Do you support or oppose the provisions you have specified? I or we oppose the specific provisions identified

Transcription

1 #1 The following customer has submitted a Unitary Plan online submission. Contact details Full name of submitter: Jie Chen Organisation name: Agent's full name: address: chenalex256@gmail.com Contact phone number: Postal address: 12 rangihina road Hobsonville Auckland 0616 Submission details This is a submission to: Plan modification number: Plan change 12 Plan modification name: Hobsonville Corridor Precinct My submission relates to Rule or rules: Property address: 12 rangihina road hobsonville Map or maps: Other provisions: Do you support or oppose the provisions you have specified? I or we oppose the specific provisions identified 1.1 Do you wish to have the provisions you have identified above amended? No The reason for my or our views are: traffic is already bad enough, also we don't want our water quality getting worse. I or we seek the following decision by council: Decline the plan modification Submission date: 24 May 2018 Attend a hearing Do you wish to be heard in support of your submission? No Declaration 1/2

2 #1 Could you gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission? No Are you directly affected by an effect of the subject matter of this submission that: Adversely affects the environment; and Does not relate to trade competition or the effects of trade competition. Yes I accept by taking part in this public submission process that my submission (including personal details, names and addresses) will be made public. 2/2

3 #2 The following customer has submitted a Unitary Plan online submission. Contact details Full name of submitter: Yuxin Zhang Organisation name: Joyland International Limited Agent's full name: address: stefaniezhx@gmail.com Contact phone number: Postal address: 6 Outlook Terrace Silverdale Auckland 0932 Submission details This is a submission to: Plan modification number: Plan change 12 Plan modification name: Hobsonville Corridor Precinct My submission relates to Rule or rules: Rule I Precinct Description, regarding the requirement of slip lane along Hobsonville Road for Sub-precinct A. Property address: 118a Hobsonville Road Map or maps: Other provisions: Do you support or oppose the provisions you have specified? I or we oppose the specific provisions identified Do you wish to have the provisions you have identified above amended? Yes The reason for my or our views are: I propose to omit the requirement of slip lane along Hobsonville Road for Sub-precinct A. This is due to the physical length of 68m (refer to plan below) and proximity to the intersection to Brigham Creek Road prohibited a viable slip lane design that can consist of both entry and exit for the site along Hobsonville Road. I or we seek the following decision by council: Accept the plan modification with amendments Details of amendments: This will require the amendment (delete red text) of the following rule: Rule I Precinct Description "... Slip lanes are provided for in Sub precincts A and B where they will provide safe access to buildings and activities along Hobsonville Road." Page 1 of 4

4 #2 Submission date: 7 June 2018 Attend a hearing Do you wish to be heard in support of your submission? Yes Would you consider presenting a joint case at a hearing if others have made a similar submission? Yes Declaration Could you gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission? No Are you directly affected by an effect of the subject matter of this submission that: Adversely affects the environment; and Does not relate to trade competition or the effects of trade competition. No I accept by taking part in this public submission process that my submission (including personal details, names and addresses) will be made public. Page 2 of 4

5 #2 Dear Bronnie, I am representing Joyland International Ltd, owner of Brigham Creek Road and 118A Hobsonville Road. We currently hold a resource consent for stage 1 development of the sites (LUC / LUS ). I am writing in support of the changes proposed in Proposed plan change 12 Hobsonville Corridor Precinct. The changes specifically in "Sub-precinct A (Area 2)" provide better clarity regarding the rules and alignment to predominantly residential focused outcomes for the subject site than the previous plan. The changes will enable better design and interface outcomes for the future residents and community. However I propose to omit the requirement of slip lane along Hobsonville Road for Sub-precinct A. This is due to the physical length of 68m (refer to plan below) and proximity to the intersection to Brigham Creek Road prohibited a viable slip lane design that can consist of both entry and exit for the site along Hobsonville Road. Page 3 of 4

6 #2 This will require the amendment (delete red text) of the following rule: Rule I Precinct Description "... Slip lanes are provided for in Sub precincts A and B where they will provide safe access to buildings and activities along Hobsonville Road." 2.4 I am happy to meet in person to discuss these matters further if required. Regards, Yuxin Zhang Director, Joyland International Ltd Page 4 of 4

