the university of waikato - hamilton, new zealand district plan... · the university of waikato was...

THE UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO

1.1.1.1.1 Submission on the Proposed Hamilton City

District Plan

Page i

THE UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO

Submission on the Proposed Hamilton City District Plan

28 March 2013

CONTENTS

Page

SUBMISSION FORM 1

1 INTRODUCTION 2

2 THE UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO 2

3 SPECIFIC SUBMISSIONS 3

APPENDICES

The University of Waikato 28 March 2013 Submission on the Proposed Hamilton City District Plan

Page 1

SUBMISSION FORM

Submitter Details

Full name of submitter: The University of Waikato

Contact name if different from above: John Cameron

Address for service of the submitter: Private Bag 3105,

HAMILTON, 3240

Contact phone number: (07) 857 0342

Email: [email protected]

Trade Competition

The University of Waikato could not gain an advantage in trade competition

through this submission.

The University of Waikato is directly affected by an effect of the subject matter

that –

(a) adversely affects the environment; and

(b) does not relate to trade competition or the effects of trade competition.

Attendance at Council hearing

The University of Waikato wishes to be heard (attend and speak at the Council

hearing) in support of its submission.

If others make a similar submission, University of Waikato will not consider

presenting a joint case with them at the hearing.

The University of Waikato has prepared this hard copy version of our

submission and has unfortunately not had time to transfer these submission

points onto Council’s electronic submission system. As such the submission will

need to be entered onto the Council system.

Signature of submitter

Signature of submitter:

(or person authorised to

sign on behalf of submitter)

John Cameron

Head of

Facilities Management

Dated: 28/3/2013

The University of Waikato 28 March 2013 Submission on the Proposed Hamilton City District Plan

Page 2

1 INTRODUCTION

This document contains The University of Waikato’s

(the University’s) submission on the Proposed Hamilton City District Plan (‘the

Plan’).

2 THE UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO

The University of Waikato was established in 1964 on a 65 hectare site and

today has a student population of 12,000, employs some 2,000 staff, and has

an annual turnover in excess of $200M.

The University has built research quality to be ranked No. 3 in New Zealand

(when University and College of Education scores are combined) and has forged

strong links with universities, research institutes and partners around the world.

The University is committed to delivering a world-class education and research

portfolio, providing a full and dynamic university experience which is distinctive

in character, and pursuing strong international links to advance knowledge. The

overarching themes of the University vision are excellence, distinctiveness, and

international connectedness.

The 65 hectare campus is characterised by its planting and extensive green

spaces, many of which are used by the community for casual and organised

recreation.

The beauty of the campus is regularly attested to by staff and students, and is a

significant distinguishing feature of this University, compared to most other New

Zealand universities. The University is very keen to ensure it protects and

enhances the campus beauty and amenity value.

The University has an existing resource consent for a Concept Plan which was

granted by Hamilton City Council on 1 May 2009. (Refer Appendix 1). The

consent period for this approval is 10 years. The University considers that the

ability to establish and provide for future development on the campus using the

Concept Plan approach is very useful. The University considers that it will be

important for the Plan provisions to recognise this existing consent as well as

providing for new provisions for permitted activities.

The University wishes to acknowledge the consultation process which has

occurred for the Plan review, particularly with respect to the Knowledge Zone

provisions and the Ruakura proposal. The University made a submission on the

Draft plan and looks forward to further constructive engagement with Council

and Tainui Group Holdings Limited (TGHL) with respect to the Plan provisions.

The University of Waikato 28 March 2013 Submission on the Hamilton City Proposed District Plan

Page 3

3 SPECIFIC SUBMISSIONS

L 1 Section 8 – Knowledge Zone

Specific Provision The University’s submission is: The University seeks the following decision from Council: Support/

Oppose

L 2 Section 8.1 The University supports in part Section 8.1 of the Plan and the provision of a Knowledge Zone for the University Campus. The existing section has a significant emphasis on new development whereas the University is a long established facility and there should be recognition of the need to maintain existing facilities as well as promoting new development opportunities. It is considered that Section 8.1 should include additional commentary regarding the University.

Retain Section 8.1 as notified with amendment to para 8.1.c) as follows:

Enabling existing facilities and Ffuture development within the zone will strengthen the economic base ….

Support in Part

L 3 All

L 2 Section 8.2 The objective and policies for the University are enabling and appropriate to the nature and scope of activities which currently exist and which may be developed on the University Campus. It is understood that the provisions of 8.2.5 are the only relevant objectives

and policies for the University and this should be made explicit in the Explanation.

