Sub

No

Submitter

(and hyperlink to original submission)

Oppose

Support

Submission Summary

Decision Sought

1

Waikato Regional Council

U

• Supports engagement with WRC.
• Further clarification/assessment is required in terms of the land supply projection and alignment with the National Policy Statement – Highly Productive Land (NPS-HPL).
• The plan change proposal requires assessment under Proposed Change 1 to the Waikato Regional Policy Statement (WRPS).
• MPDC is required to undertake an assessment of the plan change in accordance with UFD-P19 of the WRPS.
• The rezoning proposal is generally consistent with transportation policies however further opportunities and assessment of emissions reduction and reliance on cars must be prioritised and adopted into the plan change.

That the matters identified in the submission are addressed and considered as part of the plan change process.

2

Waka Kotahi

SA

• Traffic generation and pedestrian/cycle movements can be managed from the Avenues Road North.
• The plan change is generally consistent with the Future Proof Strategy.
• The Plan Change will help to address a shortfall of industrial land supply.
• Waka Kotahi has a strong preference for all access to be from Avenues Road North.
• The future road link to SH26 may have adverse effects on the efficient and safe operation of the state highway network.

The matters identified in the submission will need to be considered and addressed.

3

Fire and Emergency New Zealand

SA

• The rezoning will require adequate water supply and compliance with NZS for capacity and pressure for firefighting.
• The application material identifies that the higher contour areas of the site will not achieve sufficient pressure to comply with FW3.
• The Plan Change and future development should ensure a complying supply to manage fire risk.
• A specific rule is sought to be included in the Structure Plan to require all buildings to be designed in accordance with NZ Firefighting Water Supplies Code of Practice SNZ PAS 4509:2008.

New Industrial land is only enabled when it is matched with key water infrastructure and that rules are included to ensure compliance with the firefighting standard - NZS 4509:2008.

4

Bowers Brothers Concrete Limited

S

• Currently operate from a site next to plan change area.
•  Additional Industrial land is required for the growth of Morrinsville and to support the local economy.
• The location is appropriate as it consolidates industrial activities into one area.

Accept Plan Change.

5

Calcutta Farms No 2 Limited

N

• The submitter is the plan proponent for PC57 in Matamata which is also seeking rezoning for industrial land supply.
• PC58 seeks to utilise that same General Industrial provisions which have been proposed in PC57. The submitters seeks to ensure that any changes proposed by PC58 do not have unintended consequences for PC57.
• The proposed General Industrial provisions which form part of PC58 are generally supported. The submitters seeks to be a party to any further discussions and/or refinement of the proposed provisions.
• One specific change is sought in relation to the landscaping rule (GIZ-R2(5)) along a Rural Zone boundary.

That the General Industrial provisions are amended in accordance with the proposed amendment to - (GIZ-R2(5)).

Opportunity to be engaged and participate in any further refinement of the rule provisions.

6

Maven Matamata Limited 

S

• There is a shortfall of industrial land in Morrinsville.
• The location of the zone area is appropriate as it adjoins existing industrial activities and provides ideal access to the state highway network.
• The Structure Plan includes appropriate provision for road layout, landscape buffers and provision for wastewater and stormwater infrastructure.
• The rezoning will provide positive social and economic benefits for the community.
• The approach is consistent with the National Planning Standards.

Accept Plan Change.

7

Lockerbie Estate Limited

S

• The submitter is the developer of Lockerbie Estate which is a residential development on the northern periphery of Morrinsville.
• There is a shortfall of industrial land in Morrinsville and across the region.
• The location of the site has integral attributes in terms of transportation routes and proximity to Auckland, Hamilton and Tauranga.
• Providing additional land will provide additional employment opportunities.
• The site is well located adjacent to existing industrial activities.

Accept Plan Change.

