Hamilton City Proposed District Plan...1.6 The scope of my evidence relates to comments on...

Hamilton City Proposed District Plan

Section 42A Hearing Report 22, 23, 24, 25 October and

5 November 2013

Report on Submissions and Further Submissions

Chapter 6 Business Zones Vol 1

1

Table of Contents

Page Number

1. Introduction 3 2. Background 4 3. Operative District Plan 5 4. Council datasets and key studies 6 5. Hamilton Urban Growth Study 13 6. Future Proof 14 7. Regional Policy Direction for Centres Hierarchy 14 8. Principles, Policies and Rules 16 9. Strategic Framework 20 10. Submissions 21 11. Analysis 21 12. Conclusion 22

Appendix A – Analysis and recommendations Appendix B – Tracked change versions

B1 Chapter 6 Business Zones B2 Planning Maps B3 Appendix 1.5.20 B4 Appendix 1.7 Definitions

Appendix C – Technical Reports

C1 Retail Evidence – Tim Heath, Property Economics C2 Economic Evidence – Phil Osborne, Property Economics C3 HCC Datasets, Rates, Employment and Consents

Appendix D – List of submitters and further submitters

Appendix E – Acronyms

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 held for 1 ½ 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 report I rely on expert advice sought from Tim Heath & Phil

Osborne of Property Economics, who are retail and economic specialists as well as Murray Kivell, Director of EMS Planning consultants.

1.6 The scope of my evidence relates to comments on submissions and further submissions received in relation to Chapter 6 Business zones 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.

1.9 A number of without-prejudice meetings have been undertaken with submitters listed below to help clarify aspects of their submission in the preparation of this report.

3

• Tainui Group Holdings Ltd • Kiwi Income • Progressive Enterprises Ltd • Hamilton Central Business Association • Property Council New Zealand • Midland’s Health Network • National Trading Company (NTC) • 490 Grey Ltd as Trustee of the BDL Commercial Investment Trust and Homes for the Living

Ltd • M.P & R.G Upsdell

2.0 Background 2.1 Chapter 6 Business 1-7 Zones outlines the centres hierarchy which provides for the

management of the spatial distribution (location, function, composition, scale and intensity) of business activity in the City. The concept and rationale behind the centres hierarchy approach has been previously discussed in the Strategic Chapter hearing report.

2.2 Its purpose is twofold; to ensure that individually and cumulatively new business

activity and business centres do not have significant adverse impacts on the Central City, and secondly, that the Central City strengthens and retains its primacy as the preferred location for significant office, commercial, retailing development and civic activities to serve the City and wider region, which is expressly outlined in Policy 2.2.4a of the Strategic Framework chapter in the Plan.

2.3 This planning policy framework is within the scope of the RMA Part 4 functions of local government, and the overall purpose of the RMA which is to promote the sustainable management of physical resources in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing.

2.4 This enhanced resource management planning framework in the PDP can be

described as a ‘centres’ based approach to promoting sustainable urban development where collocation and agglomeration effects are encouraged with the aim of sustaining vibrant and viable business centres throughout the City.

2.5 Overall, this translates to:

• The Central City being both the regional and the primary centre for business, employment and civic affairs in a hierarchy of business centres for Hamilton City; and

• A centres hierarchy that provides structure to the intended role, composition,

functioning and scale of the Central City in relation to the other identified centres in the urban area that is aligned with sustaining efficient use of and investment in infrastructure networks such as roads, and overall, to afford accessibility to services and amenities for the City community.

4

2.6 In summary, policy recognition is now formally given the Central City to strengthen its significant and unique role in the Waikato region, as providing the social, economic and cultural heart of the region.

3.0 Operative District Plan 3.1 In contrast, under the current Operative District Plan a permissive policy and zoning

framework enables the establishment of many business activities in both suburban areas and industrial zones, and only limited regard can be had to effects on the established infrastructure and built assets such as the Central City.

3.2 The Operative District Plan (ODP) was developed during the 1990s. Thinking assumed that widespread commercial development in new and existing centres would not cause significant adverse effects on the Central City, in the absence of clear evidence of actual and potential harm. The ODP lacks any specific strategy in relation to Central City effects.

3.3 To the contrary, the Plan approach is based upon the view that the increasing diversity and rapidly changing form of business activities requires a management framework capable of accommodating such changes. There is a focus on immediate localised effects avoidance or mitigation rather than adherence to any formal City-wide strategy or vision.

3.4 The planning evidence for this laissez faire approach is set out in the table below as a ’snapshot’ of the zoning provisions in the ODP that have enabled business activity but specifically office, retail and community activities to establish throughout the City.

Activities (Terms defined in Rule Section 8.0)

City Centre Zone

Commercial Service Zone

Suburban Centre Zone

Industrial Zone

Any Retail Activity Permitted

Permitted subject to Rule 4.4.3b) & c) –triggers for Controlled Activities

Permitted

Permitted subject to Rule 4.5.3b) – triggers for Controlled Activities

Offices Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted

Restaurants Permitted Permitted Permitted Discretionary

Licensed Premises Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted

Community Centres Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted

Health Care Services Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted

Places of Assembly Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted

Education and Training Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted

Table 1 – Existing planning framework with regard to employment activities under the ODP

5

This management framework under the ODP:

• Provides for and now largely presents a “blended” business environment throughout the City characterised by similarity rather than differentiation between the zones in enabling of office, retail and commercial service activities;

• Provides for most business activities to establish in Industrial zones as of right; and • There is an express absence of provisions supporting a retail hierarchy so there is no

demonstrable policy framework to support and sustain the pre-eminence of the Central City or regulatory intervention to guide location preferences for future business activities.

3.5 The conclusion is the same as that previously highlighted in the officer report presented for the Strategic Framework chapter and that is that overall the distributional effects resulting from dispersed activity have undermined the social and economic wellbeing of Central City. These adverse effects are significant and therefore exceed the threshold required for relevance and consideration under the Resource Management Act 1991.

4.0 Council Datasets and Key Studies 4.1 Principal documents relied upon are the s32 report and its referenced resources

(e.g. RMA, Regional Plan, Proposed and Operative Regional Policy Statements), the Operative District Plan, the Strategic Framework and direction of the Proposed District Plan, and the relevant content of the submissions covered by this evidence.

The Council evidence relied upon to highlight the trend of ‘decentralisation’ of commerce and employment can be drawn from a range of previous studies undertaken in preperation of the Draft Plan since 2008 and subsequent work produced in the plan preparation of Variation 21 which was focused on the strategic alignment of the ODP with Future Proof and the Hamilton Urban Growth Strategy (HUGS). Among the background reports prepared, the following key issues have been identified;

• Overall, there is no need to provide for additional land for retail activity as there is likely to be sufficient capacity within existing centres to accommodate expected demand (Waikato Regional Retail Study, March Speer and Starr 2009);

• There is also additional latent development of commercial land around the

CBD and in Industrial zoned land that could also be developed for a similar range of business activities (Waikato Regional Retail Study, March 2009);

• The current distribution of office employment across Hamilton City, represented as floor space, shows that there is an increasing trend for more decentralised activity as firms take advantage of lower rents and land costs – placing greater strain on peripheral infrastructure (Future Proof Business Land Data Assessment, 2010).

4.2 More recently it remains evident that under the ODP, Hamilton has seen employment become increasingly dispersed. Analysis undertaken by Council’s Strategy and Research unit confirms that there has been a reduction of value and

6

commercial rateable floor space in the Central City area, coupled with marginal employment growth, when compared to other parts of Hamilton as a result of that dispersal.

4.3 Analysis previously shown within the Strategic Framework Chapter to these hearings (Table 1, Appendix C-III) identifies that over the 11-year period from 2002/03 to 2012/13, the proportion of city commercial land value in the CBD Core and CBD Periphery decreased from 17.3% to 11.1% and 21.8% to 16.3% respectively. When considered together (as the wider Central City Zone as contained in the PDP) the reduction is from 39.1% to 27.4%. In contrast, over the same period the proportion of city commercial land value contained in the Te Rapa rating area increased from 18.9% to 29.8%.

4.4 Table 2, Appendix C-III, indicates that total commercial rateable floor area has grown in Hamilton from 2,213,510 square metres in 1995 to 3,117,413 square metres in 2013. While the CBD core has grown, its total of all commercial rateable floor space in Hamilton has actually decreased from 13.8% to 12.4%, while the CBD periphery has also decreased from 17% to 12.4%. Conversely, growth in Te Rapa has increased from 397,230 square metres in 1995 to 904,661, and now represents 29% of all commercial rateable floor space in Hamilton.

4.5 In addition, analysis of Statistics New Zealand Business Demography figures across Hamilton confirms that while total employment in Hamilton has expanded between 2000 and 2012, a permissive planning framework has contributed to significant employment growth and dispersal outside of the Central City Census Area Unit into other parts of the city. This is illustrated in Table 2 below.

Table 2 – Changes in employment growth and selected locations in Hamilton 2000 –2012

Source: Statistics New Zealand – Business Demography statistics, HCC

4.6 As can be seen in the Table 2, employment growth in the Te Rapa Census Area Unit between 2000 and 2012 was significant, increasing by 88%, while it proportional share of all jobs in Hamilton also increased from 13% to 18%.Growth in jobs for the rest of the City increased by 34% while its proportional share of jobs only grew by 1%. Conversely, total jobs growth in the Hamilton Central Census Area Unit grew by only 5%, while its proportional share of all jobs in Hamilton actually decreased from 31% to 25% of all jobs.

4.7 The Council datasets below show the number of new consents (Building consents) for office and administration per year by census area unit with a commercial zoning.

Census Area

Total Employees (and proportion of all jobs in Hamilton in brackets) - 2000

Total Employees (and proportion of all jobs in Hamilton in brackets) - 2012

Percentage change 2000-2012

Te Rapa 7420 (13%) 13940(18%) 88% Hamilton Central 17940(31%) 18900 (25%) 5% Rest of City 31465(55%) 42145 (56%) 34% Total Hamilton 56830 74970 32%

7

The Hamilton Central CAU comprises the City Centre Zone and surrounding Commercial Service Zone as based on the ODP. Table 3 - Number of Office and Administrative Consents in Hamilton 2003-2013

Source: HCC Building Consents from Statistics New Zealand.

4.8 Table 3 above shows that there has been a trend in declining numbers of new office

and administrative consents from 2006 onwards although there has been a greater rate of decline in the Central area until this year where the Central area is shown to have an equal share with Te-Rapa for the first time since 2006. Put another way the Central Area has had a declining percentage of the proportion of new office and administrative building consents since 2005 from (36%) to 0% in 2010 and just 11% in 2012, with the remainder split between Te-Rapa and the rest of the City. These figures are further proof of the trend of decentralisation of not only retail but the vital office and administrative activities that contribute to the social and economic wellbeing of the Central City. Table 4 - Floor area of new office and administrative building consents in Hamilton 2003-2013


4.9 Table 4 above is also based on building consents records and shows the declining

share and distribution outside of the Central City of office and administrative activity in floor area.. Again the relatively small quantum of floor area consented in Te-Rapa has shot up from just 467m2 in 2003 to approximately 6000m2 in 2004 and then a sustained distribution of office and administrative floor area in the Te-Rapa Industrial and Commercial services areas during 2006-2009 totalling some 11,500m2, with approximately 24,000m2 of office and administrative floor space occurring within the rest of the City. Interestingly of the last 6 years, the rest of the City has had a greater proportional share of office and administrative consents.

Number of new office and administrative building consents (Proportion of annual total in brackets)

Hamilton 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Te Rapa 2(14%) 6(19%) 4(21%) 6(22%) 6(46%) 3(30%) 4(21%) 1 (17%) 0 4(44%) 4(40%) Hamilton Central 5(36%) 10(32%) 7(36%) 7(26%) 3(23%) 0 2(11%) 0 4(36%) 1(11%) 4(40%)

Rest of City 7(50%) 15(49%) 8(43%) 14(52%) 4(31%) 7(70%) 13 (68%) 5(83%) 7(64%) 4(44%) 2(20%)

Total 14 31 19 27 13 10 19 6 11 9 10

Floor area of new office and administrative building consents (gfa per m2)

Hamilton 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Te Rapa 467 6,269 647 1,904 3,053 2,479 4,077 319 0 4,095 1,884

Hamilton Central 3,197 6,320 10,345 3,009 5,537 0 2,580 0 1,927 742 8,870

Rest of City 2,529 2,905 971 8,824 2,137 8,165 5,152 2,045 1,581 1,278 3,519

Total 6,193 15,494 11,963 13,737 10,727 10,644 11,809 2,364 3,508 6,115 14,273

8

Table 4a – Percentage Floor area of new office and administrative building consents in Hamilton 2003-2013

Floor area of new office and administrative building consents - proportion of annual total.

Hamilton 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Te Rapa 8% 40% 5% 14% 28% 23% 35% 13% 0% 67% 13% Hamilton Central 52% 41% 86% 22% 52% 0% 22% 0% 55% 12% 62% Rest of City 41% 19% 8% 64% 20% 77% 44% 87% 45% 21% 25%


4.10 In summary, the slowing rate of both employment growth (illustrated in my analysis

of Table 2 and office and administrative consents (as illustrated in my analysis of Tables 3, 4 and 4a) shows that there has been a clear distribution of these activities outside of the City which consequently inhibits the ability to meet the strategic outcome for a vibrant metropolitan City sought by Future Proof and the PRPS. This drop in employment activity and the adverse impact upon the social and economic wellbeing of Hamilton City is further highlighted in the evidence of Mr Osborne below.

4.11 Distribution of Retail Spending within Hamilton City.

Figure 1 below is from the accompanying Property Economics research undertaken in July 2013 (Appendix C-I, Heath, para 91) and indicates retail spending within Hamilton City and the proportion of which is spent within each of the identified areas over the years of 2002, 2008 and 2013. This figure shows how retail spending patterns within Hamilton have been redistributed over the last decade as a result of retail development across Hamilton. FIGURE 1: DISTRIBUTION OF RETAIL SPENDING IN HAMILTON CITY

Source: Property Economics 2013

9

52%

41%31%

5%21%

27%

43% 39% 41%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

April 2002 - March 2003 April 2007 - March 2008 April 2012 - March 2013

Hamilton CBD Te Rapa and the Base Balance of Hamilton

4.12 The research by Property Economics indicates that in 2003, before Te Rapa and The Base was developed, over half (52%) of retail spending within Hamilton was spent within the Hamilton CBD. In the most recent assessed period, this has fallen to below a third (31%). In contrast, within a year of establishment Te Rapa and The Base captured over 20% of retail spending within the wider city, with this proportion increasing further over the last 5 years, to over a quarter (27%) of all retail expenditure made within Hamilton.

4.13 Property Economics research also indicates that the majority of retail sales generated in Te Rapa and The Base have been at the expense of the Hamilton CBD, and that over the last decade retail expenditure has largely been diverted away from the Hamilton CBD to Te Rapa and The Base area, while the proportion of spending for the rest of Hamilton has remained relatively constant.

. 4.14 Paragraphs 92 -93 of the accompanying retail evidence from Property Economics

further highlights how this redistribution has affected the Hamilton CBD the most as reflected in the recorded MarketView data. he Hamilton CBD’s nominal sales fell from $92.6m in 2003 to $80m in 2013 (14% drop), whilst over the same period the annual expenditure in the wider Hamilton City market grew by around $79m or 45%. Therefore, the MarketView data appears to paint an even worse picture of Hamilton CBD performance over the last 10 years, with the CBD not only capturing a smaller portion of market growth, but actually going backwards despite the market being significantly larger in nominal terms.

4.15 At the same time, understandably, The Base / Te Awa has increased nominal sales

markedly as its offer has grown according to the recorded MarketView data from $8.8m in 2003 to $69.8m in 2013. This would support the proposition that The Base / Te Awa has redistributed retail expenditure away from the Central CBD.

4.16 It is considered by Property Economics that this impact has been partly generated by the permissive planning framework with regard to retail and commercial development contained in the ODP. This evidence also shows the Hamilton CBD is playing a reduced role in the commercial centre hierarchy of the City compared to 10-years ago. This both rapid and significant decline has the potential for lowering retail productivity and quality within the Central City in the opinion of PE.

4.17 Further research by Property Economics (Appendix C-I, Heath, para 109, Fig 10) indicates a potential relationship between the decrease in spend in the Hamilton CBD and the increase in consented floor space at Te Rapa and The Base. Figure 2 shows the distribution of retail consents in Hamilton City over the 2000 – 2012 period. As can be observed, a large percentage of new retail and commercial floorspace that has been consented has been located to the north of the city away from the CBD.

10

FIGURE 2: CUMULATIVE CONSENTED FLOORSPACE RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL SERVICE (2000 – 2012)

Source: Property Economics - MarketView 2013

4.18 Figure 2 highlights the cumulative development of new retail and commercial service floorspace across Hamilton City over the past ten years. Following its development, by 2007 (post-development of the Te Awa shopping mall extension) consents for new retail / commercial service floorspace in Hamilton had changed so that only 15% of consented floor space was in the CBD, while 40% was granted at The Base / Te Awa area and 45% in the balance of Hamilton City. This reaffirms the trend for decentralisation of retail development outside of the Hamilton CBD and the sustained pattern of significant growth within The Base and Te Awa area.

4.19 Property Economics research also indicates that the CBD is experiencing a 16% retail vacancy rate as of 2013, which is in terms of floor space is equal in size to a suburban centre in another part of the City. While current vacancies may not be solely attributable to retail growth outside of the CBD, they are of the view that the proliferation of new retail floor space that has occurred over the past ten years has contributed to this vacancy rate.

4.20 There is approximately 47,000m2 gfa of unimplemented consents above the current built form for further development at The Base comprising both retail and office development (Heath, Appendix A-I ; paragraph 9 refers). This comprises a mix of retail (18,590m2gfa), office/commercial (11,350m2gfa), health care services (10,750m2 gfa) and a hotel (5784m2gfa).

11

23%15%

15%39%

40%

50%

38%

45%

35%

-

25,000

50,000

75,000

100,000

125,000

150,000

175,000

200,000

225,000

250,000

275,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Con

sent

ed R

etai

l and

Com

mer

cial

Ser

vice

Flo

orsp

ace

Hamilton CBD The Base / Te Rapa Balance of Hamilton City

4.21 Changes in Employment activity in Hamilton CBD

While employment activity in Hamilton City rose 1% over the last 6 years, the CBD has experienced a drop of 15% (a loss of approximately 2,850 jobs) across most employment sectors but notably in retail and office activities (Appendix C-II, Osborne, paragraphs 3.3 and 6.19 and Table 1 refer).

Table 2: Hamilton CBD Proportional Employment Change (2000 – 2012 ECs)

Source: Statistics NZ, Property Economics

4.22 Table 2 above highlights the trend in the fall of proportional employment especially among retail and commercial sectors falling from 44% and 43% in 2000 to 31% and 34 % in 2012 respectively. More importantly the table highlights a clear trend in the loss of jobs in the commercial sectors year on year from 2008.

4.23 The Hamilton CBD contains a range of civic and community facilities that help to distinguish it from other centres in Hamilton, and, collectively, represents the spatial expression and culmination of over 150 years of private and public investment, leading to the provision of a range of community infrastructure.

4.24 Community infrastructure in the Central City includes the Hamilton Central Library, Museum, civic and administrative offices and the wider public domain (such as Garden Place). This level of social investment is evident through the CityHeart project Council in which council “invested” some $3.5million in the physical upgrade of CBD public assets during 2009.

4.25 The reason these facilities are provided in the Central City, and not in suburban areas is that they require locations with high activity and interaction between the diverse interests of the City community. Consequently, the greater the level of activity and accessibility in a centre the greater the utilisation of such public assets as any further loss of retail activity in the Central City has the potential to threaten the significant private and public investment made in the Central City by successive generations.

4.26 For the purposes of understanding the impacts of loss of commercial activity on the City’s well-being Property Economics compared two development scenarios to improve the understanding of the current and proposed business environment futures. The first assumes, given no change in the planning regulations that growth and indeed current activity will continue along its current distribution. The second

12

Area Sector 2000 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 ChangeHamilton City Total 56,371 64,778 74,304 77,619 77,480 75,137 72,918 73,954 74,835 33%

Commercial 14,288 16,305 20,820 22,320 21,940 20,812 20,530 20,320 20,501 43%Hamilton CBD Total 15,960 18,172 19,328 19,456 19,977 18,078 17,666 17,036 16,483 3%Hamilton CBD % Industrial 9% 8% 6% 5% 5% 5% 6% 5% 5% -43%

Retail 44% 43% 38% 35% 37% 35% 35% 33% 31% -29%Commercial 43% 42% 43% 40% 41% 38% 36% 35% 34% -20%Other 26% 27% 23% 23% 23% 21% 22% 22% 20% -22%Total 28% 28% 26% 25% 26% 24% 24% 23% 22% -22%

distributes commercial growth based on the implementation of the proposed District Plan strategic framework.

4.27 A full explanation of the assumptions, methodology and data used to derive these outputs was provided by Mr Osbourne in his evidence. The scenarios tested are outlined below in Fig 3.

Fig.3: Agglomeration benefits for Commercial Productivity in the Hamilton CBD

Source: Property Economics 2013

4.28 The conclusion is that overall, evidence of adverse distributional effects of a significant scale have undermined the social and economic wellbeing of Hamilton City Centre. These adverse effects are significant and therefore exceed the threshold required for relevance and consideration under the Resource Management Act 1991.

4.29 This evidence has underpinned the Council’s strategic thinking that a re-balancing and a strong directive must be provided in policy planning and resource management terms to re-kindle and sustain the vibrant, multi functional role of the CBD in the absence of market forces being able to achieve this on their own.

5.0 Hamilton Urban Growth Strategy (HUGS)

5.1 The Hamilton Urban Growth Strategy (HUGS) was developed in 2008 as part of a series of collaborative exercises to determine the future desired shape and function of the City as part of a review of the Long Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP), required under the Local Government Act 2002. It places reliance on achieving a shift in the pattern of development away from continual greenfield expansion towards the intensification of development around key nodes. The Central City is a

13

Base Scenario Test Scenario

Employment

Commercial growth for Hamilton City to 2031 has been estimated at 6,900 ECs. It is assumed that growth distribution will continue along the trends experinced

over the past 12 years. This would result in commercial growth in the CBD of 1,250

ECs to 2031

Given the office restrictions outlined in the proposed changes to the District Plan it has been estimated that 70% of growth

in businesses with 20 plus ECs* will locate in the CBD while 20% of growth in businesses with less than 20 ECs will do

the same. This results in the accommodation of an additional 4,560 commercial ECs into the CBD by 2031

Productivity

Based on this nominal increase in commercial activity in the CBD there

would be a small increase in 'effective density' leading to an overall increase in productivity of .65% (for CBD workers) or

$8.56m per annum

Productivity changes from the base value as a result of changes in employment

density. As this 'effective density' increases so too does the impact upon

productivities. Given the composition of business in the Hamilton CBD this

increase would result in a 6.1% increase in productivity or an increased

contribution to GDP of $81m per annum*Given the decretionary limit on fringe CBD locationsand the existing 11,000sqm office consent at The Base

key node in this respect. The centres hierarchy aligns with and reaffirms this strategic growth management concept for Hamilton City.

5.2 HUGS identify the Hamilton City Heart as the focal point for a strategy to promote

increased urban intensification, recognising that more compact living environments around key nodes including the CBD provides the opportunity for more efficient utilisation of existing and programmed services and infrastructure as well as reduced reliance upon public expenditure over the long term.

6.0 Future Proof 6.1 The Future Proof Growth Strategy and Implementation Plan 2009 is a collaborative

strategy for managing growth in Hamilton City, Waipa District, Waikato District and that part of the Waikato Region. Implementation of this Strategy is in accordance with Section 74(2)(b) of the RMA which requires consideration of management plans and strategies prepared under other Acts. Future Proof contains directions for a number of growth related issues including provisions for business and City and Town Centres.

6.2 In relation to commercial development, Future Proof sets out a series of guiding

principles that include the intention to:

a) Maintain the Metropolitan City Heart as the vibrant retail, business, arts and social heart of the sub-region with it becoming the primary residential intensification area for the sub-region.

b) Ensure commercial and industrial development is located in selected subregional

areas and that commercial and office development is not located in areas that undermine the areas of influence of the Hamilton City Heart, Cambridge, Te Awamutu, Ngaruawahia, Raglan and Huntly.

c) Ensure a cohesive commercial and retail strategy that supports existing commercial

centres, towns and villages within the sub-region is developed to ensure such places remain vibrant and valued.

6.3 Of relevance to Hamilton City itself, Future Proof identifies a general hierarchy of

neighbourhood centres, suburban centres and local town centres, above which are the major commercial nodes at The Base and Chartwell. At the top of the hierarchy, Future Proof identifies the Hamilton CityHeart as the primary commercial centre for the sub-region.

7.0 Regional Policy Direction for a Centres Hierarchy 7.1 The Waikato Regional Policy Statement (RPS) Appeals version (February 2013)

addresses regional growth management in Policy section 6 Built Environment. Of direct relevance is Policy 6.15 Commercial development in the Future Proof area. The policy, subject to appeal says, that commercial development to meet the wider community’s social and economic needs, shall primarily be met through the encouragement and consolidation of activities in existing commercial centres and

14

predominantly in those centres identified in section 6D Future Proof Tables; Table 6-3 Future Proof hierarchy of major commercial centres. The Central City is at the top of this hierarchy followed by the sub regional centres of Te Rapa North Commercial Centre and Chartwell.

7.2 The policy explains that the purpose of the management of commercial development is to:

a) support and sustain the vitality, viability and self-sufficiency of existing commercial centres identified in Table 6-3 (section 6D);

b) support and sustain existing physical resources, and ensure the continuing ability to make efficient use of, and undertake long-term planning and management for the transport network, and other public and private infrastructure resources including community facilities;

c) recognise and enhance the Hamilton Central Business District as the primary retail, economic, business and social centre of the Future Proof area, by:

I. encouraging the greatest diversity, scale and intensity of activities in the Hamilton Central Business District; and

II. avoiding or managing adverse effects on the Central Business District, including from activities which may adversely affect function, vitality or amenity of the Central Business District;

d) ensure new commercial development is not located on land specifically provided for industrial activities unless it is ancillary to those industrial activities;

a. recognise that in addition to retail activity, the Hamilton Central Business District and towns are also centres of administration, office and civic activity. These activities will not occur to any significant extent in the sub-regional centres as these centres are to remain predominantly as retail centres.

e) ensure new commercial centres are only developed where they are consistent with a) to d) of this policy. New centres will avoid adverse effects, both individually and cumulatively on:

I. the distribution, function and infrastructure associated with those centres identified in Table 6-3 (section 6D);

II. people and communities who rely on those centres identified in Table 6-3 (section 6D) for their social and economic wellbeing, and require ease of access to such centres by a variety of transport modes;

iii) the efficiency, safety and function of the transportation network; and iv) the extent and character of industrial land and associated physical resources,

including through the avoidance of reverse sensitivity effects.

7.3 I consider that the PRPS provides clear direction for the Council to adopt a policy framework that requires proactive management of the location, composition and scale of commercial development. This requires this Council in its own policy implementation to: a) recognise and enhance the primacy of the Hamilton Central Business District

(CBD) as the retail, economic, business and social centre of the region; b) avoid or manage adverse effects that may affect the function, vitality and

amenity of the CBD; c) acknowledge and then define a complementary relationship with The Base Te

Rapa north and Chartwell as sub-regional centres; and

15

d) establish a business hierarchy which enables the understanding of the role and comparative importance of centres to be distinguished from one another.

7.4 Whilst the final provisions of the PRPS have not yet been determined by the

Environment court, in my view it would be inappropriate to dismiss the substantive and clear intent set out in the above policy with respect to commercial development and the need to meet the wide social and economic needs of the community through the encouragement of the consolidation of activities in centres

8.0 Principles, Policy and Rules Supporting the Business Hierarchy 8.1 A business centres hierarchy has been developed comprising five tiers of centres.

• Central City.

• Sub-regional.

• Suburban.

• Neighbourhood.

• Centres that support major visitor facilities

8.2 To support this hierarchy seven business zones have been developed to provide for a range of activities, scale and format that can operate individually or with other business environments that can combine to define these business centres (see Fig 4 below). In the notified version of the Plan ‘Core’ and ‘fringe’ areas had been identified where a strong inter-dependence in business activity was considered to exist to present a focal point or clustering of commercial activities to make up a vibrant business centre. In response to the submissions and further submissions received on this point questioning this Council has assessed the merits of combining the core and fringe areas identified for Suburban Centre zones.This evaluation is presented in Section 6.1 of the S42A report.

Fig 4 - Snapshot of Chapter 6, Rule 6.3 Activity Status Table as proposed

Character (for information only)

Com

mer

cial

fr

inge

Even

ts

Faci

litie

s frin

ge

Sub-

Regi

onal

ce

ntre

Larg

e Fo

rmat

Re

tail

Subu

rban

Ce

ntre

Nei

ghbo

urho

od

Cent

re

Business Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 Buildings a) New buildings RD RD RD RD RD RD

8.3 Development of the business hierarchy was derived, as a starting point from the

zoning classification of centres in the Operative District Plan, followed by site assessments and evaluations of the characteristics and scale of trading activities in these respective centres, the consideration of the drivers of future demand,

16

followed by the general determination of prospects and need for expansion of centres on a case by case basis.

8.4 The (re)classification of an existing centre commonly was between being a

Neighbourhood Centre or a Suburban Centre. Explanation in the Plan presents summary discussion on the distinctions. Property Economics has presented evidence in Appendix 5 to describe the nature of the activities expected to locate in Suburban Centres (Heath, Appendix C-I; paragraph 55).

8.5 Property Economics undertook an assessment of suburban centres within Hamilton

City (Hamilton Suburban Centres Review 2011), which involved an evaluation of current employment composition within each centre and the current and future floor space provisions and land requirements of each centre. While the business hierarchy comprises nine Suburban Centres, two are noted with scope for expansion; these are “Hillcrest – Clyde” (in the south-east quadrant) presently anchored around a Warehouse, and the Glenview shopping centre (in the south west quadrant) anchored by an established supermarket.

8.6 The provision for out of centre development which does not threaten or undermine

the wider business hierarchy is recognised in the commercial fringe Business 1 and Business 4, Large Format Retail zones. These zones provide for activities where it is recognised are not suited to centre locations whilst remaining consistent with promoting the overall sustainability purpose of the Act and reinforcing the primacy of the Central City.

8.7 The request for the provision of a Centre Viability Assessment Report (Rule 1.5.20

refers) is considered in section 1.5.20 Information Requirements, of the S42a Report. The assessment imposes an obligation on the Council to consider the potential effects anticipated to result from any proposal. This requires comparative data and statistical analysis, commentary on the appropriateness of the proposal locating in the Central City (or elsewhere) and the expected impact on existing infrastructure. To this extent the basis for sound resource management decision making by the Council is expected to be transparent based on this evidential based assessment.

8.8 The key principles behind adopting the centres hierarchy for Hamilton City are:

• Encourage the most intensive (people and trip generating) activities to establish at locations within Central City Zone, the Sub-Regional Centre Zone and then at Suburban Centre Zone locations;

• Recognise and provide for larger format, lower intensity activities on the fringes of these higher order centres;

• The Hamilton CBD can sustain more intensive development being ably supported by established public infrastructure and high amenity open spaces to provide a cohesive multi-functional centre for commerce and civic activities;

• Provide for lower order centres to provide for local needs;

8.9 Central City

The Central City and associated proposed precincts as defined with Chapter 7 of the Plan is the dominant retail, business administration and entertainment centre for

17

the City and region and provides the focal point of employment for the majority of the City’s workforce. Retail and office activity is a significant component of activities within the Central City and provides an anchor to a wide range of other activities that serve the City and wider region. These include central and local government, education, health and medicine and entertainment. The PRPS is quite clear in that these activities will not occur to any significant extent in the sub-regional centres as these centres are to remain predominantly retail centres.

The Policy and Rule framework for the Central City is permissive in respect of those activities which are encouraged to support community, education and health care while the provisions for retail, offices , restaurants, cafes and licensed premises is more permissive than lower order centres within the business hierarchy.

8.10 Sub-Regional Centres – Business 3 Zone

Te Rapa North Commercial Centre and Chartwell are identified as being two sub-regional centres in line with the PRPS. These are significant destination centres, located on higher order transport corridors (major and minor arterials). They are principally retail centres, but with limited office, community and other services.

The Base – Te-Rapa North Commercial Centre has significant space for further development, as a result of a ‘comprehensive consent’ granted in 2011 and re-issued in December 2012. Once fully developed, The Base will be significantly larger in its retail, entertainment and employment activities than Chartwell. Not withstanding, both centres are expected to continue to provide a similar sub-regional role in the foreseeable future.

In recognition of the need to assess the potential for future adverse distributional effects on the Central City, both retail and office above that previously consented is proposed to be a discretionary activity in the Plan.

8.11 Suburban Centres – Business 5 Zone

The City’s residential neighbourhoods are served by numerous existing suburban centres, being medium sized shopping centres also supporting community services and facilities. Further centres are proposed as part of planned residential expansion in the Rotokauri, Rototuna, and Peacocke Structure Plan areas.

These centres are medium sized centres (ranging in area from 10,000-20,000m² gfa). The centres are dispersed throughout the suburbs, and generally located on higher order transport corridors (major and minor arterial roads) and accessible to a large vehicle-oriented travelling public. Supermarkets commonly anchor these centres supported by limited office, community and other services to a suburban population.

Principally suburban centres serve a wide range of day-to-day needs of surrounding residential catchments. The policies and rules in the plan advise that the expansion of suburban centres are to avoid adverse effect on the vitality of the Central City. As such a discretionary approach is proposed for larger office (Greater than 250m2 gfa) and retail activities (greater than 400m2 gfa).

18

8.12 Neighbourhood Centres – Business 6 Zone

These are limited in their size to ensure the intensity of activity taking place within the centre is constrained and compatible in its character, scale and intensity with the neighbouring residential character. Neighbourhood centres provide a more limited range of ‘everyday’ goods and services for the immediate residential neighbourhoods. Activities which have the potential to create adverse effects that are more than minor on the amenity values on the surrounding residential environment are to be assessed through a consent process.

8.13 Events Facilities – Business 2 Zone

This is a special purpose zoning to recognise the unique opportunities that land adjacent to major events facilities have to support a variety of commercial activities that where market demand exists, can collocate to these sites and support these commercial enterprises.

Three sites have been identified;

i) One is adjacent to the Claudelands Events Centre.

ii) Adjacent to the Te Rapa Race Course.

iii) Adjacent to Waikato Stadium.

As for other business centres in the hierarchy, a discretionary approach is required for medium to large scale commercial development in order to assess effects on Central City vitality and vibrancy.

8.14 Commercial Fringe and Large Format Retail – Business 1 and 4 Zones

These out of centre zones provide recognition for the larger format, lower intensity activities on the fringes of these higher order centres which because of their nature and scale are more suited in out of centre locations while being reliant on better access to the City’s transport network. A new set of Objectives and Policies has been developed in recognition of submissions raised in this report. Principally this zone allows for larger format retail to be assessed as a discretionary consent in order to more fully assess the effects on Central City vitality and vibrancy.

8.15 The above approach has led to a policy framework that articulates the role, functions and relationships between all centres and the Central City along with more fine grained provisions (performance standards) for office activities, retail/commercial activities, community activities and residential activities, for example, within a consenting framework that encourages such activities to establish in the higher order centres that is articulated in the Business Zones chapter of the PDP.

8.16 Summary

The articulation of a hierarchy of centres together with a policy framework will enable Council, the community and the private sector to understand, have confidence in and manage both the location and scale of future business activity throughout the City that is strikingly absent from the Operative District Plan.

19

8.17 Another way of looking at the hierarchy is to say that Centres based planning can

proactively guide the growth and sustainable management of nominated business locations in a manner that is complementary to the functions and composition of other centres rather than being competitive with other centres.

8.18 In this approach the distributional effects can be identified and understood, being

those consequential social and economic effects and public amenity effects on people and communities being served by existing business centres, for these centres to maintain a vibrancy and vitality to attract and sustain new business opportunities, and for expanded and new centres to establish where community need is evident.

8.19 In terms of achieving sustainable urban development, the centres hierarchy is also

based on the integration of land use and transport planning to achieve more sustainable forms of development and the distribution of accessible business activities that is also efficient and viable in terms of their delivery of public services and maintaining private sector investor confidence.

9.0 Strategic Framework 9.1 The strategic policy framework of the Proposed Plan outlines the strategic direction

for the District. Of direct relevance to this report is Policy 2.2.4a (with proposed amendments) which is as follows:

Policy 2.2.4a

Business activity and development shall locate in the most appropriate centre for its role, according to the following hierarchy:

i. The Central City is the primary business centre, serving the City and wider

region, and is the preferred location for significant office, commercial, retail, entertainment and civic activities.

ii. Chartwell and Te Rapa North complement the Central City, to serve large parts

of the City and adjoining districts, and contain primarily retailing, entertainment and services.

iii. Suburban centres, to provide convenience goods, community services, facilities

and employment to serve immediate suburban catchments

iv. Neighbourhood centres, to contain retailing and service activities to serve immediate residential catchments.

While Policy 2.2.4b reads as follows;

The distribution, type, scale and intensity of activities outside the Central City does

not undermine the viability, vitality and vibrancy of the Central City, its amenity values, or role in meeting the needs of the region.

20

9.2 It is noted Chapter 2 of the Proposed Plan is subject to submissions; however the strategic direction of the Plan needs to be taken into account with regard to the Business Zone provisions.

10.0 Submissions 10.1 The Proposed District Plan was notified on 10 December 2012. The submission

period closed on 29 March 2013. A summary of submissions was notified on 31 May 2013. The further submission period closed on 2 July 2013. An addendum summary of submissions was notified on 27 July 2013. The further submission period for those submission points identified in the addendum closed on 12 August 2013.

10.2 57 submissions with 161 points of submission were received directly on Chapter 6.

31 Further submissions with 238 further submission points have been received in relation to principal submissions.

10.3 Lists of the submitters and further submitters referred to in this report are contained

in Appendix A. 11.0 Analysis

11.1 Given the number, nature and extent of the submissions and further submissions

received the analysis that follows has grouped submissions consistent with the format/structure of the Chapter, as follows:

a. General 6.0 b. Purpose 6.1 c. Objectives and Policies: 6.2.1 – 6.2.4 d. Objectives and Policies: Shall versus Should e. Rule 6.3 – Activity Status: New Buildings f. Rule 6.3 – Activity Status: Industry g. Rule 6.3 – Activity Status: Retail/ Commercial h. Rule 6.3 – Activity Status: Offices i. Rule 6.3 – Activity Status: Community j. Rule 6.3 – Activity Status: Residential k. Rule 6.4.1 – Building heights l. Rule 6.4.3 – Minimum setback m. Rule 6.4.4 – Minimum floor area n. Rule 6.4.5 – Building Intensity o. Rule 6.4.6 – Maximum Tenancy Size p. Rule 6.4.9 – Residential Development q. Rule 6.4.10 – Development Flexibility r. Rule 6.6 –Restricted Discretionary Activities s. District Plan Maps – Business zone 1 t. District Plan Maps – Business zone 2

21

u. District Plan Maps – Business zone 3 v. District Plan Maps – Business zone 4 w. District Plan Maps – Business zone 5/6 x. District Plan Maps – Business zone 7 y. Volume 2 Appendix 1.2 – Assessment Criteria z. Volume 2 Appendix 1.3 – Assessment Criteria aa. Volume 2 Appendix 1.5.20- Information Requirements

bb. Volume 2 Appendix 1.7 – Definitions

Given the multiple issues that have been raised in analysing some submissions for ease of reference, the relevant summary pertaining to the provision has been highlighted.

11.2 Each grouping contains the following:

• An analysis of the matters raised in submissions. • Submitter / Further Submitter Name. • Submission / Further Submission Point reference numbers. • Plan Provision to which the submission relates. • Submission type (Support, Oppose, Support in Part). • Summary of the submission point (from the summary of submissions). • A recommendation to the hearing panel on whether to Accept, Accept in Part,

Reject or Defer the submission. • The reasons for the recommendation.

12.0 Conclusion

On the basis of my analysis within this report, I recommend that the changes within the Track Changed Versions (Appendix B) are accepted. 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 October 2013

22

Appendix A Analysis and recommendations

Appendix A S42a Report

Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones Rule 6.0 General

Analysis: Rule 6.0 General

Hamilton East Community Trust (47.001 & 1013.001) seek a rezoning of the existing Waikato Regional Council site in Hamilton East from Business Zone 5 to Business Zone 1 on the basis the latter provides for a discretionary assessment of large office development (>500m2) and would thus enable greater flexibility in the resale of the site to the betterment of the wider Hamilton East community. The importance of the Regional Council and the existing employment base to the vitality of Hamilton East Suburban Centre has been acknowledged in the recognition of a B1 zoning of the WRC acquired future site on the corner of Cook and Grey Street. Historically the Council have taken an ‘either/or’ ‘ approach to the zoning requests of the WRC in recognition of the need to retain office zoning for this existing anchor employer, but crucially not to provide for ‘both’ existing and future sites. The issue of recognition of their existing offices and future expansion plans which have yet to eventuate has to be balanced against the strategic objectives of the primacy of the Central City and the clear desire to concentrate offices over 500m2 gfa towards the Central City in line with the centres hierarchy approach. The Council’s Retail and Economic consultants advise that the rules around directing large scale office development first and foremost towards the Central City are appropriate and essential to achieving the viability of the City Centre. Any deviation or softening of this approach has the potential to divert commercial growth from the Central City and continue to undermine its potential to benefit the wider economy. Policy 6.2.2f within the Plan recognises that Hamilton East is a fringe employment node to the Central City and in this regard the allocation of a Business 1, Commercial Fringe zone in Hamilton East supports this policy approach. It is not however considered appropriate to provide for a ‘net gain' of Business 1 zoning on both existing and future WRC sites which would be contrary to the objectives and policies of the strategic framework. In later sections of this report, other submitters challenge this zoning approach for the corner of Cook and Grey Street on the basis a Business 1 zone is not appropriate on this corner site and would infer greater restrictions on existing tenanted activities. This will be discussed within the planning map section of this hearing report. In summary, it is considered the existing WRC offices be retained as a Suburban Centre zone to provide the option for more appropriate finer grained and pedestrian focused activities in any future redevelopment of the existing WRC site in return for recognition of the Business 1 zoning proposed on the corner of Cook and Grey street to facilitate the future relocation and office development plans of the WRC. No change is therefore recommended. 490 Grey Ltd as Trustee of the BDL Commercial Investment Trust and Homes for the Living Ltd (1002.001) seek the following amendments to Rule 6.3) ;

• the removal of all floor area thresholds; • change of zoning from Suburban Centre to Central City and fundamentally a reference to a new Hamilton East Business Zone; • a softening of the office thresholds in Rule 6.3 n) so that offices over 500m2 are a Restricted Discretionary Activity; • removal of any reference to a ‘Centres Viability Assessment’ as assessment criteria and • consequential amendments to the Policy Section 6.2 which replace references to Central City primacy and not undermining with ‘support’ or providing enhanced urban design outcomes.

Progressive (FS237.01) oppose this submission on the basis that the relief sought to provide enhanced urban design outcomes is not an appropriate or relevant response to centre primacy, vitality and viability. The submission is in essence an objection to the fundamental philosophy of plan intervention and a centres based approach. The submitter also seeks greater recognition for the

Title: 6.0 General Issue: General

Page 1 of 266

geographical location of Hamilton East to be considered inextricably linked to the Central City and therefore zoned accordingly with similar office provisions. In response to this submission, the Council consider, Hamilton East to be a commercial centre in its own right, unique and with a clear separate identity from the Central City which is borne out in successive Draft Plan documents including the character and precinct focused Local Area Plan for the City, the latter underpins Chapter 7 Central City provisions. In accepting this, there is an understanding and recognition that Hamilton East is commercially one of the larger suburban centres within the business centres hierarchy, this has been identified in background suburban centre studies by Property Economics and is reflected in the level of proposed B1 zoning. On this basis the removal of office thresholds would be a fundamental softening of approach contrary to both Future Proof and the strategic intent of the Proposed Regional Policy Statement (PRPS), both which seek support for the primacy of the Central City. The PRPS acknowledges that the CBD needs to be recognised as the ‘primary commercial centre’ and amendments have been made in said document to reflect this. The PRPS gives effect to the Future Proof Strategy that supports a “centres based” approach to commercial development in the region. Policy 6.15 of the PRPS is fundamental to making provision for commercial development in the Future Proof area. It provides for varying levels of commercial development and provides a hierarchy of major commercial centres in Table 6-3 and, in doing so, gives effect to Future Proof by adopting the centres-based approach. Advice from Property Economics supports the direction taken in the plan to underpin the centres based approach. They advise that whilst approximately 70% of Hamilton City’s office businesses employ 20 or more people, a proportion of these businesses would still choose to locate in premises less than 500m2, which is provided for as part of a discretionary consent process in the plan of which a Centres Viability Assessment is an integral component.. It is therefore important that a high level of remaining office growth is accommodated within the CBD and as such considered appropriate to maintain the office threshold provisions as set out in Rule 6.3 of the plan. A spot business zoning or separate Hamilton East Business zone with its own suite of more permissive office provisions is therefore neither justified or desirable in terms of maintaining a credible business hierarchy. It is consideredthat any changes or softening of objectives and polices to reflect theamendments sought would undermine the business hierarchy. The relief sought is rejected and no amendments are proposed. Commercial and Industrial Consultants Ltd (1239.002) seek a reduction in the number of Business zones from 7 to 5, to include City Centre, City Fringe, Sub Regional, Suburban and Neighbourhood centres. Their submission argues that in the broader context given the excess supply of Industrial land in the city there is no need to rejuvenate the CBD by restricting what can occur elsewhere in the City. It advises that the underlying issues of city rates, cost of parking, construction costs etc need to be addressed. The submitter can gain some relief from consequential amendments in response to other submissions in the Plan which proposes to reduce the number of Business zones from 7 to 6 with the deletion of the Business 6 zone (Suburban Centre fringe). In essence the proposed Plan would provide for just 4 explicit business centres; those being the Central City, Sub-Regional, Suburban and Neighbourhood centres. The Commercial Fringe zone (Business 1) and Events Facility zone (Business 2) are not considered centres in their own right and this is evident from the policies and objectives in the plan. The contention in the concluding paragraph of the full submission that the plan gives no business certainty is rejected. A business hierarchy and centres based approach is the fundamental driver to the sustainable management of the built environment and gives certainty as to where the City wishes to see commercial development occur, far more so than the current laissez faire approach of the Operative Plan which has been to the detriment of the social and economic wellbeing of the Central City, for many of the reasons given within the statement of evidence of Mr Osborne. (Appendix A refers). John Gallagher (J & G Gallagher Management Trust Ltd Gallagher Group) (1286.002) seek a generic relief of the entire plan in order to streamline and simplify its overall administration. With respect to the Business Chapter they seek business zone rules to be less prescriptive and more open to encourage sustainable development and innovative design. Property Council New Zealand (FS249.015) support this submission. Whilst no detail or alternative approach is provided by the submitter, it acknowledged that there is scope for simplification in Plan provisions in response to submissions raised elsewhere in the plan. One example is by combining Business 5 and 6 zones which is considered in more detail in Section 6.2 of this report. Other areas of simplification have been accepted with regard to certain

Title: Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones Issue: 6.1 Purpose

Page 2 of 266

activity groupings and thresholds. However it is not accepted that the plan does not provide for sustainable development or innovative design. In fact the overarching thrust and strategic direction of the plan is to provide a more sustainable use of the City’s resources by adopting a design led plan and centres based approach. A move towards a more design led plan provides for greater flexibility in negotiating design led outcomes rather than strict adherence to quantitative rules and standards. The submission is therefore incorrect in its assumption that a more permissive approach necessarily provides for variety or indeed innovative design outcomes as suggested. Z Energy Limited (1292.003) Seeks specific amendments to Rule 6.3 and zoning maps and is therefore dealt with elsewhere under the relevant Chapters in the report. Darryl Leslie & Suzanne Winifred Smith (1240.007) Seek generic recognition for the provision of both covered and mechanized pathways to mitigate the adverse amenity effect of buildings used for commercial purposes. It is considered that this is a detailed resource consent issue that would be decided on a case by case basis. The requirement for such detailed design considerations in oObjectives, policies and rules of the Business Chapter is not considered relevant or necessary to aid clarity or efficiency in achieving the policies and objectives of the chapter.

Sub. Name FS. Name

Sub. Point FS. Point

Plan Provision Sub. Type Summary Recommendation Reasoning

Hamilton East Community Trust

47.001 6 Business 1 to 7 Zones

Oppose Oppose B5 zoning of Waikato Regional Council site in Hamilton East. Rezone to Business Zone 1.

Reject The submission points a rezoning of the WRC building and the proposed site on the corner of Cook and Grey street 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

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



Oppose Rezone the Regional Council Building and the site on the corner of Cook and Grey Streets from Business 6 Zone to Business 1 Zone. Undertake research on the effects of the loss of employees on Hamilton East.

Reject

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


Support in part

Supports (in relevant part) all other relevant provisions in the Plan.

Accept in Part While this submission supports Business 1-7 zones as notified it is only accepted in part because amendments have been made in response to other submissions

DNZ Property Fund Limited (DNZ)

FS285.003

Support Accept in Part While this submission supports Business 1-7 zones as notified it is only accepted in part because amendments have been made in response to other submissions


Page 3 of 266

New Zealand Transport Agency


Support Retain the Business 1-7 Zones as notified with the exception of specifically requested amendments in other submission points

Accept in Part While this submission supports Business 1-7 zones as notified it is only accepted in part because amendments have been made in response to other submissions

490 Grey Ltd as Trustee of the BDL Commercial Investment Trust and Homes for the Living Ltd


Oppose Amend 6.1 a) by referring to Hamilton East north of Clyde Street (reflecting submitters request to change shown on planning maps 45A and 46A. Amend Rule 6.3 to remove all floor area limitations for offices within the Central City Zone precincts. Amend Rule 6.6 to specify the matters over which discretion is restricted and distinguish those from assessment criteria. Or Amend 6.1 d) to replace the description of a hierarchy of centres with a statement that the city contains a range of business centres comprising one or more business zones, and insert reference to a new Hamilton East Business Zone. Amend 6.1 j) to replace the words “again don’t undermine” with “support” Amend Objective 6.2.2 to replace the words “not undermining the primacy, vitality or viability of the Central City” with “providing enhanced

Reject The submission covers various provisions across the Plan. See Section 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.6 for reasoning.


Page 4 of 266

urban design outcomes” Amend Policy 6.2.2d by deleting the reference to control of size and scale. Amend Policy 6.2.2f by deleting the reference to including the Central City. Amend planning maps 45A and 46A by rezoning the Business 1 and Business 5 within the area east of the Waikato River to one block east of Grey Street and south of Dawson Street to Wellington Street to a new “Hamilton East Business Zone”. Amend Rule 6.3 to include a Hamilton East Business Zone containing the same provisions as those for the Suburban Centre Core Zone but with all floor area limitations for offices removed, retail tenancies up to 500 m2 as a permitted activity and retail tenancies in excess of 500 m2 as a restricted discretionary activity Amend Rule 6.6 to specify the matters over which discretion is restricted and distinguish those from assessment criteria. Delete matters and assessment criteria (C2–C23, D3-D5, E1-E3, F2-F6, G1, N1-N5, S1, V1-V18) from Rule 7.6.a) iv, 6.6.a) v. and vi: Delete Discretionary Activity Assessment Criteria1.3.2.4


Page 5 of 266

regarding Retail, Commercial and Office Activities in the Central City and Business 1 to 7 zones. Delete Information Requirement 1.5.20 regarding Centre Viability Assessment Report.

Progressive Enterprises Limited

FS237.01

Oppose Accept in Part FS237.01 and FS246.011 are accepted in part because that part of 1002.001 which they oppose (notification) has been rejected.

Tainui Group Holdings Ltd

FS246.011

Oppose Accept in Part

Commercial and Industrial Consultants Ltd


Oppose Reduce the number of business zones from 7 to 5.

Reject The submission point seeks a reduction in Business Zones from 7 to 5 and should be rejected as;



Darryl Leslie & Suzanne Winifred Smith


Oppose Add Objectives, Policies and Rules for covered and mechanised pathways within the Business 1-7 Zones

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to include rules for covered and mechanized pathways within objectives, policies and rules should be rejected as;



Page 6 of 266

John Gallagher (J & G Gallagher Management Trust Ltd Gallagher Group)


Oppose Amend business zone rules to be less prescriptive and more open to encourage sustainable development and innovative design without having to consult Council for permission to be a little different.

Accept in part This submission point seeks an arbitrary simplification of ALL Business zone rules and should be accepted in part given;

• Consequential changes due to amendments made elsewhere in the plan would improve the effectiveness and / or efficiency of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies the purpose and principles of the RMA.

Recommended amendments to Chapter 6 are contained within Appendix B (refer to 1286.002)

Property Council New Zealand

FS249.015

Support Accept in part FS249.015, is accepted in part because that part of 1286.002 which they support (notification) has been accepted in part.

Z Energy Limited 1292.003 6 Business 1 to 7 Zones

Oppose Rezone 116 Grey Street to Business 6 Zone and retain Rule 6.3gg) regarding drive-through services (including automotive fuel retailing) as a restricted discretionary activity within the Business 6 zone Or Amend Rule 6.3 to specifically provide for the on-going operation and upgrading of the service station at this site, including alterations, additions and signage, as (at worst) a restricted discretionary activity, noting that the protection of the relevant historic qualities of the building are similarly provided for as a restricted discretionary activity. Rezone 4 Tukikaramea Road to

Reject

This submission is relevant to Rule 6.3 of the plan and zoning maps. The submission point seeking amendment to rezone 116 Grey Street from Business zone 5 to Business 6 zone should be rejected as;



The submission point seeking amendment to rezone 4 Tuhikaramea Road from Business zone 5 to Business 6 zone should be rejected as;


• It would not be in accordance with consequential changes due to amendments made elsewhere in the Plan in response to submissions

The submission point seeking amendment to rezone 19 Willoughby Street and 26-32 Mill Street and 34-36 Mill Street to a Business 6 zone should be


Page 7 of 266

Business 6 Zone and retain Rule 6.3gg) regarding drive-through services (including automotive fuel retailing) as a restricted discretionary activity within the Business 6 zone. Rezone 19 Willoughby Street and 26 -32 Mill Street and 34-36 Mill Street to Business 6 Zone and retain Rule 6.3gg) regarding drive-through services (including automotive fuel retailing) as a restricted discretionary activity within the Business 6 zone.

rejected as;



Odette Ngairo & Anthony Paul Haitana & Smart

FS192.001

Oppose Accept in Part FS192.001 is accepted in part because that part of 1292.003 which it opposes (notification) has been rejected.


Page 8 of 266

S42a Report

Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones 6.1 Purpose

Analysis: 6.1 Purpose

Property Council NZ (938.063) and McCracken Surveys (1206.065) seek changes to combine Business 5 and 6 Zones on the grounds that there is very little difference in the character of these zones, nor a great deal of difference in the rules which govern them. The proposal to combine these two zones has been raised by several submitters throughout the plan chapter raising a similar argument to combine the Suburban Centre zones for plan clarity and efficiency. The Purpose of this chapter advises that the focus of the business centres hierarchy is to manage existing centres to ensure they retain and enhance their viability and vibrancy as focal points for a diverse range of activities and ongoing public investment. Purpose 6.1h) elaborates the rationale behind a core and fringe zone approach for the business zones in so far as it is to consolidate people focused activities within cohesive and integrated business centres, supported by larger format vehicle based activities located towards the fringe. The distinction largely driven by requiring a greater level of amenity and design control in the centre. Fringe activities are not generally encouraged in the core due to the inefficient use of land and poorer pedestrian focused design outcomes. It is accepted however that there is little objective and policy distinction between identifying specifically a suburban core and fringe and Policy 6.2.2b seeks to encourage a diverse range of activities, services and trading formats. It is considered given the similarity of the two zones and the limited application of Suburban Centre fringe zoning spatially within the City (Dinsdale, Five Cross- Roads and Hillcrest/ Clyde Suburban Centres) that these two zones could be combined. The more permissive approach towards detached dwellings and larger format retail can be managed as part of a discretionary activity whilst it is considered unreasonable to draw a distinction for restaurants and cafes, offices 250-500m2 gfa between these two zones. It is considered that the potential adverse effects resulting from larger trading formats can be adequately managed through the discretionary consents process as for other business zones. Combining both zones would result in greater clarity and certainty for the identified Suburban Centres and contribute towards achieving the cohesive, integrated and diverse land use of business activities which are managed and appropriate to their suburban catchment. There are several consequential amendments recommended that would result from combining these two zones with updates to the Purpose 6.1 d), Rule 6.3 Activity Status Table and 6.4 General Standards and selected Planning Maps. The proposed changes for combining these two zones will be set out in the relevant Activity Status Table in 6.3 of this report. It is therefore recommended that Rule 6.3, Business Zone 5 and 6 be combined with consequential amendments to the status of activities as outlined in Appendix B, track changes. Kiwi Income Property Trust & Kiwi Property Holdings Ltd (1198) seek general relief to 6.1b) as part of their annexure of track changes in terms of additional terminology around function, vitality and viability, vibrancy and amenity of centres. Various permutations of the terms “vitality’, ‘viability’, and ‘vibrancy’ have been used in an interchangeable manner in Chapter 6: Business 1 to 7 Zones to the PDP, or amendments have sought by submitters relating to these and other terms. Understanding the terms and phrases and standardising their use will assist clarity and efficiency of the Plan. In sections of Chapter 6 various phrases have been adopted, for example: Purpose b) ‘...function, vitality, viability, vibrancy and amenity ...’ Purpose e) ‘...function, vitality, viability, vibrancy and amenity..’ Objective 6.2.1 ‘...the primacy, vitality, vibrancy, viability, function and amenity...’ Policy 6.2.1a ‘.... on the functionality, vitality, vibrancy, viability and amenity...’


Page 9 of 266

Underlining records a submission point recorded by the submitter. The terms used in the preparation of the PDP evolved during the drafting exercise in part reliant on oversea experience, and also to be consistent with the PRPS which advises as follows; Policy 6.15

a) support and sustain the vitality, viability and self-sufficiency of existing commercial centres identified in Table 6-3 (section 6D);

c) recognise and enhance the Hamilton Central Business District as the primary retail, economic, business and social centre of the Future Proof area, by: I. encouraging the greatest diversity, scale and intensity of activities in the Hamilton Central Business District; and

II. avoiding or managing adverse effects on the Central Business District, including from activities which may adversely affect function, vitality or amenity of the Central Business District;

the terms describe: Vitality: a measure of how busy a centre is 24/7; and Viability: a measure of its capacity to attract ongoing investment and adapt to change; its continued effectiveness. The use of these terms form part of a Centre Viability Assessment Report in Volume 2, and specifically 1.2 – Assessment Criteria F2 and Information Requirements 1.5.20. Within 1.5.20, the phrase ‘viability and vitality’ is used (‘b’ refers) followed by a basic list of data that should be analysed to assess trends and ‘threats’ to the City Centre. This provides the only place where these references form part of a rule and therefore are required to be given ‘formal’ consideration in a statutory planning assessment. There is extensive literature concerning these terms and how to measure, record and interpret performance or the threat of out-of-centre development on primary centres. It is accepted the array of terms should be simplified. The terms ‘vitality’ and ‘vibrancy’ are words have similar it is considered that the second term is redundant to a plain understanding of a situation. Therefore, in any particular circumstance it would be appropriate to consider any proposal for say out-of-centre development in terms of that proposal’s potential effects (positive and adverse, singular and cumulative) on the function, vitality, viability and amenity of the primary centre. It is therefore proposed that the submitters general relief is accepted in part and consequential amendments to Purpose 6.1 b), Objective 6.2.1, Policy 6.2.1a, Objective 6.2.2 and Policy 6.2.2a are made as per recommended track changes in Appendix B. Southern Cross Hospitals Limited (Bloxam Burnett and Olliver Ltd) (356.001) seek amendment to Purpose 6.1 (d)(iii) to recognise that that a Suburban Centre can also comprise Business 1 Zoning. This submission highlights an error and omission in the chapter in so far as the Commercial Fringe zone is not exclusive to Sub-Regional centres as indicated within Purpose 6.1d). Indeed the Business Zone 1 occurs in a number of peripheral centre locations in the city; specifically:

1. Sub Regional Centre –The Base – Church Road:

2. Home Straight, Te-Rapa Road


Page 10 of 266

3. Central City locations: Pembroke/Clarence/Palmerston StreetS locale

4. Hamilton East – Von Tempsky Street and Cook Street (Eastside Tavern site)

In response to the submission it is therefore recommended that reference to Business 1 in 6.1d) should be amended to ‘commercial fringe’ zone which is applicable to all of the above out of centre locations as reflected on the zoning maps. The need for a separate Objective and Policy framework to underpin this zone has been recommended in response to other submission points raised within Objectives and Policies 6.2 and will be considered in that section.

Hill Laboratories Limited (539.001) seek amendment to 6.1d) to provide a purpose for the Business 1 zones which reflects and supports the mixed use nature of these areas and their location within easy walking distance of the City Centre. It is recommended that the relief sought is Accepted in Part in so far as changes are recommended to 6.1d) and 6.1g) to recognise that Commercial Fringe and Large Format Retail zoning provide for out-of-centre development such as large format offices and/or retail activities only in circumstances where because of the scale/floor area of development they may not be appropriate in lower order, more people-focussed centres within the business hierarchy. Importantly, development in out of centre locations should not undermine the primacy, vitality, viability and amenity of the Central City. To extend the status of the B1 zoning beyond this as a mixed use complimentary zone to the City Centre as suggested would otherwise serve to undermine the centres based approach.

Midlands Health Network Limited (287.012) seek a more permissive expansion of healthcare services across all Business Zones especially Suburban and Neighbourhood centres on the basis that their operational model of such services in the future will require more centre focused ‘one stop shop’ provision of services within and in close proximity to the community it serves. It is accepted that both Suburban and Neighbourhood centres should provide for healthcare services as part of viable mixed use centres which serve the needs of the community and reduce reliance on car travel for meeting day to day needs. Proposed amendments include the recognition and provision of community facilities within the Objective 6.2 (Appendix B refers), In addition to increased thresholds for healthcare services within Rule 6.3 Activity Status, amendments recommended elsewhere in this report may give some relief to the matters raised by the submitter. Waikato Regional Council (714.028) seek amendment to Purpose 6.1(j) to ‘recognise the interaction between Hamilton East and Central City’ in addition to the existing text which acknowledges a greater commercial role for Hamilton East given its unique character and close proximity to the Central City. This relief is supported by Hills Laboratories Limited (FS0.001), Jon Harris (Hills Laboratories) Limited(FS66.001) and 490 Grey Ltd as the Trustee of the BDL(FS266.001) It is considered that the Purpose and subsequent policies already provide adequate recognition of Hamilton East as a fringe employment node to the Central City and that the further wording proposed is unnecessary. The Central City chapter provides certainty with the identification of what is included within the City Centre and to infer greater interaction would not aid clarity to the application of the Plan’s provisions. No amendment is recommended. Tainui Group Holdings Limited (1199.003) seek several amendments which reflect the position taken in their Appeals to the Proposed Regional Policy Statement. More specifically they request ;

• That all of the land 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 • Amendment to 6.1d) to include Te Rapa North as a Regional Centre. • Amendment to 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” • Deletion of 6.1h as the land surrounding The Base should remain zoned Industrial until any requirement for additional Large Format Retail is established


Page 11 of 266

• Amendment to 6.1k) to recognize Te Rapa North as a Regional Centre

The above submission is opposed by Waikato Regional Council, Kiwi Income Property Trust and Kiwi Property Holdings Limited, AMP Capital Property Portfolio, Porter Developments Ltd and NZ Transport Agency. These submissions argue that a commercial fringe albeit lower intensity zoning on the periphery of the The Base as part of a wider Te Rapa North commercial centre is more reflective of the previous commercial zoning and should be supported. The submitter rationale for the rezoning of the entire parcel of land identified to Business 3 (Sub-regional centre) is to enable a progressive and integrated development of the entire site as a ‘Regional Centre’, which a split zoning would unnecessarily constrain. This argument is not accepted given that the current consented scheme at The Base has evolved through what was in effect a split Industrial/ Commercial zoning of the Operative Plan. Whilst there is some sympathy with the submitter’s case that to enable a ‘holistic’ master planning process for their entire landownership in this location, and a single zone would be beneficial, this has to be offset against the greater importance of what is considered to be the reasonable expansion entitlement for an existing commercial centre having regard to the primacy of the Central City as opposed to what is best suited for any future development proposals of this site. It is also considered that the split zone proposed does at least follow as far as practicable the existing infrastructure on the ground in Maahanga Drive which separates the existing established Large Format retail development on the west of the site from the more mixed use advocated in the recent consent. The PRPS is quite clear in Policy 6.15a) in that it supports the vitality, viability and self-sufficiency of existing commercial centres which is highlighted by the submitter, but fundamentally the support of existing commercial centres should not to the detriment of the CBD, otherwise it naturally follows that to consider commercial centres independently of their position within the Business Hierarchy effectively renders the hierarchy meaningless along with consideration of cumulative, adverse distributional effects . Policy 6.15 d) advises that commercial development should; recognise that in addition to retail activity, the Hamilton Central Business District and towns are also centres of administration, office and civic activity. These activities will not occur to any significant extent in the sub-regional centres as these centres are to remain predominantly as retail centres. (Author’s underlining) Further supporting text elaborates on the functionality of the centres approach in supporting text to Policy 6.15.2 Advocacy, as follows; The Hamilton City centre, sub-regional centres and town centres generally provide a focus for community activity and social interaction, enabling convenient access to a range of goods and services by a variety of transport modes. The city centre and towns are also centres of administration, office and civic activity. These activities will not occur to any significant extent in the sub-regional centres as these centres are to remain predominantly as retail centres. Whilst not explicitly defined in the PRPS there is an expectation of the role and function of a Sub-regional Centre clearly being below that of the Central City and so a balance has to be given as to what is reasonably conferred as an entitlement under the split zoning proposed. It is considered that as a consequence to proposed amendments made in response to other submissions and retail and economic advice of Property Economics. 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. The advice from the Council’s retail consultants is quite clear as set out in Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the accompanying evidence;

9. In terms of retailing, in my view the CBD is no longer the pre-eminent centre within the city. This role and function has transferred to The Base / Te Rapa area in the northern corridor


Page 12 of 266

of the city via a ‘lop-sided’ retail development distribution since the year 2000, i.e. half of all retail consents issued within the city have been for The Base / Te Rapa area, while only 15%

have been in the CBD. Being new, the quality of the space in The Base / Te Rapa area is better and more attractive to shoppers, which is fuelling the decline of the CBD in terms of

performance and productivity.

10. As a result, in my view for the CBD to reclaim its position as the pre-eminent retail centre in Hamilton, as desired in the proposed Plan,’ the tap needs to be turned off’ so to speak (or

at least slowed down) in relation to retail development being enabled beyond the centre network of the city. In terms of The Base / Te Awa centre itself, there is around 47,000sqm GFA

of unimplemented consents above the current built form, of which just over 18,000sqm GFA is for retail activity. Given growth in the market in the foreseeable future, and desired

outcome of the proposed Plan to reinvigorate and rejuvenate the CBD, in my view there is limited additional retail GFA warranted above that already consented at this point in time.

On this basis, it is considered that a discretionary activity consent for future retail developments above and beyond the current consents is a reasonable approach to take. In light of the clear direction of the PRPS and expert retail advice given, to rezone a wider area B3 in this location would be contrary to Objective and Policies, RPS and Future Proof, therefore no amendment is recommended.

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 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 ‘Supra 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


Page 13 of 266

retail development referred to as the ‘Supra 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. The precise changes to the planning maps will be identified in the Planning Map section for Business 4 zones later in this report with proposed amendments outlined in Appendix B. The amendments sought in relation to rezoning Business 4 zoning are therefore accepted in part. TGH also seek amendment to 6.1d) and 6.1K) to include The Base, Te Rapa North as a Regional Centre in accordance with the submitter’s appeal on the PRPS. It is acknowledged by the Council retail expert that given the now quantified position of this centre in the market in terms of retail spend within the City and the further resource consents that have been provided across a range of activity types (not just retail activity), that there does appear to be some merit in this submission point in so far as the The Base, Te-Rapa North performs as a ‘higher tier’ Sub-Regional centre. The PRPS (under appeal) gives The Base / Te Rapa North a Sub-regional status, it would thus be inconsistent with the proposed hierarchy and premature to alter this position with the agreed centres hierarchy and strategic framework set by Future Proof and the PRPS at this time. The amendments sought are therefore rejected and no change is proposed. TGH also seek an amendment to 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”. Whilst it is not the intent of the District Plan to mirror word for word the Policies of the Proposed RPS it is nevertheless important to give effect to the PRPS. The strategic intention of the Plan is to recognize the vitality of all centres identified within the centres hierarchy providing this is not to the detriment of the central city which is clearly identified as the primary retail, economic, business and social centre of the Future Proof area. The existing policies within 6.2.1b give some relief to the submitter comments in so far as it advises that development provides for a range of activities that sustain these centres. No amendment is recommended. 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. 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 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;


Page 14 of 266

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 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. The Waikato Chamber of Commerce (698.007) seek amendments to the purpose of this chapter, on the basis that it is too prescriptive in trying to predetermine what types of activity go in which zone and should be best left to the market. Property Council NZ (FS249.016) supports this submission. This is a generic submission which questions the centres based hierarchy approach to the Plan with no relevant justification as to why the alternative sought would be more appropriate. It is considered that the level of direction proposed is necessary given the assessment of office and retail decentralization that has largely resulted from the laissez faire provisions of the Operative District Plan, and to give effect to the Policies and Objectives of the Plan and the strategic intent of the PRPS and Future Proof. No change is proposed. 490 Grey Ltd as Trustee of the BDL Commercial Investment Trust – This submission has been addressed within the previous Section 6.0.


Page 15 of 266

Sub. Name FS. Name



Midlands Health Network Limited

287.012 6.1 Purpose Support in part

The expansion of existing healthcare services should be more permissive in all zones, especially neighbourhood and suburban centres.

Accept in Part The submission point seeking greater recognition of healthcare services across all business zones should be accepted in part as it would;

• Improve the effectiveness of the plan in achieving its stated policies and objectives

• Does not alter the effect of policy Recommended amendments to Rule 6.3 are contained within Appendix B (refer to 287.012)

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;



• 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


FS246.005



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;



Page 16 of 266

• 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



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.

Southern Cross Hospitals Limited (Bloxam Burnett and Olliver Ltd)


Amend 6.1 (d)(iii) to ecognize that that a suburban centre can also comprise Business 1 Zoning.

Accept The submission point seeking amendment to Purpose 6.1 d) iii) requesting that suburban centres can comprise Business 1 zoning should be accepted as it would

• Aid the effective implementation of the Plan to achieve its objectives • Not undermine the vitality and vibrancy of the higher order centres

within the business hierarchy Recommended amendments to Rule 6.1d) are contained within Appendix B (refer to 356.001)

Hill Laboratories Limited

539.001 6.1 Purpose Oppose Amend 6.1d) to provide a purpose for the Business 1 zones which reflects and supports the mixed use nature of these areas and their location within easy walking distance of the City Centre. Amend 6.1g) to encourage residential activity as part of appropriate mixed use.

Accept in part The submission point seeking amendment for more permissive mixed use within Business zone 1 should be rejected as;




The submission point seeking amendment to Purpose 6.1g) with regards to encouraging residential activity as part of appropriate mixed uses should be accepted as it would;

• Aid the effective implementation of the Plan to achieve its objectives


Page 17 of 266

• Not undermine the vitality and vibrancy of the higher order centres

within the business hierarchy • Improve consistency of the Plan with the RPS

Recommended amendments to Rule 6.1g) are contained within Appendix B (refer to 539.001)

Parkwood Trade Centre Limited


Amend Figure 6.1b to include 8A and 8B Maui Street into the Te Rapa North Sub-Regional Centre.

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 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.

Future Proof Implementation Committee

608.015 6.1 Purpose Support Retain the Purpose of the Business 1-7 Zones

Accept In accordance with the Policies and Objectives of the Plan

Kiwi Income Property Trust and Kiwi Property Holdings Limited

FS123.015

Support Accept FS123.015 is accepted because that part of 608.015 which it supports (notification) has been accepted.

Waikato Chamber of Commerce


Amend the purpose of the Business 1-7 Zones to be less prescriptive

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to Purpose 6.1 to make the purpose of Business zones less prescriptive should be accepted in part as it should;


Page 18 of 266

Aid the effective implementation of the Plan to achieve its objectives


FS249.016

Support Accept in Part FS249.016 is accepted in part because that part of 698.007 which it supports (notification) has been accepted part.

Waikato Regional Council


Amend 6.1(j) to recognise the interaction between Hamilton East and Central City.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Purpose 6.1 j) to recognise greater interaction between Hamilton East and the Central City should be rejected as;




Hills Laboratories Limited

FS0.001

Support Reject Submissions FS0.001, FS66.001,FS266.001 further support amendments to the provisions that this submission seeks. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions

Jon Harris (Hills Laboratories Limited)

FS66.001

Support Reject

490 Grey Ltd as the Trustee of the BDL Commercial Investment Trust and Homes for Living Ltd

FS266.001

Support Reject


938.063 6.1 Purpose Oppose Combine Business 5 and 6 Zones with consequential amendments.

Accept The submission point seeking amendment to Purpose 6.1 with regards combining Business 5 and 6 zones should be accepted as it would;



Page 19 of 266

Amend 6.1g) to encourage residential activity as part of appropriate mixed use.

• Not undermine the vitality and vibrancy of the higher order centres within the business hierarchy

• Improve consistency of the Plan with the RPS Recommended amendments to Purpose 6.1 and consequential zoning maps 37a, 38A, 42A,47A are contained within Appendix B (refer to 938.063) The submission point seeking amendment to Purpose 6.1g) with regards to encouraging residential activity as part of appropriate mixed uses should be accepted as it would;




Andrew Yeoman

FS2.012

Support Reject FS2.012 is not related to matters in 938.063

Peter John Findlay, Donna Margaret Findlay, Peter John Findlay & Donna Margaret Findlay as Trustees of the Findlay Family Trust, Riverside Oak Estate Ltd (Baruchel Developments Ltd)

FS242.001

Support Accept in Part FS242.001 and FS277.001 are accepted in part because that part of 938.063 which it supports (notification) has been accepted.

Peter John FS277.001 Support Accept in Part


Page 20 of 266

Findlay, Donna Margaret Findlay, Peter John Findlay & Donna Margaret Findlay as Trustees of the Findlay Family Trust, Riverside Oak Estate Ltd (Peter Findlay, Peter Findlay & Associates Ltd)



Oppose Amend 6.1 a) by referring to Hamilton East north of Clyde Street (reflecting submitters request to change shown on planning maps 45A and 46A. Amend Rule 6.3 to remove all floor area limitations for offices within the Central City Zone precincts. Amend Rule 6.6 to specify the matters over which discretion is restricted and distinguish those from assessment criteria. Or Amend 6.1 d) to replace the description of a hierarchy of centres with a statement that the city contains a range of business centres comprising one or more business zones, and insert reference to a new Hamilton East Business Zone.

Reject The submission points seeking amendment to Purpose 6.1a). 6.1 d) and 6.1 j) should be rejected as;




Page 21 of 266

Amend 6.1 j) to replace the words “again don’t undermine” with “support” Amend Objective 6.2.2 to replace the words “not undermining the primacy, vitality or viability of the Central City” with “providing enhanced urban design outcomes” Amend Policy 6.2.2d by deleting the reference to control of size and scale. Amend Policy 6.2.2f by deleting the reference to including the Central City. Amend planning maps 45A and 46A by rezoning the Business 1 and Business 5 within the area east of the Waikato River to one block east of Grey Street and south of Dawson Street to Wellington Street to a new “Hamilton East Business Zone”. Amend Rule 6.3 to include a Hamilton East Business Zone containing the same provisions as those for the Suburban Centre Core Zone but with all floor area limitations for offices removed, retail tenancies up to 500 m2 as a permitted activity and retail tenancies in excess of 500 m2 as a restricted discretionary activity Amend Rule 6.6 to specify the matters over which discretion


Page 22 of 266

is restricted and distinguish those from assessment criteria. Delete matters and assessment criteria (C2–C23, D3-D5, E1-E3, F2-F6, G1, N1-N5, S1, V1-V18) from Rule 7.6.a) iv, 6.6.a) v. and vi: Delete Discretionary Activity Assessment Criteria1.3.2.4 regarding Retail, Commercial and Office Activities in the Central City and Business 1 to 7 zones. Delete Information Requirement 1.5.20 regarding Centre Viability Assessment Report.


FS237.01



FS246.011

Oppose Reject FS246.011 does not relate to 1002.001

Hamilton Homezone Ltd and Ingham Group

1117.002 6.1 Purpose Support Retain Section 6.1 i) of the purpose for the Business 1-7 Zones

Accept The submission point is consistent with the Objectives and Policies of the Plan.

Eastside Investment Limited - (Speer Speer & Associates Ltd)

FS213.001

Support Accept in Part FS213.001 is accepted in part because that part of 1117.002 which it supports (notification) has been accepted

Porter Developments Ltd

1153.003 6.1 Purpose Support Amend 6.1 to acknowledge that the defined subregional centres recognise existing land use patterns that have emerged from earlier planning

Accept The submission point is consistent with the Objectives and Policies of the Plan


Page 23 of 266

strategies.

Tainui Group Holdings Limited


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 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.

Accept in Part 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 achieve its objectives.

The submission point seeking amendment to Purpose 6.1h) for land surrounding The Base to remain zoned Industrial should be rejected as;




Waikato Regional

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


Page 24 of 266

Council in part.


FS123.015



FS198.003


Porter Developments Limited

FS239.005



FS270.031


McCracken Surveys Limited

1206.065 6.1 Purpose Oppose Amend the Plan to combine Business 5 and 6 zones. Amend 6.1g) to encourage residential activity as part of appropriate mixed use.