Retain 8.2.5, 8.2.5a, 8.2.5b, 8.2.5d and 8.2.5e as notified.

Add to the Explanation that the objectives and policies of 8.2.1 to 8.2.4 to not apply to the University Campus.

Support

L 3 8.2.5

8.2.5a

8.2.5b

8.2.5d

8.2.5e

L 2 Section 8.2 The University accepts that a policy with respect to adverse effects on

amenity values is appropriate.

Retain 8.2.5c as notified. Support

L 3 8.2.5c

L 2 Section 8.2 The University supports the opportunity to hold a Concept Plan approval for the University Campus however there will always be potential for a new building or facility to be established which is not part of an approved Concept Plan. In such cases the new building or facility should be assessed on its merits.

Amend 8.2.5f as follows:

To enable the University to develop and implement a Concept Plan which can assist with the long term planning, use and integration of buildings and facilities.

Development shall be in general accordance with an overall Concept Plan.

Support in Part

L 3 8.2.5f


Page 4


Specific Provision The University’s submission is: The University seeks the following decision from Council: Support/ Oppose

L 2 Section 8.2 The University supports the explanation to the objectives and policies. Retain the explanation statement as notified. Support

L 3 Explanation

L 2 Section 8.3 The University supports the provisions for a broad range of permitted

activities to occur on the University Campus. These include tertiary education, research and place of assembly activities. The University is a major facility which provides a high level of amenity for the local neighbourhood and the character and nature of the campus will continue to be a major asset for Hamilton City and the region.

Although the University does not consider it necessary for a resource consent to be sought for activities within the Interface Area, it is prepared to accept Rule 8.3aa) subject to the threshold of 50m2 for any new building or alteration and substantial revision of the assessment criteria. .

Retain v) – z) inclusive, aa) and cc) – tt) inclusive as notified.

Support

L 3 v) – z) inclusive

aa)

cc) – tt) inclusive

L 2 Section 8.3 The rationale for including a restriction on vehicle movements for

activities in the Interface Zone is unclear and it is more appropriate for any traffic related matters and performance standards to form part of the Section 25 provisions.

Delete reference to performance standard for 100 vehicle

movements per day in 8.3 aa) and tt) Oppose

L 3 aa)

tt)

L2 8.3 Propose Rule 8.3bb) require a Controlled Activity for new buildings in

the Interface Area which are part of a Concept Plan.

This rule is not appropriate as Council cannot legally impose additional resource consent requirements on any buildings/activities which are already approved under the consent granted 1 May 2009.

Any new buildings/activities which may be subject to a new Concept Plan would also have a Restricted Discretionary Activity status in accordance with Rule 8.3v) such that proposed Rule 8.3bb) is

superfluous.

Delete Rule 8.3bb). Oppose

L3 bb)


Page 5



L2 8.3 As a consequence of the deletion of Rule 8.3bb), Rule 8.3uu) will also need to be deleted in its current form. We note that Rule 1.1.8 applies a Restricted Discretionary status to any activity which does not comply with the performance standards applicable to that activity.

Delete Rule 8.3uu) Oppose

L3 uu)

L2 8.4 The University supports the need to have site specific performance standards for the University Campus and therefore supports Rule 8.4a).

Retain 8.4a) as notified. Support

L3 a)

L2 8.6.1 The proposed rule provisions within Section 8.6 are not consistent with

the Activity Status provisions within Section 8.3. This matter has been discussed with Council staff and it was acknowledged that Section 8.6 will need to be revised to be consistent with Section 8.3.

The University therefore seeks amendments to Section 8.6 to address the inconsistency with Section 8.3. As this section only addresses the provision of a Concept Plan and Section 8.3 enables other activities as Permitted Activity, then there is no need to retain the exclusion provisions within 8.6.1 a), b) and c) and these should be deleted.

Delete the exclusion provisions in 8.6.1 a), b) and c) Oppose

L3 a), b) and c).

L2 8.6.1 The University supports these rule provisions which are appropriate to

the assessment of a Concept Plan. Retain Rules 8.6.1 d), e), f), g) and h) as notified. Support

L3 d), e), f), g), and h).


Page 6



L2 8.6.1 The proposed rule states that Concept Plans must be formulated in accordance with the standards of the chapter.