8

Warren and Sandra Davenport

SA

• The submission includes parts of the plan changes which are fully opposed and some parts which are supported.
• Future Road Corridor to SH26 is opposed in its entirety. Road corridor will potentially affect the state highway function and the residential buildings and activities adjacent to the corridor.
• The proposed landscape buffer to the Rural Zone is insufficient and cannot function as a swale and a landscape buffer. The buffer should be extended from 5m to 10m. This is required to align with Sections 7(c) and (f) of the RMA regarding amenity.
• The provision of one tree per 10m and intensive development of industrial activities is inadequate and must be revisited and designed to provide appropriate screening and mitigation.
• The height limit of building adjoining a Rural Zone or Rural Residential Zone should be limited to 8m.
• An enhanced buffer is also necessary to support gateway views on the entrance to Morrinsville.
• The Utility Reserve should be located to the eastern boundary to prevent risk of overflows and nuisance from noise from alarms.
• Potential flaws and/or insufficient assessment of transportation effects. Issues include additional traffic generation from the Lockerbie Estate and residents driving to Hamilton for work and lack of analysis of other transport depots and traffic generation on local network.
• Various rule amendments are sought including;
• 18.3 GIZ -P6 – additional wording proposed (reasoning outlined in submission is unclear/incomplete)
• 18.4 GIZ-R1(1) - amend quantum’s for earthworks within yards.
• 18.5 GIZ-R2 (GIZ 2) – Amend maximum height of sites adjacent to boundaries to 8m.
• 18.5 GIZ-R2 (GIZ 3) – Clarification of rule for height in relation to boundary.
• 18.5 GIZ-R2 (GIZ 4) – Proposed amendments to fencing rules in relation to height and permeability. Clarification of rule for height in relation to boundary.
• 18.5 GIZ-R2 (GIZ 5) – Clarification of rule for planting within buffer zone, one tree per 10m is not appropriate.

Accept the plan change with the amendments outlined in the submission.

9

Suzanne Hindman

S

• Totally supports the plan change and considers it will support Lockerbie Estate development.
• More shops will be welcomed.
• Additional design and amenities such as playgrounds/seating and cow murals should be considered.

Accept Plan Change.

10

Glencoe Family Trust

SA

• Oppose specific noise rule in relation to noise compliance measured at nominal boundary of existing house sites.
• If new houses are built, extra costs will be incurred by property owner.

Accept Plan Change with amendments to noise rules set out in submission.

11

Matamata-Piako District Council

SA

A series of amendments and clarifications are proposed to the proposed GIZ and Structure Plan provisions. These include;

• Assessment of land supply projections and clarification of differences between the plan proponents analysis of land supply and Council’s Business Development capacity needs further analysis and review.
• Minor amendment to GIZ Issues statement.
• Minor amendment of GIZ-O2.
• Clarification of how ancillary activities are provided for in GIZ-R1(1).
• Further definition of cafes and takeaway food outlets in - GIZ-R1(1)(l).
• Amend activity status for wet industry from a Discretionary Activity to a Non-complying activity - GIZ-R1(1)(d).
• Amend activity status for activities not in accordance with the Structure Plan from a Discretionary Activity to a Non-complying activity - GIZ-R1(4)(d) and Rule 6.3.3.
• Clarification of linkage rules and rule provision for landscaping buffers – GIZ-R2(5) and 9.6.3.
• Clarification of Utility Reserve exclusions in relation to yard and height to boundary rules – GIZ-R2(2)(b) and GIZ-R2(3).
• Clarification of rule associated with fencing of Utility Reserves – GIZ-R2(2)(4).
• Clarification and amendment to rules associated with outdoor storage adjoining a reserve boundary, including fencing/screening rule - GIZ-R2(4) & (9).
• Amend and clarification of screening rule for yards - GIZ-R2(10)(a).
• Clarification of placement of machinery and plant in front yards where this is part of a retail activity – GIZ-R2(9) & (10).
• Clarification and amendment to rules associated with utility reserves - GIZ-R2(12).
• Reformatting of rule for discretionary assessment wording in GIZ-R3(1)(b).
• Amendment to clarify status and notification requirements for boundary adjustment subdivision - 6.1.2(l) and 6.5.4(v).
• Amendment to clarify timing of landscaping works and that the buffers shall be planted at the time of subdivision 9.6.3.
• Provide rule provisions for Developer Agreement.
• Provide definition for ‘height in relation to boundary’ in accordance with National Planning Standards.
• Provide new definition for Utility Reserve.