7 #3 The following customer has submitted a Unitary Plan online submission. Contact details Full name of submitter: Stride Property Limited Organisation name: Agent's full name: Barker & Associates Attn: Gerard Thompson address: gerardt@barker.co.nz Contact phone number: Postal address: Auckland Central Auckland Central 1141 Submission details This is a submission to: Plan modification number: Plan change 12 Plan modification name: Hobsonville Corridor Precinct My submission relates to Rule or rules: The whole plan change Property address: The whole plan change Map or maps: The whole plan change Other provisions: Do you support or oppose the provisions you have specified? I or we support the specific provisions identified Do you wish to have the provisions you have identified above amended? No The reason for my or our views are: The plan change as currently proposed represents sound resource management practice. I or we seek the following decision by council: Accept the plan modification Submission date: 11 June 2018 Attend a hearing Do you wish to be heard in support of your submission? Yes Page 1 of 2

8 #3 Would you consider presenting a joint case at a hearing if others have made a similar submission? Yes Declaration Could you gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission? No Are you directly affected by an effect of the subject matter of this submission that: Adversely affects the environment; and Does not relate to trade competition or the effects of trade competition. Yes I accept by taking part in this public submission process that my submission (including personal details, names and addresses) will be made public. Page 2 of 2

9 #4 The following customer has submitted a Unitary Plan online submission. Contact details Full name of submitter: Melissa Clark Organisation name: Agent's full name: address: huckleboomboom@hotmail.com Contact phone number: Postal address: Submission details This is a submission to: Plan modification number: Plan change 12 Plan modification name: Hobsonville Corridor Precinct My submission relates to Rule or rules: Property address: 104 Hobsonville Rd, Hobsonville, Auckland 0618 Map or maps: Hobsonville Other provisions: Autex industries Hobsonville Property is alledgely inside the 3 metre buffer promised to the school (2.7 metres). 104 Hobsonville Rd, Hobsonville, Auckland What steps is the council undertaking to provide monitoring equipment to the school to check that students are not being exposed to toxic chemicals during the burning of plastic PET Bottles during the manufacture of insulation materials and also noise pollution monitoring during this process. Do you support or oppose the provisions you have specified? I or we oppose the specific provisions identified Do you wish to have the provisions you have identified above amended? Yes The reason for my or our views are: Autex industries Hobsonville Property is alledgely inside the 3 metre buffer promised to the school (2.7 metres). 104 Hobsonville Rd, Hobsonville, Auckland What steps is the council undertaking to provide monitoring equipment to the school to check that students are not being exposed to toxic chemicals during the burning of plastic PET Bottles during the manufacture of insulation materials and also noise pollution monitoring during this process. I or we seek the following decision by council: Decline the plan modification Submission date: 14 June 2018 Page 1 of 2

10 #4 Attend a hearing Do you wish to be heard in support of your submission? No Declaration Could you gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission? No Are you directly affected by an effect of the subject matter of this submission that: Adversely affects the environment; and Does not relate to trade competition or the effects of trade competition. Yes I accept by taking part in this public submission process that my submission (including personal details, names and addresses) will be made public. Page 2 of 2

11 #5 The following customer has submitted a Unitary Plan online submission. Contact details Full name of submitter: Ann Gibbard Organisation name: Agent's full name: address: craig_anngib@yahoo.co.uk Contact phone number: Postal address: 21 Hogarth Rise West Harbour Auckland 0618 Submission details This is a submission to: Plan modification number: Plan change 12 Plan modification name: Hobsonville Corridor Precinct My submission relates to Rule or rules: Light industrial zone Property address: Map or maps: Other provisions: Particularly proximity to Hobsonville school, and the height of buildings on the ridge line of Hobsonville Rd Do you support or oppose the provisions you have specified? I or we oppose the specific provisions identified Do you wish to have the provisions you have identified above amended? Yes The reason for my or our views are: Hobsonville school should be notified prior to consent being given for all development on their boarders. There should be a minimum zone between the school and all industrial consents. All buildings on Hobsonville Rd should be height restricted. This is due to it being on a elevated ridge line which means that it affects many residents in the area, not so least the residents directly opposite construction. Where possible buildings should be set back from the road to improve the distance between residential and commercial/industrial. I or we seek the following decision by council: Accept the plan modification with amendments Page 1 of 2