This terminology is ambiguous and alternative wording is sought to provide the appropriate linkage to the performance standards and assessment criteria.

Amend Rule 8.6g) as follows:

The relevant performances standards and assessment criteria in Sections 8.7 – 8.11 apply to an application for a Concept Plan. Concept Plans must be formulated in accordance with the standards in this section.

Support in part

L3 g)

L2 8.6.1 Proposed Rule 8.6.1j) is inconsistent with Section 8.3 and needs to be deleted.

Delete 8.6.1j).

Oppose

L3 j)

L2 8.6.2 The proposed setback of 5m are appropriate and acceptable to the

University Campus. Retain 8.6.2 as notified. Support

L3 All

L2 8.6.3 The proposed site coverage rule of 45% and height control planes are

appropriate and acceptable to the University. Retain 8.6.3 as notified. Support

L3 All

L2 8.6.4 The proposed permeability rule requires some clarification. The

University manages most of its own storm water runoff through on site detention and given the large area and varying contour of the campus, the appropriateness of the rule is questioned.

If Council can provide a rationale for the rule, then the University may support the proposed Rule and will easily comply the 20% net site permeability in any case.

Review of the purpose and need for proposed Rule 8.6.4. If the

rule is to be retained, then the University supports the 20% net site permeability standard.

The linkage rule for site area needs to be reviewed and presumably corrected by amending the reference from Rule 8.6.3b) to 8.6.2.

Support in

part

L3 a)


Page 7



The rule refers to the area required by Rule 8.6.3.b) which must be in error as the latter rule refers to height planes. It appears that the correct rule linkage is to propose Rule 8.6.2 (building).

L2 8.7 The provisions in Section 8.7 provide linkage rules to the other

sections of the Plan. These appear mostly appropriate except for the reference to Chapter 21 (Waikato River Corridor).

Amend Section 8.7 by deleting reference to Chapter 21. Support in

part

L3 All

L2 8.8 The proposed rule provides a linkage to the Controlled Activity assessment criteria. The linkage rule is supported however, the assessment criteria are opposed (refer to submission points below)

Retain 8.8.a)i as notified being a linkage rule to Controlled Activity assessment criteria (but oppose actual scope and nature of the assessment criteria).

Support in part

L3 a)i

L2 8.8 This rule is opposed as a consequential deletion given the Universities

submission to delete Rule 8.3bb). Delete Rule 8.8a)ii. Oppose

L3 a)ii

L2 8.9 The current headings for the individual tables within Section 8.9 may cause some ambiguity in the nature of the assessment criteria. For example Places of Assembly are a Permitted Activity on the University campus however Rule 8.9a)iv refers to Restricted Discretionary criteria for Places of Assembly.

The University considers this ambiguity can be removed by amending the heading for the assessment criteria for the University and transferring the RD criteria for any Concept Plan (Rule 8.9(viii) to xxiii. The objective is to ensure that only the specific assessment criteria are applied to activities on the University campus and not the other general criteria.

Amend the heading for the Restricted Discretionary criteria as follows:

Specific Standards for the University of Waikato Campus.

Transfer the RD criteria for any Concept Plan (Rule 8.9(viii) to xxiii.

Or other alternative relief to ensure that only the specific assessment criteria are applied to activities on the University campus and not the other general criteria

Support in part

L3 Headings


Page 8



L2 8.9 The proposed rule provides a linkage to the Restricted Discretionary assessment criteria for the provision of a Concept Plan. The linkage rule is supported however, the assessment criteria are opposed (refer to submission points below)

Retain 8.9.xx) as notified being a linkage rule to Restricted Discretionary Activity assessment criteria however the University does not support the actual assessment criteria)contained within the Plan .

Support in part

L3 xx)

L2 8.9 The proposed rule provides a linkage to the Restricted Discretionary

assessment criteria for non-compliance with the building set back rules. The linkage rule is supported however, the assessment criteria are opposed (refer to submission points below)

Retain 8.9.xxi) as notified being a linkage rule to Restricted

Discretionary Activity assessment criteria however the University does not support the actual assessment criteria)contained within the Plan .

Support in

part

L3 xxi)

L2 8.9 The proposed rule provides a linkage to the Restricted Discretionary assessment criteria for non-compliance with the permeability standards. The linkage rule is supported however, the assessment criteria are opposed (refer to submission points below)

Retain 8.9.xxii) as notified being a linkage rule to Restricted Discretionary Activity assessment criteria however the University does not support the actual assessment criteria)contained within the Plan .

