

appropriate LFR land requirement in Te Rapa that both meets future LFR

requirements and avoids significant adverse retail distribution effects from

H e a t h | 3

potentially being generated for the sustainable management of resources in the

District.

Code of Conduct

8. I have read and agree to comply with the Environment Court’s Code of Conduct for

expert witnesses outlined in the Environment Court’s Consolidated Practice Note

2006. I have complied with this practice note in preparing this statement of

evidence. I confirm that the issues addressed in this statement of evidence are

within my area of expertise. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to

me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed.

Overview

9. The genesis for this statement is opposing submissions on proposed B4 land

provisions in Te Rapa within the Proposed Hamilton City Council District Plan

(“PDP”). Kiwi Income Property Trust and Tainui Group Holdings hold a view that the

B4 zoned land in Te Rapa is too extensive and no LFR activity outside the proposed

sub-regional centre boundaries is appropriate, whereas Porter Developments

Limited submit their entire (approx. 12ha) land holding directly opposite The Base

Sub-regional centre on the eastern side of Te Rapa Road (“the subject Porter site”)

should be zoned B4.

10. The PDP identified only half the subject Porter land (that component fronting Te

Rapa Road) should be rezoned B4. The PDP B4 provision for Te Rapa in the ‘as

notified’ version is the land encompassed within the red boundary lines shown in

Appendix 1.

11. As useful background context, and prior to assessing the matter above, my evidential

statement for HCC at the PDP hearings utilised a 2013 population base of 147,176.

The recently released unadjusted 2013 Census total for the city was 141,615. This

equates to a differential of 5,561 people, i.e. the evidence was based on a

population of 5,561 people (4%) higher than the more recent 2013 Census factual

dataset.

H e a t h | 4

12. This slightly lower growth path than Statistics NZ projected for the city over 2006-

2013 intercensal period was not isolated to Hamilton, but a trend that occurred in

most provincial and rural based territorial authorities around the country. In fact NZ

as a whole grew slightly slower overall than on an annualised basis over the 2001-

2006 intercensal period. Therefore when Statistics NZ revise their forward growth

projections for the territorial authorities off the new 2013 base, they are likely to be

slightly lower than originally projected.

13. In Hamilton City’s case, the city grew by 12,984 people over the 5-year 2001-2006

period, equivalent to average annual growth of around 2,600 people per annum.

Hamilton City grew by only 12,027 people over the 7-year 2006-2013 period,

equivalent to average annual growth of around only 1,700 people per annum.

14. From an analysis perspective, the most recent Census results suggests my evidence

(based on the pre-2013 Census data) at the hearing over estimates the total market

in Hamilton by the same differential as above (4%), and the Hamilton market is not

likely to be the size estimated in the evidence until around 2016/2017. In other

words, my evidence at the hearing is more reflective for a base year as at

2016/2017, not 2013. This suggests Council should take a conservative approach at

this point in time, as it is likely the forward growth profile for the city may also be

more subdued as a result of recent data than those projections outlined in my PDP

hearing statement.

15. With that context provided, the following addresses the B4 Zone in Te Rapa more

specifically. My PDP hearing evidence estimated LFR growth in the market at around

42,300sqm GFA by 2021, and 93,500sqm GFA by 2031.

16. However, B4 (proposed or otherwise) is not the only zone where LFR activity can

establish in the Te Rapa node. The Base sub-regional centre also has significant

vacant zoned land (in the order of 10ha) that would enable LFR activity to be

developed over the next 10-15 years. Further to this, Tainui Group Holdings also

already have unimplemented consents of some 65,000sqm GFA of which just over

29,000sqm is for retail activity (this figure includes 11,890sqm GFA of retail on level

H e a t h | 5

1 of Te Awa, Lot 1 which is built but untenanted). It is likely some of this provision

will be for LFR tenancies to ‘anchor’ this consented provision.

17. The balance of around 36,000sqm GFA is for other activities including commercial

space, medical facility, hotel, gym, automotive building, education and multi-level

carparking. It is Property Economics understanding that this additional GFA enabled

at The Base will not exhaust the potential of the sub-regional centre, meaning there

will still be LFR development potential within The Base over and above the

aforementioned GFA giving the centre long term development capacity.

18. From a retail economic perspective, it is my view that enabling additional LFR activity

to establish in The Base sub-regional centre first and foremost would provide a

better planning and economic outcome in terms of accessibility and economic

efficiency, prior to enabling further LFR development in other areas of Te Rapa. It

facilitates ‘in centre’ retail development and growth, something the PDP is focused

on encouraging and supporting.