12 #5 Details of amendments: See views above. Submission date: 14 June 2018 Attend a hearing Do you wish to be heard in support of your submission? No Declaration Could you gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission? No Are you directly affected by an effect of the subject matter of this submission that: Adversely affects the environment; and Does not relate to trade competition or the effects of trade competition. No I accept by taking part in this public submission process that my submission (including personal details, names and addresses) will be made public. Page 2 of 2

13 #6 Page 1 of 6

14 #6 Page 2 of 6

15 # Page 3 of 6

16 #6 Page 4 of 6

17 #6 Page 5 of 6

18 #6 Page 6 of 6

19 #7 shearer consulting PO Box Titirangi Auckland mob: e: Strategy Policy Planning 21 June 2018 Auckland Unitary Plan Proposed Plan Change 12 Submission, Hobsonville Corridor Precinct Auckland Council Private Bag Auckland 1142 Attention: Planning Technician Please find attached a formal submission to the Auckland Unitary Plan Proposed Plan Change 12. The details of the submitter are: Submitter Details Full Name: Submission on behalf of: Address for service: Craig Shearer Hobsonville Marina Limited C/- Shearer Consulting Ltd, PO Box Titirangi AUCKLAND 0644 craig@craigshearer.co.nz Telephone number: Relevant provisions: Property Location: Hobsonville Corridor Precinct I603 Hobsonville Marina, 18 Clearwater Cove, Hobsonville, West Harbour Hobsonville Marina Limited could not gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission. Page 1 of 7

20 #7 The specific provisions of Proposed Plan Change 12 that my submission relates to are: 1. The whole Proposed Plan Change 12, but particularly: - 2. I603.2 Objectives 3. I603.3 Policies 4. Table I Activity Table Sub-precinct C 5. I Standards subdivision and development 6. I Standards New Roads 7. I603.8 Assessment restricted discretionary activities 8. I Assessment criteria 9. I603.9 Special information requirements 10. I Hobsonville Corridor: Precinct plan I Hobsonville Corridor: Precinct plan3 Sub-precinct C Hobsonville Marina Limited generally supports the Proposed Plan Change but requests some amendments as set out in the following paragraphs. The changes sought and reasons are set out in the Annexure attached to this submission below. In summary the submission supports the proposal for an arterial road running through Subprecinct C to connect Whenuapai with West Harbour. The submission also amends Proposed Plan Change 12 by requesting it be more explicit about providing, during the subdivision and development processes, the land for the arterial road and for a dual carriageway intersection where the arterial intersects with Hobsonville Road, by indicating traffic signals will be required at that intersection, and by strengthening relevant objectives and policies in relation to these matters. The submissions are set out in table form in the Annexure below. Hobsonville Marina Limited does wish to be heard in support of this submission at a hearing. Please contact the undersigned if you have any queries regarding this submission. Yours faithfully Craig Shearer Director, Shearer Consulting Limited Page 2 of 7

21 #7 ANNEXURE: AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN, PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 12, HOBSONVILLE CORRIDOR PRECINCT: HOBSONVILLE MARINA LIMITED SUBMISSION Table 1: Submission point Specific provision reference of the PPC 12 Issue Proposed recommendation Rationale for change 1. Whole of Proposed Plan Change 12 The Proposed Plan Change ( PPC ) proposes to extend the Hobsonville Corridor precinct to firstly cover an area encompassing the new Subprecinct C and secondly to include provisions to enable the management of urban development in that area. That the extension of the Hobsonville Corridor Precinct be adopted along with amended provisions, as proposed in this submission. Enables comprehensive and integrated management of new greenfield development in the wider Hobsonville Corridor. 2. I603.2 Objectives, Objective 5 3. I603.3 Policies, Infrastructure, Transport Objective 5 is a new objective added as a result of PPC12. It states that Transport linkages within the precinct provide direct, alternative routes to using Hobsonville Road and the State Highway network. However, the proposed arterial road provides for a transport linkage through the precinct as well and this should be reflected in Objective 5. Policies 20 and 21 are supported as they reflect the desire to provide for connections not only within the precinct but also through the Hobsonville Corridor Precinct and to connect Amend Objective 5 as follows: Transport linkages within and through the precinct provide direct, alternative routes to using Hobsonville Road and the State Highway network. Retain Policies 20 and 21 relating to Transport. The Objective as it is written does not reflect the desire to create an arterial road linking Whenuapai and West Harbour as explained in the Explanatory Note, which is supported. The proposed amendment provides for that intention so that all future decision makers are aware the road is a through road are understand its importance. The amended Objective is already reflected in Policy Infrastructure - 21(c) and in Precinct plan 3 Sub-precinct C where an Indicative arterial road is indicated on the plan. No change is proposed. Page 3 of 7