Support in part

L3 xxii)

L2 8.9 The table will need a new linkage rule for Restricted Activities in

accordance with the new Rule 8.3uu) (Listed permitted activities which do not comply with the performance standards).

Insert new Rule 8.9.xxiii) as follows:

Any Permitted Activity which does not comply with the performance standards in Rules 8.6 to 8.7.

Support in

part/New provision

L3 New provision

xxiii)

L2 8.10 The non-notification rule refers to a number of activities that require resource consent but it does not include the Restricted Discretionary Activities for the University Campus.

It is considered that the non-notification rule could apply to 8.9xxii) as this would involve a technical assessment and subject to Council staff being satisfied with respect to any storm water modelling and mitigation measures, no affected parties or off site effects should arise.

Add an asterisk to Rule 8.9.xxii) such that this is included in the non-notification provisions.

Support in part

L3 Headings


Page 9



L2 8.11 The University considers that the format and scope of the provisions contained within the Plan are overly complex and unjustified. However, the University has made specific submission points to the key matters of concern to the University and has also supported those provisions which it considers are appropriate. Therefore the section is supported

in part.

Retain 8.11 as notified subject to the other submission points identified in the Universities submission.

Support in part

L3 All

L 1 Section 10 – Ruakura Logistics Zone


Oppose

L 2 Section 10.1 The University acknowledges the commitment that Tainui Group Holdings Limited (TGHL) and Council have given to developing a planning framework for the Ruakura Inland Port, associated rezonings and Structure Plan (the Ruakura proposal).

Broadly speaking, the University would prefer not to have the Ruakura proposal established in such close proximity to the campus. There is very little impact on the University from the rural activities adjacent to the University and the University is comfortable with the existing rural and residential character of the surrounding locality.

The University does not however wish to take an adversarial position with the Ruakura proposal and realistically considers that it will become part of the Plan. In this regard the University understands that the Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement (Proposed RPS) has established a broad policy framework for the development of the Ruakura proposal. Notwithstanding the appeals lodged to the Proposed RPS, it may be accepted that the Plan will be giving effect to the Proposed RPS by providing an appropriate planning and zone framework for the Ruakura proposal.

The University also wishes to acknowledge the consultation that TGHL and Council have undertaken with the scope and nature of the Ruakura proposal and how this may affect the University. This has led to some positive changes and additional mitigation measures which the University endorses.

The Council ensures that the correct balance is achieved between promoting the Ruakura proposal and maintaining the environmental and social objectives of existing facilities and neighbourhoods which may be affected by the proposed development.

Support in Part

L 3 All


Page 10



The University does support the Ruakura proposal insofar as it will contribute to the Hamilton economy and provide employment and business opportunities. These positive aspects of the Ruakura proposal should only be enabled if it can be developed in a manner which does not adversely affect the amenity values and infrastructure utilisation of existing activities and neighbourhoods.

The University considers that some additional controls on the development performance standards and the objectives and policies for the Ruakura proposal are necessary to ensure that the correct balance is achieved in terms of promoting development and maintaining environmental and social objectives.

One of the issues that the University is concerned about is the scale and time horizon for the Ruakura proposal and how this will be embedded into the Plan. TGHL understandably needs certainty in terms of the long term planning framework for the proposal given the significant financial commitment which will be required to fund the infrastructure and core services. This does present some vulnerability to surrounding facilities and neighbourhoods in terms of the long terms effects and scale of the Ruakura proposal. As such it is critical that the appropriate mitigation measures and rule mechanism are carefully considered and embedded into the Plan at this stage. This includes the timing of mitigation measures.

TGHL and the University consider that there are a number of matters which will need to be discussed and explored and which cannot be addressed within the regulatory context of the Plan rules. Preliminary discussions have taken place with respect to establishing a MOU between TGHL and the University to ensure that a strong and long term relationship is achieved.

L 2 Section 10.2 The University is aware that TGHL and Council have been working collaboratively on the appropriate scope and form of planning provisions which should be included in the Plan. It is also fully anticipated that the proposed provisions will be further refined through the submissions and hearings process.

The University wishes to raise some concerns with respect to the objective and policy framework which has a very enabling focus, for example Objective 10.2.1 and the associated policy.