Accept The submission point seeking amendment to Purpose 6.1 with regards combining Business 5 and 6 zones should be accepted as it would;



Recommended amendments to Purpose 6.1 and consequential zoning maps 37a, 38A, 42A,47A are contained within Appendix B (refer to 1206.065) The submission point seeking amendment to Purpose 6.1g) with regards to encouraging residential activity as part of appropriate mixed uses should be accepted as it would;





Page 25 of 266

S42a Report

Chapter 6 Business 1 to 7 Zones 6.2 and 6.2.1 Objectives and Policies

Analysis: 6.2 and 6.2.1 Objectives and Policies

6.2 Objective The submission points listed within the tables below that seek to amend Objectives and Policies by replacing the word "shall" with "should" in the text are considered within a dedicated section of this report to avoid repetition of analysis. AMP Capital Property Portfolio (312.004), Chartwell Investments Ltd (355.002), Hill Laboratories Limited ( 539.002) Parkwood Trade Centre Limited ( 606.005),Property Council New Zealand (938.142) and McCracken Surveys Limited (1206.061) and Hamilton Homezone Ltd and Ingham Group(1117.003) all seek amendments to include a new set of Objectives and Policies for Business 1 and 4 zones in providing a range of moderate to low intensity commercial (retail and office), community, and service activities. Parkwood Trade Centre Limited seek an additional Objective under 6.2.1.Kiwi Income Property Trust and Kiwi Property Holdings Limited (FS123.001), Porter Developments Limited (FS239.014), Property Council New Zealand (FS249.026), Tram Lease Limited(FS249.026) and DNZ Property Fund Limited (DNZ)(FS285.008) all support the amendment sought on the basis it is important that an objective and policy framework is in place to direct what activities and development are appropriate in each zone. It is acknowledged in addressing previous submissions in Purpose 6.1 that there is a clear omission in the Policy and Objectives section of 6.2 in which to underpin the Business zones identified in the Plan and to substantiate the activity status within Rule 6.3 and subsequent General Standards and Planning Maps. The previous section of this report has already discussed in response to other submissions, the need and justification for acknowledging that certain activities can occur in out of centre locations providing they do not harm the vitality and viability of higher order centres within the proposed business hierarchy. Proposed amendments to 6.1d) and 6.1g) recognise that Commercial Fringe and Large Format Retail zoning provide for out-of-centre development such as large format offices and/or retail activities only in circumstances where because of the scale/floor area of development they may not be appropriate in lower order more people-focused centres within the business hierarchy. To this extent, an amendment as proposed below will facilitate those circumstances where out of centre development may be acceptable and provide certainty and clarity in achieving the Plan’s strategic objectives while importantly maintaining the centres based approach advocated by Future Proof and the Proposed Regional Policy Statement. The following new Policy and Objective is recommended for 6.2 Objectives and Policies with track changes recorded in Appendix B of this report:

Title: Chapter 6 Business 1 to 7 Zones Issue: 6.2 and 6.2.1 Objectives and Policies

Page 26 of 266

Out of Centre Development (Commercial Fringe and Large Format Retail)

Objective Policies

Effectiveness, efficiency, costs and benefits

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 and the function and amenity of the lower order centres in the business hierarchy are not undermined.

6.2.5 a

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 the Central City, or Sub-Regional centres or Suburban centres; and

II. There is consistency with the assessment criteria to minimise 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

6.2.5 a- b These policies emphasise that these zones provide for ‘out of centre’ development, predominantly large format offices and retail on the fringe of existing centres (predominantly suburban and sub-regional) providing it can be demonstrated through a discretionary consent process that sub-policies 6.2.5 a I- III are met. Policy 6.2.5 b requires the scale of business activity demonstrates compatibility with adjacent land uses and therefore minimises potential adverse effects on the character and amenity of neighbourhoods. The policy further requires that development integrate with existing transport networks. These zones are predominantly located on high accessibility corridors on the City transport network, where vehicle based travel will continue to provide the predominant share of trips to these centres. Benefits The PRPS sets out the framework for a centres hierarchy derived from Future Proof. The acknowledgement of out of centre zones provide for the larger format trading characteristics of these activities while recognising their position below the identified centres within the business hierarchy. The benefits of policies 6.2.5a – 6.2.2b are:

• Establishes a comparative role and relationship with the Central

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.

Chapter 6 Business 1 to 7 Zones Issue: 6.2 and 6.2.1 Objectives and Policies

Page 27 of 266

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.

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 considered through the provision of a Viability Assessment Report (Volume 2- Information Requirements 1.5.20 refers).

City and other centres in terms of scale and diversity of activity and floor space;

• Enables an assessment of effects to be undertaken for commercial development in out of centre locations;

• Provide an acknowledgement of the existence of these ‘legacy sites’ that have established under the permissive framework of the ODP;

• Recognition of their co- location on the periphery or fringe of established centres within the business hierarchy;

• Recognition of the area’s attractive fringe location high level of vehicular accessibility close to major and minor arterial transport corridors;

• Provides certainty regarding future public investment in infrastructure, greater certainty for the market considering new or expanded for business enterprises and the scale of potential effects on neighbouring.

Costs

The costs associated with policies 6.2.5a-b are:

• May not be responsive or flexible enough to meet changing market trends.

• The level of regulation may hamper the location benefits of these zones to large format operators

• May put unnecessary pressure to locate large, bulker activities within centres detrimental to neighbouring amenities.

Efficient and Effective

• These policies will be efficient and effective to achieve the proposed objective 6.2.5 by giving effect to the PRPS and specifically policy 6.15 that seeks cohesive and integrated land use development and compact urban form.


Page 28 of 266

Policies not most appropriate to achieve the objectives: No policy framework or retention of existing District Plan policy.

• The absence of clear policy or retention of the established policy framework would not be most appropriate as either approach would fail to meet and implement the obligations placed on the Council under the PRPS. These approaches also would not meet the requirements of Part 2 of the Act concerning the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

• These approaches would not take into account the long term effects of ad hoc and decentralised development on urban form and function, and IN

MAINTAINING the vibrancy and vitality of the recognised commercial centres in the proposed business hierarchy.

• It is considered that these policy options would not achieve the objective, or the purpose of the Act, and would be contrary to the provisions of the RPS.

Risks -

Risks of acting or not acting

• The risks of acting to establish a transparent policy framework to ensure the efficient use of the land and built resource (buildings and infrastructure) is outweighed by the risks of not acting.

• The risks of not acting are that the RPS will not be given effect to, which would be inconsistent with the requirements of the Act.

• Continuing the status quo approach of the current District Plan will result in further ad hoc commercial development throughout the suburban area and away from the Central City.

Sub. Name FS. Name




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)

Kiwi Income Property Trust and Kiwi Property

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.


Page 29 of 266

Holdings Limited


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



FS285.008




Oppose Amend 6.2 to include Objectives and Polices that relate to land zoned Business 1 - Commercial Fringe that is located outside of a sub-regional centre.

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;


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



Oppose Amend 6.2 to include Objectives and Policies for the Business 1 zone recognising the close proximity of these areas being within easy walking distance to the city centre; the established mix and scale of office and healthcare services, residential use; re-development potential as an employment area for a mix of land uses and higher density

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


Recommended amendments to 6.2 are contained in Appendix B ( refer to 539.002)


Page 30 of 266

living to support the viability and vitality of the City Centre.



Support in part

Retain Objective and Policies under 6.2.1 Sub Regional Centres with an additional Objective to recognise existing large format retail, office and commercial activities.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Objective 6.2.1 requesting that existing large format retail, office and commercial activities are recognised should be rejected as;






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



Andrew Yeoman

FS2.012

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

Peter John Findlay, Donna Margaret Findlay, Peter John Findlay & Donna Margaret Findlay as Trustees of the Findlay Family

FS242.001



Page 31 of 266

Trust, Riverside Oak Estate Ltd (Baruchel Developments Ltd)

Peter John Findlay, Donna Margaret Findlay, Peter John Findlay & Donna Margaret Findlay as Trustees of the Findlay Family Trust, Riverside Oak Estate Ltd (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.



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;




FS285.187



Page 32 of 266

Analysis:

Policies 6.2.1 a –f Waikato Regional Council (714.029) seek amendment to Policy 6.2.1a to refer to 'development', not 'expansion' and amendment to Policy 6.2.1b to recognise that the range of activities should be predominantly retail. Kiwi Income Property Trust and Kiwi Property Holdings Limited (123.025) also supports this amendment. This relief sought follows the position taken in the PRPS within Policy 6.15 a) - d) and therefore it is recommended that this proposed amendment is accepted as per track changes in Appendix B. Greg Gimblett (Church Road Developments Ltd)(630.001) seek amendment to Policy 6.2.1 to make reference to a Sub Regional Centre fringe. DNZ Property Fund Limited (DNZ) (285.217) also support this relief sought while Kiwi Income Property Trust and Kiwi Property Holdings Limited (123.017) oppose this amendment assumed to be on the basis a larger Business 3 zone would further undermine central city primacy. The submitter can take comfort from the proposed consequential amendments above which propose new objectives and policies for commercial fringe and large format retail zones. On this basis it is not considered necessary for the Suburban Centre Objectives to also refer to a ‘fringe’, therefore no amendment is recommended. Tainui Group Holdings Limited (1199.006) seek amendment to policies of 6.2.1a and 6.2.1b requesting deletion of the reference that regional centres will not undermine the role of the CBD as the primary commercial employment centre .The submitter argues that sub-regional centres operate independently of the functionality of the Central City as a primary business, commerce and social centre and therefore reference to ‘undermining’ should be deleted. The submitter further requests that the Explanation statement to the Objectives and Policy remove the reference to the CBD having experienced decline due to the dispersal of retail and commercial activities as in their view a causal relationship not been established. Kiwi Income Property Trust (FS123.018) and Kiwi Property Holdings Limited (FS239.008) and New Zealand Transport Agency (FS270.032) oppose this submission. The primary reasons in opposition to this submission are that the amendments sought would not support the adoption of a hierarchy of commercial centres throughout Hamilton or recognise the primary social, economic and cultural role and importance of the CBD as advocated by the Proposed Regional Policy Statement. Despite the challenging legal landscape relating to retail distribution since the inception of the RMA in 1991, it is now settled in law that the economic and social effects of a proposed retail activity on the environment can be taken into account. This has been recognized in the Environment Court in a number of cases eg; St Lukes vs North Shore A41/2001, Westfield (NZ) Ltd & Anor vs North Shore City Council (2005) NZSC 17, more recent cases include National Investment Trust vs Christchurch City Council C152/2007 and Bilmag Holdings Ltd vs Waipa District Council C072/2008. It is therefore appropriate that the Plan sets its face against ad-hoc commercial development and takes a more interventionist role in terms of Plan Objectives, Policies and Rules. Notwithstanding the submitter comments above, it is considered that there is a proven causal relationship between the dispersal of retail and office functions on the social and economic wellbeing of the Central City as evident by the expert advice of Property Economics attached in Appendix C. Specifically in Fig 8 and Fig 10 of their Retail evidence,paragraphs 100 and 101 advise;

100. ...that the vast majority of retail sales generated in Te Rapa and The Base have been at the expense of the Hamilton CBD, i.e. over the last decade retail expenditure has

largely been diverted away from the Hamilton CBD to Te Rapa and The Base area.

101. This clearly shows the Hamilton CBD is playing a significantly diminished role in the commercial centre hierarchy of the city from a retail perspective compared to 10-

years ago, with a 40% proportional drop in retail relevance and market share within the city (i.e. from 52% to 31%). This both rapid and significant decline would flow through


Page 33 of 266

to lowering retail productivity and quality within the CBD.

A summary of these key findings has been presented in the Strategic Chapter hearings report and again within the introduction of this report, paragraphs 4.11-4.14 refer. The accompanying analysis provided by Property Economics shows how retail spending patterns have been redistributed over the last decade towards Te-Rapa and The Base. Fig 9, Appendix C of the accompanying evidence by Property Economics further shows what this has meant for the retail spending in Hamilton CBD by sector with large drops in proportional spending in both, clothing, footwear and department stores over the last decade. The accompanying economic evidence provided by Property Economic also advises of the incremental impacts resulting from the ongoing adverse dispersal of retail activity which has culminated in real changes to the CBD’s retail environment. The supply of alternative retail locations has resulted in the shift of retail activities from the CBD resulting in a fall in the quality and offer of retail provided in the Central City thus perpetuating the proportional decline of the City Centre overall. Given the above it is considered that the amendments proposed would serve to undermine the business hierarchy and Policy 6.15 of the Proposed Regional Policy Statement that advise that development should recognise and enhance the Hamilton Central Business District as the primary retail, economic, business and social centre of the Future Proof area, avoiding or managing adverse effects on the Central Business District, including from activities which may adversely affect function, vitality or amenity of the Central Business District. Policies 6.2.1a and 6.2.1b are critical to ensuring this and therefore it is recommended the amendments sought are rejected. The submitters also seek deletion of Policy 6.2.1e regarding the built form and operational characteristics of centres being consistent with neighbouring activities, on the basis that it is unreasonable to seek consistency given the diverse and varied character of neighbouring land uses surrounding these centres. It is acknowledged that the intent of this policy is lost by the reference to a ‘consistency’ when the intention is ensure reverse sensitivity issues are adequately mitigated. It is therefore recommended that Policy 6.2.1 e) be reworded to read as follows; Policy 6.2.1e ‘ The built form and operational characteristics of centres shall be consistent with neighbouring activities and amenity values’ ‘The scale and nature of activities within suburban centres do not generate significant adverse effects on neighbouring amenity values’. Property Council New Zealand, McCracken Surveys Limited and Waikato Chamber of Commerce seek amendment to Policy 6.2.1f to encourage residential activity as part of appropriate mixed use activity where appropriate. This generic statement is based on the intention and vision of previous Fast Forward documents used during consultation of the Draft Plan since 2009 which indicated the desire for mixed use nodes or centres. It is considered that residential mixed use is provided for and directed by way of alternative zones in the Plan more appropriate to the needs of their surrounding residential catchments. The purpose of the Business 3 zone is clearly designed to provide for business activities, principally retail, a mix of mall, offices, community services and entertainment facilities. The Proposed RPS is also clear in the commercial basis of Sub-Regional centres in that it advises within the opening statement of Policy 6.15 that; Management of the built environment in the Future Proof area shall provide for varying levels of commercial activity development to meet the wider community’s social and economic needs, primarily through the encouragement and consolidation of such activities in existing commercial centres.....’ Given this clear policy direction, the nature and mix of commercial activities, residential development is not considered an efficient use of these centres. The requested amendment is therefore rejected.


Page 34 of 266

Kiwi Income Property Trust & Kiwi Property Holdings Limited (1198.002) seek to retain Objective 6.2.1 and policies 6.2.1(a) to 6.2.1(f) for Sub Regional Centres although seek amendments to remove offices from the list of business activities within Objective 6.2.1 as per annexure 2 of their submissions. In addition, given the perceived threat to the CBD vitality from the extent of the Business 4 zone, they also seek additional amendments to restrict Te-Rapa North to a range of service and Industrial activities. Westfield (New Zealand) Limited(FS119.003) support in part this submission while Tainui Group Holdings Ltd (FS246.016) oppose this submission. It is considered that some comfort can be provided as a result of amendments proposed to Fig 6.1b which reduces the extent of the area identified as Te-Rapa North Sub-regional centres and in this respect the proposed amendments referring to service and industrial activities are not necessary. In terms of the relief sought for removal of offices it is accepted that the role of sub-regional centres is primarily for retail activities. The PRPS advises in Policy 6.15; da) recognise that in addition to retail activity, the Hamilton Central Business District and towns are also centres of administration, office and civic activity. These activities will not occur to any significant extent in the sub-regional centres as these centres are to remain predominantly as retail centres. (author emphasis) Given the analysis provided within the introduction to the strategic and this hearing report and the evidence to be provided by Property Economics regarding the adverse effects of office dispersal upon the social and economic wellbeing of the CBD it is considered prudent to limit the quantum of offices that could occur outside of the Central City without the need for a full assessment of effects. In addition, the Plan acknowledges the additional 11,350m2 gfa of offices consented on the northern half of The Base site (Lot 2 DP 89885) under resource consent 10.2012.6723.001. Taken into account this existing consent it is considered reasonable to ‘limit’ further office quantum within sub-regional centres which is consistent with the discretionary approach for offices above 250m2 in other centres within the business hierarchy. Given this approach and to ensure consistency and effect administration of the provisions within Rule 6.3 of the Plan it is proposed to amend Objective 6.2.1 as follows; Policy 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, viability, function and amenity of the Central City.

Sub. Name FS. Name



Blair Thorpe 204.007 6.2.1 Objective and Policies Sub-regional Centres

Oppose Object to Policies 6.2.1a to c. Central City should be rejuvenated first with free public transport and free parking to central city destinations.

Reject This submission point is not considered to be a valid RMA matter and is therefore beyond the scope of the District Plan to address.

Greg Gimblett (Church Road Developments Ltd)

630.001 6.2.1 Objective and Policies Sub-regional Centres

Support in part

Retain Objectives and Policies for the Business 1-7 Zones with amendments to specifically include the sub regional centre

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Objective and Policies 6.2.1 requesting a Sub Regional Fringe Zone should be rejected as;

• It would reduce the internal consistency of the plan


Page 35 of 266

fringe. • It would reduce 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



FS123.017

Oppose Accept FS123.017 is accepted because that part of 630.001 which it opposes (notification) has been rejected.


FS285.217

Support Reject FS285.217 is rejected because that part of 630.001 which it supports (notification) has been rejected.



Support in part

Retain Objective 6.2.1and Policy 6.2.1c under Sub-Regional Centres. Amend Policy 6.2.1a to refer to 'development', not 'expansion'. Amend 6.2.1b to recognise that the range of activities should be predominantly retail.

Accept This submission seeks amendment to Policies for 6.2.1 a) and c) to change the word to ‘development’ rather than expansion of sub-regional centres and refer to range of activities as ‘predominantly retail’ is accepted because it would improve;


• 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

Recommended amendments to Policies 6.2.1 a) and c) are contained in Appendix B ( refer to 539.002)

Kiwi Income Property Trust and Kiwi Property Holdings

FS123.025

Support Accept FS123.025 is accepted because that part of 714.029 which it supports(notification) has been accepted.


Page 36 of 266

Limited



Support in part

Retain Policy 6.2.1a. Amend Policy 6.2.1c to provide greater protection to regionally significant roading infrastructure and recognise the roading hierarchy.

Reject Not necessary to reinforce roading hierarchy in Business Zones Chapter which is more reflective of maximizing opportunities for passenger transport, walking and cycling.



Oppose Amend Policies 6.2.1a to 6.2.1f by replacing the word "shall" with "should". Amend Policy 6.2.1f to encourage residential activity as part of appropriate mixed use.

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to Policy 6.2.1f, seeking to encourage mixed use residential should be rejected as;




Andrew Yeoman

FS2.012

Support Reject FS2.012 does not relate to matters contained in 938.059


FS242.001

Support Accept in Part FS123.017, FS265.002, FS277.001 are accepted in part because that part of 938.059 which they support (notification) has been accepted in part.

Tram Lease FS265.022 Support Accept in Part


Page 37 of 266

Limited


FS277.001




Support in part

Amend 6.2.1 to make direct reference to the Business 1 (sub regional centre fringe) zone within the objectives and policies of Chapter 6 Business 1-7 Zones.

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




FS213.001




Support Retain 6.2.1 Objective and Policies for Sub-regional Centres

Accept in Part The provisions that this submission point supports and / or seeks to retain have been amended in response to other submissions. These other submissions have been accepted for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions.


Page 38 of 266


FS246.013

Oppose Reject FS123.017 is rejected because that part of 1135.002 which it opposes (notification) has been accepted in part.

Kiwi Income Property Trust & Kiwi Property Holdings Limited


Support in part

Retain Objective 6.2.1 and policies 6.2.1(a) to 6.2.1(f) for Sub Regional Centres


Westfield (New Zealand) Limited

FS119.003

Support Accept in Part FS123.119.003 is accepted in part because that part of 1198.002 which it supports (notification) has been accepted in part.


FS246.016




Support in part

Amend the explanation to 6.2.1 by deleting the statement that the CBD has experienced decline due to the dispersal of retail and commercial activities as a causal relationship not been established. Amend the Objectives 6.2.1 and policies of 6.2.1a and 6.2.1b to note that regional centres will not undermine the role of the CBD as the primary commercial employment centre. Delete Policy 6.2.1e regarding the built form and operational characteristics of centres being consistent with neighbouring activities.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Objective 6.2.1, by deleting statement highlighting the decline of the CBD, amendment to Policies 6.2.1a and 6.2.1b to reflect Regional Centres and the Deletion of Policy 6.2.1e should be rejected as;




Kiwi Income Property Trust and Kiwi Property

FS123.018



Page 39 of 266

Holdings Limited


FS239.008

Support Reject FS239.008 is rejected because that part of 1199.006 which it supports (notification) has been accepted in part.


FS270.032




Oppose Amend 6.2.1 Objective and Policies for Sub-regional Centres by replacing 'shall' with 'should'. Amend 6.2.1f to generally encourage mixed use residential activity where appropriate.

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to Policy 6.2.1f, seeking to encourage mixed use residential should be rejected as;





Page 40 of 266

S42a Report

Chapter 6 -Business 1-7 Zones 6.2.2 Policies and Objectives

Analysis: 6.2.2 Policies and Objectives

Midlands Health Network Limited (287.001) seek amendments for a more permissive set of rules and thresholds to provide for medical centres in most business zones especially Neighborhood and Suburban centres. Consequently they seek acknowledgement for health services within the Objectives and Policies of the plan. This relief is accepted in part in so far as it is accepted that Policy 6.2.2 is overly focused towards goods, services and employment and should also recognise the importance of community facilities such as health care, as part of an integrated mixed use centre. The plan explanation already recognises the role of community facilities as does Rule 6.2.2c which refers to Suburban centres acting as focal points for community development. The detailed activity thresholds relief for medical centres will be dealt with in Section 6.3 of this report. It is therefore recommended that the Policy be amended with Appendix B as follows; 6.2.2 A distribution of suburban centres that provide for a mixed use environment with community facilities, goods, services, community facilities and employment at a scale appropriate to suburban catchments, while not undermining the primacy, vitality or viability of the Central City. Southern Cross Hospitals Limited (Bloxam Burnett and Olliver Ltd)(356.002) seek amendment to Policy 6.2.2g so it specifically refers to hospital activities in Hamilton East. This is the intent of the Rule and planning maps for this area and such an amendment will improve the clarity and administration of the plan. It is proposed that this amendment is accepted with consequential amendments to the Activity Status Table to include Hospitals as a Discretionary Activity within the corresponding Business 1 Zone . Rototuna Ventures Ltd (309.003) and McCracken Surveys Limited (1206.062) and the Property Council (938.060) seek amendment to the Objectives and Policy 6.2.2 to support establishment of residential activities above ground floor level in Suburban Centres as part of appropriate mixed use. It is accepted that Suburban Centres should accommodate a range of activities and services which should anchor and support residential development. The Strategic Framework also advises that higher density development should be located within suburban centres. As such it is proposed to accept the amendment with changes to the Objective 6.2.2 above and the following specific policy below added in Appendix B; Proposed additional Policy; 6.2.3c

Residential activities above ground floor commercial uses are encouraged as part of mixed use development. 490 Grey Ltd as Trustee of the BDL Commercial Investment Trust and Homes for the Living Ltd (1002.001) seek as part of their submission amendments to Objective 6.2.2 to replace the words “not undermining the primacy, vitality or viability of the Central City” with “providing enhanced urban design outcomes” They also seek amendment to Policy 6.2.2d by deleting the reference to ‘’control of size and scale’’ and Policy 6.2.2f by deleting the reference to the Central City. Both Progressive (FS237.01) and Tainui Group Holdings Ltd (246.011) oppose this submission on the grounds that the proposed amendment is not the same thing and reference to the central city should be retained. For the previous reasons given for Purpose 6.1e, such a fundamental softening of approach is contrary to both Future Proof and the strategic intent of the Proposed Regional Policy Statement, both which seek support for the primacy of the Central City. The proposed amendments are contrary to the strategic policies and objectives of the plan and would serve to undermine the business hierarchy. No amendments are recommended.

Chapter 6 -Business 1-7 Zones Issue -6.2.2 Policies and Objectives

Page 41 of 266

Hamilton JV Investment Company Ltd (1170.024) and Hounsell Holdings Ltd (1104.024) seek amendments to the Plan to remove the distinction between core and fringe zoning and rules for Suburban Centres. While The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd(1256.003) seek amendment to Objective 6.2.2, to introduce policies and explanation text to clearly articulate the difference between the Suburban Centre core (Business 5) and fringe (Business 6) zones. This submitter also highlights the difference between the two zones for certain activities like supermarkets. Progressive Enterprises Limited (237.017) also supports this submission on similar grounds. It is accepted that the combining both Suburban Centre core and fringe will aid clarity and improve efficiency in achieving the objectives and policies of the plan. The submitters will get relief sought as a result of consequential amendments to other submission points seeking a single Suburban Centre zone in the Plan. This has been discussed in the previous section dealing with General Matters 6.0 and the proposed amendments and consequential changes to activity status for a single Suburban Centre zone which will be outlined in Rule 6.3 of this report and track changes within Appendix B. Waikato District Council (1211.012) seek amendment to Policies 6.2.2 by adding a policy to ensure that Suburban Centres and their associated activities do not that undermines the role/ function of centres in neighbouring Territorial Authorities. Progressive Enterprises Limited (237.012) support this submission on the basis that Suburban Centres provide a greater retail extent than the immediate area. The reasoning given is for Suburban Centres to remain at a scale that predominantly services the surrounding residential catchment. It is considered that existing policy 6.2.2a, which advises that these centres are provided at a scale and nature appropriate to the needs of surrounding residential area is sufficient to address this concern. The suggested amendment refers also to not ‘undermining centres in neighbouring Territorial Authorities’; however it is considered this approach is unjustified and to limit the growth potential to undefined centres outside of the city could potentially hinder the vibrancy and functionality of Suburban Centres within the jurisdiction of the city. No amendment is recommended.

Sub. Name FS. Name




287.001 6.2.2 Objective and Policies Suburban Centres

Support in part

Amend the Plan to recognise and provide for the expansion of primary care infrastructure.

Accept in part The submission seeking amendment to Objectives and Policies for 6.2.2 for wider recognition of primary care infrastructure and is accepted in part because it would improve;


Recommended amendments to 6.2.2 are contained in Appendix B ( refer to 287.001

MP & RG Upsdell

FS7.001

Support Accept in part While this submission supports 287.001 it is only accepted in part because amendments have been made in response to other submissions .

Rototuna Ventures Ltd

309.003 6.2.2 Objective and Policies

Support in part

Amend the Objective and Policies 6.2.2 to support

Accept in part The submission seeking amendment to Objectives and Policies for 6.2.2 and 6.2.3 for recognition of residential above ground floor is accepted in part

Chapter 6 :Business 1-7 Zones Issue :6.2.2 Policies and Objectives

Page 42 of 266

Suburban Centres

establishment of residential activities above ground floor level in Suburban Centres.

because it would improve;


Recommended amendments to 6.2.2 and 6.2.3 are contained in Appendix B ( refer to 309.003, 309.004)



Support in part

The definition of Health Care Services currently excludes Hospitals so amend Policy 6.2.2g so it specifically refers to hospital activities in Hamilton East.

Accept in part The submission seeking amendment to Policy 6.2.2g regarding the inclusion of Hospitals in Hamilton East and is accepted because it would improve;


Recommended amendments to 6.2.2g are contained in Appendix B ( refer to 356.002



Support Retain Policy 6.2.2f and the explanation that recognises Hamilton East under Suburban Centres

Accept In conformity with Objectives and Policies of the plan



Support Retain the Objective 6.2.2 and Policies 6.2.2a to 6.2.2g for Suburban Centres


William Cornelis Engelander

FS160.001

Oppose Reject FS160.001 does not relate to matters contained in 913.036

James Hely and Heather Montgomerie -

FS161.001

Oppose Reject FS161.001 does not relate to matters contained in 913.036


Page 43 of 266



Oppose Amend Policies 6.2.2a to 6.2.2g to replace the word 'shall' with 'should'. Amend 6.2.2 to add a new policy to generally encourage mixed use residential activity where appropriate.

Accept in Part. The submission seeking amendment to Policy 6.2.22 regarding the inclusion of a policy to encourage mixed use residential is accepted because it would improve;


Recommended amendments to 6.2.2 are contained in Appendix B ( refer to 938.060)

Andrew Yeoman

FS2.012



FS242.001

Support Accept in Part FS242.001, FS277.001 is accepted in part because that part of 938.060 which it supports (notification) has been accepted in part..


FS277.001



Page 44 of 266

Trust, Riverside Oak Estate Ltd (Peter Findlay, Peter Findlay & Associates Ltd)

Parkwood Gateway Limited


Support Retain Objective 6.2.2 and Policies 6.2.2a to 6.2.2e for Suburban Centres


Portland Park Limited


Support Retain Objective 6.2.2 and Policies 6.2.2a to 6.2.2e under Suburban Centres




Oppose Amend 6.1 a) by referring to Hamilton East north of Clyde Street (reflecting submitters request to change shown on planning maps 45A and 46A. Amend Rule 6.3 to remove all floor area limitations for offices within the Central City Zone precincts. Amend Rule 6.6 to specify the matters over which discretion is restricted and distinguish those from assessment criteria. Or Amend 6.1 d) to replace the description of a hierarchy of centres with a statement that the city contains a range of business centres comprising one

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3)requesting the removal of all floor area thresholds, change of zoning from Suburban Centre to Central City should be rejected as;




Page 45 of 266

or more business zones, and insert reference to a new Hamilton East Business Zone. Amend 6.1 j) to replace the words “again don’t undermine” with “support” Amend Objective 6.2.2 to replace the words “not undermining the primacy, vitality or viability of the Central City” with “providing enhanced urban design outcomes” Amend Policy 6.2.2d by deleting the reference to control of size and scale. Amend Policy 6.2.2f by deleting the reference to including the Central City. Amend planning maps 45A and 46A by rezoning the Business 1 and Business 5 within the area east of the Waikato River to one block east of Grey Street and south of Dawson Street to Wellington Street to a new “Hamilton East Business Zone”. Amend Rule 6.3 to include a Hamilton East Business Zone containing the same provisions as those for the Suburban Centre Core Zone but with all floor area limitations for offices removed, retail tenancies up to 500 m2 as a permitted activity and retail tenancies in excess of 500 m2 as a restricted discretionary activity Amend Rule 6.6 to specify the


Page 46 of 266

matters over which discretion is restricted and distinguish those from assessment criteria. Delete matters and assessment criteria (C2–C23, D3-D5, E1-E3, F2-F6, G1, N1-N5, S1, V1-V18) from Rule 7.6.a) iv, 6.6.a) v. and vi: Delete Discretionary Activity Assessment Criteria1.3.2.4 regarding Retail, Commercial and Office Activities in the Central City and Business 1 to 7 zones. Delete Information Requirement 1.5.20 regarding Centre Viability Assessment Report.


FS237.01



FS246.011

Oppose Accept in Part FS246.011 is accepted because that part of 1002.001 which it opposes (notification) has been rejected.

Hounsell Holdings Ltd


Support in part

Amend the Plan to remove the distinction between core and fringe zoning and rules for suburban centres.

Accept 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 would improve;




1135.003 6.2.2 Objective and Policies Suburban

Support Retain 6.2.2 Objective and Policies 6.2.2a to 6.2.2e for Suburban Centres

Accept in Part The provisions that this submission point supports and / or seeks to retain have been amended in response to other submissions. These other submissions have been accepted for the reasons stated specifically in relation


Page 47 of 266

Centres to those submissions.

Hamilton JV Investment Company Ltd


Support in part

Amend the Plan to remove the distinction between core and fringe zoning and rules for suburban centres.

Accept 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 would improve;





Oppose Amend Policies 6.2.2a to 6.2.2g by replacing the word "shall" with "should". Amend 6.2.2 by adding a new policy to encourage residential activity as part of appropriate mixed use.

Accept in Part The submission seeking amendment to Objectives and Policies for 6.2.2 and for recognition of residential activity accepted in part because it would improve;



Waikato District Council


Support in part

Amend 6.2.2 by adding a policy to ensure that suburban centres and their associated activities are not of a scale that undermines the role/ function of centres in neighbouring Territorial Authorities

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to objective 6.2.2 requesting the moderation of the suburban centre size in relation to Territorial Authorities should be rejected as;




FS237.012

Support Reject No amendments or deletions are proposed in response to the further submission FS237.012


Page 48 of 266

The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd


Support in part

Retain 6.2.2 Objective and Policies for Suburban Centres with amendments to distinguish between Business 5 and 6 Zones. Include a new objective and policies to provide a policy framework for the Business 4 Zone.

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 would improve;




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.


Page 49 of 266

S42a Report

Chapter 6 Business 1-7 zones 6.2.3 Objectives and Policies

Analysis: 6.2.3 Objectives and Policies

Rototuna Ventures Ltd (309.004), Glenview Medical Centre ( 368.001), Claudelands Property Trust (1126.014), McCracken Surveys Limited ( 1206.063) City Limits Childcare Co Ltd and Claudelands Property Trust (1282.024) all seek amendment to Objective 6.2.3 to broaden the range of activities within Neighbourhood Centres. This is to provide for the establishment of residential activities above ground floor, provision of health care facilities and community services. Essentially the submissions seek to recognise non-retail activities can also occur in Neighbourhood Centres. Alexander Elliot (Claudelands Residents)(FS286.023) oppose this submission on the grounds that they do not wish retailing to occur away from existing neighbourhood shopping centres. It is accepted that the current objective as worded just refers to a distribution of ‘locally based retail facilities’ which is too prescriptive and narrowly focused. The Purpose of Neighbourhood Centres much like Suburban Centres is that they are more people focused centres within the hierarchy that should provide for a diverse range of activities needed by the local community. In this respect it is accepted that the Plan must provide for residential to occur above ground floor uses and provide for a range of community activities to aid their vitality and vibrancy as focal points for residents. This approach is fundamental to the strategic objectives of the Plan and Future Proof principles which seek to maximize opportunities for people to ‘live, work and play’ within their local area. The centres based approach to the Plan addresses the concerns raised in the further submission, which is concerned about leakage of retail and other activities into Special Character Areas. Given the above it is proposed that the Objective and Policies within 6.2.3 be amended so that the wording ‘retail facilities’ be replaced with ‘centres’ which is consistent with the terminology used for Suburban centres in Objective 6.2.2 and includes reference to Community facilities. In addition, it is proposed that amendments to introduce a new Policy 6.2.3c) to recognise that residential activities above the ground floor are appropriate as part of vibrant mixed use centres. It is considered that these amendments outlined below would better achieve the objectives and policies of the Plan (track changes within Appendix B refers). Objective 6.2.3 A distribution of locally based centres that provide services and community facilties capable of meeting the day-to-day needs of their immediate neighbourhoods. Policy 6.2.3c

Residential activities above ground floor commercial uses are encouraged as part of mixed use development. Waikato District Council (1211.013) seek amendment to Policies 6.2.3 by adding a policy to ensure that Neighbourhood Centres and their associated activities do not undermine the role/function of centres in neighbouring Territorial Authorities. The reasoning given is for neighbourhood centres to remain at a scale that predominantly services the surrounding residential catchment. It is considered that existing policy 6.2.3a, which advises that activities within Neighbourhood Centres shall principally serve their immediate neighbourhoods is sufficient to address this concern. The suggested amendment refers also to not ‘undermining centres in neighbouring Territorial Authorities’ however it is considered this approach is unjustified and to limit the growth potential to undefined centres outside of the city could potentially hinder the vibrancy and functionality of neighbourhood centres within the jurisdiction of the city. No amendment is recommended.

Title: Chapter 6 Business 1-7 zones Issue: 6.2.3 Objectives and Policies

Page 50 of 266

Sub. Name FS. Name




309.004 6.2.3 Objective and Policies Neighbourhood Centres

Support in part

Amend Objective and Policies 6.2.3 to support the establishment of residential activities above ground floor level in Neighbourhood Centres.

Reject The submission seeking amendment to Objectives and Policies for 6.2.2 and 6.2.3 for recognition of residential above ground floor is accepted in part because it would improve;


Recommended amendments to 6.2.2 and 6.2.3 are contained in Appendix B ( refer to 309.003, 309.004)

Glenview Medical Centre


Support in part

Amend Objective 6.2.3 to include provision for Health Care facilities within neighbourhood centres (Business Zone 7).

Accept in Part The submission seeking amendment to Objective 6.2.3 regarding the inclusion of Health Care facilities is accepted in part because it would improve;





Support Retain Policy 6.2.3b for neighbourhood centres

Accept Consistent with objectives and policies of the Plan



Support in part

Amend Policies 6.2.3a and 6.2.3b by replacing the word "shall" with "should". Amend 6.2.3 to add a new Policy to encourage residential activity as part of appropriate mixed use. Amend Rule 6.3r) Retail Activity

Accept in Part The submission seeking amendment to Objectives and Policies for 6.2.2 and 6.2.3 for recognition of residential above ground floor is accepted in part because it would improve;


Recommended amendments to 6.2.2 and 6.2.3 are contained in Appendix B ( refer to 938.061)


Page 51 of 266

150-399m to be in line with the explanation of Neighbourhood Centres

Andrew Yeoman

FS2.012



FS242.001

Support Accept in Part FS242.001, FS277.001 are accepted in part because that part of 938.061 which they supports (notification) has been accepted in part.


FS277.001


Claudelands 1126.014 6.2.3 Objective Oppose Amend Objective 6.2.3 to Accept in Part This submission seeks amendment to Objectives 6.2.3 to recognise non-retail


Page 52 of 266

Property Trust and Policies

Neighbourhood Centres

recognise non-retail activities in the neighbourhood centre.

activities in Neighbourhood Centres and is accepted in part because it would improve;



Alexander Elliot (Claudelands Residents)

FS286.043

Oppose Accept in Part FS286.043 is accepted because that part of 1126.014 which it opposes (notification) has been rejected.



Support in part

Amend Policies 6.2.3a and 6.2.3b by replacing the word "shall" with "should". Amend 6.2.3 to add a new Policy to encourage residential activity as part of appropriate mixed use. Amend Rule 6.3r) Retail Activity 150-399m to be in line with the explanation of Neighbourhood Centres

Accept in Part The submission seeking amendment to Objectives and Policies for 6.2.3 for recognition of residential activity as part of appropriate mixed use is accepted in part because it would improve;



Waikato District Council


Support in part

Amend 6.2.3 by adding a policy to ensure that neighbourhood centres and their associated activities are not of a nature or scale that undermines the role/ function of centres in neighbouring Territorial Authorities.

Reject The submission seeking amendment to Objectives and Policies for 6.2.3 for recognition that suburban centre scale and activities would not undermine neighbouring Territorial Authorities should be rejected as;

• It would not aid effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies

• Does not provide sufficient clarity for plan users


Page 53 of 266

City Limits Childcare Co Ltd and Claudelands Property Trust


Oppose Amend Objective 6.2.3 to broaden the range of activities within Neighbourhood Centres.

Accept in Part This submission seeks amendment to Objectives 6.2.3 to broaden the range of activities in Neighbourhood Centres and is accepted in part because it would improve;




FS286.023



Page 54 of 266

S42a Report

Chapter 6 – Business Zones 1-7 6.2.4 Objectives and Policies

Analysis: 6.2.4 Objectives and Policies

New Zealand Transport Agency (924.048) seek a generic amendment so that Major Event Facilities recognise the potential effects on the transport network. This relief is already provided for by the overarching policies in Chapter 25.14 Transportation and is therefore considered to be unnecessary duplication. No amendments to the plan are therefore recommended.

Sub. Name FS. Name




924.048 6.2.4 Objective and Policies Major Event Facilities

Support in part

Amend Policy 6.2.4b and its associated explanation regarding Major Event Facilities to recognise potential effects on the transport network.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Policy 6.2.4b to recognise potential effects on the transport network should be rejected as it;

• Reduces clarity and would lead to uncertainty in plan administration.

Title: Chapter 6 – Business Zones 1-7 Issue: 6.2.4 Objectives and Policies

Page 55 of 266

S42a Report

Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones

Policy and Objectives Shall versus Should submissions

Analysis: Policy and Objectives Shall versus Should submissions

Property Council New Zealand, McCracken Surveys Limited and Waikato Chamber of Commerce seek amendment to Objectives and Policies 6.2.1a) to f) ,6.2.2 a) to g), 6.2.3 a) and b), 6.2.4a) and b),by replacing 'shall' with 'should'. The submitters maintain that it is unreasonable to use the word shall in the context of policies, given the lack of permitted and controlled activities. The use of the word ‘shall’ provides too much discretion in which to decline resource consent, on the basis of it not being in accordance with policy. A development should be able to meet the intent of a policy without it being rigidly applied as a rule. Peter Findlay, Peter Findlay & Associates Ltd and Tram Lease Limited supports this submission for the reasons given. The submissions seek that various policies be amended by replacing the word "shall" with "should". It is recognised that there needs to be more balancing when considering objectives and policies and the use of ‘shall’ restricts the ability to achieve balance particularly when you have a number of potentially competing objectives and policies to meet when dealing with different resource management issues. The use of the word ‘should’ or ‘in general accordance’ however implies too much flexibility. It is therefore not a simple fix to merely replace one word with another as it will depend on the intent, wording and direction of the specific policy involved. In many instances the proposed ‘directive’ wording is considered appropriate to achieve the clear outcomes sought within the Plan and assist in achieving the purpose of the Act. For example, a fundamental premise and intention of the Business Chapter is that the distribution of services and activities in centres and commercial fringe zones shall not undermine the vitality and amenity of the Central City. It is thus appropriate that there is no ambiguity in this respect. It is therefore recommended that the submission be accepted in part in order that the policies be amended accordingly (refer Appendix B). Sub-regional Centres

Policies Deletion of Shall

6.2.1a The development 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 its role in serving an extensive catchment, whilst avoiding adverse effects on the functionality, vitality and amenity of the Central City.

No change. Retain ‘Shall’ as directive required when assessing adverse effects on , vitality and amenity of the Central City.

6.2.1b Development 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.

Delete shall, intent of policy still retained

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

Replace shall with ‘is’, intention of policy still retained

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

Delete shall, intent of policy still retained

Title: Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones Issue: Policy and Objectives Shall versus Should submissions

Page 56 of 266

6.2.1e The scale and nature of activities within suburban centres do not generate significant adverse effects on neighbouring amenity values

Delete shall, intent of policy still retained in re-wording.

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

Replace shall with ‘is’, intention of policy still retained

Suburban Centres

Policies

Deletion of shall

6.2.2a Suburban centres are to 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 and amenity values of the Central City.

Replace ‘shall’ with ‘are to’, retains intent of policy

6.2.2b Suburban centres 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.

Delete ‘shall’, no change to policy intent

6.2.2c Suburban centres act as focal points for local community development through the control of size, scale, built form and diversity of activity.

Delete ‘shall’, no change to policy intent

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

Replace ‘shall’ with ‘is’, no change to policy intent

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

Replace ‘shall’ with ‘is’, no change to policy intent

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.

No change

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

No change




Page 57 of 266

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

Delete ‘shall’, intent of policy retained

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.

Retain ‘shall’, as a clear unambiguous directive is required for managing significant adverse amenity effects.

6.2.3c

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

New policy

Major Events Facilities


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

Replace ‘shall’ with ‘can’- direction and intent of policy maintained

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

Replace ‘shall’ with ‘do’ and ‘are’, intent of policy is maintained.

Sub. Name FS. Name



Waikato Chamber of Commerce


Support in part

Replace the word 'shall' with 'must have regard to' in the Objectives and Policies of the Business 1-7 Zones.

Accept in Part The submission that seeks amendments to Objectives and Policies throughout the Business Chapter by deleting the word "shall", should be accepted in part as it;

• Provides better objectives and policies for the plans framework and workability.


FS249.017

Support Accept in Part FS249.017 is accepted because that part of 698.008 which it supports (notification) has been accepted in part.


938.059 6.2.1 Objective and Policies Sub-

Oppose Amend Policies 6.2.1a to 6.2.1f by replacing the word "shall"

Accept in Part The submission that seeks amendments to Policies 6.2.1a to 6.2.1f by deleting the word "shall", should be accepted in part as it;


Page 58 of 266

regional Centres with "should". Amend Policy

6.2.1f to encourage residential activity as part of appropriate mixed use.

• Provides better objectives and policies for the plans framework

and workability.

Andrew Yeoman FS2.012



FS242.001

Support Accept in Part FS242.001, FS265.022, FS277.001, is accepted because that part of 938.059 which it supports (notification) has been accepted in part.

Tram Lease Limited

FS265.022



FS277.001




Oppose Amend 6.2.1 Objective and Policies for Sub-regional Centres by replacing 'shall' with



Page 59 of 266

'should'. Amend 6.2.1f to generally encourage mixed use residential activity where appropriate.

• Provides better objectives and policies for the plans framework

and workability.



Oppose Amend Policies 6.2.2a to 6.2.2g to replace the word 'shall' with 'should'. Amend 6.2.2 to add a new policy to generally encourage mixed use residential activity where appropriate.

Accept in Part. The submission that seeks amendments to Objectives and Policies throughout the Business Chapter by deleting the word "shall", should be accepted in part as it;





FS242.001

Support Accept in Part FS242.001, FS277.001 are accepted because that part of 938.060 which they support (notification) have been accepted in part.

Peter John Findlay, Donna Margaret Findlay, Peter John Findlay & Donna Margaret Findlay as Trustees of the

FS277.001



Page 60 of 266

Findlay Family Trust, Riverside Oak Estate Ltd (Peter Findlay, Peter Findlay & Associates Ltd)



Oppose Amend Policies 6.2.2a to 6.2.2g by replacing the word "shall" with "should". Amend 6.2.2 by adding a new policy to encourage residential activity as part of appropriate mixed use.





Support in part


Accept in Part The submission that seeks amendments to Objectives and Policies throughout the Business Chapter by deleting the word "shall, should be accepted in part as it;




Peter John Findlay, Donna Margaret Findlay, Peter John Findlay & Donna Margaret Findlay as Trustees of the Findlay Family Trust, Riverside

FS242.001

Support Accept in Part FS242.001, FS277.001 are accepted because that part of 938.061 which they support (notification) have been accepted in part.


Page 61 of 266

Oak Estate Ltd (Baruchel Developments Ltd)


FS277.001




Support in part


Accept in Part The submission that seeks amendments to Objectives and Policies throughout the Business Chapter by deleting the word "shall”, should be accepted in part as it;




Oppose Amend Policies 6.2.4a and 6.2.4b by replacing the word 'shall' with 'should'.





Peter John FS242.001 Support Accept in Part FS242.001, FS277.001 are accepted because that part of 938.062 which they support


Page 62 of 266

Findlay, Donna Margaret Findlay, Peter John Findlay & Donna Margaret Findlay as Trustees of the Findlay Family Trust, Riverside Oak Estate Ltd (Baruchel Developments Ltd)

(notification) have been accepted in part.


FS277.001




Oppose Amend the Policies in 6.2.4 by replacing the word 'shall' with 'should'.




Page 63 of 266

S42a Report

Chapter 6 – Business 1 -7 Zones Rule 6.3 a) b) and d) Activity Status Table

Analysis: Rule 6.3 a) b) and d) Activity Status Table

Restricted Discretionary Activity Versus Permitted and Controlled for New Buildings The submissions below seek to amend Rule 6.3a) b) and d) either in full or as part (highlighted in bold) of a wider submission covering the status of activities within the Activity Table 6.3. These submissions request new building alterations, additions and accessory buildings are a Permitted activity subject to compliance with standards rather than a Restrict Discretionary Activity. The broad concern being that requiring a Restricted Discretionary consent is unreasonably onerous and would create unnecessary uncertainty for the development community. As can be evidenced from existing built form outcomes within Hamilton and other urban centres through New Zealand and abroad, when inappropriately located and/or designed, buildings have the potential to result in adverse effects that reduce social, cultural, environmental and economic wellbeing (e.g. by detracting from amenity values; compromising safety; and/or reducing environmental sustainability). Conversely, appropriately located and designed buildings have the potential to enhance social, cultural, environmental and economic wellbeing and, in doing so, remain consistent with 7(c) and 7(f) of the Act, which state that particular regard must be given to the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values and the quality of the environment. This approach supports the objectives and policies within the strategic framework of the Plan, the NZ Urban Design Protocol of which the Council is a signatory and the City Design Guide Vista. It is also consistent within the guiding principles of Future Proof and Development Outcomes sought within Chapter 6A of the PRPS. Permitted versus Restricted Discretionary Approach A permitted baseline approach whilst providing development certainty to specific stakeholders is often solely reliant on a tick box ‘quantitative assessment’ in which to manage external effects. A plan which focuses solely on management of external effects when considering development has been shown to be highly ineffective in enhancing good design outcomes and enhancing social, cultural, environmental and economic wellbeing on a wider scale. For example, a poorly designed, unarticulated building with little or no linkages to the wider street, once built, has long term negative consequences to the wider community that go well beyond the individual site alone. These wider social and environmental outcomes are usually lost in reliance on narrow focused or overly prescriptive rules. The ability to consider the wider effects resulting from new buildings is important for those areas of the city where new development is expected to deliver wider community outcomes especially important to the Central City and Business centres within the city. Controlled versus Restricted Discretionary Activity Status In relation to Controlled activities, the Ministry for Environment’s Quality Planning Website states that: Councils need to consider whether effects of a development up to the maximum permissible under the proposed activity could be adequately managed through the matters of control and resource conditions proposed. There are two reasons for this requirement:

1. To identify the total cumulative effects that may occur from resource use and development occurring as controlled activities

2. More importantly, it also refers to a need to consider whether the matters of control can be effectively addressed through resource consent conditions. Having regard to the above and for the purpose of this discussion, the key considerations become a) whether suitably ‘measurable’ assessment matters can be provided to respond to the matters of concern; and b) whether conditions of consent can be applied through a resource consent to avoid, remedy or mitigate more than minor adverse effects associated with the location and/or design of the proposed building.

Title: Chapter 6 – Business 1 -7 Zones Issue: Rule 6.3 a) b) and d) Activity Status Table

Page 64 of 266

Considering a hypothetical example where a building either through its bulk, scale or roof profile would be significantly out of character with the streetscape and surrounding properties a considerable redesign of the proposal may be required to achieve an acceptable outcome, potentially resulting in subsequent changes to building layout, open space provision, outdoor living space and so forth. Such changes in design would require further assessment of effects pursuant to the provisions of the Plan. Accordingly, in such a situation, the matters of control could not be considered to be effectively addressed through resource consent conditions. Rather, Council would require the ability to refuse the consent application and seek an amended proposal be submitted, therefore a restricted discretionary activity is the appropriate activity status to use. Notwithstanding the above it has been accepted that the Industrial Zone within the City is an example of where it is reasonable to rely on conditions of consent to manage matters of design and appearance. There is a clear expectation of the type and nature of land uses that occur within this zone in terms of their effects, the prevailing built form and resultant activities. It is not considered that there should be the same expectation in terms of pedestrian focus, active frontages and vibrant mixed uses which are among the expected strategic outcomes for other zones within the city for which a restricted discretionary approach is recommended. Having regard to the above, with the exception of the Industrial Zone, a restricted discretionary approach is therefore warranted as it will ensure that a full assessment of effects is undertaken when a new building is proposed, it will achieve the objectives and policies of the Plan and the purpose of the Act. For these reasons it is considered appropriate to retain Restricted Discretionary status for New Buildings, alterations and additions and accessory buildings, therefore no amendment is recommended.

Sub. Name FS. Name




309.005 6.3 Rules – Activity Status Table

Oppose Amend Rule 6.3 a), b) and d), request they be changed to a Permitted Activity across all Business Zones. Amend Rule 6.3 l), m) and n) regarding offices to replace the words "per site" with "per tenancy". Amend Rule 6.3hh) so parking lots and parking buildings within the Suburban Centre Core are a Permitted Activity. Amend Rule 6.3ll) so health-care services (250m2 - 1000m2)

Reject A restricted discretionary status for New Buildings, alterations and additions and accessory buildings will facilitate greater flexibility in negotiating improved urban design outcomes to ensure that a full assessment of effects is undertaken when a new building is proposed. This approach will enhance social, cultural, environmental and economic wellbeing and, in doing so, remain consistent with 7(c) and 7(f) of the Act.


Page 65 of 266

located at ground floor within the Suburban Centre Core are a Permitted Activity. Amend Rule 6.3xx) so residential apartments above ground floor in Suburban and Neighbourhood Centres are a Controlled Activity. Amend Rule 6.3zz) so that residential centres above ground floor level in Suburban Centres are a Restricted Discretionary Activity.


FS123.014



FS142.001

Support Reject Submissions FS142.001, FS247.001, FS285.005 further support amendments to the provisions Rule 6.3 a), b) and d) that this submission seeks. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions.


FS247.001

Support Reject


FS285.005

Support Reject



Support in part

Amend Rule 6.3 a), b) and c) so that new buildings, alterations and additions and minor works are Permitted Activities across all Business Zones.

Reject A restricted discretionary status for New Buildings, alterations and additions and accessory buildings will facilitate greater flexibility in negotiating improved urban design outcomes to ensure that a full assessment of effects is undertaken when a new building is proposed. This approach will enhance social, cultural, environmental and economic wellbeing and, in doing so,


Page 66 of 266

Amend Rule 6.3 e) by replacing the word "industry" with "Industrial activity", and amend the definition of "industrial activity" so that it is clear that warehouse and bulk storage are deemed light industry. Amend Rule 6.3 l), m) and n) so that Offices up to 500m2 are a Permitted Activity and Offices greater than 500m2 are a Restricted Discretionary Activity in the Business 4 Zone. Retain Rule 6.3 p) and k) but amend the definition of ancillary retail to allow for it to occupy up to 25% Retain Rule 6.3 s), t) and w). Amend Rule 6.3 and 6.3 d) aa), bb), cc), ee), jj), kk), ll), mm), oo), qq), rr) and ss) so that Wholesale and Trade Retail, accessory buildings, licensed premises, cafes, restaurants, Commercial places of assembly (cinemas and bowling alleys only), health-care services, Tertiary education and specialised training facilities are Permitted Activities in the Business 4 Zone.

remain consistent with 7(c) and 7(f) of the Act. Submissions FS237.004, FS239.015, FS249.026, FS265.002, FS278.011, FS285.009 further support amendments to the provisions Rule 6.3 a), b) and d) that this submission seeks. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions.

Kiwi Income Property Trust and Kiwi

FS123.002



Page 67 of 266

Property Holdings Limited


FS237.004

Support Reject Submissions FS237.004, FS239.015, FS249.026, FS265.002, FS278.011, FS285.009 further support amendments to the provisions Rule 6.3 a), b) and d) that this submission seeks. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions.


FS239.015

Support Reject


FS249.026

Support Reject

Tram Lease Limited

FS265.002

Support Reject

The New Zealand Racing Board (Speer Speer & Associates Ltd)

FS278.011

Support Reject


FS285.009

Support Reject



Oppose Amend Rule 6.3 a), b), d), m), ww) and xx) so that in the Business 1 Zone, ‘New Buildings’ are a Controlled Activity and ‘Accessory Buildings’, ‘Alterations and Additions’, ‘offices with a gross floor area of up to 500m2‘ and ‘apartments’ are a Permitted Activity. Amend the definition of ‘Industrial Activity’ in Appendix 1.7 by deleting ‘b) Laboratories and research facilities’ and



Page 68 of 266

include in the definition of ‘Service Industry’ or Amend Rule 6.3 Activity Status Table to provide for ‘Laboratories and Research Facilities’ as a Permitted Activity in the Business 1 Zone.



Oppose Amend Rules 6.3 a), b) and d) so that building works are permitted subject to compliance with standards. Amend Rule 6.3 to provide for Licensed Premises / Restaurant on Lot 1 DP 332074, Offices on Lot 2 DP 444949, and Childcare Facilities on Lot 2 DP 401042, as a Permitted Activities.



FS278.01

Support Reject FS278.01 is rejected because that part of 606.006 that it supports has been rejected.

Waikato Registered Master Builders Association Inc


Support in part

Amend Rules 6.3 a), b) and d) so that building works are permitted subject to compliance with standards.


Andrew Yeoman

FS2.01


The Suit Shop Limited

FS158.003

Support Reject Submissions FS158.003, FS198.006, FS249.018, FS285.048 further support amendments to the provisions Rule 6.3 a), b) and d) that this submission seeks. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions.

AMP Capital FS198.006 Support Reject


Page 69 of 266

Property Portfolio


FS249.018

Support Reject


FS285.048

Support Reject

Joan & Michael Forret


Support in part




FS198.007

Support Reject Submissions FS198.007, FS285.051 further support amendments to the provisions Rule 6.3 a), b) and d) that this submission seeks. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions.


FS285.051

Support Reject



Support in part

Amend Rules 6.3 a), b) and d) so that building works are permitted subject to compliance with standards. Amend Rule 6.3 Offices in the Business 1 zone to provide for multiple office activity within each site. Amend 6.3 to include "Integrated Business Park Development" in the Business 1 zone as a Restricted Discretionary Activity.



Page 70 of 266

Amend Rule 6.3 so that Licensed premises, restaurants and cafe’s are permitted activities within the Business 1 zone.


FS123.018

Oppose Accept FS123.018 is accepted because that part of 630.002 which it opposes (notification) has been rejected


FS213.002



FS213.004

Support Reject


FS278.005

Support Reject


FS285.218

Support Reject

Shona Betty Shaw (Murray V. Shaw Builders Ltd)


Support in part



AMP Capital FS198.008 Support Reject Submissions FS198.008 further support amendments to the provisions Rule


Page 71 of 266

Property Portfolio

6.3 a), b) and d) that this submission seeks. This submission has been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions.

PL & LJ Middlemiss Family Trust


Support in part

Amend Rule 6.3 a), b) and d) so that building works are permitted subject to compliance with standards.



FS198.009

Support Reject Submissions FS198.009, FS285.087 further support amendments to the provisions Rule 6.3 a), b) and d) that this submission seeks. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions.


FS285.087

Support Reject



Oppose Amend Rules 6.3 a), b) and d) so that new buildings and Apartments above ground floor are Controlled Activities, and alterations and additions and accessory buildings are Permitted Activities. Amend Rule 6.3 e) by replacing the word "industry" with "Industrial activity", and amend the definition of "industrial activity" so that it is clear that warehouse and bulk storage are deemed light industry. Amend Rules 6.3 l), m) and n) so that Offices up to 500m2 are a Permitted Activity and Offices greater than 500m2 are a Discretionary Activity.



Page 72 of 266

Amend Rules 6.3 r), aa) and bb) so that Retail up to 399m2, licences premises up to 200m2, restaurants and cafes up to 200m2 are Permitted Activities in Neighbourhood Centres. Amend Rules 6.3 s) and t) so that retail activities greater than 399m2 are Permitted Activities in Suburban Centres. Amend Rules 6.3 and 6.3 f) so that Wholesale and Trade Retail and light industry are Permitted Activities in the Business 4 Zone.

Andrew Yeoman

FS2.012

Support Reject Is not related to matters in 938.064 relating to Rules 6.3 a) b) and d).


FS123.008



FS158.004

Support Reject Submissions FS158.004, FS198.01, FS212.002, FS242.001, FS265.023, FS269.002, FS277.001, FS278.008, FS285.097 further support amendments to the provisions Rule 6.3 a), b) and d) that this submission seeks. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions.


FS198.01

Support Reject

Jenco Enterprise Limited - (Speer Speer &

FS212.002

Support Reject


Page 73 of 266

Associates Ltd)


FS242.001

Support Reject

Tram Lease Limited

FS265.023

Support Reject

Dinsdale Tavern 1994 Limited

FS269.002

Support Reject


FS277.001

Support Reject

The New Zealand Racing

FS278.008

Support Reject


Page 74 of 266

Board (Speer Speer & Associates Ltd)


FS285.097

Support Reject

Bunnings Ltd 968.001 6.3 Rules – Activity Status Table

Oppose Amend Rule 6.3 to provide for "building improvement centres" as a Permitted Activity in the Business 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 zones. Amend Rule 6.3 so that new buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings in all Business zones, Central City zones and Industrial zones are Permitted Activities.


Raymond John BIRD (BIRDS PLANT & EQUIPMENT TRUST)

FS20.001

Support Reject Submissions FS20.001 and FS285.114 further support amendments to the provisions Rule 6.3 a), b) and d) that this submission seeks. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions.


FS285.114

Support Reject



Oppose Amend Rule 6.3 a), b) and d) so that building works are permitted across all zones subject to compliance with standards. Amend Rule 6.3 to provide for apartments at ground floor on Lot 3 DP 444645 as restricted discretionary activities.



Page 75 of 266

DNZ Property

Fund Limited (DNZ)

FS285.119

Support Reject FS285.119 has been rejected because that part of 977.008 that is supports has been rejected.



Oppose Amend Rule 6.3 a), b) and d) so that building works are permitted across all zones subject to compliance with standards. Amend Rule 6.3 to provide for apartments at ground floor on Lot 3 DP 444645 as restricted discretionary activities.



FS285.121

Support Reject FS285.121 has been rejected because that part of 984.008 that is supports has been rejected.



Support in part

Amend Rules 6.3 a), b) and d) so that building works are permitted subject to compliance with standards. Amend Rule 6.3 Offices in the Business 1 zone to provide for multiple office activity within each site. Amend 6.3 to include "Integrated Business Park Development" in the Business 1 zone as a Restricted Discretionary Activity. Amend Rule 6.3 so that Licensed premises, restaurants and cafe’s are permitted activities, up to 400m2 within the Business 1 zone. Amend Rules 6.3 p) to hh) to provide for an integrated or comprehensive retail activity across a site like Home Straight



Page 76 of 266

Park. Amend Rules 6.3 w) and x) to provide for yard based retail activities within the Business 1 zone. Amend Rule 6.3 to clarify that yard based retail activities include new vehicle sales yard activities and associated support activities. Amend Rule 6.3 to provide for commercial Places of Assembly as permitted activities within the Business 1 zone and amend the definition for Places of Assembly to include ‘commercial’.


FS123.023



FS213.001

Support Reject Submissions FS213.001,FS213.003 and FS278.004 further support amendments to the provisions Rule 6.3 a), b) and d) that this submission seeks. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions.


FS213.003

Support Reject

The New Zealand Racing Board (Speer Speer &

FS278.004

Support Reject


Page 77 of 266

Associates Ltd)

Claudelands Property Trust


Oppose Amend Rule 6.3 a) to provide for new buildings to be permitted activities subject to compliance with standards. Amend 6.3 bb) to permit restaurants in the Business 7 Zone, subject to appropriate standards. Amend Rule 6.3 oo) to permit childcare centres in the Business 2 Zone.



FS158.005



FS285.123

Support Reject


FS286.044



FS123.025


Tram Lease Limited

FS265.01

Support Reject


FS285.134

Support Reject


Page 78 of 266

Christopher Murray Earl


Support in part




FS285.14

Support Reject Submissions FS285.14, further support amendments to the provisions Rule 6.3 a), b) and d) that this submission seeks. This submission has been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions.

Tram Lease Limited


Oppose Amend Rule 6.3 a), b) and d) to provide for new buildings, alterations and additions to buildings, and accessory buildings, as a permitted activity. Amend Rule 6.3 e) and f) to provide for light industry as a permitted activity and industry as a restricted discretionary activity. Amend Rule 6.3 ff) and gg) to provide for drive-through services as a permitted activity. Amend Rule 6.3 oo) to provide for childcare facilities as a permitted activity.



FS285.146


Lynden Earl 1168.003 6.3 Rules – Activity Status Table

Support in part


Reject A restricted discretionary status for New Buildings, alterations and additions and accessory buildings will facilitate greater flexibility in negotiating improved urban design outcomes to ensure that a full assessment of effects is undertaken when a new building is proposed. This approach will enhance


Page 79 of 266

social, cultural, environmental and economic wellbeing and, in doing so, remain consistent with 7(c) and 7(f) of the Act.


FS285.155


McDonald's Restaurants (NZ) Ltd


Support in part

Amend Rule 6.3 so that 'Drive-Through Restaurants are a Restricted Discretionary activity in Business 1 to 6 Zones and to allow for new buildings and additions and alterations as Permitted Activities.



FS20.002

Support Reject Submissions FS20.002 and FS285.164 further support amendments to the provisions Rule 6.3 a), b) and d) that this submission seeks. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions.


FS285.164

Support Reject



Oppose Amend Rules 6.3 a), b) and xx) so that new buildings and Apartments above ground floor are Controlled Activities, and alterations and additions and accessory buildings are Permitted Activities. Amend Rule 6.3 e) by replacing the word "industry" with "Industrial activity", and amend the definition of "industrial activity" so that it is clear that warehouse and bulk storage are deemed light industry.



Page 80 of 266

Amend Rules 6.3 l), m) and n) so that Offices up to 500m2 are a Permitted Activity and Offices greater than 500m2 are a Discretionary Activity. Amend Rules 6.3 r), aa) and bb) so that Retail up to 399m2, licences premises up to 200m2, restaurants and cafes up to 200m2 are Permitted Activities in Neighbourhood Centres. Amend Rules 6.3 s) and t) so that retail activities greater than 399m2 are Permitted Activities in Suburban Centres. Amend Rules 6.3 and 6.3 f) so that Wholesale and Trade Retail and light industry are Permitted Activities in the Business 4 Zone.


FS285.172

Support Reject

Commercial and Industrial Consultants Ltd


Oppose Oppose Rule 6.3 as a restricted discretionary activity status gives no certainty to property owner or tenants. Outcomes can be achieved by having "achievable standards".




Oppose Amend Rules 6.3 Rules a), b) and d) so new buildings, alterations and additions and accessory buildings are Permitted Activities. Amend Rule 6.3aa)

Reject A restricted discretionary status for New Buildings, alterations and additions and accessory buildings will facilitate greater flexibility in negotiating improved urban design outcomes to ensure that a full assessment of effects is undertaken when a new building is proposed. This approach will enhance social, cultural, environmental and economic wellbeing and, in doing so,


Page 81 of 266

and bb) so that licensed premises and cafes/restaurants less than 200m2 gross floor area within the Business 5 Zone are Permitted Activities

remain consistent with 7(c) and 7(f) of the Act.


FS285.188




Support in part

Amend Rule 6.3 so that Supermarkets are permitted activities in Business Zones 1, and 3 to 7 and to allow new buildings and additions and alterations as permitted activities.



FS20.003

Support Reject Submissions FS20.003, FS237.016 and FS285.193 further support amendments to the provisions Rule 6.3 a), b) and d) that this submission seeks. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions.


FS123.02

Support Reject FS123.02 is not related to New Buildings, alterations and additions


FS237.016

Support Reject


FS285.193

Support Reject

City Limits Childcare Co Ltd and Claudelands


Oppose Amend Rule 6.3a to provide for new buildings to be permitted activities subject to compliance

Reject A restricted discretionary status for New Buildings, alterations and additions and accessory buildings will facilitate greater flexibility in negotiating improved urban design outcomes to ensure that a full assessment of effects is


Page 82 of 266

Property Trust with bulk and location

standards managing effects (including urban design) according to location. Amend Rule 6.3bb) so that restaurants in the Business 7 Zone are Permitted Activities. Amend Rule 6.3oo) so that childcare centres in the Business 2 Zone are Permitted Activities.

undertaken when a new building is proposed. This approach will enhance social, cultural, environmental and economic wellbeing and, in doing so, remain consistent with 7(c) and 7(f) of the Act.


FS285.203

Support Reject Submissions FS285.203 further support amendments to the provisions Rule 6.3 a), b) and d) that this submission seeks. This submission has been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions.


FS286.024



Page 83 of 266

S42a Report

Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones Rule 6.3 - Industry

Analysis: Rule 6.3 - Industry

The following analysis relates to submissions received on various Industrial Activities in Rule 6.3 Activity Status Table. The relevant submission and summary point is highlighted in bold in the table below. The submissions will be grouped where possible according to the Industrial Activity submitted on. AMP Capital Property Portfolio (312.005), Property Council New Zealand (938.064) and McCracken Surveys Limited (1206.066) seek amendment to Rule 6.3 e) by replacing the word "industry" with "Industrial activity", and amendments to the definition of "industrial activity" so that it is clear that warehouse and bulk storage are deemed light industry. The wording error highlighted is accepted, Rule 6.3 e) should be amended to ready ‘Industrial Activity’ for clarity and consistency for administration of the Plan. In terms of the second submission point, amendment is sought to clarify the status of’ warehouse and bulk storage’ as ‘light industrial’. The present definition as notified for Light Industrial is as follows; Means manufacturing, storage, service and repair activities which do not involve the use of heavy machinery, are carried out indoors and are unlikely to give rise to significant adverse effects beyond the site and are generally of a small scale. They include printing works, furniture manufacture, car repairs, light engineering, tradesmen’s depots and the like. Given the definition for ‘Industrial Activities’ is quite generic and all encompassing and includes bulk storage and warehousing amongst ‘all types of processing’ it is acknowledged that there is a need for better distinction and improved clarity for warehouse and bulk storage. It is therefore proposed a revised definition for ‘light industrial’ as follows; Means manufacturing, warehouse, bulk storage, service and repair activities which do not involve the use of heavy machinery, are carried out indoors and are unlikely to give rise to significant adverse effects beyond the site and are generally of a small scale. They include printing works, furniture manufacture, car repairs, light engineering, tradesmen’s depots and the like. Hill Laboratories Limited (539.003) seek amendment to Rule 6.3 Activity Status Table to provide for ‘Laboratories and Research Facilities’ as a Permitted Activity in the Business 1 Zone. The submitter contends that the nature of the testing laboratories and research activities are considered to align with the definition of ‘Service Industry’ which is provided for as a Permitted Activity in the Business 1 Zone, and should be encouraged to locate in these areas as an alternative to the Industrial Zone, given the proximity to the City Centre in which their activities occur. The type of activity described by the submitter is for an analytical testing laboratory which supplies a broad range of laboratory tests to domestic and international markets with three major testing areas: Agriculture, Environmental and Food. It is considered that this activity is best provided for under the existing definition of Research and Innovation activities which is described as follows; Includes all activities involved in the research, development, manufacture and commercial application of advanced technology including, but not limited to, agritechnology, biotechnology, chemical processes, food technology, laser physics, information technology, energy technology, transportation technology, manufacturing technology, medical technology, materials technology, telecommunications and data management and processing, soil, air and water research, infrastructure systems and management, and activities required to serve the aforementioned activities It is acknowledged that the B1 Business zoning is well suited to this type of activity given the more permissive activity status for Industrial uses and light Industrial activities. The above definition does provide for a broad range of activities from laser physics to energy technology and thus the measurable external effects will largely depend on the precise type and nature of the organization involved. On this basis given the type of ‘research activities’ possible and the potential for wider ranging external effects, it is considered appropriate that a Restricted Discretionary activity status is conferred on both Business 1 for Research and Innovation activities. Given the above, the proposed amendment is accepted in part with the consequential changes to Rule 6.3, to include

Title: Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones Issue: Rule 6.3 - Industry

Page 84 of 266

Research and Innovation activities as an RD activity within the Business 1 Zone as shown in Appendix B. Porter Developments Ltd (1153.004), Property Council New Zealand (938.064), Tram Lease Ltd (1163.006) and McCracken Surveys Limited (1206.066) seek amendment to Rule 6.3 e) and f) to provide for light industry as a permitted activity and industry as a Restricted Discretionary activity within Business 4 zone (Large Format Retail). The submitter reasons that given the above, light industrial provides for bulk storage and warehousing which given the extensive Business 4 zoning around the Te-Rapa North Sub Regional Centre should also be provided for as a permitted activity within this zone to compliment the dwindling demand from just large format retail operators. In order to address the above submission, consequential amendments to the Policy and Objectives of this chapter have been made in response to other submissions. The proposed new Objective is worded as follows; Objective 6.2.5 (Proposed) 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 and the function and amenity of the lower order centres in the business hierarchy are not undermined. One of the primary reasons for the Central City/CBD receiving a declining share of new retail activities over the last 10 years is due to the ad-hoc growth of larger format retail operators establishing in non CBD locations, where historically such activities have been free to locate under the permissive provisions of the former Operative District Plan. In addition, it is often the case that such unconstrained, edge of centre locations with high profile and good access are preferred locations to the CBD. These proposed ‘legacy’ zones are a pragmatic response to recognise, provide for and more properly ‘manage’ the character of emerging large retail developments in Hamilton. To this extent it is considered reasonable to define a clear preference for large format retail over other lighter industrial activities that could occur to the detriment of the zones purpose. Furthermore it is also considered that there is adequate Industrial Zoning in the vicinity of the Business 4 zone, located along Major Arterial corridors and to the north of the Te-Rapa North Sub Regional Centre to fully accommodate warehouse, bulk storage or other light industrial activities. A discretionary status for lighter industrial activities within this zone, maintains this necessary commercial distinction and is not considered unduly onerous. For this reason the proposed amendment is not accepted. New Zealand Fire Service Commission (1283.002) seek amendment to Rule 6.3i) so that 'Emergency Service Facilities' in the Events Facilities Fringe Zone, Suburban Centre Core Zone, Suburban Centre Fringe Zone are Restricted Discretionary Activities. The submitter contends that the establishment and operation of fire stations, as well as the operation of fire-fighting appliances throughout Hamilton City is important in assisting the achievement of the purpose of the RMA. As such, an RD status is appropriate as the effects are known and can be limited to height and noise. The definition for Emergency Services within the plan is as follows; Means those facilities of organisations which are responsible for the safety and physical welfare of people or property in the community, and includes fire, ambulance and police stations. It is accepted in the Objectives and Policies that suburban centres provide for a range of diverse land uses that serve the community. Much like for Health Care Services up to 1000m2 gfa, it is considered reasonable to provide for Emergency Services as a Restricted Discretionary activity within Suburban Centres with matters such as noise, building bulk and height appropriately managed through a restricted discretionary assessment and the relevant rules of the City-wide chapter. However, in terms of the requested amendment for Events facilities zone, it is clear from the Objectives and Policies that this zone is limited in scale and geographical location and is primarily for complimentary commercial activities. Given this, the limited area of the Business 2 zone, and likely conflicts that would occur with events activities, it is considered unlikely that Emergency Facilities would choose locate here. On this basis a Discretionary assessment is considered appropriate. The relief sought is therefore accepted in part.


Page 85 of 266

Sub. Name FS. Name





Support in part

Amend Rule 6.3 a), b) and c) so that new buildings, alterations and additions and minor works are Permitted Activities across all Business Zones. Amend Rule 6.3 e) by replacing the word "industry" with "Industrial activity", and amend the definition of "industrial activity" so that it is clear that warehouse and bulk storage are deemed light industry. Amend Rule 6.3 l), m) and n) so that Offices up to 500m2 are a Permitted Activity and Offices greater than 500m2 are a Restricted Discretionary Activity in the Business 4 Zone. Retain Rule 6.3 p) and k) but amend the definition of ancillary retail to allow for it to occupy up to 25% Retain Rule 6.3 s), t) and w). Amend Rule 6.3 and 6.3 d) aa), bb), cc), ee), jj), kk), ll), mm), oo), qq), rr) and ss) so that Wholesale and Trade Retail, accessory buildings, licensed premises, cafes, restaurants, Commercial places of assembly (cinemas and bowling alleys only), health-care services,

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3e) by replacing the word “industry” with Industrial Activity is accepted as it would improve;

• Clarity of the Plan for users Recommend amendments to Rule 6.3a) are contained in Appendix B (refer 312.005) The submission point seeking amendments to the definition for light industry is accepted in part as it would improve;

• Clarity of the Plan for users Recommend amendments to Definition in 1.7 are contained in Appendix B (refer 312.005)


Page 86 of 266

Tertiary education and specialised training facilities are Permitted Activities in the Business 4 Zone.


FS123.002

Oppose Reject FS123.002 is not related to the matters contained in 312.005


FS237.004

Support Reject FS237.004 is not related to the matters contained in 312.005


FS239.015

Support Accept in Part FS239.015 is accepted because that part of 312.005 which it supports (notification) has been accepted in part.


FS249.026


Tram Lease Limited

FS265.002



FS278.011



FS285.009

Support Accept in Part FS285.009 is accepted because that part of 312.005 which it supports (notification) has been accepted in part



Oppose Amend Rule 6.3 a), b), d), m), ww) and xx) so that in the Business 1 Zone, ‘New Buildings’ are a Controlled Activity and ‘Accessory Buildings’, ‘Alterations and Additions’, ‘offices with a gross floor area of up to 500m2‘ and ‘apartments’ are a Permitted Activity. Amend the definition of ‘Industrial

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 by providing for Laboratories and research facilities as Permitted activities in Business 1 zone is rejected as ;

• The intensity and potential nature of use does not justify assessment as a permitted activity.


Page 87 of 266

Activity’ in Appendix 1.7 by deleting ‘b) Laboratories and research facilities’ and include in the definition of ‘Service Industry’ or Amend Rule 6.3 Activity Status Table to provide for ‘Laboratories and Research Facilities’ as a Permitted Activity in the Business 1 Zone.



Oppose Amend Rules 6.3 a), b) and xx) so that new buildings and Apartments above ground floor are Controlled Activities, and alterations and additions and accessory buildings are Permitted Activities. Amend Rule 6.3 e) by replacing the word "industry" with "Industrial activity", and amend the definition of "industrial activity" so that it is clear that warehouse and bulk storage are deemed light industry. Amend Rules 6.3 l), m) and n) so that Offices up to 500m2 are a Permitted Activity and Offices greater than 500m2 are a Discretionary Activity. Amend Rules 6.3 r), aa) and bb) so that Retail up to 399m2, licences premises up to 200m2, restaurants and cafes up to 200m2 are Permitted Activities in Neighbourhood Centres.


• Clarity of the Plan for users Recommend amendments to Rule 6.3a) are contained in Appendix B (refer 938.064)


Page 88 of 266

Amend Rules 6.3 s) and t) so that retail activities greater than 399m2 are Permitted Activities in Suburban Centres. Amend Rules 6.3 and 6.3 f) so that Wholesale and Trade Retail and light industry are Permitted Activities in the Business 4 Zone.




FS123.008

Oppose Reject FS123.008 is not related to matters contained in 938.064


FS158.004



FS198.01


Jenco Enterprise Limited - (Speer Speer & Associates Ltd)

FS212.002


Peter John Findlay, Donna Margaret Findlay, Peter John Findlay & Donna Margaret Findlay as Trustees of the Findlay Family Trust, Riverside Oak Estate Ltd (Baruchel

FS242.001



Page 89 of 266

Developments Ltd)

Tram Lease Limited

FS265.023



FS269.002



FS277.001



FS278.008



FS285.097




Support in part

Amend Rule 6.3 in Business 4 Zone so that: Light industry is a Permitted Activity. Offices less than 250m2, and Licensed premises, Restaurants and Cafes less than 200m2, and Visitor Accommodation, are Controlled Activities. Transport Depot (Goods),

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to 6..3 e) and f) to provide for light industry as a permitted activity and industry as a restricted discretionary activity in Business 4 zone should be rejected as;




Page 90 of 266

Offices 250-500m2, Retail 150-399m2, Commercial places of assembly (cinemas and bowling alleys only), Health Care Services up to 1000m2, Childcare facilities, and Tertiary education and specialised training facilities, are Restricted Discretionary Activities. Cafes, restaurants, and licensed premises 200m2 gross floor area or greater are Discretionary Activities.



FS123.025


Tram Lease Limited

FS265.01



FS285.134


Tram Lease Limited 1163.006 6.3 Rules – Activity Status Table

Oppose Amend Rule 6.3 a), b) and d) to provide for new buildings, alterations and additions to buildings, and accessory buildings, as a permitted activity. Amend Rule 6.3 e) and f) to provide for light industry as a permitted activity and industry as a restricted discretionary activity. Amend Rule 6.3 ff) and gg) to

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to 6..3 e) and f) to provide for light industry as a permitted activity and industry as a restricted discretionary activity in Business 4 zone should be rejected as;





Page 91 of 266

provide for drive-through services as a permitted activity. Amend Rule 6.3 oo) to provide for childcare facilities as a permitted activity.


FS285.146

Support Reject The submission point that FS285.146 supports has been rejected for the reasons given above.