19. Opposite The Base on Wairere Drive a block of land has already been developed for

LFR activity in the form of a Countdown supermarket. Immediately adjacent to this

site is a consented but yet to be developed LFR Kmart store of 5,330sqm GFA (on a

current vacant block). The consented concept for Kmart is shown in Appendix 2.

This development forms part of future demand and is not additional to such.

20. Combined the Countdown and Kmart developments absorb a land area of around 4-

5ha and is considered B4 zone land and part of the ‘existing environment’. On this

basis it should be accordingly rezoned.

21. Further to this there is vacant B4 zoned land on the corner of Te Kowhai Road and

The Boulevard in the PDP, and a 2ha vacant block on the corner of Te Rapa Road and

Wairere Drive, both which are adjacent to The Base sub-regional centre and have

adjoining LFR activity already established, i.e. in effect these sites would represent

an extension of the current LFR provision on the adjacent sites.

22. Consideration of these vacant areas alone would suggest significant LFR potential on

top of the existing (and consented) provision.

H e a t h | 6

23. If the subject Porter site of around 12ha was included in the B4 provision, this site

alone would have ‘at grade’ LFR development potential of around 50,000-60,000sqm

GFA assuming the entire site is developable and is efficiently developed. Half the

site zoned B4 would equate to around half this potential at 25,000-30,000sqm GFA.

24. When considering an appropriate B4 provision for Te Rapa node in the PDP

consideration needs to be given to the higher order policies and objectives of the

PDP, that is to encourage consolidation of retail development back into the Central

City given the shopping pattern trends outlined in my retail evidence for Council at

the PDP hearing, the significant diversion of retail expenditure (and office activity)

away from the CBD and the on-going retail and economic implications of such,

noting much of this is still to ‘play out’ in the market. Therefore the future LFR

demand and provision as identified earlier needs to be considered in the appropriate

context of Council’s higher order policies and objectives within the PDP, which as I

understand remain unchallenged.

25. Part of Hamilton Central City’s recovery and redevelopment is to target LFR

tenancies to enable a broader scope of activity to draw shoppers to the city centre,

and utilise these ‘anchor’ attractors as leverage to attract smaller Specialty retail

tenancies / brands to improve the composition, offer, quality, environment and

shopper experience in the Central City. Any rezoning that undermines this sought

‘outcome’ is a step in the wrong direction in my view which dilutes and delays the

recovery process, and would conflict with the PDP’s stated objectives.

26. In terms of quantifying an appropriate additional B4 provision in Te Rapa North (if

any) over and above the existing capacity within the area there is a need to consider

demand and capacity within the context of the framework of the PDP. For the

purpose of this analysis it is assumed Te Base could accommodate a further

20,000sqm GFA of LFR activity on top of their existing build provision, and factoring

in envisaged development plans (note it could be materially more if reconfiguration

of their existing built form is undertaken). Adding the Kmart development to this

(which in effect forms part of future demand given its yet to be developed), this

takes the current capacity for LFR to around 25,000sqm GFA in the area.

H e a t h | 7

27. This represents over 50% of the total city LFR demand out to 2021, a significantly

higher proportion than anticipated in the PDP given the consolidation of activity in

the CBD is desired over the period.

28. Given the above, there is no requirement from a LFR demand vs capacity perspective

to zone the entire subject Porter site B4 in the life of the PDP and enable LFR activity

to be developed on it given its significant scale and development potential.

Development of the site would only serve to redistribute retail expenditure away

from The Base sub-regional centre, the existing Te Rapa LFR activity, and serve to

slowdown the rejuvenation of the CBD. There is enough potential LFR capacity

within the existing proposed provision to accommodate future LFR requirements,

particularly given Council’s desire to accommodate a significant proportion of new

LFR development within the Central City.

29. Looking longer term, i.e. as at 2031, there is a further 40,000sqm GFA of LFR

estimated to be required across the city. Given the existing capacity discussed

above, the fact the recovery and rejuvenation of the CBD is likely to be a multi-

decade proposition, and LFR should be more evenly developed around the city to

better align with the population distribution, LFR is being encouraged in the CBD,

and the 2013 Census data signals lower growth, there appears no material demand

that justify rezoning additional B4 land in Te Rapa for LFR development at this stage.