22 #7 Submission point Specific provision reference of the PPC 12 Issue Proposed recommendation Rationale for change with strategic access points, and in particular as set out in Sub-precinct C. The indicative arterial road is supported by policies 20 and 21 and Hobsonville Marina supports this policy direction. 4. Table I Activity Table Sub-precinct C (A33) New Roads are supported as RD. There is no activity status for New buildings (A34) and for Subdivision (A31) in Table I these should also be RD. Activity classes should be applied where they are missing and they should be RD. All other activity classes in Table I Subprecinct C are supported. It is pointless providing for an activity if there is no activity status against which to evaluate any application. Note that there are also activity classes missing from other activity tables. 5. I Standards subdivision and development With one addition the subdivision and development standards are supported. With the potential for an arterial road being preserved in the Sub-precinct C, provision also needs to be made to provide for a major intersection at Hobsonville Road. This is reflected in the Plan Change where the intersection with Hobsonville Road is designated as an Indicative Strategic Access Point (Key Intersection). However, although there are standards in PPC12 requiring the roads be provided for in the subdivision process, the same cannot be said for the intersection. Hobsonville Road already consists of a wide corridor, wide enough to support either bus lanes or a dual carriageway at the intersection in both directions. The arterial road needs also to provide for a dual carriageway in both directions Add a further standard to I subdivision and development - as follows: (4) For any subdivision or development of a site that contains the indicative arterial road or connects to an Indicative Strategic Access Point as shown in I Hobsonville Corridor: Precinct plan 3 Sub-precinct C, provision must be made for the approaches to those Access Points being a dual carriageway in both directions. As an example, the Hobsonville Road-Marina View Drive-new arterial road intersection has the potential to create a bottle neck if provision is not made prior to development occurring for a dual carriage way intersection. This will facilitate buses and other traffic to turn in all directions more easily. The same applies to other Strategic Access Points in Sub-precinct C. This is important if the AUP is to accommodate increased traffic movements, including passenger transport created by increased densities through the extensive Mixed Housing Suburban and Mixed Housing Urban Zones Page 4 of 7

23 #7 Submission point Specific provision reference of the PPC I Standards New Roads 7. I603.8 Assessment restricted discretionary activities I Matters of discretion Issue Proposed recommendation Rationale for change to facilitate movement in what ultimately will be a major intersection. A new standard is recommended within the subdivision and development standards to preserve intersection options. It is recommended this apply to all Indicative Strategic Access Points located within Subprecinct C. It is noted that standard I New Roads requires the design of an indicative future road to connect to any strategic access point, no allowance is made for land to be made available for this purpose thus the rationale for this submission point. predominant throughout West Harbour and high density residential development provided for at Hobsonville Marina. In discussions with Auckland Transport staff were not able to provide a definition of Strategic Access Point so provision as suggested here is all the more important to signal the type of intersection planned for. Similarly Precinct plan 3 Subprecinct C needs to be more explicit on what form the Strategic Access Points take. This standard is supported. No change to the standard. New roads must be designed to connect appropriately with the strategic access points. With one addition the Matters of discretion are supported. Hobsonville Marina submits another matter that should be considered in the matters for discretion is the provision for strategic access points. As presently proposed, the Precinct provisions only require consideration of the construction of indicative roads. They do not require an assessment of whether or not a proposal will provide for or facilitate the construction of strategic access points and this should be more explicit. Amend I (4)(d) as follows: (4) Subdivision in Sub-precinct C (d) construction of indicative roads and strategic access points This will ensure consideration is given to ensuring land is available to design and construct appropriately sized strategic access points in accordance with the standards. 8. I Although the assessment criteria provide for the Add the following to the assessment This will ensure due Page 5 of 7