• Clarity of the Plan for users Recommend amendments to Rule 6.3a) are contained in Appendix B (refer 312.005) The submission point seeking amendments to the definition for light industry is accepted in part as it would improve;

• Clarity of the Plan for users Recommend amendments to Definition in 1.7 are contained in Appendix B (refer 1206.66)


Page 92 of 266



FS285.172

Support Accept in Part The submission point that FS285.172 supports has been accepted in part for the reasons given above.

New Zealand Fire Service Commission


Support in part

Amend Rule 6.3i) so that 'Emergency Service Facilities' in the Events Facilities Fringe Zone, Suburban Centre Core Zone, Suburban Centre Fringe Zone are Restricted Discretionary Activities.

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3i requesting 'Emergency Service Facilities' in the Events Facilities Fringe Zone, Suburban Centre Core Zone, Suburban Centre Fringe Zone are Restricted Discretionary Activities is accepted in part as it would;

• Better achieve the objectives and policies of the Plan Recommend amendments to Rule 6.3i) are contained in Appendix B (refer 1283.002)


Page 93 of 266

S42a Report

Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones Rule 6.3 Activity Status Table - Offices

Analysis: Rule 6.3 Activity Status Table - Offices

The submission points below relate to Office thresholds and activity status’s as proposed for Business Zones 1 -7 in the Plan. Activity status in the plan reflects the suitability of the activity within each business zone. Activities identified as discretionary require closer scrutiny of effects and activities with the status of non-complying generally are not appropriate. The class of non-complying activity indicates that activity is better suited operating/trading at a different level of the Business Centre Hierarchy or location within a business centre because of the nature and scale of effects or because of a policy consideration. Floor area thresholds (assessed by gross floor area or gfa) further differentiate between the scale, character and intensity of the activity and its potential adverse effects on the receiving environment across all Business Zones. The Plan provisions as notified seek to encourage larger scale office activities (>500m2 gfa) to locate in higher order centres where office environments are provided for, in particular the Central City and to a lesser extent Suburban Centres. This is in conformity with the Purpose 6.1g), Objectives 6.2.1 and specifically 6.2.2a of the Plan that seek to maintain the primacy of the Central City by managing adverse affects on its functionality, vitality and amenity values. Policy 6.15 of the PRPS directs plans to recognise and enhance the Hamilton Central Business District as the primary retail, economic, business and social centre of the Future Proof area. The following analysis will break down the relief sought under the Offices category Rule 6.3k) –o) in Table 6.3. The summary relief sought is highlighted in bold in the summary. Rototuna Ventures Ltd (309.005) ,AMP Capital Property Portfolio (312.005), Chartwell Investments Ltd (355.003), Hill Laboratories Limited (539.003), Waikato Regional Council(714.031), Property Council New Zealand(938.064), Hamilton JV Investment Company Ltd ( 1170.025 ) and McCracken Surveys Limited (1206.066) have all sought a similar amendment that seeks to provide for offices as a permitted activity < 500m2 and discretionary for >500m2 in all Business zones and specifically for Business 1 and 4 zones. Further submissions from Progressive Enterprises Limited, Porter Developments Limited, Property Council New Zealand and DNZ Property Fund Limited (DNZ) are in support of the proposed relief and state that multiple office tenancies within one business site provides for an efficient use of business land and supports employment opportunities within Hamilton City. Whilst Kiwi Income Property Trust and Kiwi Property Holdings Limited (FS123.014) advise that the amendments sought do not support the adoption of a hierarchy of commercial centres throughout Hamilton; and do not adequately recognise the primary social, economic and cultural role and importance of the CBD. The overarching purpose of the Plan is to encourage the establishment of office and retail activities back to the Central City. The retention and encouragement of office activities into the Central City is seen as critically important in maintaining a sizeable day time population to support retail and other activities which provide the agglomeration benefits of supporting social and economic wellbeing. The approach now firmly recognized by the Courts in that centres function as community focal points and that the community’s best interests are served by a well distributed pattern of commercial centres that allow not only provide for efficiencies and certainty in terms of land use and infrastructure investment but also for the social values of community wellbeing. The plan provisions seek to support the centres based approach by directing larger scale offices (>500m2) towards the Central City while having a stricter non-complying activity status for the remainder of all business zones with the exception of Business Zone 1 ‘Commercial Fringe’. The Business 1 zone supports existing established offices located on the periphery of centres and provides for larger format offices as part of a full discretionary assessment in which it is required to demonstrate that they would not undermine the vitality and wellbeing of other centres within the hierarchy. A discretionary activity assessment is then required for medium size offices (250-500m2) within lower order Sub- regional and Suburban centres in the business hierarchy. Both a restricted

Title: Business 1-7 Zones Issue: 6.3 Activity status table - Offices

Page 94 of 266

discretionary and discretionary approach requires a Centres Viability Assessment to be undertaken to more fully assess the impact of office development on a site by site basis. This type of assessment (set out in Appendix 1.5.20) requires the applicant to demonstrate that the scale and trading format of the activity is appropriate for the location, having regard to the hierarchy of business centres, maintaining the primacy of the Central City and the opportunity for development within higher order centres. Such an assessment for offices wishing to locate out of centre is notably lacking in the current Operative Plan and has led to the decentralized pattern in Hamilton’s office market and to undermining the growth of the Central City. Expert advice from Mr Osborne of Property Economics regarding the dispersal of offices away from the city is quite clear in the following paragraph of his evidence;

8.6 The submission regarding office activity status on Te Rapa businesses 4 land is in contrast to the primacy of the CBD and the economic value that this centre affords the Regional

economy. As previously stated for Hamilton to be a competitive, efficient, and productive economy it is essential the CBD reflects this. 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.

This concern in leakage of office activity away from the CBD is further acknowledged within Paragraph 6.19 and Table 1 (introduction refers) of Mr Osborne’s evidence;

6.19 The potential level of these agglomeration benefits, in productivity terms for the City, are significant. Table 1 below illustrates the changes in Employment activity within the

Hamilton CBD proportional to Hamilton City over the past 6 years. It shows that total district EC’ s (Employment Count) rose by 1% over the past 6 years while the town centre has

experienced a drop of 15% over the same period. This shift alone represents a potential fall in productivity of $22.5m per annum (given the relocation or loss sectors this figure represents

the increase in productivity for CBD based businesses based on the re-accommodation of these workers in the CBD ). The potential migration of business activity from the Hamilton CBD

and appropriate centres will continue to undermine Hamilton’s GDP and overall competitiveness. In my opinion such a movement is inconsistent with providing for the economic wellbeing

of the community and directly detracts from the potential efficiencies of this activity being consolidated within the CBD.

In addition, analysis of Statistics New Zealand Business Demography figures across Hamilton (Introduction refers) undertaken by Property Economics confirms that while total employment in Hamilton has expanded between 2000 and 2012, a permissive planning framework has contributed to significant employment growth and dispersal to outside of the Central City Census Area Unit into other parts of the city. For example, employment growth in the Te Rapa Census Area Unit between 2000 and 2012 was significant, increasing by 88%, while its proportional share of all jobs in Hamilton also increased from 13% to 18%. Growth in jobs for the rest of the City increased by 34% while its proportional share of jobs only grew by 1%. Conversely, total jobs growth in the Hamilton Central Census Area Unit grew by only 5%, while its proportional share of all jobs in Hamilton actually decreased from 31% to 25% of all jobs. Given this clear trend, the amendments sought for a more permissive office status within the Business 1 and 4 zones is rejected. No amendments are proposed.


Page 95 of 266

Parkwood Trade Centre Ltd (606.006) seek a more permissive recognition of larger scale offices on an individual site by site or spot zoning basis The New Zealand Racing Board (Speer Speer & Associates Ltd) (278.001) support this submission. .Policy 6.15 of the PRPS advises that commercial development should occur “predominantly” in the centres identified in Table 6-3. This policy is an important part of Future Proof implementation in terms of supporting existing commercial centres, encouraging development that supports existing infrastructure and recognising Hamilton CBD as the primary commercial centre for the sub-region. Having exceptions to this policy would be likely to result in ad hoc development contrary to the centres-based approach. No change is therefore proposed. Tainui Group Holdings Ltd (913.037) and 490 Grey Ltd as Trustee of the BDL Commercial Investment Trust and Homes for the Living Ltd (1002.001) seek the removal of floor area thresholds in their entirety. The submitters contend that retail trends for each tier will change and evolve over time and the complexity and level of control will result in an administrative and compliance burden. The specific submission does not mention office thresholds specifically. Offices greater than 500m² gfa are generally not provided for in the Business Zones with a preference for larger scale offices to locate in higher order centres under a consenting strategy, and be discouraged from locations in lower order centres. Supporting evidence drawn on during preparation of the Plan (Property Economics Hamilton Suburban Centres Review ,August 2011 refers) has shown that the majority of office sizes in lower order centres tend to support employees of 10 or fewer which reflects the permitted baseline for offices up to 250m2, based on an acknowledged gfa of 25m2 per employee. As part of refining the plan provisions, further advice has been given from Property Economics on both office and retail threshold distribution to underpin the centres based approach. It is clear from both the economic and retail evidence that it is appropriate to manage adverse distributional effects from the Central City and that a distinction in activity status for larger scale office activities outside the centre is justified in order to safeguard the wider community wellbeing of the city. Mr Osborne’s evidence in Para, 7.8 is particularly telling in this regard; 7.8 .....Given the level of benefits attributable to this effective density increase it is important that the rules around commercial office development are firmly held. Approximately 70% of

Hamilton City’s office businesses employ 20 or more people. Although a proportion of these businesses would still locate in premises less than 500sqm it is essential that as high a proportion of the

remaining levels of office growth is accommodated within the core CBD. As such it is appropriate that the restriction concerning office development over 500sqm is retained. Any material deviation

from this has the very real potential to divert commercial growth from the Hamilton CBD and continue to undermine its potential to benefit the wider economy.

In the absence of any contrary evidence to support the above amendments, it is considered that the relief sought is inconsistent with the objectives and policies of the Proposed District Plan, Future Proof and the PRPS Table 6.3. No change is recommended. Rototuna Ventures Ltd (309.005) seek amendment to Rules 6.3 l), m) and n) for Offices to be classified per tenancy. No reason is given. It is considered that a per tenancy classification would be too permissive for larger offices to establish on large amalgamated sites and therefore it is recommended that Office provisions be kept ‘per site’ in order to more efficiently manage the consequences of decentralization of office activity away from the Central City. In the absence of any evidence to support the above amendments requested it is considered that the relief sought is inconsistent with the objectives of the Proposed District Plan, Future Proof and


Page 96 of 266

the PRPS Table 6.3. No change is recommended. Tainui Group Holdings Ltd (1199.007) seek an update to the plan to more accurately reflect the office allowance of the most recent resource consent (ref: 010.2012.6723.001) up to 11,350m2 gfa at The Base. Rule 6.3 o) recognises the scale of the original office entitlements granted through resource consent in July 2011. Specific provision was made for office development which totals 9,300m² gfa, with a ten year period available to give effect to this consent. In December 2012 a revised consent (010.2012.6723.001) was issued granting consent for 11,350m2 gfa office space. At this time some consideration was given within the officer report to the policies and objectives of the Proposed Plan and consequential effects of the additional office floor space on the CBD. It is considered appropriate for plan provisions to reflect this most recent consent and appropriate for land at The Base zoned Business 1 (commercial fringe) to also retain a non-complying status for offices over 500m² gfa given that already consented under this extent consent. It is therefore accepted that this Rule 6.3 o) be amended accordingly to reflect the most recent consented position as per track changes in Appendix B. Greg Gimblett (Church Road Developments Ltd) (630.002) and Hamilton Homezone Ltd and Ingham Group(1170.025) both seek a more permissive set of provisions to provide for offices as part of an “Integrated Business Park Development" in the Business 1 zone along with the adoption of a comprehensive development plan mechanism as a Restricted Discretionary Activity. Kiwi Income Property Trust and Kiwi Property Holdings Limited (FS123.018) oppose this submission on the basis it would undermine the business hierarchy while Eastside Investment Limited - (Speer Speer & Associates Ltd) and Eastside Investment Limited - (Speer Speer & Associates Ltd), The New Zealand Racing Board (Speer Speer & Associates Ltd) and DNZ Property Fund Ltd support more permissive office provisions within the Business 1 zone. The submitters seek to promote comprehensively planned development of a site by requiring an overall office activity control per site. Preference is for multi office development within a site to achieve integrated office/retail as part of a fully integrated development. Mixed use development can occur albeit to a limited extent under the current B1 zoning. While the adoption of the concept for the B1 zone may have merit the overall approach does not sit comfortably with the proposed business hierarchy. Iit is considered that;

• The purpose of the B1 zoning cannot be considered in isolation from other centres in the hierarchy and the relationship with those centres;

• Mixed activity developments are possible and appropriately provided for in the B3 and to a lesser extent in the B5 Zone at present;

• A permissive mixed use/comprehensive development mechanism could result in leakage of further office and retail activity from the Central City and the Sub Regional Centres.

The above concerns are consistent with the advice of Property Economics who advise in a related response to office activity in the Business 4 zone, that a more permissive approach to office development 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. Property Economics is quite clear in advising that there is an absolute need to intensify commercial activity within the Hamilton CBD and not set precedents for allowing it to be accommodated elsewhere. In summary, it is considered that insufficient evidence has been put forward to consider adopting the provision of an Integrated Business Park Development which are capable of giving rise to adverse distributional effects in non-centre locations either as a stand alone grouping or cumulatively. The proximity to and collocation of the B1 zone as part of higher order business centres affords the development flexibility to provide for appropriately scaled mixed use developments without undermining the business hierarchy of higher order centres within the hierarchy. No changes are proposed in response to the amendment sought.


Page 97 of 266

Kiwi Income Property Trust & Kiwi Property Holdings Ltd (1198.18) seek amendment to Rule 6.3 so Chartwell and Te Rapa North Sub Regional Centres provisions are dealt with separately as per their Annexure 2 and amendment to Rule 6.3 q), r) s) t) – to make retailing and offices in the Business 3 zone at Te Rapa North Sub regional centre (Fig 6.1b) a discretionary activity. To avoid repetition, this submission point will be considered later in the report relating to Rule 6.3 – Retail, whereby the submitter has made the same submission for retail activities.

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision

Sub. Type

Summary

Recommendation

Reasoning



Oppose Amend Rule 6.3 a), b) and d), request they be changed to a Permitted Activity across all Business Zones. Amend Rule 6.3 l), m) and n) regarding offices to replace the words "per site" with "per tenancy". Amend Rule 6.3hh) so parking lots and parking buildings within the Suburban Centre Core are a Permitted Activity. Amend Rule 6.3ll) so health-care services (250m2 - 1000m2) located at ground floor within the Suburban Centre Core are a Permitted Activity. Amend Rule 6.3xx) so residential apartments above ground floor in Suburban and Neighbourhood Centres are a Controlled Activity. Amend Rule 6.3zz) so that residential centres above

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to 6.3 l)m) and n) requesting the replacement of ‘per site’ with ‘per tenancy’ should be rejected as;





Page 98 of 266

ground floor level in Suburban Centres are a Restricted Discretionary Activity.


FS123.014

Oppose Accept in Part FS123.014 is accepted in part because that part of 309.005 which it opposes (notification) has only been accepted in part.


FS142.001

Support Reject

Submissions FS123.014, FS142.001, FS247.001, FS285.005 further support amendments to the provisions that this submission seeks. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions.


FS247.001

Support Reject


FS285.005

Support Reject



Support in part

Amend Rule 6.3 a), b) and c) so that new buildings, alterations and additions and minor works are Permitted Activities across all Business Zones. Amend Rule 6.3 e) by replacing the word "industry" with "Industrial activity", and amend the definition of "industrial activity" so that it is clear that warehouse and bulk storage are deemed light industry. Amend Rule 6.3 l), m) and n) so

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to 6.3 l)m) and n) requesting a more permissive activity status for offices in Business Zone 4 should be rejected as;





Page 99 of 266

that Offices up to 500m2 are a Permitted Activity and Offices greater than 500m2 are a Restricted Discretionary Activity in the Business 4 Zone. Retain Rule 6.3 p) and k) but amend the definition of ancillary retail to allow for it to occupy up to 25% Retain Rule 6.3 s), t) and w). Amend Rule 6.3 and 6.3 d) aa), bb), cc), ee), jj), kk), ll), mm), oo), qq), rr) and ss) so that Wholesale and Trade Retail, accessory buildings, licensed premises, cafes, restaurants, Commercial places of assembly (cinemas and bowling alleys only), health-care services, Tertiary education and specialised training facilities are Permitted Activities in the Business 4 Zone.


FS123.002

Oppose Accept in Part FS123.002 is accepted in part because that part of 312.005 which it opposes (notification) has only been accepted in part.


FS237.004

Support Reject Submissions FS237.004, FS239.015, FS249.026, FS265.002 further support amendments to the provisions that this submission seeks. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions.

Porter FS239.015 Support Reject


Page 100 of 266

Developments Limited


FS249.026

Support Reject

Tram Lease Limited

FS265.002

Support Reject


FS278.011

Support Reject


FS285.009

Support Reject



Oppose Amend Rule 6.3 a), b) and c) so that new buildings, alterations and additions, and accessory buildings are Permitted Activities. Amend Rule 6.3n) so that the existing office activities undertaken on Lot 1 DP 321305 and Lot 2 DPS 39890 are a Permitted Activities. Amend Rules 6.3 s) and t) to allow retail activities greater than 400m2 as a Permitted Activity on Lot 1 DPS 84445 and Lot 2 DPS 26655. Amend the inconsistency with Rule 6.4.6 which provides for maximum tenancy sizes in excess of 400m2.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to 6.3 n) requesting the spot zoning for offices on the specified lots should be rejected as;





Page 101 of 266

AMP Capital

Property Portfolio

FS198.005

Support Reject Submissions FS198.005, FS285.036 further support amendments to the provisions that this submission seeks. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions.


FS285.036

Support Reject



Oppose Amend Rule 6.3 a), b), d), m), ww) and xx) so that in the Business 1 Zone, ‘New Buildings’ are a Controlled Activity and ‘Accessory Buildings’, ‘Alterations and Additions’, ‘offices with a gross floor area of up to 500m2‘ and ‘apartments’ are a Permitted Activity. Amend the definition of ‘Industrial Activity’ in Appendix 1.7 by deleting ‘b) Laboratories and research facilities’ and include in the definition of ‘Service Industry’ or Amend Rule 6.3 Activity Status Table to provide for ‘Laboratories and Research Facilities’ as a Permitted Activity in the Business 1 Zone.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to 6.3 n) requesting offices up to 500m2 in Business Zone 1 be a permitted activity should be rejected as;




No amendments or deletions are proposed by other submissions to the provisions that this submission point supports



Oppose Amend Rules 6.3 a), b) and d) so that building works are permitted subject to compliance with standards. Amend Rule 6.3 to provide for Licensed Premises / Restaurant on Lot 1 DP 332074, Offices on Lot 2 DP 444949, and Childcare Facilities on Lot 2 DP 401042, as a

Accept In Part The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 requesting an individual spot zoning for offices on Lot 2 DP 444949 be a permitted activity should be rejected as;




Page 102 of 266

Permitted Activities. • Contains no relevant justification as to why the alternative sought

would be more appropriate


FS278.01

Support Reject Submissions FS278.01 further supports amendments to the provision that seeks Licensed Premises and Restaurants as a permitted activity. This submission has been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions.



Support in part

Amend Rules 6.3 a), b) and d) so that building works are permitted subject to compliance with standards. Amend Rule 6.3 Offices in the Business 1 zone to provide for multiple office activity within each site. Amend 6.3 to include "Integrated Business Park Development" in the Business 1 zone as a Restricted Discretionary Activity. Amend Rule 6.3 so that Licensed premises, restaurants and cafe’s are permitted activities within the Business 1 zone.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 to provide for offices as part of an Integrated Business Park should be rejected as;





FS123.018

Oppose Accept FS123.018 is accepted for the reasons given above.

Eastside Investment Limited - (Speer

FS213.002

Support Reject Submissions FS213.002, FS213.004, FS278.005 and FS285.218 further support amendments to the provisions that this submission seeks. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation


Page 103 of 266

Speer & Associates Ltd)

to those submissions.


FS213.004

Support Reject


FS278.005

Support Reject


FS285.218

Support Reject



Oppose Amend Rule 6.3 for the Suburban Centre Core - Business Zone 5 by adding Offices greater than 500m² gross floor area per site in Hamilton East as a discretionary activity.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3n) to provide for offices > 500m2 as a permitted activity should be rejected as;






Oppose Amend Rule 6.3 by combining the Suburban Centre Core and Suburban Centre Fringe zones as a single zone. Delete the floor area restrictions in Rule 6.3. Amend Rule 6.3 hh) to make parking lots permitted activities.

Accept in part The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 to delete all floor area restrictions should be rejected as;





Page 104 of 266


FS160.001

Oppose Reject FS160.001 and FS161.001 is not related to matters contained in 913.037


FS161.001

Oppose Reject




Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3l) m) and n) to provide for offices up to 500m2 as a Permitted and Offices > 500m2 as a Discretionary activity should be rejected as;





Page 105 of 266


Andrew Yeoman

FS2.012

Support Reject FS2.012 is not related to matters contained in 938.064 regarding offices


FS123.008

Oppose Accept FS123.008 is accepted for the reasons given above.


FS158.004

Support Reject Submissions FS158.004, FS198.01, FS212.002, FS242.001, FS265.023, FS269.002, FS277.001, FS278.008,FS285.097 further support amendments to the provisions that this submission seeks. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions.


FS198.01

Support Reject


FS212.002

Support Reject

Peter John Findlay, Donna Margaret Findlay, Peter John Findlay & Donna Margaret

FS242.001

Support Reject


Page 106 of 266

Findlay as Trustees of the Findlay Family Trust, Riverside Oak Estate Ltd (Baruchel Developments Ltd)

Tram Lease Limited

FS265.023

Support Reject


FS269.002

Support Reject


FS277.001

Support Reject


FS278.008

Support Reject


FS285.097

Support Reject

490 Grey Ltd as 1002.001 6 Business 1 to 7 Oppose Amend 7.1 a) by referring to Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3)requesting the removal


Page 107 of 266

Trustee of the BDL Commercial Investment Trust and Homes for the Living Ltd

Zones Hamilton East north of Clyde Street (reflecting submitters request to change shown on planning maps 45A and 46A. Amend Rule 7.3 to remove all floor area limitations for offices within the Central City Zone precincts. Amend Rule 7.6 to specify the matters over which discretion is restricted and distinguish those from assessment criteria. Or Amend 6.1 d) to replace the description of a hierarchy of centres with a statement that the city contains a range of business centres comprising one or more business zones, and insert reference to a new Hamilton East Business Zone. Amend 6.1 j) to replace the words “again don’t undermine” with “support” Amend Objective 6.2.2 to replace the words “not undermining the primacy, vitality or viability of the Central City” with “providing enhanced urban design outcomes” Amend Policy 6.2.2d by deleting the reference to control of size and scale. Amend Policy 6.2.2f by deleting the reference to including the Central City.

of all floor area thresholds, change of zoning from Suburban Centre to Central City should be rejected as;




Page 108 of 266

Amend planning maps 45A and 46A by rezoning the Business 1 and Business 5 within the area east of the Waikato River to one block east of Grey Street and south of Dawson Street to Wellington Street to a new “Hamilton East Business Zone”. Amend Rule 6.3 to include a Hamilton East Business Zone containing the same provisions as those for the Suburban Centre Core Zone but with all floor area limitations for offices removed, retail tenancies up to 500 m2 as a permitted activity and retail tenancies in excess of 500 m2 as a restricted discretionary activity Amend Rule 6.6 to specify the matters over which discretion is restricted and distinguish those from assessment criteria. Delete matters and assessment criteria (C2–C23, D3-D5, E1-E3, F2-F6, G1, N1-N5, S1, V1-V18) from Rule 7.6.a) iv, 6.6.a) v. and vi: Delete Discretionary Activity Assessment Criteria1.3.2.4 regarding Retail, Commercial and Office Activities in the Central City and Business 1 to 7 zones. Delete Information Requirement 1.5.20 regarding Centre Viability Assessment Report.


Page 109 of 266

Progressive

Enterprises Limited

FS237.01

Oppose Accept FS237.01, FS246.011 are accepted in part because that part of 1002.001 which they oppose (notification) has been rejected.


FS246.011

Oppose Accept



Support in part

Amend Rules 6.3 a), b) and d) so that building works are permitted subject to compliance with standards. Amend Rule 6.3 Offices in the Business 1 zone to provide for multiple office activity within each site. Amend 6.3 to include "Integrated Business Park Development" in the Business 1 zone as a Restricted Discretionary Activity. Amend Rule 6.3 so that Licensed premises, restaurants and cafe’s are permitted activities, up to 400m2 within the Business 1 zone. Amend Rules 6.3 p) to hh) to provide for an integrated or comprehensive retail activity across a site like Home Straight Park. Amend Rules 6.3 w) and x) to provide for yard based retail activities within the Business 1 zone. Amend Rule 6.3 to clarify that yard based retail activities include new vehicle sales yard activities and associated support activities. Amend Rule 6.3 to provide for

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 to provide for offices as part of an Integrated Business Park should be rejected as;





Page 110 of 266

commercial Places of Assembly as permitted activities within the Business 1 zone and amend the definition for Places of Assembly to include ‘commercial’.


FS123.023



FS213.001

Support Reject Submissions FS213.001, FS213.003, FS278.004 further support amendments to the provisions that this submission seeks. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions


FS213.003

Support Reject


FS278.004

Support Reject



Support in part

Amend Rule 6.3 in Business 4 Zone so that: Light industry is a Permitted Activity. Offices less than 250m2, and Licensed premises, Restaurants and Cafes less than 200m2, and Visitor Accommodation, are Controlled Activities.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 to provide for offices as less than 250m2 as Controlled activities should be rejected as;



• Contains no relevant justification as to why the alternative sought


Page 111 of 266

Transport Depot (Goods), Offices 250-500m2, Retail 150-399m2, Commercial places of assembly (cinemas and bowling alleys only), Health Care Services up to 1000m2, Childcare facilities, and Tertiary education and specialised training facilities, are Restricted Discretionary Activities. Cafes, restaurants, and licensed premises 200m2 gross floor area or greater are Discretionary Activities.



FS123.025


Tram Lease Limited

FS265.01

Support Reject Submissions FS265.01, FS285.134 further support amendments to the provisions that this submission seeks. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions


FS285.134

Support Reject



Oppose Amend Rules 6.3 k) to n) to remove limits on gross floor area and provide for commercial activity as a permitted activity, or restricted discretionary activity for activities above 500m2 gross floor area.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3K) to n) to provide for offices > 500m2 as a permitted or RD activity should be rejected as;





Page 112 of 266

DNZ Property

Fund Limited (DNZ)

FS285.158

Support Reject Submission FS285.158 supporting the amendments sought is rejected for the reasons given above.

Kiwi Income Property Trust & Kiwi Property Holdings Ltd

1198.018 (new)

6.3 Rules – Activity Status Table

Oppose Amend Rule 6.3 so Chartwell and Te Rapa North Sub regional Centre are dealt with separately as per Annexure 2. Amend Rule 6.3 q), r) s) t) – make retailing and offices in the Business 3 zone at Te Rapa North sub regional Centre (Fig 6.1b) a Discretionary activity.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.to differentiate plan provisions between Chartwell and Te Rapa North Sub regional centre should be rejected as;



The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 q), r), s) and t) to make office and retail in Business 3 zone – discretionary should be rejected as;

• The relief sought is not considered to be valid in the context of the PRPS and recognition of the sub-regional centres as existing commercial centres that should be supported.



Support in part

Amend Rule 6.3 o), nn) and rr) to reflect the resource consents held by 'The Base'

Accept The submission seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 o), nn) and rr) for recognition of current resource consents is accepted as it would improve;

• The effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies and recognition of Te-Rapa North sub-regional centre.

Recommended amendments to 6.3 o), nn) and rr) are contained in Appendix B refer to 1199.007)



Oppose Amend Rules 6.3 a), b) and xx) so that new buildings and Apartments above ground floor are Controlled Activities, and alterations and additions and accessory buildings are

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3l) m) and n) to provide for offices > 500m2 as a Discretionary activity should be rejected as;




Page 113 of 266

Permitted Activities. Amend Rule 6.3 e) by replacing the word "industry" with "Industrial activity", and amend the definition of "industrial activity" so that it is clear that warehouse and bulk storage are deemed light industry. Amend Rules 6.3 l), m) and n) so that Offices up to 500m2 are a Permitted Activity and Offices greater than 500m2 are a Discretionary Activity. Amend Rules 6.3 r), aa) and bb) so that Retail up to 399m2, licences premises up to 200m2, restaurants and cafes up to 200m2 are Permitted Activities in Neighbourhood Centres. Amend Rules 6.3 s) and t) so that retail activities greater than 399m2 are Permitted Activities in Suburban Centres. Amend Rules 6.3 and 6.3 f) so that Wholesale and Trade Retail and light industry are Permitted Activities in the Business 4 Zone.




FS285.172

Support Reject Submission FS285.172 supporting the amendments sought is rejected for the reasons given above.


Page 114 of 266

S42a Report

Chapter 6- Business 1-7 Zones Rule 6.3 - Activity Status Table - Retail/ Commercial

Analysis: Rule 6.3 - Activity Status Table - Retail/ Commercial

The following analysis relates to submissions received on various Retail and Commercial activity thresholds in Rule 6.3 Activity Status Table. The relevant submission summary point is highlighted in bold in the table above. The submissions will be grouped where possible according to the retail/commercial activity or similar issue submitted on. Tainui Group Holdings Ltd (913.037) submitted there is inadequate explanation as to why there is a Suburban Centre Core and a Suburban Centre Fringe as two zones. They argue that it is not necessary to distinguish between them if a long term view is being adopted towards integrated retail growth, giving effect to the PRPS. The Purpose of this chapter advises that the focus of the business centres hierarchy is to manage existing centres to ensure they retain and enhance their viability and vibrancy as focal points for a diverse range of activities and ongoing public investment. Purpose 6.1h) elaborates the rationale behind a core and fringe zone approach for the business zones in so far as it is to consolidate people focused activities within cohesive and integrated business centres, supported by larger format vehicle based activities located towards the fringe. Fringe activities are not generally encouraged in the core due to the inefficient use of land and poorer pedestrian focused design outcomes. There is however little objective and policy distinction between identifying specifically a suburban core and fringe and Policy 6.2.2b seeks to encourage a diverse range of activities, services and trading formats. It is considered given the similarity of the two zones and the limited application of suburban centre fringe spatially within the city that these two zones can be combined. The more permissive approach towards detached dwellings and larger format retail can be managed as part of a discretionary activity consenting process whilst it is considered unreasonable to draw a distinction for restaurants and cafes, offices 250-500m2 gfa between these two zones. Combining both zones would result in greater clarity and certainty for Suburban Centres and contribute towards achieving the cohesive and integrated diverse land use of business activities which are carefully managed and appropriate to their suburban catchment. There are several consequential amendments that would result to activities in combing these two zones (See Rule 6.1 Purpose, earlier in this report). It is considered that the potential adverse effects resulting from larger trading formats can be adequately managed through the discretionary consents process as for other business zones. It is recommended that Rule 6.3, Business Zone 5 and 6 be combined with consequential amendments to activity statuses as outlined in Appendix B, track changes. Kiwi Income Property Trust & Kiwi Property Holdings Ltd (1198.018)seek amendment to Rule 6.3 so that Chartwell and Te Rapa North Sub Regional Centre are dealt with separately as per the provisions put forward in Annexure 2 of their submission. They also seek amendment Rule 6.3 q), r) s) t) – to make retailing and offices in the Business 3 zone at Te Rapa North SubRegional Centre (Fig 6.1b) a Discretionary activity. Tainui Group holdings Ltd (FS 245) oppose this submission on the grounds that the amendment proposed would conflict with the policies that support the vitality and functioning of the sub-regional centres. The submitter’s main concern is that the provisions of the Plan are compromised by the extensive scope of the Te-Rapa Sub Regional Centre and lack of any effective constraint in the rules of the Plan on the scale of additional retail that could develop within it. Kiwi considers that a discretionary status for the establishment of additional retail and office activity within the Business 3 zone is appropriate given the current state of the CBD, the extent of retail developed and approved at Te-Rapa and the extent of land area still to be developed in the locale. In the absence of the changes sought, the Plan will not implement the objectives and policies which seek to support the primacy of the central city and as such will leave the CBD vulnerable to further adverse effects. Secondly, they seek amendments to Rule 6.3 so that the differing effects of further development at Chartwell and Te-Rapa on the CBD are recognised. Their annexure identifies a proposed distinction in provisions for retail thresholds, less 150m2, 150-399m2, 400-999m2 and over 1000m2. In all cases activities within these thresholds would be permitted for Chartwell and discretionary for Te-Rapa Commercial centre. A permissive status considered justified for Chartwell given its smaller size and obvious physical limitations on further expansion.

Title: Chapter 6- Business 1-7 Zones Issue: Rule 6.3 - Activity Status Table - Retail/ Commercial

Page 115 of 266

Thirdly, and largely to support the relief sought for a discretionary activity approach towards additional retail activity in Business 3 zone, is the amendment sought to rezone Business 4 to Business 1 which is addressed later in the zoning map section of this report. In summary, Kiwi Income Trust and Kiwi Property Holdings Ltd, seek the following;

• Discretionary activity status for office and retail activities in Business 3 zone; • Distinction between The Base and Chartwell for retail activity status and • To rezone the Business 4 zone to Business 1

Given the advice of Property Economics (Appendix C –I refers), there is a clear signal to further restrain the spread of retail which has occurred under the laissez faire provisions of the Operative Plan which has resulted in a clear redistribution of retail activity away from the CBD. Mr Heath advises that in terms of The Base / Te Awa centre itself, there is around 47,000sqm GFA of unimplemented consents above the current built form, of which just over 18,000sqm GFA is for retail activity. Given growth in the market in the foreseeable future and desired outcome of the Plan to reinvigorate and rejuvenate the CBD, he advises there is limited additional retail GFA warranted above that already consented. In his evidence Mr Heath has highlighted the impact on retail sales in the Hamilton CBD over the past decade with a proportional fall of retail spend from 52% (2000) to only 31% by 2012. A particular telling paragraph of the report advises in paragraph 101 that;

....Hamilton CBD is playing a significantly diminished role in the commercial centre hierarchy of the city from a retail perspective compared to 10-years ago, with a 40% proportional drop in

retail relevance and market share within the city (i.e. from 52% to 31%). This both rapid and significant decline would flow through to lowering retail productivity and quality within the

CBD.

These incremental impacts have culminated in real changes to the CBD’s retail environment to the detriment of the vibrancy of the commercial environment and public amenitycommunity. The accompanying expert evidence of Mr Osborne, explains the economic argument for intervention which is based on the fact that the market fails to consider significant community benefits achieved through the consolidated location of business activity. These failures are suggested to conceal the true value of centres and if unchecked and un managed are likely to result in an inefficient use of resources and public infrastructure and facilities as to be contrary to the sustainability purpose of the Act. Despite the challenging legal landscape relating to retail distribution since the inception of the RMA in 1991, it is now settled in law that the economic and social effects of a proposed retail activity on the environment can be taken into account. This has been recognized in the Environment Court in a number of cases eg; St Lukes vs North Shore A41/2001, Westfield (NZ) Ltd & Anor vs North Shore City Council (2005) NZSC 17, more recent cases include National Investment Trust vs Christchurch City Council C152/2007 and Bilmag Holdings Ltd vs Waipa District Council C072/2008. It is therefore appropriate that the Plan sets its face against ad-hoc commercial development and takes a more interventionist role in terms of plan. As a result of the above, it is acknowledged that to better achieve the objectives and policies of the Plan and ensure they are not undermined by too permissive a stance on retail in Business 3 and 4 zones, that Retail within the thresholds highlighted by the submitter becomes a Restricted Discretionary Activity for Te-Rapa North Commercial Centre within Business 3 zone while it is proposed the Business 4 zone is amended to have the same provisions for retail activities as the Business 1 zone with the exception of Retail greater than 1000m2 gfa which becomes an RD activity.. given the direction of the Plan is to recognise and provide for existing identified commercial centres first, in line with the Proposed RPS, it is considered reasonable to have a stricter threshold for large format retail over 1000m2 in this zone. These proposed changes would to some extent give relief to the change of zoning request sought by the submitter. For clarity the proposed changes are as follows;


Page 116 of 266

Business zones 1 2 3 4 5 6

p) Ancillary retail P P P P P P

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

D P CW- P

TR- RD D P P

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

D D CW- RD

TR-RD D P D

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

RD D CW- P

TR-RD RD D NC

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

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

D NC CW-P

TR-RD RD NC NC

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

Turning to the submitters request to draw a distinction in Rule 6.3 between Te-Rapa Commercial Centre and Chartwell it is accepted that because of the commercial size distinction and expansion potential that the Te-Rapa North Commercial centre could be seen by submitters to command a higher tier role than Chartwell within the business hierarchy. Property Economics advises that such a distinction is likely to grow further (given the extent consent for up to 18,000m2 gfa) to the point where it is highly unlikely Chartwell will ever be the size of, or fulfill the same function as, Te-Rapa North Commercial centre in the foreseeable future. However notwithstanding this distinction, the PRPS identifies Chartwell as a Sub-Regional Centre. The key question is whether there should bean equitable stance for the same provisions to apply in both centres.Given the scope of the submissions provided, it is quite clear that the proposed retail restrictions are focused on The Base- Te-Rapa North Commercial Centre, as such the above amendments are considered appropriate to ensure that adverse effects are considered for any future retail expansion that could occur. Plan Policies 6.2.1 a and b further identify that any proposed expansion should be commensurate with its role in serving an extensive catchment while avoiding adverse effects on the Central City. Given this approach, the request to differentiate between the two Sub-regional centres is accepted in part in so far as retail activities are proposed to be RD activities for the Te-Rapa North Commercial Centre. Infinity Property Management Ltd (39.001), Property Council New Zealand (938.064 ), McCracken Surveys Limited (1206.066), City Limits Childcare Co Ltd (1282.025) and Claudelands Property Trust (1282.025) all seek more permissive provisions for restaurants, cafes and licensed premises within Suburban and Neighbourhood Centre Zones. Jenco Enterprise Limited - (Speer Speer & Associates Ltd), Dinsdale Tavern 1994 Limited and The New Zealand Racing Board (Speer Speer & Associates Ltd further support this submission.


Page 117 of 266

Accepted consequential amendments to the primary Objective 6.2.3 is to provide for a distribution of locally based Neighbourhood Ccentres capable of meeting the day to day need in their immediate neighborhoods. This amendment recognizes that the function of neighbourhood centres is to provide for a range of everyday goods and services which is not limited to retail. The relief is therefore accepted that small scale (<200m2) restaurants, cafes and licensed premises can be accommodated with neighbourhood centres as part of a meeting everyday needs for goods and services without undermining neighbouring residential amenity. The proposed amendment will better achieve the objectives / policies of the neighbourhood zone. The recommended amendment is to combine 6.3 aa) and bb) to allow for Cafes, Restaurants and licensed premises less than 200m2 gfa as Permitted activities in neighbourhood centres as per track changes in Appendix B. Greg Gimblett (Church Road Developments Ltd)(630.002) seeks cafes and restaurants less than 200m2 to be a permitted activity in Business 1 zone, on the basis that their effects can be managed. Eastside Investment Limited - (Speer Speer & Associates Ltd) (FS213.002, 004), The New Zealand Racing Board (Speer Speer & Associates Ltd(FS278.005) and DNZ Ltd (FS285.218) all support this submission. It is not considered sufficient argument has been presented for a more permissive activity status in what is in effect an ‘out of centre’ zone. There are concerns that cumulative effects may arise under a permitted baseline approach for such activities. The proposed policies and objectives are quite clear in that the primary function is for moderate to low intensity commercial uses and large format retail which does not undermine the centres hierarchy. This zone is not intended to diversify into more boutique shops/ cafes which are intended primary to focus towards centres. A discretionary activity approach thus still provides for such activities as part of an appropriate assessment. No change is proposed. The Suit Shop Limited (1241.002) submission seeks Rule 6.3aa) and bb) Licensed premises, restaurants and cafes <200m2 are permitted within suburban centre core Business Zone 5. These provisions are as notified so no change is recommended. Alexander Elliott (Claudelands Neighbourhood Support Groups)(247.011) seek to amend Rule 6.3 for licensed premises, restaurants and cafes for remainder of Business 2 Zone for Claudelands. The submitter concern is that close to the Railway Line with more trains anticipated, queued cars and trucks when train barrier arm is operating makes it most unattractive and noisy for any eating establishments, they should therefore be a Restricted Discretionary activity less than 200m2 and Permitted over 200m2. This submission is already provided for in the Plan for Business 2 Zone, however there appears to be a confused argument for making smaller restaurants and cafes a more restrictive activity as the concerns raised in terms of noise would apply to any size activity. It is considered, that the City wide rules for noise can adequately mitigate the submitters concerns with noise. No change is proposed. Tainui Group Holdings Ltd (913.037) seek a City Wide amendment to Rule 6.3hh) to make parking lots and parking buildings permitted activities; however the rationale provided is limited to the provision of a future park and ride and Public Transport hub at Ruakura. In response to this submission point the provision of parking lots and parking buildings is already permitted within Business Zones 1-4 and 6 (as notified). The provision of vehicle dominated activities within identified neighbourhood and suburban centres has the potential to attract further vehicle users and diminish potential for higher density mixed use development. The on-going cumulative effects of such activities have the potential to result in long term negative effects on the environment and economic wellbeing within these more pedestrian focused centres (e.g. by encouraging dispersed and inefficient land use). The submission is rejected and not considered to be justified in the context of ensuring vitality and vibrancy all centres, and is contrary to the strategic objectives of the Plan. Rototuna Ventures Ltd (309.005) and Tainui Group Holdings Ltd (913.007) both seek amendments to allow for parking lots and parking buildings as permitted activities in Rule 6.3 hh). The reasoning behind this request is based on the need to provide for parking shortages in Suburban Centres. Parking lots and parking buildings are considered an inefficient use of land within suburban centres. Car parking lots in particular are often used as a ‘place holder’ as opposed to a long term use.


Page 118 of 266

Investment in their development is generally minimal and the implications on the wider environment (in relation to aesthetics and safety) are generally negative. These activities do not result in active frontages, vibrant streets or other such outcomes sought within the proposed District Plan. It is considered reasonable to maintain a Discretionary position to assess the effects of these activities on Suburban Centres and therefore no amendment is proposed. Tram Lease Limited (1163.006) seek amendments to Rule 6.3 ff) and gg) to provide for drive-through services as a permitted activity. As for the reasons given above, drive-through services are by their very nature car dominated activities and considered an inefficient use of land within suburban centres. These activities do not result in active frontages, vibrant streets or other such pedestrian focused outcomes sought within the proposed District Plan. It is considered reasonable to maintain a Discretionary Activity position to assess the effects of these activities on Suburban Centres and therefore no amendment is proposed. McDonald's Restaurants (NZ) Ltd (1195.002) seek relief to enable drive through restaurants as a stand alone activity with a Restricted Discretionary Status. Rule 6.3ff) provides for Drive Through services in Business Zones 1-6 as RD activities which includes Drive Through Restaurants. The clarification of whether a separate stand alone definition is necessary or appropriate is dealt with under the Definitions section (Volume 2- 1.7) of this report. No amendment to Rule 6.3 ff) is deemed necessary. No amendment is proposed. AMP Capital Property Portfolio (312.005) and Property Council New Zealand (938.064) seek relief to amend Rule 6.3 and 6.3 f) so that Wholesale and Trade Retail and Light Industry are Permitted Activities in the Business 4 Zone. The submitters argument for a more permissive approach is that the extent of land zoned Large Format Retail around the Te Rapa North Sub-Regional Centre is reasonably extensive, and it is doubtful that there will be sufficient demand/land uptake from large format retail operators. It is likely that there will be continued demand from operators that combine bulk storage, warehouse, distribution, showroom or office activities. AMP Capital Property Portfolio (312.005) and Porter Developments Ltd (1153.004) further seek amendment to Rule 6.3 so that Commercial places of assembly (cinemas and bowling alleys only), health-care services, Tertiary education and specialised training facilities are either permitted activities or discretionary activities in the Business 4 Zone respectively. Notwithstanding this argument the Plan seeks to direct wholesale and trade retail towards the Industrial Zone. The Plan definition for ‘wholesale and trade retail’ is quite clear in so far as it is premises that engage primarily in the storage, distribution and sale to goods to other business rather than the general public. The Large Format Retail Zone is zoning for out of centre activities that require large floor plates and good vehicular access. Providing for wholesale and trade retail as a permitted activity within the Business 4 zone, would in some part compromise the policies and objectives of the plan which seek to direct this type of activity towards the Industrial Zone. It is acknowledged in the submitter argument that the Central City Zone is not a suitable location for these types of activities which is accepted. There is however acknowledgement that such trade activities do however require large floor areas, well suited to such locations and are not considered to otherwise compete with the centres in terms their wider retail function. This is confirmed in the accompanying retail evidence from Property Economics that these trade sectors are not categorised to be core retail expenditure, nor fundamental retail centre activities in terms of visibility, location, viability or functionality. Activities such a Resene, ITM, Micro Bathrooms, Plumbing Word, PlaceMakers, Guthrie Bowron etc would thus not be deemed threatening should dispersal occur in out of centre locations. On this basis, and given Building Improvement Centres and Yard Based retail is also permitted in Business 4 zone only, it is considered appropriate and consistent with strategic objectives of a centres based approach, Future Proof and the Proposed Regional Policy Statement that wholesale and trade retail are justifiably permitted activities in the Business 4 zone. It is therefore proposed that this activity status is amended with Rule 6.3 (Appendix B refers). In terms of the submitter requests for a more permissive status for the range of activities identified above, notably commercial places of assembly, tertiary education and health care services itt is


Page 119 of 266

considered that such a permissive approach does not sit comfortably with the proposed business hierarchy. This is because

• The purpose of the B4 zoning cannot be considered in isolation from other centres in the hierarchy and the relationship with those centres;

• Mixed activity developments are possible and appropriately provided for other zones within the hierarchy, concentrated first and foremost on centres;

• Absence in a distinction between centre zones and out of centre zones is contrary to the centres based approach of the Plan and would result in leakage of further retail activity from the Central City and the Sub Regional Centres with the potential to undermine the business hierarchy

The above concerns are consistent with the advice of Property Economics who advise in a related response to office activities in the Business 4 zone, that a more permissive approach to office development would further undermine the economic activity generated by the Hamilton CBD, defusing any degree of intensity and allowing the continued dispersal of commercial activity throughout the City. It is considered that with the exception of ‘commercial places of assembly’ where one would expect to be located in the Central City, Sub-Regional and Suburban centres ahead of out of centre locations, the majority of activities referred are adequately provided for as part of either a Restricted discretionary or Discretionary assessment. No changes are therefore proposed. Hamilton Homezone Ltd and Ingham Group (1117.004) seek several amendments to Rules 6.3 w) and x) to provide for yard based retail activities within the Business 1 zone, to clarify that yard based retail activities include new vehicle sales yard based retail activities and associated support activities and to provide for commercial Places of Assembly as permitted activities within the Business 1 zone and amend the definition for Places of Assembly to include ‘commercial’. The submitter request is to provide for yard based retailing within the B1 Zone. Firstly, the terms ‘Yard based retailing’ means a retail activity selling or hiring products where more than half the display area (not including parking, servicing, landscaping or manoeuvring areas) is located outside the enclosed building. Such activities include, but are not limited to car, boat and heavy machinery sales yards; garden centres and landscaping supplies; automotive and boating accessories, trailer and caravan sales yards, building and farm supply outlets, and hire pools. Within the B1 Zone this activity is proposed to be Non Complying. There is no compelling reason to change this ‘entitlement’ within the B1 Zone given these are highly localised zones on the periphery of and supportive of Sub-Regional or Suburban Centres that already provide for offices and limited scale retail. The Zone purpose is not to provide for major scale retail or for vehicle oriented retailing; this is the express purpose of the B4 zone. And, as stated by Bunnings submission site size requirements now determine that 5-10,000m2gfa building footprints are necessary to achieve viable commercial development. Specific provision is made in the Business 4 zones which cover a substantial land area around the Te Rapa north subregional centre. For these reasons, it is considered an intensification of yard based retailing within the Business 1 zone would be excessive and not required. No amendment is therefore proposed. Bunning’s (968.001) seek relief of Rule 6.3 y) & z) so that ‘Building Improvement Centres’ are permitted activities across Business Zones 1 and 3-7. The reasoning to support this submission is based on the policy directive to ‘provide for a diverse range of activities’ which is an identified policy for Sub-Regional centres. This policy does not lie across all business centres nor are the intended plan outcomes to provide a permissive baseline approach to all large format retail activities. It is considered that the relief sought would have the potential to undermine the business hierarchy which seeks to direct larger format predominantly vehicle based activities away from the more pedestrian focused Central City and Suburban Centres. Providing for these activities as permitted activities across all business zones would encourage a dispersed and inefficient land use. The Commercial Fringe zone is predominantly for larger format offices in a limited number of established locations on the fringes of existing centres. Suburban and Neighbourhood centres rely on a finer grained retail/ commercial environment to provide a range of services and facilities to service their respective catchments. Furthermore, reliance on rules and standards alone for larger format activities is not considered to provide the guidance or flexibility required to achieve better design outcomes which are compatible with surrounding residential neighbourhood. This submission is rejected as the intensity and nature of the activity does not justify permitted activity status and is not consistent with


Page 120 of 266

the objectives and policies for the identified lower order centres. Greg Gimblett (Church Road Developments Ltd) (630.002) and Hamilton Homezone Ltd and Ingham Group (1117.004) seek relief within Rule 6.3 for a more comprehensive suite of commercial and retail activities for Business Zone 1. Specifically the submitters request amendments to provide for multiple office activity within each site to include "Integrated Business Park Development” as a Restricted Discretionary Activity. The central argument of the submitters is that the provision of an office activity based on the floor area per site is too inflexible for existing and future developments. Integrated Business Park Development could allow a range of office/retail and commercial services activities subject to an approved Comprehensive Development Plan, across numerous sites. The purpose of the B1 zoning cannot be considered in isolation from other centres in the hierarchy. While the adoption of the integrated business park concept for the B1 zone may have merit a more permissive activity status approach would have the potential to undermine the proposed business hierarchy and vitality of central city. A mixed use/comprehensive development provision could result in leakage of further small to medium office and retail activity from the Central City and suburban centres where more mixed use developments are actively encouraged. Mixed use development can occur albeit to a limited extent under the current B1 zoning, medium sized offices permissible up to 500m2, and discretionary over 500m2 gfa; retail is a discretionary activity over 150m2 gfa which is not unreasonably onerous and allows for discretionary assessment on a case by case basis; while health care, child care, community centres, and tertiary education services all are permissible. On this basis the submissions are rejected as there is insufficient evidence to support adopting a new activity description (Integrated Business Park developments) or RDA classification, and the approach is not considered to be consistent with Plan policy of ensuring vitality and vibrancy of identified centres. Parkwood Trade Centre Limited (606.006) seek amendment to Rule 6.3 to provide a spot zoning for their licensed premises on Lot 1 DP 332074, with a proposed Business 4 zone. Their rationale is that the zoning should reflect the existing established restaurant in this location. It is considered that for similar reasons given in response to the submitter above, the position and purpose of the Business 4 zone within the business hierarchy takes precedent over individual requests for spot zoning to reflect existing uses. Proliferation of spot zoning in out of centre locations will undermine the business hierarchy and strategic policies and objectives of the Plan and PRPS. No amendment is proposed. The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (1256.002) and Progressive Enterprises Limited (1135.004) seek amendments to Rule 6.3 for a new class of activity for ‘Supermarkets’ as distinct from retail to be provided for in Business Zones 1, and 3 to 7. The rationale provided for this amendment is that Supermarkets sit comfortably with the objectives and policies for Suburban Centres and their intention to act as “focal points for local community development through size, scale, built form and diversity of activity”. Progressive Enterprises Limited (1135.004) seek amendment to Rule 6.4.6 so supermarkets up to 4200m2 are permitted in all of the suburban centres listed in the rule. The reason for this is so that Supermarkets commonly in excess of 3000m2 can be provided for. Kiwi Income Property Trust and Kiwi Property Holdings Limited () support this submission and recognise supermarkets can be addressed separately providing appropriate assessment criteria and rules are put in place. It is acknowledged that the Objective and Policies for Suburban Centres support the location of supermarkets while the rule provisions with 6.3s) & t) actively discourages large format retail over 400m2 within Suburban Centres. Supermarkets are an important store type and will always have a building footprint greater than 1,000m2. They are also stores that add economic and social value to centres and shopper volumes. It is preferable that such stores are located in centres. It is therefore accepted that a separate classification for ‘Supermarkets’ should be included within the table to highlight the distinction between a supermarket and the more restricted status for other large format activities over 400m2. This amendment will better achieve the objectives and policies of the Ssuburban Centre zone, the precise definition will be examined within the definitions section of this report.


Page 121 of 266

Option 1

Business Zone B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 Supermarkets: No threshold

RD NC RD RD RD Deletion NC

Option 2

Supermarkets: less than 3,500m2gfa

P NC P P P Deletion NC

Supermarkets: >3,500m2gfa

D NC P P D Deletion NC

The second issue is the consequential amendments in response to other submissions. Progressive Enterprise Ltd considers that the non-complying activity status for retail 1000m2 gross floor area or greater in the suburban zone core is too restrictive as is the discretionary status for stores such as supermarkets in the Suburban Centre. They consider the sizes nominated as inferred by the Tenancy Rule 6.4.6 for each suburban centre do not recognise that modern supermarket developments are of much greater gross floor area (eg PEL's Countdown supermarkets are typically 4200m2). Based on the advice of Property Economics it is reasonable to expect a supermarket size to be in the region of 3,500gfa and so using this threshold and given that retail greater than 1000m2 gfa is currently provided for as a permitted activity in both Business Zones 3 and 4 then it may be appropriate for supermarkets to remain permitted activities in these centres on the assumption that the intensity and nature of the use justifies a similar assessment as a permitted activity. In terms of Business Zone 1, the purpose of this zone is primarily to provide for larger format office and retail activities on the fringe of existing centres and not compete with them. Retail activities greater than 1,000m2 gfa are currently provided for as a Discretionary activity in this zone and so it is acceptable for supermarkets with a floor area likely to be greater than this, to be considered as a discretionary activity also. Finally, the consideration of a supermarket activity within the Suburban Centre and the policy expectation that supermarkets commonly anchor these centres. Based on the above thresholds it is considered reasonable for supermarkets of up to 3500m2 gfa per tenancy to occur as permitted activities while a discretionary activity consent would apply above this threshold to enable an assessment of effects to be made and to enable the assessment of urban design outcomes. Option 2 above considers proposed changes to Rule 6.3 which would provide for a supermarket store which is Permitted below 3500m2 and Discretionary above this floor area across the range of Business zones. Difficulties however arise at this scale in defining an arbitrary threshold and then distinguishing or indeed reasoning that a supermarket of 3499m2 is any different in terms of effects than a store greater than 3500m2. Based on the direction of the Plan in terms of existing retail thresholds it would be reasonable to expect supermarkets to be Non-Complying in Business zone 7 (Neighbourhood centre) given the size and expected function of these centres and non –complying in Business zone 2 given the purpose of this bespoke events zoning. Advice from Property Economics is that a degree of flexibility should be provided to recognise the range of supermarket stores that occur in New Zealand. The preferred option is therefore the removal of gfa floor area thresholds for supermarkets (Option 1). This option whilst allowing for greater flexibility and certainty would require a restricted discretionary approach given the potential for a greater size developments and to assess urban design outcomes. This option would also require consequential amendments to Rule 6.6 : Matters of Discretion and Assessment criteria for a Supermarket activity. As for other similar activities which are considered appropriate to the Purpose and Objectives of the zone, it is further proposed that supermarkets be identified as non-notified activities as provided for retail and offices. In seeking similar relief for supermarket activities for the Industrial Zone, the submitter has proposed the following specific matters of discretion as set out in Volume 2, 1.2: A2-A4, B1, B4, C2-C7,


Page 122 of 266

C13-C21, D1-D6, E1-E2, F2-F4, G1, G5, J5, P2-P5, Q1, R1-R9, S1, T1, V1-V18. These matters are considered appropriate for consideration of supermarkets within the business zones mentioned. A number of proposed definitions have been posited by the submitters but the preferred definition for supermarkets based on advice from Property Economics which is considered later within the Definition section of this report Volume 2 – 1.7 refers). In summary, this submission is accepted in part; it is proposed that a separate supermarket activity status with no floor area threshold should be provided for in Rule 6.3 as a Restricted Discretionary activity in Business 1, 3, 4, and 5 zones and non-complying in Business 2 and 7 zones with consequential changes to Rule 6.6: Matters of Discretion and a new definition. These amendments are set out in full in Appendix B track changes. Property Council New Zealand (938.064),Porter Developments Ltd (1153.004) and McCracken Surveys Limited (1206.066) seek amendment to Rule 6.3 s) and t) so that retail activities greater than 399m2 are Permitted Activities in Suburban Centres and permitted activities up to 399m2 within Neighbourhood Centres, while Porter Developments also seek more permissive retail provisions for retail 150-399m2 in Business zone 4. In response and as a result of consequential amendments to other submissions, there is acceptance of the large format retail within Suburban Centres to be considered as a Restricted Discretionary Activity consent, some relief is therefore given to this submission although a Permitted status for large format retail in suburban centres is not considered a reasonable approach given that it would not enable a full assessment of effects to be undertaken in terms of achieving good urban design outcomes nor would it enable an appropriate assessment to be undertaken in terms of assessing the effects of the location of large format retail upon the vitality and viability of higher order centres within the business hierarchy. Property Economics advise that larger format retail activities should be provided for within centres rather than discouraged. Given the need to revitalize the Central City and enhance existing commercial centres, a rebalancing is proposed that tightens up on the retail provisions within Business 3 and 4 zones. As such, given the extent and purpose of the large Business 4 zone within the Te-Rapa North Commercial centre, a non-complying activity status is preferable to prevent a proliferation of smaller, boutique shops occurring in out of centre locations to the detriment of the Central City and more pedestrian focused Suburban centres. Property Economics advice in their accompanying evidence that;

• Para 10. As a result, in my view for the CBD to reclaim its position as the pre-eminent retail centre in Hamilton, as desired in the proposed Plan,’ the tap needs to be turned off’ so to speak (or at least slowed down) in relation to retail development being enabled beyond the centre network of the city.

• Para 101. This clearly shows the Hamilton CBD is playing a significantly diminished role in the commercial centre hierarchy of the city from a retail perspective compared to 10-years ago,

with a 40% proportional drop in retail relevance and market share within the city (i.e. from 52% to 31%). This both rapid and significant decline would flow through to lowering retail productivity and quality within the CBD

Both retail and economic evidence in Appendix A, clearly signals that the above amendments which seek to enable low density commercial and retail activity in the periphery zones around Te Rapa would appear unwarranted because the approach would continue the trend of retail being increasingly dispersed away from the the Central City. Such provisions would enable significant retail and commercial GFA to be developed in these areas and potentially undermine one of the core objectives of the Plan and Proposed RPS which is to redirect new development into the CBD (primarily) and the wider centres network. In essence the proposed Plan has been designed to challenge that type of development in such locations and place higher thresholds when assessing the merits of such applications and their subsequent effects on centres. Given the above, it is considered that the amendments sought would be contrary to the strategic objectives and polices of the Plan and the proposed RPS. It is thus proposed the amendments sought be rejected.


Page 123 of 266

In terms of the request for a more permissive status for smaller retail activities (150-399m2) within Neighbourhood Centres, there is no rationale or justification provided by the submitter. Most retail forms are provided for in the Sub-Regional centres (Business 3), and to a lesser extent in Business 1 (commercial fringe) and Suburban Centres (Business 5). Large format retail is directed towards Business 4and to a lesser extent Business 1. The Neighbourhood Centre zone predominantly caters for a smaller more limited range of retail shops to meet day to day needs, with shop sizes in Hamilton predominantly in the 100-300m2 gfa range. It is considered appropriate given the smaller geographical extent of these zones and greater potential for effects on residential amenities that a discretionary activity consent is justified for retail activities in this range. No change is therefore recommended.

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision

Sub. Type

Summary

Recommendation

Reasoning

Infinity Property Management Ltd


Oppose Rule 6.3 aa) & bb) cafe, restaurants and licensed premises should be a permitted activity in the suburbs

Accept The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 aa) & bb) should be accepted as an amendment as it would help better achieve the objectives and policies of the zone. Recommended amendments to Rule 6.3 are contained within Appendix B (refer to 39.001) .


FS20.004

Support Accept FS20.004, FS158.002, FS212.001, FS269.001, FS278.007are accepted because that part of 39.001 which they support (notification) has been accepted.


FS158.002

Support Accept


FS212.001

Support Accept


FS269.001

Support Accept


FS278.007

Support Accept


Page 124 of 266

Alexander Elliott (Claudelands Neighbourhood Support Groups)


Support in part

Amend Planning Map 37A by changing the zoning north of 797 Heaphy Terrace from Business Zone 2 to Claudelands West Residential Zone. Amend 6.3 the activity status for light industry, offices, retail, licensed premises, restaurants and cafes for remainder of Business Zone 2 for Claudelands

Accept in Part The submission point relating to a change to Map 37A by reducing the extent of Business Zone 2 will be addressed the Map section of this report. The submission point relating to Licensed premises, small scale offices, restaurants and cafes is consistent with the objectives and policies of the zone The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3f) regarding a permitted status for light industry should be rejected at it:

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

Recommended amendments to Map 37A are contained within Appendix B (refer to 247.011)

Rototuna Ventures Ltd 309.005 6.3 Rules – Activity Status Table

Oppose Amend Rule 6.3 a), b) and d), request they be changed to a Permitted Activity across all Business Zones. Amend Rule 6.3 l), m) and n) regarding offices to replace the words "per site" with "per tenancy". Amend Rule 6.3hh) so parking lots and parking buildings within the Suburban Centre Core are a Permitted Activity. Amend Rule 6.3ll) so health-care services (250m2 - 1000m2) located at ground floor within the Suburban Centre Core are a Permitted Activity. Amend Rule 6.3xx) so

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 l),m) & n) requesting offices be classified ‘per tenancy’ rather than ‘per site’ should be rejected as it;


The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 hh) requesting parking lots and buildings be permitted should be rejected as;

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

• The intensity and nature of use in the form of the activity does not justify assessment as a permitted activity

The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 ll) requesting that Health Care Services 250-1000m2 gfa be a permitted activity with Suburban Centres should be rejected as;




Page 125 of 266

residential apartments above ground floor in Suburban and Neighbourhood Centres are a Controlled Activity. Amend Rule 6.3zz) so that residential centres above ground floor level in Suburban Centres are a Restricted Discretionary Activity.

The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 xx) requesting controlled activity status for first floor apartments should be rejected as;


The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 zz) requesting Restricted Discretionary activity status for Residential Centres at first floor should be rejected as;

• The intensity and nature of use in the form of the activity does not justify assessment as a Restrict Discretionary activity


FS123.014

Oppose Accepted in Part FS123.014 is accepted in part In so far as it relates to requested amendment to 6.3 l)m) and n)


FS142.001

Support Reject Submissions FS142.001. FS247.001, FS285.005 further support amendments to the provisions that this submission seeks. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions


FS247.001

Support Reject


FS285.005

Support Reject



Support in part

Amend Rule 6.3 a), b) and c) so that new buildings, alterations and additions and minor works are Permitted Activities across all Business Zones.

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3e) regarding clarification of a definition s for light industry should be accepted at it:

• Improves plan administration and clarity of the plan for users


Page 126 of 266

Amend Rule 6.3 e) by replacing the word "industry" with "Industrial activity", and amend the definition of "industrial activity" so that it is clear that warehouse and bulk storage are deemed light industry. Amend Rule 6.3 l), m) and n) so that Offices up to 500m2 are a Permitted Activity and Offices greater than 500m2 are a Restricted Discretionary Activity in the Business 4 Zone. Retain Rule 6.3 p) and k) but amend the definition of ancillary retail to allow for it to occupy up to 25% Retain Rule 6.3 s), t) and w). Amend Rule 6.3 and 6.3 d) aa), bb), cc), ee), jj), kk), ll), mm), oo), qq), rr) and ss) so that Wholesale and Trade Retail, accessory buildings, licensed premises, cafes, restaurants, Commercial places of assembly (cinemas and bowling alleys only), health-care services, Tertiary education and specialised training facilities are Permitted Activities in the Business 4 Zone.

Recommended amendments to Rule 6.3 are contained within Appendix B (refer to 312.005) The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 p) & k) requesting permitted status for Office thresholds in Business Zone 4 and should be rejected as it;

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


The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 ee) jj), kk), ll), mm), qq), rr) and ss)requesting that these identified commercial activities are permitted in Business zone 4 should be rejected as;




The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 oo) requesting that childcare facilities be permitted activities in Business Zone 4 should be accepted as the;

• intensity and nature of use in the large format retail zone justifies assessment as a permitted activity

The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3l)m) and n) )requesting Offices up to 500m2 are a Permitted Activity and Offices greater than 500m2 are a Restricted Discretionary Activity in Business zone 4 should be rejected as;



Page 127 of 266





FS123.002



FS237.004

Support Reject Submissions FS237.004, FS239.015, FS249.026, FS265.002, and FS278.009 further support amendments to the provisions that this submission seeks. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions


FS239.015

Support Reject


FS249.026

Support Reject

Tram Lease Limited

FS265.002

Support Reject


FS278.011



FS285.009

Support Reject

Chartwell Investments 355.003 6.3 Rules – Oppose Amend Rule 6.3 a), b) and c) so Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3n) requesting


Page 128 of 266

Ltd Activity Status

Table that new buildings, alterations and additions, and accessory buildings are Permitted Activities. Amend Rule 6.3n) so that the existing office activities undertaken on Lot 1 DP 321305 and Lot 2 DPS 39890 are a Permitted Activities. Amend Rules 6.3 s) and t) to allow retail activities greater than 400m2 as a Permitted Activity on Lot 1 DPS 84445 and Lot 2 DPS 26655. Amend the inconsistency with Rule 6.4.6 which provides for maximum tenancy sizes in excess of 400m2.

permissive office thresholds for individual should be rejected as it;



The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 s) and t) requesting retail greater than 400m2 gfa be a permitted activity on individual sites should be rejected as;




FS198.005

Support Reject Submissions FS198.005 and FS285.036 further support amendments to the provisions that this submission seeks. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions


FS285.036

Support Reject




Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 to provide for Licensed Premises / Restaurant on Lot 1 DP 332074, Offices on Lot 2 DP 444949, and Childcare Facilities on Lot 2 DP 401042, as a Permitted Activities should be rejected as;





Page 129 of 266



FS278.01




Support in part

Amend Rules 6.3 a), b) and d) so that building works are permitted subject to compliance with standards. Amend Rule 6.3 Offices in the Business 1 zone to provide for multiple office activity within each site. Amend 6.3 to include "Integrated Business Park Development" in the Business 1 zone as a Restricted Discretionary Activity. Amend Rule 6.3 so that Licensed premises, restaurants and cafe’s are permitted activities within the Business 1 zone.

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3) requesting the inclusion of an integrated Business Park in Business zone 1 as a Discretionary Activity should be rejected as;



The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 aa)-cc) requesting licensed premises, restaurants and cafes are permitted activities should be permitted in Business 1 zone should be rejected as it would




FS123.018


Eastside Investment

FS213.002

Support Reject Submissions FS213.002, FS213.004, FS278.005, FS285.218 further support amendments to the provisions that this submission seeks. These other


Page 130 of 266

Limited - (Speer Speer & Associates Ltd)

submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions.


FS213.004

Support Reject


FS278.005

Support Reject


FS285.218

Support Reject



Oppose Amend Rule 6.3 by combining the Suburban Centre Core and Suburban Centre Fringe zones as a single zone. Delete the floor area restrictions in Rule 6.3. Amend Rule 6.3 hh) to make parking lots permitted activities.

Accept in part The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 regarding combining Business zones 5 & 6 should be accepted at it:

• Improves plan administration and clarity of the plan for users • Is addressed with consequential changes to the Purpose in

Section 6.1 of this report • Is consistent with the objectives and policies for the zone.

The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 requesting deletion of all floor area restrictions should be rejected as;



The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 hh) requesting that parking lots be permitted activities should be rejected as;


Page 131 of 266

• It reduces the efficient and effective implementation of the Plan

to achieve its objectives • The intensity &nature of use in the form of activity does not

justify assessment as a permitted activity


FS160.001

Oppose Reject Not related to matters contained in 913.037


FS161.001

Oppose Reject Not related to matters contained in 913.037



Oppose Amend Rules 6.3 a), b) and xx) so that new buildings and Apartments above ground floor are Controlled Activities, and alterations and additions and accessory buildings are Permitted Activities. Amend Rule 6.3 e) by replacing the word "industry" with "Industrial activity", and amend the definition of "industrial activity" so that it is clear that warehouse and bulk storage are deemed light industry. Amend Rules 6.3 l), m) and n) so that Offices up to 500m2 are a Permitted Activity and Offices greater than 500m2 are a Discretionary Activity. Amend Rules 6.3 r), aa) and bb) so that Retail up to 399m2, licences premises up to 200m2, restaurants and cafes up to

Accept in part The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 aa)-cc) requesting licensed premises, restaurants and cafes less than 200m2 are permitted activities should be accepted as it would



The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3e) regarding clarification of a definition s for light industry should be accepted at it:


Recommended amendments to Rule 6.3 are contained within Appendix B (refer to 938.064) The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 r) requesting retail 150-399m2 gfa be a permitted activity in Suburban Centres should be rejected as;




Page 132 of 266

200m2 are Permitted Activities in Neighbourhood Centres. Amend Rules 6.3 s) and t) so that retail activities greater than 399m2 are Permitted Activities in Suburban Centres. Amend Rules 6.3 and 6.3 f) so that Wholesale and Trade Retail and light industry are Permitted Activities in the Business 4 Zone.


he submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 s) and t) requesting retail activities >399m2 in Suburban Centres should be rejected as;

• It reduces the efficient and effective implementation of the Plan to achieve its objectives and policies and purposes and principles of the RMA






The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 f) requesting Wholesale, Trade Retail and light industry are Permitted Activities in Business 4 Zone should be rejected as;




Page 133 of 266

Andrew

Yeoman FS2.012

Support Reject FS2.012 not related to matters within 938.064


FS123.008



FS158.004

Support Accept in Part FS158.004, FS198.01, FS212.002 are accepted in part because that part of 938.064 which they supports (notification) has been accepted .


FS198.01



FS212.002



FS242.001

Support Reject FS242.001 not related to matters within 938.064

Tram Lease Limited

FS265.023

Support Accept in Part FS265.023, FS269.002, FS277.001, FS278.008, FS285.097are accepted in part because that part of 938.064 which they support (notification) has been accepted.


Page 134 of 266

Dinsdale

Tavern 1994 Limited

FS269.002



FS277.001



FS278.008



FS285.097


Bunnings Ltd 968.001 6.3 Rules – Activity Status Table

Oppose Amend Rule 6.3 to provide for "building improvement centres" as a Permitted Activity in the Business 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 zones. Amend Rule 6.3 so that new buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings in all Business zones, Central City zones and Industrial zones

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 y) & z) requesting permitted status of Building Improvement Centres in Business 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 zones should be rejected as it;




Page 135 of 266

are Permitted Activities.


FS20.001

Support Reject Submissions FS20.001 and FS285.114 further support amendments to the provisions that this submission seeks. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions


FS285.114

Support Reject



Support in part

Amend Rules 6.3 a), b) and d) so that building works are permitted subject to compliance with standards. Amend Rule 6.3 Offices in the Business 1 zone to provide for multiple office activity within each site. Amend 6.3 to include "Integrated Business Park Development" in the Business 1 zone as a Restricted Discretionary Activity. Amend Rule 6.3 so that Licensed premises, restaurants and cafe’s are permitted activities, up to 400m2 within the Business 1 zone. Amend Rules 6.3 p) to hh) to provide for an integrated or comprehensive retail activity across a site like Home Straight Park. Amend Rules 6.3 w) and x) to provide for yard based retail activities within the Business 1 zone. Amend Rule 6.3 to clarify that yard based retail activities

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 requesting permitted status of Building Improvement Centres in Business 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 zones should be rejected as it;



The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 p) –hh) requesting the inclusion of an integrated Business Park in Business zone 1 as a Discretionary Activity should be rejected as;



The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 x) & y) requesting the provision of yard retail in Business zone 1 should be rejected as;


• The intensity and nature of use in the form of the activity is not considered appropriate for this zone


Page 136 of 266

include new vehicle sales yard activities and associated support activities. Amend Rule 6.3 to provide for commercial Places of Assembly as permitted activities within the Business 1 zone and amend the definition for Places of Assembly to include ‘commercial’.

The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 requesting the provision of Commercial Places of Assembly in Business zone 1 should be rejected as;




FS123.023

Oppose Accept FS123.023 has been accepted for the reasons given above.


FS213.001

Support Reject Submissions FS213.001, FS213.003 and FS278.004 further support amendments to the provisions that these submission seek. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions


FS213.003

Support Reject


FS278.004

Support Reject



Oppose Amend Rule 6.3 a) to provide for new buildings to be permitted activities subject to compliance with standards.

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 bb) requesting restaurants less than 200m2 are permitted activities should be accepted as it would

• Aid the effective implementation of the Plan to achieve its


Page 137 of 266

Amend 6.3 bb) to permit restaurants in the Business 7 Zone, subject to appropriate standards. Amend Rule 6.3 oo) to permit childcare centres in the Business 2 Zone.

objectives • Not undermine the vitality and vibrancy of the higher order

centres within the business hierarchy Recommended amendments to Rule 6.3 are contained within Appendix B (refer to 1126.015) The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 oo) requesting Childcare centres be a permitted activity in Business zone 2 should be rejected as it;



FS158.005

Support Accept in Part FS158.005 and FS285.123 are accepted in part because that part of 1126.015 which it opposes (notification) has been rejected.


FS285.123



FS286.044

Oppose Reject FS286.044 is rejected because that part of 1126.015 which it opposes (notification) has been accepted.


1135.004 6.4.6 Maximum Tenancy Size

Support in part

Amend Rule 6.3t) retail 1000m2 gross floor area or greater in both the Suburban Centre core and Suburban Centre fringe to restricted discretionary activities OR create a separate activity for ‘supermarkets’ where they are permitted in the Sub-regional Centre zone and restricted discretionary in the Suburban Centre core and fringe zones

Accept in Part The submission point seeking an amendment to Rule 6.3 to include a separate definition for supermarkets be accepted in part as it would improve;

• The effectiveness of the plan in terms of achieving it stated objectives and policies

• Internal consistency of the plan. The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3t) so that retail >1000m2 in Suburban Centre Core and Fringe is a RD activity be rejected as it

• Reduces the efficiency and effectiveness of implementation of


Page 138 of 266

Amend Rule 6.4.6 so supermarkets up to 4200m2 are permitted in all of the suburban centres listed in the rule

the plan to achieve its objectives • The relief sought is not considered to be valid in the context of



FS123.027

Support Accept in Part FS123.027 is accepted in part because that part of 1135.004 which they support (notification) has been accepted.

Barry Harris (Hamilton City Council)


Support in part

Amend Rule 6.3 to include Demolition, removal, maintenance or repair of existing buildings (excluding scheduled heritage buildings) as Permitted Activities. Amend Rule 6.3 to include Demolition or removal of existing buildings on Lot 129 DPS 930 as a non-complying activity. Amend Rules 6.3 q) to t) to read as gfa "per tenancy'.

Accept These submission points seeking amendments to Rule 6.3 and 6.3 q)- t) should be accepted as they seek amendments that would improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies the purpose and principles of the RMA. Recommended amendments to Rule 6.3 are contained within Appendix B (refer to 1146.028)


FS66.002

Support Accept FS66.002 is accepted because that part of 1146.028 which they support (notification) has been accepted.



Support in part

Amend Rule 6.3 in Business 4 Zone so that: Light industry is a Permitted Activity. Offices less than 250m2, and Licensed premises, Restaurants and Cafes less than 200m2, and Visitor Accommodation, are Controlled Activities. Transport Depot (Goods), Offices 250-500m2, Retail 150-399m2, Commercial places of assembly (cinemas and

Accept in Part

The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 f),h) l),r), aa), bb),cc) ,dd) ll), qq) rr) and ab)requesting that these activities all have a more permissive activity status within Business zone 4 should be rejected as it;



• contains no relevant supporting evidence as to why the alternative sought would be more appropriate

The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 oo) requesting a


Page 139 of 266

bowling alleys only), Health Care Services up to 1000m2, Childcare facilities, and Tertiary education and specialised training facilities, are Restricted Discretionary Activities. Cafes, restaurants, and licensed premises 200m2 gross floor area or greater are Discretionary Activities.

more permissive approach for childcare facilities should be accepted in part as it would



Recommended amendments to Rule 6.3 are contained within Appendix B (refer to 1153.004) The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 jj), kk), ll) and mm) requesting health-care services have a more permissive activity status within Business zone 4 should be rejected as it;



• contains no relevant supporting evidence as to why the alternative sought would be more appropriate


FS123.025


Tram Lease Limited

FS265.01

Support Accept in Part FS265.01, FS285.134 are accepted in part because that part of 1153.004 which they support (notification) has been accepted in part.

DNZ Property Fund Limited

FS285.134



Page 140 of 266

(DNZ)

Shona Mary McClinchy 1159.003 6.3 Rules – Activity Status Table

Oppose Oppose zoning of Brooklyn and Heaphy Terrace (old petrol station) as Business Zone 2.

Accept in Part

The submission point seeking amendment to the area extent of Business Zone 2 as shown on Map 37A should be accepted in a part as an amendment and will:

• Provide for better development solutions for which are compatible with surrounding residential neighbourhood amenities.

• The proposed amendment will better achieve the objectives and policies of the adjoining zone

Recommended amendments to Map 37A are contained within Appendix B (refer to 1159.003) The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 bb) requesting cafes and restaurants less 200m2 are RD in Business zone 2 should be rejected as it;


.

Tram Lease Limited 1163.006 6.3 Rules – Activity Status Table

Oppose Amend Rule 6.3 a), b) and d) to provide for new buildings, alterations and additions to buildings, and accessory buildings, as a permitted activity. Amend Rule 6.3 e) and f) to provide for light industry as a permitted activity and industry as a restricted discretionary activity. Amend Rule 6.3 ff) and gg) to provide for drive-through

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 e) and f) requesting more permissive status for light industrial and industrial activity should be rejected as it;



The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3ff) gg) and oo) requesting more permissive status should be rejected as it;

• Reduces efficient and effective implementation of the Plan to


Page 141 of 266

services as a permitted activity. Amend Rule 6.3 oo) to provide for childcare facilities as a permitted activity.

achieve its objectives • Contains no relevant justification as to why the alternative sought

would be more appropriate • The intensity &nature of use in the form of activity does not

justify assessment as a permitted activity


FS285.146

Support Reject Submissions FS285.146 further support amendments to the provisions that this submission seeks. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions



Oppose Amend Rules 6.3 k) to n) to remove limits on gross floor area and provide for commercial activity as a permitted activity, or restricted discretionary activity for activities above 500m2 gross floor area.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 k) & n) requesting removal of gfa thresholds and providing for commercial activities greater than 500m2 as RD activities should be rejected as it;




FS285.158

Support Reject Submissions FS285.158 further support amendments to the provisions that this submission seeks. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions



Support in part

Amend Rule 6.3 so that 'Drive-Through Restaurants are a Restricted Discretionary activity in Business 1 to 6 Zones and to allow for new buildings and additions and alterations as Permitted Activities.

