submissions to · 096 ckl planning | surveying | engineering rotokauri developments ltd development...

Submissions to:

Draft Development Contributions Policy 2013

Draft Growth Funding Policy 2013

Please click on the submission you want to view.

Submission Reference

Name Organisation Submission Topic To be Heard?

Page Number

006 David Radich Development Contributions Policy No 1

037 Matt Stark Development Contributions Policy No 2

041 Roger Loveless CCS Disability Action Development Contributions Policy Yes 3

049 Evans Young Hopper Developments Ltd Development Contributions Policy Yes 20

059 Bill Mitchelmore Development Contributions Policy No 24

068 Dennis Crequer New Zealand Transport Agency Development Contributions Policy &

Growth Funding Policy

Yes 27

073 Roderick Aldridge Development Contributions Policy No 29

078 Bloxam, Burnett and Olliver Ltd Te Runanga o Kirikiriroa Development Contributions Policy Yes 30

079 Murray Wallace Ryvington Holdings / Blue Wallace Surveyors

Development Contributions Policy Yes 35

082 Bloxam, Burnett and Olliver Ltd Adare Company Ltd Development Contributions Policy &


Yes 37

090 Boffa Miskell Ltd Porter Developments Ltd Development Contributions Policy & Growth Funding Policy

Yes 40

091 Boffa Miskell Ltd Hamilton JV Investment Company Limited Development Contributions Policy &


Yes 46

092 Tainui Group Holdings Ltd and Chedworth Properties Ltd

Development Contributions Policy &


Yes 52

095 Philippa Fourie Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited Development Contributions Policy Yes 80

096 CKL Planning | Surveying | Engineering Rotokauri Developments Ltd Development Contributions Policy Yes 84

097 CKL Planning | Surveying | Engineering Rotokauri Developments Ltd Growth Funding Policy Yes 90

102 Bloxam, Burnett and Olliver Ltd The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board

Development Contributions Policy & Growth Funding Policy

Yes 93

103 Rob Dol, President - Waikato Branch Property Council New Zealand Incorporated Growth Funding Policy Yes 96

104 Rob Dol, President - Waikato Branch Property Council New Zealand Incorporated Development Contributions Policy Yes 104

Total Number of Submissions: 19To be Heard: 15

Draft (2013) Development Contributions Policy

I support the following principles.

The set of new catchment

The set of new stormwater catchments

I have the following comments

Commercial/industrial

I suggest that commercial/industrial transportation charge is relooked at as it is based on old transfield data.

Transportation for commercial and industrial should be based on a transport catchment, for example if it is close to public transport or is in a residential zone a lower transportation rate should be charge.

To note: An agreement exists that because trips are already charged for per residential dwelling (10per day) and these trips are allocated to people travelling to places of work the fact that a transportation component is even charged is double dipping.

Cost methodology

I do not support the allocation of demand per development for example the use of trips, Litres of water and waste water.

Allocation of funds should be based on total growth for example 10,000 dwellings and the cost of the infrastructure delivered. If you allocate litres of water and waste water per dwelling or 100sqm or GFA it is easy for developers to show they do not require this amount.

Private public partnerships

I also suggest a section which promotes the idea of co-operation between the Private (Developers) and the Public Section (Council)

This section would allow people undertaking significant developments, large commercial centres large residential developments etc to provide major strategic infrastructure.

Often growth is unpredictable and this leads to reactive planning of infrastructure to support the growth. This section would allow a developer this will help the unpredictable nature of growth, particularly in the current economic climate.

David Radich

Submission Reference: 006

1

I am writing in regards to the zero development contributions for the CBD.

I think that this is a great way to spark interest in the CBD and ultimately bring more development back in.

I am in full support to this .

Regards

Matt Stark


2

Hamilton City Council

Development Contributions Review April 2013

Submission from CCS Disability Action, Waikato

Prepared by

Roger Loveless, email [email protected] Gerri Pomeroy, email [email protected]

Address for Service

CCS Disability Action Waikato 17 Claudelands Road

PO Box 272

Waikato Mail Centre Hamilton 3240

Phone, 07 8539761

We request an opportunity to speak to this submission at the appropriate time.


3

mailto:[email protected]


TE HUNGA HAUA MAURI MO NGA TANGATA KATOA

CCS DISABILITY ACTION SUBMISSION ON PROPOSED

HAMILTON DISTRICT PLAN

2

1 INTRODUCTION

CCS Disability Action considers the approach taken by Council, that largely reflects the ideas of Government on its Better Local

Government initiatives, fails to recognise the underlying problems of providing more appropriate housing stock for those, many through

no fault of their own, who suffer some form of disability. Attached is a copy of a submission recently sent the Department of Internal

Affairs in response to their Development Contributions Review discussion paper. In that submission we pose two questions.

How did we get to this position?

Are our expectations for infrastructure too high?

Whilst standards exist for appropriate housing for those with disabilities, there is no recognition that those very standards, along

with present day standards for all homes, often makes that housing a dream many persons with disabilities cannot afford.

A significant number of infrastructure requirements funded by

Development Contributions result from constraints built up by Government and Council rules and regulations over many years and

although the financial options proposed in the DIA discussion paper may contain the level of Development Contributions, they do

nothing to reduce the level of infrastructure requirements that must

be provided.

If Council is to address the wider issue of ensuring appropriate housing is provided for all our citizens, then it needs to give away

its reactive approach to requirements imposed by Government and look to innovative approaches to lower housing costs, particularly to

those with disabilities. Council, with its heavy debt burden, should seriously look at ways to enable costs to be reduced, whether it be

through conditions imposed locally or nationally.

We do not have a position on the proposed methods for allocation of costs but strongly urge Council to take a proactive approach to

reduce the underlying infrastructure costs. To do this, we would strongly urge Council to take the opportunity to engage with

Government on how present law, policy statements and regulations drive the need for expensive infrastructure. In particular the


4




3

consultation on the Resource Management Act would appear to have the potential to allow much greater innovation in supplying

essential infrastructure at reduced costs. Furthermore it may be possible to identify other opportunities to reduce housing costs by

reviewing requirements imposed by local regulation.

Section 2 of the attached submission includes some possible innovations that could be implemented, and we suggest there may

be many more. The reality is New Zealand finds itself in difficult economic times and perhaps can no longer afford the luxury of all

the requirements currently being imposed.

We have no problems with Development Contributions being used for funding appropriate infrastructure, but when that infrastructure

is beyond the capacity of the community to pay for it, compromises

must be made. We make no apologies for widening the number of issues included in this submission and challenge Council to seriously

address the underlying issues that have caused the problem of excessive Development Contributions.

2 Innovation Opportunities. In the submission to the DIA paper we mention a number of

opportunities.

Small scale, distributed sewerage treatment not requiring large pipes to connect to central systems.

Controlled housing complexes requiring less internal roading infrastructure.

Other opportunities could include, for example.

Reversion to less complex stormwater control in lower lying

areas by accepting limited flood potential mitigated by raising houses on piles.

Introducing slow speed shared residential zones, in particular

for cul de sacs where pedestrians have right of way and footpaths are not necessary. In such cases it may be possible

to locate small scale neighbourhood playgrounds without the need for the same area of surrounding green space. The

green spaces could also be used as locations for the small scale sewerage treatment plants which could be buried below

ground.


5




4

Perhaps using oversized water supply pipes as reservoirs in place of bulk water storage.

Accepting footpaths only on one side of the streets, especially in the safer speed areas.

Greater encouragement of terrace style housing with shared green space, rainwater harvesting, grey water and other

features.

Although a wider perspective would not directly affect the level of Development Contributions required, the encouragement of much

higher overall dwelling densities could substantially reduce the infrastructure cost per dwelling.

A major problem has been the provision of infrastructure for future

growth and every effort should be made to spend, as far as

possible, any Development Contributions only on services that directly benefit those building new dwellings. In our Annual Plan

submission we recommended the appointment of an innovative City Architect who could work with developers to encourage housing

developments that are more accessible and affordable.

3 The Wider Context

Development Contributions are but one part of the housing jigsaw and we strongly urge Council to consider all requirements placed on

developers and pro-actively work with them, if necessary seeking dispensation from national requirements that, if eased back a little

would not compromise the safeguards they are designed to impose. We also strongly urge Council to engage with Government on how

present law, policy statements and regulations drive the need for expensive infrastructure. In particular the consultation on the

Resource Management Act would appear to have the potential to allow much greater innovation in supplying essential infrastructure

at reduced costs.

Unfortunately if we continue with the present policies, which have

pushed infrastructure costs up, and hence Development Contributions, we will force our disadvantaged citizens with

disabilities into inappropriate rental accommodation for all of their lives and reinforce the economic barriers that make any dreams of

owning their own affordable and accessible homes just that:- Unrealizable dreams.