24 #7 Submission point Specific provision reference of the PPC 12 Assessment criteria Issue Proposed recommendation Rationale for change preferred future road alignments and indicative arterial road, they do not provide for levels of service consistent with the strategic access points provided for in the Sub-precinct C. For example, in Sub-precinct B an overall level of service of E is provided for at intersections. The standard should be applied so any development or subdivision knows in advance the provision needed for the intersection. criteria for Sub-precinct C (highlighted): (x) Development should provide for dual carriage ways in each direction when connecting to Strategic Access Point intersections within and immediately adjacent to Subprecinct C; consideration is given to ensuring intersections are able to function efficiently when development is occurring, likely to need to be 2 lanes in all directions. 9. I603.9 Special information requirements 10. I Hobsonville Corridor: Precinct plan I Hobsonville Corridor: Precinct plan 3 The special information requirements should include, in any proposal for subdivision, an assessment of the land required for the location of roads and strategic access points. Further this should also apply to development when no subdivision is proposed. Plan is supported, and in particular the extension of the Precinct and the inclusion of Sub-precinct C. Precinct plan 3 Sub-precinct C in its current form is not supported. Due to the likely high number of vehicle movements on the arterial road and Hobsonville Road in the future, the AUP Amend I603.9 as follows: An application for subdivision or land use consent must be accompanied by the following information: (a) The exact location of roads and land set aside for them. This includes the location of indicative future roads, preferred future roads, the strategic access points and the Indicative arterial road where these roads are shown on the site as identified in Hobsonville Corridor: Precinct plan 2 - Sub-precincts A and B, and Hobsonville Corridor: Precinct plan 3 Sub-precinct C. No change to Precinct Plan 1. Amend the Legend, and in particular the two Indicative Strategic Access Point phrases on I Hobsonville Corridor: Precinct plan 3 This will ensure consistency with the policy direction of making sure consideration is given to provision of the land for new roads and strategic access points. It is proposed in the PPC that the arterial road will link Whenuapai and West Harbour. With the large amount of urban growth Page 6 of 7

25 #7 Submission point Specific provision reference of the PPC 12 Sub-precinct c Issue Proposed recommendation Rationale for change should be specific that both dual carriage ways and traffic lights will be needed at the Indicative Strategic Access Points where they connect with the intersections on Hobsonville Road and Brigham Creek Road. Auckland Transport have not been able to explain the difference between a Key intersection and a Signals Strategic Access point as set out in the plan. Further they have no standards for Strategic Access Points. Sub-precinct C needs to be more explicit. Sub-precinct C to read as follows: Legend Indicative Strategic Access Point. Intersection to be dual carriage way in all directions and contain traffic signals. Change the colour on the Plan so all Access Points are the same colour and have just the one line in the legend as above. proposed in both areas over the next 20 years and the consequent increase in traffic movements, the Plan should indicate that the intersection of the new arterial and Hobsonville Road will be controlled by traffic signals. This will send a signal to planners, land developers and Council staff of the need to make adequate provisions for such a facility when planning for development. The other intersections, especially with Brigham Creek Road will also develop into busy intersections so land availability should be planned for now for future provision. Page 7 of 7