Accept in Part Rule 6.3ff) provides for Drive Trough services in Business Zones 1-6 as RD activities which includes Drive Through Restaurant’s.


FS20.002

Support Accept in Part FS20.002, FS285.164 are accepted in part because that part of 1195.002 which they support (notification) has been accepted in part.


Page 142 of 266

DNZ Property

Fund Limited (DNZ)

FS285.164



1198.018 (new)


Oppose Amend Rule 6.3 so Chartwell and Te Rapa North sub Regional Centre are dealt with separately as per Annexure 2. Amend Rule 6.3 q), r) s) t) – make retailing and offices in the Business 3 zone at Te Rapa North sub regional Centre (Fig 6.1b) a Discretionary activity.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to differentiate provisions in Rule 6.3 between Te Rapa North sub regional and Chartwell centres is rejected as it would;



The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 q), r) s) t) –to make retailing and offices in the Business 3 zone at Te Rapa North sub regional Centre a Discretionary activity is rejected as it would;


Tainui Group holdings Ltd

FS246.020 Oppose Accept in Part FS246.020 has been accepted in part as that part of 1198.018 which it opposes has been rejected.



Oppose Amend Rules 6.3 a), b) and xx) so that new buildings and Apartments above ground floor are Controlled Activities, and alterations and additions and accessory buildings are Permitted Activities. Amend Rule 6.3 e) by replacing the word "industry" with "Industrial activity", and amend the definition of "industrial activity" so that it is clear that warehouse and bulk storage are deemed light industry.

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 aa)-cc) requesting licensed premises, restaurants and cafes less than 200m2 are permitted activities in Business 7 zone and should be accepted as it would;



The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3e) regarding clarification of a definition s for light industry should be accepted at it:


Recommended amendments to Rule 6.3 are contained within Appendix B


Page 143 of 266

Amend Rules 6.3 l), m) and n) so that Offices up to 500m2 are a Permitted Activity and Offices greater than 500m2 are a Discretionary Activity. Amend Rules 6.3 r), aa) and bb) so that Retail up to 399m2, licences premises up to 200m2, restaurants and cafes up to 200m2 are Permitted Activities in Neighbourhood Centres. Amend Rules 6.3 s) and t) so that retail activities greater than 399m2 are Permitted Activities in Suburban Centres. Amend Rules 6.3 and 6.3 f) so that Wholesale and Trade Retail and light industry are Permitted Activities in the Business 4 Zone.

(refer to 1206.66) The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 r) requesting retail 150-399m2 gfa be a permitted activity in Suburban Centres should be rejected as;







The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 s) and t) requesting retail activities >399m2 in Suburban Centres should be rejected as;



The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 f) requesting Wholesale, Trade Retail and light industry are Permitted Activities in Business 4 Zone should be accepted as;


Page 144 of 266



.


FS285.172

Support Accept in Part Recommended amendments to Rule 6.3 are contained within Appendix B (refer to 1206.66)

The Suit Shop Limited 1241.002 6.3 Rules – Activity Status Table

Oppose Amend Rules 6.3 Rules a), b) and d) so new buildings, alterations and additions and accessory buildings are Permitted Activities. Amend Rule 6.3aa) and bb) so that licensed premises and cafes/restaurants less than 200m2 gross floor area within the Business 5 Zone are Permitted Activities

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 a)b) and d) requesting permitted status for all new buildings, alterations and accessory buildings should be rejected as it;



The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 aa)-cc) requesting licensed premises, restaurants and cafes less than 200m2 are permitted activities should be accepted as it would



Recommended amendments to Rule 6.3 are contained within Appendix B (refer to 1241.002)


FS285.188




Support in part

Amend Rule 6.3 so that Supermarkets are permitted activities in Business Zones 1,

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 a)b) and d) requesting permitted status for all new buildings, alterations and accessory buildings should be rejected as it;


Page 145 of 266

and 3 to 7 and to allow new buildings and additions and alterations as permitted activities.

• Reduces efficient and effective implementation of the Plan to

achieve its objectives • Contains no relevant justification as to why the alternative sought

would be more appropriate The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 in so far as it relates to the provision of a new activity of supermarkets be accepted in part as an amendment would improve;

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

• Improves Plan administration and clarity of the plan for users Recommended amendments to Rule 6.3 are contained within Appendix B (refer to 1256.002)


FS20.003

Support Accept in Part FS20.003, FS123.02, FS237.016 and FS285.193 are accepted in part because that part of 1256.002 which they support (notification) has been accepted in part.


FS123.02



FS237.016



FS285.193


City Limits Childcare Co Ltd and Claudelands

1282.025 6.3 Rules – Activity Status

Oppose Amend Rule 6.3a to provide for new buildings to be permitted

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 a)b) and d) requesting permitted status for all new buildings, alterations and


Page 146 of 266

Property Trust Table activities subject to compliance

with bulk and location standards managing effects (including urban design) according to location. Amend Rule 6.3bb) so that restaurants in the Business 7 Zone are Permitted Activities. Amend Rule 6.3oo) so that childcare centres in the Business 2 Zone are Permitted Activities.

accessory buildings should be rejected as it;



The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 bb) requesting restaurants less than 200m2 are permitted activities should be accepted as it would



Recommended amendments to Rule 6.3 are contained within Appendix B (refer to 1282.025)


FS285.203



FS286.024

Oppose Reject FS286.024 is rejected because that part of 1282.025 which it opposes (notification) has been accepted.


Page 147 of 266

S42a Report

Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones Rule 6.3 Activity Status Table - Community

Analysis: Rule 6.3 Activity Status Table - Community

The following analysis relates to submissions received on various Community Activity thresholds in Rule 6.3 Activity Status Table. The relevant submission and summary point is highlighted in bold in the table below. The submissions will be grouped where possible according to the Community Activity submitted on. The Trust Company Limited for AETNZ Education Trust (1122.003), Claudelands Property Trust (1126.015) ,Tram Lease Limited (1163.006), City Limits Childcare Co Ltd and Claudelands Property Trust(1282.025) all seek amendments to Rule 6.3 oo) so that Childcare Facilities are permitted activities in Business 2 Zone rather than Non-Complying activities. The submitters contend that this rule represents a significant departure from a permitted baseline to non-complying. Childcare facilities will not detract from the business focus of the Central City, and nor will they compromise the integrity of the adjacent Claudelands Events Centre. They provide a needed service to employees in the Business Zones, as well as the adjacent residential neighbourhoods. DNZ Property Fund Limited (DNZ)(FS285.203) further support this submission for the reasons above while Alexander Elliot (Claudelands Residents)(FS286.024) oppose the submission on the basis that the submitters case is based on the potential for this company to gain economic advantage while damaging one of Hamilton’s most established Special Character Zones. Childcare facilities are provided for as Permitted activities in Business Zones 1, 3, and 5-7 and Discretionary activities in Business Zone 4. Notwithstanding the submissions made, it is considered that Childcare facilities are not a compatible activity within the Councils Events Facility zone (Business 2) which seeks to encourage ground floor active uses within a 24/7 environment. The Events Facilities zones are quite limited in size with constrained site layouts.Uses to be encouraged are those with a ground floor street frontage which are complementary to both a daytime and evening economy and minimal reverse sensitivity issues resulting from noise, traffic and increased pedestrian numbers. Childcare facilities whilst providing valuable services to the wider community are not considered likely to produce the vibrant pedestrian activity sought. The relief sought will not assist in achieving the Objectives and Policies in 6.2.4 for Major Event Facilities or the wider Council Strategies such as enhancing Business and Event Tourism as part of the Council’s adopted Economic Development Agenda. No amendment is proposed. Parkwood Trade Centre Limited (606.006), Porter Developments Ltd (115.004) and MP Capital Property Portfolio (312.005) request relief that Childcare facilities within Business Zone 4 are considered either as a Discretionary or Permitted activity rather than Non-Complying. The reasons given largely on the basis of unnecessary uncertainty, associated time delays and costs but also maintaining that this type of activity is appropriate for the Large Format Retail zone where there is sufficient land for them to establish and where these uses can utilise arterial transport networks. The policies and objectives for the Business 4 zone are notably lacking in the Proposed Plan and therefore little direction is given other than in Purpose 6.1h) which advises larger format vehicle based activities shall locate on the fringe of identified centres. The previous section addressing submissions to Rule 6.2 of this report has recommended amendments to the Policies and Objectives that provide a firmer basis and rationale for the consideration of activities within this zone. It is considered that the large format retail/B4 zoning is not an inappropriate location for these activities which often require large floor plates with good vehicular access and locations available close to places of employment as well as residential. The provision of child care facilities within this zone is not considered to undermine the business hierarchy. It is reasonable to accept that the associated effects of childcare facilities can be managed as a permitted activity within the Large Format Retail zoning similar to Community Centres and Commercial places of assembly which are permitted activities in this zone. On this basis it is recommended that Childcare facilities be a permitted activity. Recommended changes are contained within Appendix B. Midlands Health (287.003) and Rototuna Ventures Ltd (309.005) seek a more permissive expansion of healthcare services across all Business Zones especially Suburban and Neighbourhood centres on the basis that the operational model of such services in the future will require a more centre focused ‘one stop shop’ provision of services within and in close proximity to the community it serves. The submitter contends that most of its health care centres are looking to expand within their existing neighbourhoods and thus a more permissive set of rules is appropriate. It is accepted that both Suburban and Neighbourhood Centres should provide for healthcare services as part of viable mixed use centres which serve the needs of the community and reduces

Title: Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones Issue: Rule 6.3 Activity Status Table - Community

Page 148 of 266

reliance on car travel for meeting day to day needs. The Plan provisions have already increased the thresholds for healthcare services within Rule 6.3 Activity Status following similar feedback from the Draft Plan. The submitter makes a valid point that the Plan should not unintentionally discourage this valuable community activity from occurring within the very community that it serves and therefore given the consequential changes to the objectives to reflect Community facilities also being part of a Suburban Centre then, it is considered appropriate for Plan consistency that Health Care Services over 1000m2 gfa are also a Restricted Discretionary activity. The key issue is in circumstances where Health Care services establish or expand in Neighbourhood Centres, then an unbridled right to expand may not always be appropriate in terms of parking, noise effects (hours of operation) or in terms of safeguarding residential amenity. The submitter presents the argument that trip generation is appointment driven and therefore there is some ‘management’ of arrivals, parking and departures (and associated environmental effects). However, if the submitter requests are met, it is difficult to envisage in each and every case the effects associated with the operation of ‘large scale’ medical centres (>1,000m2) always being less than minor and therefore acceptable on the immediate neighbourhood without a consenting process being undertaken. It is considered there remains a need to manage the interface between medical centres and neighbouring properties and retaining a Restrictive Discretionary Activity status for centres in the 250m -1000m2 and Discretionary status for centres greater than 1000m2 size is appropriate. A more permissive approach is adopted in the larger centres whereby the effects on residential amenities are largely established and a more intensive range of commercial activities is expected. This is already acknowledged with HealthCare Services conferred a Permitted status in the Suburban Centre zone. Given the Permitted activity status for other large trip generators in Suburban Centres in the Plan such as Commercial Places of Assembly, Banks and Restaurants greater than 200m2, it is considered that a similar Permitted status should be conferred to HealthCare Services 250-1000m2 gfa. Some further relief to the submitter would be for a non-notified approach for restricted discretionary status for these activities given this is the approach taken for similar activities elsewhere in the chapter eg; retail activities, offices, drive through services. This approach is valid given Health Care Services are consistent with the Objectives and Policies of the zone. In summary, it is proposed the amendment sought is accepted in part, Health Care Services over 1000m gfa or greater at ground floor to be a non notified RD activity within Suburban Centres, retained as a Discretionary Activity within Neighbourhood Centres, and a Permitted activity for Healthcare Services 250-1000m2 in Suburban Centres (Appendix B refers). AMP Capital Property Portfolio (312.005) seek amendment to Health Care services, Tertiary education and Specialised training facilities so that they are Permitted Activities in the Business 4 Zone on the basis that the proximity of day to day services to shopping and other places of employment reduces the need to travel and the occurrence of traffic congestion. Porter Developments Ltd (FS239.015) and DNZ Property Fund Limited (285.009) further support this position. This submission fails to consider the purpose of the Business 4 zone within the business hierarchy and the strategic objectives of the plan which seek to ensure that the type, scale and intensity of activities outside of the centre shall not undermine the viability, vitality or viability of the Central City. In this respect, community facilities are predominantly intended to serve the surrounding residential catchment and therefore should be directed first and foremost towards the centres within the hierarchy where the Council is seeking to encourage a greater mixed use, live, work and play philosophy. The Business 4 zone is a commercial fringe zone, not a centre, and is to provide for large format, large floor plate retail, yard-based retail, wholesale and trade retail activities primarily. The Discretionary Activity approach given does not preclude Health Care services from establishing in these zones but ensures that a more permissive approach is conferred for existing centres first in line with the compact centres approach of Future Proof, the Proposed RPS and wider strategic objectives of the plan. No change is therefore proposed. Southern Cross Hospitals Limited (Bloxam Burnett and Olliver Ltd)(356.003) seek amendment to the list of ‘Community’ activities within Rule 6.3 to enable Hospitals as a Permitted Activity within the Business 1 Zone. Their reasoning is that this would best recognise all sites owned by Southern Cross Hospitals Ltd in the (Hamilton East) Business 1 Zone. The submitter seeks specific recognition for Hospitals rather than Health Care facilities. It is accepted that Hospitals should be provided for in a Business 1 zone due to the benefits of a commercial

Page 149 of 266


fringe location suited to such large scale activities which are not appropriate within the more pedestrian, finer grain focus of existing centres. The main distinction between Health Care facilities and Hospitals is that the latter primarily provide in-patient care, including a range of medical related services covering surgical, maternity, mental health, convalescent, clinics, dispensaries, residential centres, storage facilities, workshops, ancillary retail for example. Usually but not always these are inclusive as part of one integrated campus. Given this much broader and complex range of activities provided for within the Plan definition, the potential associated effects of Hospitals in terms of visitor numbers, vehicular movement, size, bulk, noise and scale is considered far greater. Hospitals are furthermore significant trip generators, which will inevitably trigger the need for ITA’s under the Transport Chapter. However, if the submitter requests are met, it is difficult to envisage that the effects associated with the operation of a complex and ‘large scale’ Hospital always being less than minor for the reasons given above, therefore a Discretionary Assessment is considered appropriate rather than a Permitted activity status. The amendment sought is therefore accepted in part with recognition of Hospitals as a discretionary activity within the Business 1 zone, with the track changes detailed in as per Appendix B. PRS Planning Services Limited (929.039) seek amendment to Rule 6.3 so that Public Art is a restricted discretionary activity, given the potential to result in adverse effects in terms of amenity values, privacy, safety, traffic generation, parking and other matters which people should be afforded the right to comment on. The definition for ‘Public Art’ in the Plan means artistic works created for, or located in, part of a public space or facility and accessible to members of the public, it includes works of a permanent or temporary nature located in the public domain. It is considered entirely reasonable for the Council to consider Public Art as a permitted activity given their location in the public domain and that they are likely to result in no more than minor effects similar to many other activities which are permitted within the Business zone. The Council’s strategy is to increase public awareness and engagement in arts and cultural activity as part of the Hamilton Arts agenda. It is considered that a more onerous consent threshold would not help achieve this key strategy and would be contrary to objective 2.2.10 and its relevant polices which seek to enhance Hamilton’s identity character and heritage. No amendment is proposed.

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision

Sub. Type

Summary

Recommendation

Reasoning



Support in part

Review activity status for health care services in business zones and request more permissive rules across the city.

Accept in Part A review of the activity status for health care services as requested should be accepted in part as this would;

• Assist in plan clarity, consistency and administration Recommend amendments to thresholds for health-care services are contained in Appendix B (refer 287.003)



Oppose Amend Rule 6.3 a), b) and d), request they be changed to a Permitted Activity across all Business Zones. Amend Rule 6.3 l), m) and n) regarding offices to replace the

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to 6.3 ll) requesting health care services (250m2 - 1000m2 within the Suburban Centre Core are a Permitted Activity should be accepted as it will;

• Assist in plan clarity, consistency and administration

Page 150 of 266


words "per site" with "per tenancy". Amend Rule 6.3hh) so parking lots and parking buildings within the Suburban Centre Core are a Permitted Activity. Amend Rule 6.3ll) so health-care services (250m2 - 1000m2) located at ground floor within the Suburban Centre Core are a Permitted Activity. Amend Rule 6.3xx) so residential apartments above ground floor in Suburban and Neighbourhood Centres are a Controlled Activity. Amend Rule 6.3zz) so that residential centres above ground floor level in Suburban Centres are a Restricted Discretionary Activity.

Recommend amendments to thresholds for health-care services are contained in Appendix B (refer 309.005)

.


FS123.014

Oppose Reject FS123.014 is not related to matters contained within 309.005 for Community activities.


FS142.001

Support Reject FS142.001 is not related to matters contained within 309.005 for Community activities.

Page 151 of 266


Greg Gimblett

(Church Road Developments Ltd)

FS247.001



FS285.005




Support in part

Amend Rule 6.3 a), b) and c) so that new buildings, alterations and additions and minor works are Permitted Activities across all Business Zones. Amend Rule 6.3 e) by replacing the word "industry" with "Industrial activity", and amend the definition of "industrial activity" so that it is clear that warehouse and bulk storage are deemed light industry. Amend Rule 6.3 l), m) and n) so that Offices up to 500m2 are a Permitted Activity and Offices greater than 500m2 are a Restricted Discretionary Activity in the Business 4 Zone. Retain Rule 6.3 p) and k) but amend the definition of ancillary retail to allow for it to occupy up to 25% Retain Rule 6.3 s), t) and w). Amend Rule 6.3 and 6.3 d) aa), bb), cc), ee), jj), kk), ll), mm), oo), qq), rr) and ss) so that Wholesale and Trade Retail,

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to 6.3 ll) requesting health-care services, Tertiary education and specialised training facilities are Permitted Activities in the Business 4 Zone should be rejected as;




Page 152 of 266


accessory buildings, licensed premises, cafes, restaurants, Commercial places of assembly (cinemas and bowling alleys only), health-care services, Tertiary education and specialised training facilities are Permitted Activities in the Business 4 Zone.


FS123.002

Oppose Reject FS123.002 is not related to matters in 312.005 concerning community facilities.


FS237.004

Support Reject FS237.004 is not related to matters in 312.005 concerning community facilities.


FS239.015

Support Reject Submissions FS239.015, FS285.009, FS285.036 further support amendments to the provisions that this submission seeks. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions.


FS249.026

Support Reject FS249.026 is not related to matters in 312.005 concerning community facilities.

Tram Lease Limited

FS265.002

Support Reject FS265.002 is not related to matters in 312.005 concerning community facilities


FS278.011



FS285.009

Support Reject For the reasons given above.

AMP Capital FS198.005 Support Reject FS198.005 is not related to matters in 312.005 concerning community

Page 153 of 266


Property Portfolio

facilities


FS285.036

Support Reject For the reasons given above



Oppose Amend the list of ‘Community’ activities within Rule 6.3 to enable hospitals as a Permitted Activity within the Business 1 Zone or on all sites owned by Southern Cross Hospitals Ltd in the (Hamilton East) Business 1 Zone.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3 in order that Hospitals be included as a Permitted in the Business 1 zone should rejected as;

• The intensity and nature of use of a Hospital does not justify assessment as a Permitted activity

• It would prejudice the implementation of the Plan to achieve its objectives




Accept The submission point seeking amendment for recognition of childcare facilities as a permitted activity in Business 4 zone should be accepted as;

• It does not prejudice the implementation of the Plan to achieve its objectives

• The relief sought is not considered to undermine the vitality and vibrancy of the higher order centres within the business hierarchy


FS278.01


PRS Planning Services Limited

929.039 6.6 Restricted Discretionary Activities Matters of Discretion and Assessment

Oppose Amend Rule 6.6a)(i) - (xi) so that reference to any criteria that are not directly relevant to the nature of the land use under consideration are deleted.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment for Public Art to be considered as a RD activity should be rejected as;


• The amendment sought by this submission point will not assist in

Page 154 of 266


Criteria Amend the Plan so that Public

Art is a Restricted Discretionary Activity in the Business 1 to 7 Zones.

achieving the Hamilton Arts Agenda.


FS285.093

Support Reject FS285.093 is not related to matters pertaining to Public Art.

The Trust Company Limited for AETNZ Education Trust


Oppose Amend Rule 6.3 oo) so that Childcare facilities as a Permitted activity (within the Business 2 Zone) Replace Policy 6.2.4a with one that provides for the establishment of complementary community and service activities on the fringe of major events facilities

Reject The submission point seeking amendment for recognition of childcare facilities as a permitted activity in Business 2 zone should be rejected as;


• The amendment sought by this submission point will not assist in achieving the Councils Economic Development Agenda.



Oppose Amend Rule 6.3 a) to provide for new buildings to be permitted activities subject to compliance with standards. Amend 6.3 bb) to permit restaurants in the Business 7 Zone, subject to appropriate standards. Amend Rule 6.3 oo) to permit childcare centres in the Business 2 Zone.

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment for recognition of childcare facilities as a permitted activity in Business 2 zone should be rejected as;




FS158.005



FS285.123

Support Reject Submissions FS285.123, further support amendments to the provisions that this submission seeks. This submission has been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions.

Page 155 of 266


Alexander

Elliot (Claudelands Residents)

FS286.044

Oppose Reject FS286.044 is not related to matters in 1126.015 concerning community facilities



Support in part

Amend Rule 6.3 in Business 4 Zone so that: Light industry is a Permitted Activity. Offices less than 250m2, and Licensed premises, Restaurants and Cafes less than 200m2, and Visitor Accommodation, are Controlled Activities. Transport Depot (Goods), Offices 250-500m2, Retail 150-399m2, Commercial places of assembly (cinemas and bowling alleys only), Health Care Services up to 1000m2, Childcare facilities, and Tertiary education and specialised training facilities, are Restricted Discretionary Activities. Cafes, restaurants, and licensed premises 200m2 gross floor area or greater are Discretionary Activities.

Reject

The submission point seeking amendment to 6.3 ll) requesting health-care services, Tertiary education and specialised training facilities are Permitted Activities in the Business 4 Zone should be rejected as;





FS123.025


Tram Lease Limited

FS265.01



FS285.134

Support Reject Submissions FS285.134, further support amendments to the provisions that this submission seeks. This submission has been declined for the reasons

Page 156 of 266


(DNZ) stated specifically in relation to those submissions.

Tram Lease Limited


Oppose Amend Rule 6.3 a), b) and d) to provide for new buildings, alterations and additions to buildings, and accessory buildings, as a permitted activity. Amend Rule 6.3 e) and f) to provide for light industry as a permitted activity and industry as a restricted discretionary activity. Amend Rule 6.3 ff) and gg) to provide for drive-through services as a permitted activity. Amend Rule 6.3 oo) to provide for childcare facilities as a permitted activity in Business 4 zone.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment for recognition of childcare facilities as a permitted activity in Business 4 zone should be accepted as;

• It does not prejudice the implementation of the Plan to achieve its objectives

• The relief sought is not considered to undermine the vitality and vibrancy of the higher order centres within the business hierarchy


FS285.146




Oppose Amend Rule 6.3a to provide for new buildings to be permitted activities subject to compliance with bulk and location standards managing effects (including urban design) according to location. Amend Rule 6.3bb) so that restaurants in the Business 7 Zone are Permitted Activities.

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment for recognition of childcare facilities as a permitted activity in Business 2 zone should be rejected as;



Page 157 of 266


Amend Rule 6.3oo) so that childcare centres in the Business 2 Zone are Permitted Activities.


FS285.203

Support Reject Submissions FS285.203, further support amendments to the provisions that this submission seeks. This submission has been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions.


FS286.024


Page 158 of 266



S42a Report

Rule 6.3 Activity Status Table - Residential

Analysis: Rule 6.3 Activity Status Table - Residential

Rototuna Ventures Ltd (309.005), McCracken Surveys Limited (1206.066) seek amendment Rule 6.3xx) so residential apartments above ground floor in Suburban and Neighbourhood Centres are a Controlled Activity. These submissions have been considered in the previous section 6.2 of this report and proposed amendments to the Policies provide for residential above ground floor in both Suburban and Neighbourhood Centres. This goes some way in providing relief for the submitter. However given the complexities of mixed use and the potential for reverse sensitivity issues, a controlled activity status would suggest residential activities of any nature, quantum, design and location will only produce effects of a nature and scale that can be managed through conditions of consent. Key principles for conferring conditions on a consent are that they should be fair and reasonable, must be able to be complied with, and must not frustrate the exercise of consent. A condition that hinders the proposal so severely that it makes the implementation of the consent difficult is not sound planning practice. Applying this to an example for residential activity in a suburban or neighbourhood centre which by reason of design, location or siting may result in apartments that are unsuited to the site, with inappropriate access, overbearing relationship to commercial properties or contrary to the objectives and policies of the plan. A permitted baseline for residential activities in centres which are required to provide for a range of services and activities could further limit or sterilize opportunities for more comprehensive and efficient development of a site. A restricted discretionary assessment with discretion limited to those matters of concern would provide for the ability to refuse an application if this was the more appropriate course of action – an option not available if the activity status was a Controlled Activity. The submitters reasoning further extends to the request for Residential Centres above ground floor level in Suburban Centres to be a Restricted Discretionary Activity rather than Discretionary. For the same reasons given above and in order to manage the effects of more intensive residential uses that ordinarily require substantial ground floor development, as for Detached dwellings and visitor accommodation, a Discretionary Activity approach is consistent and reasonable. Given the above no amendments are proposed.

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision

Sub. Type

Summary

Recommendation

Reasoning



Oppose Amend Rule 6.3 a), b) and d), request they be changed to a Permitted Activity across all Business Zones. Amend Rule 6.3 l), m) and n) regarding offices to replace the words "per site" with "per tenancy". Amend Rule 6.3hh) so parking lots and parking buildings within the Suburban Centre Core are a Permitted Activity.

Accept in Part The submissions seeking amendment to Rule 6.3xx) and zz) seeking a controlled activity status for apartments and residential centres should be rejected as it would;

• Reduce the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies and contrary to the purposes and principles of the RMA.

.

Title: Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones Issue: Rule 6.3 Activity Status Table - Residential

Page 159 of 266

Amend Rule 6.3ll) so health-care services (250m2 - 1000m2) located at ground floor within the Suburban Centre Core are a Permitted Activity. Amend Rule 6.3xx) so residential apartments above ground floor in Suburban and Neighbourhood Centres are a Controlled Activity. Amend Rule 6.3zz) so that residential centres above ground floor level in Suburban Centres are a Restricted Discretionary Activity.


FS123.014

Oppose Reject FS123.014 is not related to the matters contained in 309.005 pertaining to residential apartments


FS142.001

Support Reject FS142.001 is not related to the matters contained in 309.005 pertaining to residential apartments


FS247.001



FS285.005


McCracken 1206.066 6.3 Rules – Oppose Amend Rules 6.3 a), b) and xx) Accept in Part The submissions seeking amendment to Rule 6.3xx) and zz) seeking a


Page 160 of 266

Surveys Limited Activity Status

Table so that new buildings and Apartments above ground floor are Controlled Activities, and alterations and additions and accessory buildings are Permitted Activities. Amend Rule 6.3 e) by replacing the word "industry" with "Industrial activity", and amend the definition of "industrial activity" so that it is clear that warehouse and bulk storage are deemed light industry. Amend Rules 6.3 l), m) and n) so that Offices up to 500m2 are a Permitted Activity and Offices greater than 500m2 are a Discretionary Activity. Amend Rules 6.3 r), aa) and bb) so that Retail up to 399m2, licences premises up to 200m2, restaurants and cafes up to 200m2 are Permitted Activities in Neighbourhood Centres. Amend Rules 6.3 s) and t) so that retail activities greater than 399m2 are Permitted Activities in Suburban Centres. Amend Rules 6.3 and 6.3 f) so that Wholesale and Trade Retail and light industry are Permitted Activities in the Business 4 Zone.

controlled activity status for apartments and residential centres should be rejected as it would;

• Reduce the effectiveness of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies and contrary to the purposes and principles of the RMA.

DNZ Property FS285.172 Support Reject FS285.172 is not related to the matters contained in 1206.066 pertaining to


Page 161 of 266

Fund Limited (DNZ)

residential apartments.


Page 162 of 266

S42a Report

Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones 6.4.1 –Rules - General Standards - Maximum Building Height

Analysis: 6.4.1 –Rules - General Standards - Maximum Building Height

Submitters below seek amendment to Rule 6.4.1a) to increase the maximum height limit in the Business 4 zone (Large Format Retail) from 15m to 20m. The generic argument promoted by submitters is based on retention of the status quo entitlements of the Operative District Plan in the belief that this will encourage more efficient use of land, variety in built form, and achieve greater consistency with the desire for a more compact and intensively developed City; this being a strategic outcome sought in the Plan. A comparison of the Operative District Plan and Proposed District Plan zone height limits is set out below; Operative Plan

Zoning Max. Building Height Industrial 20m Commercial Service 20m Suburban Centre 10m/15m on sites > 1 ha City Centre No limit

Proposed Plan

Zoning Max. Building Height Industrial 20m B1 (Commercial Fringe) 15m B2 (Events facilities) 15m B3 (Suburban Centre) 15m B4 (Large Format Retail) 15m B5 (Suburban Centre) 15m B6 12.5m B7 (Neighbourhood Centre_ 10m City Centre 16m (before bonuses)

A tiered approach to building heights is provided that reflects the anticipated intensity of commercial activity desirable in any particular location, with the most generous provision being for development within the Central City. Higher permissible building heights provide greater development entitlement, and encouragement of more intensive activity, vibrancy and vitality. The lower permitted heights for the Business 7 zones reflect their locations in more sensitive, residentially characterised neighbourhoods and the desire to provide compatible building height entitlements reflective of those neighbouring zones. In these latter zones the dominance of building bulk over neighbouring land uses is less acceptable. Rule 6.4.2 Height in Relation to Boundary further provides some management of reverse sensitivity effects..

Title: Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones Issue: 6.4.1 –Rules - General Standards - Maximum Building Height

Page 163 of 266

For commercial scale development based on 3m to 3.5m floor (stud) heights then 4 storey complying developments are easily achievable even allowing for pitched roof top treatments. If floor heights are reduced to say 2.75m then 5 floor commercial buildings are possible conditional on roof top treatments. Applying this logic to a 20m height limit would confer as a minimum a 6 floor commercial entitlement which is considered over generous across all business zones. With the exception of the The Base, and Chartwell Sub-Regional Centres, the majority of built form within the Business 4 and Suburban Centres does not exceed 4 storey height. The Central City has a height limit before bonuses of only 16m and a maximum height limit of 20m within the City Living Precinct. On this basis and given the strategic policies and objectives of the plan in which the Central City is to be the primary business centre and the preferred location for significant office, commercial, retailing and civic activities then is reasonable to expect a higher baseline for building heights in the Centre, Business 1 and Business 4 zones are not identified ‘centres’ within the business hierarchy, they provide for collocation as part of higher order business centres. The height limits proposed are to set a guideline for future developments within these zones and no evidence has been provided by the submitter to demonstrate why a more efficient use of land and development flexibility cannot occur within a 15m height limit. In terms of the identified Sub-regional Centres with a Business 3 Zoning, there is an acknowledgement that Te-Awa, The Base and Chartwell already exceed the 15 m height limit and therefore it is appropriate to increase the maximum building height to 20m as requested. Existing consents and specifically the latest (December 2012) consent for The Base confirms development for a Hotel up to 6 storeys (assume 20m), the balance of the consented development is a mix of single to four storey commercial buildings well below the 20m height entitlement. Currently these consents have not been implemented. Therefore it is proposed the 20m maximum height limit is conferred to Business 3 zone only. This would also confer the Sub-Regional Centre zone, the next tier down in the business hierarchy a height above other lower order business zones and be consistent with the Proposed RPS which advises that the Plan should support the self-sufficiency of existing commercial centres identified in Table 6.3. Given the above it is considered that conferring a blanket 20m height limit for all Business 1 and Business 4 zone would signal an unnecessary height entitlement as a permitted baseline in out of centre locations which would be contrary to the strategic framework of the plan. The latter requires that the intensity of activities outside the Central City does not undermine the viability, vitality and vibrancy of the Central City. Furthermore, given all new buildings, and extensions and alterations to buildings within all Business Zones would require a Restricted Discretionary Consent as proposed, then the height limits stated may well be breached depending on the case put forward by the applicant in each particular circumstance. The following amendments are proposed to Rule 6.4.1 in response combing both Business 5 and 6 zones;

6.4.1 Maximum Building Height

Business Zones Height of buildings

a) Business 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 20m

b) Business 1,2, 4 and 5 15m


Page 164 of 266

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

Tainui Group Holdings Limited (1199.008) seek a rule to include lift shafts in the exemption of height controls. This proposed change is not considered necessary given the plan definition of height excludes service rooms, containing lift machinery which would include lift shafts. No change is therefore proposed. Generation Zero Waikato (1284.016) seek amendment to Rule 6.4.1 a) - c) to increase the maximum height to 20m, 15m and 12.5m respectively to enable more efficient use of land. The rationale for heights within the other Business zones has been discussed above but in terms of the relief sought for 6.4.1 b), some confort can be given as a result of consequential amendments to other submissions resulting in combining Business 5 and 6 zones which would then provide for a maximum building height of 15m within Suburban Centres.

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision

Sub. Type

Summary

Recommendation

Reasoning


73.004 6.4.1 Maximum Building Height

Oppose Amend Rule 6.4.1a) to increase the maximum height limit in the Business 4 zone to 20m.

Reject The submission points seeking amendment to Rule 6.4.1a)c requesting a maximum height limit of 20m for Business 1 and 4 zones should be rejected as;





FS198.011

Support Reject The submission points which FS,198.011, FS239.012, FS285.001 support have been Rejected for the reasons given above.

Porter FS239.012 Support Reject


Page 165 of 266

Developments Limited


FS285.001

Support Reject

Alexander Elliott (Claudelands Neighbourhood Support Groups)


Oppose Amend Rule 6.4.1 to reduce the maximum height of buildings in Business Zone 2 (Claudelands) to 10m.

Reject



Oppose Amend Rule 6.4.1a) Business Zone 4 - Large Format Retail to increase the maximum height limit to 20m.






FS249.026

Support Reject The submission points which FS249.026, FS 285.016, support have been rejected for the reasons given above.


FS285.016

Support Reject



Oppose Amend Rule 6.4.1a) Business Zone 1 to increase the maximum height limit to 20m.





Page 166 of 266




FS142.002

Support Reject The submission points which FS142.002, FS247.002, support have been rejected for the reasons given above.


FS247.002

Support Reject



Support Retain Rule 6.4.1a) regarding the maximum building height of 15m within the Business 1 zone and remove the Amenity Protection Area applied to the Business 1 Zone.

Accept in Part This submission point is accepted in part because it is already provided for within the Plan, so no amendments are necessary.



Oppose Amend Rule 6.4.1a) to increase the maximum height limit for Business Zones 3 and 4 to 20m.

Accept in Part The submission points seeking amendment to Rule 6.4.1a) c requesting a maximum height limit of 20m for Business 3 Zone should be accepted in part as it would improve;


• Consistency of the Plan with the Proposed RPS Recommended amendments to 6.4.1a) are contained in Appendix B ( refer to 938.065)

Andrew Yeoman

FS2.012



FS198.013

Support Accept in Part FS198.013 is accepted in part because that part of 938.065 which it supports (notification) has been accepted.


Page 167 of 266

Peter John

Findlay, Donna Margaret Findlay, Peter John Findlay & Donna Margaret Findlay as Trustees of the Findlay Family Trust, Riverside Oak Estate Ltd (Baruchel Developments Ltd)

FS242.001



FS277.001



FS285.098




Support Retain Rule 6.4.1a) regarding the maximum building height of 15m within the Business 1 zone and remove the Amenity

Accept in Part This submission point is accepted in part because it is already provided for within the Plan, so no amendments ate necessary.


Page 168 of 266

Protection Area applied to the Business 1 Zone.


FS213.001


Tram Lease Limited


Oppose Amend Rule 6.4.1a) to increase the maximum height limit for Business Zone 4 to 20m.

Reject The submission points seeking amendment to Rule 6.4.1a)c requesting a maximum height limit of 20m for Business 4 zone should be rejected as;





FS198.012

Support Reject The submission points which FS198.012 and FS285.147 support have been rejected for the reasons given above.


FS285.147

Support Reject



Oppose Amend Rule 6.4.1 by increasing the maximum height limit for Te Rapa North Sub-Regional Centre to 20m and by adding a rule to include lift shafts in the exemption of height controls. Amend the definition of Height in 1.7 Definitions

Accept in Part The submission points seeking amendment to Rule 6.4.1a) c requesting a maximum height limit of 20m for Business 3 Zone should be accepted in part as it would improve;




Page 169 of 266

This submission point which seeks an exemption for light shafts in height definition is accepted in part because it is already provided for within the Plan, so no amendments ate necessary.


FS239.007

Support Reject The submission points which FS239.007supports has been rejected for the reasons given above.



Oppose Amend Rule 6.4.1a) to increase the maximum height limit for Business Zones 3 and 4 to 20m.

Accept in Part The submission points seeking amendment to Rule 6.4.1a) c requesting a maximum height limit of 20m for Business 1 should be accepted in part as it would improve;




FS285.173


Generation Zero Waikato


Support in part

Amend Rule 6.4.1 a) - c) to increase the maximum height to 20m, 15m and 12.5m respectively.

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.4.1a) and 6.4.1b) has been accepted in part because amendments have been made in response to other submissions ( See Rule 6.3 in Appendix B) and would improve ;

• The efficiency of the Plan in terms of achieving it stated objectives and policies

• Plan administration and clarity of the Plan for users.


FS266.005



Page 170 of 266

DNZ Property

Fund Limited (DNZ)

FS285.205

Support Reject FS285.205 is rejected as it


Page 171 of 266

Chapter 6 – Business 1- 7 Zones.

S42a Report

6.4.3 – General Standards - Building Setbacks

Analysis: 6.4.3 – General Standards - Building Setbacks

Rototuna Ventures Ltd (309.006), AMP Capital Property Portfolio (312.006), Property Council New Zealand (938.006) and McCracken Surveys Limited (1206.068) all seek amendments to Rule 6.4.3 a) to require a 5m building setback only in relation to major arterial roads. DNZ Property Fund Limited (DNZ), and Progressive Enterprises Limited support this submission. Their reasoning being that in relation to all other roads, no building setback should be specified to allow for the best design response, particularly in cases where a consistent street edge should be reinforced. While Greg Gimblett (Church Road Developments Ltd) support a building setback of 5m, this is supported in the Business 1 zone as this will provide sufficient buffer to any residential or special character zone. The 5m set back rule is based on the setback provisions used in the Operative District Plan for both major and minor arterial transport corridors. It is considered that part of the rationale for the 5m distance derives from the requirement for a 2m buffer strip adjacent these corridors and incorporates comments from the report ‘Peer Review-Landscape Provisions HCC District Plan’, by Beca dated 23 February 2012. One of the key benefits of a 5m setback is that it provides the necessary distance in which to provide the 2m landscape buffer as required by Objectives and Policies 25.5.2.1 and Rule 25.5.3.1 (Landscaping) . This Policy seeks to maintain and enhance amenity values within land around development while contributing to local ecology and cultural connections where possible. The Proposed Plan only requires a 2m wide planting strip adjacent to a major arterial corridor. Whilst it is accepted that a street edge is desirable in some locations, this is not necessary the case for all zones; furthermore the breach of a setback rule does not preclude development within the setback being considered as part of a restricted discretionary activity assessment whereby it may be acceptable depending on the specific case put forward. The benefits of providing enclosure as part of active street frontages in higher pedestrian focused zones within the Central City has been acknowledged with a 0m setback from front boundaries. However it is considered that a 5 m setback is justified within the Business Zones which provide amenity values in addition to transportation benefits and safe vehicular access onto arterial roads. Given the potential permissible building height of up to 15m across a range of business zones, the ‘human scale’ of buildings needs to be considered. A setback of 5m provides for a reasonable and effective interface rather than encouraging 15m high buildings to be sited ‘hard up’ against the transport corridor which is not always a good design outcome especially if buildings are inactive or present ‘back of house’ elevations. Further reasons for a supporting a 5m setback include; • Ensures proposals consider amenity values of the streetscape which are a component in supporting alternative travel modes (e.g. pleasant walking/cycling routes) • Ensures more effective integration of land use with the transportation network. • Protects the transport network from reverse sensitivity effects which might otherwise hinder the operation of the network – compromises efficiency, affordability, and responsiveness. For the reasons given above, it is not considered adequate justification has been given to reduce the setback for minor arterial corridors and therefore to ensure effectiveness and efficiency of the Plan in terms of achieving its stated objectives and policies, no amendments are proposed. Property Council New Zealand and McCracken Surveys Limited (938.066) seek clarification or amendment to Rule 6.4.3b) to clarify that signs do not need to comply with setbacks. They also seek deletion of Rule 6.4.3c) as it is ambiguous and unclear what ‘any internal zone boundary’ means and what setback distance would apply.

In response to the above submission, Rule 25.10.4e) General Standard, within the Citywide (Signs) chapter, advises clearly that; Signs shall not be required to meet the setback requirements specified in the underlying zone rules. No change is therefore proposed in response to this submission.

Title: Chapter 6 – Business 1- 7 Zones. Issue: 6.4.3 – General Standards - Building Setbacks

Page 172 of 266

With regards to Rule 6.4.3 c), the intention of the rule as written; 5m (except for any internal zone boundary within the Business 4 Zone) refers to a setback from any other zone boundary, with the exception being for those side and rear site boundaries that are also Business 4 Zone. It is accepted that there could be ambiguity in interpretation and therefore the following amendment is proposed for Rule 6.4.3c); 5m (except for any internal site boundary within the Business 4 Zone)

Tram Lease Limited (1163.008) seek amendment to Rule 6.4.3 to remove or reduce the 5m building setback requirement where land is adjacent to a railway. The submitter contends that their site is relatively narrow and a 5m wide separation distance would limit the development potential of the site and is not considered necessary given that the adjacent land use is the rail corridor. The reduction of a rail corridor setback to suit a single site in the context of the wider city is not accepted as a sufficient justification to adopt the amendment. Much like for the roading corridor, the railway is still considered part of the strategic transport network that provides for the movement of people and goods to, from and through the city. There is a responsibility to consider the amenity values adjacent land uses have within the zone through which it passes and ensure the efficient integration of future development adjacent the rail corridor in accordance with the objectives 18.2.2 and policy 18.2.2b of the Plan which advise the following; Objective 18.2.2 Adverse effects from the transport network are minimized and amenity values maintained. Policy 18.2.2b The amenity values of adjacent land uses shall be protected from the adverse effects of works within the transport corridor.

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision

Sub. Type

Summary

Recommendation

Reasoning


73.002 6.4.3 Building Setbacks

Support Retain Rule 6.4.3(c) 5m minimum distance building setback within Business Zone 4

Accept The submission point is consistent with the Policies and Objectives of the Plan.


FS198.014

Oppose Reject Submission FS198.014 has been declined for the reasons above given in response to amendments sought to Rule 6.4.3.


FS239.011




Oppose Amend Rule 6.4.3 a) to require a 5m building setback only in relation to major arterial roads.

Reject The submission points below seeking amendment to Rule 6.4.3a) requesting that a 5m setback only applies to major arterial roads should be rejected as;


Page 173 of 266

• It reduces the efficient and effective implementation of the Plan to

achieve its objectives • Contains inadequate justification as to why the alternative sought



FS285.006

Support Reject FS285.006 is rejected because that part of 309.006 which it supports (notification) has been rejected. .



Oppose Amend Rule 6.4.3a) so the 5m setback only applies to major arterial roads Delete Rule 6.4.3c) as it is ambiguous and unclear what "any internal zone boundary" means and what setback distance would apply.

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.4.3c) as it is ambiguous and unclear what "any internal zone boundary" has been accepted in part as is would;

• Aid clarity and administration of the Plan.


FS237.005

Support Accept in Part FS237.005 is accepted in part because that part of 312.006 which it supports (notification) has been accepted in part


FS249.026




Support Retain Rule 6.4.3 regarding the building setback of 5m in the Business 1 zone.

Accept The submission point is consistent with the Policies and Objectives of the Plan



Oppose Amend Rule 6.4.3a) so the 5m setback only applies to major arterial roads and does not apply to signs. Delete Rule 6.4.3c) as it is ambiguous and unclear what "any internal zone boundary"

Accept in Part The submission points below seeking amendment to Rule 6.4.3a) requesting that a 5m setback only applies to major arterial roads should be rejected as;


• Contains inadequate justification as to why the alternative sought would be more appropriate


Page 174 of 266

means and what setback distance would apply. Amend Rule 6.4.3b) to clarify that signs do not need to comply with setbacks.

The submission points below seeking amendment to Rule 6.4.3c) as it is ambiguous and unclear what "any internal zone boundary" has been accepted in part as is would;


Andrew Yeoman

FS2.012

Support Reject FS02.12, FS198.015, FS242.001 and FS277.001 are not related to the matters contained in 938.066


FS198.015

Support Reject


FS242.001

Support Reject


FS277.001

Support Reject


Page 175 of 266

Findlay as Trustees of the Findlay Family Trust, Riverside Oak Estate Ltd (Peter Findlay, Peter Findlay & Associates Ltd)


FS285.099




Oppose Amend Rule 6.4.3a) so the 5m setback only applies to major arterial roads Delete Rule 6.4.3c) as it is ambiguous and unclear what "any internal zone boundary" means and what setback distance would apply. Amend Rule 6.4.3b) to clarify that signs do not need to comply with setbacks.

Accept in Part The submission points below seeking amendment to Rule 6.4.3a) requesting that a 5m setback only applies to major arterial roads should be rejected as;



The submission points below seeking amendment to Rule 6.4.3c) as it is ambiguous and unclear what "any internal zone boundary" has been accepted in part as is would;



FS285.174

Support Accept in Part FS237.005 is accepted in part because that part of FS1206.068 which it supports (notification) has been accepted in part.



Support Retain Rule 6.4.3 regarding the 5m building setback in residential and special character zones.

Accept The submission point is consistent with the Policies and Objectives of the Plan


FS213.001

Support Accept FS213.001 is accepted because that part of FS1117.006 which it supports (notification) has been accepted.


Page 176 of 266

Tram Lease Limited


Oppose Amend Rule 6.4.3 to remove or reduce the 5m building setback requirement where land is adjacent to a railway.

Reject The submission points seeking amendment to Rule 6.4.3 requesting deletion of 5m setback for buildings adjacent a railway should be rejected as;




Page 177 of 266

a


S42a Report

Rule 6.4.4 General Standards - Minimum Floor Area

Analysis: Rule 6.4.4 General Standards - Minimum Floor Area

AMP Capital Property Portfolio (312.008) seeks the Deletion of Rule 6.4.4a), on the basis that retail activities less than 399m2 are Discretionary Activities within Rule 6.3. Kiwi Income Property Trust and Kiwi Property Holdings Limited (FS123.003) opposes this submission, on the basis that deletion of a minimum tenancy provision could undermine the Central City primacy. DNZ Property Fund Limited (DNZ) supports the submission point. It is considered that this rule is now obsolete given the proposed consequential amendments to Rules 6.3 q) and r) that make Retail a RD activity in response to a tightening up of retail provisions in both Business 3 and 4 zones. The stricter position in terms of what could occur within the Large Format Retail is in response to other submissions and advice from the Council’s Retail Consultants whom first and foremost advise that the finer grain retail activity needs should be directed towards the pedestrian focused Central City zone and Suburban Centres rather than out of centre or peripheral locations. Property Economics advise that in terms of The Base / Te Awa centre itself, there is around 47,000sqm GFA of unimplemented consents above the current built form, of which just over 18,000sqm GFA is for retail activity. They postulate that given growth in the market in the foreseeable future and the desired outcome of the proposed District Plan to reinvigorate and rejuvenate the CBD, there is limited additional retail GFA warranted above that already consented. One of the fundamental key approaches of Future Proof is to ensure commercial developments, including extensive development of retail/ mall shopping are not located in areas that undermine the City Heart. The Proposed RPS clearly advises in Policy 6.15b) ii) that ‘Commercial Development is to be managed by avoiding or managing adverse effects on the Central Business District, including from activities which may adversely affect function, vitality or amenity of the Central Business District’. The rationale for Rule 6.4.4a) sought to restrict small to medium size retail activities and to some extent conflicted with Rule 6.3 q) and r). Given the clear need to avoid adverse distributional effects on the viability, community and social wellbeing of the Central City, the proposed changes to Rule 6.3 in response to other submissions now make Rule 6.4.4 superfluous. The amendment sought is accepted and it is proposed Rule 6.4.4 is deleted.

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision

Sub. Type

Summary

Recommendation

Reasoning


312.008 6.4.4 Minimum Floor Area

Oppose Delete Rule 6.4.4a) as any retail activity less than 400m2 in Business Zone 4 is a Discretionary Activity.

Accept The submission point seeking the deletion of Rule 6.4.4a) removing the minimum individual tenancy requirement for Business Zone 4 should be accepted as it would;

• Not alter effect of the Policy • Improve the internal consistency of the Plan

Kiwi Income Property Trust and Kiwi

FS123.003

Oppose Reject FS123.003 is Rejected because that part of 312.008 which it opposes (notification) has been rejected.

Title: Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones Issue: Rule 6.4.4 General Standards - Minimum Floor Area

Page 178 of 266

Property Holdings Limited


FS249.026

Support Reject FS249.026 is not related to the matters contained in 312.008.


FS285.01


Title: Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones Issue: Rule 6.4.4 General Standards - Minimum Floor Area

Page 179 of 266

S42a Report

Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones Rule 6.4.5 – General Standard- Building Intensity

Analysis: Rule 6.4.5 – General Standard - Building Intensity

Harvey Norman Stores Pty (NZ) Ltd/Harvey Norman Properties (NZ) Ltd (73.005) and AMP Capital Property Portfolio (312.009) seek amendments to Rule 6 .4.5 so that the maximum intensity ratio in the Business Zone 4 is increased from 1:1 to 1.5:1. While the Property Council New Zealand (938.067) and McCracken Surveys Limited (1206.069) seek an increase in the floor area ratio to 2:1. The reasoning for the amendment sought is that the Operative District Plan imposed a 1.5:1 floor area ratio (FAR) in the Commercial Services Zone, and is preferable to 1:1 in that it encourages more efficient use of land and variety in built form. These amendments are supported by AMP Capital Property Portfolio, Porter Developments Limited, DNZ Property Fund Limited (DNZ) and Progressive Enterprises Limited on the basis the relief sought would have regard to the character and function of the Business 4 Zone.

Within a particular zone and its bulk and height restrictions, a low FAR will yield less building area than a high FAR. A higher FAR is generally associated with service and office activities; a lower FAR is with industrial and storage activities (which do not lend themselves to multi-storey development). With multi-storey buildings the Floor Area Ratio may exceed 1 (i.e., the floorspace exceeds site size). This is most common in the Central City which provides for multi-story offices and hotels, where the ratio may be 5:1, for example.

The Plan sets limits for Building intensities in order to encourage more intensive forms of commercial development in the centre and commercial fringe of the Central City, and the the Sub-Regional and Suburban Centres. This is to promote greater vibrancy and vitality at the ‘cores’ of these centres as they will provide the market with the opportunity to attain an appropriate mixed use through vertical integration. Within both Suburban centres and Sub Regional centres it is considered appropriate that taller buildings be developed at smaller floor plates to offset other potential effects, e.g. dominance, bulk, shadowing. The floor area ratios also correlates well with the need to provide for greater on-site amenity generally as larger buildings are developed, particularly for those identified centres. The reduction in Building intensity for the Business 4 zone, correlates with the previous reasoning for a reduction in building heights within this zone to a maximum of 15m. The Business 4 zone is for large format retail activity which is not to be encouraged at intensity either through an increase in height or through use of mezzanine levels that would undermine the Central City or higher order centres within the business hierarchy. The concern of a too enabling large format retail zone is made clear within the accompanying statement of evidence of the Council’s Retail consultant, and the stricter FAR in the Business 4 zone is in part, signalling tighter controls for this reason. This approach is also in alignment with Future Proof Chapter 8.19 which advises that large scale, out of centre retail development can undermine the vitality of the CBD and other centres. Within the Business 4 zone, large format activities tend to have single storey floor plates, commonly warehouses with ancillary offices and associated customer car parking usually covering up to a half of the site. There is generally less need for the same level of pedestrian amenity on the ground floor with alternative uses above the ground floor as one would expect more pedestrian focused streets within the city or suburban centres and therefore less need to accommodate smaller floor plates and increased height. In the majority of cases within the city a 1:1 FAR for large format retail is therefore more than adequate to accommodate these activities. A comparison between the FAR of the Operative Plan and Proposed Plan is outline below; Operative Plan

Zoning Max. Floor Area Ratio Commercial Service 1.5:1 Suburban Centre 1:1

Title: Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones Issue: Rule 6.4.5 – General Standard- Building Intensity

Page 180 of 266

Proposed Plan

Zoning Max. Floor Area Ratio B1 – Commercial Fringe 2:1 B2 – Events Facilities 1:1 B3 – Sub- Regional 2:1 B4 – Large Format Retail 1:1 B5 – Suburban Core 2:1 B6 – Suburban Fringe 1:1 B7 – Neighbourhood 1:1

The proposed Plan gives recognition for greater intensity within Suburban and Sub-Regional Centres, with an acknowledgement of similar intensity within the commercial fringe zone which specifically provides for offices and a broader range of activities. In fact a recognition of a higher FAR in the Proposed Plan has been shown for Business 1, 3 and 5 zones which is consistent with scale of commercial centres expected within the business hierarchy. On the basis of the arguments put forward in the submissions, it is not considered that adequate justification has been provided for a relaxation of this approach and therefore no change is recommended. Generation Zero Waikato (1284.017) seek amendment to Rule 6.4.5a) i and ii so the maximum ratio of floor space to net site area is increased to 3:1 and 1.5:1 respectively and subsequent amendment to Rule 6.4.5b) so that ground level car parking are included in floor space calculations. Their reasoning being higher building intensity will allow more efficient use of land in all zones and car parking is a wasteful use of land and should be included in floor area calculation. Jon Harris (Hills Laboratories Limited), Tainui Group Holdings Ltd, Property Council New Zealand, 490 Grey Ltd as the Trustee of the BDL Commercial Investment Trust and Homes for Living Ltd oppose the submission point pertaining to car parking on the basis that car parking is an essential ancillary part of land use activities and needs to be provided for separately from building floor space. Including it in floor space would be a major disincentive to development and be in conflict with many aspects of the Plan. DNZ Property Fund Limited (DNZ) supports the submission requesting an increase in FAR for Business 4 zones, similar to their further submissions above. The increase in FAR, has been discussed above and therefore no change is proposed. The relief sought for including car parking in FAR calculations has been accepted in part with the provisions as notified for Business 1,2, 4, 6 (as notified) and 7 zones. The plan provides for an exemption of parking from floor space calculations in Rule 6.4.5 b) as follows;

b) In determining the floor area ratio: i. Floor space used for parking within Business 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.

The rationale for a relaxation of car parking from the FAR for Business 3 and 5 zones is to some extent the commercial recognition that some centres will inevitably require a level of parking in order to achieve mixed use and customer visitation. It is assumed that this provision provides an incentive to achieve a more intensive and vibrant built form within these centres and not penalize them by including parking provision within the FAR required to achieve this. Whilst it is acknowledged that in circumstances where there is good public transport or access to alternative modes of transport over provision of parking can be wasteful and this is to some extent acknowledged by the nil provision requirement within the Central City, there is however a realisation that until such time, suitable and viable alternatives are in place, parking provision is inevitable feature for commercial centres. A balance has to be struck and set against the backdrop of the ensuring the continued viability of existing commercial centres as proposed by the PRPS. It is therefore considered this notified approach strikes the correct balance and no change is recommended.


Page 181 of 266

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision

Sub. Type

Summary

Recommendation

Reasoning


73.005 6.4.5 Building Intensity

Oppose Amend Rule 6.4.5 so that the maximum intensity ratio in the Business Zone 4 is 1.5 :1.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.4.5a) requesting the maximum intensity ratio for Business Zone 4 is 1.5:1 should be rejected as;





FS198.016

Support Reject Submissions FS198.016, FS239.013, FS285.002 further support amendments to the provisions that this submission seeks. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions


FS239.013

Support Reject


FS285.002

Support Reject



Oppose Amend Rule 6.4.5 a)(ii) in relation to Business Zone 4 so a maximum floor area to net site area ratio of 1.5 :1 applies.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.4.5a) requesting the maximum intensity ratio for Business Zone 4 is 1.5:1 should be rejected as;





Page 182 of 266

Progressive

Enterprises Limited

FS237.006

Support Reject Submissions FS237.006, FS249.026, FS285.011, further support amendments to the provisions that this submission seeks. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions.


FS249.026

Support Reject


FS285.011

Support Reject



Oppose Amend 6.4.5 a) to allow the Business 4 Zone a maximum ratio of floor area to of 2:1.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.4.5a) requesting the maximum intensity ratio for Business Zone 4 is 2:1 should be rejected as;




Andrew Yeoman

FS2.012



FS239.016

Support Reject Submissions FS239.016 further support amendments to the provisions that this submission seeks. This submission has been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions


FS242.001



Page 183 of 266

Trust, Riverside Oak Estate Ltd (Baruchel Developments Ltd)


FS277.001



FS285.1

Support Reject Submissions FS285.1 further support amendments to the provisions that this submission seeks. This submission has been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions.

Tram Lease Limited


Oppose Amend Rule 6.4.5 to remove the Floor Area Ratio requirement from the Business 4 zone.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.4.5a) requesting deletion of the maximum intensity ratio requirement for Business Zone 4 should be rejected as;





FS285.148

Support Reject Submissions FS285.148 further support amendments to the provisions that this submission seeks. This submissions has been declined for the reasons


Page 184 of 266

(DNZ) stated specifically in relation to those submissions



Oppose Amend 6.4.5 a) to allow the Business 4 Zone a maximum ratio of floor area to of 2:1.






FS285.175

Support Reject Submissions FS285.175 further supports amendments to the provisions that this submission seeks and has been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions



Support in part

Amend Rule 6.4.5a) i and ii so the maximum ratio of floor space to net site area is increased to 3:1 and 1.5:1 respectively. Amend Rule 6.4.5b) so that ground level car parking are included in floor space calculations.





The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.4.5b) requesting ground level parking be included in all floor space calculation should be rejected as;



FS66.004

Oppose Accept FS66.004, FS246.015, FS249.03, FS266.005 have been accepted because that part of 1284.017 which they opposes (notification) has been rejected.

Tainui Group FS246.015 Oppose Accept


Page 185 of 266

Holdings Ltd


FS249.03

Oppose Accept


FS266.005

Oppose Accept


FS285.206

Support Reject FS285.206 has been rejected because that part of 1284.017 which they support (notification) has been rejected.


Page 186 of 266

S42a Report

Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones Rule 6.4.6 General Standards - Maximum Tenancy Size

Analysis: Rule 6.4.6 General Standards - Maximum Tenancy Size

Tainui Group Holdings Ltd (913.038), Property Council New Zealand (938.068) and McCracken Surveys Limited (1206.070) seek deletion of Rule 6.4.6 regarding Maximum Tenancy Size. They submit that it is not clear how they are derived and the intention behind the individual floor areas stated given the wide variation between 2500-5000m2 and disparity between different Neighbourhood Centres like Heaphy Terrace and Rototuna. They suggest that objectives and policies framework, activity status tables and physical extent of the zones will effectively limit a particular centre and as such the arbitrary tenancy sizes are not required. Progressive Enterprises Limited( FS237.003) oppose this submission on the basis that in the absence of a wider retail threshold within Rule 6.3 then this rule should remain albeit in a modified state. The control on the size of individual trading activities is to prevent trading activities seeking to serve populations greater than the intended function of the centre and potentially undermining the centres hierarchy approach in the Plan. There is a need to consider whether any combination of new retail outlets could either alone or in combination with existing retail cause more than minor adverse distributional effects on established commercial centres. The primary purpose of Rule 6.4.6 was to act as a default supermarket rule, to recognise that notwithstanding the retail thresholds set within Activity Status Table, supermarkets should be provided for within existing and proposed suburban centres, and the 3,500m² threshold commonly reflects the desirable trading size of modern supermarkets that can anchor suburban centres. For Neighbourhood Centres evidence suggests most trading activities come well below the 200m² gfa threshold, and in cases where there is an ‘anchor’ store this trading space generally does not exceed 400m² gfa. The maximum tenancy sizes have been derived from the analyses of Speer and Speer and Associates for selected suburban centres and all neighbourhood centres. (Speer & Speer Associates, Rototuna Suburban Centres & Maximum Floor Area Controls for Retail and Office Activities, 2009) Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that consequential amendments to other submissions and advice from the Council’s retail consultant have led to the recognition of the need for a separate activity status for Supermarkets across all Business Zones which makes this rule redundant. Given the wide range of floor area of Supermarkets which range from 2000m2 to 4200m2, it is considered a separate Restricted Discretionary activity status for supermarkets with no set floor area threshold is considered a more efficient and appropriate mechanism to assess the impact of this specialist retail activity within existing centres. The analysis for supermarkets is considered in more detail within section 6.3 of this report. The deletion of the neighbourhood individual tenancy is also proposed given retail less than 400m2 is a Discretionary activity in Neighbourhood Centres which provides an adequate cumulative assessment for tenancies up to 400m2 on a case be case basis through use of appropriate discretionary activity assessment. The rule as currently notified is considered unnecessary, inflexible and duplication of the controls already implicit within the Rule 6.3. Chartwell Investment Ltd (355.004) seek amendment to Rule 6.4.6a) to provide a spot zone tenancy provision of 4000m2 for their Dinsdale Suburban centre. The submitter contends that this rule not only conflicts with the retail thresholds set within rule 6.3 but also that the maximum gross floor area is too restrictive. Some relief will be provided to the submitter from the consequential changes resulting from other submissions and the proposed new activity status for Supermarkets within Rule 6.3. On this basis given the analysis above, no changes to reflect individual tenancy requirements are proposed, the amendment is not accepted. Parkwood Gateway Limited (977.009) and Portland Park Limited (984.009) both seek amendment to Rule 6.4.6a)xii to provide a maximum retail tenancy size for the following lots - Lot 1 DP 444645 (4 Gordington Road) = 600m2 and Lot 3 DP 444645 (370 Tramway Road) = 1500m2 both which formed part of a negotiated settlement as part of a former Plan Variation (No.15) with the Council which resulted in the signing of a consent order in the Environment Court and recognition of these sites as part of a Suburban centre within the Operative District Plan.

Title: Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones Issue: Rule 6.4.6 General Standards - Maximum Tenancy Size

Page 187 of 266

The proposed deletion of maximum retail tenancies in response to previous submissions will provide some relief to the submitter. The current Operative Plan provisions for this area allow for a total gross floor area of all activities on site of 5000m2, which is still possible within the Neighbourhood Centre zone provisions of the Plan. The Operative Plan also sets limitations on retail and office activity not exceeding 200m2 per tenancy with one activity allowed a maximum 400m2 per tenancy as a Permitted Activity. Whilst it is accepted that the proposed Plan has a far stricter consenting regime for ALL Business zones, it is still possible for this site to achieve the previous thresholds as part of a either a Permitted consent (for retail less than 150m2) of a Discretionary consent (for offices less than 250m2). Given the proposal to delete the maximum retail tenancy rule, it is recommended that no change is proposed. Both the Draft Plan and Proposed Plan rezoned the sites from Suburban Centre to Neighbourhood Centre as part of the Plan Review process and in recognition of a new business hierarchy. The issue of a change of zoning from Neighbourhood to Suburban centre will be dealt with later in this report. The wider issue of proposed plan provisions allowing for further retail within the Residential Zone to the east in the residential element of the Ruakura Structure Plan is to be decided by the Board of Inquiry as part of the EPA ‘call in’ process. Progressive Enterprises Limited (1135.004) seek amendment to Rule 6.4.6 so supermarkets up to 4200m2 are permitted in all of the Suburban Centres listed in the rule. The reason for this is so that Supermarkets commonly in excess of 3000m2 can be provided for. Kiwi Income Property Trust and Kiwi Property Holdings Limited (FS123.027) support this submission and recognise supermarkets can be addressed separately providing appropriate assessment criteria and rules are put in place. The proposed deletion of Rule 6.4.6 and proposed new restricted discretionary activity status for supermarkets in Rule 6.3, in conjunction with the removal of the floor area threshold across all Business Zones is considered to provide some relief to the submitters concerns. In this context the propose change is accepted in part. The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd (1256.004) seek to Retain Rule 6.4.6 with amendments to clarify and justify the need for maximum tenancy sizes in the Business 5, 6 and 7 Zones or delete or amend to provide for supermarkets as a permitted activity in Business 1,3,4,5,6 and 7 zones. Kiwi Income Property Trust and Kiwi Property Holdings Limited and Progressive Enterprises Limited (FS123.021) support the retention of the Rule to provide for supermarkets or alternative recognition that supermarkets can be addressed separately providing appropriate assessment criteria and rules are put in place. The proposed deletion of the floor area threshold across all Business Zones with a separate activity status for supermarkets albeit as a restricted discretionary activity is considered to provide some relief to the submitters concerns. In this context the amendment sought is accepted in part.

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision

Sub. Type

Summary

Recommendation

Reasoning



Oppose Amend Rule 6.4.6a) (i) to provide a maximum gfa of 4,000m2 on Lot 1 DPS 84445 and Lot 2 DPS 26655 (at Dinsdale Suburban Centre).

Reject The submission point relating to Rule 6.4.6a) (i) requesting a maximum GFA of 4000m2 for Dinsdale should be rejected as it would;

• Reduce the internal consistency of the plan • Be contrary to Acknowledgement of consequential changes due to

amendments made elsewhere in the Plan


Page 188 of 266



Oppose Delete Rule 6.4.6 regarding Maximum Tenancy Size.

Accept The submission point requesting deletion of Rule 6.4.6 Maximum Tenancy Size should be accepted as it would improve;


• Internal consistency of the plan. Recommend amendments to Rule 6.4.6 are contained in Appendix B (913.038 refers)


FS237.003

Oppose Reject FS237.003 is rejected because that part of 913.038 which it opposes has been accepted.



Oppose Delete Rule 6.4.6 regarding maximum Tenancy size or amend 6.3t) so that the activity status for retail activities in Suburban Centre and Neighbourhood Centre Zones correspond with those in Rule 6.4.6.

Accept The submission point requesting deletion of Rule 6.4.6 Maximum Tenancy Size should be accepted as it would improve;


• Internal consistency of the plan.

Andrew Yeoman

FS2.012



FS237.001


Peter John Findlay, Donna Margaret Findlay, Peter John Findlay & Donna Margaret Findlay as Trustees of the

FS242.001



Page 189 of 266

Findlay Family Trust, Riverside Oak Estate Ltd (Baruchel Developments Ltd)


FS277.001




Support in part

Amend Rule 6.4.6a)xii for maximum retail tenancy size for the following lots; Ruakura - Lot 1 DP 444645 = 600m2 Ruakura - Lot 3 DP 444645 = 1500m2

Reject The submission points relating to Rule 6.4.6a) xii) requesting a maximum retail tenancy for lots identified should be rejected as it would;


amendments made elsewhere in the Plan • Have the potential to undermine the business hierarchy of the Plan.



Support in part

Amend Rule 6.4.6a)xii for maximum retail tenancy size for the following lots; Ruakura - Lot 1 DP 444645 = 600m2 Ruakura - Lot 3 DP 444645 = 1500m2

Reject

Progressive Enterprises


Support in part

Amend Rule 6.3t) retail 1000m2 gross floor area or greater in

Accept in Part The submission point seeking an amendment to Rule 6.3 to include a separate definition for supermarkets be accepted in part as it would improve;


Page 190 of 266

Limited both the Suburban Centre core

and Suburban Centre fringe to restricted discretionary activities OR create a separate activity for ‘supermarkets’ where they are permitted in the Sub-regional Centre zone and restricted discretionary in the Suburban Centre core and fringe zones Amend Rule 6.4.6 so supermarkets up to 4200m2 are permitted in all of the suburban centres listed in the rule

• The effectiveness of the plan in terms of achieving it stated

objectives and policies • Internal consistency of the plan.

Recommend amendments to Rule 6.4.6 are contained in Appendix B (1135.004 refers) The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.3t) so that retail >1000m2 in suburban Centre Core and Fringe is a RD activity be rejected as it

• Reduces the efficiency and effectiveness of implementation of the plan to achieve its objectives



FS123.027

Support Accept in Part FS123.027 is accepted in part because that part of 1135.004 which it supports (notification) has been accepted .



Oppose Delete 6.4.6 Maximum Tenancy Size for Suburban and Neighbourhood Centres

Accept The submission point requesting deletion of Rule 6.4.6 Maximum Tenancy Size should be accepted in part as it would improve;




FS237.011

Oppose Reject FS237.011 is rejected because that part of 1206.070 which it opposes has been accepted.


Page 191 of 266



Support in part

Retain 6.4.6 Maximum Tenancy Size with amendments to clarify and justify the need for maximum tenancy sizes in the Business 5, 6 and 7 Zones or delete or amend to provide for supermarkets as a permitted activity in Business 1,3,4,5,6 and 7 zones.

Accept in Part The submission point relating to Rule 6.4.6 requesting retention of and justification of Maximum Tenancy size in Business 5,6 and 7 zones should be rejected as it would;


amendments made elsewhere in the Plan

The Submission point requesting deletion of Rule 6.4.6 Maximum Tenancy Size should be accepted in part as it would improve;




FS123.021

Support Accept in Part FS123.021, FS237.018 are accepted in part because that part of 1256.004 which it supports (notification) has been accepted in part .


FS237.018



Page 192 of 266

S42a Report

Chapter 6- Business 1-7 Zones Rule 6.4.9 – General Standards - Residential Development

Analysis: Rule 6.4.9 – General Standards - Residential Development

Rototuna Ventures Ltd (309.007), Property Council New Zealand (938.143) and McCracken Surveys Limited (1206.144) together seek additional standards (i.e. density, outdoor living and service areas etc.) for residential apartments in the Business Zones. The submitters highlight that the strategic Objectives and Policies of the Plan stress maximizing opportunities for people to live, work and play” (Policy 2.2.1b) and “higher density residential development shall be located within and close to… suburban and neighbourhood centres” (Policy 2.2.6b) as such it would be appropriate to provide standards that would apply to the establishment of residential apartments in Business zones. The central premise of the Plan is one which should encourage compact, sustainable mixed use centres, it is accepted that residential apartments above ground floor are part of the desired outcomes for successful Suburban and Neighbourhood centres, which should encourage mixed uses where appropriate. The Activity Status Table 6.3 signals the acceptability of apartments above ground floor with a restricted discretionary status provision which allows for assessment on a site by site basis with regards to site design and layout, height, reverse sensitivity etc. Both Future Proof and the PRPS promote a range of residential living options with higher density development in suitable sustainable locations with good amenities. One of the key approaches outlined within Chapter 8.18.3 of Future Proof Growth strategy and Implementation Plan is to support ‘live. Work, play’ principles. It is therefore considered reasonable to provide for residential apartments in the centres which support residential catchments and provide opportunity to reduce the need to travel. In terms of density for Suburban and Neighbourhood centres and in the absence of figures provided by the submitter, in order to be consistent with the target densities promoted by Future Proof and the PRPS it would seem appropriate to adopt the 30 dwellings per hectare for identified intensification areas. The strategic framework of the plan identifies that such centres should provide for more intensive redevelopment and to further a compact centres approach, 30 dwellings per ha would seem to be an appropriate standard and one which falls below the higher residential densities sought for the Central City. To omit a density standard would fail to promote the efficient use and development of land and its supporting infrastructure for business activities. For clarity and consistency in response to submissions made to the standards for residential living within the Central City Chapter, it is proposed to adopt similar amended additional General Residential Standards for the Business zones (Appendix B refers). To avoid duplication, of the Central City chapter, the standards that apply for Outdoor living Areas (Rule 7.5.4 d) , Storage Areas (Rule 7.5.4e), Residential Unit Size (Rule 7.5.4 f) and Daylight Standards (Rule 7.5.4 g) and Rule 7.5.4 h) External Outlook shall apply to Rule 6.4.9 are recommended to apply and is consistent with response made to other submissions on similar matters. The main difference in residential standards would be for density in so far as it relates to Business Zones would be proposed as follows; 6.4.9 Residential Development c) The following standards shall apply to ancillary residential units, including apartments above ground floor and residential centres. Unless specifically noted they do not apply to visitor accommodation. d) Density Minimum residential densities within the Business Zones shall be 30 residential units/ ha net.

Title: Chapter 6- Business 1-7 Zones Issue: Rule 6.4.9 – General Standards - Residential Development

Page 193 of 266

e) Where mixed-use is provided for within a development (e.g. office/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). Parkwood Gateway Limited (977.010) and Portland Park Limited (984.010) both seek amendment to Rule 6.4.9b) to exclude Lot 3 DP 444645 from having no residential activities at ground floor level. There is no rationale or justification for such spot zone exemption which would not be consistent with the Plan and would be contrary to its Objectives and Policies which do not promote ground floor residential activity, therefore no change is proposed.

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision

Sub. Type

Summary

Recommendation

Reasoning


309.007 6.4.9 Residential Development

Oppose Amend the Plan to add standards for residential apartments (i.e. density, outdoor living and service areas etc.) in the Business Zones.

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.4.9 requesting additional standards for residential apartment should be accepted as it would;

• Aid the effective implementation of the Plan to achieve its objectives • Aid the vitality and vibrancy of centres within the business hierarchy



Oppose Amend Rule 6.4.9 to add standards for residential apartments (i.e. density, outdoor living and service areas etc.) for the Business Zones.

Accept in Part

Andrew Yeoman

FS2.012

Support Reject FS2.012 is not related to the matter contained within 938.0143

Peter John Findlay, Donna Margaret Findlay, Peter John Findlay & Donna Margaret Findlay as Trustees of the Findlay Family Trust, Riverside Oak Estate Ltd (Baruchel Developments

FS242.001



Page 194 of 266

Ltd)


FS277.001




Support in part

Amend Rule 6.4.9b) be exclude Lot 3 DP 444645.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.4.9 b) to exclude should Lot 3 DP 444645 should be rejected as;






Support in part

Amend Rule 6.4.9b) be exclude Lot 3 DP 444645.

Reject



Oppose Amend the Plan to add standards for residential apartments (i.e. density, outdoor living and service areas etc.) in the Business Zones.

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.4.9 requesting additional standards for residential apartment should be accepted in part as it would;

• Aid the effective implementation of the Plan to achieve its objectives • Aid the vitality and vibrancy of centres within the business hierarchy


Page 195 of 266

S42a Report

Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones Rule 6.4.10 –General Standards - Development Flexibility

Analysis: Rule 6.4.10 –General Standards - Development Flexibility

Rototuna Ventures Ltd (309.008) and Chartwell Investment Ltd (355.005) highlight the error in the cross reference to Rule 6.4.7 rather than 6.4.6 with regards to the additional 20% floor area incentive for Business Zone 5 (Suburban Centre core) as provided for in Rule 6.4.10. Given the acceptance and consequential changes made in response to previous submissions which request combining Business 5 and 6 zones and the proposed separate definition for supermarkets, this rule has now become superfluous and is proposed to be deleted. Rule 6.4.6 was originally intended to reflect the provision of large tenancy supermarkets within suburban centres typically of 3500m2 gfa. This rule provided for this activity notwithstanding the retail provisions in Rule 6.3. However given the proposed changes to create a separate activity for supermarkets without floor area threshold restriction in Rule 6.3, there is no longer any need for the Development Flexibility rule. Further consequential changes to Rule 6.3 r) allow Retail 400-999m2 for consideration as part of a restricted discretionary activity instead of non-complying. The latter softening of approach has been provided to allow greater development flexibility within a single Suburban centre zone and to encourage retail in Suburban centres rather than peripheral fringe areas or just Large Format Retail zones. In summary, given development flexibility for retail is now enabled as part of a discretionary activity in the proposed Business 5 zone it is recommended Rule 6.4.10 is deleted in its entirety.

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision

Sub. Type

Summary

Recommendation

Reasoning


309.008 6.4.10 Development Flexibility

Support in part

Amend Rule 6.4.10a) Development Flexibility as the cross reference to Rule 6.4.7 is incorrect and should be Rule 6.4.6.

Accept in Part The submission points seeking amendment to Rule 6.4.10a) with regards to correctly referencing Rule 6.4.6 has been accepted in part as it allows for;

• Internal consistency of the plan • Acknowledgement of consequential changes due to amendments

made elsewhere in the Plan Recommended amendments to Rule 6.4.6 and 6.4.10 are contained in Appendix B ( refer to 309.008 and 355.005)


355.005 6.4.10 Development Flexibility

Oppose Amend Rule 6.4.10a) Development Flexibility as the cross reference to Rule 6.4.7 is incorrect and should be Rule 6.4.6.

Accept in Part

Title: Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones Issue: Rule 6.4.10 –General Standards - Development Flexibility

Page 196 of 266

S42a Report

Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones Rule 6.6 and 6.7 Restricted Discretionary Activities: Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria

Analysis: Rule 6.6 and 6.7 Restricted Discretionary Activities: Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria

The submitters and further submitters listed below seek a review of Rule 6.6 in its entirety and consequential amendments to Volume 2 to simplify and reduce the number of assessment criteria and further ensure maters of discretion and assessment criteria relate only to the reason for why consent is being sought. The Act requires that Restricted Discretionary Activities have the matters to which discretion is restricted identified within the Plan. Activities not complying with standards in Rules 6.4 and 6.5 require consent as a Restricted Discretionary Activity (refer to Rule 1.1.8.2). Assessment criteria provide a guide for applicants of the matter for consideration. Their relevance is particularly important in an urban design led plan in order to better achieve the objectives and policies of the zone. Rule 6.6 directly identifies those matters to which discretion is being sought by cross referencing to Volume 2, Appendix 1.2. Individual standard specific discretion is also presented. The scope of this discretion is also presented in Appendix 1. There is a clear relationship between the activity consent required and the related assessment criteria that aims to ease the administration and use of the District Plan for all parties. The topic area is then further identified according to the alpha-numeric reference. Given the urban design focus h of the Plan, in order to efficiently administer the range and variety of consenting circumstances, the broad assessment criteria approach is considered justified. Some submitters have argued that building design criteria should not be listed as matters to be considered with regard to activities. However this view assumes that building design and the intended activity are mutually exclusive, rather than actually interrelated. It is considered that whilst new buildings per-se are subject to assessment criteria over matters of design, it is also appropriate and good practice to consider design criteria in so far as it relates to the specific activity also. The overarching concern of submitters is the excessive number of assessment criteria and the means in which they are applied in the consenting process. ie; they should only relate to those matters that are directly applicable to the reasons for why a proposal is assigned a Restricted Discretionary activity. In response to those submissions seeking a review of Rule 6.6 in its entirety, the approach or method in the number, referencing and application of assessment criteria will be considered separately with all other submissions later in the hearings, on a plan wide basis. This section will thus only deal with specific submissions requesting amendments to assessment criteria in so far as they relate an activity within this chapter. CKC Holdings Ltd (897.020) seek amendment to Rule 6.6a) ii so that the non-notification Rule (6.7) applies to light industrial activities. Light –Industrial activities have the potential to generate a range of adverse effects within commercial centres due to the diverse range of land uses present within an Industrial zone that could give rise to adverse effects on neighbouring amenities In determining a resource consent it is considered reasonable to provide for notification to appropriately manage adverse effects on the site and efficient functioning of the transport network and neighbouring amenities. This submission point contains no relevant justification as to why the alternative sought would be more appropriate. No amendment is proposed. New Zealand Transport Agency (924.049) seek amendment to Rule 6.6a) by including restricted discretionary matter and assessment criteria D4-D7 regarding reverse sensitivity for all sensitive activities and amendment to Rule 6.6a) xiv (breach of a building set back standard) by including all restricted discretionary matters and assessment criteria under V - Transportation.