6




5

Department of Internal Affairs

Development Contributions Review February 2013

Submission from CCS Disability Action, Waikato

Prepared by

Roger Loveless, email [email protected]

Gerri Pomeroy, email [email protected]

Address for Service

CCS Disability Action Waikato 17 Claudelands Road

PO Box 272 Waikato Mail Centre

Hamilton 3240

Phone, 07 8539761

We request an opportunity to speak to this submission

at the appropriate time.


7






6

"The City of New York is an inspiring story of urban rejuvenation. With bold vision, strong leadership, sheer

determination, and excellent partnership between

government and citizens, there is now a new sense of direction in the city. It has regained its perch as one of the

most exciting cities in the world."

So said Kishore Mahbubani, Chairman of the Prize Nominating

Committee for The Lee Kuan Yew World City Prize 2012, which has been awarded to the Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg

and the Departments of Transportation, City Planning and Parks and Recreation for orchestrating the remarkable transformation of the

city.

We dream of a vibrant, accessible and sustainable society.

Please share our dream.


8




7

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 8

2 OTHER REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION. ....................................................................... 8

2.1 The Wider Context ......................................................... 9

3 DISCUSSION PAPER SOLUTIONS. ........................................ 10

3.1 Updated Guidance ........................................................ 11

3.2 Consolidation and Clarification of Existing LGA02 Provisions.11

3.3 Discounts on Housing Types and Locations to Lower Demand for Services. ....................................................................... 11

3.4 New Development Contribution Purpose and Principles in Legislation. ......................................................................... 11

3.5 Improve Developer Agreements ..................................... 12

3.6 Tightening the Range of Infrastructure that Development

Contributions can be used for ................................................ 12

3.7 Delaying When Development Contributions can be Charged.

12

3.8 Capping Development Contributions. .............................. 13

3.9 Independent Dispute Resolution ..................................... 13

3.10 Reinstatement of Appeals to the Environment Court. ...... 13

3.11 Regulations to Promote Consistency ............................. 13

3.12 Abolishing Development Contributions .......................... 14

3.13 Infrastructure Bonds. ................................................. 14

4 CONCLUDING REMARKS ..................................................... 14

APP 1: CCS DISABILITY ACTION - TE PUAWAITANGA .................. 16


9




8

1. INTRODUCTION

CCS Disability Action congratulates Government on its Better Local Government initiatives. The Development Contributions Review

paper, along with many other local, regional and government level

documents works within constraints built up over many years and although the solutions proposed may contain the level of

Development Contributions, it does nothing to reduce the level of infrastructure requirements that must be provided. We therefore

make no apology for mentioning issues not directly within the terms of reference of the Development Contributions review. However

these issues do have a major influence on the ability of our Councils to facilitate the provision of appropriate housing for all our citizens.

The paper acknowledges the present Development Contributions

regime is complex, but this is no more so than many local planning requirements. CCS Disability Action Waikato believes there needs to

be a conscious change in attitudes to plan for the more accessible built environment the future residents of New Zealand will come to

expect. This is consistent with a new vision adopted by CCS

Disability Action, Te Puāwaitanga, which, amongst other issues, affirms its place, beyond that of service provider to the disabled

community, as an organisation charged with challenging the social and political systems in which our services are delivered. An

introduction to Te Puāwaitanga from our Chief Executive, David Mathews, is included as Appendix 1.

Te Puāwaitanga recognises that persons with disabilities are an

integral part of society and have the same rights as all other citizens.

2 OTHER REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION.

CCS Disability Action has recently submitted to Hamilton City

Council on their proposed District Plan. This plan runs to over 1000 pages, is complex and includes almost five pages of other

legislation, policy statements, strategies and technical specifications with which it must comply. Hence for many of the concerns raised,

there will be another requirement, already in place, which will require the commissioners to reject those concerns as not relevant.


10




9

We therefore pose the question:

“How did we get to this position?”

The Local Government Act 2002 allowed for the levying of Development Contributions, but alongside that has been a

significant rise in the required quality of infrastructure services. We hesitate to say expectations for reasons that will become clear in

the following sections.

What appears to have happened is that in a continuing drive to provide high quality infrastructure, often as a result of nationally

promulgated requirements, costs have risen rapidly. In the earlier years since 2002, spare capacity within existing infrastructure may

have masked the impending demand for new infrastructure to

standards far in excess of what may have been provided in previous times. A second question we therefore pose is:

“Are our expectations for infrastructure too high?”

When considering provision of affordable and accessible housing,

the problem is further compounded by Technical Specifications for building works imposed by Councils and other requirements for new

housing incorporated by way of covenants imposed by developers.

We therefore believe that any attempt to allow for more affordable and accessible housing through controlling Development

Contributions only addresses a small part of the problem.

2.1 The Wider Context

Whilst it is laudable to provide high quality infrastructure, care

needs to be taken to ensure this does not make it uneconomic to provide the level of services everyone, including our disabled and

disadvantaged citizens, expect to be able to live as normally as possible. In addition to physical barriers, economic barriers can also

become significant and force the disabled and disadvantaged into

sub optimal lifestyles in inappropriate accommodation. Although not specifically quantified at the time, the introduction of the

Resource Management Act has added significantly to cost of providing suitable infrastructure. Taking provision of sewage

treatment services as an example, it is interesting to note that in several “first world” countries the costs of large scale centralized

systems are prohibitive. In response, a number of companies now


11




10

supply smaller systems that can be distributed within communities serving populations ranging from single residences to one or two

thousand. For example see WTE Limited’s website http://www.wte-ltd.co.uk/vortex_sewage_treatment_plant.html

This type of system could be sized to suit new subdivisions as part

of the development and then development contributions would not be required to fund infrastructure for future growth. Many such

installations claim considerably reduced energy costs than conventional systems. The only drawback would appear to be a

need to remove accumulated sludge every one or two years. They are not dependent on electric pumps, with electricity used

intermittently for small air compressors.

What appears to have happened in New Zealand is that the

standards may have been set too high without considering the economics and practicality of meeting them.

Roading is another significant infrastructure cost associated with

new developments, some funded from development contributions but all adding to the cost of new sections. Unfortunately the

aspirations of many people to detached family dwellings leads to low population densities, which in turn make affordable public

transport hard to provide, servicing by car almost essential and increases road maintenance costs. Not only are higher costs placed

on the original section, by whatever means, but there is also a high future rates burden. One way around this is to place dwellings

within a controlled complex such as a retirement village with qualifications for residence restricted. In these cases many

footpaths can be dispensed with as cars can be limited to very low

speeds, and much higher housing densities are the norm.

Within this wider context, it seems too much emphasis on Development Contributions in isolation will be of limited benefit

when it comes to providing more affordable and accessible homes for the disabled community.

We have attempted to make some relevant comments on the

proposed solutions.

3 DISCUSSION PAPER SOLUTIONS.

The following comments should be read in conjunction with the

attached concerns and, where appropriate, may have relevance to other discussions.


12

http://www.wte-ltd.co.uk/vortex_sewage_treatment_plant.html




11

3.1 Updated Guidance

At a high level, updated guidance is necessary. However the

definition of guidance could include different RMA provisions, Government and Regional policy statements that make it difficult to

perpetuate past unsustainable practices based on the private motor

vehicle. Guidance should be not specific to Development Contributions alone, but also on the housing requirements meeting

the needs of our present population, including our disabled and disadvantaged citizens, most of whom still aspire to owning their

own homes but increasingly find themselves forced into poor quality sub standard rental homes in less desirable areas.

3.2 Consolidation and Clarification of Existing LGA02 Provisions.

This is a laudable aim, and we do not claim to be experts in the intricacies of the act. Possibly there should be greater provision for

deviation from national standards where meeting those standards is clearly not economic. In many instances significant improvements

can be made when raising the standards at relatively low cost, but beyond a certain point costs escalate significantly. For example, the

quality of water from the sewage system detailed above is far better than that from traditional septic tanks, but may not be to drinking

water standards.

3.3 Discounts on Housing Types and Locations to Lower Demand for Services.

The scale of debts incurred by some council is so huge that

discounts would be counterproductive. Accurately pricing and itemizing service provision within the total cost of sections would be

useful, in conjunction with requirements to increase population densities to a level that is sustainable in the long term. This will

need to encourage multi storey and other high density housing, especially close to transport hubs.

3.4 New Development Contribution Purpose and Principles in Legislation.


13




12

The purpose and principles seem satisfactory. As previously stated, the problem is really in the cost of required infrastructure increasing

beyond peoples means. There is also the problem of future growth, for which an alternative funding avenue needs to be found so that

development contributions cannot be used for excessive future growth at the expense of services in new subdivisions.