26 #8 The following customer has submitted a Unitary Plan online submission. Contact details Full name of submitter: National Mini Storage Ltd Organisation name: National Mini Storage Ltd. Agent's full name: Astrid Powell address: astrid@metroplanning.co.nz Contact phone number: Postal address: P O Box 4013 Shortland Street Auckland Auckland 1140 Submission details This is a submission to: Plan modification number: Plan change 12 Plan modification name: Hobsonville Corridor Precinct My submission relates to Rule or rules: I (1) I (5) Property address: Map or maps: Other provisions: Do you support or oppose the provisions you have specified? I or we oppose the specific provisions identified Do you wish to have the provisions you have identified above amended? Yes The reason for my or our views are: Rule I (1) - The 8m front yard set back is excessive and not in keeping with the intentions of the zone. A 3m fully landscaped setback is appropriate and adequate to serve the building setback and streetscape amenity of the Hobsonville Road environs. Rule I (5) - The reduced height combined with a height to boundary recession plane measured from the residential side of Hobsonville Road imposes a significant and uneconomic restriction on buildings within the Hobonsonville Corridor Precinct. In keeping with the Light Industry and Heavy Industry Zones, this rule should be amended to match Rules H and H to achieve consistency within the AUP in similar situations. The proposed 30 degree recession plane is an unreasonable restriction. I or we seek the following decision by council: Accept the plan modification with amendments Page 1 of 2

27 #8 Details of amendments: Amend Rule I (1) to provide a front yard of 3m. Amend Rule I (5) to provide a 35 degree recession plane. Submission date: 21 June 2018 Attend a hearing Do you wish to be heard in support of your submission? Yes Would you consider presenting a joint case at a hearing if others have made a similar submission? Yes Declaration Could you gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission? No Are you directly affected by an effect of the subject matter of this submission that: Adversely affects the environment; and Does not relate to trade competition or the effects of trade competition. Yes I accept by taking part in this public submission process that my submission (including personal details, names and addresses) will be made public. Page 2 of 2

28 #9 The following customer has submitted a Unitary Plan online submission. Contact details Full name of submitter: New Zealand Transport Agency Organisation name: Agent's full name: address: sarah.ho@nzta.govt.nz Contact phone number: Postal address: Level 11 HSBC House 1 Queen Street Auckland Auckland 1143 Submission details This is a submission to: Plan modification number: Plan change 12 Plan modification name: Hobsonville Corridor Precinct My submission relates to Rule or rules: See attached submission Property address: See attached submission Map or maps: See attached submission Other provisions: See attached submission Do you support or oppose the provisions you have specified? I or we support the specific provisions identified Do you wish to have the provisions you have identified above amended? No The reason for my or our views are: See attached submission I or we seek the following decision by council: Accept the plan modification Submission date: 21 June 2018 Page 1 of 6

29 #9 Supporting documents _AUP_Hobsonville_Corridor_Precinct_Proposed_Plan_Change_12_NZTA_Submission.pdf _Attachment_1.pdf Attend a hearing Do you wish to be heard in support of your submission? Yes Would you consider presenting a joint case at a hearing if others have made a similar submission? Yes Declaration Could you gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission? No Are you directly affected by an effect of the subject matter of this submission that: Adversely affects the environment; and Does not relate to trade competition or the effects of trade competition. Yes I accept by taking part in this public submission process that my submission (including personal details, names and addresses) will be made public. Page 2 of 6

30 #9 21 June 2018 Level 11, HSBC House 1 Queen Street Private Bag Auckland 1143 New Zealand T F Attn: Planning Technician Auckland Council Private Bag Auckland 1142 Dear Sir/Madam Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in part Proposed Plan Change 12: Hobsonville Corridor Precinct The New Zealand Transport Agency has a statutory obligation under Section 95 of the Land Transport Management Act 2003 to ensure that State highways operate in an effective, efficient and safe manner for the public. The Proposed Plan Change for the Hobsonville Corridor Precinct is adjacent to State Highway 18, at Hobsonville. 1. The New Zealand Transport Agency (Transport Agency) makes the following submission 1 in general support of the Proposed Plan Change to the Auckland Unitary Plan. In addition to the matters set out in Attachment 1, the Transport Agency particularly supports the location of the proposed northeastern indicative strategic access point/key intersection 2 for the following reasons: a. The existing SH18 interchange at Brigham Creek Road, particularly the westbound off ramp, has short stacking spaces for vehicles exiting SH18 which will need to be addressed as part of future improvements to this interchange. The proposed north-eastern indicative strategic access point/key intersection location is supported because it provides adequate spacing from the interchange to allow for future improvements to be undertaken. b. Auckland Transport, Auckland Council, and the Transport Agency are working together to develop transport networks to support Auckland s new housing and business areas over the next 30 years. As part of the proposed transport improvements for the Hobsonville/Whenuapai area, a future upgrade to the existing SH18 Brigham Creek Road interchange and surrounding road network to accommodate growth in the area is being considered. The existing three closely spaced roundabouts generate long term operational matters which affect the ability of the interchange to cope with future traffic demands; these will need to be addressed as part of the future improvements to this interchange. The proposed north-eastern indicative strategic access point/key intersection is located at a sufficient distance from the existing SH18 interchange at Brigham Creek Road to enable these future improvements. 1 Under Form 5, Clause 6 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act As shown on (notified) Precinct plan 3 - Sub Precinct C. Page 3 of 6