Accept Plan Change with amendments as set out is submission.

12

Morrinsville Chamber of Commerce

S

• Supports the plan change which will increase local jobs and support existing trades and services.
• Will reduce risk of Morrinsville becoming a dormitory town for Hamilton with only residential growth.

Accept Plan Change.

13

Peter Hexter

O

• Accept in principal the proposition that more industrial land is required in Morrinsville however is opposed to current proposal subject to further engagement with developer and/or amendments.
• Noise is an issue and concerns over lack of baseline noise assessment and potential effects from industrial noise.
• Landscape and visual effects will be severe and will affect both aesthetic values and property value.
• Risk of light pollution.
• Reports refer to existing tress as mitigation of visual effects however some trees may be removed. The proposed 5m buffer of planting and screening is inadequate.
• Concerns over further runoff from industrial development onto adjacent property.
• Economic assessment should include analysis of negative impacts on adjacent property.
• Plan provisions should provide more focus on cycling and footpath connections, and appropriate signage.
• Potential issue of how the development can serve longer term/future development through ‘paper roads’.
• Needs more commitment to sustainability and use of renewable energy.

Decline Plan Change.

14

SA

• General support for plan change however additional traffic on SH26 needs to be assessed to ensure that this is safe.
• Speed restriction to 70 or 80km/h needs to be extended to slow traffic leaving Morrinsville.

Plan Change supported subject to safety issues addressed on SH26

Submission No

Submitter

(and hyperlink to origjnal submission)

Oppose, Support,
Support with amendments,
or Unknown

Submission Summary

Decision Sought

1

Tu Clarke

SA

• Include Marae and whenua connected with the marae to be included as MPZ-PREC2 (instead of MPZ-PREC1).

Accept with amendments

2

Rachel and Norm Salisbury

O

• Proposed rules should be applied to all parties in the Rural Zone
• Potential impacts on property values
• Concerns around safety and traffic on Douglas Road
• Limited Council services and increased strain on the services that do exist
• Lower parts of Douglas Road are located within a flood zone and not suitable for development
• Concerns around existing housing standards and crime due to increased population
• Dog control and stock safety

Decline

3

Te Rauna Cawker

SA

• Supports Papakāinga Tahi, Papakāinga Rua and District Wide provisions
• Supports Urupa on ancestral land

Accept 

4

Ngāti Hauā Iwi Trust

SA

• Request that Precinct 1 and 2 are adopted as proposed
• Support the proposed housing density and enabling of community facilities, education facilities, urupā, relocatable buildings and accessory buildings
• Larger land blocks are not fairly represented with a limitation of 10 homes. Request that the wording is changed to make it clear that developments above ten homes may be possible, but will require resource consent
• Extend the MPZ provisions to the District Wide provisions where there are ancestral connections and legal mechanisms for perpetuity of Maori ownership
• Supportive of RM reforms to allow headroom for iwi to access water in a way that supports commercial water uses for Maori adjacent to their papakāinga.

Accept with amendments

5

Te Puawaitanga o Ngāti Hinerangi

SA

• Requested amendments to the MPZs:
• Density limits for MPZ PREC 1 to allow for one kainga per 2500m²
• Site coverage to be 35% where sites are under 1ha and 10% where sites are over 1ha
• Extend MPZ to cover more Māori Freehold Land
• 10m side yards
• Te Ohaki Marae Planning Map to include urupā block
• Requested amendments to the District Wide Provisions:
• Policy Papakainga – P2 b) to include hapu and/or iwi ownership in perpetuity.
• Remove requirement 1.4.30 Providing information on management structures for the papakainga.
• Amend Provision 6.1.1 1 to enable Kainga per 2,500m2.
• Amend the activity status for Discretionary activity for communal living arrangement to be a restricted discretionary activity.
• Amend the yard provisions for side yards as they relate to papakainga and a standard over and above what is anticipated in the rural zone.
• Amend 4.4.1 2) building coverage rules to be site coverage where sites are under 1ha, 10% where sites are over 1ha.
• Amend 5.9.1 2 wording to include or where available wireless provisions can be utilized.
• Amend Subdivision rules for Papakainga from Discretionary to Restricted Discretionary