3.5 Improve Developer Agreements

There is certainly a need to improve agreements to ensure different outcomes result from planning processes. However this should be

such that a developer can provide innovative solutions to service provision and ensure such things as playgrounds, shops and other

social necessities are provided in a timely manner. The agreements must cover significantly more than development contributions, but

not force traditional solutions on service provision at the expense of innovation.

3.6 Tightening the Range of Infrastructure that Development Contributions can be used for

This is not considered necessary, apart from placing a restriction on

the proportion that can be used for future growth that does not

benefit the new residents. There is really a need to define what must be provided within a reasonable timeframe, without allowing

Councils to put things such as neighbourhood playgrounds and other recreational facilities off with impunity.

3.7 Delaying When Development Contributions can be Charged.

If the quantum of Development Contributions were to be reduced as part of a wider cost of development, perhaps by innovative design

under the control of a developer, then delay would be appropriate. However if interest were to be charged to developers if their

subdivisions were not populated to original expectations, the impact on Council finances would be lessened and there would be

incentives not to push ahead too quickly.


14




13

3.8 Capping Development Contributions.

We cannot see this having a material impact in relation to reducing the cost of building, and would become just something else to

administer. As indicated above, more affordable and accessible housing can only be achieved if the total costs, from whatever

source, are controlled. Development Contributions are but one

component and perhaps less formal targets would be more appropriate.

3.9 Independent Dispute Resolution

The unfortunate result of using Development Contributions within a

context of demanding very high quality infrastructure, particularly when future growth is also being allowed for is that costs are high.

If the Development Contributions were lower and considered more

reasonable, based on appropriate costs of service then dispute numbers would drop. There may be a need for independent dispute

resolution where alternative infrastructure is proposed by a developer, and which may be an alternative solution to that

demanded under technical requirements specified by the local authority. Current methods do not encourage innovation, and it is

too easy for local authorities to demand their standard solutions.

3.10 Reinstatement of Appeals to the Environment Court.

As indicated in 3.9 above, there appears a clear need to reduce

costs through innovation and possibly not requiring the very high standards of infrastructure currently being demanded. There may

need to be an appeals process as bedding in a new regime that is more flexible and allows substantial cost reduction in exchange for

minor reductions in quality standards. As part of a wider review this may provide a useful court of last resort.

3.11 Regulations to Promote Consistency

If a new regulatory regime were to be introduced that reduces costs by allowing economically appropriate solutions, then a forum of

some sort needs to be available to ensure consistency. Whereas very high quality discharges may be appropriate in some cases, in


15




14

many cases the costs may be prohibitive and perhaps something akin to Building Code Compliance documents could be useful.

3.12 Abolishing Development Contributions

We are not in favour of abolishing Development Contributions as

they do provide a means of funding new infrastructure for

developing areas. Our concern is not the level of Development Contributions in isolation, but as a component of the total costs of

providing more affordable and accessible housing.

3.13 Infrastructure Bonds.

These could be a useful tool to encourage developers not to develop areas too quickly. Possibly the purchase of bonds bearing no

interest could be a requirement before local authorities put in

common infrastructure, which could then be paid off from Development Contributions as sections are sold. The level of

funding from bonds could be set at a relatively low level, but would be useful in providing early funding.

4 CONCLUDING REMARKS

We hope that this submission has identified that the issue of reducing Development Contributions cannot be treated in isolation.

High contributions are merely a symptom of a demand for very high quality infrastructure, and unless the costs of that infrastructure are

reduced, then the dream of affordable and accessible housing for many disabled people will remain just that.

Development Contributions are but one piece of the jigsaw to

providing new housing for a changing population who will live longer. As the population ages, there will be an increased incidence

of disability and a need to provide more affordable and accessible housing.

We hope these comments are considered when looking at other aspects of the provision of homes for all New Zealanders. It needs

to be remembered that barriers to participation need not be merely


16




15

physical, but that economic barriers caused by high prices can be just as real.


17




16

APP 1: CCS DISABILITY ACTION - TE PUAWAITANGA After a nationwide consultation period, CCS Disability Action has

embraced a new vision, Te Puāwaitanga. David Matthews, Chief

Executive of CCS Disability Action, explains the thinking behind the vision and what it means for people with a disability in New

Zealand.

Te Puāwaitanga signifies so much more than words on paper. As an

organisation with a long history behind us, our new vision not only connects us to our past but also provides a bridge to the future.

Most importantly it gives us a mandate to take action on the big issues that effect disabled people across New Zealand. The goal of

seeing every person with a disability included in the life of their community and family sits firmly in the centre of the vision’s design.

While we are clear that we are not a disabled person’s organisation (D.P.O.), this is a signal of our commitment to putting people with

disabilities at the centre of our thinking and remaining guided by

them at all levels.

For people we support this means you can expect us to work in partnership with you, acknowledging your voice to achieve and build

strong social relationships and networks that are meaningful for you. This aim, together with our foundation statement, Te Hunga

Haua Mauri Mo Nga Tangata Katoa gives us a clear purpose and direction for how we as individuals and as an organisation can work

to create a society that includes and values the unique spirit all people.

Many of the strands which flow from the centre of Te Puāwaitanga

will strike a chord with those who are aware of CCS Disability Action’s values. A human rights-based

framework, including our recognition of the rights of Maori under Te

Tiriti (The Treaty of Waitangi), disabled leadership, recognising the importance of conscious choice and listening to the voice of disabled

people have all long underpinned the strategic directions which drive our work. While we can feel duly proud of our philosophies

and approach to date, I hope that articulating these ideas in this way Te Puāwaitanga will act as a constant reminder for us to

continue to reflect on how our actions can best contribute to great outcomes for the people we support in everything we do.


18




17

Te Puāwaitanga also formalises some relatively new directions for

us. While poverty is not a new issue, by acknowledging financial wellbeing as a key priority for us in this way we are now

encouraged to go beyond supports and embrace social change as a legitimate role. Addressing the root causes of systemic financial

inequality and the desire to connect with government, communities and businesses to achieve change reflects the fact that we are more

than a service provider that exists within a vacuum. We are charged with challenging the social and political systems in which our

services are delivered. This can be a difficult place to be in, particularly as we are funded to deliver quality services rather than

agitate for community action. I believe Te Puāwaitanga now gives us a mandate to take on this leadership role within the sector,

informed by the voice and experiences of the people we support and

whom we are ultimately accountable to.

While we’ve developed Te Puāwaitanga to guide our journey towards a society that includes all people, I believe it also provides

a call to action for everyone who supports all people’s right to be included in the life of their community and family. In order to

achieve the outcomes articulated in this vision, we all have a part to play in bringing about sustained change to remove those physical

and attitudinal barriers people face every day. This vision gives us certainty and clarity on this journey and I hope that in time it will

also act as a marker and catalyst for change in wider society too.

6 DECEMBER 2012


19


20


21


22


23

Submission on:

HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION POLICY

Submitter: Bill Mitchelmore Address 28 Ellerslie Avenue, Chedworth, Hamilton 3210 Email: [email protected] Phone: 07 8547687 Context

1. This submission on the Council’s Draft Development Contribution Policy (“DC Policy”) is based on an understanding that City ratepayers ultimately underwrite the cost of the Council’s business activities.

2. In regard to ratepayer liability for DCs (and assuming DCs are an effective and efficient means of raising equity capital to help fund the cost of infrastructure), ratepayers will become liable for future costs if, and when:

a. The actual costs of providing growth capacity (including its funding) exceed the costs that the Council intended to incur; or,

b. The actual infrastructural capacity that the Council provides to service growth demand is less than it planned to provide; or,

c. The actual take up of growth capacity by the market and/or its rate of take up vary from what the Council had hoped; or,

d. The Council makes policy decisions to discount or exempt DCs for the purpose of incentivising development in some City locations and/or for specific land uses; or,

e. The Council incurs significant ongoing DC Policy administration costs; or,

f. The DC policy and/or DC assessments undertaken in accordance with the DC Policy are successfully challenged at law.

3. This submission is limited to:

a. item 2.ef above and, specifically, the proposed use of a net present value (“NPV”) based methodology for setting DC charges; and,

b. accounting for revenue losses arising from the Council’s proposals to cap DCs and/or zero value DCs in some parts of the City.

Calculation of DC Charges

4. Section 8 of the DC Policy identifies the formulae the Council intends to adopt for setting DC charges. At section 8.12, the DC Policy suggests that a DC charge derived by using a NPV based methodology (refer to section 8.9) will be the same as one derived using net costs (ie total capital expenditure plus net finance costs) divided usable capacity (refer to section 8.13).


24


5. The DC charges will only be the same if the variables underpinning the different methodologies are perfectly aligned. In particular, future rates of interest and inflation would need to be identical and perfectly aligned to discount rates over the useful lives of the assets requiring DC funding support. This would appear to be drawing an extremely long bow given the life of most infrastructural assets; particularly given the uncertainties inherent in the global economic environment at present.