31 #9 2. The Transport Agency seeks the following decision from Auckland Council: a. That the amendments proposed within Attachment 1 are adopted. b. That Auckland Council retains the precinct plan maps in the Proposed Plan Change, particularly the north-eastern indicative strategic access point/key intersection location as currently shown on Precinct Plan 3 - Sub Precinct C (approximately half way between the Brigham Creek Road State Highway Interchange and Hobsonville Road). The Transport Agency will not gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission. The Transport Agency is directly affected by an effect of the subject matter of the submission that adversely affects the environment; and does not relate to trade competition or the effects of trade competition. The Transport Agency does wish to be heard in support of its submission. The Transport Agency will consider presenting a joint case at a hearing if others make a similar submission. Dated at Auckland this the 21 day of June Yours faithfully Sarah Ho Senior Resource Planner Consents and Approvals Pursuant to a delegation from the Chief Executive of the New Zealand Transport Agency. Address for service: Ian Blundell NZ Transport Agency Private bag AUCKLAND 1143 Telephone Number: (09) Fax Number: (04) ian.blundell@nzta.govt.nz Page 4 of 6 2

32 #9 Attachment 1: NZ Transport Agency Submission Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) Proposed Plan Change 12 Provisions Hobsonville Corridor Precinct Provision Number Provision Reason and Decision Sought I Objectives Objective 5 The Agency supports the objective to provide linkages through the precinct which act as an alternative to the State Highway network and Hobsonville Road. The provision supports the provision of a safe and efficient transport network. I Standards subdivision and development Decision Sought: Support, retain provision as notified (1), (2) and (3) The Agency supports recognition within this provision of the need for any subdivision or development of a site that contains an indicative future road or a preferred future road alignment to develop that road in accordance with Hobsonville Corridor: Precinct plan 2 Sub precincts A and B, and Hobsonville Corridor: Precinct plan 3 Subprecinct C. The provision supports the provision of a safe and efficient transport network. I Standards New Roads I (2) Decision Sought: Support, retain provision as notified. The Agency supports recognition within this provision of the need to ensure where a site includes the terminus of an indicative future road or a preferred future road alignment it must be designed to connect to the identified strategic access points on I Hobsonville Corridor: Precinct plan 3 Sub precinct C. The provision supports the provision of a safe and efficient transport network. 1 Page 5 of 6

33 #9 I (3) Transport Assessment Criteria Precinct Plans I (3)(v)(i) Hobsonville Corridor: Precinct plan 3 Sub Precinct C Decision Sought: Support, retain provision as notified. The Agency supports recognition within this provision of the need to ensure that subdivision and development is consistent with and provides for the preferred future road alignments and indicative arterial road shown on the I Hobsonville Corridor: Precinct plan 3 Sub precinct C. The provision supports the provision of a safe and efficient transport network. Decision Sought: Support, retain provision as notified. The Agency supports the current alignment of the Preferred Future Road Alignment (Precinct plan 3) connecting to the Indicative Strategic access point / key intersection approximately half way between the Brigham Creek Road State Highway Interchange and Hobsonville Road. The provision supports the provision of a safe and efficient transport network. Decision Sought: Support, retain provision as notified. 2 Page 6 of 6