In response to the request by NZTA for inclusion of all additional assessment criteria in Appendix 1.2 V: Transportation for activities not complying with the building setback standard, not all of

Title: Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones Issue: Rule 6.6 and 6.7 Restricted Discretionary Activities: Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria

Page 197 of 266

these assessment criteria are relevant to set back considerations and furthermore these matters are considered to be adequately covered by the transport provisions of the Plan (refer Chapter 18 and Appendix 15). Amongst other matters, the transport provisions set triggers for the preparation of Integrated Transport Assessments to address potential effects relating to development and associated traffic generation. No change is recommended.

Claudelands Property Trust and City Limits Childcare Co Ltd(1126.016) seek a review the assessment criteria under Rule 6.6 and convert to standards for permitted activities in Rule 6.4 and retain only matters of discretion necessary to give effect to objectives and policies. DNZ Property Fund Limited (DNZ) (FS285.024) support this submission, while Alexander Elliot (Claudelands Residents)(FS286.045) oppose the submission on the basis that it is has potential for this company to gain economic advantage while damaging one of Hamilton’s most established Special Character Zones. The Act requires that Restricted Discretionary Activities have the matters to which discretion is restricted identified within the Plan. Given the design led approach towards new buildings, alterations and activities, a reversion back to base line permitted activities with reliance on quantitative standards in which to achieve good design outcomes would be contrary to the strategic objectives and polices of the Plan. No change to Permitted activities is therefore proposed. McDonald's Restaurants (NZ) Ltd (1195.003) seek amendment to Rule 6.6 to include "Drive-through Restaurant" and allow for its assessment as a non- notified activity across all Business Zones. Notwithstanding the submitter’s request to have a separate stand alone activity status, Drive through Restaurants are provided for under the Drive through Services activity whereby matters of discretion are identified for all Business zones. The non-notified rule for ‘Drive through services’ already applies in Business 3, 4 and 5 zones on the basis that this type of activity would be expected within these centres given that the activity and associated effects are in keeping with the purpose of the zone. A further purpose of the non-notification rule is to signal those activities towards preferred locations first and foremost ahead of Business 2; for example whereby drive-through services are competing rather than complimentary to Events facilities. There is an expectation that applicants would prefer to locate in zones without the need to obtain approval from affected persons. It is considered that the submitter has provided little justification for drive-through services to be considered as a non-notified discretionary activity across all Business zones nor is there sufficient justification or need for a stand alone activity status for drive through restaurants. No change is recommended. Generation Zero Waikato (1284.018) seek amendment to Rule 6.6 a)ii so ‘Ancillary residential buildings’ also consider Matters and Assessment Criteria -S1 (sustainable use of resources) from Appendix 1.2. This amendment is accepted as it is considered that ancillary residential buildings should be treated no differently in application of sustainable use of resources. The proposed amendment would aid consistency to the Plan in achieving its stated Objectives and Policies. Track changes in Appendix B refers. 490 Grey Ltd as Trustee of the BDL Commercial Investment Trust and Homes for the Living Ltd (1002.001) seek to amend Rule 6.6 to specify the matters over which discretion is restricted and distinguish those from assessment criteria and deletion of matters and assessment criteria (C2–C23, D3-D5, E1-E3, F2-F6, G1, N1-N5, S1, V1-V18) from Rule 7.6.a) iv, 6.6.a) v. and vi. The submitter contends that the Rule 6.6 fails to properly specify the matters over which the Council is to restrict its discretion with respect to the restricted discretionary activities listed and is thus contrary to the Act. On the contrary, as previously advised above it is considered that Rule 6.6 directly identifies those matters to which discretion is being sought by cross referencing to Volume 2, Appendix 1.2. Individual standard specific discretions are also presented. The scope of this discretion is also presented in Appendix 1. On this basis, no change is proposed.


Page 198 of 266

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision

Sub. Type

Summary

Recommendation

Reasoning


312.010 6.6 Restricted Discretionary Activities Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria

Oppose Review Rule 6.6 in its entirety and make consequential amendments to Volume 2 to ensure maters of discretion and assessment criteria relate only to the reason for why consent is being sought.

Defer Submission points relating to Restrict Discretionary Activity assessment matters and criteria under Appendix 1.2 A and B will be considered separately with all other submissions, on a plan wide basis.


FS237.007

Support Defer FS237.007, FS249.026, FS285.012 will be considered separately with all other submissions, on a plan wide basis.


FS249.026

Support Defer


FS285.012

Support Defer



Oppose Amend Rule 6.6a) i, vi and x matters of discretion and assessment criteria for new buildings, alterations and additions to buildings, and accessory buildings, offices and apartment buildings as they are overly excessive, inappropriate or unnecessary. Review Appendix 1.2 Restricted Discretionary Activities - Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria with a view of streamlining and simplifying, ensuring that only matters that are relevant to the reason for consent for activities listed in



Page 199 of 266

6.6a) i, vi and x are considered.


FS285.043

Support Defer FS285.043 will be considered separately with all other submissions, on a plan wide basis



Oppose Amend Rule 6.6a) and Delete Rule 6.6a) i so that in considering the assessment criteria the decision and/or conditions will only relate to those matters that are directly applicable to the reasons for why a proposal is assigned a restricted discretionary activity status and that any matter that is not directly applicable or which imposes obligations over and above that set out in the relevant standards / rules in this District Plan are not be applied.



FS237.008

Support Defer FS237.008, FS285.044 will be considered separately with all other submissions, on a plan wide basis


FS285.044

Support Defer

CKC Holdings Ltd 897.020 6.6 Restricted Discretionary Activities Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria

Support in part

Amend Rule in 6.6a) ii so that the non-notification Rule (6.7) applies to light industrial activities.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.6a) ii should be rejected as;

• The intensity and nature of use does not justify assessment as non-notification given the purpose of the Business zones


Andrew

Yeoman FS2.011



Page 200 of 266



Support in part

Amend Rule 6.6a) by including restricted discretionary matter and assessment criteria D4-D7 regarding reverse sensitivity for all sensitive activities. Amend Rule 6.6a) xiv by including all restricted discretionary matters and assessment criteria under V - Transportation.



FS66.003

Oppose Defer FS66.003, FS266.004 will be considered separately with all other submissions, on a plan wide basis


FS266.004

Oppose Defer

PRS Planning Services Limited


Oppose Amend Rule 6.6a)(i) - (xi) so that reference to any criteria that are not directly relevant to the nature of the land use under consideration are deleted. Amend the Plan so that Public Art is a Restricted Discretionary Activity in the Business 1 to 7 Zones.



FS285.093



938.069 6.6 Restricted Discretionary Activities Matters of

Oppose Review of Volume 2, Appendix 1 with a view of streamlining and simplifying, ensuring that only matters that are relevant to the



Page 201 of 266

Discretion and Assessment Criteria

reason for consent is required are considered, and that criteria is not prescriptive or read like a rule.

Andrew Yeoman

FS2.012



FS237.002

Support Defer FS237.002, FS242.001, FS246.009 and FS277.001 will be considered separately with all other submissions, on a plan wide basis


FS242.001

Support Defer


FS246.009

Support Defer

Peter John Findlay, Donna Margaret Findlay, Peter John Findlay & Donna Margaret Findlay as Trustees of the Findlay Family Trust, Riverside

FS277.001

Support Defer


Page 202 of 266

Oak Estate Ltd (Peter Findlay, Peter Findlay & Associates Ltd)



Oppose Amend Rule 6.6a) and Delete Rule 6.6a) i so that in considering the assessment criteria the decision and/or conditions will only relate to those matters that are directly applicable to the reasons for why a proposal is assigned a restricted discretionary activity status and that any matter that is not directly applicable or which imposes obligations over and above that set out in the relevant standards / rules in this District Plan are not be applied.



FS237.009

Support Defer FS237.009, FS246.01 and FS285.12 will be considered separately with all other submissions, on a plan wide basis


FS246.01

Support Defer


FS285.12

Support Defer



Oppose Amend Rule 6.6a) and Delete Rule 6.6a) i so that in considering the assessment criteria the decision and/or conditions will only relate to those matters that are directly applicable to the reasons for why a proposal is assigned a restricted discretionary activity status and that any matter that



Page 203 of 266

is not directly applicable or which imposes obligations over and above that set out in the relevant standards / rules in this District Plan are not be applied.


FS285.122




Oppose Amend 6.1 a) by referring to Hamilton East north of Clyde Street (reflecting submitters request to change shown on planning maps 45A and 46A. Amend Rule 6.3 to remove all floor area limitations for offices within the Central City Zone precincts. Amend Rule 6.6 to specify the matters over which discretion is restricted and distinguish those from assessment criteria. Or Amend 6.1 d) to replace the description of a hierarchy of centres with a statement that the city contains a range of business centres comprising one or more business zones, and insert reference to a new Hamilton East Business Zone. Amend 6.1 j) to replace the words “again don’t undermine” with “support” Amend Objective 6.2.2 to replace the words “not undermining the primacy,

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.6 to delete matters and assessment criteria (C2–C23, D3-D5, E1-E3, F2-F6, G1, N1-N5, S1, V1-V18) from Rule 7.6.a) iv, 6.6.a) v. and vi, should be rejected as;




Page 204 of 266

vitality or viability of the Central City” with “providing enhanced urban design outcomes” Amend Policy 6.2.2d by deleting the reference to control of size and scale. Amend Policy 6.2.2f by deleting the reference to including the Central City. Amend planning maps 45A and 46A by rezoning the Business 1 and Business 5 within the area east of the Waikato River to one block east of Grey Street and south of Dawson Street to Wellington Street to a new “Hamilton East Business Zone”. Amend Rule 6.3 to include a Hamilton East Business Zone containing the same provisions as those for the Suburban Centre Core Zone but with all floor area limitations for offices removed, retail tenancies up to 500 m2 as a permitted activity and retail tenancies in excess of 500 m2 as a restricted discretionary activity Amend Rule 6.6 to specify the matters over which discretion is restricted and distinguish those from assessment criteria. Delete matters and assessment criteria (C2–C23, D3-D5, E1-E3, F2-F6, G1, N1-N5, S1, V1-V18) from Rule 7.6.a) iv, 6.6.a) v. and vi:


Page 205 of 266

Delete Discretionary Activity Assessment Criteria1.3.2.4 regarding Retail, Commercial and Office Activities in the Central City and Business 1 to 7 zones. Delete Information Requirement 1.5.20 regarding Centre Viability Assessment Report.


FS237.01

Oppose Accept in Part FS237.01 and FS246.011 are accepted in part because that part of 1002.001 which they oppose (notification) has been rejected.


FS246.011




Oppose Review the assessment criteria under Rule 6.6 and convert to standards for permitted activities in Rule 6.4 and retain only matters of discretion necessary to give effect to objectives and policies. Delete all matters of discretion that are not clearly definable. Review, simplify and clarify matters of discretion for urban design.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.6 and convert to standards as part of a permitted activity should be rejected as;




FS285.124

Support Reject Submissions FS285.124 further support amendments to the provisions that this submission seeks. This submission has been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions


FS286.045

Oppose Accept FS286.045 is accepted because that part of 1126.016 which they oppose (notification) has been rejected.

Tram Lease Limited

1163.010 6.6 Restricted Discretionary

Oppose Amend the Restricted Discretionary Activities: Matters

Defer Submission points relating to Restrict Discretionary Activity assessment matters and criteria under Appendix 1.2 A and B will be considered separately


Page 206 of 266

Activities Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria

of Discretion and Assessment Criteria in order to simplify and reduce the number of assessment criteria. Delete assessment criteria A2.

with all other submissions, on a plan wide basis.


FS246.014

Support Defer FS246.014, FS285.149 will be considered separately with all other submissions, on a plan wide basis


FS285.149

Support Defer



Support in part

Amend Rule 6.6 to include "Drive-through Restaurant" and allow for its assessment as a non-notified application in all Business zones

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.6 to allow for Drive-through Restaurants to be assessed as non notified should be rejected as;





Oppose Amend the Restricted Discretionary Activities: Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria to provide fewer more generic assessment criteria. Building design criteria should not be listed as matters considered with regard to activities.



FS123.03

Support Defer FS123.03, FS198.004, FS249.019 and FS285.168 will be considered separately with all other submissions, on a plan wide basis

AMP Capital FS198.004 Support Defer


Page 207 of 266

Property Portfolio


FS249.019

Support Defer


FS285.168

Support Defer



Oppose Amend 6.6 and make consequential amendments to Volume 2 as necessary to ensure maters of discretion and assessment criteria relate only to the reason for why consent is being sort. Criteria should not read like prescriptive rules.



FS285.176




Oppose Amend Rule 6.6 to convert as many as possible matters of discretion into permitted activity development standards and add these to rule 6.4. Delete all mattes of discretion that are not clearly definable and do not have defined outcomes and retain those necessary to give effect to objectives and policies. Reconsider matters of discretion on urban design, with a view to simplifying and clarifying the outcomes sought.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.6 and convert to standards as part of a permitted activity should be rejected as;



DNZ Property FS285.204 Support Reject Submissions FS285.204 further support amendments to the provisions that


Page 208 of 266

Fund Limited (DNZ)

this submission seeks. This submission has been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions


FS286.025

Oppose Accept FS286.025 is accepted because that part of 1282.026 which they oppose (notification) has been rejected.



Support in part

Amend Rule 6.6 a)ii Ancillary residential buildings should also consider Matter and Assessment Criteria S1 from Appendix 1.2

Accept The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 6.6a)ii applying Assement Criteria S1 to ancillary residential buildings should be accepted at it:


Recommended amendments to Rule 6.6a)ii are contained within Appendix B (refer to 1284.018)


FS266.005



Page 209 of 266


S42a Report

Appendix 1.2 – Assessment Criteria F3 – Vitality of Centres

Analysis: Appendix 1.2 – Assessment Criteria F3 – Vitality of Centres

Waikato Regional Council (714.086) seek amendment to Appendix 1.2 by requesting criteria F3; A Centre Viability Assessment report is not required for office developments on Business 1 or Business 5 zoned land in Hamilton East. The WRC consider that a Centre Viability Assessment should not be required for resource consent applications for offices in Hamilton East. They argue that it is not a logical requirement when Hamilton East functions as part of the fringe of the Central City as set out in the relevant policies. Jon Harris (Hills Laboratories Limited)(FS 66.007) and 490 Grey Ltd as the Trustee of the BDL Commercial Investment Trust and Homes for Living Ltd(FS266.002) both support this submission. The discussion as to whether Hamilton East is considered as part of the Central City has been addressed in the previous ‘Purpose 6.1 section’ of this report. Whilst it is acknowledged that Hamilton East has close ties to the Central City by virtue of its geographical location it is nevertheless identified as a large suburban centre in the Plan. In the formulation of the Plan and successive Future Proof reports, Hamilton East has always been recognized as a suburban centre rather than part of the city. It is considered that the requested spot zone exemption from a centres vitality assessment would set a precedent in the Plan and further serve to undermine the centres based approach of the Business hierarchy. The rationale for a Centre Viability Assessment Report under Rule 1.5.20 is quite clear in that the purpose is to provide information on the potential effects of a proposal for office, and or retail/ commercial activities on the viability and vitality of the Central City. This information is required to inform decision making and whether the trade and scale of the activity is appropriate for the location having regard to the hierarchy of business centres. Paragraph 7.9 of Mr Osborne’s evidence further highlights the importance of maintaining a discretion to assess the anticipated effects of new office activities outside of the Central City as follows; Given the level of benefits attributable to this effective density increase it is important that the rules around commercial office development are firmly held. Approximately 70% of Hamilton City’s

office businesses employ 20 or more people. Although a proportion of these businesses would still locate in premises less than 500sqm it is essential that as high a proportion of the remaining levels

of office growth is accommodated within the core CBD. As such it is appropriate that the restriction concerning office development over 500sqm is retained. Any material deviation from this has

the very real potential to divert commercial growth from the Hamilton CBD and continue to undermine its potential to benefit the wider economy.

Progressive Enterprises Limited (1135.024) seek amendment to the reference in F3 to "Appendix 1.5.20", and add additional assessment criteria to reflect the case by case assessment of supermarkets in out of centre locations particularly in the Industrial Zone. The reference is to Appendix 1.5.18 in the notified Plan is an error and so the proposed amendment is accepted with track changes made in Appendix B. In terms of the request for additional assessment criteria specifically as they relate to out of centre supermarket locations, it is considered that there is similarity and overlap between the notified assessment criteria and that posited by the submitter. Furthermore the Purpose, Information requirements and assessments identified within Rule 1.5.20 largely cover those matters raised in the submission. No change is proposed. 490 Grey Ltd as Trustee of the BDL Commercial Investment Trust and Homes for the Living Ltd (1002.001) seek the deletion of information requirements within Rule 1.5.20 regarding Centre Viability Assessment Reports. The submitter maintains that they are unnecessarily onerous, complex and/or are incapable of objective assessment. Tainui Group Holdings Ltd support this submission on the grounds that only social and economic effects that are significant and which go beyond trade competition are lawful. The terms ‘vitality’ and ‘viability’ are not readily measurable on a ‘centre wide’ basis.

Title: Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones Issue: Appendix 1.2 – Assessment Criteria F3 – Vitality of Centres

Page 210 of 266

The requirement for assessment criteria to properly consider the relative merits of office and or retail/ commercial development in the proposed Business zones is fundamental to the successful implementation of the centres based approach. The consideration of the effects of such development should be made in the context of the wider business hierarchy. Otherwise the functioning and relationship between centres is not able to be understood and Plan objectives and policies not able to be given effect to. Deletion of this requirement without sufficient justification would undermine this approach and the Objectives and Policies within 2.2.4 and 2.2.4a –b of the Strategic Framework and Policy 6.15 within the PRPS. No change is proposed.

Sub. Name FS. Name


Plan Provision

Sub. Type

Summary

Recommendation

Reasoning


714.086 F Vitality of Centres

Support in part

Amend 1.2 by adding the following to criteria F3; A Centre Viability Assessment report is not required for office developments on Business 1 or Business 5 zoned land in Hamilton East.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Appendix 1.2 )requesting exemption of offices in Hamilton East from assessment criteria F3 should be rejected as;





FS66.007

Support Reject FS66.007 and FS266.002 are rejected because that part of 714.086 which they support (notification) has been rejected.


FS266.002

Support Reject


924.168 F Vitality of Centres

Support Retain Appendix 1.2 F4 and F5 regarding landscape and screening design that promotes the safety, efficiency and amenity of transport corridors.

Accept No amendments or deletions are proposed by other submissions to the provisions that this submission point supports and / or seeks to retain

Progressive 1135.024 F Vitality of Support in Correct the reference in F3 to Accept The submission point seeking amendment to Appendix 1.5.20 should be

Page 211 of 266


Enterprises Limited

Centres part "Appendix 1.5.20", and add additional assessment criteria.

accepted at it:


Recommended amendments to 1.5.20 are contained within Appendix B (refer to 1135.024)



Oppose Amend 6.1 a) by referring to Hamilton East north of Clyde Street (reflecting submitters request to change shown on planning maps 45A and 46A. Amend Rule 6.3 to remove all floor area limitations for offices within the Central City Zone precincts. Amend Rule 6.6 to specify the matters over which discretion is restricted and distinguish those from assessment criteria. Or Amend 6.1 d) to replace the description of a hierarchy of centres with a statement that the city contains a range of business centres comprising one or more business zones, and insert reference to a new Hamilton East Business Zone. Amend 6.1 j) to replace the words “again don’t undermine” with “support” Amend Objective 6.2.2 to replace the words “not undermining the primacy, vitality or viability of the Central

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Appendix 1.2 )requesting deletion of assessment criteria Appendix 1.5.20 should be rejected as;




Page 212 of 266


City” with “providing enhanced urban design outcomes” Amend Policy 6.2.2d by deleting the reference to control of size and scale. Amend Policy 6.2.2f by deleting the reference to including the Central City. Amend planning maps 45A and 46A by rezoning the Business 1 and Business 5 within the area east of the Waikato River to one block east of Grey Street and south of Dawson Street to Wellington Street to a new “Hamilton East Business Zone”. Amend Rule 6.3 to include a Hamilton East Business Zone containing the same provisions as those for the Suburban Centre Core Zone but with all floor area limitations for offices removed, retail tenancies up to 500 m2 as a permitted activity and retail tenancies in excess of 500 m2 as a restricted discretionary activity Amend Rule 6.6 to specify the matters over which discretion is restricted and distinguish those from assessment criteria. Delete matters and assessment criteria (C2–C23, D3-D5, E1-E3, F2-F6, G1, N1-N5, S1, V1-V18) from Rule 7.6.a) iv, 6.6.a) v. and vi: Delete Discretionary Activity

Page 213 of 266


Assessment Criteria1.3.2.4 regarding Retail, Commercial and Office Activities in the Central City and Business 1 to 7 zones. Delete Information Requirement 1.5.20 regarding Centre Viability Assessment Report.


FS237.01

Oppose Reject FS237.01 is not related to matters in 1002.001 pertaining to deletion of assessment critieria.


FS246.011

Support Reject FS246.011 is rejected because that part of 1002.001 which they support (notification) has been rejected.

Page 214 of 266


Chapter 6.0 Business Zones 1-7

S42a Report

Appendix 1.3.2.2 - 1.3.2.5 Business Activities – Discretionary Assessment Criteria

Analysis: Appendix 1.3.2.2 - 1.3.2.5 Business Activities – Discretionary Assessment Criteria

Generation Zero Waikato (1284.074) seeks amendments to include reference to greenhouse gas emissions in clauses 1.3.2.2a and 1.3.2.3a. No rationale is provided for why greenhouse gas emissions need to be specifically referred to. Both clauses already refer to air pollution and other emissions and as such it is not considered necessary to list specific pollutants. This submitter also requests the addition to Discretionary Assessment Criteria 1.3.2.5 of a clause requiring new buildings to use renewable materials and energy and water conservation measures. It is considered that this matter is already adequately addressed through Assessment Criteria R4, R7 and R9 which require consideration of water conservation measures, and Assessment Criterion S1 which covers the sustainable use of resources including the use of renewable resources, energy efficient design and water sensitive techniques. Waikato Regional Council (WRC) and 490 Grey Ltd (714.088) have expressed concern about Discretionary Activity Assessment Criteria 1.3.2.4. WRC appears concerned about clauses (a) and (d) because the criteria could be used to favour development in the Central City over Hamilton East. WRC has requested that Hamilton East be excluded from clauses (a) and (d). 490 Grey Ltd seeks deletion of 1.3.2.4 in its entirety because the criteria are incapable of objective assessment. Clause (d) is considered to be a way for an ‘activity’ to prove through a resource consent process that its needs cannot be met within the Central City or any other centre, and this is appropriate for a resource consent process. Whilst the District Plan provides a framework for the location of development in Hamilton there may be situations where there are good explanations for why something doesn’t ‘fit’ with the rule framework and this assessment criteria provides an opportunity to explain this through a resource consent process. With regards to clause (a) the test created by the wording as notified is intended to be high, and an activity would need have considerable adverse effects to undermine the role, viability and vibrancy of a centre. As noted in the earlier ‘Purpose’ section of this report Hamilton East as a centre is unique and has a clear separate identity from the Central City. In accepting this, there is an understanding and recognition that Hamilton East is commercially one of the larger suburban centres within the business centres hierarchy. However a spot business zoning or separate Hamilton East Business zone with its own suite of more permissive office provisions is neither justified nor desirable in terms of maintaining a credible business hierarchy. Consequently it is recommended under ‘Section 6.0’ that any changes or softening of objectives and policies to reflect this is, amendments sought to the office threshold provisions, assessment criteria and consequential amendments to zoning maps be rejected. For consistency is it recommended that WRC’s request to exclude Hamilton East from 1.3.2.4(a) be rejected. No change is proposed. 490 Grey Ltd (1002.003) seeks that the remainder of 1.3.2.4 also be deleted. These standards provide a framework to consider the effects of an activity on centres and/or on the centres hierarchy and they are considered able to be objectively assessed based on the information provided in a resource consent application. No change is proposed.

Sub. Name FS. Name




1284.074 1.3.2.2 Business Activities – Central City and Business 1 to 7 Zones

Support in part

Section 1.3.2.2.a. We would like to see greenhouse gases as a specific form of emission mentioned in this clause.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to 1.3.2.2a to see greenhouse gases as a specific form of emission should be rejected as;

• This submission point contains no relevant justification as to why the alternative sought would be more appropriate

490 Grey Ltd as

the Trustee of the BDL

FS266.005


Title: Chapter 6.0 Business Zones 1-7 Issue: Appendix 1.3.2.2 - 1.3.2.5 Business Activities – Discretionary Assessment Criteria

Page 215 of 266

Commercial Investment Trust and Homes for Living Ltd


1284.075 1.3.2.3 Industrial Activities – Central City and Business 1 to 7 Zones

Support in part

Section 1.3.2.3.a We would like to add greenhouse gases as a specific form of emission mentioned in this clause.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to 1.3.2.2a to see greenhouse gases as a specific form of emission should be rejected as;

• This submission point contains no relevant justification as to why the alternative sought would be more appropriate

490 Grey Ltd as

the Trustee of the BDL Commercial Investment Trust and Homes for Living Ltd

FS266.005



714.088 1.3.2.4 Retail, Commercial and Office Activities – Central City and Business 1 to 7 Zones

Oppose Amend Rule 1.3.2.4(a) and (d) – Retail, Commercial and Office Activities – Central City and Business 1 to 7 Zones to expressly exclude sites in Hamilton East.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to Rule 1.3.2.4 a) –d) )requesting exclusion of Hamilton East should be rejected as;




Jon Harris (Hills

Laboratories Limited)

FS66.008

Support Reject Submissions FS66.008 and FS266.003 further support amendments to the provisions that this submission seeks. These submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions.

490 Grey Ltd as the Trustee of the BDL Commercial

FS266.003

Support Reject


Page 216 of 266

Investment Trust and Homes for Living Ltd


1002.003 1.3.2.4 Retail, Commercial and Office Activities – Central City and Business 1 to 7 Zones

Oppose Delete 1.3.2.4 the Discretionary Assessment Criteria for Retail, Commercial and Office Activities.

Reject The submission point seeking deletion of Rule 1.3.2.4 should be rejected as;




Mighty River

Power Limited FS162.023

Oppose Accept FS89.001 is accepted because that part of 1002.003 which it opposes

(notification) has been rejected.


1284.076 1.3.2.5 Building Design and Appearance – Central City and Business 1 to 7 Zones

Support in part

Section 1.3.2.5- Add a clause requiring new buildings to use renewable materials and energy and water conservation measures.

Accept in Part The submission seeking amendment to Rule 1.3.2.5 for new buildings to use renewable energy, water conservation measures is accepted in part as

• Restricted Discretionary Assessment Criteria R4, R7, R9 and S1 are already considered to address the matters suggested by this submission point.

Fonterra Co-

operative Group Ltd

FS89.001



FS266.005



Page 217 of 266

Chapter 6 - Business 1-7 Zones

S42a Report

1.5.20 - Information Requirements - Centre Viability Assessment

Analysis: 1.5.20 - Information Requirements - Centre Viability Assessment

Property Council New Zealand (938.132) and McCracken Surveys Limited (1206.134) both seek amendment to Rule 1.5.20 to outline the circumstances when a Centre Viability Assessment is required. Kiwi Income Property Trust and Kiwi Property Holdings Limited oppose this submission on the basis it would undermine the centres hierarchy of the Plan. Section 1.5.20 Information Requirements advises that where noted the listed information is required with applications for resource consent. It is acknowledged that the introductory paragraph for 1.5.20 unlike other information requirements does not make it clear that any application for resource consent shall include the listed information noted. Therefore as part of a restricted discretionary application or a discretionary application for retail it should be noted. A recommended change for point of clarification is therefore proposed as follows; 1.5.20 Centre Viability Assessment Report Any resource consent for office or retail activities (excluding ancillary office/ retail) shall provide a Centre Viability Assessment Report as part of the application. 490 Grey Ltd as Trustee of the BDL Commercial Investment Trust and Homes for the Living Ltd (1002.004) seek deletion of 1.5.20 on the basis that it is unnecessarily onerous, complex and/or are incapable of objective assessment. Tainui Group Holdings Ltd and Property Council New Zealand supports this submission for the same reason. No reasoned justification or alternative has been provided to justify this submission point. The requirement of a Centre Viability Assessment is fundamental to any analysis on whether future retail or office development would result in significant adverse effects on the centres hierarchy. Without the provision of evidence of such an assessment the Council would not be able undertake this analysis in which to implement the objectives and polices of the plan in ensuring the type, scale and intensity of activities outside the Central City do not undermine the viability, vitality or vibrancy of the Central City. Deletion of the criteria would be contrary to the strategic objectives of Future Proof and the PRPS. As such no change is proposed. Progressive Enterprises Limited (1135.29) seek amendment to 1.5.20 to ensure the legality and aspects of its wording be checked against the provisions of the RMA that prohibit having regard to trade competition or the effects of trade competition. There are concerns that any provisions or requirements need to ensure that they do not require consideration of a prohibited matter, namely "trade competition or the effects of trade competition". It is not considered that the Information requirements and assessments listed under 1.5.20 amount to trade competition concerns referred. Pursuant to section 74 (3) of the Act, in preparing or changing any district plan, a territory authority must not have regard to trade competition or the effects of trade competition. It is accepted law, however that the council should have regard to significant effects on the amenity of the public caused by any reductions in the viability and vitality of commercial centres that may arise as a consequence of trade competition, what can be referred to as adverse ‘distributional’ or ‘consequential’ effects. The justification for such intervention is appropriately addressed in Paragraphs 4.1-4.10 in the accompanying economic evidence of Property Economics. The submitter also seeks alternative relief for focus to refer to a report requiring a retail impact assessment. It is considered that given that it is not only the adverse distributional effects of retail activity but also the consequences resulting from the loss of offices in the Central City, such an assessment should not exclude the latter from consideration of adverse effects. Given the above, it is considered that a Centre Viability Assessment provides the consenting authority a reasonable platform in which to assess potential adverse effects of office or retail activities on a case by case basis. Such an analysis would be proportionate to scale/nature of proposal. No change is therefore proposed.

Title: Chapter 6 - Business 1-7 Zones Issue: 1.5.20 - Information Requirements - Centre Viability Assessment

Page 218 of 266

Sub. Name FS. Name




938.132 1.5.20 Centre Viability Assessment Report

Oppose Amend 1.5.20 to outline circumstances when a Centre Viability Assessment Report is required.

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to 1.5.20 to outline the circumstances for a Centre Viability Assessment is accepted in part as it would;


Andrew Yeoman

FS2.012



FS123.01

Oppose Reject FS123.01 is rejected because that part of 938.12 which it opposes has been accepted in part.


FS242.001


Peter John Findlay, Donna Margaret Findlay, Peter John Findlay & Donna

FS277.001



Page 219 of 266

Margaret Findlay as Trustees of the Findlay Family Trust, Riverside Oak Estate Ltd (Peter Findlay, Peter Findlay & Associates Ltd)



Oppose Delete 1.5.20 Centre Viability Assessment Report

Reject The submission point seeking deletion of Rule 1.5.20 should be rejected as;





FS246.019

Support Reject FS246.019 and FS249.031 are rejected as that part of 1002.004 which they support has been rejected.


FS249.031

Support Reject



Support in part

Amend 1.5.20 to ensure the legality and aspects of its wording be checked against the provisions of the RMA that prohibit having regard to trade competition or the effects of trade competition. The focus of the section be amended to refer to a report requiring a retail impact assessment; OR delete.

Reject The submission point seeking amendment to 1.5.20 to check validity against trade competition or refinement to focus on a retail impact assessment is rejected as; The submission point seeking deletion of Rule 1.5.20 should be rejected as;





Page 220 of 266


FS123.007

Oppose Accept FS123.007 is accepted because that part of 1135.029 which it opposes has been rejected

Andrew King of the A & A King Family Trust

FS283 Support Reject FS283 is rejected because that part of 1135.029 which it supports has been rejected



Oppose Amend 1.5.20 to outline circumstances when a Centre Viability Assessment Report is required.

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to 1.5.20 to outline the circumstances for a Centre Viability Assessment is accepted in part as it would;



Page 221 of 266

S42a Report

Chapter 6 - Business 1 to 7 zones Volume 2. 1.7 - Definitions

Analysis: Volume 2. 1.7 - Definitions

AMP Capital Property Portfolio (312.005), Ecostream Irrigation (314.014), Jordanielle Trust (784.009), Alan Gordon Sharp (N.C. Engineering)(808.009), Property Council New Zealand(938.133) and McCracken Surveys Limited (1206.135)seek amendment to the definition for ancillary retailing and offices to allow for these activities to occupy up to 25% of the total floor area. Their concern being the proposed definition of 10% is too restrictive. DNZ Property Fund Limited (DNZ)(FS285.007),The New Zealand Racing Board (Speer Speer & Associates Ltd)(FS278.003), Graeme Ward (WINTEC)(FS71.018) and (Peter Findlay, Peter Findlay & Associates Ltd) (FS277.001)further support this submission. The proposed plan definition for ancillary offices/ retail is; Means any retail or office premises on the same site as another principal building or activity, and whose use is incidental to that principal building or principal activity (e.g. a retail showroom attached to a manufacturing premises) occupying not more than 10% of the activity floorspace. Advice from Property Economics is that after consideration the suggested level of up to 25% of the total floor space or 250sqm, whichever is the lesser, is appropriate for ancillary activities. They adviSse that it is important to distinguish between ancillary activities and ‘stand alone’ office activities. Ancillary activities associated (directly) with the primary activity of the business do not often locate differently. Hence under this provision the CBD and other centres are unlikely to lose commercial activity that would have otherwise located centrally. It is further proposed that the definition be amended to ‘any associated premises’ so as to provide a regulatory mechanism for those activities that can operate out of a small buildings, but store all of their goods in a nearby warehouse (on an adjacent site) which will instead need to rely on the single activity threshold. Given the above, it is proposed the definition be amended as follows; Means any retail or office premises on the same site as another principal building or activity, and whose use is incidental to that principal building or principal activity (e.g. a retail showroom attached to a manufacturing premises) occupying not more than 25% or 250m2 of the activity’s gross floor area on the site and associated premises (including any associated premises on an immediately adjoining site), whichever is the lesser. Property Council New Zealand (938.133) seek amendment to the definition of “industrial activity” so that it is clear that warehouse and bulk storage are deemed light industry. Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd (FS89.001) and NZTA support clarification and amendment to the definition of industrial activity in the Plan. The present definition as notified for Light Industrial is as follows; Means manufacturing, storage, service and repair activities which do not involve the use of heavy machinery, are carried out indoors and are unlikely to give rise to significant adverse effects beyond the site and are generally of a small scale. They include printing works, furniture manufacture, car repairs, light engineering, tradesmen’s depots and the like. Given the definition for ‘Industrial Activities’ is generic and all encompassing and includes bulk storage and warehousing amongst ‘all types of processing’ it is acknowledged that there is a need for better distinction and improved clarity for warehouse and bulk storage. It is therefore proposed that a revised definition for ‘light industrial’ is as follows; Means manufacturing, warehouse, bulk storage, service and repair activities which do not involve the use of heavy machinery, are carried out indoors and are unlikely to give rise to significant adverse effects beyond the site and are generally of a small scale. They include printing works, furniture manufacture, car repairs, light engineering, tradesmen’s depots and the like. DNZ Property Fund Limited (1024.005) seek amendment to the definition for ‘Wholesale retail and trade supplies’ to separate into two discrete definitions on the basis that they are appropriate in Industrial and out of centre locations given that they do not support the compact nature and pedestrian focus of the CBD and other centres. Recognising and providing for this type of retail outside

Title: Chapter 6 - Business 1 to 7 zones Issue: Volume 2. 1.7 - Definitions

Page 222 of 266

of town centres will not undermine the function or integrity of those centres, and to the contrary will provide better and more efficient access to a range of goods and services. The submitter contends that the current definition excludes trade supply outlets that sell to the general public and so a separate definition would give more clarity of this relief sought. The current Plan definition for Wholesale retail and trade supplies is as follows; Means premises that engage primarily in the storage, distribution and sale of goods to other businesses (rather than the general public, although it may include a minor proportion of its sales to the general public), including premises engaged in supplying the construction and building industries, such as plumbing and building materials, farming and primary production supplies (including seed and grain merchants, farming and horticultural equipment suppliers, and equestrian and veterinary suppliers), but excludes hardware and building supply premises selling goods primarily to the public. It is considered that the amendment sought merely adds to highlight that underlined above as it pertains to wholesale retail, while repeating the content above for a separate ‘wholesale’ definition. The current proposed definition provides for an element of ‘minor’ sales to the public, and it is not considered that this activity would be non-complying as described. Therefore the amendment proposed is considered to be an unnecessary duplication and not assist in plan clarity and administration. No change is proposed. Waikato Racing Club Incorporated(376.002) seek amendment to the definition for Business activities associated with the racing industry, in order to clarify that betting agencies which deal with horse racing (as well as sports) are permitted. The other proposed change seeks to add the words ‘and/or racing’ to ensure that businesses involved in horse racing, as well as bloodstock, breeding and training of horses are permitted to establish within the TBP. The New Zealand Racing Board (Speer Speer & Associates Ltd)(FS278.009) further support this submission. The amendments sought are considered reasonable and relevant to the activity and would aid in the clarity and administration of the Plan. These amendments are proposed to be accepted as outlined in track changes within Appendix B. Progressive Enterprises Limited (1135.030) seek to add a new definition for "Supermarkets". It is considered that a definition for supermarkets would aid clarity and administration of the Plan. The definition provided by the submitter for a Supermarket being; “A retail shop where a comprehensive range of predominantly domestic supplies and convenience goods and services are sold for consumption or use off the premises and includes lotto shops and pharmacies located within such premises and where liquor licenses are held for each premise. Supermarkets are exempt from compliance with any Local Alcohol Policy”. A number of proposed definitions have been posited by the submitter and others but the preferred definition for supermarkets includes a restriction on non-domestic supplies and is based on best practice and advice from Property Economics is proposed as follows; An individual retail outlet that sells, primarily by way of self service, a comprehensive range of:

• domestic supplies such as fresh meat and produce; chilled, frozen, packaged, canned and bottled foodstuffs and beverages; and general housekeeping and personal goods, including (but not limited to) cooking, cleaning and washing products; kitchenwares; toilet paper, diapers and other paper tissue products; pharmaceutical, health and personal hygiene products and other toiletries; and cigarettes and related products; and

• non domestic supplies comprising not more than 20 per cent of all products offered for sale as measured by retail floor space, includes magazines and newspapers; greeting cards and stationery; barbecue and heating fuels; batteries, flashlights and light bulbs; films; DVDs and appliances; and

• has a store footprint over 1,000sqm GFA. In order to best reflect consideration of the business hierarchy in the Plan, the above supermarket definition is proposed; Appendix B refers.


Page 223 of 266

McDonald's Restaurants (NZ) Ltd (1195.001) seek a separate definition for "Drive Through Restaurant'. They are concerned that there appear to be a number of terms/categories that would cover their activity eg; “drive-through services”, “restaurant”, “retail”, and “retail – food and beverage” and therefore have concerns regarding the uncertainty surrounding a McDonald’s activity when so many categories are relevant. It is not accepted that there is the level of ambiguity maintained by the submitter, based on current practice and assessment of consents. A ‘Drive through restaurant’, would be covered under the definition of drive through services as clearly outlined within the exiting definition. The definition is quite clear in so far as it ‘means any premises where goods and services are offered for sale to the motoring public, primarily in a manner where the customer can remain in their vehicle’. A restaurant and retail activity is a stand alone activity, which excludes the critical element of ‘drive through’. No change is proposed. Z Energy Limited (1292.001) seek a similar amendment to the definition of Drive-through services to provide for all aspects of modern service stations or include a new definition for service stations. The submitter seeks to provide for the associated sale of goods, services, food and beverages. NZTA (FS270.08) oppose this submission on the grounds that there is no consideration that both service stations and drive-through services are high trip-generating activities that can have significant adverse impacts on the transportation network. It is acknowledged the modern service station is not exclusively for the sale of fuel as they are now part of a linked trip or visit in which one can obtain various associated goods and services and it would therefore be reasonable to include the associated sale of goods and services referred above. The submitter’s proposed definition is lengthy and duplicative and therefore the following amended definitions is proposed in Appendix B; Drive-through services (excluding service stations within the Rototuna Town Centre Zone): Means any premises where goods and services are offered for sale to the motoring public, primarily in a manner where the customer can remain in their vehicle. Drive-through services can include dispensing and associated storage of motor fuels (as the primary activity) and the sale of associated goods, services, food and beverages, fast-food outlets providing on-demand meals prepared on the premises for consumption therein or take away, the provision of servicing and running repairs for light motor vehicles and any other activity of a drive-through nature, including those ancillary to the above. New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) (924.197) seek a number of amendments to definitions in the Plan. Whilst supportive of the inclusion of a definition for ‘Ancillary retailing’, they query why the word ‘incidental’ is in bold when it does not have its own definition. The word incidental is not in bold in the Plan definitions and whilst it is assumed the meaning of the word incidental is implicit in the definition for ancillary it is accepted that its inclusion will add clarity for the Plan user and ensure activities are appropriate to their location. Therefore a new definition for the word ‘incidental’ as ‘Means accompanying as a minor part to something else’ is proposed within Definitions 1.7 as per appendix B, track changes. NZTA seek the deletion of the word ‘Primary’ from the definition of ‘Drive – Through Services’ as it requires the drive-through aspect to be the primary component of a business. The submitter maintains the definition creates a potential question as to the status of an activity in say an Industrial zone. Z Energy Limited (FS166.002) oppose this submission on the grounds that removal of the word ‘primarily’ would then not differentiate between activities. The submitter’s argument is not clear, in that the word ‘primary’ is precisely needed given it is a definition for drive through activities. To delete the word, would undermine the intent of the definition. No change is proposed. NZTA seeks to understand which definition activities such as ‘big box retail’ fit under. For instance would they be identified as ‘Retail – bulky goods’, or ‘Retail – nurseries and garden centres’ or ‘Wholesale retail and trade supplier’ or ‘Yard-based retailing’ It is considered that in general terms the term ‘big box retail’ , (which is not referred in the Plan) to which the submitter refers would be identified as Retail – bulky goods although the precise definition would obviously depend on the activity applied for at the time and would remain to be considered in the other definitions listed. No change is proposed. The NZTA requests that the definition for Wholesale Retail and Trade Supply is amended to more specifically define what is meant by ‘minor proportion of its sales to the general public’. Their


Page 224 of 266

http://www.hamilton.co.nz/our-council/council-publications/districtplans/proposeddistrictplan/appendix1/Pages/Appendix-1-7-Definitions-in-the-District-Plan.aspx

principle concern is there is ambiguity and indeed uncertainty as to the proportion of retail sales to the public that could occur in these circumstances. Whilst it is acknowledged that this is an area of uncertainty and regulation at which point a distinction is drawn between minor or more than minor proportion of sales, and also whom is in ‘Trade’ given the relative ease in obtaining trade cards depends on the volume of purchase in many stores. Many examples in New Zealand refer to an element of ‘sales to the general public’ which recognises the inevitable difficulties in quantifying, monitoring and enforcing retail sales in each and every circumstance. Furthermore the Council would need a sound evidence base to determine what ‘figure’ was justified or reasonable. These activities are excluded from the retail assessment of Property Economics in so far as they are not considered to generate adverse distributional effects on centres. On this basis the issue is rather that such activities are unlikely to threaten the established centres hierarchy in that only a few would be found in centres and none are important to sustaining centre function or vitality. In addition, the establishment of these businesses would further be inconsistent with amenity or urban design outcomes anticipated for the majority of the centres. Given the above it is not considered that quantifying the proportion of sales to the general public is necessary in achieving the stated objectives and policies of the Plan. No change is recommended. Further advice from Property Economics in this respect, suggests that the definition as notified for ‘Wholesale Retail and Trade Supplies’ should not ‘exclude hardware and building supply premises selling goods primarily to the public’. This has to some extent already been acknowledged with the new definition for Building Improvement Centres in the Plan and it is therefore proposed to ensure consistency and clarity in Plan administration that this sentence should be deleted. It is therefore proposed and within scope of responding to the above submissions that the proposed definition for ‘Wholesale Retail and Trade Supplies’ be amended as proposed; Means premises that engage primarily in the storage, distribution and sale of goods to other businesses (rather than the general public, although it may include a minor proportion of its sales to the general public), including premises engaged in supplying the construction and building industries, such as plumbing and building materials, farming and primary production supplies (including seed and grain merchants, farming and horticultural equipment suppliers, and equestrian and veterinary suppliers), but excludes hardware and building supply premises selling goods primarily to the public.

Sub. Name FS. Name




312.001 1.7 Definitions Used in the District Plan

Oppose Amend the definition for ancillary retailing and offices to allow for these activities to occupy up to 25% of the total floor area.

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to the definition of ancillary retail and offices should be accepted in part as it would;


within the business hierarchy Recommended amendments to Definitions 1.7 are contained within Appendix B (refer to 312.001)

Property FS249.026 Support Accept in Part FS249.026, FS278.003, FS285.007are accepted in part because that part of


Page 225 of 266

Council New Zealand

312.001 which they support (notification) has been accepted in part.


FS278.003



FS285.007


Ecostream Irrigation


Oppose Amend the definition for ancillary retailing and offices to allow for these activities to occupy up to 25% of the floor space and or/yard based retail area.





FS278.002

Support Accept in Part FS278.002 and FS282.212 are accepted in part because that part of 314.014 which they support (notification) has been accepted in part.


FS285.212


Waikato Racing Club Incorporated


Support in part

Insert a new definition for Business activities associated with the racing industry.

Accept he submission point seeking amendment to the definition for Business activities associated with the racing industry should be accepted as it would;


within the business hierarchy Recommended amendments to Definitions 1.7 are contained within Appendix


Page 226 of 266

B (refer to 376.002)


FS278.009

Support Accept FS278.009 is accepted in because that part of 376.002 which it supports (notification) has been accepted in part.

Jordanielle Trust 784.009 1.7 Definitions Used in the District Plan

Oppose Amend the definition for ancillary retailing and offices to allow for these activities to occupy up to 25% of the floor space and/or yard-based retail area.





FS285.058


Alan Gordon Sharp (N.C. Engineering)


Oppose Amend the definition for ancillary retailing and offices to allow for these activities to occupy up to 25% of the floor space and/or yard-based retail area.





FS285.066




Support in part

Seeks various relief to retain, delete or amend the following definitions: Accessory Buildings,

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to add a definition of ‘incidental’ to aid understanding of ancillary retail and Industrial activity is accepted in part as it would;


Page 227 of 266

Access Way, Ancillary Retailing, Comprehensive Development Plan, Community Facilities, Development Agreement, Drive-through Services, Effect, Expressway, Frontage, Green Corridors, Home-based Business, Incidental, Industrial Activity, Infrastructure, Integrated Transport Assessment, Interface Design Control Area (Ruakura Logistics Zone and Ruakura Industrial Park Zone), Local Movement System, Logistics and Freight Handling Activities, Motorway, Network Utility, Permeability (transport), Planned Infrastructure, Public Place, Regionally Significant Infrastructure, Retail - Bulky Goods, Road Controlling Authority, Service Station (within the Rototuna Town Centre Zone), Structure Plan, Temporary Activities, Traffic Management Plan, Transport Corridor, Transport Depot, Transport Infrastructure, Transport Network, Warehouse, Wholesale Retail and Trade Supplier, Yard-based Retailing.


Recommended amendments to Definitions 1.7 are contained within Appendix B (refer to 924.197) The submission point seeking amendment to the definitions of Wholesale Retail and Trade supplier, Yard-based retail and Retail – Bulky Goods and Drive Through Services are rejected as it;

• Would result in unnecessary duplication of existing definitions and is not required to assist the understanding of and administration of the Plan

• Would be contrary to the Objectives and Policies of the Plan

Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd

FS89.001

Support Accept in Part FS89.001 is accepted in part because that part of 924.197 which it supports (notification) in so far as it relates to Industrial activities has been accepted in part.

Z Energy Limited

FS166.002

Oppose Accept in Part FS166.002 is accepted in part because that part of 924.197 which it opposes (notification) in so far as it relates to Drive Through activities has been rejected.


Page 228 of 266



Support in part

Amend Appendix 1.7 by adding new definitions for 'Household', 'Average Site Area', 'Gross Density excluding roads', 'Boundary adjustment', 'Trade and Industry Training Facilities'. Clarify the definition of 'Industry' and 'Net Site Area'. Amend the definition of 'Ancillary Retailing and Offices'




Andrew Yeoman

FS2.012


Graeme Ward (WINTEC)

FS71.018

Support Accept in Part FS71.018, FS242.001, FS242.061, FS 277.001, FS277.061 is accepted in part because that part of 938.133 which it supports (notification) has been accepted in part.


FS242.001



FS242.061



Page 229 of 266

Findlay as Trustees of the Findlay Family Trust, Riverside Oak Estate Ltd (Baruchel Developments Ltd)


FS277.001



FS277.061



Page 230 of 266

Bunnings Ltd 968.005 1.7 Definitions

Used in the District Plan

Support Retain the definition for "Building Improvement Centre"

Accept In accordance with the Objectives and Policies of the Plan


FS285.117

Support Accept FS285.117 is accepted in because that part of 968.005 which it supports (notification) has been accepted.



Oppose Amend the definition for Wholesale retail and trade supplies to separate into two discrete definitions

Reject The submission point seeking separate definitions for wholesale retail and trade supplies is rejected as it;



FS123.009

Oppose Accept FS123.009 is accepted in because that part of 1024.005 which it opposes (notification) has been rejected.



Support in part

Add a new definition for "Supermarkets"

Accept The submission point seeking amendment add a supermarket definition should be accepted at it:

• Improves plan administration and clarity of the plan for users • Is addressed with consequential changes to the Purpose in Section

6.3 of this report • Is consistent with the objectives and policies for the Business zones

Recommended amendments to Definitions 1.7 are contained within Appendix B (refer to 1135.030)



Support in part

Add a new definition for "Drive Through Restaurant'

Reject The submission point seeking a new definition for Drive Through Restaurant is rejected as it;



Page 231 of 266



Support in part

Insert new or amend existing definitions for "Household", "Average Site Area", "Gross Density excluding roads", "Boundary adjustment", "Trade and Industry Training Facilities". Amendments to clarify to the following definitions are sought "Industry" and "Net Site Area", "Ancillary Retailing and Offices"




Z Energy Limited 1292.001 1.7 Definitions Used in the District Plan

Oppose Amend the definition of Drive-through services to provide for all aspects of modern service stations or include a new definition for service stations (with consequential amendments to the definition of Drive-through services), as per the submission.

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to the definition of drive through services should be accepted in part as it:

• Improves plan administration and clarity of the plan for users • Is consistent with the objectives and policies for the Business zones

Recommended amendments to Definitions 1.7 are contained within Appendix B (refer to 1292.001)


FS270.08

Oppose Reject FS270.08 is rejected because that part of 1292.001 which it supports (notification) has been accepted.


Page 232 of 266

S42a Report

Chapter 6 - Business 1-7 Zones Planning Maps - Business Zone 1

Analysis: Planning Maps - Business Zone 1

Kiwi Income Property Trust & Kiwi Property Holdings Ltd (1198.018) seek a rezoning of Business 4 to Business 1 within The Base, Te-Rapa North Sub-Regional centre. This is primarily because of the concern with the continued spread of retail in this location and the potential to undermine the vitality and viability of the Central City further. Consequential changes to the activity status to small to medium size retail in Business 4 as a result of retail advice from the Property Economics has resulted in a further tightening up of the provisions in this location, resulting in retail below 400m2 now proposed to be a non-complying activity within the Business 4 zone. Previous discussion on the need to provide for Large Format Retail activities has been given in this report under section 6.3. It is considered that these proposed changes go some way in addressing the concerns of the submitter while still providing appropriate locations for larger format retail activities on the fringe of established centres. On this basis no change to zoning is recommended. Chartwell Investments (355.006, 007) seek a spot zoning of their respective sites from Industrial to Business 1. Please see analysis provided in section 6.1 previous. Southern Cross Hospitals Limited (Bloxam Burnett and Olliver Ltd)(356.004) seek a change of zoning from Residential Intensification to Business Zone 1 in this location. The submitter owns property 4 and 5 Beale Street which have been strategically acquired with a view as long term development as either healthcare or supporting hospital services. It is accepted that Beale Street ‘Residential Intensification Zone’ is surrounded on three sides by proposed Business 1 zoning and largely commercial surrounds. Given the clear ownership of this site by a healthcare provider, the character and constraints of the site in terms of access and reverse sensitivity issues likely to occur next to a health care provider, it is considered appropriate to accept this proposed amendment. Furthermore the rezoning of this site for Business 1 to facilitate expansion of healthcare services is unlikely to undermine the Central City and business hierarchy. Proposed changes to Planning Map 45a are set out within Appendix B. Hamilton East Community Trust (1013.004)-seek to rezone the area surrounding Steele Park to a mixed use of commercial fringe and residential. No specific reasoning is given by the submitter but it is considered that the existing zoning provides adequate potential for a mix of commercial and residential in this vicinity with a Suburban Centre, Commercial Fringe, Community and Residential Intensification zoning all surrounding the park and so no zone change is considered necessary. Hamilton Homezone Ltd and Ingham Group (1117.001) –seek to rezone Lot 1 DP 388507 (Land north of Ingham Motors Site) from Industrial to Business zone 1 The reasoning being that this site is also part of the functioning of the wider integrated business park at Home Straight. Notwithstanding the physical location of this site, it enjoys a separate access off Te-Rapa Road, a Major Arterial and can operate independently of the commercial uses in Home Straight Park. It is considered that the proposed provisions within the Industrial Zone adequately cater for this yard based retailing. The area of the Home Straights Business Park currently proposed Business 1, is considered large enough at this time to accommodate both existing and recent consented uses and no rationale or justification is provided by the submitter to zone more land Business 1 which would only serve to create more potential office zoning out of centre. On this basis not change is recommended.

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


355.006

Oppose Map 15A-Request ACC Offices at Lot 1 DP 321305 - 6 Parkinson Road be rezoned from Industrial to “Business Zone 1 – Commercial Fringe”, or another

Reject

The submission point seeking amendment for 6 Parkinson Road and 11 Ken Brown Drive to be included within Te Rapa North Sub-regional Centre should be rejected as;

• It reduces the efficient and effective implementation of the Plan to

Page 233 of 266

Title: Chapter 6 - Business 1-7 Zones Issue: Planning Maps - Business Zone 1

appropriate business zone which anticipates and provides for the existing office activity.

achieve its objectives • The relief sought is not considered to be valid in the context of




FS246.012

Oppose Reject FS246.012 is not related to matters contained within 355.006 above.


355.007

Oppose Map 26A-Request 11 Ken Brown Drive be rezoned from Industrial to “Business Zone 1 - Commercial Fringe”, or another appropriate business zone which anticipates and provides for the existing office activity.

Reject


356.004 Zoning Map 45A Oppose Map 45A-rezone Lot 11 DP 3278 and Part Lot 15 DP 3278 from ‘Residential Intensification Zone’ to ‘Business 1 Zone’

Accept The submission point seeking a change of zoning from Residential Intensification to Business Zone 1 in this location hould be accepted as it would





714.097 Zoning Map 46A Support in part

Map 46A Retain the Business 1 zoning for Regional Council Offices at 319 Grey Street. And retain Business 5 zoning at 401 Grey Street subject to other requested amendments..

Accept in Part The request in so far as it relates to retaining Business 1 zoning for 319 Grey Street and Business 5 zoning for 401 Grey Street is consistent with the Objectives and Policies of the Plan.

Page 234 of 266


1002.006 Zoning Map 45A Oppose Maps 45A & 46A- Rezone Business 1 and Business 5 within the area east of the Waikato River, west of Peachgrove Road and north of Clyde Street to Central City Precinct 2.

Reject The submissions seeks a change of zoning from Business 1 and 5 within the Hamilton East Suburban Centre to Central City Precinct 2 and should be rejected as it;



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



Map 46A-rezone the area surrounding Steele Park to a mixed use of commercial fringe and residential.

Reject The submissions seek a retention a more permissive commercial zoning outside of the defined centres and should be rejected as it;






Map 26A-Rezone Lot 1 DP 388507 (Land north of Ingham Motors Site) from Industrial to Business zone 1 and retain Business 1 zone for Lot 1 and 2 DP 440887 and Lot 2 DP 388507.

Accept in Part

The submission point seeking to rezone Lot 1 DP 388507 (Land north of Ingham Motors Site) from Industrial to Business zone 1 should be rejected as;



Eastside Investment FS213.001 Support Reject FS213.001 is not related to matters contained in 1117.001

Page 235 of 266

Limited - (Speer Speer & Associates Ltd)


1198.018 (new)

Zoning Maps 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 submissions seeks a change of zoning from Business 4 to Business 1 within The Base, Te-Rapa North Sub-Regional centre should be rejected as it;


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


FS198.017 Oppose Accept in Part FS198.017 has been accepted in part because that part of 1198.018 which is opposes has been rejected.

Page 236 of 266

a S42a Report

Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones Planning Maps - Business Zones 2 - Events Fringe

Analysis: Planning Maps - Business Zones 2 - Events Fringe

Property Council New Zealand (938.139) and Hamilton Central Business Association (1115.015) and McCracken Surveys Limited (1206.141) seek a reduction in the extent of Business 2 zone in the vicinity of Claudelands on the basis that the area is excessive and if developed to the extent proposed could adversely impact on the vitality and viability of the existing Central City Zone. Whilst no alternative to the size of Business 2 zone in this location has been proposed by submitters it is accepted that any excess of out of centre business zoning should not be encouraged. The Business 2 zone and supporting policies recognise the special circumstances that exist for major facilities such as Claudelands Events Centre for entertainment and events of regional and national prominence at Waikato Stadium and Te Rapa Racecourse. This zoning is to cater for commercial opportunities the market sees and to provide for these through co-location. The purpose is to provide a limited range of complementary commercial activities where they relate to the major events facilities within City. The range of scale of which shall not undermine the role of any business centre and consistent with neighbouring amenity values. A balance therefore has to be struck against securing additional commercial development in a limited number of locations to strengthen the viability of these stand alone facilities versus recognition of the need to sustain centres within the business hierarchy. In achieving this balance a reasonable and efficient size site has to be provided for such activities to establish. Some relief may be given to the submitters in that consequential amendments in response to submissions from residents in the Claudelands Special Residential character zone and the need to protectexisting residential amenity have resulted in a proposed reduction of the Business 2 zoning along Heaphy Terrace. The area which the Business 2 zone along Heaphy Terrace is no longer proposed to extend as far north as Piako Road but is now focused predominantly on the O’Neill Street corner on the vacant commercial site of the former petrol station (track changes in Appendix B refer) City Limits Childcare Co Ltd and Claudelands Property Trust (1282.002) both seek to rezone sites of City Limits childcare and the Casalinga café from Special Residential Zone to either a Business 2 or 7 zoning. They contend that a business zone would provide for better utilisation of the site and permit possible future uses associated with Claudelands Stadium or intensive residential use to support the “compact city” objective of the plan. Alexander Elliot (Claudelands Residents) oppose this submission on the grounds that they consider it is based on the potential for this company to gain economic advantage while damaging one of Hamilton’s most established Special Character Zones. City Limits child care is at 729 and 731 Grey St, is licensed for 47 children. The site is accessed from Grey St beside the existing shops and to the south is an old two storey block of flats and Claudelands Rd runs along the north boundary. The land is currently in the Special Residential Zone in the Plan. Whilst it is agreed that the site and its immediate neighbours do not possess any special residential character, this itself is not sufficient a reason to rezone what is effectively a back land site to a more commercial focussed zone. The current childcare centre enjoys existing use rights and with its established character and scale is limited in terms of potential external adverse effects on noise and on the adjoining residential amenities. To confer either as Events orNeighbourhood Ccentre zone on 729 Grey Street would potentially broaden the range of activities that could occur on this limited access site to the detriment of residential amenities. Furthermore, the existing Neighbourhood Centre is already very close to the existing total gfa of 5000m2 for Neighbourhood Centres set by the Plan; therefore it is not considered appropriate to rezone or expand this centre further than is necessary without sufficient justification. The proposed change of zoning for 731 and 737 Casalinga café from Special Residential Zone to Business 7 zone is however accepted given that these buildings already enjoy a commercial use with a higher profile street frontage onto Grey Street. Any further expansion of the Business 2 zone is inappropriate given the consequential amendments proposed in response to other submitters which seek to shrink the extent of this more commercially focused zone. A Business 7 (Neighbourhood Centre zone) would however constitute an acceptable extension of the existing centre in this location which is considered unlikely to create significant adverse amenity effects on the surrounding residential area and is consistent with the Objectives and policies of the Plan. The proposed amendment is therefore accepted in part.

Page 237 of 266

Title: Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones: Planning Maps - Business Zones 2 - Events Fringe

Shona Mary McClinchy (1159.004, 005) seeks amendment to Map 37A as the submitter opposes the Business 2 zoning at Brooklyn and Heaphy Terrace (old petrol station). The submitter queries these two areas as Business 2 as they are completely dissimilar. Furthermore there is concern that commercial activities and restaurants/cafes should be focused primarily in the CBD ahead of the areas shown in Heaphy Terrace. Finally there is objection to rezoning of Heaphy Terrrace (O'Neill Street to Piako Road) to Business 2 on the basis it is non-aligned with the Purpose and Objectives of Special Character Zones. The purpose of the Business 2 zoning is to recognise the special circumstances that exist for major facilities such as Claudelands Events Centre for entertainment and events of regional and national prominence. The zoning is this location thus reflects the desire to provide opportunities for such development. However it is acknowledged that a balance needs to be struck with the desire to focus commercial activity towards the CBD and to further respect the existing residential amenity of the Claudelands Special Character zone. To this end the submitter can gain some relief in response to amendments in the Special Character zones and the subsequent reduction in the area of the Business 2 zone in Heaphy Terrace to concentrate on the O’Neill Street corner. The latter amendments acknowledge the special character concerns and the concerns of submitters who have sought a reduction in the Business 2 zoning to prevent unnecessary dispersal of commercial activity from the CBD. Notwithstanding the above, the submitter clear seeks an alternative zone specifically for the former petrol station with a community services zone proposed, which is rejected, given the desire to rejuvenate this corner site with a complimentary commercial activity. The specific submission is therefore declined and the proposed Business 2 zone is reduced in size as per changes outline in Planning Map 37A within Appendix B.


CKC Holdings Ltd 897.018 Zoning Map 37A Support

Map 37A-Retain proposed zoning on corner of Brooklyn and Heaphy Tce.

Accept in Part

Other submissions have sought amendments or deletions to the provisions that this submission seeks to retain. These other submissions have been declined for the reasons stated specifically in relation to those submissions.




938.139 Planning Maps Oppose Amend Business 5 and 6 to create one zone; rezone Te Rapa Road to reflect the non-industrial uses; Rezone new areas for residential intensification; Rezone old Avalon Drive to enable regeneration; Rezone Frankton from industrial to a more enabling zone e.g. mixed-use; Remove Opoia from the Central City Zone; Reduce the extent of the Business 2 Zone atClaudelands.

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to reduce the extent of the Business Zone 2 zoning in this location and should be accepted in part as it would;



Recommended amendments to Map 37a are contained within Appendix B (refer to 938.139)

Page 238 of 266


Hamilton Central Business Association

1115.015 Zoning Map 37A Oppose Map 37A-reducing the Business 2 Zoning around Claudelands Events Centre. Map 37A- rezone sites of City Limits childcare and the Casalinga café from Special Residential Zone to either Business zone 2 or 7; amend to change the area of the Special Residential Zone at Claudelands.

Accept in Part

The submission point seeking amendment to the extent of the Business Zone 2 zoning in this location and should be accepted in part as it would;



Recommended amendments to Map 37a are contained within Appendix B (refer to1115.015) The submission point seeks a change from Residential Intensification to either the Business Zone 2 or 7 zoning in this location and should be accepted in part as it would;



Recommended amendments to Map 37a are contained within Appendix B (refer to1115.015)


FS123.022

Support Accept in Part FS123.022 and FS286.048 are accepted in part because that part of 1115.015 which they supports (notification) has been accepted.


FS286.048



1126.002 Zoning Map 37A Oppose Map 37A- rezone sites of City Limits childcare and the Casalinga café from Special Residential Zone to either Business zone 2 or 7; amend to change the area of the Special Residential Zone at

Accept in Part The submission point seeks a change from Residential Intensification to either the Business Zone 2 or 7 zoning in this location and should be accepted in part as it would;


• Not undermine the vitality and vibrancy of the higher order

Page 239 of 266


Claudelands. centres within the business hierarchy



FS286.004

Oppose Reject FS286.004 is rejected because that part of 1126.002 which they oppose (notification) has been accepted in part.

Shona Mary McClinchy 1159.004 Zoning Map 37A Oppose Map 37A-Oppose zoning of the Hamilton Cosmopolitan Club as Sports and Recreation Zone and Brooklyn and Heaphy Terrace (old petrol station) as Business Zone 2.

Reject The submission point seeks a deletion of Business Zone 2 in this location and should be rejected as it would;

• Not aid the effective implementation of the Plan to achieve its objectives or support the Council’s Economic Development Agenda.

Shona Mary McClinchy 1159.005 Zoning Map 38A Support in part

Map 38A-Remove the Residential Intensification Zoning from Short Street to Daisy Street and zone General Residential; Oppose zoning of Hamilton Cosmopolitan Club as Sports and Recreation Open Space Zone and of Brooklyn and Heaphy Terrace (old petrol station) as Business Zone 2.

Reject


1206.141 Planning Maps Oppose Rezone Business 5 and 6 into one zone; rezone Te Rapa Road; Rezone areas for residential intensification; Rezone old Avalon Drive to enable regeneration; Rezone Frankton from industrial to a more enabling zone eg mixed-use; Remove Opoia from the Central City; Rezone Business 2 at Claudelands.

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to reduce the extent of the Business Zone 2 zoning in this location and should be accepted in part as it would;



Recommended amendments to Map 37a are contained within Appendix B (refer to 1206.141 )

City Limits Childcare 1282.002 Zoning Map 37A Oppose Amend Map 37A by rezoning Accept in part The submission point seeks a change from Residential Intensification to

Page 240 of 266


Co Ltd and Claudelands Property Trust

729, 731, and 737 Grey St, from Special Residential Zone to either Business 2 Zone (Events Facilities Fringe) or Business 7 Zone. Amend Map 37A to change the boundaries of the Special Residential Zone at Claudelands by removing existing businesses and medium density residential development and align with the description in 5.1.1.1. Amend zoning map 37A to change the zone (except River Road and George Street) to Residential Intensification Zone, with amendments to the Plan to make childcare centres, visitor accommodation and other business uses Permitted Activities in this area.

either the Business Zone 2 or 7 zoning in this location and should be accepted in part as it would;





FS286.002

Oppose Reject FS286.002 is rejected because that part of 1282.002 which they oppose (notification) has been accepted in part.

Page 241 of 266


S42a Report

Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones District Plan Maps - Business Zones 3

Analysis: District Plan Maps - Business Zones 3

Tainui Group Holdings Limited (1199.001, 002) seek amendment to Map 15A-to rezone the land bounded by Te Kowhai Road, Te Rapa Road, Avalon Drive and the North Island Main Trunk Railway to Business 3 Zone and seek to rezone land around The Base Industrial. AMP Capital Property Portfolio (FS198.002) oppose this submission. - See previous analysis in 6.1 Purpose.




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).

Reject

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 rejected as it;





FS198.002

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



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

Reject 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 rejected as it;




Page 242 of 266

Title: Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones Issue:District Plan Maps - Business Zones 3

S42a Report

Chapter 6 – Business 1-6 Zones Planning Maps - Business Zone 4 - Large Format Retail

Analysis: Planning Maps - Business Zone 4 - Large Format Retail

Parkwood Trade Centre Limited (606.001) seek amendment to Map 15A and that 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. This request for rezoning of this area of the Industrial zone has been considered previously in Purpose 6.1. The site lies within a well established large format retail area and enjoys a frontage on Maui Street which leads north into a well established light industrial park. The relief sought for 8B is rejected in that the existing established use as a play centre is within an industrial/warehouse building. The submitter can rely on existing use rights but the presence of the existing use is not a rationale to confer a wider more permissive retail zoning in this location which would undermine the business hierarchy approach. The extent of the Sub-Regional Centre has been discussed in response to other submissions previously in this report, however it is not considered that these peripheral large format activities form part of the centre, their zoning reflects their existence and need to be located here but as part of a peripheral zone to the existing centre only. The amendment sought to recognise the frontage site at 8A, for a Neighbourhood Centre and reflect a recent consent for retail/office buildings in this location is inappropriate within this predominantly large format retail area. Given the distances, levels and severance of the transport corridors, this location is not considered to serve a local residential catchment. The establishment or need for a neighbourhood centre in this location has not been justified nor is it consistent with being recognized as part of the commercial fringe in close proximity to the proposed Sub-Regional Centre as referred above. No change is proposed. Harvey Norman Stores Pty (NZ) Ltd/Harvey Norman Properties (NZ) Ltd (73.001), AMP Capital Property Portfolio (312.002), DNZ Property Fund Limited 91024.001), Bunning’s Ltd (968.002) and Progressive Enterprises Limited (1135.039) all seek retention of the Business 4 zoning in the Plan to acknowledge the existing well established commercial activities in this location. AMP Capital Property Portfolio and Property Council New Zealand (FS198.001) adds further support to these submissions. Analysis of the extent of Business 4 zone has been provided previously in Purpose 6.1 and Rule 6.3 in response to opposing submitters. The key change in this respect pertains to the proposed change of Business 4 Zone -Large Format Retail for the area known as The Boulevard to Industrial. Relying on that previous assessment then the submission from AMP Capital Property Portfolio (312.002) is therefore proposed to be rejected. DNZ Property Fund, Porter Developments Ltd, The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd all seek a change of zoning from Industrial to Business 4 in order to reflect the existing commercial character along Te-Rapa Road. Kiwi Income Property Trust and Kiwi Property Holdings Limited (FS123.005) oppose the submission of DNZ on the basis it would prejudice the vitality and viability of the CBD. The purpose of the Plan is not to recognise all commercial premises that have established within the existing Industrial zone under the operative plan. Some relief is already given to lawfully established retail uses along Te-Rapa Road which will be identified in the Industrial Chapter of the Plan. As outlined in Purpose 6.1 previous, to include these further sites within a Business 4 zoning without justification would be contrary to the centres based strategic approach and create the potential for unnecessary future expansion of commercial land which would have the potential to undermine the centres hierarchy advocated by the Plan, Future Proof and the compact centres approach advocated by the PRPS. No change is proposed.



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.

AMP Capital FS198.001 Support Accept FS198.001 is accepted because that part of 73.001 which it supports

Page 243 of 266

Title: Chapter 6 – Business 1-6 Zones Issue: Planning Maps - Business Zone 4 - Large Format Retail

Property Portfolio (notification) has been accepted.


312.002 Zoning Map 15A 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;



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


FS249.026



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


Bunnings Ltd


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



FS285.115



1135.039 Zoning Map 16A 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.


606.001 Zoning Map 15A Oppose Map 15A-8A Maui Street be rezoned to Business 7 - Neighbourhood Centre and 8B

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;

Page 244 of 266


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.



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





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


FS123.005



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




Porter 1153.034 Zoning Map 16A Oppose Map 16A-extend the Business 4 Reject This submission seeks an extension of the Business Zone 4 zoning into the

Page 245 of 266


Developments Ltd

Zone to the land to the north of Eagle Way.

Industrial Zone and should be rejected as it;




Tram Lease Limited FS265.015




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;





FS285.198


Page 246 of 266


S42a Report

Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones Planning Maps - Business Zones 5 & 6

Analysis: Planning Maps - Business Zones 5 & 6

Kenneth & Joyce Whittaker (82.001) oppose the proposed expansion of Glenview Suburban Centre a shown in Map 62A, on the basis of lack of information on what would replace the dwellings. The proposed extension of the Suburban Centre zone and change of zoning gives an option of future commercial development of this land which would have due consultation through a consent process. The increased size is in recognition of status of Glenview as a Suburban Centre, anchored by a supermarket within the centres hierarchy. It is considered the expansion proposed is of a scale and nature appropriate to the needs of the surrounding residential catchment. No change is proposed to the zoning. King Family Trust (281.001,286.001) seek amendment to Map 43A by rezoning lots fronting Greenwood Street between Killarney Road and Massey Street Business Zone 6 - Suburban Centre Fringe and Map 43A by zoning the land on the north western corner of Hall and Kent Street to Business 6. The submitter contends that a Suburban fringe zone is a more appropriate zone for this area, bearing in mind the service nature of the existing developments in these locations. Whilst it is acknowledged that commercial activities have occurred within the Industrial Zone as a direct result of the permissive nature of the Operative Plan, the purpose of the proposed Plan is to reverse this ad-hoc dispersal trend from occurring. To rezone large tracts of Industrial zone to commercial would be contrary to the compact centres approach and the strategic direction of the PRPS. No sufficient justification has been provided to justify a change of zoning of the large extent of land proposed or any consideration given to the existing centres hierarchy. Policy 6.15 of the PRPS is quite clear that commercial development is not located on land specifically provided for industrial activities unless it is ancillary to those industrial activities. No change is therefore proposed. Rototuna Ventures Ltd (309.001)Oppose Zoning Map 10A and Request that the land located at 16 Horsham Downs Road and 109 Thomas Road be rezoned from Residential to "Business 5 - Suburban Centre Core" to reflect current land use consent for mixed use development for residential apartments, retail, offices and restaurant/cafe activities (Consent application 10.2011.6278) The Council has already considered and accepted the impact of the additional commercial floor area in the context of the existing Rototuna Suburban centre. The objective and policies for Suburban centres should support the establishment of residential activities above ground floor level in order to facilitate mixed use outcomes. Furthermore this would better align with policy of the Strategic Framework which seeks to encourage higher-density residential developments within and close to Suburban centres (Policy 2.2.6a). The current residential zoning on this corner site is a legacy of the Operative Plan and now very unlikely to be considered suitable for residential activity, nor would this be a desirable or sustainable outcome. The primary issue is whether there is recognition of the existing consent only or a change of zoning to Suburban Centre and the commercial entitlement this would confer. It is considered that given the mixed use nature of the existing consent and the physical constraints of the site bordered by roads to the north and west and residential to the south, that there is unlikely to be an expansion of further retail beyond that already consented. Proposed Policy 6.2.2d advises expansion of existing Suburban centres shall be integrated with existing activities and transport networks which this change of zoning would entail. Given the above it is proposed that the amendment to Zoning map 10A is accepted (Appendix B refers) Peter & Margaret Fairhead (324.001) seek amendment to Zoning Map 18A to rezone the ex –Methodist Church building at 144 Rototuna Road to Business 5. They consider a more commercial zone would better facilitate its ongoing re-use and preservation as a valuable historic building. It acknowledged that the retention of this historical building is indeed desirable, its current use as a dance studio is a good example of its reuse. The building itself is not scheduled as a historic building and this may be something the submitter should pursue with the Historic Places Trust as a scheduled building would have more permissive provision around re-use in the Plan. Notwithstanding the submitters desire to maximize re-use potential on the site, this in itself is not sufficient justification to expand the zone of Rototuna suburban centre at this time, given the current capacity for existing retail/offices in the existing centre and proposed expansion on the corner of 16 Horsham Downs Road and 109 Thomas Road requested by other submitters.