6. The reason for adopting NPV is briefly explained at section 8.10. Whilst the explanation may be theoretically sound when considered in isolation, the adoption of a NPV based methodology appears to conflict with the methodology prescribed by Schedule 13 of the LGA(02). Section 1 of Schedule 13 appears to be quite clear in terms of how DC charges are to be determined. DC charges are to be determined by dividing the total cost of the capital expenditure with the total units of demand.

7. There doesn’t appear to be any flexibility within the Schedule 1 methodology to discount units of demand and, in any event, by definition any “unit of demand” is a “unit” of demand; and not a “discounted unit” of demand. Any discounting of infrastructure capacity would obviously compromise the common definition and understandings of the word “unit”.

8. This would suggest that if the Council adopted an NPV based methodology to set its DC charges it would not be complying with the methodology prescribed by Schedule 13 of the LGA(02).

Suggested Remedy:

To remove the risk of a future legal challenge to its DC Policy arising from its DC model, the Council should:

a. obtain an unqualified opinion from a reputable legal authority and recognized legal expert on the DC provisions of the LGA(02), to confirm the legal status and use of a NPV based pricing model for setting DC charges; and,

b. defer the adoption of any DC charges based on any NPV based pricing model until the legal status of the DC charges can be confidently deemed Schedule 13 compliant, by the legal expert.

DC Caps and Zero DCs

9. I accept that it is right and proper for the Council to use its discretion to discount and/or exempt DCs on a case-by-case basis to help achieve any of a number of its different policy objectives.

10. However, DC discounts or exemptions of the nature and extent provided by the DC Policy will inevitably introduce another form of systemic subsidisation to the provision of public services in the City. For closed assess network services such as water supply and wastewater collection, both the demand for infrastructural capacity and the cost of satisfying this demand are reasonably assessable and quantifiable.

11. The point of contention is that if any development consumes infrastructure capacity and is either cost exempted, or otherwise avoids any quantifiable costs associated with the consumption of that capacity, then the costs will be borne by some other party. The costs do not vaporise. In addition, by law these costs can’t be reallocated to


25

other developments. They most likely will have to be borne by City ratepayers and it follows that these costs will need to be disclosed in the Council’s financial accounts, as an expense item.

12. The DC Policy and the accompanying statement of proposal are both silent on the accounting treatment of any DC revenue foregone as a consequence of the proposed DC capping and zero DC policy position. Presumably, if the costs are significant, they would likely need to be disclosed in the Long Term Plan and other financial documents.

13. My other concern with the DC cap and the zero DCs proposals is that there are no sunset provisions in the DC Policy to clarify the triggers for their future withdrawal. Unfortunately, many users of public services who enjoy service subsidies of any form tend to quickly regard them as perpetual entitlements. The lack of incentive sunset provisions in the DC Policy presents an unreasonable and avoidable financial risk to ratepayers.

14. It is clear that the Council wishes to incentivise development in some parts of Hamilton City for the reasons it has enunciated. This is fine. However, it needs to ensure it can withdraw any of these incentives if and when circumstances change, to minimise the risk of encumbering ratepayers with unintended and potentially open-ended obligations to subsidize some forms of development in the City.

Suggested Remedy:

The Council should:

a. commission an unqualified report on the accounting treatment of expenses associated with the capping, discounting or exempting of DCs for inclusion in the relevant policy documents and the Long Term Plan; and,

b. include an appropriate DC incentives sunset provision in the DC Policy to limit and manage long term liabilities associated with DC caps, discounts and exemptions.

I confirm I do not wish to be heard in support of this submission because I believe the matters raised cannot be realistically considered within a typical hearing time slot.


26

16th

April 2013

Freepost 172189

Strategy and Research Unit

Hamilton City Council

Private Bag 3010

Hamilton 3240

Dear Sir/Madam

Hamilton City Council Draft Development Contributions Policy and Hamilton City Council Growth

Funding Policy Submissions

The NZTA would like to thank Council for the opportunity to submit on the Draft Development

Contributions Policy and Draft Growth Funding Policy. The NZTA is generally supportive of both

policies however would like to make the following specific comments.

The NZTA is concerned that ‘unplanned’ and ‘unprogrammed’ growth continues to be

funded/subsidised by the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) rather than via alternative funding

mechanisms such as Financial Contributions (FC)/Development Contributions (DC), and/or side

agreements and seeks to ensure that the draft DC and Growth Funding Policies give Council the

ability to collect contributions in all instances where growth places demands on infrastructure.

Development Contributions Policy

The NZTA recognises that territorial local authorities (TLA) cannot collect development contributions

(DC) on behalf of the NZTA, however we note that councils are able to apply DCs to projects they are

financially responsible for, and that in some circumstances it is appropriate for Council to be

financially responsible for projects on State highways that are required to addressed growth

pressure.

In practice, for this approach to work the following would need to apply:

• The project must be identified in the TLA’s Long Term Plan (LTP).

• The project must be growth derived.

• The TLA’s LTP must detail how the funding will be colleted and allocated and how the

funding allocation will be spent to alleviate growth impacts.

We seek to understand if this thinking aligns with Council’s and we are happy to discuss this further

if Council staff wish to do so.

Overall, the NZTA is supportive of HCC’s Draft Development Contributions Policy insofar as it

supports the realisation of the growth patterns and staging outlined in the proposed District Plan.

We support the creation of additional catchments which will work to eliminate cross-subsidisation of

growth cells, whilst maintaining a citywide catchment for funding growth-related capital expenditure

that cannot be confined to individual areas. We are also supportive of the revised growth

projections that have been adjusted to take into account the most recent data on employment

opportunities, land availability and uptake, and growth.


27

In principle, the NZTA is supportive of reduced DC charges for higher density and ancillary units (in

the appropriate zones) to promote intensification. This aligns with the land use pattern that the

Agency has supported through the Future Proof Growth Strategy and the proposed District Plan.

We also support in principle not charging DCs for developments in the CBD with the aim of

revitalising the town centre. We seek to ensure that Council has a reasonable level of confidence it

will be able to fund any infrastructure required as a result of development in this area.

We seek clarification of the following comment as its current wording is ambiguous:

“For transport projects for which NZTA subsidies are available, the amount of these subsidies is

removed from the total cost prior to applying the development contributions allocation.”


We note that the draft Growth Funding Policy replaces Council’s Advance Funding Policy and will be

used to direct Council decision-making in respect of growth projects and associated infrastructure

where projects are not aligned with Council’s 2012/22 Ten Year Plan.

We support the following proposed criteria being met prior to Council enabling unfunded growth

projects through a Private Developer Agreement:

• Ensuring development is aligned with the city and sub-regional growth and land use

strategies,

• Infrastructure provision is the responsibility of the developer and it must be integrated with

Council’s existing and intended infrastructure network,

• Ensuring that there financial neutrality and the overall long-term financial sustainability of

the City is not compromised; and

• An assessment of the broader benefits of the proposed development is completed.

Once again we would like to thank Council for the opportunity to provide comment on both the

draft Development Contributions Policy and the draft Growth Funding Policy. If you have any

questions related to the NZTA’s submission, please feel free to contact Hannah Windle (Transport

Planner) at [email protected] or on (07) 958 7884.

Yours sincerely,

Dennis Crequer

Acting Regional Manager, Planning and Investment

Waikato/Bay of Plenty

NZ Transport Agency


28


Name: Roderick Aldridge Requested to speak at the hearings: No Comments:

I believe that developers should pay for the cost of supplying the infrastructure that the development requires. I therefore support the proposed changes as they appear to be a practical and fairer allocation of the costs than under the previous policy. Roderick Aldridge

29


30


31


32


33


34

17 April 2013

Freepost 172189 Annual Plan Submission Hamilton City Council Private Bag 3010 Hamilton 3240 RE: SUBMISSION ON DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS POLICY Name of Submitter: Ryvington Holdings Ltd (RHL) and Blue Wallace Surveyors (BWS) Background:

Blue Wallace Surveyors is the development consultant company for RHL, who are in the process of completing a 424 lots residential subdivision named “The Meadows” within the Rototuna Stage 4 area. This submission has been prepared by Blue Wallace Surveyors on behalf of RHL. Submission:

Proposed Change Submission / Comment by RHL / BWS

B. Additional Catchments We support the proposal to split the catchments into separate growth cells as it creates a more fair and equitable system

G. No DC’s in the CBD We do not support this part of the policy. Why should residential developers in other areas of the city essentially subsidize the development of the CBD. The main reason why the CBD is not growing is due to significant peripheral developments that HCC have approved such as the Base. Penalizing residential development for the benefit of other forms of development is not fair and reasonable.