Accept with amendments

6

Te Tumu Paeroa – The Office of the Maori Trustee

SA

• Supports District Wide Provision 6.1.1
• Supportive of Māori Purpose Zone’s objectives (O1 – O3), policies (P1 - P8) and rules (PREC1(1) –(5); PREC2(1) – (4))
• Supportive of papakāinga objectives (O1 – O3) and policies (P1 – P8)
• Amendment of ‘Papakāinga’ definition to provide for ‘maori landowners’. See submission for proposed Papakāinga definition

7

Samuel and Leah O’Connor

U

• Concerns around potential negative consequences as a result of re-zoning, such as:
  • Sharp increase in development in a rural area may negatively impact neighbouring properties particularly if the development includes additional facilities (eg. Schools, short-term accomodation)
  • Property value changes and appeal to potential byuers
• Concerns over a possibility of funding to aid in rapid development

Unknown

8

Charlie and June Paki Whanau Trust

O

SA

• Concerns regarding the proposal process as the beneficiary were not contacted or advised of the proposal, therefore not given an opportunity to ask questions
• Concerns that the decision-makers do not whakapapa to the land

Accept with amendments

9

Shannon Clarke

SA

• Supportive of the plan change as it provides a chance to return to ancestral land for current and future generations
• Request that General Land owned by Maori be treated the same as Papakainga Tahi

Accept with amendments

10

Tony Ashworth

SA

• Amendments suggested:
• To keep houses and vegetation away from the runway edge to avoid the airport boundary
• Limiting who is able to make a noise complaint caused by recreational aerodrome traffic
• Allow for building hangars and a boundary fence along the runway

Accept with amendments

11

Robyn Roa

SA

• Supportive of the plan change as it provides a chance to return to ancestral land for current and future generations
• Request that General Land owned by Maori be treated the same as Papakainga Tahi
• Supports both precints as it will enable kaumātua and kuia the opportunity to live near our Marae where they are often needed to support marae kaupapa, or give younger families an opportunity to put a home on the whenua
• Expresses the following viewpoint: ‘we do not own the whenua, we belong to the whenua’
• Supports the opportunities to return home

Accept

12

Georgina Tini Dicken

S

• Supportive of the plan change as it provides opportunity to live on whaanau Maori land
• Mokopuna to be supported by her whaanau

Accept

13

Lea Thompson

SA

• Requested the Maori Purpose Zone provisions be applied to district wide provisions
• Supports papakāinga lifestyle – opportunities to revitalise te reo and Maaoritanga
• Supportive or allowing Urupā onsite as it strengthens ancestral and generational connections
• Expresses dissappointment at needing to gain permission to establish kāinga on Maori Land
• Identifies that homes in urban areas are closer that the provisions allow for rural zones

Accept

14

Hariata Jaime Anderson

S

• Supports the proposed provisions of the Maori Purpose Zone
• Identifies this as an opportunity to establish, sustain and preserve historical heritage, culture and cultural assets while realising ancestral aspirations
• Expresses aspirations to establish whare and business opportunities to serve Whanau