Page 247 of 266

Title: Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones Issue: Planning Maps - Business Zones 5 & 6

Depending on future re-use, this may be provided for as part of a consent process within the proposed Residential provisions, alternatively it would be for the owner or applicant to make a suitable case for conversion as part of the consenting process for a small scale commercial use which would not undermine the existing commercial centres. No change is proposed. Chartwell Investments Ltd (355.008) Chesterman Family Trust (542.001) and the Suit Shop (1241.001) both seek a rezoning of their respective sites on the corner of Grey and Wellington Streets from Business 7 to Business 5 Zone or Business 6 Zone. This is because the Suburban centre zoning confers permitted activity status for cafes, restaurants and licensed premises less than 200m2. The Suit Shop Limited (FS158.001) support these submissions on the basis that such activities are established and considered appropriate in this location and should therefore be a permitted activity. The submitters can gain relief from the proposed consequential amendments to Rule 6.3 aa), bb) and cc) in response to other submissions which now proposes a similar permitted baseline for these activities within the Business 7 zone on the basis that there is recognition that these types of activities and services are appropriate in both Suburban and Neighbourhood centres. Given the above, no change of zoning is considered necessary, Raymond John Bird (Birds Plant and Equipment Trust)(869.001) seek amendment to Map 38A in order to -Rezone 5, 9, 11 and 13 Fifth Avenue from Residential Intensification to a Business 6 zone. This would better achieve the submitter’s aim for comprehensive redevelopment of the site which is more restrained under a residential intensification zoning. This zoning would also unlock the development potential of vacant land at 264 Peachgrove Road. The submitter contends that the proposed zoning does not go far enough in meeting the stated policy and objectives of a Suburban centre, including Policy 6.2.2a, which advises that Suburban centres shall be retained, expanded and provided at a scale appropriate to the surrounding residential areas. The submitter points out the strategic growth potential of Five Cross Roads given its close proximity to the Waikato Expressway, growing city road network and with future residential and industrial expansion planned for the Ruakura Structure Plan. Whilst a comprehensive mixed use development is supported in this location, it has not been demonstrated there is a current need to expand into neighbouring residential areas without first demonstrating that the existing centre cannot be intensively and comprehensively developed to meet the identified need. This approach is in conformity with the PRPS which seeks to promote compact urban form. There is acknowledgement that the Five Cross Roads Area would certainly benefit from a more detailed Local Area Plan given its unique position in the road network in which to fully assess the impacts of an expansion or intensification of this Suburban centre and surrounding residential zone. A parallel exercise with the transport plans for this area, upgrades and/ or amendments to the existing roundabout and cross city connector should form part of this more detailed planning exercise. However, at this time, the proposed area and size of the Suburban centre is considered appropriate. In addition the proposed change to height limits in the Plan in response to other submissions to be raised to 15m which would certainly enable a more intensive use of the exiting land area. Future growth in the residential catchment at Ruakura may change this position in time, however at this juncture any expansion of existing centres without sufficient evidence or justification could have the potential to undermine the primacy, vitality and viability of the Central City. A cautious approach to the rezoning of centres for further retail/office activities is to be adopted given the evidence of the Council’s retail expert in Appendix A. The only exception to the above is the omission of the rezoning of the lot at 5 Fifth Avenue, given the frontage and integrally linked location; the original site assessment included this lot as part of the proposed Suburban Centre. This is an error in the proposed Plan and for consistency and clarity this site only should also be zoned Suburban Centre. Property Council New Zealand (938.139) and McCracken Surveys Ltd (1206.141) seek a City-wide revision of the Business 5 and 6 into one zone. This amendment has been accepted please see Section 6.1 Purpose earlier in this report for analysis. Consequential changes to City-wide Planning Maps are detailed in Appendix B. Parkwood Gateway Limited (977.001) and Portland Park Limited (984.001) seek amendment to Map 29A- in order to rezone 4 Gordonton Road to Business 5 and 370 Tramway Road to Business 6 Zone. The submitter contends that this would best reflect the provisions agreed as part of the negotiated settlement as part of a former Plan Variation (No.15) with the Council which resulted in

Page 248 of 266


the signing of a consent order in the Environment Court and recognition of these sites as part of a Suburban Centre within the Operative District Plan. This settlement enabled the establishment of a total gfa of 5000m2 (incorporating 2000m2 for retail and office activities) and the application of Residential High Density zone provisions with the establishment of commercial activities in the form of a garden centre/café with a gfa of 2000m2 at 370 Tramway Road. At the time or writing this report, resource consents have already been granted on both of these sites. The Operative Plan provisions allow for a total gross floor area of all activities on this site of 5000m2 which is still possible within the Neighbourhood Centre zone provisions of the proposed Plan. A Suburban Centre zoning provides for a potential of up to 20,000m2 gfa with a supermarket as an anchor store. No demonstrable need has been shown for a centre of this size in this location. The Operative Plan also sets limitations on retail and office activity not exceeding 200m2 per tenancy with one activity allowed a maximum 400m2 tenancy as a Permitted Activity. Whilst it is accepted that the Proposed Plan has a far stricter consenting regime for ALL Business zones, it is still possible for this site to achieve the previous thresholds as part of a either a Permitted consent (for retail less than 150m2) or a Discretionary Activity consent (for offices less than 250m2). Apartments remain a Restricted Discretionary Activity as for Suburban Centres. The submitter can also gain some relief as a result of consequential amendments to other submissions whereby cafes, restaurants and licensed premises are proposed to be permitted activities in the Neighbourhood Centre zone. Both the draft plan and proposed plan rezoned the sites from Suburban centre to Neighbourhood centre as part of the Plan review process and in recognition of a new business hierarchy for the City. The plan provisions within the new centre zones have changed for the City as a whole in response to the centres focused philosophy of the proposed Plan. On this basis and in order to be consistent with the objectives and policies of the plan, no change of zone is proposed. The wider issue of proposed plan provisions allowing for what the submitter sees as contradictory retail allocation within the proposed Residential Zone to the east in the residential element of the Ruakura Structure Plan is to be decided by the Board of Inquiry as part of the EPA ‘call in’ process. As such this aspect of the submission cannot be dealt with within this report. M.P & R.G Upsdell (1011.001) seek amendment to rezone 444(a) and (b) Ulster Street, 448(b) Ulster Street, and the rear half of 452 Ulster Street from Residential to Business 5 and further amendment to rezone 1359 Victoria Street from Business 7 to Business 5. This submission is supported by Louise Feathers (FS0.001) and Paul Grant (Unichem Beerscourt Pharmacy)(FS11.001). The Submitters wish to redevelop parts of the Beerescourt shopping area and immediate surrounds (properties that they own) to establish an Integrated Family Health Care Facility as an anchor to a more consolidated suburban centre in this location. This facility would provide a comprehensive range of primary and community health services to the north Hamilton community. The submitter contends that there is no other Suburban centre located nearby which services the population/area identified and that a rezoning to Suburban centre would be in conformity with the objectives and policies of the Plan for Suburban centres. Again similar to the previous submitter above, notwithstanding the relative merits of agglomeration of residential and existing neighbourhood centre sites put forward, the proposal has to be properly considered in the context of the wider business hierarchy. The sites referred to are located site just 1km north of the existing Central City which is the primary business centre with a range of services and facilities. It is considered that without clear evidence supplied, that an additional Suburban centre in this location would have the potential to undermine the primacy of the Central City. As already stated, the Proposed Plan, Future Proof and PRPS are quite clear in that ‘existing’ commercial centres should be expanded or intensified first above creating new ones. The Council’s expert retail advice accompanying this report (paragraph 10) is quite clear in that given the growth in the market in the foreseeable future and the desired outcome of the Plan to reinvigorate the Central City, there is limited additional retail warranted above that already consented at this time. Paragraph 63 of this statement of evidence further identifies that 16% of Hamilton CBD retail stores are vacant, occupying a footprint of just under 18,000m2 gfa. (Appendix A refers). In addition to the above it is considered insufficient evidence has been put forward by the submitter to justify the rezoning of a Suburban Centre. Furthermore, notwithstanding the submitters request to accommodate a health-care centre, these are already provided for within provisions as a discretionary activity consent within the General Residential zone. The explanation to the plan

Page 249 of 266


policies is quite clear in that Suburban centres are commonly anchored by a supermarket with a size varying between 10,000-20,000m2 gfa. The proposed site is fragmented and considerably smaller and located at the intersection of a major and minor arterial road, where there would be significant traffic generator implications which would need to bE properly considered under a consenting process. Given the above, no change is proposed. Porter Developments Ltd (984.001) seek amendment to Map 16A- to extend the Business 4 Zone to the land to the north of Eagle Way. This submission point has been dealt with previously in Section 6.3 of this report. No change to the zoning map is proposed. Progressive Enterprises Limited (1135.038) seek to rezone their site at 160 Peachgrove Road from Industrial to Business 6 zone. The submitter considers that its Peachgrove Road site is suitable for a supermarket and that greater supermarket competition within the Hamilton East area will significantly benefit residents and the Peachgrove site is well located to serve the existing population catchment. Increased supermarket competition is not an issue for consideration under the Act, and would not be a valid basis in which to rezone this land to a Suburban Centre. For reasons given to previous submitters above, the Plan seeks to expand and intensify existing commercial centres first and foremost above the creation of new additional centres which have the potential to undermine the centres hierarchy. No credible evidence has been provided to demonstrate an additional Suburban centre is needed in this location given there is an existing suburban centre at Five Cross Roads less than 1km to the north. No change is proposed. McDonald's Restaurants (NZ) Ltd (1195.004) seek amendment to Map 38A-to rezone the McDonalds site (including associated car parking) at Five Crossroads to Business 6 zone. The submitter advises that the Plan proposes a split Business 6 and Residential Intensification zoning, which is inconsistent with the existing use of the site and as regards the Residential portion which appears to cover the existing car parking area associated with the existing restaurant is inappropriate from McDonald’s perspective. The amendment sought is accepted as it is clear that the Residential intensification zoning is not intended to cover the associated parking and drive through facilities of the restaurant. The zone change request to change this part of the site from Residential Intensification zone to Suburban Centre (Business 5 zone ) would aid administration and consistency of the plan. The proposed change to planning Map 38 is detailed in Appendix B. Anthony Paul Smart (857.002) seeks amendment to Map 36A to retain current zoning on the Corner of Mill Street and Willoughby Street in order to protect existing residential amenities against commercial development. This corner site is subject to the Suburban Centre Vehicle Service Area zone in the current Operative District Plan which provides for a range of commercial activities already including specific vehicle service activities. The intention of Business 2 Zone is to provide for a more limited range of commercial activities (excluding petrol service station) which would compliment major events facilities within the city. The site is on the corner of a busy intersection of a major and minor arterial road and on the fringe of the Central City zone. It is not considered that the Business 2 zoning proposed would result in any more intensified commercial activity than could occurunder the current ODP No justification has been provided to retain the current zoning which would be contrary to the strategic objectives of the Plan and Economic Development Agenda of the Council. No change is proposed. Z Energy (1292.002,005,006, 010) have a number of submissions which will be addressed below. The first seeks to Rezone 116 Grey Street from Neighbourhood Centre to Business 6 Zone in order to better reflect the ongoing operations of the service station at this site and recognise the relevant historic qualities of its B Schedule Heritage Building. Within the Neighbourhood Centre zone, automotive fuel retailing is a non-complying activity. The submitter maintain that a non-complying activity status would be detrimental to the ongoing protection of this heritage building is not accepted. The building enjoys existing use rights and any future change of use of this building would be assessed against the backdrop of the existing l use. Alterations and additions to the existing building would be a Restricted Discretionary activity as

Page 250 of 266


per the proposed provisions for B Scheduled Buildings in the Historic Heritage Chapter. The Business 7 zoning, best reflects the size and quantum of existing services and facilities in this part of Grey Street. To spot zone one site to suburban centre solely to justify a more permissive activity status for one existing occupier is not a reasoned argument and would be contrary to the objectives and policies of the plan. No change is recommended. The submitters further seek amendment to Rezone 4 Tukikaramea Road and 243 Peachgrove to Business 6 Zone and retain Rule 6.3gg) regarding drive through services being a Restricted Discretionary Activity. This amendment is already accepted in response to consequential amendments which sought to combine both Business 5 and 6 zones. The relevant change to Planning Map 42 is shown in Appendix B. Finally, the submitters seek amendments to rezone 19 Willoughby Street and 26 -32 Mill Street and 34-36 Mill Street to Business 6 Zone which more accurately reflects the provisions of the Operative Plan. Furthermore, the intended Business 2 zone for Events facilities would not provide for service stations, as these are proposed to be non-complying in this zone. At the time of writing a consent has already been granted for a service station in this corner location under the provisions of the Operative Plan. Notwithstanding the submitter’s desire to reflect the previous previsions of the operative plan, the proposed Business 2 zone is a deliberate step change towards a more bespoke limited commercial zone that better reflects the Council desire for complementary activities to support its significant investment in Events facilities on a limited range of sites. A suburban centre spot zone to suit one activity is inappropriate on this small corner site. A suburban centre in such close proximity to the fringe of the central city would have the potential to undermine the primacy of the central city and would not best reflect the aspirations for limited complementary activities on this site. Other than a desire for the most permissive set of provisions to suit the applicant no justification or rationale has been given for a suburban centre in this location. Given the above no change is proposed. The submitter also seeks a rezoning of 34-36 Mill Street from Residential intensification to Suburban Centre zoning to better provide for a range of food service outlets should a service station be developed as per above. Odette Ngairo & Anthony Paul Haitana & Smart (FS192.002) oppose this submission on the basis that this would create adverse effects on their adjoining residential amenities, and they seek a retention of the Residential Intensification zone on this site. It is considered that a fragmented and unjustified spot zoning of suburban centre It is not appropriate for the reasons given above. Drive through restaurants, cafes and licensed premises are provided for under the Business 2 zoning which is proposed on the corner of Willougby Street and Mill Street. To rezone further land on an ad-hoc basis in such close proximity to the central city for further commercial activities would have the potential to undermine the functionality, vitality and amenity values of the Central City and conflict with the Council’s adopted Economic Development Agenda. Furthermore it is considered such activities can be adequately provided for within the City Living Precinct of the Central City zone, just to the south of Mill Street, hence there is no demonstrable need to create a new Suburban Centre zone in this location. As such no change is proposed.


Kenneth & Joyce Whittaker

82.001 Zoning Map 62A Oppose Map 62A-Oppose expansion of Glenview Suburban Centre.

Reject

The submission seeks a reduction in the Suburban Centre zoning as shown on Map 62A and should be rejected as it;



King Family Trust 281.001 Zoning Map 43A Oppose Amend Zoning Map 43A by Reject The submissions seeks a change of zoning from Industrial to Business 6

Page 251 of 266


rezoning lots fronting Greenwood Street between Killarney Road and Massey Street Business Zone 6 - Suburban Centre Fringe.

zoning and should be rejected as it;




King Family Trust 286.001 Zoning Map 43A Oppose Amend Zoning Map 43A by zoning the land on the north western corner of Hall and Kent Street to Business 6.

Reject


309.001 Zoning Map 10A Oppose Oppose Zoning Map 10A - Request that the land located at 16 Horsham Downs Road and 109 Thomas Road be rezoned from Residential to "Business 5 - Suburban Centre Core" to reflect current land use consent for mixed use development.

Accept In compliance with policies and objectives of the plan.

Peter & Margaret Fairhead

324.001 Zoning Map 18A Oppose Map 18A-rezone 144 Rototuna Road to Business Zone 5.

Reject

The submissions seeks a change of zoning for 144 Rototuna Road from Residential to a Business 5 and should be rejected as it;





355.008 Zoning Map 42A Support Map 42A-support zoning of Lot 1 DPS 84445 and Lot 2 DPS 26655 and remain as “Business Zone 5 – Suburban Centre Core”.

Accept

In compliance with policies and objectives of the plan.

Page 252 of 266


Chesterman Family Trust

542.001 Zoning Map 46A Oppose Amend Map 46A to rezone the land on the corner of Grey and Wellington Streets (refer to submission) to Business 5 Zone or Business 6 Zone.

Reject The submissions seeks a change from Business Zone 7 to Business Zone 5 (suburban centre) zoning in this location and should be rejected as it;




The Suit Shop Limited FS158.001

Support Reject FS158.001 is rejected because that part of 542.001 which it supports has been rejected.

Anthony Paul Smart 857.002 Zoning Map 36A Oppose Map 36A-retain current zoning on the Corner of Mill Street and Willoughby Street.

Reject The submissions seek a retention of the existing Operative District Plan Suburban centre vehicle service zoning in this location and should be rejected as it;




Raymond John Bird (Birds Plant and Equipment Trust)

869.001 Zoning Map 38A Oppose Map 38A-Rezone 5, 9, 11 and 13 Fifth Avenue Business 6 not Residential Intensification.

Accept in Part The submission point in so far as it relates to the rezoning of 5 Fifth Avenue from Residential Intensification to Suburban Centre should be accepted as it would;



Recommended amendments to Map 38A are contained within Appendix B

Page 253 of 266


(refer to 869.001) The submission seeks a rezoning from Residential Intensification to Suburban Centre zoning for numbers 9, 11 and 13 as shown on Map 38A and should be rejected as it is considered;

• In the absence of any firm evidence to support the relief sought it is considered that the relief sought is inconsistent with the Policies and Objectives of the Proposed Plan and the compact centres approach of the PRPS


938.139 Planning Maps Oppose Amend Business 5 and 6 to create one zone; rezone Te Rapa Road to reflect the non-industrial uses; Rezone new areas for residential intensification; Rezone old Avalon Drive to enable regeneration; Rezone Frankton from industrial to a more enabling zone e.g. mixed-use; Remove Opoia from the Central City Zone; Reduce the extent of the Business 2 Zone at Claudelands.

Accept in Part The submission points requesting the combining of Business 5 and 6 zones and the request to reduce the size of Business 2 Zone should be accepted in part as the amendments would:

• Avoid unnecessary assessment and duplication • Improve Plan clarity and administration without compromising the

objectives and policies of the plan • This consequential change is due to amendments made elsewhere

in the Plan in response to submissions • Not undermine the vitality and vibrancy of the higher order centres

within the business hierarchy Recommended amendments to Planning Maps 37a, 38A, 42A,47A are contained within Appendix B (refer to 938.139)


977.001 Zoning Map 29A Oppose Map 29A-rezone Lot 1 DP 444645 – 4 Gordonton Road to Business 5 - Suburban Centre Core Zone and Lot 3 DP 444645 – 370 Tramway Road be rezoned to Business 6 -Suburban Centre Fringe Zone.

Reject The submissions seek a change of zoning for 4 Gordington Road and 370 Tramway Road from Neighbourhood centre to Suburban centre and fringe and should be rejected as it;




Page 254 of 266



984.001 Zoning Map 29A Oppose Map 29A- rezone Lot 1 DP 444645 – 4 Gordonton Road to Business 5 - Suburban Centre Core Zone and Lot 3 DP 444645 – 370 Tramway Road to Business 6 - Suburban Centre Fringe Zone.

Reject The submissions seek a change of zoning for 4 Gordington Road and 370 Tramway Road from Neighbourhood centre to Suburban centre and fringe and should be rejected as it;




M.P & R.G Upsdell

1011.001 Zoning Map 36A Oppose Map 36A-rezone 444(a) and (b) Ulster Street, 448(b) Ulster Street, and the rear half of 452 Ulster Street from Residential to Business 5; Rezone the land at 1359 Victoria Street from Business 7 to Business 5.

Reject The submissions seeks a change of zoning from Residential and Neighbourhood Centre to Business 5 (Suburban Centre) and should be rejected as it;



Louise Feathers FS0.001

Support Reject FS0.001 and FS11.001 are rejected because that part of 1011.001 which they support has been rejected.

Paul Grant (Unichem Beerscourt Pharmacy)

FS11.001

Support Reject


1135.038 Zoning Map 10A Support Zoning Map 10A-Retain Business 5 Zoning for the site at the corner of Thomas and Horsham Downs Roads.

Accept In compliance with Objectives and Policies of the plan

Progressive 1135.040 Zoning Map 38A Support in Maps 38A and 38B-reduce the Reject The submissions seek to rezone this site from Industrial Business Zone 6

Page 255 of 266


Enterprises Limited part extent of Significant Natural

Area 38 to exclude the area of exotic trees; rezone the identified site at 160 Peachgrove Road as Business 6.

(Suburban Centre) zoning in this location and should be rejected as it;






Map 42A-Amend the Business 5 Zoning relating to the Dinsdale Shopping Centre as per submission.

Accept The submission point seeks to rezone adjoining General Residential lots to Business 5 (suburban centre) which have been purchased to facilitate future upgrade of the supermarket at Dinsdale and should be accepted as it would





1153.034 Zoning Map 16A Oppose Map 16A-extend the Business 4 Zone to the land to the north of Eagle Way.

Reject

The submissions seeks an extension of the Business Zone 4 zoning in this location and should be rejected as it;





1195.004 Zoning Map 38A Oppose Map 38A-rezone the McDonalds site (including associated car parking) at Five Crossroads to Business 6 zone.

Accept The submission point seeks to rezone the sites associated drive-through car park from Residential Intensification to Business 5 (suburban centre) and should be accepted as it would

Page 256 of 266


• Aid the effective implementation of the Plan to achieve its

objectives • Not undermine the vitality and vibrancy of the higher order centres

within the business hierarchy Recommended amendments to Map 38A are contained within Appendix B (refer to 1195.004)


1206.141 Planning Maps Oppose Rezone Business 5 and 6 into one zone; rezone Te Rapa Road; Rezone areas for residential intensification; Rezone old Avalon Drive to enable regeneration; Rezone Frankton from industrial to a more enabling zone eg mixed-use; Remove Opoia from the Central City; Rezone Business 2 at Claudelands.

Accept in Part The submission points requesting the combining of Business 5 and 6 zones and the request to reduce the size of Business 2 Zone should be accepted in part as the amendments would:

• Avoid unnecessary assessment and duplication • Improve Plan clarity and administration without compromising the

objectives and policies of the plan • This consequential change is due to amendments made elsewhere

in the Plan in response to submissions • Not undermine the vitality and vibrancy of the higher order centres

within the business hierarchy Recommended amendments to Planning Maps 37a, 38A, 42A,47A are contained within Appendix B (refer to 1206.141)


1241.001 Zoning Map 46A Oppose Map 46A- Rezone the southwestern corner of Grey Street and Wellington Street from Neighbourhood Centre to Suburban Centre (Business 5 Zone).

Reject The submissions seeks an extension of the Business Zone 5 (suburban centre) zoning in this location and should be rejected as it;




.

Z Energy Limited

1292.002 Zoning Map 46A Oppose Rezone 116 Grey Street to Business 6 Zone and retain Rule 6.3gg) regarding drive-through services (including automotive

Reject The submissions seeks a change for 116 Grey Street from Business Zone 7 to 6 (Suburban centre) in this location and should be rejected as it;

• Reduces the efficient and effective implementation of the Plan to

Page 257 of 266


fuel retailing) as a restricted discretionary activity within the Business 6 zone Or Amend Rule 6.3 to specifically provide for the on-going operation and upgrading of the service station at this site, including alterations, additions and signage, as (at worst) a restricted discretionary activity, noting that the protection of the relevant historic qualities of the building are similarly provided for as a restricted discretionary activity. Delete Historic Heritage B Ranking on the building located at 116 Grey Street Or Rezone 116 Grey Street to provide a suitable zoning for 116 Grey Street that provides restricted discretionary status for the service station activity, as well as for alterations and additions to the existing service station, and to signage.

achieve its objectives • The relief sought is not considered to be valid in the context of


Odette Ngairo & Anthony Paul Haitana & Smart

FS192.002

Oppose Reject FS192.002 is not related to matters in 1292.002

Z Energy Limited 1292.005 Zoning Map 42A Oppose Rezone 4 Tukikaramea Road to Business 6 Zone and retain Rule 6.3gg) regarding drive-through services (including automotive fuel retailing) as a restricted

Accept in Part The submission point requesting a rezoning from Business 5 (Suburban Centre Core) to Business 6 zone (Suburban Centre Fringe ) should be accepted in part as it would;

• Align with consequential change is due to amendments made

Page 258 of 266


discretionary activity within the Business 6 zone

elsewhere in the Plan in response to submissions • Improve Plan clarity and administration without compromising the

objectives and policies of the plan • Not undermine the vitality and vibrancy of the higher order centres

within the business hierarchy Recommended amendments to Planning 42A are contained within Appendix B (refer to 1292.005)

Z Energy Limited 1292.006 Zoning Map 38A Oppose Rezone 243 Peachgrove Road to Business 6 Zone and retain Rule 6.3gg) regarding drive-through services (including automotive fuel retailing) as a restricted discretionary activity within the Business 6 zone

Accept in Part The submission point requesting a rezoning from Business 5 (suburban Centre Core) to Business 6 zone (Suburban Centre Fringe) should be accepted in part as it would;

• Align with consequential change is due to amendments made

elsewhere in the Plan in response to submissions • Improve Plan clarity and administration without compromising the

objectives and policies of the plan • Not undermine the vitality and vibrancy of the higher order centres

within the business hierarchy Recommended amendments to Planning 42A are contained within Appendix B (refer to 1292.006)

Z Energy Limited

1292.010 Zoning Map 36A Oppose Rezone 19 Willoughby Street and 26 -32 Mill Street and 34-36 Mill Street to Business 6 Zone and retain Rule 6.3gg) regarding drive-through services (including automotive fuel retailing) as a restricted discretionary activity within the Business 6 zone

Reject The submissions seek to rezone land from Business Zone 2 (Events facilities fringe) to Business Zone 6 (Suburban Centre) zoning in this location and should be rejected as it;




Page 259 of 266


Odette Ngairo & Anthony Paul Haitana & Smar

FS192.002

Oppose

Accept FS192.002 is accepted because 1292.010 which it opposes has been rejected.

Page 260 of 266


S42a Report

Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones Planning Maps - Business Zone 7

Analysis: Planning Maps - Business Zone 7

Midlands Health Network Limited (287.009, 010) and Glenview Medical Centre (368.002) seek several location specific zone changes to enable expansion of their existing medical centres throughout the City. Zak Urlich (Urlich Properties Limited)(FS6.002) further supports their submission for the site at 3 & 5 Urlich Avenue. They seek specific zone changes from Residential to Business 7 Zone (Neighbourhood Centre) for their sites at ;

a) 5, 5A, 7, 9 Masters Ave (Hillcrest Medical centre expansion) two sites acquired by;

b) 3, 5 Urlich Ave (Glenview Medical Centre) – both sites acquired by developer;

c) 1031 Heaphy Terrace, 6 Howden Road, 3 Winter Street (Fairfield Medical Centre) two sites acquired.

The submitter advises that most of the larger medical centres are situated within neighbourhoods and GP’s have investment in these current sites and are looking to expand rather than build new practices in alternative locations. The trend both nationally and internationally is towards purpose built medical centres with an increases range of healthcare services available in one location. Hence why they request a more permissive set of rules for health-care services and enabled expansion into adjoining neighbourhood areas. There have been consequential amendments to the policies of this Chapter with increased acknowledgement of the role of community facilities within Suburban and Neighbourhood centres. iIn addition Rule 6.3 has increased the threshold range in which healthcare services can be considered as either a permitted or Restricted Discretionary Activity within these centres. Notwithstanding that the expansion of a medical practice is a desirable outcome in a neighbourhood centre for the reasons given by the submitter, they advise these sites have either a right to purchase or have been acquired by a developer who is working with Glenview to redevelop their facility. No evidence or guarantees have been provided by the submitter that this will lead to expansion of their health practices. Given the potential for a range of commercial activities to occur in close proximity to residential properties it is considered a private plan change or non-complying resource consent is the more appropriate process in which to properly assess effects on residential amenity. It would be at this juncture when there is certainty over ownership and detailed plans, that the submitter would demonstrate that expansion of the existing facility was appropriate in these locations specified. To rezone the sites specified and enlarge neighbourhood zones at this juncture would prejudice the approach of the business hierarchy and compact centres approach of the Proposed Regional Policy Statement. Urlich Properties Limited / Z.I & T Urlich support earlier submissions by Midlands Health and Glenview Medical Centre to rezone Urlich Shopping Centre (Lot 2 DPS 7832), 3-5 Urlich Ave and also seek to rezone their own site at 16 Urlich Avenue to Business 7 Zone which has recently been granted a commercial consent in July 2011 under the Operative Plan, which allows for a range of office, retail, health care services under the current Suburban Centre Zone. Discussion on the merits of rezoning at 3-5 Urlich Ave has been considered above. In terms of 16 Urlich Ave, there is a degree of certainty in land ownership, and the merits of commercial activity as an expansion of the existing suburban centre have been accepted in the granting of the recent resource consent which is currently being implemented. Further more, this site is coherently and physically linked with a shared right of way with existing shopping centre. For these reasons it is reasonable to reflect the existing resource consent and therefore a change of zone from Residential to Neighbourhood Centre is proposed as set out in amended Plan Map 55A (Appendix B refers). Parkwood Trade Centre Limited request that 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. The amendments sought in this submission have been previously considered in Section 6.1 of this hearing report. No change is proposed.

Page 261 of 266

Title: Chapter 6 – Business 1-7 Zones Issue: Planning Maps - Business Zone 7

Central Hamilton Gospel Trust (961.001) seek amendment to Map 38A-rezone 164-166 Peachgrove Road from General Residential to Business. The submitter contends that site is positioned in a relatively diverse area, in terms of zoning and land use activity and within an area which is in a state of flux with road upgrades and redevelopment proposed in the immediate vicinity. For example, the Mighty River Power Industrial site located immediately south of the site is proposed for large scale retail. To maximize the potential of the site, one can then also anticipate possible rezoning of this land to suit this purpose. The proposed site has an area of 6805m2 which lends itself to a neighbourhood centre size, which in the plan is stated as somewhere between 500-5000m2. Whilst it is acknowledged that the site could be developed for mixed use with high density residential over ground floor shops, the creation of an additional Neighbourhood Centre in this locality has to be considered in the wider context of the hierarchy of business centres within the locale. Not withstanding the existing corner diary on the corner of Peachgrove Road and East Street there is a Suburban centre at Five Cross Roads approximately 500m to the north with other submissions seeking its expansion and intensification. Furthermore, Brooklyn Road (Business 2 zone is situated approximately 700m to the west. The Five Cross Roads is an existing centre within walkable distance of the submitter’s proposed site, serving a similar residential catchment. The proposed Plan, Future Proof and Proposed RPS are quite clear in that ‘existing’ commercial centres should be expanded or intensified first above creating new ones. Therefore, notwithstanding the associated effects on residential amenity and traffic generation, without a clear evidence base or retail assessment identifying a need for further retail in this vicinity, it would be premature and contrary to the Objectives and Policies of the Plan to consider rezoning a new Neighbourhood Centre at this time. Given the above no change of zone is proposed. M.P & R.G Upsdell (1011.001) seek amendment to rezone 444(a) and (b) Ulster Street, 448(b) Ulster Street, and the rear half of 452 Ulster Street from Residential to Business 5 and further amendment to rezone 1359 Victoria Street from Business 7 to Business 5. The Submitters wish to redevelop parts of the Beerescourt shopping area and immediate surrounds (properties that they own) to establish an Integrated Family Health Care Facility as an anchor to a more consolidated suburban centre in this location. This facility would provide a comprehensive range of primary and community health services to the north Hamilton community. The submitter contends that there is no other suburban centre located nearby which services the population/area identified and that a rezoning to Suburban Centre would be in conformity with the objectives and policies of the Plan for Suburban Centres. Again similar to the previous submitter above, notwithstanding the relative merits of agglomeration of residential and existing neighbourhood centre sites put forward, the proposal has to be properly considered in the context of the wider business hierarchy. The sites referred to are located site just 1km north of the existing Central City which is the primary business centre with a range of services and facilities. It is considered that without clear evidence supplied, that an additional Suburban Centre in this location would have the potential to undermine the primacy of the Central City. As already stated, the proposed Plan, Future Proof and Proposed RPS are quite clear in that ‘existing’ commercial centres should be expanded or intensified first above creating new ones. The Councils expert retail advice accompanying this report (paragraph 10) is quite clear in that given the growth in the market in the forseable future and the desired outcome of the Plan to reinvigorate the Central City, there is limited additional retail warrented above that already consented at this time. Paragraph 63 of this statement of evidence further identifies that 16% of Hamilton CBD retail stores are vacant, occupying a footprint of just under 18,000m2 gfa. (Appendix A refers). In addition to the above it is considered insufficient evidence has been put forward by the submitter to justify the rezoning of a Suburban Centre. Furthermore, notwithstanding the submitters request to accommodate a health-care centre, these are already provided for within provisions of the Neighbourhood Centre zone, while Suburban Centres are commonly anchored by a supermarket with a size varying between 10,000-20,000m2 gfa. The proposed site is fragmented and considerably smaller and located at the intersection of a major and minor arterial road, where there would be significant traffic generator implications. Given the above, no change is proposed. City Limits Childcare Co Ltd and Claudelands Property Trust (1282.002) both seek to rezone sites of City Limits childcare and the Casalinga café from Special Residential Zone to either Business zone 2 or 7. They contend a business zone would provide for better utilisation of the site and permit possible future uses associated with Claudelands Stadium or intensive residential use to support the “compact city” objective of the plan. Alexander Elliot (Claudelands Residents) oppose this submission on the grounds that they consider it is based on the potential for this company to gain economic advantage while damaging one of Hamilton’s most established Special Character Zones. They oppose the general easing of planning controls and zoning for Early Childcare

Page 262 of 266


Centres (ECE) and support, in part, that the City Limits Childcare site and the Casalinga Café site be amended to Business 2 zone. City Limits child care is at 729 and 731 Grey St, is licensed for 47 children. The site is accessed from Grey St beside the existing shops and to the south is an old two storey block of flats and Claudelands Rd runs along the north boundary. The land is currently in the Special Residential Zone in the proposed plan. Whilst it is agreed that the site and its immediate neighbours do not possess any special residential character, this itself is not sufficient a reason to rezone what is effectively a back land site to a more commercial focussed zone. The current childcare centre enjoys existing use rights and is limited in terms of potential external effects on noise and on the adjoining residential amenities. To confer a Neighbourhood centre zone on 729 Grey Street would potentially broaden the range of activities that could occur on this limited access site to the detriment of residential amenities. Furthermore, the existing neighbourhood centre is already very close to the existing total gfa of 5000m2 for Neighbourhood Centres set by the Plan, therefore it is not considered appropriate to rezone or expand this centre further than is necessary without sufficient justification. The proposed change of zoning for 731 and 737 Casalinga café from Special Residential Zone to Business zone 7 is however accepted given that these buildings already enjoy a commercial use with a higher profile street frontage onto Grey Street. Any further expansion of the Business 2 zone is inappropriate given the consequential amendments proposed in response to other submitters which seek to shrink the extent of this more commercially focused zone. A Business 7 (Neighbourhood zone) would however constitute an acceptable extension of the existing centre in this location which is considered unlikely to create significant adverse amenity effects on the surrounding residential area and in compliance with the Objectives and policies of the Plan. The proposed amended is therefore accepted in part.



287.009 Zoning Map 37A Oppose Rezone from Residential to Business zone 7 for 1031 Heaphy Terrace; 6 Howden Road; 3 Winter Street.

Reject

The submission seeks a rezoning from Residential to Neighbourhood Centre zoning as shown on Map 55A and should be rejected as it is considered;

• In the absence of any evidence to support the relief sought it is considered that the relief sought is inconsistent with the Policies and Objectives of the Proposed Plan and the compact centres approach of the PRPS


287.010 Zoning Map 55A Oppose Rezone from Residential to Business zone 7 at 3and 5 Urlich Ave.

Reject

The submission seeks a rezoning from Residential to Neighbourhood Centre zoning as shown on Map 55A and should be rejected as it is considered;

• In the absence of any evidence to support the relief sought it is considered that the relief sought is inconsistent with the Policies and Objectives of the Proposed Plan and the compact centres approach of the PRPS

Zak Urlich (Urlich Properties Limited)

FS6.001

Support Reject FS6.001 is rejected as that part of 287.010 which is supports is rejected.

Midlands Health 287.011 Zoning Map 47A Oppose Rezone from Residential to Reject The submission seeks a rezoning from Residential to Neighbourhood Centre

Page 263 of 266


Network Limited Business zone 7 at 5, 5A, 7 & 9

Masters Ave. zoning as shown on Map 47A and should be rejected as it is considered;

• In the absence of any evidence to support the relief sought it is

considered that the relief sought is inconsistent with the Policies and Objectives of the Proposed Plan and the compact centres approach of the PRPS

Glenview Medical Centre

368.002 Zoning Map 55A Oppose Map 55A-rezone the sites at 3 and 5 Urlich Avenue from Residential to Business 7 Zone to allow for future expansion.

Reject The submission seeks a rezoning from Residential to Neighbourhood Centre zoning as shown on Map 47A and should be rejected as it is considered;

• In the absence of any firm evidence to support the relief sought it is considered that the relief sought is inconsistent with the Policies and Objectives of the Proposed Plan and the compact centres approach of the PRPS

Zak Urlich (Urlich Properties Limited)

FS6.002

Support Reject FS6.002 is rejected as that part of 368.002 which is supports is rejected


606.001 Zoning Map 15A 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.

Accept in Part The submission point seeking amendment to rezone 8A and 8B Maui Street to Business Zone 4 as shown on Map 15A should be rejected as it



Central Hamilton Gospel Trust

961.001 Zoning Map 38A Oppose Map 38A-rezone 164-166 Peachgrove Road from General Residential to Business 7.

Reject The submissions seeks a change of zoning from General Residential to Neighbourhood centre at 164-166 Peachgrove Road and should be rejected as it;



Page 264 of 266



• In the absence of any technical evidence to support the relief sought it is considered that the relief sought is inconsistent objectives and policies of the plan.

M.P & R.G Upsdell 1011.001 Zoning Map 36A Oppose Map 36A-rezone 444(a) and (b) Ulster Street, 448(b) Ulster Street, and the rear half of 452 Ulster Street from Residential to Business 5; Rezone the land at 1359 Victoria Street from Business 7 to Business 5.

Reject The submissions seeks a change of zoning from Residential and Neighbourhood Centre to Business 5 (Suburban Centre) and should be rejected as it;




1126.002 Zoning Map 37A Oppose Map 37A- rezone sites of City Limits childcare and the Casalinga café from Special Residential Zone to either Business zone 2 or 7; amend to change the area of the Special Residential Zone at Claudelands.

Accept in Part

The submission point seeks a change from Residential Intensification to either the Business Zone 2 or 7 zoning in this location and should be accepted in part as it would





FS286.004

Oppose Accept in Part FS286.004 is accepted in part as that part of 1126.002 which it opposes has been in accepted in part.


1282.002 Zoning Map 37A Oppose Amend Map 37A by rezoning 729, 731, and 737 Grey St, from Special Residential Zone to either Business 2 Zone (Events Facilities Fringe) or Business 7 Zone.

Accept in part The submission points requesting a change of zone from Special Residential Zone to Business 7 Zone should be accepted in part for 731 and 737 Grey St only as the amendments would:

• Better achieve the objectives and policies of the Neighbourhood Centre zone.

Page 265 of 266


Amend Map 37A to change the boundaries of the Special Residential Zone at Claudelands by removing existing businesses and medium density residential development and align with the description in 5.1.1.1. Amend zoning map 37A to change the zone (except River Road and George Street) to Residential Intensification Zone, with amendments to the Plan to make childcare centres, visitor accommodation and other business uses Permitted Activities in this area.


Recommended amendments to Planning Maps 37A, are contained within Appendix B (refer to 1206.141)


FS286.002

Oppose Accept in Part FS286.002 is accepted in part as that part of 1282.002 which it opposes has been in accepted in part.

Urlich Properties Limited / Z.I & T Urlich

1288.001 Zoning Map 55A Oppose Rezone Urlich Shopping Centre (Lot 2 DPS 7832), 3-5 and 16 Urlich Avenue to Business 7 Zone.

Accept in Part

The submission point requesting a rezoning from General Residential to Business 7 zone (Neighbourhood Centre) should be accepted for 16 Urlich Avenue as it would;

• Improve Plan clarity and administration without compromising the objectives and policies of the plan


Recommended amendments to Planning 55A are contained within Appendix B (refer to 1288.001)

Page 266 of 266


Appendix B1 Chapter 6 Business 1-6 Zones

(Tracked change version)

As per the recommendations contained in this s42A Report. Additions are UunderlinedU; deletions in Sstrikethrough.

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 centre zones being at Te Rapa North and Chartwell that generally comprise some or all the following business zones:

• Business 3 (sub-regional centre core) Zone

• 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

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

Comment [HCC1]: 1198.002

Comment [HCC2]: 1104.024, 1170.024


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

Proposed District Plan 13 November 2012 Hamilton City Council

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 and 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 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 retail, economic, business and

Comment [HCC4]: 539.001, 938.063, 1206.065

Comment [HCC5]: 539.001, 938.063, 1206.065




social centre in the region ahead of the sub-regional centres of 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 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 suburban 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 the community living within and beyond the City boundary.


Comment [HCC8]: 714.029, FS123.025



Comment [HCC11]: 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 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, community services and entertainment facilities 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. Therefore, when considering development 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 Te Rapa 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 size, scale, built form and diversity of activity.

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






Comment [HCC21]: 938.060, FS242.001, FS277.001

Comment [M22]: New policy

Comment [HCC23]: 309.003, 1206.062





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.


Objective Policies

6.2.3 A distribution of locally based centresretail facilities that

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







provide services and community facilties capable of meeting the day-to-day needs of their immediate neighbourhoods.

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 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.

Comment [HCC29]: 368.001, 1126.014, 1282.024

Comment [HCC31]: 309.004, 938.061, FS242.001, FS277.001, 1206.063,





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 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 the Central City, or Sub-regional centres or Suburban centres; and

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

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.

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 considered through the provision of a Viability Assessment Report (1.4.20 refers).



Comment [HCC34]: 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



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

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 activities NC NC NC NC NC NC NC

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 P P PDP D P P D

Comment [HCC35]: 913.037, 938.063, 1206.065



Comment [HCC38]: 312.005, 938.064, FS239.015, FS285.009, FS285.097, 1206.066, FS285.172








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 gross floor area per site

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 greater than 113509300m2 gross floor area on Lot 2 DP 89885 approved under resource consent 10.20120. 6723.001 2210 (The Base)

NC - - NC - - -

Retail/Commercial

p) Ancillary retail P P P P P P P

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

D P CW-P

TR-RDP

DNCD P P P

r) Retail 150m2- 399m2 gross floor area per tenancy D D

CW-RD TR-RD

DNCD P D D

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

RD D CW-P

TR-RDP

RDP DNC NC NC

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

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

D NC P RDP NC D NC

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

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

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

Comment [HCC35]: 913.037, 938.063, 1206.065






Comment [HCC48]: 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


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

NC NC D P D P D

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

NC NC D P NC P NC

y) SupermarketBuilding Improvement Centres less than 400m2 gross floor area

RDNC NC RDNC RDP RDNC P NC

z) Building Improvement Centres over 400m2 gross floor area

NC NC DNC P DNC D NC

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

NCD NCP NCP PD NCP D NCD

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

D P P D P D PD

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

D P P NC P NC DNC

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

NC P P P P P NC

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

NC NC P NC P NC NC

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

RD RD RD RD RD RD NC

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

RD NC D RD DNC RD NC

hh) Parking lots and parking P P P P D P NC

Comment [HCC35]: 913.037, 938.063, 1206.065

Comment [HCC50]: 1135.004, FS123.027, 1256.002 FS20.003, FS123.02, FS237.016, FS285.193

Comment [HCC51]: 312.005,1206.066, FS285.172

Comment [HCC52]: 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 buildings

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

Community

ii) Passenger transport facility P P P P P P P

jj) Health-care services above ground floor P NC P D P P P

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

P NC P D P P P

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

P NC P D PRD P RD

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

P NC P RD RD D D

nn) Health-care services greater than 10,750000m2 gross floor area on Lot 2 DP 89885 approved under resource consent 10.20120.6723.0012210 (The Base)

NC - - - - - -

oo) Childcare facility P NC P PD P P P

pp) Community centres P RD P P P P P

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

P RD P D P P P

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

P RD D D D D NC

Comment [HCC35]: 913.037, 938.063, 1206.065

Comment [HCC53]: 287.003, 309.005,



Comment [HCC56]: 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


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

P RD D NC NC NC NC

tt) Public art

P P P P P P P

Ttt) Hospital D NC NC NC NC NC

Residential

uu) Ancillary residential units RD RD RD RD RD RD RD

vv) Detached dwellings and duplex dwellings NC NC NC NC NC D D

ww) Apartments at ground floor NC NC NC NC NC NC NC

xx) Apartments above ground floor NC NC NC NC RD RD RD

yy) Managed care facilities NC NC NC NC NC NC NC

zz) Residential centres D D D D D D D

ab) Visitor accommodation RD RD RD D D D NC

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

CW= Chartwell TR= Te Rapa North

Commercial Centre

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

Comment [HCC35]: 913.037, 938.063, 1206.065



Comment [HCC59]: 938.065, FS198.013, 199.008,1206.067, FS285.173




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

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

Comment [HCC61]: 938.066,1206.068


Comment [HCC63]: 913.038, 938.068, FS237.001, 1206.070, 1256.004, FS237.018



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

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).

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

Comment [HCC64]: 309.007,938.143, 1206.144,



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 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.

Comment [HCC65]: 309.008,355.005



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)*

A2, A3, A4, B1, C2-C10, C13-C23, D4-D6,

G1, P2, S1, V1-V18

ix. Community centres, tertiary

education and specialised training

facilities

A2, A3, A4, B1, C2-C10, C13-C23, D4-D6,

G1, P2, S1, V1-V18

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


Comment [HCC67]: 1135.004,

FS123.027



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

Rule 6.4.9

A1, A2, A3, B1, F1, F5

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




active frontages standard in Rule

6.4.11

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

Appendix B2 Planning Maps

ClydePark

LugtonPark

YORK STREET

CLYDE STREET

PAGE PL

65

5

ClydePark

LugtonPark

YORK STREET

CLYDE STREET

PAGE PL

5

5

S42a Report

± ±

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

As Notified As Recommended

0 25 50 75 10012.5MetersSubmission No: 938.063, 938.139, 1206.065,

1206.141, 1135.042, 1170.024MAP: 42A Date:19 September 2013 V1

TUHIKA RAMEA

R O A D

DINSDALE ROAD

ROBYN PLACE

JASMINE AVENUE

POAKA AVENUE

6

5 TUHIKA R AMEA

RO A DDINSDALE ROAD

ROBYN PLACE

JASMINE AVENUE

POAKA AVENUE

5

5

S42a Report

± ±



0 25 50 75 10012.5MetersSubmission No: 1135.042, 938.139, 938.063, 1206.141,

1206.065, 1170.024MAP: 42A Date:19 September 2013 V1

MA SON SAVENUE

CLAUDELANDSEVENTSCENTRE

TE AROHA STREET

MYRTLE STREET

O'NEILL STREET

KITCHENER STREET

BROOKLYN ROAD

PALMER ST

NEWST

CLAUDELANDS ROAD

CLAUDELANDS ROAD

GREY STREET

HEAPHY TERRACE

East Coast Main Trunk Railway Line

7

2

2

7

77

MA SO N SAVENUE

CLAUDELANDSEVENTSCENTRE

TE AROHA STREET

MYRTLE STREET

O'NEILL STREET

KITCHENER STREET

BROOKLYN ROAD

PALMER ST

NEWST

CLAUDELANDS ROAD

CLAUDELANDS ROAD

GREY STREET

HEAPHY TERRACE

East Coast Main Trunk Railway Line

22

6 6

66

S42a Report

± ±



0 40 80 120 16020Meters

Submission No:1282.002, 1126.002MAP: 37A Date:26 August 2013 V1

THOMAS ROADTE

MAN

ATU

DRIV

EPAR

KSIDE

DRIVE

C R A N B R O O KP L

A CE

ROTOTUNA ROAD

ALCON

BURY

DRIVE

SHRULE PL ACE

GLEN

GOYN

EPL

LOCKH

ARTP

L

STRATHMORE DR

5

5

THOMAS ROAD

TEM

ANAT

UDR

IVE

PARKSI

DEDR

IVE

C R A N B R O O KPL

A CE

ROTOTUNA ROAD

ALCON

BURY

DRIVE

SHRULE PL ACE

GLEN

GOYN

E PL

LOCKH

ARTP

L

STRATHMORE DR

5

5

5

S42a Report

± ±



0 40 80 120 16020Meters

Submission No: 309.001MAP: 38A Date:19 September 2013 V1

OHAU

POR O

AD

7

7 OHAU

PORO

AD

6

6

S42a Report

± ±



0 25 50 75 10012.5Meters


Ferrybank

MemorialPark

NewMemorial

Park

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

VONTE M

P SK YST RE ET

MEM

O R IA L D R IV E

B E A L E S T R E E T

G R A N T H A M S T R EET


VICTORIA

BRIDGE

1 1

11

15

Ferrybank

MemorialPark

NewMemorial

Park

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

VONT EM

P SK YST R EE T

MEM

O R IA L D R IV E


G R A N T H A M S T R E ET


VICTORIA

BRIDGE

1 1

11

15

S42a Report

± ±



0 40 80 120 16020Meters


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

BOUNDARY RD5

5

5

6

67

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

BOUNDARY RD5

5

5

5

65

S42a Report

± ±



0 25 50 75 10012.5Meters

Submission No: 869.001, 1195.004, 1292.006MAP: 38A Date:19 September 2013 V1

Ashurst Park

TH E BOULEVARD CHURCHROAD

EAGLE WAY

TA W N P L A C E

N O RM A NH AYW A R D P L A C E

TASMAN ROAD

TE RAPA ROAD

CHURCH ROAD

BALMERINO CRESCENT

See Rotokauri Structure Planin Appendix 2 - Figures 2-8 to 2-13

North Island Main Trunk Railway Line

114

4

4

4

4

1

4

4

1

Ashurst Park

TH E BOULEVARD

CHURCHROAD

EAGLE WAY

TA W N P L A C E

N O RM A NH AYW A R D P L A C E

TASMAN ROAD

TE RAPA ROAD

CHURCH ROAD

BALMERINO CRESCENT

See Rotokauri Structure Planin Appendix 2 - Figures 2-8 to 2-13

North Island Main Trunk Railway Line

114

4

4

44

1

4

4

1

S42a Report

± ±



0 80 160 240 32040Meters


Appendix B3 Appendix 1.5.20






Volume 2 1.5 Information Requirements Page 1-184

d) Open Space Network

The Master Plan will need to demonstrate how the open space links with the

natural environment, the Waikato River esplanade, the transport network, and

land uses; how the pedestrian and cycle networks have been integrated into the

open space network and river esplanade.

e) Land Use

The Master Plan will need to identify the location of commercial and community

facilities as well as residential densities. It will need to also develop the street

pattern taking into account the open space, natural environment and transport

network. The street pattern will also need to take into consideration the

development principles set out in the structure plan and the transport corridor

hierarchies.

f) Detailed Development Response

The approach proposed for the urban form of the neighbourhood will need to be

developed. This will demonstrate the urban design and architectural responses to

the opportunities and constraints within the neighbourhood and will need to

consider the assessment criteria setout in Appendices 1.4.1, 1.4.2 and 1.4.3.

g) Staging

The plan will need to identify the staging of development to demonstrate how any

urban development created under Rule 23.6.10(f) is integrated into the overall

master plan for the neighbourhood.

1.5.20 Centre Viability Assessment Report

Any resource consent for office or retail activities (excluding ancillary office/ retail shall

provide a Centre Viability Assessment Report as part of the application.

a) Purpose

To provide information on the potential effects of a proposal for office, and or

retail/commercial and or community activities or a mix thereof on the viability

and vitality of the Central City Zone and on the Key Development Sites as defined

in the District Plan.

The information is required to inform decision making in respect of the resource

consents sought and whether the scale and trading format of the activity is

appropriate for the location having regard to the hierarchy of business centres,

maintaining the primacy of the Central City and the opportunity for development

within higher order centres.

b) Information requirements

The information shall include:

i. A summary of the methodology and data sources used to prepare the

assessment.

ii. The following comparative indicators on the current viability and vitality of the

Central City and the preferred business centre for the activity and a summary

analysis of discernible trends:

• Expenditure patterns

Comment [HCC56]: 938.132, 1206.134

Appendix B4 Appendix 1.7 Definitions






Volume 2 1.7 Definitions Used in the District Plan Page 1-189

Ancillary retailing and offices: Means any retail or office premises on the same site as

another principal building or activity, and whose use is incidental to that principal

building or principal activity (e.g. a retail showroom attached to a manufacturing

premises) occupying not more than 2510% or 250m2 of the activity’s gross floor area on

the site and associated premises (including any associated premises on an immediately

adjoining site), whichever is the lesser. activity floorspace.

Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT): Refer to NZS6806: 2010 Acoustics – Road traffic

noise – New and altered roads.

Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP): Means the probability, expressed as a

percentage, that a flood of a given magnitude will be equalled or exceeded in any one

year. For example, a 1% AEP means an event that has a 1% probability of occurring or

being exceeded in any one year.

Antenna (defined in the National Environmental Standard for Telecommunications

Facilities 2008): Means a device that:

a) Receives or transmits radio-communication or telecommunication signals.

b) Is operated by a network operator.

c) Includes the mount, if there is one, for the device.

d) Includes the shroud, if there is one, for the device.

Any activity specified in the Hamilton City Public Places Bylaw 2009 or Public Places

Policy 2009: Means outdoor dining, signs in public places, markets, stalls, merchandise

displays and mobile shops, busking, hawking and charitable collection.

Apartment building: Means a residential building comprising three or more attached

residential units.

Archaeological Site (as stated in the Historic Places Act 1993): Means any place in New

Zealand that:

a) Either —

i. Was associated with human activity that occurred before 1900 or,

ii. Is the site of the wreck of any vessel where that wreck occurred before 1900.

b) Is or may be able, through investigation by archaeological methods, to provide

evidence relating to the history of New Zealand.

Arterial transport corridor: Means any major or minor arterial transport corridor.

Arterial Transport Corridor Protection Area: Means that area shown on any Structure

Plan in the Planning Maps as an Arterial Transport Corridor Protection Area.

Note

These corridors have been established by applying nominal widths of 60m for major arterial and

40m for minor arterial transport corridors to the centre lines for undesignated transport

corridors within each Structure Plan area within the District Plan. A further 20m is added to each

side of these corridors as a buffer to recognise the indicative nature of the alignments. As the

final alignment of these transport corridors is confirmed the provisions relating to the

corresponding part of the Arterial Transport Corridor Protection Area ceases to apply.

Artificial watercourse: A watercourse that contains no natural portions from its

confluence with a river or stream to its headwaters and includes irrigation canals, water

Comment [HCC57]: 312.001,

FS249.026, FS278.003, FS285.007, 314.014,

FS278.002, FS285.212, 784.009, FS285.058,

808.009, FS285.066, 938.133, FS242.001,

FS242.061, FS277.001



e) Any swimming pool with walls more than 1.2m above the ground level at any

point.

f) Any deck more than 1m above the ground level at any point.

g) A mast pole or a telecommunication aerial that is on, or forms part of, a building

and that is more than 7m in height above the point of its attachment or base

support (except a dish aerial that is less than 2m wide).

A building does not include:

h) Pergolas and, not roofed or enclosed, and not exceeding 3m in height.

i) Lych-gates not exceeding 3m in height.

j) Steps, terraces and patios, not roofed or enclosed, and not exceeding 1m in

height.

k) Public art, floodlights, goal posts, park furniture.

Buildings housing network utility equipment: Means structures needed for housing

pumps, weather stations, recording stations, etc, containing network utility structures

needing to be kept out of the weather (excluding cabinets).

Building improvement centre: Means premises used for the storage, display and sale of

goods and materials used in the construction, repair, alteration and renovation of

buildings and includes nurseries and garden centres.

Building line: Refer to building line restriction, front building line or rear building line

as relevant.

Building line restriction: Means a restriction imposed on a site to ensure that when new

buildings are erected, or existing buildings re-erected, altered or substantially rebuilt, no

part of any such building shall stand within the area between the building line and the

adjacent site boundary.

Bulk and location provisions: Means density, site coverage, permeable surfacing, height

in relation to boundary, building setback, separation, outdoor living area and service

area related provisions.

Bulk power supply: Means greater than 20kW generation.

Business activities: Means activities carried out on a site principally for commercial gain.

Business activities associated with the racing industry: Means businesses which are

associated with horse-racing activities, such as those undertaken at Te Rapa Racecourse.

This includes administration services for the racing industry, authorised sports betting

agencies, offices for businesses involved in bloodstock and/or breeding and/or training

and/or racing of horses, businesses providing veterinary and/or research services, and

retail and/or manufacturing activities which predominantly handle equine-related

products.

Cabinet (defined in the National Environmental Standard for Telecommunication

Facilities, 2008): Means a casing around equipment that is necessary to operate a

telecommunication network.

Central City transport corridor: Means any transport corridor identified as a Central City

transport corridor in Appendix 15, Figure 15-5E, the function and form of which is

defined in Volume 2, Appendix 15-5.

Comment [HCC59]: 376.002,

FS278.009



Customary activities: As described in Schedule 3 of Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims

(Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 and includes cultural harvest as defined in Section

63(9) of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010.

Dairy: Means the use of a building in a residential area for the sale of day-to-day food

and associated household items. The majority of its trade must be derived from the sale

of milk, bread, non-alcoholic beverages and other day-to-day convenience merchandise.

Retail activity involving food cooked on the premises and the sale of alcohol are

excluded.

Demolition or removal of buildings: Means dismantling, destruction and/or removal of

part or all of any building.

Design Speed Environment: Means the maximum speed of vehicles created by traffic

management and the design of transport corridors. These speeds reflect the desirable

maximum speeds given the land use environment and transport corridor hierarchy.

Refer to Appendix 15-7 for further detail.

Design year (Chapter 25.8: City-wide – Noise and Vibration): Refer to NZS6806: 2010

Acoustics – Road traffic noise – New and altered roads.

Detached dwelling: Means a stand-alone residential building designed for, and occupied

exclusively by, one household.

Development: Means any activity undertaken to change the scale, character or intensity

of any use of land, and includes any building activity.

Development Agreement: Means a binding contract between Council, other

infrastructure providers and developers for the funding of additional infrastructure and

the use and upgrading of existing infrastructure.

Dish: Means an antenna with which signals are transmitted to, or received from, a

communications satellite. This applies to dishes attached to a building, as well as those

mounted on their own support structure.

Dispensing facility: Means for drive-through fast food or service outlets each single

combination of an order point, a payment point, and a collection point and for service

stations a single petrol pump or a group of petrol pumps that are grouped on a single

‘island’.

Disposal: Means discharge of a hazardous substance into the environment, with or

without biological or chemical treatment that may change composition and

characteristics of the substance.

Drive-through services (excluding service stations within the Rototuna Town Centre

Zone): Means any premises where goods and services are offered for sale to the

motoring public, primarily in a manner where the customer can remain in their vehicle.

Drive-through services can include dispensing and associated storage of motor fuels (as

the primary activity) and the sale of associated goods, services, food and beverages, and

relation products, fast-food outlets providing on-demand meals prepared on the

premises for consumption therein or take away, the provision of servicing and running

repairs for light motor vehicles and any other activity of a drive-through nature,

including those ancillary to the above.

Duplex dwellings: Means a residential building comprising two attached residential

units.




Heritage item: Means a building, structure, object, site or place and all elements of that

item, which have been identified as having heritage value.

High BOD5: See BOD5.

High Flood Hazard Area: Means that part of any land predicted to be affected by river or

surface flooding during a 1% annual exceedance probability event. Further detail for

how this Flood Hazard Area category has been derived is contained in Appendix 11. High

Flood Hazard Areas are identified on the Planning Maps.

High-intensity sign: Means any flashing, or moving or animated or illuminated sign, or

any other active sign including electronic signs.

High-use allocation: Means industrial activities requiring more than 15m3 of water per

day excluding:

a) Water used for human drinking and sanitation.

b) The volume of water discharged into the municipal wastewater system.

Home-based business: Means an occupation, craft or profession which is incidental to

the residential use of the site. A home-based business excludes: panel beating, spray

painting, motor vehicle repairs, motor vehicle dismantling, motor body building,

servicing of internal combustion engines, fibreglassing, sheet metal work, wrought iron

work or manufacture, bottle or scrap metal storage, rubbish collection, establishments

for boarding domestic pets, funeral parlours, and the sale/trading of motor vehicles. The

owner or occupier of a household unit is not precluded from carrying out normal

maintenance and repair of domestic equipment including vehicles owned by the

household owner/occupier.

Homestay accommodation: Means a portion of a dwelling occupied on a temporary

(periods of up to 3 months continuous occupation during any 12-month period) basis

and includes bed and breakfast establishments. The maximum occupancy is six guests at

any one time.

Hospital: Means an institution providing primarily in-patient care for the sick or injured,

including medical, surgical, maternity, mental health, convalescent or hospice care, and

includes all hospital clinics, dispensaries, out-patient departments, operations and

maintenance support services (such as laundries, kitchens, cafeterias, refreshment

facilities, residential centres, generators, substation, storage facilities and workshops),

hospital administration offices, ancillary retail facilities and undertakings maintained in

connection with, or incidental to, the hospital activity.

Impermeable surfaces: Means surfaces such as roads, roof tops, footpaths, paving,

decking, swimming pools, patios or highly compacted soil that are not vegetated and do

not infiltrate run-off.

Incidental: Means accompanying as a minor part to something else.

Indigenous vegetation or trees: Means vegetation or trees that occur naturally in New

Zealand or arrived in New Zealand without human assistance.

Indoor recreation: Means recreational activities within a building. Includes courts,

swimming pools and gyms, with ancillary facilities such as changing rooms.

Industrial activity: Means any industrial activity and includes:




Ldn: Means the day-night noise level which is calculated from the 24-hour Leq with a 10

dBA penalty applied to the night time Leq (2200-0700 hours).

Leq: Means the time-averaged noise level (i.e. the constant noise level which would

contain an equal amount of sound energy to the actual fluctuating noise level).

Lmax: Means the maximum noise level recorded during the particular measurement

period. Lmax is generally used to assess the potential sleep disturbance of individual

noise events.

L10 (18hr): Means the sound level in dBA which is exceeded for one-tenth of a period of

one hour and L10 (18hr) is the arithmetic mean of all the levels of L10s during a period

from 0600 – 2400 hours.

Lake: Means a body of fresh water that is entirely or nearly surrounded by land.

Landscape design: Means the functional layout and design of a site involving the

planned use of open space, landform, plant-form, water and artificial features for the

purpose of beautifying or enhancing a site for human use and enjoyment.

Land use environment: Means groupings of land-use zones that provide for activities

that share similar sensitivities to, or demands of, the transport network. These groups

are defined in Table 15.5a of Appendix 15-5.

Less mobile users: Means those vehicle users who are less mobile but are not eligible to

use accessible spaces allocated to disabled users. These include the elderly, parents with

infants, people with temporary mobility disabilities.

Licensed premises: Means land, buildings or part of a building used principally for the

serving of liquor, for consumption on the premises. Licensed premises include (but are

not limited to) hotels, taverns, wine bars and clubs (both chartered and night).

Lifeline utilities: Means the same as in the Civil Defence and Emergency Management

Act 2002.

Light industry: Means manufacturing, warehouse, bulk storage, service and repair

activities which do not involve the use of heavy machinery, are carried out indoors and

are unlikely to give rise to significant adverse effects beyond the site and are generally of

a small scale. They include printing works, furniture manufacture, car repairs, light

engineering, tradesmen’s depots and the like.

Lightning rod: A grounded metal rod placed high on a building or structure to prevent

damage by conducting lightning to the ground.

Line: Means the conductors (cables) of any above ground network utility infrastructure.

Loading space: Means a space on a site suitable and available for the temporary station

of a vehicle which is primarily on the site to load/unload goods that are required for the

nature of that particular business on that site.

Local Transport Corridor: Means any transport corridor identified as local or any other

formed road not otherwise identified in Appendix 15, Figures 15-5B to 15-5F, the

function and form of which is defined in Appendix 15-5.

Local movement system: Means any type of resource capable of moving people or

vehicles within the transport network and can include roads, pedestrian/cycle access

ways, reserves and the Waikato River.

Comment [HCC67]: 938.133, 924.197,

FS89.001



ii. By the disposition by way of sale or offer for sale of the fee simple to part of

the allotment.

iii. By a lease of part of the allotment which, including renewals, is or could be for

a term of more than 35 years.

iv. By the grant of a company lease or cross-lease in respect of any part of the

allotment.

v. By the deposit of a unit plan, or an application to a District Land Registrar for

the issue of a separate certificate of title for any part of a unit on a unit plan.

b) An application to a District Land Registrar for the issue of a separate certificate of

title in circumstances where the issue of that certificate of title is prohibited by

section 226.

The term subdivide land has a corresponding meaning.

Supermarket: This includes:

An individual retail outlet that sells, primarily by way of self service, a comprehensive

range of:

a) domestic supplies such as fresh meat and produce; chilled, frozen, packaged,

canned and bottled foodstuffs and beverages; and general housekeeping and

personal goods, including (but not limited to) cooking, cleaning and washing

products; kitchenwares; toilet paper, diapers and other paper tissue products;

pharmaceutical, health and personal hygiene products and other toiletries; and

cigarettes and related products; and

b) non domestic supplies comprising not more than 20 per cent of all products

offered for sale as measured by retail floor space, includes magazines and

newspapers; greeting cards and stationery; barbecue and heating fuels;

batteries, flashlights and light bulbs; films; DVDs and appliances; and

c) has a store footprint over 1,000sqm GFA.

Temple View Flood Hazard Area: Means that part of any land within the vicinity of

Temple View affected by flooding during a 1% annual exceedance probability event. This

is identified as Temple View Flood Hazard Area within the Planning Maps.

Temporary activities in a public place: This includes:

a) Outdoor dining areas.

b) Markets, stalls, merchandise displays and mobile shops.

c) Busking, hawking and charitable collections.

A public place is:

d) Under the control of Council.

e) Open to, or being used by, the public, whether or not there is a charge for

admission.

and includes:

f) A road, whether or not the road is under the control of Council.


Appendix C1

Technical Evidence:

Retail Evidence, Tim Heath, Property Economics

1

H e a t h | 1

BEFORE COMMISSIONERS ON BEHALF OF HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL

IN THE MATTER of the Resource

Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER Proposed Hamilton City

District Plan

EVIDENCE IN CHIEF OF TIMOTHY JAMES HEATH ON BEHALF OF HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL

RETAIL ECONOMICS

9 October 2013

H e a t h | 2

INTRODUCTION

1. My name is Timothy James Heath.

2. I am a Property Consultant, Retail Analyst and Urban Demographer for the company

Property Economics Limited, based in Auckland. I hold a double degree from the

University of Auckland:

(a) Bachelor of Arts 1991 (Geography Major)

(b) 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 City retail environment and wider Waikato regional

markets having undertaken detailed retail, commercial and industrial assessments across

the region over the last 17 years. Much of this work involved assessing retail markets,

distributional and economic effects of new development, and longer term strategic

outlooks and implications for the purpose of forward land use planning.

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

appropriateness or otherwise on the proposed changes to the Hamilton City District Plan

(“the Plan”) from a retail economic perspective, assess whether the proposed changes

are appropriate to meet the objectives and policies of the proposed plan, meet the longer

term retail requirements of the market over the foreseeable future, and whether the

proposed District Plan (“proposed Plan”) will appropriately manage any potential

adverse retail and economic distributional effects on the city’s retail and commercial

centre environment.

7. 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 2011. I

H e a t h | 3

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.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

8. Overall, the retail implications and effects on the Hamilton CBD in particular, but also the

wider suburban centre network, based on consenting patterns and development over the

last decade has resulted in significant changes in shopping patterns within the city at a

rate which has served to diminish the role and function of the CBD.

9. In terms of retailing, in my view the CBD is no longer the pre-eminent centre within the

city. This role and function has transferred to The Base / Te Rapa area in the northern

corridor of the city via a ‘lop-sided’ retail development distribution since the year 2000,

i.e. half of all retail consents issued within the city have been for The Base / Te Rapa

area, while only 15% have been in the CBD. Being new, the quality of the space in The

Base / Te Rapa area is better and more attractive to shoppers, which is fuelling the

decline of the CBD in terms of performance and productivity.

10. As a result, in my view for the CBD to reclaim its position as the pre-eminent retail centre

in Hamilton, as desired in the proposed Plan, ‘the tap needs to be turned off’ so to speak

(or at least slowed down) in relation to retail development being enabled beyond the

centre network of the city. In terms of The Base / Te Awa centre itself, there is around

47,000sqm GFA of unimplemented consents above the current built form, of which just

over 18,000sqm GFA is for retail activity. Given growth in the market in the foreseeable

future, and desired outcome of the proposed Plan to reinvigorate and rejuvenate the

CBD, in my view there is limited additional retail GFA warranted above that already

consented at this point in time.

11. Further to this, the evidence of Mr Osborne bears out the poor performance of the

commercial office sector within the CBD market over the last 10 years with decreased

commercial activity and fall in the productivity and quality of office environment.

Combined with the retail decline in the CBD over the same period, together this has led

to adverse flow-on effects such as the CBD being a less desirable business environment

to locate, or conversely the actual and perceived benefits of locating in the CBD from a

business perspective have been significantly weakened over the period, primarily as a

result of the extent of the scattering of new retail and commercial office development in

Commercial and Industrial zones elsewhere across the city.

H e a t h | 4

12. The Hamilton CBD is the most central location / centre within the city to service the

Hamilton market. This is not surprising given the city has built-up around the CBD since

its formation over 150 years ago. This also means it is the most efficient location to

service the market’s retail requirements, particularly given the public infrastructure

requirements to service future market is largely already in place to enable retail (and

commercial office) development to occur.

13. On this basis, I support the movement within the proposed District Plan towards

tightening up the rules around development of retail activity in non-centre locations, i.e.

such as the industrial zone, to enable the CBD and suburban centres (existing and new)

to improve the quality and scope of their retail offer to the market and encourage retail

development within these centres to more efficiently meet the requirements of the

communities they serve, and provide a more efficient network overall.

14. I acknowledge some of the proposed provisions may appear quite firm in terms of their

status under which retail applications would be assessed. However, given the rapid

decline of the Hamilton CBD in terms of relevance and performance since the

millennium, in my view HCC has no choice but to be firm in the proposed Plan if it is to

have a meaningful chance of meeting its stated goal of re-elevating the CBD to the pre-

eminent centre within the city. Such a goal is likely to take many years to come to

fruition, albeit not impossible, and in the first instance will require a reversal of the recent

declining trends and sending strong signals to the market that the CBD is the desired

focal point for new retail and office development within the city for the next 10 years and

‘open for business’.

15. Importantly, the suite of planning provisions being put forward within the proposed District

Plan will not in my view unnecessarily restrict appropriate retail development across the

wider city outside the CBD. Whist acknowledging it may be more difficult for non-CBD

retail development to occur, with the proposed provisions now enabling a greater degree

of scrutiny of a retail application’s merit by Council, appropriate non-CBD retail

development that provides a net positive benefit to the community will still be able to

satisfy the retail economic tests within the proposed District Plan. This is important as it

shows a balanced approach to retail development within the city being taken by Council

moving forward that strikes a harmony between allowing the market the flexibility to

operate and develop efficiently, whilst being cognisant that encouraging retail

development in the CBD is important for meeting the higher order policies and objectives

of the proposed District Plan.

16. Following on from this, in my view making the CBD the primary focus of retail

development within the city over the life of the proposed District Plan is important to the

H e a t h | 5

successful recovery and rejuvenation of the CBD. The recovery of the CBD is likely to be

a multi-decade process to be realised, and is not a short term solution given the level of

decline in the CBD since 2000.

17. The Hamilton CBD has a current retail GFA of around 167,000sqm1. Currently, based on

the MarketView data2, the CBD is currently attracting retail sales of around $675m

annually which equates to an average retail productivity (sales/sqm) in the CBD in the

order of only $4,000/sqm at present. An average retail productivity within the CBD of

between $5,000-$6,000/sqm is considered what is required to enable to CBD to

rejuvenate and recover to an appropriate level, which equates to an annual retail sales

level between $875m - $1b per annum. This is my view represents a target annual sales

band for the CBD to be sustainable and create a vibrant, good quality destination that

would create a level of amenity and wellbeing that allows the CBD to function efficiently

and successfully play the wider commercial role envisaged for the CBD by the proposed

District Plan.

18. Given the level of existing unimplemented retail consents outside the CBD whose effects

are yet to be felt by the CBD, particularly in and around The Base / Te Awa, making the

CBD the primary focus of retail investment and development over the next decade is

considered a pivotal step to enable the CBD recovery process to start from both a retail

and commercial office perspective. Any alternative to this would in my opinion weaken

the retail recovery of the CBD (in terms of quantum and rate), which would affect the

investment and location decisions across other sectors of the market (particularly

commercial office sector) given its synergistic relationship with retail activity, and the

amenity and services it provides. In other words, in my view unless the retail recovery of

the CBD is meaningfully promoted and advanced, the ability for the CBD to attract other

sectors of the market is likely to be equally compromised.

PROPOSED DISTRICT PLAN CHANGES

19. For hearing efficiency reasons and to avoid repetition with the Council planners, who will

provide a detailed outline of the proposed changes within the proposed District Plan, it is

my understanding the proposed changes are focused on moving from planning

framework from what can be described as ‘fairly permissive’ in terms of the ability to

locate retail activity within industrial and commercial zones around the city, to a more

centres focused approach which incorporates the development of a commercial centre

hierarchy for the city and various policies, objectives and rules that encourage retail (and

commercial office) development within the centre network of the city.

1 Refer Table 6 of this statement 2 Refer Figure 8 of this statement

H e a t h | 6

20. The proposed Plan makes it clear that the adoption of a business centres hierarchy

aims to promote sustainable urban development. This is in terms of maintaining and

reinforcing the vibrancy and vitality of existing centres, consolidating urban

development and identifying areas where intensification for residential and

commercial activities while at the same time achieving wider public benefits,

promoting the efficient use and maintenance of infrastructure, and enhancing

accessibility and passenger transport opportunities to and between centres.

21. There is a particular focus on the Hamilton Central Business District (“CBD”) and giving

it pre-eminent status within the city’s centre network given the purpose of the proposed

District Plan is to make the central city of Hamilton “the principal centre for employment,

retailing, entertainment and business activities, and the region’s cultural and recreational

hub3”.

22. It is my understanding that this goal largely remains unchallenged in submissions

received on the proposed Plan, so the emphasis of my evidence is not so much focused

on determining whether the Hamilton CBD should be the pre-eminent commercial centre

in Hamilton (albeit acknowledging Mr Osborne addressed this as part of his economic

statement and with which I am in agreement), but identifying recent retail trends and

implications to justify many of the changes proposed in the District Plan, and whether

they are appropriate from a retail perspective to meet the wider goals and objectives

detailed within the proposed District Plan.

HAMILTON CITY POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD GROWTH

23. To provide some understanding for the base context, and part driver, of the proposed

District Plan it is important to understand the size of the Hamilton retail market both

currently and over the foreseeable period to 2031. This is considered an appropriate

planning horizon to assess at this point, with projections beyond this period considered to

be very speculative in my view.

24. Table 1 displays the population and household growth projections for the Hamilton City

Territorial Authority over a planning period to 2031. The household and population

forecasts utilised for this statement have been based on projections supplied by HCC.

These forecasts are based off the PSC 20084 Low Series Population and Household

Projections, which follows closely to the most up-to-date SNZ medium population

projections (updated October 2012). Therefore while the projections maybe dated in

3 Proposed Hamilton District Plan, Chapter 7.1(a) 4 Population Projections for FutureProof, Population Studies Centre, University of Waikato

H e a t h | 7

terms of their genesis, the low series and the fact it closely correlates to the most recent

Statistics New Zealand (“SNZ”) medium projection series provides Property Economics

confidence they are appropriate to adopt for the purposes of this statement.

25. On this basis I have adopted them as the foundation for subsequent analysis in this

statement, noting it provides consistency with other HCC strategic planning documents.

An overview of these projections is summarised in Table 1.

26. For the purpose of context a table identifying the differences in population forecasts

between the earlier PSC 2008 projections, the current SNZ Medium series and those

utilised in this statement has been attached in Appendix 1.

TABLE 1: HAMILTON CITY POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS

Source: HCC

27. For the purpose of this statement, year 2013 is classified as current (colour coded in

blue), year 2016 is classified as short term (colour coded in yellow), year 2021 is

classified as medium term (colour coded in orange) and years 2026 and 2031 are

classified as long term (colour coded in pink).

28. Nominally, population growth in the Hamilton City is projected to be just over 33,000

people (rounded) over the period to 2031. In 2013, there are estimated to be around

147,200 people residing in the city, with this figure forecast to grow to around 180,200 by

2031. This represents growth equivalent to a 22% population increase over the

assessed period.

29. Households within Hamilton City are projected to increase by around 14,300 over the

forecast period to around 66,000 by 2031. This is equivalent to average growth over the

2013 2016 2021 2026 2031

Population 147,176 153,005 162,889 171,724 180,211

Households 51,697 53,792 57,748 61,820 65,959

Household Size 2.85 2.84 2.82 2.78 2.73

Population Growth (p.a.) 1.30% 1.26% 1.06% 0.97%

Household Growth (p.a.) 1.33% 1.43% 1.37% 1.30%

H e a t h | 8

period of around 28%, and equivalent to an average rate of growth of 790 dwellings per

year.

30. The phenomenon of the number of households is increasing at a faster rate than the

population due to a projected fall in the person per dwelling ratio over the forecast period.

This is not isolated to the study area, but a trend projected to occur across the whole

country due to an aging population, smaller families and a higher proportion of 'split' or

single parent households.

HAMILTON CITY RETAIL MARKET

31. This section assesses the current and future retail market within Hamilton City.

Annualised retail expenditure forecasts have been based on the household growth

projections outlined in Table 1 above are in 2013 $NZ. These retail expenditure

forecasts have been prepared using the Property Economics Retail Expenditure Model.

A more detailed description of the model methodology and its inputs can be seen in

Appendix 2.

32. Retail expenditure in this statement relates to the estimated retail spend generated within

Hamilton City unless otherwise stated.

33. It is important to note that the retail expenditure generated by the catchment does not

necessarily equate to the sales of the retail shops within the catchment. Residents can

travel in and out of the catchment freely, and they will typically choose the centres with

their preferred range of stores, proximity and accessibility.

34. In this case Auckland retail destinations, which offer a greater range of shopping within

an easy drive of Hamilton will continue to draw customers from Hamilton City as a result

of a more comprehensive or ‘higher order’ offer. This results in a ‘natural’ level of retail

leakage from the Hamilton City catchment that will continue given the role and function of

centres in the market, and the overlapping nature of centre trade catchments.

35. This is not unusual with modern retail markets enveloping the concept of ‘layered

catchments’. This is where consumers spread their retail spending across a wider

spectrum of centres with the majority of their ‘higher order’ purchases going to ‘higher

order’ centres, while convenience spend remains more localised triggering a layering of

centre catchments across the district. In this regard a consumer could be in the Primary

catchment of numerous centres, not just one.

36. Therefore, the retail expenditure generated in a catchment represents the sales a centre

or retail stores within the catchment could potentially achieve and the key influence on

H e a t h | 9

what the market can potentially sustain. This should not be interpreted as a negative for

Hamilton, simply the commercial market ‘at work’ and that this ‘effect’ needs to be

appropriately accounted for in any analysis regarding Hamilton City’s future given the

existing planning and commercial framework.

37. Growth in real retail spend has also been incorporated at a rate of 1% per annum over

the forecast period in the Property Economics Retail Expenditure Modelling. The 1% rate

is an estimate based on the level of debt retail spending, interest rates and changes in

disposable income levels, and is the inflation adjusted increase in spend per household

over the assessed period.

38. I note that the annualised retail expenditure figures in Table 2 are in 2013 NZ dollars and

exclude the retail categories of accommodation (hotels, motels, backpackers, etc.) and

vehicle and marine sales and services (car yards, boat shops, caravan sales, tyre stores,

panel beating, mechanical repairs), as these sectors are not considered to be core retail

expenditure, nor fundamental retail centre activities in terms of visibility, location, viability

or functionality. The figures also exclude trade based activities such as Resene, ITM,

Mico Bathrooms, Plumbing World, PlaceMakers, Guthrie Bowron, Cory’s Electrical, etc.

for similar reasons.

TABLE 2: HAMILTON RETAIL EXPENDITURE AND FLOORSPACE FORECASTS

Source: Property Economics

39. Table 2 illustrates the consolidated forecast retail expenditure and sustainable5

floorspace figures for Hamilton City. Table 3 following breaks down the figures shown in

Table 2 by ANZSIC6 retail sector categories. Appendix 3 provides a full breakdown of

the ANZSIC retail categories and the specific retail store types encompassed in each

classification, while Appendix 4 identifies the sustainable productivity levels adopted for

this analysis by retail sector.

5 'Sustainable' at this juncture refers to a hypothetical or theoretical level of sustainable floorspace as it excludes retail expenditure flows in and out of the district, but is considered important to identify at this point so the steps in the analysis can be followed and understood. 6 ANZSIC - Australia and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classifications

2013 2016 2021 2026 2031

Retail Expenditure ($m) $1,557 $1,645 $1,775 $1,907 $2,039

Sustainable Net Floorspace (sqm) 245,300 259,200 279,600 300,400 321,200

Sustainable GFA (sqm) 350,500 370,300 399,500 429,200 458,800

H e a t h | 10

40. Net floorspace demand has been estimated by applying sustainable retail sales

productivity rates to forecast retail expenditure on a sector by sector basis (i.e. the

quantum of net retail floor area the generated level of retail expenditure in Hamilton could

viably sustain). Sustainable floorspace in this context refers to the level of floorspace

proportional to an area's retainable retail expenditure that is likely to result in appropriate

quality and offer in the retail environment. This does not necessarily mean the

'breakeven' point for retailers, but an average level of sales productivity ($/sqm) that I my

view allows retail activity in the city to trade profitably and provide a good quality retail

environment and level of amenity.