I. Deferring Payment of DC’s

We support the proposal to defer DC’s to “unlock” development We do not consider that this be restricted to consented developments between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2014, and should be a general policy for all land developments, or residential subdivision. The holding costs to developers at 224 c) time is significant and the sole reason why many subdivisions do not get off the ground or are not financially viable, as the level of DC’s make up approx 50% of the cost to develop a residential section. The demand on services or infrastructure is not actually created until the dwelling is constructed on the developed section. As such it is our opinion that DC’s for residential subdivision should be charged at Building consent stage across the board. The policy also needs to define what it means by the “sale” of the developed lot. A large proportion of newly developed sections are sold to building or housing companies who essentially hold the land until sold to the end user. Given that building companies are not in the business of developing land it is our submission that the policy be re-worded such that the DC’s is paid upon the issue of a building consent.


35

K. Removal of low impact design reduction

We do not support this part of the policy. There has been a very strong push by HCC and the Regional Council over the past few years for developers to move towards low impact design methods in subdivision construction. Methods include ground soakage and storage of stormwater on site and onsite treatment or usage of grey water. These methods reduce the demand on, and usage of infrastructure. It is appropriate to reduce a stormwater contribution relative to the percentage of stormwater that is managed on site.

M. Revised Remissions Section

There should not be a time constraint on the developer for the lodgement of an application for remission. The proposal is that any application for remission be made within 20 working days of the development contribution charge being advised in writing to the developer. This advise is usually provided shortly after a consent is received. In the case of a large scale development such as “The Meadows” the engineering design and construction of the subdivision could happen many years after the issue of consents. Until designs are completed and approved by HCC (and often the Regional Council) the developer is uncertain as to the impact or demand that the subdivision will have on Council infrastructure. For this reason it is our submission that an application for remission shold be able to be made at any time during the life of the consent.

I wish to be heard in support of my submission. Yours Faithfully Blue Wallace Surveyors

Murray Wallace Registered Professional Surveyor


36


37


38


39

19 April 2013 Hamilton City Council Strategy and Research Unit Freepost 172189 Private Bag 3010 Hamilton 3240 Dear Sir/Madam RE: SUBMISSIONS ON HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS

POLICY AND DRAFT GROWTH FUNDING POLICY This is a submission made on behalf of Porter Developments Limited on the above draft policies. The submitter generally supports the overall approach set out in both of the draft policies. The submissions request a number of clarifications and refinements. The main concern in the submission is the forecasted growth of residential and non-residential development in the Rotokauri Structure Plan area. The submitter considers that the Rotokauri area is poised for a significant uptake from 2014 onward. The industrial land at Rotokauri is strategically located and positioned to attract high levels of investment from both the regional and inter-regional/national industrial sectors. At least 25ha is likely to be taken up within the first five years based on known commitments. The submitter is looking forward to the opportunity to participate in the Council hearings taking place on 13-15 May 2013. Yours faithfully BOFFA MISKELL LTD

Craig Batchelar Director Attachments: Submission

BM T10093_Porters_Letter_to_HCC_20130419.docx page 1


40

Hamilton City Council Draft Development Contributions Policy Submission by Porter Developments Ltd Section Reference Section Title Issue Decision Sought 3.6 Policy Background It is unclear how consents granted prior to 29 June

2013 will be assessed, particularly where charges have reduced.

See submission on 10.12 below.

16 What is a Development Contribution?

Clarification is sought on the status of the FCs under the City plan requirement as it is not always clear whether the revised capex has taken the related expenditure into account. For example, Rule 6.4.5 b) Upgrading of Existing Roads in Relation to Subdivision provides for payment of a berm upgrading levy. Has the related work been included in capex estimates for the new DC’s or des the FC rule still apply?

Clarification the status of the FCs under the City Plan. Identify in a schedule which if any provisions will continue to apply.

5.5 I-V Downward Modification to Base Charges

The proposed modification base charges are supported.

6 Definitions The term “non-residential” is not defined. Define “non-residential” as meaning commercial development, industrial development, and retail develop.

7.12 a) Community Outcomes The protection of ratepayers from “unacceptable” rate increases may imply that the development contributions could be used as a means of buffering rate increases caused by expenditure that are not growth related.

Replace the term “unacceptable” with the term “unwarranted” to better capture the policy intent.

8.2 Development Contribution Catchments

Schedule 2 does not show how different areas of the City (Catchments) have been allocated different amounts of related capital expenditure.

Include schedule to show how different areas of the City (Catchments) have been allocated different amounts of related capital expenditure.

8.9 Calculation of charges (203(2), Schedule 13 LGA

The divisor is referred to as “net present value of the number of units of growth benefitting from capex”. The inclusion of “net present value” appears to be

Clarify formula

1


41

Hamilton City Council Draft Development Contributions Policy Submission by Porter Developments Ltd Section Reference Section Title Issue Decision Sought

an error and is usually related to cash flow metrics. If it is correct, it is unclear how the number of dwellings can be discounted over time.

10.15 Invoicing The policy should also address situations where the payment has yet to be made for previously assessed charges in cases where the new policy is lower. In these cases the lower charge should apply.

Add policy to address situations where the payment has yet to be made for previously assessed charges in cases where the new policy is lower. In these cases the lower charge should apply.

15 Schedule 1 – Development Contribution Charges Industrial Charge

There is no significant relationship or nexus between the provision of community infrastructure and reserves and industrial growth. The reserves level of service policy is based on accessibility within residential neighbourhoods and “population”, not workforce. This is reflected in the Rotokauri Industrial area there is no planned community infrastructure or reserves which will be reasonably accessible to those working in the industrial zone. It is not reasonable to impose these charges on industrial activities.

Remove community infrastructure and reserves from the Industrial Charge for all catchments.

17 Schedule 3 - Total Funding Sought from Development Contributions Tables 4 and 5

Peacocke Stage One Residential should be contributing towards the Future Bridge Crossing as they will benefit from that in the future.

Include capex and contribution from Peacocke for the Future Bridge Crossing.

21 Schedule 7 Growth Forecasts Table 11 Forecast Annual Supply Growth in titled non-residential site area (ha)

The forecast growth for Rotokauri Stage 1 is unduly conservative. The land is strategically located and positioned to attract high levels of investment from both the regional and inter-regional /national industrial sectors.

Show Rotokauri Stage 1 uptake as 8ha in 2014 and 5.5 ha per year from 2015 onward. Revise Development contribution calculations to take this into account. Identify uptake of commercial and industrial land separately.

2


42


The land is currently being developed and serviced. 130ha will be provided with road access and trunk services by the end of 2013 with no significant impediment to future uptake. Titles will be available in late 2013. The developers are aiming to sell down much of the area within 15 years. 8ha have already been sold. The Porter Group relocation from Te Rapa alone will take up 17ha and will occur within 3-5 years. The rate of uptake of the balance developable land is likely to be in the order of 5ha per year. Rototuna Town Centre should not be included in the total as this is commercial land, not industrial. It is not relevant to the consideration of a balanced industrial land supply.

22 Schedule 8 – DC Catchment Maps

The road network at Rotokauri is out of date and makes the maps hard to interpret.

Update road network to include Te Rapa Bypass and related links.

22 Schedule 8 – DC Catchment Maps Map 1 Development Contribution General Catchments

The inclusion of some of the land north of Ruffell Road and west of Onion Road in the Te Rapa North catchment does not appear to reflect that this area will gain most of its access to water, wastewater, stormwater and road infrastructure Rotokauri from the network within the Structure Plan Area.

Review and include land north of Ruffell Road and west of Onion Road in the Rotokauri General Catchment

Schedule 8 – DC Catchment Maps Map 3 Development contribution catchments for

The East West separation of Wastewater zones do not adequately recognise cost differentials.

The catchments should be split north and south to create four catchments.

3


43


bulk wastewater infrastructure.

22 Schedule 8 – DC Catchment Maps Map 4 Development Contributions Stormwater Catchments

The extent of the Mangaheka Catchment is difficult to interpret from the plan. The extent appears to be inconsistent with that shown on the Mangaheka ICMP.

Review and confirm correct extent of Mangaheka Catchment.

4


44

Hamilton City Council Draft Growth Funding Policy Submission by Porter Developments Ltd Section Reference

Section Title Issue Decision Sought

4.3.3 (c) Financial neutrality and overall fairness and equity

While the policy is generally supported, there is potential for uncertainty over the criteria that apply where a remission of DC is also sought under Policy 4.3.3(c). The policy should include or refer to the criteria set out in the Development Contributions Policy Remissions (Policy 12.5).

Include in Policy 4.3.3 (c) the criteria set out in the Development Contributions Policy Remissions (Policy 12.5 a) and b)).