Accept

15

Tokaanu Thompson

S

• Supports the plan change

Accept

16

Frances Herawana Tupaea

S

• Supports Papakāinga as a safe environment to raise ngā mokopuna

Accept

17

Grant and Annette Cranfield

O

• Expresses concerns around health and safety regarding:
  • Increased road users
  • Constant turning and slowing of vehicles
  • Traffic and congestion
  • Complex intersections which could be hazardous for drivers and pedestrians
  • Railway is hazardous – long trucks with trailors need to be able to turn safely without obstacles preventing them from crossing the railway line
  • Loss of parking spaces at the marae resulting in tendancy to park along the road
  • Refuse bins bags left at the gate in high volumes will be an obstruction
  • Bright lights from the marae could be distracting for motorists
• Existing issues around:
  • Keeping surrounding area tidy and rubbish-free
  • Maintainance concerns regarding fencing, lawns and gates
• Expresses concerns regarding the loss of countryside or rural aspect, particularly regarding high fencing
• Concerns expressed around who is able to access the sewage lines
• Concerns regarding significant noise, sleep disturbance, stress and annoyance
• Expresses traffic and safety conerns around the right of way for trains, hazardous material trucks, elderly driving along the road in mobility scooters, turning vehicles holding up on-coming traffic
• Concerns around the potential for increased developments to increase roadside parking
• Expresses concerns around the loss of rural character
• Concerns around existing maintainance issues related to fence posts and possible incorrect rubbish disposal

Decline

18

Te Ao Marama Maaka

S

• Supports the plan change

Accept

19

McRae

O

• Concerns that the proposed housing density and buildings might diminish the rural aspect
• Concerns around diminishing the quality of rural lifestyle

Decline

20

Tahauariki Tauwhitu Thompson

SA

• Would like to see General Land Owned by Maaori being treated the same as Papakāinga Tahi
• Identifies this plan change as an opportunity to return to ancestral land to build a home for children, grandchildren and future generations in a safe environment that values te reo and traditional/ ancestral values
• Papakāinga will allow whanau to live collectively as their ancestors did
• Supports the opportunity for greater involvement in social, educational and economic aspects of hapū, iwi and marae

Accept 

21

Desmond Ewing

S

• Supports Papakāinga Tahi

Accept

22

Leigh Webber

S

• Supports the plan change

Accept and Accept with Amendments

23

Pamela A Webber

S

• Supports the plan change

Accept and Accept with Amendments

24

Richard and Ariana Pirrit

O

• Expresses concerns regarding Papakāinga Tahi due to an increase in housing density in comparison to the rural zone
• Expresses concerns regarding Papakāinga Rua – related to Rukumoana Road, in the following ways:
  • Dairy farming business is directly adjoining Rukumoana Marae and Rukumoana Avenue
  • Increased housing density and population increase will cause noise pollution, interfere with the rural characters and increased traffic
  • Existing issues include crime, unemployment, drug abuse, gang affiliation, incorrect disposal of rubbish causing issues with rodents and farming stock being attached by stray dogs from Rukumoana Ave
  • Existing fears around safety with a need for increased security on properties
  • Currently considered a ‘high risk’ area by insurance

Existing cabins on Rukumoana marae do not have toilets, running water and are currently  disposing of rubbish incorrectly  

Decline

25

John and Irene Harris

SA

• Would like to include the use of management plans or Body Corporate in light of not requiring a resource consent to ensure effectiveness, efficiency and safety
• Requests transparency around annual capital and operational abd maintainance costs, especially around water services, roading and refuse
• Requests there be direct references to climate change, specifically flooding/ inundation due to sea level rise, taken into account for long term decision-making before applying for resource consents
• Requests that consideration be given to:
  • Using ‘Non-Complying’ status to avoid inappropriate development
  • The appropriateness of development of Class 1 Soils, specifically the potential negative effects on social, economic and cultural wellbeing
  • The potential to subsidise land or development that has already been subsidised in light of Three Waters reform

Whether variations to existing Iwi housing and Marae sites on Rural, Rural-Residential and Residential zones, as well as new Papakāinga development in residential or rural-residential zones should be noncomplying, instead of discretionary

Accept with amendments

26

Waikato Regional Council

SA

O

• Request amendments to MPZ-O1 and Papakainga-O1 to include “other natural and physical resources”
• Suggest the inclusion of additional objectives and policies relating to the use of water, energy and climate resilience
• WRC identifies two MPZ Precinct areas within WRC drainage schemes and therefore appropriate measures and controls are needed to manage flood risk
• Specific concerns regarding the location of Waiti Marae (within the MPZ Precinct 1) and its vulnerability to flooding