TABLE 3: HAMILTON CITY RETAIL EXPENDITURE FORECAST ($M)


41. Hamilton City currently generates an estimated $1.56b in total retail expenditure

annually. This is estimated to increase to just over $2b annually by 2031 based on

aforementioned rates of growth, equating to an annual retail expenditure in 2031 31%

higher than the current 2013 base year.

42. Tables 2 & 3 show that as the annualised level of city retail expenditure grows, the

quantum of sustainable net retail floorspace the city’s generated spend could support

increases from around 245,300sqm to 321,200sqm between 2013 and 2031.

43. However, in cities like Hamilton where the retail provision services more than the city

population itself (i.e. it is the main commercial destination in Waikato that attracts

shoppers from residents residing outside its city limits), it is important to evaluate the

2013 2016 2021 2026 2031

Food retailing $568 $600 $647 $696 $744

Clothing, footwear and personal accessories retailing $108 $115 $124 $133 $142

Furniture, floor coverings, houseware and textile goods retailing $49 $52 $56 $60 $64

Electrical and electronic goods retailing $69 $73 $79 $85 $90

Hardware, building and garden supplies retailing $127 $134 $145 $155 $166

Pharmaceutical and personal care goods retailing $54 $57 $62 $67 $71

Department stores $112 $118 $128 $137 $147

Recreational goods retailing $74 $78 $84 $91 $97

Other goods retailing $111 $117 $126 $135 $145

Food and beverage services $285 $301 $325 $349 $373

Total $1,557 $1,645 $1,775 $1,907 $2,039

H e a t h | 11

required retail provision from a ‘net’ perspective. This ‘net’ position takes into account

retail leakage and retail inflow from the city, and this is elaborated on and quantified in

detail later on this statement.

TABLE 4: RETAIL EXPENDITURE AND SUSTAINABLE FLOORSPACE INCLUSIVE OF NET RETAIL EXPENDITURE FLOW


44. Accounting for net retail expenditures flows ‘in to’ and ‘out of’ of Hamilton on an

annualised basis the total retail expenditure available (or annual ‘pool’ of retail dollars)

from which the city’s retailers can draw from increases to an estimated $2.18b, with this

forecast to increase to around $2.85b in 2031.

45. There is a need to translate net retail trading floorspace into Gross Floor Area ("GFA")

as net retail trading floorspace excludes floor area in a retail store used for storage,

warehousing, staff room, office, toilets, etc. These activities on average occupy around

25-30% of a retail store's GFA. It is important to separate out 'back office' floorspace as

it does not generate any retail spend. A store's net retail floor area only includes the area

which displays the goods and services sold and represents the area the general public

has access, whereas the GFA typically represents the total area leased by the retailer.

46. In terms of GFA, and adopting a 30% ratio, the figures in Table 4 equate to a total of

around 490,600sqm of sustainable GFA currently, estimated to increase to around

642,400sqm by 2031, representing growth in sustainable retail GFA of around

152,000sqm over the projected period.

47. Retail stores in general can also be split into ‘Specialty’ stores and ‘Large Format Retail’

(“LFR”) stores. Specialty retailing generally consists of smaller, boutique more

specialised stores typically operating within, and offering products from, a specific retail

sector. These are typically stores for items such as clothing, footwear, pharmaceuticals,

and food and beverages, with the vast majority of store sizes for this type of retailing

under 500sqm GFA.

2013 2016 2021 2026 2031

Retail Expenditure ($m) $2,180 $2,303 $2,485 $2,670 $2,854

Sustainable Net Floorspace (sqm) 343,400 362,800 391,500 420,600 449,700

Sustainable GFA (sqm) 490,600 518,400 559,300 600,800 642,400

H e a t h | 12

48. LFR activity is typically identified as stores with a larger store footprint, generally over

500sqm GFA, and includes store types such as supermarkets, furniture, appliances,

hardware and department stores. It is important to note that these store type examples

are not mutually exclusive and can include a range of products across a number of retail

sectors.

49. It is important to note that LFR stores while large in floorspace typically represent only a

small proportion of physical stores nominally. These LFR stores generally trade at lower

productivities on a per sqm basis relative to smaller Specialty stores (with supermarkets

being the exception), but are able to remain profitable by selling more in terms of volume,

having superior ‘purchasing power’ (i.e. LFR stores can typically purchase goods at lower

wholesale costs on a per unit basis due to the larger volumes bought, particularly for

national retail chains), and typically lower per square metre rental rates.

50. Given the differences in the Specialty and LFR retailing Table 5 illustrates the level of

sustainable retail GFA within Hamilton City as categorised by LFR and Specialty retailing.

TABLE 5: SPECIALTY AND LFR EXPENDITURE AND FLOORSPACE


51. In total Hamilton City can currently sustain approximately 188,000sqm in Specialty retail

GFA. By 2031, sustainable retail GFA in this format is forecast to increase to around

246,200sqm GFA. The balance of retail in LFR stores, has an estimated retail

H e a t h | 13

expenditure level of $1.1b currently, translating to 302,500sqm of sustainable retail GFA,

increasing to 396,000sqm by 2031.

HAMILTON CITY RETAIL MARKET

52. The retail market within Hamilton commercially operates under a hierarchal network

(whether formally recognised in the District Plan or not), whereby different centres

perform different roles and functions within the wider network, complementing each

centre’s respective provision. The following diagram sets out the current retail centre

hierarchy of Hamilton according to each centre’s relative role and function in the market.

FIGURE 1: HAMILTON RETAIL CENTRE HEIRARCHY


53. Figure 1 can be read from left to right in terms of centre hierarchal position, with the

Hamilton CBD at ‘the top’ of the hierarchy and convenience orientated suburban centres

at the bottom. Centres in differing categories essentially operate complementary to each

other by increasing retail and commercial efficiency and fulfilling different roles and

functions within the respective communities. Centres within the same categories are

typically located at some distance to each other, operate in separate areas, and service

CBD

Hamilton CBD

Sub-Regional Centre

Chartwell

The Base & Te Awa

Suburban Centre

Dinsdale

Glenview

Rototuna / Thomas Road

Hamilton East

Five Cross Roads

Nawton

Frankton

Hillcrest / Clyde

Hillcrest

H e a t h | 14

different catchments. In general, catchment overlap occurs with centres at different

levels in the hierarchy, but not between catchments on the same level.

54. Note there is some smaller retail groupings (i.e. neighbourhood centres or only a few

small shops in ‘corner dairy’ type offerings) scattered around the city, but these have

been excluded from the analysis given they are not considered material in any nature,

their non-consequential influence on the wider retail market of the city and limited status

within the District Plan.

55. Figure 2 illustrates the location of the centres identified in Figure 1, showing their location

within the Hamilton market. Also highlighted in red is the territorial boundary of Hamilton

City for context.

Figure 2: Hamilton City Retail Centre Network and Hierarchy


H e a t h | 15

56. The CBD is the historic pre-eminent commercial, retail, civic, administrative,

entertainment, transport and cultural hub of the total Hamilton City market. It services

residents from across the city (and wider region), visitors to the city and is Hamilton’s

dominant commercial employment base. The CBD provides for a wide range of retail

requirements, including comparison, recreational, LFR, lifestyle and convenience,

although this retail function has diminished significantly over the last decade, which will

be discussed in more detail later in this statement.

57. The Base / Te Awa and Chartwell are classified as sub-regional centres in the

commercial network hierarchy as outlined in the Regional Policy Statement (“RPS”).

There are some appeals to the RPS that are yet to be heard, nevertheless given the

Hamilton District Plan must not be inconsistent with the RPS, at this stage it would be

remiss of Council to divert from the strategic direction of the RPS. If during the RPS

hearing process the RPS is altered in some manner to reflect appeals or any negotiated

outcomes, then it would be considered prudent in my view for HCC to reflect any such

changes and their District Plan be adjusted accordingly to ensure consistency.

58. Sub-regional centres in my view, provide retail, commercial service and entertainment

activities that draw customers from all over Hamilton City as well as the wider regional

market. The Base / Te Awa and Chartwell may achieve this at different levels of success

resulting in variations in the level of performance and market penetration of the two

centres, however they generally encompass similar activity types. These centres’

composition offers a variety of retail formats including LFR, specialty and convenience

retailing that competes directly with the Hamilton CBD (and to a lesser extent other

suburban centres), and it is the extent of this ‘competition’ and level of effects generated

on the CBD that is of concern to Council moving forward, these will be quantified later in

this statement.

59. Chartwell has had its Hamilton (and wider regional) market share diminished coinciding

with development of The Base / Te Awa. In my view this is now at a level where

Chartwell is unlikely to compete with The Base / Te Awa in terms of scale and breadth of

offer (including consented activity at The Base / Te Awa), and as such is likely to play a

‘lower order’ sub-regional role than The Base / Te Awa moving forward.

60. Suburban Centres are identified as a grouping of predominately convenience stores

anchored by a supermarket. These centres service residents within the surround

neighbourhoods for their weekly and day-to-day convenience retail and commercial

service requirements for more frequently purchased retail goods. They typically only

have a very limited (if any) comparison retail offer. The lifeblood of convenience

orientated suburban centres comes from residents within the immediate suburbs and

H e a t h | 16

‘drive by’ traffic. Given the number of suburban based centres within the market a list of

store types typically found in such centre types has been attached in Appendix 5.

RETAIL AUDIT

61. Property Economics conducted a commercial centre audit of retail activity across

Hamilton City during April / May 2010. The net retail floorspace (converted to GFA based

on a 70% GFA to net floorspace ratio) of all the retail stores in the centres were surveyed

during the audit. An updated audit of retail activity within Hamilton CBD and Hamilton

East was completed July 2013 given the specific focus of these in some submissions,

and figures for The Base / Te Awa have also been updated to reflect recent extensions in

the centre and wider area, with the results summarised in Table 5 and represented

graphically in Figure 3.

62. Given the thrust of the proposed Plan to focus on the CBD, on-going implications of the

already outlined retail expenditure and activity trends in Hamilton, and the significance of

such , it was considered an up-to-date audit of the Hamilton CBD would provide a more a

more appropriate and comprehensive picture of the current retail provision in the CBD.

63. Note, as for the retail expenditure analysis (retail demand) the figures also exclude the

retail categories of accommodation (hotels, motels, backpackers, etc.) and vehicle and

marine sales & services (car yards, boat shops, caravan sales, Repco, Super Cheap

Autos, tyre stores, panel beating, mechanical repairs). The figures also exclude trade

based activities such as Resene, ITM, Mico Bathrooms, Plumbing World, etc., for similar

reasons.

64. Table 6 following shows a summary of the centre composition within Hamilton City and

their respective store counts and GFA. This in effect represents retail centre supply

(GFA sqm) in Hamilton City at present, and indicates there is currently around

463,700sqm of retail GFA within Hamilton City centres, with the CBD containing over a

third (36% or 167,000sqm GFA) and The Base / Te Awa and Te Rapa area combined

rivalling this at just under a third (31% or 146,000sqm GFA). In essence these two areas

have a similar retail GFA provision, and collectively these centres represent 67% of

Hamilton’s total centre retail GFA supply.

H e a t h | 17

TABLE 6: HAMILTON CITY RETAIL CENTRE SUPPLY (GFA SQM)


65. Note the Te Rapa figure includes the Countdown supermarket developed after the 2010

audit and the proposed KMart store, which while recently lodged but not yet consented is

considered likely to be approved in the not too distant future, and the Hamilton CBD

figure includes the net additional GFA from the Kiwi Income Property Trust

redevelopment of Centre Place.

Centres Estimated GFA % of Total

Hamilton CBD 167,134 36%

Hamilton East 9,463 2%

City Fringe 33,273 7%

Chartwell 28,330 6%

Hillcrest 4,849 1%

Nawton 4,156 1%

Dinsdale 9,854 2%

Rototuna 11,390 2%

Te Rapa 81,311 18%

The Base 74,374 16%

Other Centres 38,829 8%

Total 462,962 100%

H e a t h | 18

FIGURE 3: HAMILTON CITY RETAIL GFA (%)


66. Figures 4 details the Hamilton CBD and illustrates the proportional split of retail provision

by ANZSIC sector for store count and GFA. A full breakdown of this audit can be found

in Appendix 6.

36%

2%

7%6%

2%2%

15%

16%

8% Hamilton CBD

Hamilton East

City Fringe

Chartwell

Hillcrest

Nawton

Dinsdale

Rototuna

Te Rapa

The Base

Other Centres

H e a t h | 19

FIGURE 4: HAMILTON CITY RETAIL GFA (%)


68. Within the Hamilton CBD there are currently a total of around 550 retail stores,

encompassing approximately 167,000sqm GFA, with around a 40 / 60 split of Specialty

and LFR retailing in terms of retail store foot prints. In respect of store numbers, as

typical, the split between Specialty stores to LFR retailing is significantly different with

only 10% of stores having a GFA footprint over 500sqm.

16%11%

30%

16%

11%

8%

6%

5%

20%

2%4%

4%5%

4% 5%

20%

12%

3%2%

12%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Store GFA

Supermarket

Other Food Retailing

Clothing, footwear and personalaccessories retailing

Furniture, floor coverings, housewareand textile goods retailing

Electrical and electronic goods retailing

Hardware, building and garden suppliesretailing

Pharmaceutical and personal caregoods retailing

Department stores

Recreational goods retailing

Other goods retailing

Food and beverage services

Vacant

H e a t h | 20

69. The retail sector representing the largest proportion of the market in terms of store count

is Food and Beverage Services with 165 stores or 30% of the total CBD retail market by

store number. Clothing, Jewellery and Personal Accessories represents the second

largest proportion of the market in terms of store count with 109 stores, representing 20%

of the total market.

70. Combined, these two sectors alone comprise 50% of the Hamilton CBD retail offer. This

is not unusual for CBD’s given the regional shopping destination they are and the wider

commercial role and function they play in the community, particularly in relation to being

significant fashion and food / restaurant hubs.

71. Worryingly, Figure 4 also identifies that 16% of Hamilton CBD retail stores are vacant,

nominally this equates to 90 stores, occupying a retail footprint of just under 18,000sqm

GFA. To put this into context, the vacant retail GFA within Hamilton CBD is

approximately equivalent to Rototuna and Hillcrest combined. This is a reflection of the

shopping pattern trends (identified in the following section of this statement) and the now

‘excess’ retail supply in the CBD given the new market and centre distribution.

BNZ MARKETVIEW RETAIL TRANSACTION DATA ANALYSIS

72. In order to assess the level of retail expenditure flows ‘in’ (retail inflow7) and 'out' (retail

leakage8) of Hamilton City, and the proportional spending within the identified areas of

the Hamilton CBD and The Base / Te Rapa, I have utilised BNZ MarketView retail

transaction data.

73. BNZ MarketView data is based on the spending and transactions of BNZ credit and debit

(EFTPOS) cardholders. It excludes business and corporate cards. The transaction

values include GST, but exclude cash out with purchases. BNZ MarketView does not

pick up Hire Purchase, direct debit / credit payments or cash based spending.

74. The MarketView data has been collected from numerous Hamilton retailers, from national

chains to small independent stores, across a range of retail categories.

75. MarketView data is based on aggregations of BNZ cardholder transactions by origin,

destination and store type, these include transactions completed using BNZ EFTPOS

and credit cards. BNZ currently holds approximately 20% market share of the electronic

card market in NZ, while electronic card transactions accounts for approximately 60% of

retail spending within NZ.

7 Retail inflow refers to retail expenditure generated outside a defined geographic area (in this instance Hamilton City territorial authority) but spent inside that defied area. 8 Retail leakage is the converse of retail inflow and refers to retail expenditure generated in a particular geographic area (Hamilton City in this instance) but spent outside that defined area.

H e a t h | 21

76. The retail transactional data sources for Hamilton City are based on the calendar year

periods of April 2002 – March 2003, April 2007 – March 2008, and April 2012 – March

2013. These discreet periods have been chosen as they allow the analysis of trends of

three key periods in the Hamilton City retail market, more specifically:

1. Hamilton City prior to development of The Base / Te Awa and meaningful

development in the wider Te Rapa area.

(April 2002 – March 2003)

2. Early establishment of The Base and Te Rapa - July 2005


3. On-going expansion of The Base / Te Rapa and development of Te Awa – August

2011, and also the most recent year ending data available.


77. ‘Origin’ of retail spending, or where retail spend is coming from, has been assessed for

each of these three periods, by location to analyse the proportional split of where retail

expenditure within Hamilton City is being derived. This dataset also enables the

quantification and influence of the ‘inflow’ of retail dollars into Hamilton City, the identified

locations, and how this has changed over the past decade.

78. ‘Destination’ of retail spending, or where Hamilton City residents are spending their retail

dollars, by territorial authority has also been assessed for each of these three periods.

This provides in-sight on the ‘retention’ and ‘outflow’ of retail dollars from Hamilton City,

how this has changed over the past decade, and how this corresponds with the

introduction and expansion of Te Base / Te Awa and Te Rapa over the last decade.

79. Given the large sample size of BNZ card holders and the prolific use of EFTPOS within

NZ, MarketView data is considered to provide a robust and accurate representation of

the Hamilton City retail spending patterns over the last 10-years and hence has been

used as a basis for this statement.

80. Note the proportions in the following section exclude the retail categories of

accommodation (hotels, motels, backpackers, etc.) and vehicle and marine sales and

services (car yards, boat shops, caravan sales, Repco, Super Cheap Autos, tyre stores,

panel beating, mechanical repairs). Also excluded are the trade sectors identified earlier

in this statement.

H e a t h | 22

RETAIL LEAKAGE ('DESTINATION' OF HAMILTON CITY RETAIL EXPENDITURE)

81. Some retail leakage out of a market can be classified as 'normal' shopping behaviour due

to general spending while away on holiday and the ‘free flow’ of the market. A high level

of retail leakage indicates that the retail needs of the resident population are not being

adequately met by the localised market to the level or quality sought, hence residents

travel outside of the market to satisfy their retail shopping requirements.

82. Figure 5 (based on the MarketView 'destination' retail transaction data for the periods of

2003, 2008 and 2012 year ending March), illustrates the proportion of retail expenditure

generated by Hamilton City residents according to where it was spent by territorial

authority and region.

FIGURE 5: HAMILTON CITY RETAIL EXPENDITURE 'OUTFLOW' BY AREA

Source: Property Economics, MarketView

83% 81% 82%

2% 2%2% 2%

7% 7% 7%

2% 3% 2%3% 3% 3%2% 2% 2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

April 2002 - March2003



Balance of SouthIsland

Balance of NorthIsland

Bay of Plenty Region

Auckland Region

Balance of WaikatoRegion TA's

Matamata-PiakoDistrict

Waipa District

Waikato District

Hamilton City

H e a t h | 23

83. At a territorial authority level, the first point to note is the retail spending patterns made by

Hamilton City residents over the last decade have largely remained the same, i.e. there

has been no retail development either in Hamilton City or elsewhere that has fuelled a

significant proportional shift in retail leakage.

84. As illustrated by Figure 5, approximately 80% - 83% of retail expenditure generation is

internalised9. This is considered to be high compared to other New Zealand cities I have

assessed, particularly for a city within striking distance of a major metropolis such as

Auckland and it’s significantly larger offer comparatively. In my opinion it likely that

Hamilton City will be able to maintain this high level of retail retention in the future if the

retail offer and quality is maintained, albeit conversely in my view there is also limited

scope to increase the level of retail internalisation above current levels.

85. Retail expenditure within the neighbouring districts and the Bay of Plenty region, as a

proportion of the Hamilton City expenditure, has remained relatively constant over the 10-

year period, ranging from 2% to 3%.

86. A constant 7% of retail expenditure leakage from Hamilton City is going to the Auckland

Region, suggesting possible 'shopping trips' and / or visits to Auckland with retail

shopping forming an important component of the trip. Interestingly, this proportion of

retail leakage has not changed over the last decade despite the introduction of The Base

/ Te Awa to the Hamilton market during this period.

87. In nominal terms the level of retail expenditure generated in Hamilton being retained

within the city on an annualised basis is just over $400m. The level of retail expenditure

being retained within Hamilton City across the sectors, with the exception of

Pharmaceutical and other store-based retailing (where around 20% - 23% of spending is

made in the Auckland region) sits at a modest range of 70% - 90%. This indicates that

the retail offer within Hamilton City largely satisfies consumer demand.

88. At a per sectors basis, there has only been one material shift in spending patterns across

the assessed period. Hamilton resident spending in Electrical and Electronic Goods

retailing in 2002 had a retention level of 76%, this grew to 86% in 2008 and has

sustained this level in the most recent assessment period of 2013. This is likely to be

attributable to development of activity within The Base and the wider Te Rapa area via

LFR stores.

9 Internalised retail spend refers to retail expenditure generated within a defined geographic area (in this instance Hamilton City), and spent within the same geographic area.

H e a t h | 24

RETAIL INFLOW (‘ORIGIN’ OF HAMILTON CITY RETAIL EXPENDITURE)

90. Figure 6 (based on the MarketView 'origin' retail transaction data for same years of 2003, 2008

and 2013 year ending March), illustrates the proportion of retail expenditure spent within

Hamilton City according to where its consumers reside by local territorial authority and region.

FIGURE 6: HAMILTON CITY RETAIL EXPENDITURE 'INFLOW' BY AREA


91. First, in general, Figure 6 shows that level of proportional retail spending within Hamilton

City derived from Hamilton City residents has remained relatively constant over the last

10-years. This proportion has remained at around 60% of total retail spending across the

city.

60% 57%60%

11% 15%14%

11% 9%7%

4% 4% 3%5% 5% 4%3% 3% 3%2% 3% 2%3% 3% 3%2% 1% 2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%




Balance of South Island

Balance of North Island

Bay of Plenty Region

Auckland Region

Balance of WaikatoRegion TA's

Matamata-Piako District

Waipa District

Waikato District

Hamilton City

H e a t h | 25

92. It would be expected that the proportion of Hamilton City resident spending within the city

would decrease if a higher level inflow occurs. Figure 6 suggests that over the past

decade, there have been no significant increases in the level of retail expenditure inflow

into Hamilton City, given the ‘flat’ trend in retail expenditure inflow distribution, i.e. ‘inflow’

has remained around the 40% level.

93. The Waikato District now comprises a higher proportion of Hamilton City’s retail

expenditure than a decade ago (14% vs. 11%). This is to be expected given the

introduction of The Base / Te Awa in the northern part of the city during the assessed

period. However, interestingly the converse has happened for the Waipa District where

the proportion of Hamilton City sales derived from Waipa has actually decreased to 7%

currently (down from 11% in 2003). Retail expenditure from Hamilton City, Waipa and

Waikato District comprise around 81% of all retail spend in Hamilton.

94. Outside of the Waikato and Waipa Districts, inflow of retail expenditure from any other

part of the country has remained relatively constant, and comprises around 19%.

95. Interestingly to note, like for retail leakage, development of The Base/ Te Awa has not

altered the proportional inflow of retail expenditure from other territorial authorities. This

suggests The Base / Te Awa has not generated additional retail expenditure for

Hamilton, but simply driven a redistribution of retail spending within the city.

96. This redistribution has affected the Hamilton CBD the most as reflected in the recorded

MarketView data, with the Hamilton CBD’s nominal sales falling from $92.6m in 2003 to

$80m in 2013 (14% drop), whilst over the same period the annual expenditure in the

wider Hamilton City market grew by around $79m or 45%. Therefore, the MarketView

data appears to paint an even worse picture of Hamilton CBD performance over the last

10 years, with the CBD not only capturing a smaller portion of market growth, but actually

going backwards despite the market being significantly larger in nominal terms.

97. At the same time, understandably, The Base / Te Awa has increased nominal sales

markedly as its offer has grown according to the recorded MarketView data from $8.8m

in 2003 to $69.8m in 2013. This would support the proposition that The Base / Te Awa

has redistributed retail expenditure away from the Hamilton CBD10.

98. It is important to note that the percentages shown in Figures 5 and 6 utilise different base

figures as the data for total retail spending ‘inflow’ and ‘outflow’ are not equal, i.e. how

much spent in Hamilton does not equal how much is spent by Hamilton residents.

Therefore the computation of net flows on a proportional basis using simple arithmetic

10 This data is based on 2.66 million transactions in Hamilton City and 1.21 million transactions in the Hamilton CBD in 2003, and 4.72 million and 1.23 million transaction respectively in 2013.

H e a t h | 26

would yield incorrect results as these figures are independent of each other. I will

address this below to determine an appropriate net position for Hamilton City as a result

of retail inflows and outflows.

HAMILTON CITY NET RETAIL EXPENDITURE POSITION

99. Figure 7 graphically shows the retail expenditure flows within Hamilton City as a

proportion of the District's total retail spending for the three assessed years. Retail

expenditure outflow from the city (represented in red) equates to the proportion of retail

spending generated in Hamilton City but spent outside of the territorial authority (retail

leakage).

100. Conversely, retail expenditure inflow into the city (highlighted in green) illustrates the

proportion of retail spending derived from residents living outside of Hamilton City but

spent within the city as a proportion of the total level of retail expenditure generated in

Hamilton. Internalised spending (coloured in blue) represents the proportion of retail

spending generated in the Hamilton City, and spent internally within the territorial

authority.

FIGURE 7: HAMILTON CITY NET RETAIL EXPENDITURE POSITION


-17%

-19%

-18%

83%

81%

82%

56%

62%

54%

-20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160%

April 2002 - March 2003



Leakage Retention Inflow

Net Position (139%)

Net Position (143%)

Net Position (136%)

H e a t h | 27

101. As identified earlier, approximately 82% (2013 year) of retail expenditure is internalised

within Hamilton City at present, meaning 18% of retail spending is 'lost' and spent outside

of the city. However, importantly Figure 7 indicates that the proportion of retail leakage

from Hamilton City is far outweighed by an inflow of retail expenditure from consumers

residing outside of the City (predominately the wider Waikato region and Auckland).

Over the assessed period, Hamilton City has experienced retail spending inflows

equating to a range from 54% - 62% relative to Hamilton’s generated retail expenditure

over the three assessed periods. This shows Hamilton is a significant regional ‘attractor’

of spend and its commercial centres play an important role in the wider Waikato regional

economy.

102. Overall the net position of Hamilton City over the assessed periods averaged at around

140%, i.e. accounting for retail ‘inflows’ and ‘outflows’ into Hamilton City, there is a

significant net inflow of retail expenditure into Hamilton City. This is important for forward

planning as it confirms Hamilton services a market wider than its city boundaries, and this

‘non-Hamilton demand’ needs to be factored into future provision requirements if the city

is to claw back its position as the pre-eminent retail hub within the regional in the future.

DISTRIBUTION OF RETAIL SPENDING WITHIN HAMILTON CITY

103. This section of the statement extrapolates the above MarketView analysis, and assesses

the distribution of retail spending, specifically focusing on the areas of Hamilton CBD, Te

Rapa and The Base, and the balance of Hamilton City. These areas have been chosen

to highlight and quantify the redistribution of retail expenditure that has occurred within

Hamilton over the last decade.

104. Figure 8 shows total retail spending within Hamilton City and the proportion of which is

spent within each of the identified areas over the years of 2002, 2008 and 2013, year

ending March. In effect it illustrates how retail spending patterns within Hamilton has

been redistributed over the last decade as a result of retail developed within the City.

The geographic extent of the three areas in question is shown in Appendix 7.

H e a t h | 28

FIGURE 8: DISTRIBUTION OF RETAIL SPENDING IN HAMILTON CITY


105. Figure 8 shows a clear relationship and the proportional spending shifts between Te

Rapa and The Base, and the Hamilton CBD over the last decade, while the balance of

Hamilton City has remained largely the same over the assessed period.

106. In 2003, before Te Rapa and The Base was materially developed, over half (52%) of

retail spending within Hamilton City was spent within the Hamilton CBD. In the most

recent assessed period, this has fallen to below a third (31%). In contrast, within a year

of establishment Te Rapa and The Base captured over 20% of retail spending within the

wider city, with this proportion increasing further over the last 5 years, to over a quarter

(27%) of all retail expenditure made within Hamilton City.

107. This shows, with the balance of Hamilton City fairly constant as does retail inflows and

leakage, that the vast majority of retail sales generated in Te Rapa and The Base have

been at the expense of the Hamilton CBD, i.e. over the last decade retail expenditure has

largely been diverted away from the Hamilton CBD to Te Rapa and The Base area.

108. This clearly shows the Hamilton CBD is playing a significantly diminished role in the

commercial centre hierarchy of the city from a retail perspective compared to 10-years

52%

41%31%

5%21%

27%

43% 39% 41%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

April 2002 - March 2003 April 2007 - March 2008 April 2012 - March 2013


H e a t h | 29

ago, with a 40% proportional drop in retail relevance and market share within the city (i.e.

from 52% to 31%). This both rapid and significant decline would flow through to lowering

retail productivity and quality within the CBD.

109. Figure 9 drills down on the trends in retail spending over the assessed periods, by key

retail sectors. This provides further insight into the implications and effects of the rapid

development of retail activity in Te Rapa and The Base on the Hamilton CBD.

FIGURE 9: DISTRIBUTION OF RETAIL SPENDING IN HAMILTON CITY BY SECTOR


110. Overall, over the last decade, food and beverage services and food and liquor retailing,

have trended towards a more decentralised structure, with the balance of Hamilton City

absorbing more expenditure per period. This suggests these activity types are becoming

57%

44%

34%

66%

53%

37%

61%

37%

29%

56%

50%

39%

52%

41%

31%

11%

15%

5%

19%

37%

11%

49%

55%

3%

8%

13%

5%

21%

27%

42%

45%

50%

29%

29%

26%

28%

14%

16%

41%

42%

48%

43%

39%

41%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

















Food and liquor

Clothing, footwear and softgoods

Department stores

Food and beverage services

Total

H e a t h | 30

more localised, which is a common theme within the country and not something

specifically unique to Hamilton.

111. Te Rapa and The Base however shows a more ‘chunky’ pattern of growth in food

retailing expenditure as a result various phase openings. This is also a reflection of the

type of centre developed at The Base / Te Awa (shopping mall and LFR), which typically

encompasses a wider ranging food and beverage offer.

112. However, across both these centres this redistribution of activity and expenditure has

been at the expense of the Hamilton CBD, with its percentages dropping from the mid-

50% to low-30% range.

113. In terms of Clothing, Footwear and Softgoods, there is a clear ‘shift’ in the proportion of

spending away from the Hamilton CBD to Te Awa / The Base with each successive

development / expansion of the centre. In the last assessed year, the distribution of retail

spending in this sector in Te Awa / The Base is now equal to the Hamilton CBD (37%).

This shows that the Hamilton CBD has lost proportionally 44% of spending on Clothing,

Footwear and Softgoods to Te Awa / The Base over the last decade (i.e. from 66% to

37%).

114. Department Store spending trends over the last decade show an equally significant shift

in retail spending distribution. After its initial LFR opening, Te Rapa and The Base

captured just under a half of all department store spending within Hamilton City. Post-

2008, the position of Te Rapa / The Base has only strengthened, with the area now

capturing over half of all department store spending within Hamilton (55%). The

Hamilton CBD performance has been pounded in this sector over the last decade

dropping from 61% of the market to only 29% currently.

115. The four sectors in Figure 9 represent core retail sectors at both the Hamilton CBD and

The Base / Te Awa, and it is the redistribution of expenditure within these sectors that

has driven the changes in overall spend redistribution and subsequent implications in

regard to ‘health’ and performance of these centres.

116. Figure 10 shows the distribution of retail consents in Hamilton City over the 2000 – 2012

period. This has powered this redistribution and highlights the very ‘lopsided’

development patterns the city has experienced with the northern component of the city

dominating retail GFA growth.

H e a t h | 31

FIGURE 10: CUMULATIVE CONSENTED FLOORSPACE RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL SERVICE (2000 – 2012)


117. Figure 10 highlights the cumulative development of new retail and commercial service

floorspace across Hamilton City over the past decade. As part of the initial development

of The Base / Te Awa, in 2002 proximately 11,000sqm GFA of retail / commercial service

floorspace was consented in the area, equivalent to just under 40% of development in

this sector across Hamilton since the year 2000.

118. Following its development, by 2007 (post-development of the Te Awa shopping mall

extension) consents for new retail / commercial service floorspace in Hamilton totalled to

approximately 184,000sqm, with only 15% in the CBD, a significant 40% in The Base /

Te Awa area and 45% in the balance of Hamilton City. This indicates a decentralisation

of retail development outside of the Hamilton CBD and maintenance of significant growth

within The Base and Te Awa area.

119. Overall, the retail and commercial service consent data illustrates that the Hamilton CBD

is growing but at a proportionally lower and slower rate, at around 15% of retail and

commercial service development over the years of 2000 – 2012. In contrast there has

been significant nominal and proportional development within The Base / Te Awa, which

represents 50% of all consented retail / commercial service floorspace across the same

period. Given that the balance of Hamilton City has a similar proportion of retail consents

23%15%

15%39%

40%

50%

38%

45%

35%

-

25,000

50,000

75,000

100,000

125,000

150,000

175,000

200,000

225,000

250,000

275,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Con

sent

ed R

etai

l and

Com

mer

cial

Ser

vice

Flo

orsp

ace

Hamilton CBD The Base / Te Rapa Balance of Hamilton City

H e a t h | 32

as at 2002, Figure 10 shows that The Base / Te Awa is drawing retail / commercial

service development away from the CBD area, and retail expenditure is simply following.

RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS

120. There are three primary submissions in relation to my retail economic area of expertise.

These are from Tainui Group Holdings Limited (“TGHL”), Property Council New Zealand

(“PCNZ”), and Kiwi Income Property Trust and Kiwi Property Holdings Limited (“Kiwi”).

The key points from these submissions as I view them can generally be summarised as

follows:

TGHL:

• The Plan should promote the viability and vibrancy of all centres.

• The Base / Te Awa should be recognised as a regional centre within the Plan.

• Inconsistency between the proposed Plan’s stated aims of promoting and

enhancing the CBD and proposal to substantially increase its extent.

• There is no robust assessment justifying the re-zoning of additional land for new

LFR activity or the proposed expansion of the CBD, and that any ‘new land’

required for LFR should be part of an integrated multi-use centre if this is

realistically achievable.

PCNZ:

• Supports the ‘centre hierarchy’ but considers the rule framework for the centres

too prescriptive and likely to be applied rigidly in the decision-making process.

• The Central City Precinct are very dictatorial in terms of what types of activities

can establish, and where and how large. This limits choice and flexibility.

• Combined, the growth of Hamilton could be adversely affected by a loss of

investment confidence.

• The extension of the Central Business Zone to include Opoia on the eastern side

of Waikato River is aspirational with enough appropriately zoned land on the

western side of the river to accommodate future growth and create a compact

CBD.

KIWI:

• Seeks alterations to the proposed District Plan’s purpose, objectives and policies

that acknowledge the decline of the Hamilton CBD over the past 10 years, and in

particular the CBD Core.

H e a t h | 33

• Seeks alterations to the status of retail activities in certain Business Zones and in

certain CBD precincts to enable consequential effects on the CBD core to be

considered.

AMP CAPITAL, CHARTWELL INVESTMENTS:

• Seek amendments to the proposed Plan provisions to allow for low intensity

commercial and retail activity in the periphery zones around Te Rapa North

commercial centre.

NATIONAL TRADING COMPANY AND PROGRESSIVE:

• Request a separate definition and acknowledgement of supermarkets within

business centres and industrial zone.

121. The first point I note is that the submissions largely support the establishment of a

commercial centre hierarchy for the city, and in this regard the higher level re-orientation

of the proposed District Plan towards existing centres within the network and thus

movement away from the Operative District Plan by recognising their value, capital

investment and contribution to the economic and social wellbeing of the community, and

assessing new retail developments against such, is laudably approved.

122. The introduction of a commercial centre hierarchy, with meaningful objectives, policies

and rules would address some elements of all the above submissions, and I agree

represents a positive step towards ensuring the long term viability, vitality, amenity, role

and function of the existing centre network to not only maintained but enhanced over

time. I have a level of comfort the proposed policies and rules put forward by Council at

this hearing are an appropriate suite of provisions that will enable such moving forward,

and provide an appropriate balance and direction for retail development over the like of

the Plan.

123. Hamilton City Council managing retail development by taking a more discretionary

approach (compared to the status quo in the Operative District Plan) within a business

hierarchy framework is considered a prudent step to take given the current ‘state’ of the

CBD, and objectives of the proposed Plan, to encourage the rejuvenation of the CBD.

124. In relation to TGHL submission point on The Base / Te Awa being recognised as a

regional centre (rather than sub-regional), it is my understanding this is part of the RPS

appeal process and in my view this is the appropriate forum for assessing the merits of

such at this stage. Otherwise the HCC would be pre-empting the RPS appeal process

and any subsequent outcomes. In my view the RPS process should be allowed to follow

its due course and provide a settled policy position from which the local councils can

base any changes to their respective District Plan’s.

H e a t h | 34

125. TGHL’s final submission relates to an expansion of the CBD and the potential tension

this causes with the aims of the proposed Plan to enhance the role of the CBD and

increase its LFR offer. The Central City of Hamilton is aimed at attracting and

accommodating a wide variety of activity necessary to make it a multi-functional, vibrant,

vital, viable commercial hub that affords the community high levels of amenity, and is not

simply focused on attracting retail activity, albeit that in my opinion is a crucial element of

the CBD recovery. As such the extent of the Central City zones is designed to facilitate

to accommodation of the range of activities required to assist in the CBD recovery and

provide flexibility and choice within the existing commercial built form. The level of

development required within the CBD to ensure the goals of the proposed Plan are met is

significant and it is likely this will need to occur well beyond the life of this District Plan.

126. In my view encouraging LFR activity such as department stores are an important aspect

in stimulating a retail recovery in the CBD. As identified earlier in this statement11, the

department store sector has seen a concentrated decline in market share with much of

this spend going to The Base / Te Awa as the centre has been rolled out over the last

decade. Furthermore the recent consent to enable a KMart department store to be

established on a site opposite The Base / Te Awa indicates there are likely to be further

retail effects on the CBD yet to play out in the market. This will be counterbalanced by

some degree by the new Farmers store in the KIWI redevelopment of Centre Place in the

CBD, albeit the new Farmers stores is actually smaller than the old CBD premises from

which it is relocating. The net effect of this in my view is that there likely to be further

market share decline in this sector from the CBD.

127. The PCNZ submission suggests the planning framework within the proposed Plan is too

prescriptive for centres and may be applied rigidly, which may limit choice and flexibility,

and adversely affect investment confidence and growth within Hamilton. In my view the

proposed Plan provisions as advanced by Council in this hearing strikes an appropriate

balance between enablement, flexibility and choice of retail development given the

current situation as identified in this statement. The provisions have been designed to be

unashamedly directive in retail terms given the Operative District Plan has in my view led

to significant effects on centres and the CBD which go well beyond what anyone

envisaged when the previous Operative District Plan was put in place.

128. The extent of market share and performance loss in centres over the last decade has

been pronounced and means there is a long haul ahead to get the centres back

performing well, providing quality retail environments, built form and public realm,

delivering higher levels of amenity, vitality, vibrancy, and wellbeing to the community, and

performing their role and function in the centre network better. In this regard, Hamilton is

11 Refer Figure 9 of this statement

H e a t h | 35

considered in a unique situation where provisions in my view had to be directive and firm

to provide the level of confidence to enable private and public sector investment

decisions in and around centres to be made with confidence, and that that investment is

not going to get undermined by a new retail development ‘down the road’ 6 months later.

Under the Operative District Plan no such confidence exists, and I would suggest that is

why there appears to have been a significant lack of investment in existing centres

around Hamilton over the last decade, apart from The Base and Te Rapa area.

129. So in my view, the proposed Plan provides the antithesis of the PNCZ submission in

relation to these points.

130. The other aspect of the PCNZ submission relevant to my area of interest is their position

in relation to Opoia and how it is an aspirational and future growth node, rather than a

node that needs to be developed now. Based on the evidence in this statement, and that

of Mr Osborne, I would tend to agree with that position. The most recent data provided in

these two statements paints a fairly bleak picture in my view of the CBD (in terms of

recent performance not potential), and concentrating commercial activity back within the

CBD should be the priority, as is proposed in the District Plan. My understanding that a

direct pedestrian and bike bridge link from the CBD to Opoia, as originally proposed, is

also no longer occurring (or deferred indefinitely at this stage), which further isolates the

location and weakens the link with the CBD. On this basis I concur with the PCNZ

submission on this point.

131. In relation to KIWI’s submission points relevant to my focus, the evidence outlined in this

statement and Mr Osborne’s, I would agree with such, and I consider the revised

provisions put forward by Council in this hearing should adequately address KIWI

concerns. In my view they provide an appropriate balance between enabling retail

development to occur where appropriate, whilst at the same time giving due recognition

to the existing centre network, particularly the CBD. The proposed Plan better

recognises the significant public and private sector investment within the existing centre

network and the benefits afforded the community of such, that should not be

marginalised but considered in the evaluation of new retail development within the city to

better assess the merits of such.

132. AMP Capital’s sought amendments to enable low density commercial and retail activity in

the periphery zones around Te Rapa would appear unwarranted based on the analysis in

this statement. Such provisions would enable significant retail and commercial GFA to

be developed in the area and potentially undermine one of the core objectives of the

proposed Plan to redirect new development into the CBD (primarily) and the wider centre

network. In essence the proposed Plan has been designed to challenge that type of

H e a t h | 36

development in such locations and place higher thresholds when assessing the merits of

such applications as the burgeoning effects on centres is proving to be extensive, as

highlighted in this statement and that of Mr Osborne.

133. National Trading Company and Progressive’s seek provisions that enable supermarkets

to have greater flexibility in their future location options, particularly within Industrial

Zones. The rules within the proposed Plan have been designed to encourage

supermarkets to locate within centres (existing or new), whilst if that proves not possible

then appropriate tests applied to ensure any out of centre location is unlikely to

undermine the role, function and viability of the centre network, or in other words not

generate significant adverse retail distribution effects on a centre in a RMA context. This

balanced approach is considered appropriate and in my view provides a pragmatic

pathway forward for both Council and supermarket developers / operators.

Tim Heath 9 October 2013

H e a t h | 37

APPENDIX 1: HAMILTON CITY POPULATION GROWTH PROJECTIONS

Population 2011 2013 2016 2021 2026 2031

2013 Low Series 143,414 147,176 153,005 162,889 171,724 180,211

2010 Medium EDA 146,579 151,649 159,585 173,346 185,907 198,237

SNZ Medium Series 145,700 149,582 155,600 165,500 175,200 184,800

H e a t h | 38

APPENDIX 2: PROPERTY ECONOMICS RETAIL EXPENDITURE MODEL

This overview outlines the methodology that has been used to estimate retail spend generated at Census Area Unit (CAU) level for the identified catchments out to 2031. CAU 2006 Boundaries

All analysis has been based on Census Area Unit 2006 boundaries, the most recent available. Permanent Private Households (PPH) 2006

These are the total Occupied Households as determined by the Census 2006. PPHs are the primary basis of retail spend generation and account for approximately 71% of all retail sales. PPHs have regard for (exclude) the proportion of dwellings that are vacant at any one time in a locality, which can vary significantly, and in this respect account for the movement of some domestic tourists.

Permanent Private Household Forecasts 2006-2031

These are based on Statistics NZ Census Area Unit (CAU) Medium Series Population Growth Projections and have been adjusted to account for residential building consent activity occurring between 2006 and 2011, with this extrapolated to the year of concern. This accounts for recent building activity, particularly important for the 5-10 year forecasts, and effectively updates Statistics NZ projections to reflect recent trends. Geo-spatial differences in growth between 2001 and 2006 CAUs have been accounted for with a pro rata distribution. International Tourist Spend

The total international tourism retail spend has been derived from the Ministry of Economic Development Tourism Strategy Group (MEDTSG) estimates nationally. This has been distributed regionally on a ‘spend per employee’ basis, using regional spend estimates prepared by the MEDTSG. Domestic and business based tourism spend is incorporated in the employee and PPH estimates. Employees are the preferred basis for distributing regional spend geo-spatially as tourists tend to gravitate toward areas of commercial activity, however they are very mobile. Total Tourist Spend Forecast

Growth is conservatively forecast in the model at 2% per annum for the 2011-2031 period. 2006-2031 PPH Average Household Retail Spend

H e a t h | 39

This has been determined by analysing the national relationship between PPH average household income (by income bracket) as determined by the 2006 Census, and the average PPH expenditure of retail goods (by income bracket) as determined by the Household Economic Survey (HES) prepared by Statistics NZ. In particular a regression analysis has shown the following relationship exists: PPH Retail Spend = 27.3% of Average PPH Income plus $4,999 constant.

This relationship between income and retail spend is statistically significant, with a R2 (the measure of the relationship between the two variables) considered extremely strong. While there are variables other than household income that will affect retail spending levels, such as wealth, access to retail, population age, household types and cultural preferences, the effects of these are not able to be assessed given data limitations, and have been excluded from these estimates. Real Retail Spend Growth (excl. trade based retailing

Real retail spend growth has been factored in at 1% per annum. This accounts for the increasing wealth of the population and the subsequent increase in retail spend. The following explanation has been provided. Retail Spend is an important factor in determining the level of retail activity and hence the ‘sustainable amount ‘of retail floorspace for a given catchment. For the purposes of this outline ‘retail’ is defined by the following categories:

• Food Retailing • Footwear • Clothing and Softgoods • Furniture and Floor coverings • Appliance Retailing • Hardware • Chemist • Department Stores • Recreational Goods • Cafes, Restaurants and Takeaways • Personal and Household Services • Other Stores.

These are the retail categories as currently defined by the ANZSIC codes (Australia New Zealand Standard Industry Classification). Assessing the level and growth of retail spend is fundamental in planning for retail networking and land use within a regional network. Internet Retail Spend Growth

H e a t h | 40

Internet retailing within New Zealand has seen significant growth over the last few decades. This growth has led to an increasing variety of business structures and retailing methods including; internet auctions, just-in-time retailing, online ordering, virtual stores, and etc. As some of internet spend is being made to on-the-ground stores, a proportion of internet expenditure is being represented in the Statistics NZ Retail Trade Survey (RTS) while a large majority remain unrecorded. At the same time this expenditure is being recorded under the Household Economic Survey (HES) as part of household retail spend, making the two datasets incompatible. For this reason Property Economics has assumed a flat 5% adjustment percentage on HES retail expenditure, representing internet retailing that was never recorded within the RTS.

Additionally, growth of internet retailing for virtual stores, auctions and overseas stores is leading to a decrease in on-the-ground spend and floorspace demand. In order to account for this, a non-linear percentage decrease of 2.5% in 2016 growing to 9% by 2031 has been applied to retail expenditure encompassing all retail categories in our retail model. These losses represent the retail diversion from on-the-ground stores to internet based retailing that will no longer contribute to retail floorspace demand.

Retail Spend Determinants

Retail Spend for a given area is determined by: the number of households, size and composition of households, income levels, available retail offer and real retail growth. Changes in any of these factors can have a significant impact on the available amount of retail spend generated by the area. The coefficient that determines the level of ‘retail spend’ that eventuates from these factors is the MPC (Marginal Propensity to Consume). This is how much people will spend of their income on retail items. The MPC is influenced by the amount of disposable and discretionary income people are able to access. Retail Spend Economic Variables

Income levels and household MPC are directly influenced by several macroeconomic variables that will alter the amount of spend. Real retail growth does not rely on the base determinants changing but a change in the financial and economic environment under which these determinants operate. These variables include: Interest Rates: Changing interest rates has a direct impact upon households’ discretionary income as a greater proportion of income is needed to finance debt and typically lowers general domestic business activity. Higher interest rates typically lower real retail growth. Government Policy (Spending): Both Monetary and Fiscal Policy play a part in domestic retail spending. Fiscal policy, regarding government spending, has played a big part recently with government policy being blamed for inflationary spending. Higher government

H e a t h | 41

spending (targeting on consumer goods, direct and indirectly) typically increases the amount of nominal retail spend. Much of this spend does not, however, translate into floorspace since it is inflationary and only serves to drive up prices. Wealth/Equity/Debt: This in the early-mid 2000s had a dramatic impact on the level of retail spending nationally. The increase in property prices has increased home owners unrealised equity in their properties. This has led to a significant increase in debt funded spending, with residents borrowing against this equity to fund consumable spending. This debt spending is a growth facet of New Zealand retail. In 1960 households saved 14.6% of their income, while households currently spend 14% more than their household income. Inflation: As discussed above, this factor may increase the amount spent by consumers but typically does not dramatically influence the level of sustainable retail floorspace. This is the reason that productivity levels are not adjusted but similarly inflation is factored out of retail spend assessments. Exchange Rate: Apart from having a general influence over the national balance of payments accounts, the exchange rate directly influences retail spending. A change in the $NZ influences the price of imports and therefore their quantity and the level of spend. General consumer confidence: This indicator is important as consumers consider the future and the level of security/finances they will require over the coming year. Economic/Income growth: Income growth has a similar impact to confidence. Although a large proportion of this growth may not impact upon households MPC (rather just increasing the income determinant) it does impact upon households discretionary spending and therefore likely retail spend. Mandatory Expenses: The cost of goods and services that are necessary has an impact on the level of discretionary income that is available from a households disposal income. Important factors include housing costs and oil prices. As these increase the level of household discretionary income drops reducing the likely real retail growth rate. Current and Future Conditions

Retail spend has experienced a significant real increase in the early-mid 2000s. This was due in large part to the increasing housing market. Although retail growth is tempered or crowded out in some part by the increased cost of housing it showed massive gains as home owners, prematurely, access their potential equity gains. This resulted in strong growth in debt/equity spending as residents borrow against capital gains to fund retail spending on consumption goods. A seemingly strong economy also influenced these recent spending trends, with decreased employment and greater job security producing an environment where households were more willing to accept debt. Over the last 4 years this has now reversed with the worldwide GFC recession taking grip. As such, the economic environment has undergone rapid change. The national

H e a t h | 42

market is currently experiencing low interest rates (although expected to increase this coming quarter), a highly inflated $NZ (increasing importing however disproportionately), a stalled property market, and a stagnation in general business confidence. These factors will continue to dampen retail spending throughout the next 5 or so years. Given the previous years (pre 2008) substantial growth and high levels of debt repayment likely to be experienced by New Zealand households it is expected that real retail growth rates will continue to be stifled for the short term.

Impacts of Changing Retail Spend

At this point in time a 1% real retail growth rate is being applied by Property Economics over the longer term 20 year period. This rate is highly volatile however and is likely to be in the order of 0.5% to 1% over the next 5 – 10 years rising to 1% - 2% over the more medium term as the economy stabilises and experiences cyclical growth. This would mean that it would be prudent in the shorter term to be conservative with regard to the level of sustainable retail floorspace within given centres. Business Spend 2006

This is the total retail spend generated by businesses. This has been determined by subtracting PPH retail spend and Tourist retail spend from the Total Retail Sales as determined by the Retail Trade Survey (RTS) which is prepared by Statistics NZ. All categories are included with the exception of accommodation and automotive related spend. In total, Business Spend accounts for 26% of all retail sales in NZ. Business spend is distributed based on the location of employees in each Census Area Unit and the national average retail spend per employee ($6,640pa). Business Spend Forecast 2006-2031

Business spend has been forecasted at the same rate of growth estimated to be achieved by PPH retail sales in the absence reliable information on business retail spend trends. It is noted that while working age population may be decreasing as a proportion of total population, employees are likely to become more productive over time and therefore offset the relative decrease in the size of the total workforce.

H e a t h | 43

APPENDIX 3: ANZSIC RETAIL CATEGORIES

DIVISION G – RETAIL TRADE

The Retail Trade Division includes units mainly engaged in the purchase and on-selling of goods, without significant transformation, to the general public. Units are classified to the Retail Trade Division in the first instance if they buy goods and then on-sell them (including on a commission basis) to the general public. Retail units generally operate from premises located and designed to attract a high volume of walk-in customers, have an extensive display of goods, and/or use mass media advertising designed to attract customers. The display and advertising of goods may be physical or electronic.

Physical display and advertising includes shops, printed catalogues, billboards and print advertisements. Electronic display and advertising includes catalogues, internet websites, television and radio advertisements and infomercials. While non-store retailers, by definition, do not possess the physical characteristics of traditional retail units with a physical shop-front location, these units share the requisite function of the purchasing and on-selling of goods to the general public, and are therefore included in this division.

A unit which sells to both businesses and the general public will be classified to the Retail Trade Division if it operates from shop-front premises, arranges and displays stock to attract a high proportion of walk-in customers and utilises mass media advertising to attract customers.

The buying of goods for resale to the general public is a characteristic of Retail Trade units that distinguishes them from units in the Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing; Manufacturing; and Construction industries. For example, farms that sell their products, at or from, the point of production are not classified in Retail Trade, but rather in Agriculture as the production of agricultural output are these units primary activity. Units in all these industries provide their output to the market for sale. Similarly, units that both manufacture and sell their products to the general public are not classified in Retail Trade, but rather in Manufacturing.

Wholesale units also engage in the buying of goods for resale, but typically operate from a warehouse or office and neither the design nor the location of these premises is intended to solicit a high volume of walk-in traffic. In general, wholesale units have large storage facilities and small display area, while the reverse is true for retail units. Units in Retail often undertake non-retail secondary activities, such as watch and jewellery stores, that undertake repairs of these goods as well as retailing new items. However, units whose primary activity is the provision of repair and maintenance services are excluded from this division, and are classified to the Other Services Division.

H e a t h | 44

411 SUPERMARKET AND GROCERY STORES 4110 Supermarket and Grocery Stores This class consists of units mainly engaged in retailing groceries or non-specialised food lines (including convenience stores), whether or not the selling is organised on a self-service basis.

Primary activities • Convenience store operation • Grocery retailing

• Grocery supermarket operation

Exclusions/References Units mainly engaged in retailing specialised food lines are included in the appropriate classes of Group 412 Specialised Food Retailing. 412 SPECIALISED FOOD RETAILING 4121 Fresh Meat, Fish and Poultry Retailing This class consists of units mainly engaged in retailing fresh meat, fish or poultry.

Primary Activities • Butcher’s shop operation (retail)

• Fish, fresh, retailing • Meat, fresh, retailing

• Poultry, fresh, retailing • Seafood, fresh, retailing

4122 Fruit and Vegetable Retailing This class consists of units mainly engaged in retailing fresh fruit or vegetables.

Primary activities • Fruit, fresh, retailing • Greengrocery operation (retail)

• Vegetable, fresh, retailing

4123 Liquor Retailing This class consists of units mainly engaged in retailing beer, wine or spirits for consumption off the premises only.

Primary activities • Alcoholic beverage retailing (for consumption off the premises only)

Exclusions/References Units mainly engaged in selling alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, such as hotels, bars and similar units (except hospitality clubs), are included in Class 4520 Pubs, Taverns and Bars. 4129 Other Specialised Food Retailing This class consists of units mainly engaged in retailing specialised food lines, such as confectionery or smallgoods or bread and cakes (not manufactured on the same premises).

H e a t h | 45

Primary activities • Biscuit retailing (not manufactured on the same premises) • Bread retailing (not manufactured on the same premises)

• Bread vendor (not manufactured on the same premises) • Cake retailing (not manufactured on the same premises)

• Confectionery retailing • Non-alcoholic drinks retailing

• Pastry retailing (not manufactured on the same premises) • Smallgoods retailing

• Specialised food retailing n.e.c.

Exclusions/References Units mainly engaged in

• retailing a wide range of food lines are included in Class 4110 Supermarket

and Grocery Stores; • providing food services for immediate consumption for taking away or

consumption in limited seating areas are included in Class 4512 Takeaway Food Services;

• manufacturing bakery products and selling those products from the same premises are included in Class 1174 Bakery Product Manufacturing (Non-

factory based); and • • retailing food through vending machines or other non-store means (except

mobile vans) are included in Class 4310 Non-Store Retailing.

421 FURNITURE, FLOOR COVERINGS, HOUSEWARE AND TEXTILE GOODS RETAILING 4211 Furniture Retailing This class consists of units mainly engaged in retailing furniture, blinds or awnings.

Primary activities • Antique reproduction furniture retailing

• Awning retailing • Blind retailing • Furniture retailing

• Mattress retailing


• the installation of household blinds or awnings are included in Class 3239 Other Building Installation Services;

• manufacturing blinds or awnings are included in the appropriate classes of Division C Manufacturing, according to the materials used in the

manufacturing process;

H e a t h | 46

• retailing second-hand or antique furniture are included in Class 4273 Antique and Used Goods Retailing; and

• retailing curtains are included in Class 4214 Manchester and Other Textile Goods Retailing.

4212 Floor Coverings Retailing This class consists of units mainly engaged in retailing floor coverings (except ceramic floor tiles).

Primary activities • Carpet retailing

• Floor coverings retailing (except ceramic floor tiles) • Floor rug retailing

• Floor tile retailing (lino, vinyl, cork, carpet or rubber) • Parquetry retailing


• laying floor coverings are included in the appropriate classes of Division E Construction; and

• retailing ceramic floor tiles are included in Class 4231 Hardware and Building Supplies Retailing.

4213 Houseware Retailing This class consists of units mainly engaged in retailing kitchenware, china, glassware, silverware or other houseware goods.

Primary activities • Brushware retailing • Chinaware retailing

• Cooking utensil retailing (except electric) • Crockery retailing • Cutlery retailing

• Enamelware retailing • Glassware retailing

• Kitchenware retailing • Picnicware retailing

• Plastic container retailing • Silverware retailing

Exclusions/References Units mainly engaged in retailing electric cooking utensils are included in Class 4221 Electrical, Electronic and Gas Appliance Retailing. 4214 Manchester and Other Textile Goods Retailing

H e a t h | 47

This class consists of units mainly engaged in retailing fabrics, curtains or household textiles. Primary activities

• Blanket retailing • Curtain retailing

• Dressmaking requisites retailing • Fabric, textile, retailing

• Household textile retailing • Linen retailing

• Piece-goods retailing • Soft furnishing retailing

• Yarn retailing

Exclusions/References

Units mainly engaged in • installing awnings, blinds, shutters or curtains are included in Class 3239

Other Building Installation Services; and • manufacturing curtains or cushions are included in Class 1333 Cut and

Sewn Textile Product Manufacturing.

422 ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC GOODS RETAILING 4221 Electrical, Electronic and Gas Appliance Retailing This class consists of units mainly engaged in retailing electrical, electronic or gas appliances (except computers and computer peripherals).

Primary activities • Air conditioner retailing • Appliance, electric, retailing

• Barbecue retailing • Camera retailing

• Compact disc player retailing • Cooking utensil, electric, retailing

• Digital versatile disc (DVD) player retailing • Electronic beeper retailing • Fan, electric, retailing

• Floor polisher, electric, retailing • Gas appliance retailing

• Heating equipment, electric or gas, retailing • Mobile phone retailing

• Modem retailing • Pager retailing

• Pocket calculator, electronic, retailing • Projector retailing

H e a t h | 48

• Radio receiving set retailing (except car radios) • Refrigerator, retailing

• Shaver, electric, retailing • Sound reproducing equipment retailing

• Stereo retailing • Stove, retailing

• Television antennae retailing • Television set retailing

• Two-way radio equipment retailing • Vacuum cleaner retailing

• Video cassette recorder (VCR) retailing • Washing machine retailing


• retailing computer or computer peripheral equipment are included in Class 4222 Computer and Computer Peripheral Retailing;

• retailing CDs, DVDs or other entertainment media are included in Class 4242 Entertainment Media Retailing;

• retailing car radios are included in Class 3921 Motor Vehicle Parts Retailing; • installing heating, refrigeration or air conditioning equipment are included in

Class 3233 Air Conditioning and Heating Services; • hiring household appliances are included in Class 6639 Other Goods and

Equipment Rental and Hiring n.e.c.; and

• repairing and maintaining electrical, electronic and gas domestic appliances are included in Class 9421 Domestic Appliance Repair and Maintenance.

4222 Computer and Computer Peripheral Retailing This class consists of units mainly engaged in retailing computers or computer peripheral equipment.

Primary activities • Compact disc burner retailing • Computer equipment retailing

• Computer game console retailing • Computer hardware retailing

• Computer software retailing (except computer games) • Printer retailing

• Visual display unit (VDU) retailing

Exclusions/References Units mainly engaged in retailing computer games are included in Class 4242 Entertainment Media Retailing.

H e a t h | 49

4229 Other Electrical and Electronic Goods Retailing This class consists of units mainly engaged in retailing electrical and electronic goods not elsewhere classified.

Primary activities • Dry cell battery retailing

• Electric light fittings retailing • Electrical goods retailing n.e.c.

• Electronic goods retailing n.e.c.

423 HARDWARE, BUILDING AND GARDEN SUPPLIES RETAILING 4231 Hardware and Building Supplies Retailing This class consists of units mainly engaged in retailing hardware or building supplies.

Primary activities • Carpenters’ tool retailing • Cement retailing

• Ceramic floor tile retailing • Garden tool retailing • Hardware retailing

• Lacquer retailing • Lawn mower retailing

• Lock retailing • Mineral turpentine retailing

• Nail retailing • Paint retailing

• Plumbers’ fittings retailing • Plumbers’ tools retailing

• Timber retailing • Tool retailing • Wallpaper retailing

• Woodworking tool retailing


• wholesaling builders’ hardware or supplies (except plumbing supplies) are included in Class 3339 Other Hardware Goods Wholesaling; and

• wholesaling timber are included in Class 3331 Timber Wholesaling.

4232 Garden Supplies Retailing This class consists of units mainly engaged in retailing garden supplies or nursery goods.

Primary activities • Bulb, flower, retailing

• Fertiliser retailing • Garden ornament retailing

H e a t h | 50

• Garden supplies retailing n.e.c. • Nursery stock retailing

• Pesticide retailing • Plant, garden, retailing

• Pot plant retailing • Seedlings retailing

• Seed, garden, retailing • Shrub or tree retailing

• Tuber, flower, retailing

Exclusions/References Units mainly engaged in retailing cut flowers are included in Class 4274 Flower Retailing. 424 RECREATIONAL GOODS RETAILING 4241 Sport and Camping Equipment Retailing This class consists of units mainly engaged in retailing sporting goods, camping equipment or bicycles.

Primary activities • Ammunition retailing • Bicycle retailing

• Camping equipment retailing • Canoe retailing • Equestrian equipment retailing

• Fishing tackle retailing • Fitness equipment retailing

• Golfing equipment retailing • Gun or rifle retailing

• Gymnasium equipment retailing • Sailboard retailing

• Snow ski retailing • Sporting equipment retailing (except clothing or footwear)

• Wetsuit retailing


• retailing sports apparel (clothing and footwear) are included in Classes

4251 Clothing Retailing and 4252 Footwear Retailing; and • retailing new or used boats are included in Class 4245 Marine Equipment

Retailing.

4242 Entertainment Media Retailing This class consists of units mainly engaged in retailing audio tapes, compact discs, computer games, digital versatile discs or video cassettes.

H e a t h | 51

Primary activities • Audio cassette retailing • Compact disc retailing

• Computer game retailing • Digital versatile disc (DVD) retailing

• Video cassette retailing


• retailing second-hand records, tapes, CDs, DVDs or videos are included in Class 4273 Antique and Used Goods Retailing;

• retailing CD players, DVD players, VCRs or other appliances are included in Class 4221 Electrical, Electronic and Gas Appliance Retailing; and

• retailing computers and computer peripherals are included in Class 4222

Computer and Computer Peripheral Retailing.

4243 Toy and Game Retailing This class consists of units mainly engaged in retailing toys or games (except computer games).

Primary activities • Doll retailing

• Game retailing • Toy retailing

Exclusions/References Units mainly engaged in retailing computer games are included in Class 4242 Entertainment Media Retailing. 4244 Newspaper and Book Retailing This class consists of units mainly engaged in retailing books, periodicals and newspapers.

Primary activities • Book retailing

• Magazine retailing • Newspaper retailing • Periodical retailing

• Religious book retailing


• retailing stationery and writing goods are included in Class 4272 Stationery Goods Retailing; and

• retailing second-hand books are included in Class 4273 Antique and Used Goods Retailing.

H e a t h | 52

425 CLOTHING, FOOTWEAR AND PERSONAL ACCESSORY RETAILING 4251 Clothing Retailing This class consists of units mainly engaged in retailing clothing or clothing accessories.

Primary activities • Clothing accessory retailing

• Clothing retailing • Foundation garment retailing

• Fur clothing retailing • Glove retailing • Hosiery retailing

• Leather clothing retailing • Millinery retailing

• Sports clothing retailing • Work clothing retailing


• retailing second-hand clothing are included in Class 4273 Antique and Used

Goods Retailing; and • retailing personal accessories (except clothing and footwear) are included in

Class 4259 Other Personal Accessory Retailing.

4252 Footwear Retailing This class consists of units mainly engaged in retailing boots, shoes or other footwear.

Primary activities • Boot retailing • Footwear retailing

• Shoe retailing • Sports footwear retailing

4253 Watch and Jewellery Retailing This class consists of units mainly engaged in retailing new watches and jewellery (except clocks and silverware).

Primary activities • Jewellery retailing • Watch retailing

Exclusions/References • Units mainly engaged in • retailing second-hand jewellery are included in Class 4273 Antique and

Used Goods Retailing;

H e a t h | 53

• retailing clocks are included in Class 4279 Other Store-Based Retailing n.e.c.; and

• retailing silverware are included in Class 4213 Houseware Retailing.

4259 Other Personal Accessory Retailing This class consists of units mainly engaged in retailing other personal accessories, including new handbags, sunglasses, leather goods, luggage and other personal accessories not elsewhere classified.

Primary activities • Briefcase retailing • Handbag retailing

• Leather goods retailing (except clothing and footwear) • Luggage retailing

• Personal accessory retailing n.e.c. • Sunglass retailing • Umbrella retailing

• Wig retailing


• retailing leather clothing are included in Class 4251 Clothing Retailing; and • retailing leather footwear are included in Class 4252 Footwear Retailing.

426 DEPARTMENT STORES 4260 Department Stores This class consists of units engaged in retailing a wide variety of goods, other than food or groceries, but the variety is such that no predominant activity can be determined. These units have predominant retail sales in at least four of the following six product groups:

• Clothing

• Furniture • Kitchenware, china, glassware and other housewares

• Textile goods • Electrical, electronic and gas appliances • Perfumes, cosmetics and toiletries

The products primary to these headings, as well as other products, are normally sold by or displayed in separate departments or sections supervised by managers (with specialised product knowledge) within the store, and, generally, merchandising, advertising, customer service, accounting and budgetary control functions are undertaken on a departmentalised basis.

Primary activities • Department store operation


H e a t h | 54

• retailing food and groceries on a departmentalised basis are included in Class 4110 Supermarket and Grocery Stores;

• retailing clothing; furniture; kitchenware, china, glassware and other housewares; textile goods; electrical, electronic and gas appliances; or

perfumes, cosmetics and toiletries on a specialised basis are included in the appropriate classes of Subdivision 42 Other Store-Based Retailing; and

• retailing a wide variety of products that are not sold, displayed, managed or administered on a departmentalised basis (i.e. gift shops or souvenir

shops) are included in Class 4279 Other Store-Based Retailing n.e.c.

H e a t h | 55

427 PHARMACEUTICAL AND OTHER STORE-BASED RETAILING 4271 Pharmaceutical, Cosmetic and Toiletry Goods Retailing This class consists of units mainly engaged in retailing prescription drugs or patent edicines, cosmetics or toiletries.

Primary activities • Cosmetic retailing • Drug retailing

• Patent medicine retailing • Perfume retailing • Pharmacy, retail, operation

• Prescription, medicine, dispensing • Toiletry retailing

4272 Stationery Goods Retailing This class consists of units mainly engaged in retailing stationery goods and writing materials.

Primary activities • Artists’ supplies retailing • Ink retailing

• Note book retailing • Pen or pencil retailing

• Stationery retailing • Writing material retailing

Exclusions/References Units mainly engaged in retailing books or magazines are included in Class 4244 Newspaper and Book Retailing. 4273 Antique and Used Goods Retailing This class consists of units mainly engaged in retailing antiques or second-hand goods (except motor vehicles or motor cycles and parts).

Primary activities • Antique retailing • Coin dealing (retailing)

• Disposals retailing • Pawnbroking

• Second-hand book retailing • Second-hand cloth retailing

• Second-hand electrical, electronic or computer equipment retailing • Second-hand furniture retailing • Second-hand goods retailing n.e.c.

• Second-hand jewellery retailing • Second-hand record, tape, CD, DVD or videos retailing

• Second-hand sports card retailing • Stamp, collectible, dealing (retailing)

H e a t h | 56


• retailing second-hand motor vehicles are included in Class 3911 Car Retailing;

• retailing second-hand motor cycles are included in Class 3912 Motor Cycle Retailing;

• retailing second-hand motor vehicle or motor cycle parts are included in

Class 3921 Motor Vehicle Parts Retailing; and • providing auctioning services are included in Class 3800 Commission-Based

Wholesaling.

4274 Flower Retailing This class consists of units mainly engaged in retailing cut flowers or display foliage.

Primary Activities • Cut flower retailing

• Display foliage retailing • Dried flower retailing

• Florist, retail, operation

4279 Other Store-Based Retailing n.e.c. This class consists of units mainly engaged in retailing goods not elsewhere classified from store-based premises.

Primary activities • Art gallery operation (retail) • Binocular retailing

• Bottled liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) retailing • Briquette retailing

• Clock retailing • Coal retailing

• Coke retailing • Computer consumables (toners, inks) retailing

• Craft goods retailing • Duty free store operation

• Firewood retailing • Firework retailing • Greeting card retailing

• Ice retailing • Map retailing

• Musical instrument retailing • Pet and pet accessory retailing

• Photographic chemical retailing

H e a t h | 57

• Photographic film or paper retailing • Pram retailing

• Religious goods (except books) retailing • Specialty stores n.e.c.

• Store-based retailing n.e.c. • Swimming pool retailing

• Tobacco product retailing • Variety store operation


• retailing second-hand sports cards are included in Class 4273 Antique and Used Goods Retailing;

• retailing religious books are included in Class 4244 Newspaper and Book Retailing;

• retailing goods without the use of a shopfront or physical store presence are included in Class 4310 Non-Store Retailing; and

• retailing goods on a commission basis are included in Class 4320 Retail Commission-Based Buying and/or Selling.

451 CAFES, RESTAURANTS AND TAKEAWAY FOOD SERVICES 4511 Cafes and Restaurants This class consists of units mainly engaged in providing food and beverage serving services for consumption on the premises. Customers generally order and are served while seated (i.e. waiter/waitress service) and pay after eating.

Primary activities • Cafe operation

• Restaurant operation


• providing food ready to be taken away for immediate consumption are

included in Class 4512 Takeaway Food Services; • providing catering services (including airline food catering services) at

specified locations or events are included in Class 4513 Catering Services; • selling alcoholic beverages both for consumption on and off the premises

are included in Class 4520 Pubs, Taverns and Bars; and • operating theatre restaurants mainly engaged in providing live theatrical

productions with food and beverages are included in Class 9001 Performing Arts Operation.

4512 Takeaway Food Services

H e a t h | 58

This class consists of units mainly engaged in providing food services ready to be taken away for immediate consumption. Customers order or select items and pay before eating. Items are usually provided in takeaway containers or packaging. Food is either consumed on the premises in limited seating facilities, taken away by the customer or delivered. This class also includes units mainly engaged in supplying food services in food halls and food courts.

Primary activities • Juice bar operation • Mobile food van operation

• Takeaway food operation


• providing food services for consumption on the premises only are included in Class 4511 Cafes and Restaurants;

• providing catering services (including airline food catering services) at specified locations or events are included in Class 4513 Catering Services;

• retailing baked goods manufactured on the same premises are included in Class 1174 Bakery Product Manufacturing (Non-factory based);

• retailing baked goods manufactured at other premises are included in Class

4129 Other Specialised Food Retailing; and • retailing beer, wine or spirits for consumption off the premises only are

included in Class 4123 Liquor Retailing. • Cafes and Restaurants;

• providing food ready to be taken away for immediate consumption are included in Class 4512 Takeaway Food Services; and

• manufacturing food products (including snack foods and prepared meals) are included in Class 1199 Other Food Product Manufacturing n.e.c.

452 PUBS, TAVERNS AND BARS 4520 Pubs, Taverns and Bars This class consists of hotels, bars or similar units (except hospitality clubs) mainly engaged in serving alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, or in selling alcoholic beverages both for consumption on and off the premises. These units may also provide food services and/or present live entertainment.

Primary activities • Bar operation • Hotel bar operation

• Night club operation • Pub operation • Tavern operation

• Wine bar operation

H e a t h | 59


• retailing alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises only are included in Class 4123 Liquor Retailing; and

• operating hospitality clubs are included in Class 4530 Clubs (Hospitality).

H e a t h | 60

APPENDIX 4: ADOPTED RETAIL SECTOR PRODUCTIVITIES

ANZSIC 06 SPECIALTY LFR

Food retailing $12,500 $12,500

Clothing, footwear and personal accessories retailing $8,600 $3,500

Furniture, floor coverings, houseware and textile goods retailing $3,500 $3,500

Electrical and electronic goods retailing $3,500 $3,500

Hardware, building and garden supplies retailing $2,500 $2,500

Pharmaceutical and personal care goods retailing $10,000 $0

Department stores $0 $3,500

Recreational goods retailing $8,000 $4,000

Other goods retailing $6,500 $6,500

Food and beverage services $9,000 $0

H e a t h | 61

APPENDIX 5: CONVENIENCE ACTIVITIES / STORE TYPES

Note this is not intended to represent an exhaustive list.

• Superette / Dairy

• Fish shop

• Butcher

• Bakery

• Post Shop / Stationery

• Fruit & Vege Shop

• Delicatessen

• Cake Shop

• Ice Cream Parlour

• Liquor / Wine Shop

• Takeaways (Fish & Chips, Pizza, Chinese, Thai, Turkish, Indian, etc.)

• Cafés & Restaurants

• Video store

• Chemist

• Newsagent

• Pub / Bar

• Florist

• Camera / Photography Shop

• Gift Shops

• Optometrist

• Locksmith

• Hairdresser

• Drycleaners

• Doctors

• Accountants

• Physiotherapists

• Medical practitioners

• Dentists

• Child care facilities

• Gym

• Lawyers

H e a t h | 62

APPENDIX 6: HAMILTON CBD RETAIL PROVISION

0-500 500-1000 1000+ Total 0-500 500-1000 1000+ Total

Supermarket 5 0 5 10 0 0 19,559 19,559

Other Food Retailing 14 1 0 15 1,903 509 0 2,411

Clothing, footwear and personal accessories retailing 103 5 1 109 15,476 3,169 1,603 20,248

Furniture, floor coverings, houseware and textile goods retailing 18 3 2 23 3,604 1,863 2,501 7,969

Electrical and electronic goods retailing 17 2 4 23 2,240 1,170 5,324 8,734

Hardware, building and garden supplies retailing 4 1 1 6 461 580 5,784 6,826

Pharmaceutical and personal care goods retailing 10 1 0 11 1,351 635 0 1,987

Department stores 4 0 4 8 0 0 32,793 32,793

Recreational goods retailing 27 5 0 32 5,457 3,339 0 8,796

Other goods retailing 51 5 2 58 6,880 3,634 3,427 13,942

Food and beverage services 156 29 20 165 20,180 5,750 20 25,910

Vacant 84 4 2 90 12,573 3,044 2,343 17,960

Total 493 56 41 550 70,127 23,692 73,354 167,134

GFA (sqm)Hamilton CBD

Store #

H e a t h | 63

APPENDIX 7: GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT OF THE THREE ASSESSED AREAS

Appendix C2

Technical Evidence:

Economic Evidence, Phil Osborne, Property Economics

1

Hamilton City Counci l - Proposed Distr ict Plan Changes

PHILIP OSBORNE 1 | P a g e

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991

("the Act")

AND

IN THE MATTER Proposed Hamilton City District Plan

BETWEEN Hamilton City Council

Statement of Evidence of Philip Mark Osborne

Dated: 14 October 2013



1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 My name is Philip Mark Osborne.

1.2 I am an Economic Consultant for the company Property Economics Ltd, based in

Auckland. My qualifications include – Bachelor of Arts (History/Economics), Masters in

Commerce, a Masters in Planning Practice, and have provisionally completed my

doctoral thesis in developmental economics.

1.3 For the past ten years I have been an economic property consultant for Property

Economics. Previous to this I have been a business analyst to several large firms both

here and in Europe. I also taught economics at both the secondary and tertiary level.

1.4 I have recently advised, and currently advise, local authorities including Christchurch

City, Napier City, North Shore City, Auckland Regional Council, Wellington City and

Wellington Regional Councils, Waikato Regional Council, Manukau City, Waitakere City,

and Far North Councils in relation to forward planning and resource valuation issues. I

also provide consultancy services to a number of large private sector clients in regard to

a wide range of property issues, including economic impact assessments, forecasting

market growth, determining future land demand for the residential and business sectors,

and economic cost-benefit analysis.

1.5 I confirm that I have read the ‘Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses’ contained in the

Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note 2006. My evidence has been prepared

to comply with that code.

1.6 I confirm that I have read and understood the Proposed Changes to the Hamilton City

District Plan. I am also familiar with the economic environment that currently exists in

Hamilton City and its surrounds.



2 SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

2.1 I have been engaged by Hamilton City Council (HCC) to comment on the economic

importance that sits behind the proposed changes to the Hamilton City District Plan. My

evidence deals with the relevance of economic efficiency and community wellbeing

when considering the appropriate location and scale of business activity within the

District.

2.2 It also addresses the economic value of a centres hierarchy and the need in this

environment to give primacy to the Hamilton CBD to secure and maximise community

wellbeing through economic prosperity.

2.3 In particular, I have considered the potential costs and benefits associated with the

decentralisation of business activity within Hamilton. My evidence is based on

identifying the potential adverse effects of allowing this dispersal to continue when

compared with the potential risks of market intervention.

3 SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

3.1 Over the 2000 to 2012 period Hamilton City has seen significant growth in business

activity with an overall growth rate nearly 50% greater than the national average.

However over the same period the City’s national proportion of GDP has fallen by 3%

indicating a significant fall in not only relative productivity but nominal productivity as

well.

3.2 In the past 6 years (2006 – 2012) Hamilton City’s employment growth rate has stalled

falling below 50% of the national average.

3.3 While there are several economic factors driving this downturn a key competitive issue

for commercial activity and overall productivity within the City is the decreasing

significance of the Hamilton CBD.



3.4 In 2000 the CBD accounted for 43% of commercial activity within the City by 2012 this

figure had fallen to under 34%. The competitive deterioration of the CBD has divert

commercial activity throughout the City with commercial activity now becoming

increasingly dispersed throughout Hamilton.