4.3.3 Financial neutrality and overall fairness and equity

The policy addresses financial neutrality and overall fairness and equity for the Council, but not necessarily the developer. In particular, it is unclear how the cost of infrastructure that has been future proofed (upsized to accommodate future developed) as part a development agreement would be recouped from that future development once vested in the Council. This could result in freeloading. Scope to include recoupment mechanisms should be part of the policy. Mechanisms could include restrictions on access to services unless a fair and reasonable payment is made to the funder/provider.

Add the following after 4.3.3 f) A development agreement may include provisions that will enable the funder to recoup the cost of infrastructure that has been future proofed (upsized to accommodate future developed) as part of a development agreement.

1


45

19 April 2013 Freepost 172189 Strategy and Research Unit Hamilton City Council Private Bag 3010 Hamilton 3240 Dear Sir/Madam RE: SUBMISSIONS ON HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS

POLICY AND DRAFT GROWTH FUNDING POLICY This is a submission made on behalf of Hamilton JV Investment Company Limited on the above draft policies. The submitter generally supports the overall approach set out in both of the draft policies. The submissions request a number of clarifications and refinements. The main concern in the submission is the forecasted growth of residential and non-residential development in the Rotokauri Structure Plan area. The submitter considers that the Rotokauri area is poised for a significant uptake from 2014 onward. The industrial land at Rotokauri is strategically located and positioned to attract high levels of investment from both the regional and inter-regional/national industrial sectors. At least 25ha is likely to be taken up within the first five years based on known commitments. The submitter is looking forward to the opportunity to participate in the Council hearings taking place on 13-15 May 2013. Yours sincerely BOFFA MISKELL LTD

Craig Batchelar Director Attachments: Submission

BM T10093_HJV_Letter_to_HCC_20130419.docx page 1


46

Hamilton City Council Draft Development Contributions Policy Submission by Hamilton JV Investment Co Ltd Section Reference Section Title Issue Decision Sought 3.6 Policy Background It is unclear how consents granted prior to 29 June

2013 will be assessed, particularly where charges have reduced.

See submission on 10.12 below

16 What is a Development Contribution?

Clarification is sought on the status of the FCs under the City plan requirement as it is not always clear whether the revised capex has taken the related expenditure into account. For example, Rule 6.4.5 b) Upgrading of Existing Roads in Relation to Subdivision provides for payment of a berm upgrading levy. Has the related work been included in capex estimates for the new DC’s or des the FC rule still apply?

Clarification the status of the FCs under the City Plan. Identify in a schedule which if any provisions will continue to apply.

5.5 I-V Downward Modification to Base Charges

The proposed modification base charges are supported.

6 Definitions The term “non-residential” is not defined. Define “non-residential” as meaning commercial development, industrial development, and retail develop.

7.12 a) Community Outcomes The protection of ratepayers from “unacceptable” rate increases may imply that the development contributions could be used as a means of buffering rate increases caused by expenditure that are not growth related.

Replace the term “unacceptable” with the term “unwarranted” to better capture the policy intent.

8.2 Development Contribution Catchments

Schedule 2 does not show how different areas of the City (Catchments) have been allocated different amounts of related capital expenditure.

Include schedule to show how different areas of the City (Catchments) have been allocated different amounts of related capital expenditure.

8.9 Calculation of charges (203(2), Schedule 13 LGA

The divisor is referred to as “net present value of the number of units of growth benefitting from capex”. The inclusion of “net present value” appears to be

Clarify formula

1


47

Hamilton City Council Draft Development Contributions Policy Submission by Hamilton JV Investment Co Ltd Section Reference Section Title Issue Decision Sought

an error and is usually related to cash flow metrics. If it is correct, it is unclear how the number of dwellings can be discounted over time.

10.15 Invoicing The policy should also address situations where the payment has yet to be made for previously assessed charges in cases where the new policy is lower. In these cases the lower charge should apply.

Add policy to address situations where the payment has yet to be made for previously assessed charges in cases where the new policy is lower. In these cases the lower charge should apply.

15 Schedule 1 – Development Contribution Charges Industrial Charge

There is no significant relationship or nexus between the provision of community infrastructure and reserves and industrial growth. The reserves level of service policy is based on accessibility within residential neighbourhoods and “population”, not workforce. This is reflected in the Rotokauri Industrial area there is no planned community infrastructure or reserves which will be reasonably accessible to those working in the industrial zone. It is not reasonable to impose these charges on industrial activities.

Remove community infrastructure and reserves from the Industrial Charge for all catchments.

17 Schedule 3 - Total Funding Sought from Development Contributions Tables 4 and 5

Peacocke Stage One Residential should be contributing towards the Future Bridge Crossing as they will benefit from that in the future.

Include capex and contribution from Peacocke for the Future Bridge Crossing.

21 Schedule 7 Growth Forecasts Table 11 Forecast Annual Supply Growth in title non-residential site area

The forecast for Rotokauri appears to be unduly conservative with development not commencing until 2018. The land is already zoned for development. Major landowners in the area are currently working together on land aggregation to facilitate

Show Rotokauri Yield commencing no later than 2015. Revise Development contribution calculations to take this into account.

2


48


development. 21 Schedule 7 Growth Forecasts

Table 11 Forecast Annual Supply Growth in titled non-residential site area (ha)

The forecast growth for Rotokauri Stage 1 is unduly conservative. The land is strategically located and positioned to attract high levels of investment from both the regional and inter-regional /national industrial sectors. The land is currently being developed and serviced. 130ha will be provided with road access and trunk services by the end of 2013 with no significant impediment to future uptake. hTitles will be available in late 2013. The developers are aiming to sell down much of the area within 15 years. 8ha have already been sold. The Porter Group relocation from Te Rapa alone will take up 17ha and will occur within 3-5 years. The rate of uptake of the balance developable land is likely to be in the order of 5ha per year. Rototuna Town Centre should not be included in the total as this is commercial land, not industrial. It is not relevant to the consideration of a balanced industrial land supply.

Show Rotokauri Stage 1 uptake as 8ha in 2014 and 5.5 ha per year from 2015 onward. Revise Development contribution calculations to take this into account. Identify uptake of commercial and industrial land separately.

22 Schedule 8 – DC Catchment Maps

The road network at Rotokauri is out of date and makes the maps hard to interpret.

Update road network to include Te Rapa Bypass and related links.

22 Schedule 8 – DC Catchment Maps Map 1 Development

The inclusion of some of the land north of Ruffell Road and west of Onion Road in the Te Rapa North catchment does not appear to reflect that this area

Review and include land north of Ruffell Road and west of Onion Road in the Rotokauri General Catchment

3


49


Contribution General Catchments

will gain most of its access to water, wastewater, stormwater and road infrastructure Rotokauri from the network within the Structure Plan Area.

Schedule 8 – DC Catchment Maps Map 3 Development contribution catchments for bulk wastewater infrastructure.

The East West separation of Wastewater zones do not adequately recognise cost differentials.

The catchments should be split north and south to create four catchments.

22 Schedule 8 – DC Catchment Maps Map 4 Development Contributions Stormwater Catchments

The extent of the Mangaheka Catchment is difficult to interpret from the plan. The extent appears to be inconsistent with that shown on the Mangaheka ICMP.

Review and confirm correct extent of Mangaheka Catchment.

4


50

Hamilton City Council Draft Growth Funding Policy Submission by Hamilton JV Investment Co Ltd Section Reference

Section Title Issue Decision Sought

4.3.3 (c) Financial neutrality and overall fairness and equity

While the policy is generally supported, there is potential for uncertainty over the criteria that apply where a remission of DC is also sought under Policy 4.3.3(c). The policy should include or refer to the criteria set out in the Development Contributions Policy Remissions (Policy 12.5).

Include in Policy 4.3.3 (c) the criteria set out in the Development Contributions Policy Remissions (Policy 12.5 a) and b)).

4.3.3 Financial neutrality and overall fairness and equity

The policy addresses financial neutrality and overall fairness and equity for the Council, but not necessarily the developer. In particular, it is unclear how the cost of infrastructure that has been future proofed (upsized to accommodate future developed) as part a development agreement would be recouped from that future development once vested in the Council. This could result in freeloading. Scope to include recoupment mechanisms should be part of the policy. Mechanisms could include restrictions on access to services unless a fair and reasonable payment is made to the funder/provider.

Add the following after 4.3.3 f) A development agreement may include provisions that will enable the funder to recoup the cost of infrastructure that has been future proofed (upsized to accommodate future developed) as part of a development agreement.