Accept with amendments

27

Bette Blance

S

• Supports the proposed plan change, particularly the purpose, and potential to improve the lives of local iwi, kaumātua and kuia through support from younger iwi members

Accept

28

Thomas Bougher

SA

• Supports the plan change, submission amendments points include:
• Increased distance between dwellings to reduce sewage and storm water concentration in one area and give families space/ privacy
• Minimum 1 vehicle garage per dwelling for storage/ workshop
• New built homes for purposes of reduced maintainance, insulation standards and construction standards that meet current wind & earthquake  bracing requirements
• Housing tenure that offers occupants security and signed agreements that establish rights and responsibilities
• Roading and Access should be well-built and well maintained for safety reasons such as legal services (ambulance, fire etc)
• Houses need to be numbered properly
• Road names established if there are more than 5 houses on a right of way
• Measures put in place to ensure Council Indemnity
• Consideration of rates due to increased services

Accept with amendments

29

Margaret Osbourne

O

• Requests the proposed zoning provisions should be made available to all

Decline

30

Te Mangeo Tamehana Tarapipipi

SA

• Suggests an amendment to density provisions as the current density requirements will exclude people with smaller blocks

Accept with amendments

31

Virginia McMillan

SA

• Suggests consulting with iwi on their aspirations to reassess the maximum number of homes
• Requests an increase in the total number of homes

Accept with amendments

32

Kali Matauwhati

SA

• Expresses strong whakapapa to Kai-a-te-mata and Rukumoana marae
• There is willingness from whanau living in other regions of the Motu to return to ancestral land to look after other whanau, the land, marae and rivers

Accept with Amendments

33

Brandon Dromgool

O

• Expressed concerns around increased traffic using and also turning off State Highway 26 into the proposed development
• Expresses an expectation for consultation with Waka Kotahi on this proposal and traffic safety investigations completed which would determine what the impact of this development would be
• Requests that the proposed developments have a water tank and septic tank, both undergoing regular servicing
• Expresses concerns around the following:
  • Loss of rural character
  • Possible effects on surrounding property values
  • Potential impacts on amenity value
  • Intensification of the site and developmental outcomes

Decline

34

Matamata Aeroclub

SA

• Expresses concerns around potential future complaints about aircraft noise by future residents
• Propose that MPDC establish a noise contour plan for the area around the Matamata Aerodrome

Accept with amendments

35

Tuatahi Nightingale-Pene

S

• Expresses complete Support for Precinct 1 - Papakāinga Tahi, Precinct 2 - Papakāinga Rua and the District Wide Provisions

Accept

36

Irene Tai-Rakena

S

• Supports the proposed provisions

Accept

37

Te Hanga South Trust

S

• Trustees request that two land blocks that were mentioned in the submission be set aside in the District Plan under the District Wide provisions
• The Trust can demonstrate that there is an ancestral connection as well as a legal mechanism in place to ensure the land is maintained in whanau ownership in perpetuity

Accept

38

Raymond Kett

U

• Objects to sending letters that are addresses to people who have passed away
• Proposes a shareholder meeting
• Expresses concerns regarding the name of the Waiti marae map

U

39

Jeff Hirawani

S

• Supports the plan change

Accept

40

This submission has been included in submission 17

41

Brad Hutton

O

• Opposes the proposed plan changes

Decline

42

Dayne Hazelden

O

• Expresses concerns related to:
  • The loss of rural character, and potential affects on mental health and child’s welfare
  • Existing hight traffic volumes on State Highway - increasing road users around a blind corner would increase the danger at entrance ways
  • Increase dust and pollution
• The proposed zoning provisions should be made available to all groups on freehold land  