Amend Objective 10.2.2 as follows (or similar wording);

To optimise the long term economic benefits of the logistics hub while ensuring that development proceeds in a manner which does not compromise the amenity and social values of surrounding neighbourhoods and facilities.

To optimise the long-term positive environmental, economic and social effects of the logistics hub.

Support in part

L 3 10.2.2

10.2.3


Page 11



The University accepts that TGHL requires certainty in order to progress the Ruakura proposal and commit significant funds and resources into the long term development objectives. However it is important that the Plan maintains an appropriate balance between promoting the Ruakura proposal and ensuring that the amenity values and environmental and social objectives of surrounding facilities and neighbourhoods are not diminished.

The University recommends that additional emphasis and recognition of the amenity values of existing facilities and neighbourhoods be incorporated into the objectives and policies and that the nature of the objectives and policies be clarified. In this regard it is considered that Objective 10.2.2 is unclear in terms of what is meant by optimising the environmental, economic and social effects of the logistics hub.

The associated policies 10.2.2a to 10.2.2d are all orientated towards enabling activities within the Ruakura Logistics Zones and it is therefore unclear how the environmental component of Objective 10.2.2 is achieved.

In addition, objective 10.2.3 refers to the minimisation of the adverse effects of the logistics and freight handling activities.

It is considered that the objectives and policies are not consistent with the commentary in the Explanation Statement which focuses on the potential of activities within the Ruakura Logistics Zone to create adverse effects.

These objectives may be compared to the Objective 11.2.3 for the Industrial Park Zone which in comparison provides an unequivocal statement that the adverse effects of activities should be avoided.

The University has provided some alternative wording for the objectives and policies within 10.2.2 and 10.2.3 and is keen to have further input into the refinement of these provisions through the hearings process.

Amend the associated policies (10.2.2) in accordance with the reworded objective.

Amend Objective 10.2.3 as follows (or similar wording) ;

The adverse effects of logistics and freight-handling activities and infrastructure shall be avoided, remedied or mitigated in accordance with the established amenity values and

environmental qualities of the surrounding neighbourhoods and facilities are minimised.

Amend the associated policies (10.2.3) in accordance with the reworded objective.

L 2 10.3 The University supports the types of activity which are provided for in

the Ruakura Logistics Zone and the associated Activity Status. Retain 10.3 as notified. Support


Page 12



L 3 All

L 2 10.4 The University is concerned about the potential visual and amenity

effects which may arise from development of the Ruakura Logistics Zone. These effects can be mitigated by appropriate buffer setbacks and performance standards.

The University accepts the majority of the proposed performance standards and has had further discussions with TGHL in relation to changes to the height performance standards.

The University has been provided with a plan from TGHL dated 12 March 2012 (refer Appendix 2) showing a reduced height standard for cranes and other stacking equipment for the area outside the Inland Port. The University support these new height standards.

The TGHL plan also shows a proposed increase in the container stack height from 6m to 12m for the area outside the Inland Port. The University is neutral on this proposal.

Retain Rules 10.4.1 to 10.4.6 as notified subject to amendments

to the crane and stracking equipment height being reduced from 35m to 20m for the area of the Ruakura Logistics Zone which is located outside the Inland Port.

Support in

Part

L 3 10.4.1 to 10.4.6

inclusive.

L 2 10.4.8 The University support the Interface Standards listed in section 10.4.8 Retain Section 10.4.8 as notified. Support in Part

L 3 All

L 2 10.5 The University notes that there are a significant range and scope of assessment criteria. While the University is very supportive of appropriate controls being placed on the Ruakura proposal to ensure that off site effects are appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated, the extent of assessment criteria may be questioned in relation to the efficiency and appropriateness of the criteria. The University wishes to be part of the discussion on what type of assessment criteria apply to activities and buildings within the Ruakura site and anticipates that these will substantially evolve through the hearings process and final determination of the criteria.

Review the efficiency and appropriateness of the assessment criteria while ensuring that appropriate controls are retained to ensure that the amenity values of the surrounding neighbourhoods and facilities are protected.

Support in Part

L 3 All


Page 13

L 1 Section 11 Ruakura Industrial Park Zone


L 2 Section 11.1 Refer to the submission point above on Section 10.1.

The Council ensures that the correct balance is achieved between promoting the Ruakura proposal and maintaining the environmental and social objectives of existing facilities and neighbourhoods which may be affected by the proposed development.

Support in Part

L 3 All

L 2 Section 11.2 The University supports the objectives and policies which provide emphasis to the high standard of industrial development and on the need to avoid amenity impacts on residential and open space areas.