1


51


52


53


54


55


56


57


58


59


60


61


62


63


64


65


66


67


68


69


70


71


72


73


74


75


76


77


78


79

Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited Private Bag 92032, Auckland 1142, New Zealand

Fonterra Centre, 9 Princes Street, Auckland 1010

t +64 9 374 9606, m +64 27 504 6304

www.fonterra.com

Fonterra Co-operative Group Page 1

19 April 2013 Freepost 172189 10-Year Plan Submission Hamilton City Council Private Bag 3010 HAMILTON 3240 via online submission Dear Councillors, Re: Hamilton City Council’s 2013-14 Draft Annual Plan

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the Draft Annual Plan consultative process. Please find our submission attached. We wish to be heard in support of our submission, and look forward to having the opportunity to address you in person.

Yours sincerely

Philippa Fourie

Manager, Local Government & Community Relations


80

Fonterra Co-operative Group

Confidential to Fonterra Co-operative Group Page 2

Fonterra Submission – Hamilton City Council 2013-14 Draft Annual Plan

Full Name of Submitter Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited Contact Person Philippa Fourie Full Postal Address Private Bag 92032, Auckland 1142 Phone Number (09) 374 9606 (027) 504 6304 Email [email protected] I wish to be heard in support of this submission I confirm I am authorised on behalf of Fonterra to make this submission

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Fonterra Co-operative Group (‘Fonterra’) is New Zealand’s major dairy cooperative and

one of the world’s largest diversified milk processing companies. Our success is backed by sophisticated systems for collecting and transporting more than 2.4 million tonnes of dairy product annually. Over 16 million litres of milk collected from over 10,500 shareholder farms and processed in 27 manufacturing sites throughout New Zealand. The cooperative exports 95% of its dairy products to customers in more than 100 countries. Our global revenue is just under $20 billion.

1.2 Hamilton City is home to a number of key Fonterra operational and administrative sites

including the nationally important manufacturing sites - Te Rapa Dairy Factory and Canpac International - as well as Fonterra’s regional office in London Street which is the base for over one third of Fonterra’s 1,800+ employees who work in Hamilton City.

1.3 Fonterra appreciates the opportunity to comment on Hamilton City Council’s 2013 -2014

Draft Annual Plan. OUR SUBMISSION

Financial and Debt Managment

2.1 Fonterra is supportive of Hamilton City Council’s ongoing commitment to achieving its

financial goals of capping debt levels at $440 million for the next 10 years and returning the Council budget to surplus by 2017. We also supports Council’s commitment to achieving $15 million of savings by 2015

2.2 Fonterra notes that up to 50% of Council’s budgeted expenditure for 2013-2014 will be

allocated to asset replacement or upgrades. We support Council’s renewal and replacement of existing infrastructure and commend Council on its prudent asset management and investment.


81



Hamilton Ring Road

2.3 Fonterra notes that Council has allocated budget for completion of the Hamilton Ring

Road in its list of 2013-2014 Projects. 2.4 Given Fonterra’s reliability on the use of both local roads and state highways to transport

product from farm to factory to market, improvements to the local roading network such as the Hamilton Ring Road enhances accessibility for freight movement around the city and between strategic sites

2.5 We support Hamilton City Council’s ongoing investment in ensuring that the Ring Road

project can be completed.

Development Contribution Policy 2.6 Fonterra notes that Council – under the heading of City Growth (Page 10) in the draft

Annual Plan – has disclosed that it has included the receipt of income from development contributions in its budget to pay off debt and to help pay for future growth projects. Fonterra supports the use of development contributions so long as there are good processes in place for assessing contribution levels and the targeting of development contributions to areas across the city does not discourage development.

2.7 Fonterra considers that while the current development contributions regime has been

suitable for our operations, we do acknowledge that Council has had to review its Development Contributions Policy and develop a draft Funding Growth Policy to meet changes to the City’s growth projections. While these policies are the subject of a separate consultation process we would like to take this opportunity to support the implementation of a development contributions neutral zone in Hamilton City’s CBD.


82

wards

Rectangle



THE SUBMITTER

Fonterra Cooperative Group Limited

Fonterra Co-operative Group (“Fonterra”) is one of the world’s largest diversified milk processing and dairy exporting companies and is 100% owned by 10,578 New Zealand dairy farmers. Fonterra employs 17,300 staff that work across the dairy spectrum - from advising farmers on sustainable farming and milk production, to ensuring we meet exacting quality standards and deliver dairy nutrition every day in more than 100 markets around the world. Within New Zealand Fonterra collects over 16 billion litres of milk and exports more than 2.4 million tonnes of dairy product annually. Fonterra accounts for 26% of New Zealand’s total exports by value. Globally Fonterra processes more than 22 billion litres of milk and owns leading dairy brands in Australasia, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. In the 2012 financial year, Fonterra’s global revenue was just under $20 billion. Fonterra’s Vision

Our vision is to be the natural source of dairy nutrition for everybody, everywhere, every day. This vision will be achieved through:

Delivering sustainable co-operative performance Growing lasting customer partnerships Building trusted brands in chosen markets

Fonterra’s Interests in the Hamilton City

Production facilities: o Te Rapa Dairy Factory – One of Fonterra’s largest manufacturing sites,

producing over 250,000 tonnes of milk powders and cream products for export annually and accounts for about 20% of the Fonterra Co-operative’s annual milk powder production.

o Canpac – packs and brands more than 300 different Fonterra products cans, sachets and bags

Regional corporate office in London Street, Hamilton (659 Fonterra staff are based at this site).

Ambient stores: o Crawford Street - collects one-third of all Fonterra’s dairy ingredients in the

Waikato and Bay of Plenty for distribution to the Ports of Tauranga and Auckland.

Dairy Blenders Ltd Depots at Simsey Place, Barnett Place and Duke Street as well as the RD1 retail

depot on Norton Road

Over 1,800 Fonterra staff employed to work in the Hamilton area.

Over 1,4 million kg Milk Solids 2011/12 season were produced within the Hamilton Area, New Zealand Dairy Statistics 2011-12 (average milk price $6.40kg);

Over $9.5 million (at $6.40 average payout per kg of Milk Solids)[1] revenue were received at the City at farm-gate (excluding dividend);

[1] NZ Diary Statistics 2011-12, LIC/DairyNZ


83

Office Use

Submission # ___________

HAMILTON’S DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION

SUBMISSION FORM

YOUR DETAILS:

Name: Rotokauri Developments Ltd

Organisation (if applicable): CKL Planning | Surveying | Engineering

Address: PO Box 171, Hamilton Postcode: 3240

Phone (day): (07) 849 9921 Phone (evening):

Email: [email protected]

� I do wish to attend and speak about our submission at a Council Hearing

SUMMARY:

Rotokauri Developments Ltd consider that the Draft Development Contributions Policy to be

unsupportable and unlawful in its current form as it;

(a) will result in an inequitable and unfair system of development contribution

charges, especially given issues with apportionment across funded and

unfunded growth cells;

(b) ignores the need for a “direct causal nexus” between a development and the

demand for infrastructure that it generates, and instead demands that

developers subsidise unconnected projects and debts;

(c) seeks to recover contributions from developments in respect of works that

were planned without any anticipation of or provision for those future

developments; and

(d) takes broader policy objectives, such as CBD revitalisation, into account,

rather than complying strictly with the relevant provisions of the LGA, which

is the sole source of a council’s power to extract development contributions;

COMMENTS:

Best Practice Guide to Development Contributions established by Local Government New

Zealand needs to be followed in the preparation of the Development Contribution Policy.

The Department of Internal Affairs identified fairness and equity as one of the key issues to

be reviewed in the current development contributions regime. The causal nexus, and so the


84

basis for and extent of a citywide charge, are crucial in ensuring that a development

contributions regime is fair and equitable.

Expecting unfunded growth cells to pay towards infrastructure in other funded growth cells

on the basis that this infrastructure could have some citywide benefits cannot be said to be

fair and equitable where a developer in a funded growth cell, who is likely to benefit from

the unfunded infrastructure and growth, is not being asked to contribute towards the

unfunded growth.

Council has a statutory duty to ensure that the method for allocating development

contributions and what they are to be used for is transparent. The Draft Development

Contribution Policy lacks transparency, largely due to:

(e) the proposed citywide allocation, the component parts of which are not fully

explained; and

(f) a lack of reporting from the Council on how development contributions are

applied.

The cost allocation summary spreadsheet provided as part of supplementary information

made available by Council is complex and confusing. It is not possible to trace project

expenditure through to the determination of development contribution values. Once total

costs have been established, how are these costs allocated across the various catchments?

For example what capacity periods are being utilised to establish the final per lot rates for

the various components of the development contributions.

Future development should not be responsible for funding shortfalls of the past. A regime

where future developments are paying a significant proportion of debts incurred in the past

is contrary to the LGA, which requires development contributions to be allocated on a

consistent and equitable basis.

Section 7.22 outlines the basis for which percentage rates have been determined would be

helpful as it is our understanding from the supplementary information provided that this

determination is subjective. These are a key consideration when determining the fairness or

otherwise of the stated development contributions.