Decline

43

David King

S

• Supports the plan change

Accept

44 *

Rev Henare Waaka

SA

• Supports the plan  change but would like General Land owned by Maori to be treated exactly the same as Papakainga Tahi to enable:
• Opportunity for whanau to return home to ancestral land
• Live collectively and raise mokopuna in a secure and safe environment that values te reo and tikanga māori
• Be involved in the social, spiritual, educational and economic heritage of my hapū and iwi
• Participate in key roles and responsibilities of the marae and support to make Papakainga a reality   

Accept 

45 *

Mananui Te Uira

S

• Supports the plan change as it allows whanau to build on their whenua

Accept

46 *

This submission has been included in submission 11

47 *

Carolyn Nimmo

S

• Supports Papakainga Tahi as it allows for gardening activities on highly productive soils
• Supports Papakainga Rua as it enables affordable housing and housing suitable for kaumātua and people with disabilities
• Supports papakāinga development on other Maori-owned land as it will increase housing and housing diversity while keeping highly productive soils available for agriculture and building homes in a sustainable and affordable way
• Requests further plan changes and enabling Planning rules to allow close-proximity/ communal housing in urban and rural-residential zones, such as new models of co-housing that supports elderly, disabled, and different cultures

Accept

48 *

Muna Wharawhara

S

• Support in principle Papakāinga Tahi and Rua as an enabling policy that empowers whanau the opportunity to develop and deliver sustainable housing
• Submitter points out that the information omits councils contribution to infrastructure

Accept

49 *

Ian Robert Young, Dana Sheree Lewis and Ian Young Family Trust

SA

• The Te Ohaki Marae zoning map includes a Right of Way that belongs to the submitter
• Suitable arrangements are to be considered by Council when allowing the development to go ahead regarding the maintainance and upkeep of the Right of Way
• Safety issues arrising from increased driveway use and interference of farming operations

Accept with amendments

50 *

Leo George Whaiapu

S

• Supports the plan change and the consideration of Okauia 2E 3B 2B 1B and Whaiti Kuranui 6A 1B 3B 2B for Papakainga

Accept

51 *

Michael Carey

S

• Supports the plan change

Accept

52 *

Karen Chandler

SA

• Supports the plan change but would like allowances created for other land owners to add dwellings to their land for family. Eg dependent living space
• Would like other people to be able to add dwellings up to 80sqm under the condition these dwellings are on the Title and that the property will not be subdivided  

Accept with amendments

53 *

Mapuna Turner

U

• Expresses the definition of Papakāinga
• Expresses that planning instruments should reflect that Maori land owners have the right to determine how and what their lands shall be use for
• Identifies that consent has not been given to the planning authority to usurp Maori and landowner rights
• Stipulates that communal living should be decided by the traditional application of accommodating whanau numbers
• Identifies that colonisation has influences māori practices – traditional lores of tapu are circular
• Identifies land use restrictions regarding water resources