30. Further to this, current capacity and consents would already create a retail node of

over 200,000sqm GFA in Te Rapa North, representing a very unbalanced distribution

of GFA relative to the city’s population distribution and base. Fuelling this by zoning

additional capacity for LFR development will only amplify this distortion and

generate market inefficiencies.

31. I have reviewed the evidence for Porter Developments Limited as presented at the

PDP hearings, namely Mr McLennan, and take a different position to that held by the

witness for a variety of reasons. The key ones being:

32. The extent of the sub-regional centre boundary in Te Rapa in the Regional Policy

Statement is currently under appeal as I understand, and any use of this as a basis

H e a t h | 8

for justifying rezoning the subject Porter site to B4 has limited usefulness and is

based on an unratified boundary.

33. The surrounding uses are not all LFR as identified by Mr McLennan with activities

such as Car Yards, Offices, Residential and Public Open Space not considered LFR

activities, and nor are they in the PDP. Therefore use of these land uses to support

the rezoning of the subject Porter site to B4 should be given little weight in the

context of the zone sought.

34. There are a variety of activities enabled within the Industrial Zone within the PDP

that land owners are able to pursue other than ‘the heaviest industrial activities” as

stated by Mr McLennan. Also the default position that many of the industrial

activities enabled are likely to generate significant adverse reverse sensitivity issues

is not concurred with.

35. Contrary to Mr McLennan’s view, LFR and industrial land uses can locate adjacent to

each other without affecting each other’s operations as occurs in many places

around the country at present.

36. Overall, rezoning any of the subject Porter site B4 appears unwarranted over the life

of the PDP, and over the assessed period thereafter, and would in my professional

opinion provide no net benefits to the social and economic wellbeing to the

Hamilton community. Development of the subject Porter site for LFR activity over

the assessed term would only serve to potentially delay the development of the

existing zoned provision in Te Rapa (and the CBD), and not generate new demand

that otherwise would not exist, i.e. it would represent a reallocation of resources.

37. Given this analysis, I recommend LFR in Te Rapa North be restricted to within The

Base sub-regional centre, the developed LFR sites and the Countdown and Kmart

sites only as per the Proposed Addendum map in Appendix 3. The other remaining

vacant blocks are not considered required to be rezoned for LFR development in the

foreseeable future.

Tim Heath

22 May 2014

H e a t h | 9

Appendix 1: B4 ZONE OPTIONS TE RAPA

H e a t h | 10

Appendix 2: CONSENTED KMART DEVELOPMENT

H e a t h | 11

Appendix 3: RECOMMENDED B4 ZONE (HIGHLIGHTED)

Appendix D

List of Submitters and Further Submitters referred to in this s42A Report

Submitters:

AMP Capital Property Portfolio 312.002

312.003

312.004

Bunnings Ltd 968.002

Chartwell Investments Ltd 355.001

CR & S Hammerton Trust 348.001

Delta Property Group 317.001

DNZ Property Fund Limited 866.001

DNZ Property Fund Limited 1024.001

1024.002

Ecostream Irrigation 314.001

Harvey Norman Stores Pty (NZ) Ltd/Harvey Norman Properties (NZ) Ltd 73.001

Kiwi Income Property Trust & Kiwi Property Holdings Ltd 1198.018

McCracken Surveys Limited 1206.143

Parkwood Trade Centre Limited 606.001

606.004

Porter Developments Ltd 1153.034

Progressive Enterprises Limited 1135.039

Property Council New Zealand 938.142

Tainui Group Holdings Limited 1199.001

1199.002

1199.003

The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd 1256.003

1256.015

Further submitters: AMP Capital Property Portfolio FS198.001

FS198.002

FS198.003

Andrew Yeoman FS2.012

DNZ Property Fund Limited (DNZ) FS285.008

FS285.017

FS285.023

FS285.113

FS285.115

FS285.187

FS285.198

Kiwi Income Property Trust and Kiwi Property Holdings Limited FS123.001

FS123.005

FS123.006

FS123.015

New Zealand Transport Agency FS270.031

Peter John Findlay et al (Peter Findlay, Peter Findlay & Associates Ltd) FS277.001

Peter John Findlay et al (Baruchel Developments Ltd) FS242.001

Porter Developments Limited FS239.004

FS239.005

FS239.014

Progressive Enterprises Limited FS237.017

Property Council New Zealand FS249.026

Tainui Group Holdings Ltd FS246.005

FS246.006

FS246.007

FS246.008

Tram Lease Limited FS265.001

FS265.015

Waikato Regional Council FS72.031

table of contents . page number . 1. introduction...

Documents