85

Section 9.33 states that there may be 500 vacant sections within Hamilton, a majority of

these sections have already been sold and are awaiting building to occur. It is believed that

there would be a maximum of 100 sections currently on the market; hence the assumption

in this regard is incorrect.

Assuming the assumptions made to establish likely demand are correct, this demand will

need to be meet through “legacy sections” and sections consented to after the date in which

this policy comes into effect. This being the case, revenue figures (relating to payment of

development contributions) will need to be re-visited.

Payment of development contributions on subdivision consents is required prior to uplifting

of the section 224(c) certificate (subject to acceptance by Council to postpone payment in

accordance section 13). At this point in time it is difficult to determine how willing Council

will be to the deferral of payments in relation to development contributions on subdivision

consents; however it is believed that the deferral of payments until the sale of the section

should be more common place rather than the exception to the rule. A deferral of this

nature would in actual fact mean that the contribution is collected at a time where the

actual demand is more likely to occur. This would be more in line with when the

contributions are collected on land use and building consents.

The outlay of development contributions at the early stage of the section 224(c) certificate

places a huge financial burden on developers, particularly in an uncertain market were

sections could remain on the market for a long period of time.

It could be argued that the need for infrastructure expenditure has resulted from proposed

development; hence the recovery of these costs at an early date would seem reasonable.

However this is not always the case, the need for this infrastructure could have been a result

of an accumulation of development occurring in the area, or need to upgrade to meet

requirements of the remainder of the city. Through a share of interest costs the effect on

Council’s ability to service debt relating to infrastructure expenditure is largely negated.

The determination of catchment allocation for the various wastewater projects identified

would seem highly questionable at this time. It is our understanding that modelling of the

existing trunk systems has only just been completed and modelling of future requirements is


86

still being undertaken. Should this be the case, how can future/historic project expenditure

be assigned to a specific catchment? Without an ability to accurately assign project

expenditure to a catchment, the assignment of development contributions would have to be

questioned.

It is inappropriate for the Council to take revitalisation objectives into account in its Draft

Development Contributions Policy. Development contributions should not be used to

achieve broader policy objectives, particularly where this dilutes the required causal nexus.

The costs of a policy of CBD revitalisation should properly rest with the developers and

ratepayers inside the CBD, and not a developer outside the CBD

Although the lack of reference may not preclude Council from entering into separate,

tailored agreements, it would be more transparent for the Draft Development Contributions

Policy to recognise that for some developments, particularly large, staged developments, it

is beneficial for both the developer and Council to enter into a separate agreement to set

out the amount of development contributions payable and when payment will be required.

Although it is important to have a development contribution policy to set out units of

demand, there will invariably be situations where following this policy to the letter is neither

fair nor equitable for the Council or developer. It is therefore important that flexibility be

maintained by providing for Private Developer Agreements.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Rotokauri Developments Ltd seeks:

(a) More detailed information on the proportion of capital expenditure funded

by development contributions, both previous and proposed, be made

available for review.

(b) More detailed information on the growth-related capital expenditure

allocated to the citywide catchment, both previous and proposed, be made

available for review.

(c) An explanation of the rationale behind the bulk stormwater and wastewater

catchments, including more detailed information on the growth-related

capital expenditure allocated to these catchments.


87

(d) Require the Council to annually report on development contributions

expenditure.

(e) Provide a mechanism, if the citywide model is to be instituted, for a

developer of an unfunded development to recover costs from the Council

and/or developers in other growth cells where there is a “citywide” benefit

from the privately funded infrastructure. Removal of the proposed

development contribution exemption for developments in the CBD.

(f) Amendment to the development contribution schedules to provide for a

high percentage of the development contributions payable for each activity

to be allocated to growth-related capital works in the growth cell, and a

minimal percentage allocated on a citywide, bulk stormwater or bulk

wastewater basis, and, most importantly, only where it can be clearly shown

that the capital works have a direct causal nexus to the development against

which development contributions are to be levied.

(g) A significant reduction in the proportion of historical contributions to

current development contributions proposed to be levied in order to ensure

that there is a clear and direct causal link between the growth caused by a

development and the cost of catering for that growth.

(h) Clearly provide in section 11 or 12 that, where the actual demand of a

development is lower than the initial assessment or payment, the

development contributions will be re-calculated, and the overpayment will

be reimbursed.

(i) Clearly provide for a reduction in stormwater and wastewater contributions

relative to the percentage of stormwater and/or waste water that is

managed on the site.

(j) Amend the remissions criteria in section 12 so that the developer need only

show that the actual HUEs of demand generated by the development are

lower than the HUEs of demand indicated by the Draft Development

Contributions Policy.

(k) Amend the guidelines in section 12 so that there is greater transparency

around the remissions application process.

(l) Review whether an independent dispute resolution hearing would be a more

effective and unbiased way to resolve remissions applications and disputes.


88

(m) Explicitly recognise the ability for the Council to enter into private developer

agreements in the Draft Development Contribution Policy, and for such

agreements to provide a mechanism for the Council to recover a fair share of

costs from other users who would want or need to connect to privately

funded infrastructure and pay this through to the self-funding developer.


89

Office Use

Submission # ___________

HAMILTON’S DRAFT GROWTH FUNDING POLICY

SUBMISSION FORM

YOUR DETAILS:

Name: Rotokauri Developments Ltd

Organisation (if applicable): CKL Planning | Surveying | Engineering

Address: PO Box 171, Hamilton Postcode: 3240

Phone (day): (07) 849 9921 Phone (evening):

Email: [email protected]

� I do wish to attend and speak about our submission at a Council Hearing

COMMENTS:

Whilst we believe the addition of such a policy to be a positive step given Council’s financial

situation at present, the content of the current draft falls short of what is required.

While various planning documents provide for growth within a number of different growth

cells across the city, the funding necessary to develop the infrastructure necessary to enable

all these areas to be brought on-line (i.e. being available to the market) at once is simply not

available. Hence to enable growth in these areas it is vital that such a policy be developed

and implemented, however such a policy must be clear, transparent, and fair to all.

Based on section 4.3.2(f) and section 4.3.3(e) it would seem that Private Developer

Agreements would be limited within the less established growth areas of the city due to

those existing agreements entered into over time within the more established growth areas.

Enabling growth within those less established growth cells will always create competition for

those more established growth cells; however this would likely provide more balance to the

growth of the city, and better utilisation of existing infrastructure Council has incurred

capital expenditure.

Further details on incremental contributions being promoted within section 4.3.2(g) are

required to determine fairness. For example, would interest on capital outlay from the

developer be payable over the period in which the incremental repayments would be made?


90

What about other options in terms of repayment of these costs? (For example the crediting

of development contributions).

It is difficult to see from section 4.3.3(c) how the full payment of development contributions

and infrastructure costs can be considered fair and reasonable from a developer’s

perspective. This can only be seen as double dipping. At worst the development

contributions payable should be adjusted to reflect the expenditure incurred by the

developer, as the development contributions payable would include the costs (in full or part)

of the infrastructure installed.

It is assumed that section 4.3.3(d) relates to infrastructure expenditure incurred by Council

that is to be funded through development contributions. If this is the case then it would

suggest that the option of crediting development contributions against the advance funding

of infrastructure is not an option Council are prepared to accept. Should this be the case it

would seem that the only option available in terms of the repayment of privately funded

infrastructure is through the LTCCP. This provides little incentive for any developer to enter

into funding agreements, and hence could potentially limit growth, utilisation of existing

infrastructure and ultimately recovery on historic infrastructure expenditure.

Section 4.3.3(f) lacks the transparency required, in that the general acceptance of any

funding proposal outside the 10-Year Plan is subject to complex financial models and

subjective assessment. Other key assessment criteria should include utilisation of existing

infrastructure, including recovery of historic infrastructure expenditure.

Transparency and fairness are key from a developer’s perspective, however at present the

Draft Policy appears to be heavily weighted in Council’s favour. It is recognised that Council

has serve financial restraints, and must ensure that infrastructure is developed in an efficient

and sustainable way. However it must be recognised that the private developers also have

financial restraints which need consideration.

It is believed that through some changes to the Draft Policy that Council’s financial and

legislative obligations as well as the private developer restraints can be adequately

addressed to provide a mutually beneficial outcome. In particular an allowance for the

crediting of privately funded infrastructure against the relevant component of the


91

development contribution. This would be one of the few ways of providing for the extension

of the necessary infrastructure and not impacting any further on Council debt levels.


92


93


94


95


96


97


98


99


100


101


102


103


104


105


106


107


108


109


110


111


112


113


114

submissions to · 096 ckl planning | surveying | engineering rotokauri developments ltd development...

Documents