U

54

Kainga Ora

• Supportive of MPZ O2 and Papakainga O2
• A series of amendments are proposed to the objectives and policies:
  • MPZ O1, MPZ O3, Papakainga O1, Papakainga O3
  • MPZ P2, MPZ P3, MPZ P4, MPZ P7, MPZ P8, Papakainga P1, Papakainga P2, Papakainga P3, Papakainga P4, Papakainga P7, Papakainga P8
• Kainga Ora opposes or opposes in part the following points in MPZ-PREC1-Papakāinga Tahi:
  • MPZ-PREC1-R(1)(b) – delete subpoint (b)
  • MPZ-PREC1-R(1)(f)
    • Proposal for one Kāinga per 5000m² of site area will discriminate against landowners of larger blocks.
    • Seek the deletion of maximum density and instead rely on servicing a development and performance standards to determine density.
    • Papakāinga Development Plan not necessary for permitted activities
  • MPZ-PREC1-R(1)(g)
    • provision is unnecessarily restrictive and seeks that only heavy vehicle controls and compliance with permitted activity performance standards should be required. This provision does not allow for commercial activities at a kainga wide level.
  • MPZ-PREC1-R(1)(h)
    • Provision is unnecessarily restrictive and consider location and servicing of community, education and healthcare facilities instead be managed by development and performance standards.
  • MPZ-PREC1-R(2)(a)
    • the assessment criteria is unnecessarily restrictive and matters of discretion do not consider the planned built form or consider the intended change to the environment
  • MPZ-PREC1-R(3)(a)-(e)­
    • Request that activity status for non compliance in sub parts (a)-(e) are restricted discretionary, rather than discretionary, to provide for clarity when applying for resource consent
  • MPZ-PREC1-R(5)(b)
    • this standard is unnecessarily confusing and seeks that the rule is amended to provide for ease of plan use
  • MPZ-PREC1-R(5)(c)
    • the setbacks unnecessarily restrictive and impede the ability to undertake residential development
  • MPZ-PREC1-R(5)(e)
    • maximum building coverage of 10% unnecessarily restrictive to allow for appropriate development on smaller site
  • MPZ-PREC1-R(5)(f)
    • requiring each Kāinga to include a ‘solid waste’ service area that is screened from the public and set back 10m from a boundary to be unnecessarily restrictive
  • MPZ-PREC2-R(1)(a)
    • the development and performance standards can control the density of kāinga on site without the need to impose density provisions
  • MPZ-PREC2-R(1)(b)
    • supports kāinga on all land and not just on land in Māori title or where there is a requirement to hold land in whānau ownership in perpetuity
  • MPZ-PREC2-R(1)(c)
    • does not consider that ‘relocatable buildings’ should be separately distinguished as an activity
  • MPZ-PREC2-R(1)(e)
    • maximum earthwork provisions too restrictive
  • MPZ-PREC2-R(2)(a)
    • assessment criteria is unnecessarily restrictive
  • MPZ-PREC2-R(3)
    • the activity status for non-compliance in sub parts (a) and (b) are restricted discretionary, rather than discretionary
  • MPZ-PREC2-R(5)(b)
    • standard is unnecessarily confusing and seeks that the rule is amended to provide for ease of plan use
  • MPZ-PREC2-R(5)(e)
    • consider a maximum building coverage of 35% unnecessarily restrictive to allow for appropriate development on smaller sites
  • MPZ-PREC2-R(5)(f)
    • requiring each Kāinga to include a ‘solid waste’ service area that is screened from the public and set back 10m from a boundary to be unnecessarily restrictive
  • MPZ-PR2 and MPZ-PR3 – delete
  • Amendments to information requirements (1.1.2 Plans, and 1.4.30 papakainga)
  • Section 6 Papakāinga – Amendments to 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.4, 6.1.5 to be consistent with above submission points
  • Section 6.1 - Amend Section 6 to provide for Papakāinga on general title land as well as Māori Freehold Land and Treaty Settlement Land.
  • Section 6.1.3 – Request that marae activities are permitted in residential zones and restricted discretionary in Business zones.
  • Propose a new rule for educational facilities and healthcare facilities to be provide for within the District wide provisions.
  • Section 3 Development Controls – 3.2.1 (iii)
    • Considers that side yards are too restrictive
  • Section 4 Papakāinga – 4.4.1.1, 4.4.1.2, 4.4.2, 4.4.3 amendments to be consistent with submission points of the MPZ
  • Section 6 Subdivision – 6.3.13
    • Considers that the requiremetns for subdivision are unnecessarilly retrictive compared to other activities
  • Section 9 Transport – 9.1.2
    • Considers that the threshold for the amount of kāinga that requires a private way to be in accordance with the Development Manual is increased.
  • Amend the following definitions:
    • Papakainga
    • Kainga / Residential unit
    • Treaty Settlement Land

Accept with amendments

• Support the intentions to enable quality Papakāinga development and opportunities for landowners
• Plan change should include explicit reference to the existing Matamata airport protection zones
• Council should include noise mitigation measures to avoid reverse sensitivity issues from the Matamata/Waharoa aerodrome (for example a setback from the airfield)