Retain 11.2.2, 11.2.2.a, 11.2.3 and 11.2.3.a as notified.

Support

L 3 11.2.2

11.2.2.a

11.2.3

11.2.3.a

L 2 Section 11.3 The University supports the non-complying status which has been

attributed to heavy or ‘dirty’ industry.

Retain 11.2.2, 11.2.2.a, 11.2.3 and 11.2.3.a as notified.

Support

L 3 f), g), h), i), j)

L 2 Section 11.3 The Plan provides a non-complying status for retail activities. Given

the scale of the Ruakura proposal it may be appropriate to consider limited provision for retail development to occur which can serve the local catchment. Any provision for retail activities within the Zone provisions or through the provision of a suburban retail centre should be limited to clearly prevent any adverse effects on the form and function of the CBD as the retail and commercial hub of the city.

Revisit the opportunity to enable limited retail activities which

can serve the local catchment and do not affect the form and function of the Hamilton CBD

Oppose

L 3 m)

L2 11.4 The University considers that the Permitted Activity linkage rules are Retain 11.4.1 and 11.4.2 as notified. Support


Page 14

L 1 Section 11 Ruakura Industrial Park Zone


L3 11.4.1

11.4.2

appropriate.

L2 11.4 The University generally supports the building setbacks apart from

the set back from the Open Space Zone. The current standards would allow for a 20m high building 8 m from the boundary. Coupled with the high site coverage ratio of 75% (the University has a 45% site coverage ratio), the scale and density of buildings is not appropriate at the zone interface.

The University considers that a 15m set back should apply from the Open Space Zone (noting that part of the Open Space adjoins a road corridor such that a 15m set back will only apply to a proportion of the Open Space Zone.

Retain 11.4.3 as notified except for 11.4.3d), which should be

amended to a 15m set back.

Support in

part L3 11.4.3

L2 11.4 The University supports the proposed performance on the basis that it

would not wish to see these standards reduced through the submissions and hearings process.

Retain 11.4.6 – 11.4.10 as notified. Support

L3 11.4.6- 11.4.10

inclusive

L2 11.6 The University notes that there are a significant range and scope of

assessment criteria. While the University is very supportive of appropriate controls being placed on the Ruakura proposal to ensure that off site effects are appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated, the extent of assessment criteria may be questioned in relation to the efficiency and appropriateness of the criteria. The University wishes to be part of the discussion on what type of assessment criteria apply to activities and buildings within the Ruakura site and anticipates that these will substantially evolve through the hearings process and final determination of the criteria.

Review the efficiency and appropriateness of the assessment

criteria while ensuring that appropriate controls are retained to ensure that the amenity values of the surrounding neighbourhoods and facilities are protected.

Support in

Part L3 All

L 1 Section 25 City Wide Provisions


Page 15


Oppose

L 2 Section 25.6 Proposed Rule 25.6.4.3 applies a 3 lux and 10 lux lighting level from the Knowledge Zone with the lower standard applying to sensitive zones such as Residential or Open Space Zones.

The University supports these standards however it is noted that there is an incorrect number reference in Rule 25.6.4.3.

Retain Rule 25.6.4.3 as notified (with correction to rule reference).

Support

L 3 25.6.4.3

L 2 Section 25.8 The University supports the objectives and policies regarding noise which provide emphasis to the amenity values of the receiving.

Retain 25.8.2.1 and 25.8.2.1a) to 25.8.2.1f) inclusive as notified.

Support

L 3 25.8.2.1

25.8.2.1a) to 25.8.2.1f) inclusive

L 2 Section 25.8 The University has concerns regarding the validity and nature of the

noise standards that apply to the Ruakura Logistics Zone and the Ruakura Industrial Park. The rezoning will enable 24/7 industrial activities within an environment which is currently characterised by rural-residential, suburban major facility activities. All these activities are sensitive to objectionable noise levels particularly over the night time period. Technical reports have been provided which establish a background noise level of between 41 and 45 dBAL95. Industrial activities and the potential noise nuisance of single event noise incidents (container drop) occurring multiple times over the night time period have not been adequately addressed. The noise report prepared for the Ruakura proposal states that container stacking will not occur at night however the University understand from TGHL that any performance standard to prohibit container stacking between 10pm and 7am will not be supported. The University is seeking robust and carefully consideration of the appropriate standards to control noise effects at night.