3.5 The key issue that is of concern within the Hamilton economy is the undermining of the

wider competitive influence of the CBD and the fact that loss of active from this centre is

likely to reduce Hamilton’s economic competitiveness as a City resulting in a fall in

community well-being

3.6 It is important to note that individual decisions within the market will not necessarily

result in the most beneficial outcome for the community. Business decisions do not

consider the cumulative effects on the wider market. Economic benefits to the Hamilton

economy with regard to centres such as the CBD are dependent on critical mass that

produce increased productivity overall.

3.7 It is fundamental that the Hamilton District Plan considers the location of business

activity as a strategic and competitive long-term advantage for the community and plans

accordingly.

3.8 The costs of continued sprawl in the case of Hamilton’s economy include:

a) A decline in centre amenity and a social value potentially not achieved elsewhere

i.e. a net loss of value. There is a social value placed by the community on a

vibrant CBD, if this activity is simply dispersed throughout the City this value is

likely to be lost altogether. An indicative value placed on the Hamilton CBD in

comparison to a vibrant CBD is approximately $7.2m - $9.8m per annum less in

the Hamilton environment.

b) Loss of agglomeration benefits. The proportional fall of commercial activity within

the Hamilton CBD and the disbursal of this commercial activity throughout

Hamilton City is likely to have impacted upon productivity in the order of over

$22m per annum.

c) With over $3.5m spent through the City Heart project on upgrading public CBD

assets the loss of activity within the CBD increases the marginal cost of this



infrastructure while reducing the social value attributable to these public goods

and services.

3.9 In 2000 28% of total employment was accommodated within the CBD boundaries, by

2012 this number had fallen to only 22% a proportional loss of nearly 4,000 jobs. The

loss has been primarily felt in both retail and commercial activity where proportionately

3,000 jobs have been lost. The result for the retail market has been clearly outlined in

Mr Heath’s evidence where the CBD’s district wide retail presence has fallen by 40% in

the last 10 years leading directly to a substantial decrease in the centres’ vitality and

vibrancy and undermining the values outlined above.

3.10 The proposed changes to the Hamilton City Plan would essentially identify the Hamilton

CBD as the primary focus for large commercial development (> 500sqm). This level of

commercial development would traditionally accommodate a business employing at

least 20 employees. Within the Hamilton economy at present less than 20% of business

employ this level of workers however this small proportion of businesses account for

70% of business employment in the City.

3.11 Given the level of development potential currently pending outside the CBD it is

assumed that approximately 70% of this employment could be accommodated within the

CBD. With a further 20% of the smaller businesses locating here also that would equate

to 55% of future commercial growth being accommodated within the Hamilton CBD.

3.12 This would equate to approximately 4,500 commercial ECs by 2031. This level of

increased intensity of activity will result in increased productivity for the Hamilton

economy. The level of this increase has been estimated utilising the increased effective

density. At an estimated increase in productivity for commercial ECs alone of 6.1% this

would result in an increase in GDP of over $81m.

3.13 The alternative to this proposed change is to continue to allow the dispersal of office

activity that continues to see Hamilton’s productivity decline.

3.14 As with any intervention into the market operation there are likely to be costs associated

with these changes. In the shortrun this restriction of commercial activity reduces overall



flexibility and may result in some short term loss of business. Given the current

composition of Hamilton’s economy any such impact is likely to be minimal if at all.

3.15 The key to the proposed plan changes, economically, are to provide the Hamilton

economy with an efficient, effective, business environment that will provide nationally

competitive locations and enhance the long-term economic prosperity of the community.

4 HAMILTON ECONOMY –A Snapshot

4.1 The Hamilton City economy has seen significant levels of growth in the past 12 years

both nominally and relatively. Total employment in the City since 2000 has risen over

31% with fairly consistent growth in 15 of the 19 industry sectors. In comparison total

employment in New Zealand has grown by 20% over the same period.

4.2 Of particular interest is the rise in commercial activity1 within the City, growing 43% in 12

years compared to 27% nationally2. However it would appear that while growth is

indeed occurring in employment within the City the level of productivity and in fact

production is not. Comparatively Hamilton’s GDP has fallen over the same period, from

3.28% in 2000 to 3.18% by 2012 representing over $136m per annum to the City’s

economy3. To put this into context Hamilton’s relative production has fallen while

increasing its employment base (resulting in an even greater drop in productivity, or

production per worker). More recently commercial building consents have also seen

significant falls with a 26.6% drop from 2011 to 2012.

4.3 An important change in the growth that Hamilton has experienced over the past decade

is the locations in which this growth has occurred. Table 1 (page 17) shows total and

commercial employment growth within the City. As can be seen Hamilton CBD has

experienced a substantial fall in employment from 26% (2006) of the City’s jobs to only

22% by 2012. In terms of commercial activity the Hamilton CBD only accommodates

34% of office workers compared to 43% in 2000. This dispersal of economic activity is

1 Commercial activity in this sense is defined by ANZSIC categories that would proportionately locate in office accommodation: Including 10% of education and healthcare. 2 Table 1 3 Infometrics Mar 2012



resulting in two manifest concerns, firstly the deterioration of the CBD as a regionally

and nationally competitive location and the impact upon the overall productivity and

growth of the City.

4.4 The Hamilton economy is poised to experience some significant changes over the next

few years driven in no small way by the Waikato Expressway. Given this improved

accessibility through the ‘Golden Triangle’ (Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga) Hamilton has

the potential to capture growth from the wider North Island. However for the Hamilton

economy to truly prosper it is fundamental that both industrial and commercial locations

are competitive. High value added employment requires high amenity, accessible

locations exhibiting convenience to other services, agglomeration benefits and high

profiles. In terms of competitiveness it is important to recognise that these larger

businesses servicing larger national markets often have locational options in most major

centres. The Hamilton community most therefore consider carefully the business

environment its planning direction is producing and intervene, where appropriate to

facilitate greater community wellbeing through this development.

5 JUSTIFIED INTERVENTION

5.1 The need for exogenous intervention into a market is necessitated by the fundamental

intent of seeking to maximise community wellbeing either through improvements in

equity or an improvement in economic efficiency. HCC’s proposed changes seek to

improve economic efficiency within the district’s business environment consequently

enhancing community wellbeing. In simple terms the fact that the market will not seek to

maximise community wellbeing but pursue individual party interests is key in

understanding whether the market requires a balancing mechanism in order to redress

the potential imbalance between community interests and individual interests. It is

important to note that this is not simply an academic exercise, the result of an individual

party or parties gaining an additional proportion in profits (or simply a decrease in costs)

could result in the loss of a tangible resource for the community hundreds of times more

valuable.



5.2 There is a distinct thread running through the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)

that deals with community wellbeing in terms of efficiency. A primary guiding principle of

the RMA is the efficient (and sustainable) utilisation of scarce resources within a

community. There has been recognition from the Environment Court that efficiency, as it

pertains to the RMA, relates to economic efficiency and there is a need for this to instruct

policy governing the utilisation of these resources. This implies that the decisions by

which these resources are consumed are derived in an economically efficient manner.

5.3 The market is indeed a powerful mechanism for the efficient allocation of resources and

all too often unnecessary intervention causes markets to operate inefficiently with

potential benefits lost to the community in order to protect private concerns. However,

the essential proviso here is providing that society’s resources are priced according to

their real value to society as a whole rather than individuals. This is the basis for

Council’s economic argument that left to its own devices the commercial market will not

operate efficiently given the fact that the market fails to consider total community well-

being. In order to justify intervention it is fundamental to show that the market outcome

will produce a less than optimal, or efficient, result for the community.

5.4 For the purposes of this evidence there are three forms of economic efficiency,

productive, allocative and dynamic. Productive efficiency relates to the efficient use of

resources to maximise the ‘bundle’ of outputs (goods and services) an economy can

produce. Allocative efficiency has to do with the value of what is produced to the

community as a whole. This implies that community welfare is maximised based on a

particular allocation of resources. Although this is often seen as Pareto Efficiency,

where it is not possible to make a member of the community better off without making

someone else worse off, in public economics this has been more commonly referred to

in terms of the community as a whole. In some cases, where possible, this requires

compensating affected parties. In order to pursue allocative efficiency it is fundamental

that all key consumer values and preferences are identified and considered. This point

is pivotal with regard to maximising community wellbeing from scarce resources and is

therefore fundamental in understanding economic efficiency.

5.5 Finally Dynamic efficiency deals with the differing timeframes often occurring between

options. This efficiency seeks to compare outcomes in terms of a ‘net present value’



(this general requires the use of a discount rate for the comparison of costs and

benefits).

5.6 Economic efficiency is essential when providing for sustainable resource use, this

efficient employment is key with regard to economic well-being. As stated and

consistent with the RMA 1991, this efficiency should not be a rationalization for the

protection of individual businesses or business locations through simple trade

competition. However, what is essential is the identification of any distributional effects

from the markets operation. These distributional effects are costs or benefits that are

not considered by the market and yet are critical to enhancing the community’s

economic and social well-being. In relation to proposed changes to the Hamilton District

Plan these are not simply the potential decreases in trade or business in any given area

but the additional real benefits to the community of having these activities in these

specific locations. I understand Mr Heath has outlined in his evidence the fundamental

differences between trade competition, which cannot be considered under the Act, and

distributional adverse effects which can.

5.7 There is an important distinction to be made in terms of the types of externalities that

must be considered here. Externalities typically take two forms, pecuniary and true.

Pecuniary externalities equate simply to market effects which are not, and should not be,

assessed under the RMA. These are simple price effects and are not considered in cost

benefit analysis. True or technical externalities have a real impact on the efficiency level

of a market thereby affecting community well-being. They are effects of a market

decision on the resource use of a third party. The impact of externalities, their need for

inclusion and market efficiencies are explained further in Appendix 1. Externalities occur

when one party’s actions affect another party’s well-being and the relevant costs and

benefits are not reflected in the market. The RMA makes a clear distinction between

market effects and true externalities. The sustainable and efficient management of

resources under the RMA is based on the inclusion of these effects.

5.8 In part the justification for intervention in locating business activity is similar to that given

for residential. Councils restrict the spread of residential development to more intensive

zones because the cost of allowing dispersal are significant and are not considered by

the market, such as increased infrastructure costs, reduced transport efficiencies,



inefficient land use, as well as reduced community amenity. These are factors that an

individual participant in the market does not always consider, not just the impact of these

costs on themselves but the cost of their decision on others. The opposing costs of not

allowing residential to spread are potentially increased residential prices and reduced

development. These are costs that in commercial business are likely to be less than in

residential and yet the net benefits of restricting residential expansion are clear. The

continued expansion of residential would not only incur increasing social costs but has

the potential to stifle innovation and produce a dispersed community. Planning is about

informed value judgements and potentially restricting individual choice for the benefit of

the entire community’s well-being.

5.9 A fundamental factor in operating competitive vibrant business centres is the level of

amenity offered; key to this is the level and choice of retail activity within a given area.

To remain competitive and fulfil its role and function in the community it is crucial that a

primary business centre provides an appropriate level of both retail and commercial

(office) activity. This is a symbiotic relationship where one relies on the level of activity

produced by the other. This relationship primarily between commercial and retail

activities creates more vibrant community centres which translates to greater community

wellbeing.

5.10 It is important to note that this appropriate level of activity is proportionate to the

competitive size of the district and economy in general. It is not appropriate to assume

that the level of centralised activity, in the primary centre, within a larger economy is the

same as in a small district. Larger economies typically have a greater number of

business centres that represent a smaller proportion of the total activity while still

creating economies of scale and efficient resource use. The recent global economic

decline has however elevated the importance to the Hamilton economy of centralising

activity to improve efficiency and competitiveness. As businesses seek to improve

efficiency and productivity it is vital that Hamilton City offer a competitive CBD to the

wider economy.

6 BUSINESS DECISIONS



6.1 As outlined in the previous section (4) market decisions are primarily made based on

private costs and benefits, typically costs or benefits borne by the community that are

not recognised by the participants and therefore lead to an inefficient allocation of

resources. Businesses choose locations based on a series of criteria that are balanced

against their own costs and benefits and therefore produce the highest net gain for

themselves. These criteria generally include but are not limited to; suitable profile /

exposure, accessibility for customers and suppliers, feasible costs, appropriate parking

provision and appropriately shaped sites.

6.2 The benefits of the market lead approach are the clear market signals which are

necessary to produce equilibrium in the market where the amount of business land

supplied is in balance with demand in any given location. Traditionally retail and office

along with other activities, have clustered into ‘centres’ due to observable benefits to

both the consumer and producer. These benefits of agglomeration have, in part, been

recognised by the market and are inherent in business location decisions.

6.3 However in the presence of externalities (impacts not considered by the market) these

signals can fail resulting in either an over or under production of business activity in the

wrong locations. Without regulation business locational decisions in Hamilton will

continue to be based on private cost benefit decisions. Given the opportunity operators

and developers will continue to locate based on their own returns and will not have

regard for what is best for the community. Individual businesses within Hamilton are

sometimes motivated by private benefits that carry with them costs to community that far

outweigh these individual gains. Although many of the criteria outlined above are

represented within centres the weighting of these is crucial. For example ‘destination’

retailers prioritise land costs given that they do not require the critical mass created

within established areas. This is often justified by the potential savings they offer to

consumers while reducing their own costs. It is argued that these private benefits are

often outweighed by the costs to the community of this locational strategy; this cost is

further exacerbated by the exodus of smaller stores following the larger profile retailers.

This pulling power is evident in the retail market as it operates currently. When

consolidated retail landlords such as malls negotiate lease terms with larger anchor

tenants they factor in the large patronage they will generate for smaller retailers and

leverage the rents accordingly.



6.4 It is important when considering the dispersal of business activity within Hamilton City to

consider the difference between the marginal impacts of a business operating

inefficiently and isolated impacts. This is an important point especially with regards to

centres. For example, the loss of shoppers, or workers, in a centre will have a marginal

impact on vitality. This change is extremely difficult to assess comparatively however,

for example shoppers would need to be asked what impact on the vitality value a 10%

decrease in shoppers would have on a centre. Therefore, when making a decision on

the likely impacts consideration must be had for the total value (cost and benefits) and

the likely proportional (incremental) impact on the variables affecting these (e.g. the

number of shoppers visiting a centre). Often however a value judgement must be made

by public decision makers as to the comparative values of these costs and benefits.

6.5 In the Hamilton market the marginal impacts on the Central Business Area are relatively

obvious. In his evidence Mr Heath has highlighted the impact on retail sales in the

Hamilton CBD over the past decade with a proportional fall of retail spend from 52%

(2000) to only 31% by 2012. These incremental impacts have culminated in real

changes to the CBD’s retail environment. The supply of alternative retail locations at the

level experienced in Hamilton over this period has resulted in the shift of individuals from

the CBD resulting in a fall in the quality of retail provided here thus perpetuating the

proportional decline.

6.6 Spatially it is important to note that decentralisation also refers to the sprawl of centres,

as opposed to the growth of centres, where capacity exists within the identified centre

but activity often takes the path of least individual resistance and spreads throughout the

periphery. This in effect undermines the potential efficiencies of intensified land use.

The argument that some businesses require these locations to operate effectively simply

reflects an individual position and does not consider the net impacts on the economy as

a whole. This consideration is fundamental in providing for the long-term wellbeing of

the community.

6.7 The fundamental issues underlined here are simple to outline but somewhat more

difficult to assess. They involve the principle that centres are community assets in

themselves and therefore assessment must be considered for:



What are the potential benefits of locating business activity in ‘centres’

Does the market (either supplier or consumer) give appropriate recognition to these

benefits and the potential community value

Are these true externalities and what is the potential extent of these benefits to the

community

What are the likely costs of restricting the potential locations for business in Hamilton

to higher density areas

What level of priority should the CBD hold over other potential business locations

6.8 An economic objective of the proposed changes to the business sections of the Hamilton

District Plan is to create a business centres’ hierarchy that provides for the vitality and

vibrancy of these centres encouraging growth and efficiency of investment and business

productivity.

6.9 Given that there are potential costs associated with regulation, not least of which is the

muting of market indicators, there needs to be a clear understanding of the level of

potential effects associated with the market failure. These assessments are not

intended to quantify the direct impact of proportional decentralisation but to indicate the

potential social and economic values that are jeopardised.

6.10 In terms of a hierarchy there is clear recognition of the economic significance of the CBD

(or Central City) to the Hamilton and Regional economy. The Hamilton CBD plays a

crucial role in the identification of the City as a whole, but also provides essential profile

enabling the Region to compete for business from the wider North Island. The CBD

represents a significant community investment that has the potential to provide net

economic returns that are unlikely to result anywhere else in the Region. As such the

proposed District Plan recognises the primacy of the Hamilton CBD in the hierarchy of

centres within the City. There are very real economic benefits attributable to activity that

specifically locates in centre and in particular the CBD.

7 EFFICIENCIES OF INTENSIFIED BUSINESS ACTIVITY & THE HAMILTON CBD



7.1 The economic argument for intervention is based on the fact that the market fails to

consider significant community benefits achieved through the consolidated location of

business activity. These failures conceal the true value of centres and if unchecked are

likely to result in an inefficient use of resources. It is important to note that the loss of

these potential benefits are not confined to the impacts on existing business activity but

must also be considered in terms of the potential future efficiencies that could be

achieved. In these terms a lost social benefit is tantamount to a social cost. The

potential loss to the community of ‘decentralised’ business activity is coined in this

section in terms of the benefits of ‘in-centre’ activity. The benefits (or alternatively dis-

benefits) discussed here include the decline in centre function and amenity along with

adverse effects on the roading network, public transport provision, resource

productivities, land efficiencies, community facilities, productivity and centre

infrastructure. Each is also assessed in terms of whether they should be regarded as

‘true’ externalities and to what level the market may (or should) be considered to have

regard for them.

Decline in amenity of centres

7.2 The amenity of a centre is directly related to its vitality and vibrancy, which in turn has a

strong correlation with the level and potential level of people within a centre. A loss of

patronage to a centre is not only likely to result in decreased infrastructure efficiencies

and a fall in other activities but is very likely to reduce the value residents place on the

vibrancy and sense of community achieved there.

7.3 These functions are notoriously difficult to assess in terms of their use and value to the

community. In June 2007 and February 2009 Property Economics undertook a ‘social

survey’ of several cities throughout New Zealand. The purpose of this survey was to

gain insight into what residents valued in a major activity centre. A contingent valuation

methodology was used here because it is one of the only ways to assign dollars

amounts to non-use values for an environment, values that do not involve market

purchases and may not involve direct participation or can be assessed through proxies.

7.4 This survey was designed to assess the value that residents placed on business centre

attributes and compare these values between compact and more dispersed commercial



markets. Residents were asked why they visited a CBD, how often, what they

considered most important about it and then attempted to place a value on having

access to retail in this centre as opposed to more dispersed locations. The purpose of

this survey was to illustrate the magnitude of value that is being jeopardised. The value

assessed is inherent in all community centres but exists at a higher level given the

strategic importance of a centre within an area. Hamilton CBD is the community focal

point for the whole district and as such would exhibit values proportional to those found

in the study.

7.5 In considering the costs and benefits of the proposed changes to the District Plan it is

important not just to have regard for the current situation that exists in Hamilton, but the

benefits that are likely to be attributable due to adopting a consolidation approach.

These benefits can then be weighed against a more liberal dispersal stance possible

under the existing Operative Plan. The hypothesis here is that Hamilton has already

suffered from some levels of dispersed development that has potentially reduced the

social value of the CBD. It is also important to note that as activity intensifies in this

centre the social value associated with it is likely to rise still further (there are spatial

limits to this in larger areas that can ‘crowd out’ or reduce this increase.

7.6 Although, as previously pointed out, marginal changes in community values would be

ideal, the use of total value figures give clear indications of the potential value and

therefore the loss to community well-being. Given the relative value differences between

a consolidated value for a CBD such as Hamilton and a value attributable to a more

dispersed structure, under the Operative Plan, the potential proportional loss in social

value for the residents of the City in terms of the CBD is likely to be between $7.2m -

$9.8m per annum4. This figure is based on the population of Hamilton District as well as

potential internal competition within the district. As previously stated this value does not

imply all future business investment should take place in the town centre as issues of

convenience, choice, sustainable infrastructure utilisation and local identity become

increasingly important for different forms of commercial activity. However given the

proportion of district activity (represented by total employment) within the Hamilton CBD

4 This value is generated by utilising the dispersed versus concentrated value found through the survey and applying this to the proportional population of Hamilton City and the level of activity (both commercial and retail) that would occur here under the concentrated model. Rather than representing GDP this represents a social value the community would place on an appropriately functioning CBD, i.e. the ‘price’ they would be willing to pay (similar to assessing the value of a view for example).



has fallen by 22% over the past 12 years there is sufficient capacity to ‘recapture’ all of

this value.

7.7 As commented earlier the comparison here is not the current situation compared with

continued decentralisation (or the ‘with’ or ‘without’ scenario), it is consolidation of

business activity in the CBD versus this dispersal scenario. Value to the community of

these retail / community centres is not just what is currently valued by the community but

what could be achieved. This value is an indication of the potential loss to the

community that is unlikely to be replicated elsewhere.

7.8 It can be argued that this activity and vibrancy act as a competitive advantage for the

CBD and thereby work as trade competition. However, the value of the CBD to patrons

is not just determined by their own decisions but those of other participants who do not

consider this loss in their decision making, resulting in a direct resource effect on a third

party. By dispersing business activity the value of a vibrant centre is reduced, there is

little doubt that, allowing for congestion, there is a direct relationship between the level of

activity in a centre and the average amenity value achieved from it. For Hamilton City

this is crucial as less intensive commercial, or commercial activities based in other

areas, argue that they provide a unique attractive area for business. In economies the

size of Hamilton City such areas are unlikely to result in ‘additional’ business activity

within the district and simply detract from the potential efficiencies of this activity being

consolidated. In simple terms once again although there may be some benefit to the

individual businesses in locating in less intense areas the loss to the economy as a

whole will inevitably outweigh this.

7.9 Hamilton currently exhibits signs of ‘commercial sprawl’, as illustrated in Appendix 1 Map

1, with businesses being attracted to fringe locations outside of the Hamilton CBD and in

fact any centres. As previously stated although this may be beneficial to these individual

businesses, within the current Hamilton economic environment, these locational

decisions will, and have, impact upon Hamilton’s overall all efficiency and productivity.

Further to this dispersing commercial activity, and the resulting reduction in vitality and

vibrancy, will reduce the marketability or competitive nature of the remaining CBD in turn

shifting the balance for other businesses who are likely to reassess their locational

choices away from the CBD.



7.10 A more liberal view may also illustrate the problem of reducing the choice of some

people for the benefit of others. The issue here pertains to welfare economics; it is the

wider community well-being that should concern policy makers. This is the purpose for

intervention impacting upon what the market would produce so that it creates a social

equilibrium. In making a private decision a patron may weigh up a price saving of say

$50 per annum (in an out-of-centre location) with their social value of an existing centre,

$40, and make the decision based on the perceived $10 gain. However the fact that

they no longer use the centre may have a cumulative effect on everyone else of $100

per annum. Thus the community well-being is enhanced by having that patronage in the

centre.

7.11 In terms of benefits to the wider economy vibrancy and local amenity are often key

factors in the housing and employment decisions made by skilled labours. This

environment is more likely to lead to increases in value added goods and productivity

gains for the local economy. The current framework under which businesses locate in

Hamilton is likely to exacerbate the dispersal of this activity reducing Hamilton’s overall

competitiveness not only for business in general but in terms of its appeal as a visitor

destination and residence.

Agglomeration and Productivity Gains

7.12 The arguments for agglomeration pertain mainly to specific productive activities within an

economy. The basis for these arguments is that increased densities lead to synergies,

improved flow, economies of scale and utilisation of resources. The presence of

agglomeration effects within the New Zealand market is somewhat contentious, however

the supporting academic and empirical evidence identifying the economic benefits are

particularly strong and widely accepted. Work undertaken in 2007 by Ascari Partners

and Richard Paling Consulting (Williamson, Paling & Waite, 2007) has shown a doubling

of employment densities accompanied by accessibility will result in productivity gains of

around 6%. While work undertaken in Britain (Dan Graham 2006) found that the

doubling of the effective density rate (in a given area) resulted in average productivity

gains of 12.5% and service sector gains of 22.1%. It is important to note here that these



productivity gains would need to already exist in a market for them to be considered by

individual firms and are therefore less likely to occur without other incentives for them to

locate here. Therefore this is unlikely to currently be a motivating factor within Hamilton

given the market that exists.

7.13 Agglomeration benefits are generally based around the ability for a CBD to provide the

following:

increased specialisation – there may be enough business to support a general

accountant or lawyer in a small town but in a large city there is enough to support

business advisers who specialise in very narrow fields of work thereby improving

efficiency and expertise;

knowledge spillovers, both between firms in the same sector and across sectors,

leading to increased innovation;

competition – the presence of lots of firms offering similar products spurs on

competition, innovation and efficiency and there are lots of buyers to compete for;

larger labour markets offer wide choices for employers and the opportunity to recruit

staff with specialist skills;

economies of scale are created by serving larger markets

7.14 There are varying levels of these benefits given the overall size and role of a centre

within an economy. The Hamilton CBD represents a unique opportunity for Hamilton

City to provide these benefits at a level that will create a more productive economy,

increasing the well-being of the entire community and resulting in greater levels of

competitiveness for the Region as a whole.

7.15 It is important to note that agglomeration is not restricted to large cities but is the result

(at differing levels) of diversity and the ability for an area to attract more productive

sectors into the economy that would otherwise service Hamilton from outside the area.

These sectors will typically only locate in accessible areas that exhibit synergise

(spatially) with the local market. The consolidation of activity, within specifically the

existing Hamilton CBD, is the only way by which Hamilton will attain any degree of these

agglomeration benefits and improve its economic competitiveness.



7.16 The agglomeration of commercial activity has two effects which are important to

distinguish between, the first is the increased profile created by a critical mass of activity.

There are obvious ‘flow-on’ benefits to suppliers of locating within a vibrant and active

centre along with the potential for some economies of scale. These benefits however are

for the most part considered by the market in its locational decisions. Based on these

benefits alone there would be no requirement for intervention as the market would

operate efficiently.

7.17 However the second impact of agglomeration has to do with the environment that is

created through this critical mass. Centralised business activity creates both amenity

and diversity with the local area. The agglomeration of commerce into centres provides

an environment that will facilitate that agglomeration of other commercial activities and

allow for the productivity gains identified above. International research has shown a clear

link between vibrancy and local amenity and skilled employment and business locational

decisions.

7.18 The ability of commercial and retail activities to provide this environment, and thereby

improve community wellbeing, is not considered in individual business decisions and are

therefore distributional impacts with regards to this resource.

7.19 The potential level of these agglomeration benefits, in productivity terms for the City, are

significant. Table 1 below illustrates the changes in Employment activity within the

Hamilton CBD proportional to Hamilton City over the past 6 years. It shows that total

district EC’ s (Employment Count) rose by 1% over the past 6 years while the town

centre has experienced a drop of 15% over the same period. This shift alone represents

a potential fall in productivity of $22.5m per annum (given the relocation or loss sectors

this figure represents the increase in productivity for CBD based businesses based on

the re-accommodation of these workers in the CBD ). The potential migration of

business activity from the Hamilton CBD and appropriate centres will continue to

undermine Hamilton’s GDP and overall competitiveness. In my opinion such a

movement is inconsistent with providing for the economic wellbeing of the community

and directly detracts from the potential efficiencies of this activity being consolidated

within the CBD.



Area Sector 2000 2003 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Change

Hamilton City Total 56,371 64,778 74,304 77,619 77,480 75,137 72,918 73,954 74,835 33%

Commercial 14,288 16,305 20,820 22,320 21,940 20,812 20,530 20,320 20,501 43%

Hamilton CBD Total 15,960 18,172 19,328 19,456 19,977 18,078 17,666 17,036 16,483 3%

Hamilton CBD % Industrial 9% 8% 6% 5% 5% 5% 6% 5% 5% -43%

Retail 44% 43% 38% 35% 37% 35% 35% 33% 31% -29%

Commercial 43% 42% 43% 40% 41% 38% 36% 35% 34% -20%

Other 26% 27% 23% 23% 23% 21% 22% 22% 20% -22%

Total 28% 28% 26% 25% 26% 24% 24% 23% 22% -22%

Table 1: Hamilton CBD Proportional Employment Change (2000 – 2012 ECs)

Source: Statistics NZ, Property Economics

Adverse effects on community infrastructure

7.20 The provision of community facilities and infrastructure is a social investment. The

justification for this investment is the social value that these services and facilities

provide to the community. This is considered to be significant enough that they are

publicly funded and supplied. The reason they are publicly supplied is because given

their social value the free market would not supply enough of them given a patrons

individual value (price). This level of social investment is evident through the CityHeart

project Council in which council “invested” some $3.5million in the physical upgrade of

CBD public assets during 2009.Other purchases include the Centre Place Carpark

($9million) as a critically important asset to influence the overall public carparking

strategy for the CBD.

7.21 In Hamilton CBD these facilities include libraries, civic and administrative functions,

community centres, public meeting areas, police stations, etc. These are generally

provided in centres with high activity so as to coincide with retail and other uses. The

scale of these facilities also coincides with the scale of activity located within the centre

e.g. the primary library in Hamilton is in Hamilton CBD. This in, and of itself, is reason to

suggest that there is a direct relationship between use of community facilities and other

activity such as retail and commercial activity. Simply put the greater the level of activity

and accessibility in a centre the greater the utilisation of such public assets. Not only is

profile important for these types of facilities but they are located to make good use of

multi-use trips.



7.22 The provision of these facilities are sometimes seen as ‘sunk costs’, dismissing their

relevance and their potential underutilisation as costs to decentralised retail activity.

Although this line of thinking is correct with regards to the fixed investment it fails to

consider the return from the community investment that is lost if these assets are

undermined. The utilisation of these assets has community value that must be

considered when potentially reducing their usage. I believe what are seen, in this

regard, as sunk costs are in fact community investments that must be considered in

terms of their initial costs (and hence on-going opportunity cost) to society. Even if the

investment is irrecoverable (hence not property etc) there is still a need to have regard

for this investment, especially if not considering their value is likely to lead to a

duplication of facilities.

7.23 There are two potential effects of reduced usage of community facilities within centres.

The first is that the marginal cost per patron increases thereby reducing efficiency and

reducing the social benefits through its provision, and the second is that the

infrastructure has to be duplicated (even on a small scale) elsewhere causing significant

inefficiencies of community resources. The costs involved in underutilisation of these

resources or indeed their duplicate are relative obvious and must be considered when

locating associated activities.

7.24 The provision of these facilities within centres may result in a slight competitive

advantage for these retail locations as they draw primary users, however reduced

activity densities will result in a lower potential utilisation. (Property Economics Social

Survey showed 19% of personal visits to regional town centre’s were to utilise

community facilities, 10% of these were the primary purpose for the visit) The Hamilton

City Council provides these resources because they have significant social benefit to the

community, to undermine their use, in any way, diminishes that benefit. The basic

principle here is to try and maximise the net social benefit gained through provision of

these goods, therefore the location of these is extremely important. To put a library in

the middle of no-where and then to argue that people still have the choice to use it if it

enhances their own well-being is absurd, it increases the private cost and reduces the

social benefits associated with that facility. This co-location also has the potential to

increase accessibility and efficiencies in terms of travel.



7.25 The argument pertains to whether the choice made by patrons is an informed one and

whether the ‘free’ market will take into account the true value of these resources to the

community. Society is continually restricting consumer choice based on what is most

beneficial to the community as a whole, cigarettes, drugs, pollution etc, private choice is

restricted for the betterment of society. Individual choices must be held accountable to

the community.

Transportation Efficiency

7.26 The basis for this argument lies in the transport efficiencies achieved through the

agglomeration of activities with one of the key generators or these travel patterns being

retail patronage.

7.27 Transportation efficiencies are fundamental when considering the economic costs and

benefits associated with this intervention. These values are inherently linked to the level

of accessibility to activities and assets within these areas. In terms of costs, relating to

the proposed plan changes, it is crucial that consideration is made for the capacity of this

infrastructure as the benefits are likely to be tempered by a ‘crowding out’ effect. In

terms of transportation this is often referred to as congestion. The impact of this is to

reduce the benefits attributable to these locations while increasing the costs in terms of

reduced convenience and increased travel times. Given the conditions that exist in

Hamilton City it is highly unlikely that this will occur.

7.28 Efficient transportation networks provide obvious benefits to the community that are not

considered in these decisions. These benefits include:

Reduced public costs for roading and transport infrastructure (reducing the need for

duplication)

Reduced pollution

Increased certainty around public and private sector infrastructure investment

Reduced marginal cost (reducing the ‘per trip’ cost)

7.29 It is generally accepted that there are transport efficiencies associated with centralised

activity. It is fundamental to note that not all these benefits are considered in individual



decisions. Given that the level of investment into this form of infrastructure climbs into

the millions of dollars (and in the case of the Expressway, millions) it is critical that this

be given some level of security as to its efficient utilisation and therefore effective return.

Retail location is essential both directly and indirectly in these decisions due both to the

level of activity generated by this market and the co-location of other activities due to

amenity.

Land Use Efficiencies

7.30 A key purpose of planning is to produce the most efficient use of an economy’s land

resource. Planning regulations are designed to control private uses for this resource so

as to produce a sustainable long-term outcome. Inherently there are two potential short-

falls of the market in achieving this with regards to business location.

7.31 The first issue is associated with the potential lack of information available to private

developers. This may take the form of making decisions without full knowledge of

competitor investment plans. Inaccurate forecasts of future demand may affect the

efficient allocation of this land resource. This potentially leads to an oversupply of

commercial space within the market. The relevance to commercial locations is that there

is a propensity of out-of-centre development to have a greater degree of viability (and

lower risk) in the short-run thus resulting in the over-supply.

7.32 Secondly potential efficiencies are lost where a resource is over allocated as the market

has no necessity to utilise these efficiently. E.g. without restrictions on residential land

some efficiencies would be lost from higher density living. The efficient use of land is

fundamental to community well-being. The provision of relatively cheap land in

inappropriate locations provides the market with misleading signals which has the

potential to reduce the productivities of land for the entire economy. This position is only

partly tempered by the need to provide adequate quantities of land in appropriate

locations to meet the potential demand and provide a competitive environment.

However the negative impacts of an oversupply of land are most acutely felt in the

commercial market and so are most crucial in terms of net effects. Within Hamilton the

provision of what is seen as competitively priced commercial land will inevitably result in

reduced land efficiencies.



8 HAMILTON ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT AND THE PROPOSED CHANGES

8.1 As previously stated Hamilton City has seen substantial employment growth from 2000

to 2006 at a rate nearly twice that of the national average5. However two issues have

arisen more recently. From 2006 to 2012 Hamilton City’s growth rates have fallen to half

of the national average and the distribution of this activity has shifted significantly within

the District. At the same time a relatively stable proportion of national GDP has

experienced a fall of approximately 3% resulting in a proportional loss of GDP of $136m

per annum6.

8.2 Map 1 in Appendix 1 illustrates the shift of commercial business activity away from the

Hamilton CBD. In 2000 28% of total employment was accommodated within the CBD

boundaries, by 2012 this number had fallen to only 22% a proportional loss of nearly

4,000 jobs. The loss has been primarily felt in both retail and commercial activity where

proportionately 3,000 jobs have been lost. The result for the retail market has been

clearly outlined in Mr Heath’s evidence where the CBD’s district wide retail presence has

fallen by 40% in the last 10 years leading directly to a substantial decrease in the

centres’ vitality and vibrancy and undermining the values outlined in the preceding

section.

8.3 The proposed changes to the Hamilton District Plan highlight the importance of centres

in general through Section 6 and a business centres’ hierarchy ensuring that centres

retain and enhance their vibrancy and vitality. Key to this is the Central City Zone (or

CBD) which is expected to provide for the largest proportion of the region’s commercial

growth and is promoted as the preferred location for major retail, office, cultural and

entertainment activities. This promotion is fundamental to the wellbeing and economic

prosperity of the Hamilton City community and draws parallel with the Proposed

Regional Policy Statement supporting the centres hierarchy and the CBDs primacy.

Without this the sustainable growth of Hamilton City is at risk as businesses react to

declining productivities due to the lack of an intensive commercial centre.

5 Measured by Stats NZ employment trends 6 Infometrics Mar 2012



8.4 In order to promote the commercial development of the Hamilton CBD Section 6 of the

proposed District Plan outlines restrictions for ‘other’ centres and locations in the

hierarchy. These restrictions are based on gross floor area per site and essentially

restrict the development of office activity outside the Central Business Zone (CBD) to

less than 500sqm. Given the dynamics of the commercial market and the intensive

utilisation of floorspace this would equate to businesses that, on average, employ less

than 20 – 25 ECs.

8.5 For the purposes of understanding the impacts on the City’s well-being two scenarios

have been developed to improve the understanding of the current and proposed

business environment futures. The first assumes, given no change in the planning

regulations, that growth and indeed current activity will continue along its current

distribution. The second distributes commercial growth based on the implementation of

the proposed District Plan regulations. These scenarios are outlined below:



Base Scenario Test Scenario

Employment

Commercial growth for Hamilton City to

2031 has been estimated at 6,900 ECs. It

is assumed that growth distribution will

continue along the trends experinced

over the past 12 years. This would result

in commercial growth in the CBD of 1,250

ECs to 2031

Given the office restrictions outlined in

the proposed changes to the District Plan

it has been estimated that 70% of growth

in businesses with 20 plus ECs* will

locate in the CBD while 20% of growth in

businesses with less than 20 ECs will do

the same. This results in the

accommodation of an additional 4,560

commercial ECs into the CBD by 2031

Productivity

Based on this nominal increase in

commercial activity in the CBD there

would be a small increase in 'effective

density' leading to an overall increase in

productivity of .65% (for CBD workers) or

$8.56m per annum

Productivity changes from the base value

as a result of changes in employment

density. As this 'effective density'

increases so too does the impact upon

productivities. Given the composition of

business in the Hamilton CBD this

increase would result in a 6.1% increase

in productivity or an increased

contribution to GDP of $81m per annum*Given the decretionary limit on fringe CBD locations

and the existing 11,000sqm office consent at The Base

Table 2: Agglomeration benefits for Commercial Productivity in the Hamilton CBD7

8.6 It is important to note that under the current situation the potential production gains from

the CBD are likely to be outweighed by the loss of average production through the

distribution of the remaining commercial growth throughout the City.

8.7 It is expected that the proposed changes to the Hamilton District Plan pertaining to the

establishment of office developments will encourage nearly 70% of expected commercial

growth to 2031 to locate in the Hamilton CBD. The comparative agglomeration benefits

alone of this activity locating here rather than the current dispersal are likely to

indicatively be in the order of $72m per annum in improved productivity (over and above 7 Changes in productivity are based on the proportionate changes in effective density within the Hamilton CBD

under each scenario (based on the current EC and density levels. These increased rates are applied to productivity levels by commercial sector at a City level (and therefore the nominal impacts are likely to be higher than calculated). This change in productivity is then assessed against the EC accommodated within the CBD under each scenario resulting in the $72m per annum differential. This is the additional GDP resulting from the accommodation of this activity within the CBD over and above its production elsewhere. A full explanation of this table is provided in Appendix 3.



general market gains). This in itself is likely to alter growth projections for the City with

improved efficiencies attracting greater levels of expected business growth to the City.

8.8 The potential changes in productivity outlined above a small quantified benefit of

agglomerating business activity within the Hamilton CBD. This agglomeration however

is dependent on the effective density level which is a function of both employment

density and geospatial distance (in relation to the average distance between

businesses). It is therefore fundamental that the proposed changes to the Hamilton

District plan focus commercial activity within the existing CBD area.

8.9 Given the level of benefits attributable to this effective density increase it is important

that the rules around commercial office development are firmly held. Approximately 70%

of Hamilton City’s office businesses employ 20 or more people. Although a proportion of

these businesses would still locate in premises less than 500sqm it is essential that as

high a proportion of the remaining levels of office growth is accommodated within the

core CBD. As such it is appropriate that the restriction concerning office development

over 500sqm is retained. Any material deviation from this has the very real potential to

divert commercial growth from the Hamilton CBD and continue to undermine its potential

to benefit the wider economy.

8.10 In considering whether the proposed changes achieve the objective of improved

economic well-being it is important to consider whether the proposed rules go too far or

indeed far enough. A simple analysis of the benefits of intensification of the Hamilton

CBD would suggest that the greater the level of business growth accommodated here

the greater the economic benefits. However for any assessment of effects, under the

RMA, it is crucial to have regard for both the benefits and costs of proposed changes.

8.11 As stated the market is an efficient allocator of scarce resources. Market indicators such

as price typically channel these resources based on demand and relative value. The

recognition of social benefits over and above these, and any subsequent intervention,

has the potential to influence these indicators and lead to inefficiencies.



8.12 Intervention into the ‘free’ operation of the market in the form of proposed Plan Changes

may result in:

1. The retention or increase in the price of business land

2. Congestion leading to reduced accessibility and therefore a ‘crowing out’ benefits

outlined

3. Potential exclusion of some development models

4. Reduced flexibility in centres that previously had more permissive standards

5. Increase in the cost of business operation

8.13 The provision of cheap land for business use has long been the basis for the

decentralisation of activity. The priority of land costs in business location decisions is

most commonly held by low profile businesses that do not rely on the presence of other

business activity to support the viability of their business. However, as previously stated,

these businesses themselves create a profile that inevitably changes the relative

‘attractiveness’ of locations for other businesses. This in turn has a significant impact on

all the benefits previously identified. The simple point here is the provision of cheap land

can create a competitive advantage for a local area, however this is a short term benefit

that is typically outweighed by the reduction in amenity achieved by other businesses

and therefore a ‘roll – on’ decentralising effect. The market does not consider these dis-

benefits and therefore the price of this land for these businesses is not a true

representation of its cost, thus leading to inefficient resource use.

8.14 Accessibility is a key factor in the level and existence of the benefits attributable to

business agglomeration. Without this these benefits will be significantly reduced. It is

fundamental that capacity of the existing network is maintained. However this is unlikely

to be an issue for Hamilton as the congestion of activity (land, traffic, people) will not

occur given its foreseeable future.

8.15 Over the past 15 years there has been a proliferation of development models

fundamentally structured so as to compete by utilising their ‘destination’ status and



therefore avail themselves of resources with reduced competition. Development of retail

and office blocks out-of-centre are feasible where businesses do not require the benefits

of existing centres and in fact thrive on the redirection of centre activity. These

developments are at the forefront of community dis-enablement as they create greater

costs than they generally provide. There is no reason to suggest that these

development models will not operate successfully in competition with others, as they do

currently throughout the Waikato.

8.16 The potential increase in business costs relate primarily to rents. This also occurs in a

free market where the agglomeration benefits outlined are recognised and realised by

the market and considered in their locational decisions. These increases are general a

market reaction to the increases in productivity achieved. However, as previously

discussed, these benefits are not always recognised and as such their value is reduced

in the market leading to a spiralling fall, such as has been experienced in Hamilton over

the past decade. Without intervention into the market through the proposed changes

there would be no corresponding increase in production to outweigh the potentially

higher rent levels. Overall the potential to increase business costs is more than meet

through the increased density while additional economic benefits accrue to the

community as a whole.

8.17 Due to the fact that the potential losses to the community of allowing continued

decentralisation are so great, in this environment, and the likely risks to the economy of

proposed commercial changes are so limited, it is entirely prudent to assume a proactive

stance on this issue. There is an important balance to be maintained between protecting

community benefits and potentially stifling positive market growth. Given the current

environment however it is my opinion that the former is more likely in Hamilton. It is not

the role of the Council to restrict competition or protect commercial interests, it is

however its role to protect and enhance the community’s social and economic well-

being.



9 ADDRESSING SPECIFIC SUBMISSIONS

9.1 There are a variety of submissions that have been made both in favour and against the

proposed changes to the Hamilton District Plan. However there are only a few that

relate directly to the commercial rules. It is of interest to note that there are no

submissions that question the importance and primacy of the Hamilton CBD in the City’s

economy, nor the importance of locating activity here.

9.2 Kiwi Income Property Trust and Kiwi Property Holdings Limited (Kiwi) have lodged a

submission stating that they do not believe that the Proposed Plan adequately enables

the Hamilton CBD in considering cumulative adverse effects. In terms of the commercial

active it is my belief that the provisions in the prosed District Plan do in fact enable the

Hamilton CBD sufficiently. Of the 161 new commercial consents issued in Hamilton City

over the past 12 years 65% have been for developments less than 500sqm, with the

remaining 35% over this threshold. However when considering the total consented

floorspace, developments over 500sqm made up over 82% of all commercial floorspace

in the City. This would indicate that even with a slight movement towards these smaller

commercial developments the restrictions placed on office development outside the CBD

will enable and encourage a significant level of future commercial growth in this centre

(to a level outlined in the ‘test scenario’ above).

9.3 A further submission on commercial activity has been raised through the Property

Council New Zealand (PCNZ). In their submission they have supported the “centre

hierarchy” introduced in the Proposed District Plan while raising two important issues.

The first relates to the differing rules within the Central City Precincts. Regarding this

they state that ‘Commercial activity, no matter where it establishes in the Central City

Zone should be actively encouraged’ (Point 7, para. 3). The Proposed District Plan

seeks to promote and encourage the development of the Hamilton CBD, appropriately,

for mixed use development. As such it has divided the Central City into 4 precincts

(Downtown, City Living, Ferrybank and Opoia). In terms of commercial restrictions only

the Downtown precinct holds permitted status for offices over 500sqm. This has the



potential to produce a legible CBD that will provide greater density of commercial activity

when a smaller geographic area. While the CBD is ultimately the preferred location for

office activity in Hamilton City there exists a need to produce a concentrated, legible,

and functional city centre. I believe the rules regarding office locations within the CBD

provides for these outcomes and produces a competitive business environment for the

City.

9.4 The PCNZ has also raised an issue regarding the fourth precinct, Opoia. The Proposed

District Plan seeks to include this in the CBD to provide an attractive location for higher

density activity. The rules for this precinct allow the development of small (under

250sqm) office activities. Given the previous arguments regarding density the addition

of this location is unlikely to, in itself, create additional commercial demand for the City

and as such will simple redistribute existing growth potentially decreasing overall

productivities. As such it would be my recommendation that commercial activity should

not currently be permitted in this location.

9.5 AMP Capital Portfolio have made a submission seeking offices up to 500sqm as

permitted activities while offices greater than 500sqm should be restricted discretionary

in the business 4 land at Te Rapa. The reason stated for the change sought is the fact

they believe there is insufficient demand for the quantum of land zoned for Large Format

Retail and offices should be permitted to locate here to mitigate this as well as utilising

arterial transport networks

9.6 The submission regarding office activity status on Te Rapa businesses 4 land is in

contrast to the primacy of the CBD and the economic value that this centre affords the

Regional economy. As previously stated for Hamilton to be a competitive, efficient, and

productive economy it is essential the CBD reflects this. 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.

9.7 Several submissions have been received outlining the need to allow greater flexibility in

terms of ancillary activities in industrial areas. These activities include office and retail at



10% of the primary activity’s floorspace. After consideration the suggested level of up to

25% of the total floorspace or 250sqm, whichever is the lesser, is appropriate for

ancillary activities. It is important to distinguish between ancillary activities and ‘stand

alone’ office activities. This ancillary activities associated (directly) with the primary

activity of business do not often locate differently. Hence under this provision the CBD

and other centres are unlikely to lose commercial activity that would have otherwise

located centrally. Larger businesses that are supported by large commercial businesses

are more likely to have these commercial activities locate in centre. Restricting the size

of these ancillary activities to 250sqm would result in these businesses having to locate

the ancillary commercial activities elsewhere and would therefore not detract from the

centres based approached sought through this Plan Change.

9.8 The continued economic development of Hamilton City requires competitive changes to

occur. It is now, more than ever, crucial that the economic environment within the

District is as competitively and efficiently managed as possible. Business location is key

in the creation of this environment. The potential gains to Hamilton CBD in commercial

productivity alone exceed $72 per annum while the ‘social value’ placed on this level of

activity within the CBD is nearly $10m per annum.

9.9 In terms of an economic development strategy it is crucial that the proposed plan

changes occur so as to foster a greater comparative advantage for the Hamilton

economy. As identified above the decentralised activity already taking place is

potentially costing the community millions of dollars per annum. Without such changes it

is more and likely that the local economic environment in which the community finds

itself will continue to fall resulting in significant losses in community wellbeing and

income.



Price/Benefit

MSC

MPC

P1

P

MSB

Q1 Q Quantity

Price/Benefit

MSC

P1 MSB

P

MPB

Q Q1 Quantity

APPENDIX 1 – Externalities and Community Well-being (Retail example)

The key factors in the argument against complete retail liberalisation are the externalities

produced by this market. Externalities are community (social) costs or benefits that are not

received or paid for by those involved in the market transaction, the decision makers. Typically

markets with negative externalities (costs) over produce as illustrated by Figure 1 while markets

with positive externalities under produce (benefits), Figure 2.

Figure 1: Market with associated negative externalities (e.g. Out-of-centre Retail)

Figure 2: Market with associated positive externalities (e.g. In-centre Retail)



Price/Benefit

S S1

B/P1

B/P MSB

A

MPB

Q Q1 Quantity

There are two types of externalities to distinguish between, true externalities and pecuniary

externalities. True externalities are external costs and benefits that are not mediated through

markets. It is necessary for Council to consider these as equating social and private costs and

benefits could potentially increase the well-being of the entire community.

With regards to retail the decisions of some parties significantly impact on the well-being of

others, this requires consideration of the total benefits to the community of retail location and

agglomeration in order to maximize these benefits or minimize the costs.

An example of a positive externality in terms of retail location is the additional community benefit

achieved through creating a vibrant, attractive community focal point that provides a sense of

community. Under normal market conditions the critical mass needed to create this may not be

maintained due to the fact that people are considering their own costs and benefits and not the

impacts they have on others. Given this scenario the demand for in-centre retail may be lower

(D=MPB) than is efficient. Figure 3 outlines this scenario. Point A represents an unregulated

market.

Figure 3: Supply side intervention in a market with positive externalities



Point A shows the market where the positive externalities of in-centre retail are not considered.

The market will produce Q1 of in-centre retail floorspace. Given that there are benefits that the

market does not fully consider the demand curve should be represented by MSB, this would

produce more retail activity at Q2. However, given the nature of this market the intervention is

not on the demand side but on the supply side. With Council intervention, increasing the amount

of in-centre retail will move the supply curve from S to S1. This creates a market, in this

example, that is in a social equilibrium where community well-being is maximized. Simply put;

in-centre retail has community benefits not recognized by the market. When included this

produces a greater benefit to the community than the market if left to its own devices.

An argument, for a potential cost of this intervention, is that by protecting in-centre development,

retail costs (primarily rents) remain higher, limiting the increase in supply. However, in a

competitive market (as discussed in Appendix 1) this will have a limited, if any, impact on price.

Conversely, the development of retail activity out-of-centre not only reduces these benefits but

also has direct costs associated with it. The potential provision of additional infrastructure,

increase travel etc must be attributed to this retail by location.

This under representation of costs is illustrated by Figure 1. If these costs were included the

supply curve would decrease increasing the price, that now includes these external costs, and

decreasing the amount of out-of-centre retail the market would permit. Unlike many markets

however it is difficult to charge or tax specific retail locations it is therefore necessary to restrict

the quantity of retail in these locations. The restriction of this retail space is key to planning as it

maintains land efficiency. To achieve this efficiency all relevant externalities must be

considered



APPENDIX 2 – Commercial employment Changes Hamilton City

Map 1: Commercial employment Changes for Hamilton City (2000 – 2012)

These maps illustrate the spatial changes in net commercial employment activity throughout

Hamilton City. Each coloured area represents a ‘meshblock’, this is a unit of space utilised and

defined by Statistics New Zealand. For the purposes of these maps all areas that experienced no

change over these periods are not included. Map 1 shows the movement of commercial activity

over the 12 year period 2000 to 2012. This illustrates significant dispersal of activity throughout

the City while the CBD still captures a degree of growth, albeit a decreasing level. Within the 6



year period 2006 to 2012 the CBD experienced a fall in commercial employment of over 2,000

EC’s, this represents the total drop experienced by the entire City over this period. At the same

time as this dramatic fall in CBD commercial activity the remaining commercial employment

continued to spread throughout the City area.

Map 2: Commercial employment Changes for Hamilton City (2006 – 2012)



APPENDIX 3 – Further Explanation to Table 2

Table Objective: To give an indication of the potential economic benefits associated with the

Proposed District Plan in terms of productivity gains through agglomeration of business activity

within the CBD.

NB: The level of gain is indicative only due to the unknown final impacts of the proposed changes

in terms of market response. This table does not take into account the potential increase in

competitiveness through a vibrant CBD.

The process for Table 2 includes the comparison between a CBD that has experienced a

decreasing proportion of the City’s commercial activity with the remainder being distributed

throughout the City and a CBD that accommodates a larger proportion of commercial activity due

to the proposed changes.

This comparison includes:

1. The projection of future commercial ECs (Employee Count –unadjusted)

2. The distribution of this growth based on the 2 scenarios, with primary focus on those

accommodated within the Hamilton CBD

3. The potential increase in productivity for the employees accommodated within the CBD

through the increase in density

Assumptions:

Scenario 1

That commercial employment growth will continue to be accommodated within the City

occurring to its current trends meaning that of the total growth to 2031 of commercial

employees of 6,900 only 1,250will be housed in the CBD.

Commercial ECs include:

Information Media and Telecommunications

Financial and Insurance Services

Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services

Professional, Scientific and Technical Services

Administrative and Support Services

35% Public Administration and Safety

15% Education and Training

25% Health Care and Social Assistance

25% Arts and Recreation Services



As the level of density falls (proportionate to a doubling of activity) so too does the

productivity gains achieved through this density, hence this increase only results in

increased productivity of 0.65% across all commercial EC’s

The average productivity per commercial EC is based on the City average and is likely

therefore to be slightly conservative

Scenario 2

As in scenario 1 the commercial growth is projected to be approximately 6,900 ECs by

2031. In the event that the Hamilton CBD experiences a competitive boost due to the

increased activity this is likely to be conservative.

The distribution of this growth is based on the current commercial business size ratios in

Hamilton City. As of 2012 70% of all commercial ECs in Hamilton City are employed in

businesses with 20 or more employees (the relevance of 20 employees is that on average

commercial EC require approximately 25sqm of floorspace, so there is a greater

propensity for these businesses to locate in premises that are 500sqm or over the level of

development to be directed towards the CBD under the proposed changes). Based on

this scenario 2 assumes that the CBD will accommodate 70% of the growth in these

larger businesses and 20% of growth in the smaller (less than 20 ECs) ones.

This results in an additional 4,560 commercial ECs being accommodated within Hamilton

CBD by 2031.

The effect on productivity resulting from this growth has been based around the results

by Motu (2009) in their paper co-authored by Dan Graham. This research represents a

well documented relationship between business density and productivity. For the

purposes of this indicative assessment an average between ‘within industry’ and within

local industry’ has been applied to each commercial sector. Once again the impacts on

productivity have been assumed to be non-linear with a lower density resulting in a

proportionately lower productivity gain.

Employment Projection:

Essentially commercial employment has been projected through:

1. Assessing the national growth level of GDP and employment top 2031 by sector

2. Assessing Hamilton City’s proportional growth based on population projections and

historical trends (relationship to national growth by sector)

3. Hamilton’s total employment projections are broken down into first level ANZSIC

categories through local trends from 2000 to 2012

4. Commercial employment (indicating office based activity) growth is based on the

categories outlined above.



Further outline of employment projection assessment

Using the Statistics NZ Medium Series population forecasts, historical business demographic

trends and the changing demographic profile of the Hamilton City, Property Economics have

projected industrial employment for Hamilton out 2031 factoring in changing labour force

participation rates over the period.

The sector projected employment for the following areas is based on a variety of factors

including:

• National and Regional GDP and employment projections

• Population projections – these are key both to labour force projections and population

based employment.

• Labour Force projections (skilled / unskilled)

• Labour Force participation rates for Hamilton City have been increased

throughout the 2013 – 2031 period leading to a rate 10% higher than the

current national average.

• Regional ability to accommodate growth, especially the potential relocation of business

(industrial) activity from the wider area.

• Hamilton’s sub-national relative business land supply and prices

• Trended growth from at least the past 12 years at an Census Area Unit level

• Economic development directions

• Locational criteria by sector

• National / Regional and local supply of inputted goods and location of market

• Business sector analysis

• Increasing working age

It is also important to note that these projections do not factor in changes in land prices resulting

from changes Hamilton’s competitiveness and price changes in surrounding areas. These factors

can influence where businesses decide to locate, however given the unpredictability of land

values, for the purpose of this assessment it has been assumed that relative prices between

Hamilton and surrounding areas remain constant over the forecast period.

Appendix C3

Technical Evidence:

Council Valuation and Resource Consents data 2013

1

Appendix C3

1.0 Commercial Valuation and Rating within Hamilton Data Source: Hamilton City Council Rating Database

1. Valuation data from Council’s database for all commercial property within Hamilton was analysed for the financial years between 2002/03 and 2009/10.

The total land value of all commercial properties in Hamilton City was included in this analysis. Table 1 shows the land valuation data for five key commercial areas of the city:

• The CBD core (rating area 4002) – this area is consistent with the City Centre zone of the Hamilton City District Plan

• CBD periphery (rating area 4003) – generally consistent with the Commercial Service Zone of the Hamilton City District Plan that surrounds the CBD core.

• Te Rapa (rating area 4180) – generally consistent with the Te Rapa Census Area Unit.

• Frankton (rating area 4041) – generally the area to the north of the railway line in the Frankton Junction Census Area Unit.

• Chartwell (rating area 4212) – incorporates parts of the Chedworth and Queenwood Census Area Units.

2. City-wide revaluations were undertaken in 2003/04, 2006/07, 2009/10 and 2012/13

and stepped changes in the value of land across the city can be seen in the land values for the following years.

4002 - CBD Core 4003 - CBD periphery 4180 - Te Rapa 4041 - Frankton 4212 - Chartwell Total

YEAR ENDING

June LAND

LAND % OF

TOTAL LAND

LAND % OF

TOTAL LAND

LAND % OF

TOTAL LAND

LAND % OF

TOTAL LAND

LAND % OF

TOTAL

LAND for

whole city

2003 97,589,600 17.3% 122,927,000 21.8% 106,486,000 18.9% 55,339,300 9.8% 5,434,100 1.0% 563,436,804

2004 102,036,900 18.0% 117,534,500 20.7% 111,964,300 19.7% 53,669,300 9.5% 6,098,100 1.1% 567,236,950

2005 106,354,500 14.6% 142,396,000 19.6% 177,595,050 24.4% 57,925,300 8.0% 7,492,100 1.0% 727,591,250

2006 108,291,500 14.2% 141,916,000 18.6% 196,605,000 25.8% 58,248,300 7.7% 7,598,600 1.0% 761,408,600

2007 107,008,500 12.7% 145,385,000 17.2% 251,832,500 29.8% 59,180,000 7.0% 7,604,200 0.9% 844,779,400

2008 163,613,000 10.7% 277,312,000 18.1% 419,427,750 27.4% 122,510,000 8.0% 11,349,000 0.7% 1,530,188,250

2009 179,488,000 11.4% 277,906,000 17.7% 425,996,000 27.1% 126,474,000 8.1% 11,858,000 0.8% 1,569,996,500

2010 215,385,000 12.3% 301,556,000 17.2% 476,884,000 27.3% 131,042,000 7.5% 17,923,000 1.0% 1,748,308,500

2011 204,788,000 10.9% 301,806,000 16.1% 553,129,000 29.5% 141,752,500 7.5% 18,228,000 1.0% 1,878,033,000

2012 204,278,000 10.8% 302,336,000 16.0% 564,543,000 29.8% 140,963,500 7.5% 18,258,000 1.0% 1,891,537,500

2013 218,310,000 11.1% 320,937,000 16.3% 586,110,000 29.8% 141,772,500 7.2% 18,226,000 0.9% 1,964,917,500

Table 1: Land Value as a % of Total Commercial Land Value

3 City-wide revaluations were undertaken in 2003/04, 2006/07, 2009/10 and 2012/13

and stepped changes in the value of land across the city can be seen in the land values for the following years.

1

Appendix C3

4 The value of land in each of the five rating study areas was compared to the overall proportion of commercial land value for the whole city. Table 1 shows the relative shift in proportion of the city’s total commercial land value that is represented by each of the rating areas that were studied.

5 This analysis shows that over the 11-year period from 2002/03 to 2012/13, the proportion of city commercial land value in the CBD Core and CBD Periphery decreased from 17.3% to 11.1% and 21.8% to 16.3% respectively. When considered together (as the wider Central City Zone as contained in the PDP) the reduction is from 39.1% to 27.4%. In contrast, over the same period the proportion of city commercial land value contained in the Te Rapa rating area increased from 18.9% to 29.8%.

6 The increase in land value in the Te Rapa rating area is in part due to the development of new greenfield land for various industrial and commercial land uses. However this dramatic increase and redistribution of commercial land values in the city is also the result of higher value land uses (such as large format retail) establishing within the industrial precincts of Te Rapa and in turn inflating land values (particularly industrial zoned land) irrespective of the end-use of the land.

7 The consequential impact of the significant inflation of commercial land values in the Te Rapa rating area is a commensurate increase in the rates collected from these properties as Hamilton City rates for commercial properties are largely drawn from the and value of properties. Therefore as the land values have appreciated in Te Rapa at a faster rate than other commercially rated properties in the other parts of the city, there has been a proportional redistribution of rates collected from this part of the city. Figure 3 summarises the rates collected from commercial properties for the years from 2002/03 to 2013/14 (this rating year) for each of the five rating study areas.

Fig 1 - % of land value as a total of commercial land value in Hamilton

17.3% 18.0%14.6% 14.2% 12.7% 10.7% 11.4% 12.3% 10.9% 10.8% 11.1% 10.2%

21.8% 20.7%19.6% 18.6%

17.2% 18.1% 17.7% 17.2%16.1% 16.0% 16.3% 15.1%

18.9% 19.7%24.4% 25.8% 29.8%

27.4% 27.1% 27.3% 29.5% 29.8% 29.8%29.9%

9.8% 9.5% 8.0% 7.7% 7.0%8.0% 8.1% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.2%

7.1%

1.0% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9%0.7% 0.8% 1.0%

1.0% 1.0% 0.9%1.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

% o

f com

mer

cial L

and

Valu

e

% of Land Value as a total Commercial Land value in Hamilton

4002 - CBD Core 4003 - CBD periphery 4180 - Te Rapa

4041 - Frankton 4212 - Chartwell

2

Appendix C3

9. Over the study period between approximately 63% and 70% of all commercial rates were levied from the five study areas. Between approximately 55% and 60% of all commercial rates were levied from either the CBD Core (4002), CBD periphery (4003) or Te Rapa (4180) rating areas.

10. However there has been a significant proportional shift from rates levied from commercial properties in the CBD (4002 rating area) to Te Rapa (rating area 4180). Between 2003 and 2014 the proportion of commercial rates of the city levied from the Te Rapa rating area increased from 19% to around 30%. Over the same period the proportion drawn from the CBD decreased from 17.7% to 10.2%.

11. 12.33 A similar pattern is in evidence with respect to commercial rateable floor area in these locations as indicated in Table 2:

4002 4003 4180 4041 4212 TOTAL

CBD Core CBD Periphery Te Rapa Frankton Chartwell

YEAR Floor area

% of all

comm area

Floor area

% of all

comm area

Floor area

% of all

comm area

Floor area

% of all

comm area

Floor area

% of all

comm area

1995 305,130 13.8% 375,540 17.0% 397,230 17.9% 194,940 8.8% 31,590 1.4% 2,213,510

1998 318,967 13.7% 380,230 16.4% 444,484 19.1% 195,813 8.4% 31,590 1.4% 2,324,347

2000 344,142 13.7% 358,082 14.2% 549,009 21.8% 202,592 8.0% 32,860 1.3% 2,519,162

2003 369,245 13.3% 401,836 14.5% 650,557 23.5% 206,620 7.5% 33,195 1.2% 2,770,135

2006 394,363 12.3% 410,745 12.8% 806,080 25.1% 221,310 6.9% 33,353 1.0% 3,216,718

2009 393,579 12.2% 413,204 12.8% 804,601 24.9% 221,596 6.9% 33,557 1.0% 3,225,752

2013 387,498 12.4% 387,920 12.4% 904,661 29.0% 208,574 6.7% 36,013 1.2% 3,117,413

Table 2 - % of commercial rateable floor area by location 1995-2013

12. Table 2 indicates that total commercial rateable floor area has grown in Hamilton

from 2,213,510 square metres in 1995 to 3,117,413 square metres in 2013. While the CBD core has grown, its total of all commercial rateable floor space in Hamilton has actually decreased from 13.8% to 12.4%, while the CBD periphery has also decreased from 17% to 12.4%. Conversely, growth in Te Rapa has increased from 397,230 square metres in 1995 to 904,661, and now represents 29% of all commercial rateable floor space in Hamilton.

3

Appendix C3

Source HCC - Rating Roll Areas Map

4

Appendix C3

2.0 Employees and Business by Sector

The following two tables show employment and business by ANZSIC 2006 classification based on the 2000-2012 Business Demography data for the Hamilton CAU, Te-Rapa and Rest of the City CAU’s. Note during the 2006 Census respondents were asked about their occupation and employers (from which industry classification was derived) and where their place of employment is. The classifications are based on ANZSIC classification from the 2006 census. They include the following sectors;

Table 3 Employees by sector 2000-2012

Area 2000 2012 Percentage change 2000-2012

Te Rapa 7420 13940 88% Hamilton Central 17940 18900 5% Rest of City 31465 42145 34% Total Hamilton 56830 74970 32%

Table 4 Businesses by sector 2000-2012

Source: Statistics New Zealand – Business Demography statistics

A Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing

K Financial and Insurance Services

B Mining

L Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services

C Manufacturing M Professional, Scientific and Technical Services

D Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services

N Administrative and Support Services

E Construction

O Public Administration and Safety

F Wholesale Trade

P Education and Training

G Retail Trade

Q Health Care and Social Assistance

H Accommodation and Food Services

R Arts and Recreation Services

I Transport, Postal and Warehousing

S Other Services

J Information Media and Telecommunications

Area 2000 2012 Percentage change 2000-2012

Te Rapa 695 1200 73% Hamilton Central 2211 2310 4% Rest of City 17282 22702 31% Total Hamilton 10094 13106 30%

5

Appendix C3

.

HCC: 2006 Census Area Units

6

Appendix C3

3.0 Building Consents Analysis: Office and Administration Data Source: Building Consents (rebased information) from Statistics New Zealand Dataset shows the number of new consents for office and administration per year by Census Area Unit with a commercial zoning. The Hamilton Central CAU comprises the City Centre Zone and surrounding Commercial Service Zone. The Te Rapa CAU also has a Commercial Service Zone. Note: Building Consent Database contains omissions that may affect accuracy of information presented. Office and administration is defined as including: Medical centre Court house Consulting room Office and administration Postal centre Bank Police station Surgery Other community and emergency

services buildings Airport terminal Rail station

The tables below show the number of new office and administration building consents and amount of new floor space by CAU as referenced in the Introduction of this report:

Table 5. Number of new office and administrative building consents

Hamilton 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Te Rapa 2 6 4 6 6 3 4 1 0 4 4 Hamilton Central 5 10 7 7 3 0 2 0 4 1 4 Rest of City 7 15 8 14 4 7 13 5 7 4 2 Total 14 31 19 27 13 10 19 6 11 9 10

Table 6. Floor area of new office and administrative building consents

Hamilton 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Te Rapa 467 6,269 647 1,904 3,053 2,479 4,077 319 0 4,095 1,884 Hamilton Central 3,197 6,320 10,345 3,009 5,537 0 2,580 0 1,927 742 8,870 Rest of City 2,529 2,905 971 8,824 2,137 8,165 5,152 2,045 1,581 1,278 3,519 Total 6,193 15,494 11,963 13,737 10,727 10,644 11,809 2,364 3,508 6,115 14,273

7

Appendix C3

HCC: 2013: Office and Administrative Building consents distribution map 2003-2013

8

Appendix D

List of Submitters and Further submitters

Submitters in alphabetical order by name:


1002.001 1002.003 1002.004 1002.006

Alan Gordon 808.009 Alexander Elliot 247.011

247.013 AMP Capital Property Portfolio 312.001

312.002 312.003 312.004 312.005 312.006 312.007 312.008 312.009 312.010 312.017

Anthony Paul Smart 857.001 857.002

Barry Harris 1146.028 Blair Thorpe 204.007

Bloxam Burnett and Olliver Ltd 356.001 356.002 356.003

Bunnings Ltd 968.001 968.002 968.005

Central Hamilton Gospel Trust 961.001 Chartwell Investments Ltd 355.001

355.002 355.003 355.004 355.005 355.006 355.007 355.008

1

Christopher Murray Earl 1154.003 Church Road Developments Ltd 630.001

630.002 630.003 630.004

City Limits Childcare Co Ltd and Claudelands Property Trust 1282.001 1282.002 1282.003 1282.024 1282.025 1282.026

CKC Holdings Ltd 897.001 897.002 897.018

Claudelands Neighbourhood Support Groups 247.001 247.002

Claudelands Property Trust 1126.001 1126.002 1126.003 1126.014 1126.015 1126.016

Commercial and Industrial Consultants Ltd 1239.001 1239.002 1239.003

Darryl Leslie & Suzanne Winifred Smith 1240.007 DNZ Property fund Ltd 866.001

1024.001 1024.002

Ecostream irrigation 314.014 Future Proof Implementation Committee 608.015

Generation Zero Waikato 1284.001 1284.002 1284.003 1284.016 1284.017 1284.018 1284.074 1284.075 1284.076

Glenview Medical Centre 368.001 368.002

Gregg Gimblett 630.004 Hamilton Central Business association 1115.015 Hamilton City Council 1146 Hamilton East Community Trust 47.001

2

1013.001 1013.004

Hamilton Homezone Ltd and Ingham Group 1117.001 1117.002 1117.003 1117.004 1117.005 1117.006

Hamilton JV Investment Company Ltd 1170.001 1170.002 1170.024 1170.025

Harvey Norman Stores Pty (NZ) Ltd/Harvey Norman Properties (NZ) Ltd 73.001 73.002 73.003 73.004 73.005

Hill Laboratories Limited 539.001 539.002 539.003 539.004 539.005

Hounsell Holdings Ltd 1104.024

Infinity Property Management Ltd 39.001 Joan & Michael Forret 612.003 Jordanielle Trust 784.009 J & G Gallagher Management Trust Ltd Gallagher Group 1286.002 Kenneth Joyce Whittaker 82.001 Kiwi Income Property Trust & Kiwi Property Holdings Limited 1198.002

1198.018 King Family Trust 286.001

281.001 Lynden Earl 1168.003

McCracken Surveys Limited 1206.001 1206.002 1206.003 1206.004 1206.005 1206.006 1206.007 1206.007 1206.008 1206.009 1206.010 1206.011 1206.012

3

1206.061 1206.062 1206.063 1206.064 1206.065 1206.066 1206.067 1206.068 1206.069 1206.070 1206.071 1206.141 1206.143 1206.144

McDonald's Restaurants (NZ) Ltd 1195.001 1195.002 1195.003

Midlands Health Network Limited 287.001 287.002 287.003 287.004 287.005 287.006 287.007 287.008 287.009 287.010 287.011 287.012

M.P & R.G Upsdell 1011.001 Murray V. Shaw Builders Ltd 884.004 National trading Company Ltd 1256.003

1256.004 1256.015

New Zealand Fire Service Commission 1283.002

New Zealand Transport Agency 924.001 924.002 924.003 924.004 924.005 924.046 924.047 924.048 924.049 927.197

Parkwood Gateway Limited 977.001

4

977.002 977.003 977.004 977.005 977.007 977.008 977.009 977.010 977.011

Parkwood Trade Centre Limited 606.001 606.002 606.003 606.004 606.005 606.006 606.007

Peter & Margaret Fairhead 324.001 PL & LJ Middlemiss Family Trust 925.003 Porter Developments Ltd 1153.001

1153.002 1153.003

Portland Park Limited 984.001 984.002 984.003 984.004 984.005 984.007 984.008 984.009 984.010 984.011 984.034

Progressive Enterprises Limited 1135.001 1135.002 1135.003 1135.004 1135.024 1135.030 1135.038 1135.040 1135.042 1135.059 1135.060 1135.061 1135.062 1135.063

5

1135.064 1135.065 1135.068

1135.069 1135.133 1135.139 1135.142

Property Council New Zealand 938.004 938.005 938.006 938.007 938.008 938.009 938.010 938.011 938.012 938.013 938.014 938.015 938.016 929.001

Raymond John Bird 869.001 Rototuna Ventures Ltd 309.001

309.002 309.003 309..004 309.005 309.006 309.008

Shona Betty Shaw 884.004 Shona Mary McClinchy 1159.003

1159.004 1159.005

Southern Cross hospitals 356.003 356.004

Tainui Group Holdings Limited 1199.001 1199.002 1199.003 1199.004 1199.005 1199.006 1199.007 1199.008

Tainui Group Holdings Ltd 913.001 913.002 913.003

6

913.036 913.037 913.038

The National Trading Company of NZ Ltd 1256.001 1256.002 1256.003

The Suit Shop Limited 1241.001 1241.002

The Trust Company Limited for AETNZ Education Trust 1122.003 Tram Lease Limited 1163.001

1163.002 1163.003 1163.004 1163.005 1163.006 1163.007 1163.008 1163.009 1163.010

Urlich Properties Ltd 1288.001 Waikato Chamber of Commerce 698.001

698.002 698.007 698.008

Waikato District Council 1211.001 1211.002 1211.012 1211.013

Waikato Regional Council 714.001 714.002 714.003 714.004 714.028 714.029 714.030 714.031 714.086 714.088 714.097

Waikato Registered Master Builders Association Inc 610.004 Waikato Racing Club 376.002 Ulrich Property Ltd 1288.001 Z Energy Limited 1292.001

1292.002 1292.003 1292.004

7

1292.005 1292.006 1292.010

Further submitters in alphabetical order by name:


FS266.001

FS266.002


FS286.023

FS286.043 AMP Capital Property Portfolio

FS198.003 FS198.004

FS198.005 FS198.006 FS198.007 FS198.008 FS198.009 FS198.01

FS198.011 FS198.012 FS198.013 FS198.014 FS198.015 FS198.016 FS198.017

Andrew Yeoman

FS2.01 FS2.011 FS2.012


FS269.001 FS269.002


FS285.001 FS285.002

FS285.003 FS285.005 FS285.006

FS285.008 FS285.009 FS285.01

FS285.011 FS285.012 FS285.016 FS285.036

8

FS285.043 FS285.044 FS285.048 FS285.051 FS285.087 FS285.093 FS285.097 FS285.098 FS285.099

FS285.1 FS285.113 FS285.114 FS285.119 FS285.12

FS285.121 FS285.122 FS285.123 FS285.124 FS285.134 FS285.14

FS285.146 FS285.147 FS285.148 FS285.149 FS285.155 FS285.158 FS285.164 FS285.168 FS285.172 FS285.173 FS285.174 FS285.175 FS285.176 FS285.187 FS285.188 FS285.193 FS285.203 FS285.204 FS285.205 FS285.206 FS285.217 FS285.218


FS213.001 FS213.002

9

FS213.003

FS213.004 Greg Gimblett (Church Road Developments Ltd)

FS247.001 FS247.002


FS142.001

FS142.002 Hills Laboratories Limited FS0.001

James Hely and Heather Montgomerie - FS161.001 Jenco Enterprise Limited - (Speer Speer & Associates Ltd)

FS212.001

FS212.002


FS66.001

FS66.002 FS66.003

FS66.004 Kiwi Income Property Trust and Kiwi Property Holdings Limited

FS123.001 FS123.002 FS123.003

FS123.004

FS123.008 FS123.014 FS123.015 FS123.015 FS123.017 FS123.018 FS123.02

FS123.021 FS123.023 FS123.025 FS123.027 FS123.03

MP & RG Upsdell FS7.001 New Zealand Transport Agency

FS270.031 FS270.032

Odette Ngairo & Anthony Paul Haitana & Smart FS192.001 Peter John Findlay, Donna Margaret Findlay, Peter John Findlay & Donna Margaret Findlay as Trustees of the Findlay Family Trust, Riverside Oak Estate Ltd (Baruchel Developments Ltd)

FS242.001

Peter John Findlay, Donna Margaret Findlay, Peter John Findlay & Donna Margaret Findlay as Trustees of the Findlay Family Trust, Riverside Oak

FS277.001

10

Estate Ltd (Peter Findlay, Peter Findlay & Associates) Porter Developments Limited

FS239.005 FS239.007

FS239.008 FS239.011 FS239.012

FS239.013 FS239.014 FS239.015 FS239.016


FS237.001 FS237.002 FS237.003 FS237.004 FS237.005 FS237.006 FS237.007 FS237.008 FS237.009 FS237.01

FS237.011 FS237.012 FS237.016 FS237.017 FS237.018


FS249.015 FS249.016 FS249.017 FS249.018 FS249.019 FS249.026 FS249.03


FS20.001 FS20.002 FS20.003 FS20.004


FS246.005 FS246.006 FS246.007

FS246.009 FS246.01

FS246.011 FS246.013

11

FS246.014 FS246.015 FS246.016 FS246.020 FS246.021


FS278.004 FS278.005 FS278.007 FS278.008 FS278.01

FS278.011 The Suit Shop Limited

FS158.002

FS158.003 FS158.004 FS158.005

Tram Lease Limited

FS265.001 FS265.002 FS265.01

FS265.022 FS265.023

Waikato Regional Council FS72.031 Westfield (New Zealand) Limited FS119.003 William Cornelis Engelander FS160.001

12

Appendix E Acronyms CBD Central Business District GFA Gross Floor Area HCC Hamilton City Council HUGS Hamilton Urban Growth Strategy NZTA New Zealand Transport Agency ODP Operative District Plan PDP Proposed District Plan PRPS Proposed Regional Policy Statement RMA Resource Management Act 1991 RPS Regional Policy Statement TGH Tainui Group Holdings WRC Waikato Regional Council List of Figures, Graphs and Tables in Introduction Figure 1 Distribution of Retail spending in Hamilton City Figure 2 Cumulative consented floorspace retail/ commercial service (2000-2012) Figure 3 Agglomeration benefits for commercial property in Hamilton CBD Figure 4 snapshot of Chapter 6, rule 6.3 activity status table as proposed Table 1 ODP planning framework Table 2 Changes in employment growth and selected locations in Hamilton 2000 – 2012 Table 3 Number of Office and administrative consents in Hamilton 2003- 2013 Table 4 Floor area of new office and administrative consents in Hamilton 2003-2013 Table 4a Percentage floor area of new office and administrative building consents in

Hamilton 2003-2013 List of Tables from Council Datasets in Appendix C3 Table 1 Land Value as a % of Total Commercial Land Value Table 2 % of commercial rateable floor area by location 1995-2013 Table 3 Employees by sector 2000-2012 Table 4 Businesses by sector 2000-2012

Hamilton City Proposed District Plan...1.6 The scope of my evidence relates to comments on...

Documents

Transcript of Hamilton City Proposed District Plan...1.6 The scope of my evidence relates to comments on...