Revisit the noise standards that are applicable to the Ruakura

Logistics Zone and the Ruakura Industrial Park Zone with independent and expert noise analysis of the appropriate noise standards that shall apply to these zones.

Oppose

L 3 25.8.3.7


Page 16



L 2 Section 25.8 The University supports noise levels for the Knowledge Zone as prescribed in Rule 25.8.3.8.

Retain 25.8.3.8 as notified.

Support

L 3 25.8.3.8

L 2 Section 25.10 The University acknowledges the discussions with Council staff on the

signage issues for the University campus and the difficulty with establishing meaningful and appropriate sign standards for large facilities such as the University.

The University is supportive of the standards proposed in Rule 25.10.5.8, particularly the exemption for signs located outside the

Interface Area.

Retain 25.10.5.8 as notified.

Support

L 3 25.10.5.8



L 2 25.14.4 The University supports the recognition in the parking rule that specific

assessment of parking for campus activities will be required based on actual parking demand and that the parking standards in Appendix 15-2 are to be used as a guide only.

Retain 25.14.4.2.a) as notified.

Support

L 3 25.14.4.2.a)

L 2 25.14.4 The University does not support the requirements for Integrated

Transport assessments based on the trigger thresholds prescribed in the table.

The University is an existing major facility and the ability to maintain and development campus facilities should not be impeded by traffic issues.

Review and amend the threshold for Integrated Traffic

Assessments.

Oppose

L 3 25.14.4.3.a)


Page 17



L 2 25.14.4 Proposed Rule 25.14.4.3.f)iv requires a broad level Integrated Transport Assessment for any new vehicle access onto the transport corridor from the University. This rule provision is not effects based and is opposed.

The University may develop additional access points from time to time for service delivery vehicles or for more significant redevelopments. The internal flow of students, visitors and vehicles across the campus is very important and the University would not undertake any ad hoc changes to the existing development framework and outline of future works which are incorporated into the approved Concept Plan which is acknowledged with the exception rule 25.14.4.3.h)ii.

Any requirement for a traffic assessment should be based on the actual vehicle generation volume at any new entrance.

Delete Rule 25.14.4.3.f)iv. Oppose

L 3 25.14.4.3.f)iv

L 1 Definitions Volume 2


Oppose

L 2 Section 1.7 The definition of Interface Area does not include reference to the

University. This will need to be amended to give effect to the rule mechanisms within Section 8.3 of the Plan.

Alternatively, the definition may be amended to include reference to the Knowledge Zone if this is appropriate to other sites or facilities within the zone.

Amend the definition of Interface Area as follows:

Retain Section 8.1 as notified with amendment to para 8.1.c) as follows:

Means land within the Major Facilities Zone or on the University of Waikato Campus that is within 30m of any …

Support in

Part L 3 Definition of

Interface Area


Page 18

L 1 Planning Maps


L 2 Map 47A and

47B

The planning maps for the University campus identify a Built Heritage

Site 59 (Former Hamilton Railway Station) and a Significant Natural Feature 39 (Waikato University Kahikatea) which is also covered by a Natural Open Space Zone.

The University supports these heritage and ecological features

and the protection provided by the Plan.

Support

L 3 University

Campus

L 1 Appendix 1


Oppose

L 2 Appendix 1 The University has broad concerns with the format and overly complex nature of the assessment criteria. For example over 30 assessment criteria apply the a consent application for a Concept Plan and this includes reference to the objectives and policies of the Zone which further broadens the nature of any assessment which may be undertaken or required.

The University considers that a review of the nature and scope of the assessment criteria is required with the objective being to substantially reduce the degree of complexity. This will need to occur before specific amendments can be made to individual assessment criteria.

Review the format, content and nature of the Restricted Discretionary Assessment criteria to achieve a more efficient and effective framework for the assessment of applications.

Oppose

L 3 1.2 Restricted

Discretionary Assessment Criteria

The University of Waikato Submission on the Hamilton City Proposed District Plan

Page 19

APPENDIX 1 – Existing Consent for Concept Plan

The University of Waikato Submission on the Hamilton City Proposed District Plan

Page 20

APPENDIX 2 – 12 March 2013 Plan – TGHL

N:\1520\131883_01\500 Del\R003 University Draft Submission to Proposed Plan v7.doc

the university of waikato - hamilton, new zealand district plan... · the university of waikato was...

Documents