34 #10 1 Submission on Proposed Plan Change 12 (Hobsonville Corridor Precinct) To: Submitter: Auckland Council (unitaryplan@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz) Wallace Development Company Ltd (Submitter) 1. This is a submission on Proposed Plan Change 12 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (PPC 12). 2. On 29 August 2017, the Submitter was granted a resource consent for a 5-lot subdivision and construction of a service station and two fast food restaurants (together, Development) at Brigham Creek Road, Hobsonville (Wallace Land). 3. An objection was filed against 4 conditions of that consent, which are still being worked through, however there was no challenge to the grant of consent itself. The consent was implemented in late 2017 through the commencement of preliminary earthworks necessary for the Development. 4. The original development, summarised in the diagram below, was constructed in accordance with the previous Plan Change 14, and shown on the diagram below. This showed Westpoint Drive connecting to the northern roundabout. 5. The Wallace Land lies between Brigham Creek Road and Hobsonville Road, and is within Sub-Precinct C, as described in PPC The primary aspect of PPC 12 of concern to the Submitter is the proposal to extend Westpoint Drive through the centre of the Development. This is demonstrated by the following extract from PPC 12 which shows the consented Development existing within Page 1 of 3

35 #10 2 the alignment of an extended Westpoint Drive. The level of detail in the diagram is extremely limited and it is accordingly very difficult to determine exactly what effect this alignment would have on the Development. 7. There was no specific consultation between the Council and the Submitter about PPC 12 and the proposal to extend Westpoint Drive, despite the existence of the resource consent for the Development and despite the Council having very recently granted that consent. 8. This lack of consultation is particularly surprising and concerning given that extensive discussions have been ongoing with Auckland Transport and Auckland Council for over 9 months about one of the proposed conditions of the consent for Development, which related to requirements by Auckland Transport to upgrade Brigham Creek Road and Hobsonville Road, where the Development fronted those roads. Those discussions are very close to reaching a resolution. 9. There is no discussion of the existing consent for the Development in the section 32 analysis, which for that reason is completely inadequate. Checking affected land for any existing (unimplemented or partially implemented resource consents) is a basic requirement of any such assessment. Without undertaking that analysis it is simply not possible for a planning assessment to assess the relative costs and benefits of a proposed plan change. 10. Understandably, therefore, the Submitter opposes PPC 12 in its entirety insofar as it affects the Wallace Land within Sub-Precinct C, and also opposes those aspects of PPC 12 outside of Sub-Precinct C that affect the use of the Wallace Land in general and the Development in particular. 11. The Submitter seeks that PPC 12 be declined in its entirety. 12. The Submitter could not gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission. Page 2 of 3

36 # The Submitter wishes to be heard in support of its submission. 14. If others make a similar submission, the Submitter would consider presenting a joint case with them at a hearing. Signed on behalf of the Submitter by its counsel, Bal Matheson: Date: 21 June 2018 Address for service of Submitter: Bal Matheson Barrister Telephone: matheson@richmondchambers.co.nz Page 3 of 3

37 #11 Submission on the Proposed Plan Change 12 Hobsonville Corridor To: The Chief Executive Auckland Council Name of submitter: Viscount Investment Corporation Ltd Introduction: 1. This is a submission on the Proposed Plan Change 12 (PC12). 2. The submitter could not gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission. 3. The submitter owns 122 Hobsonville Road, located within sub-precinct B. The site has an area of 1.75 ha. 4. The submitter has resource consent to enable the construction of the Hobsonville Corridor s village centre mainstreet-based retail and commercial development. The village centre consists of 11 building blocks containing a total of 4875 m2 of mixed commercial/retail/restaurant/café on ground floor levels and 5135 m2 of generally mixed commercial/office on first floor levels. Ten of these buildings are two storeys in height. 5. The resource consent includes the establishment of the mainstreet perpendicular to Hobsonville Road, providing a public road connection between Settlers Avenue and Hobsonville Road (with the formation of the identified key intersection). 6. The submitter has recently constructed the remaining section of Settlers Avenue and vested this with Council. This completes the roading network between Sinton Road East and Memorial Park Lane. Submission, Relief and Reasons I Precinct Plan 2 7. The submitter opposes the illustration of Settlers Avenue as an indicative road within the Hobsonville Road sites, including the submitter s own site at 122 Hobsonville Road. Proposed Plan Change 12 June 2018 Auckland Council 1 Page 1 of 8

38 #11 8. The reason is that Settlers Avenue has been constructed and vested in the alignment illustrated as the base cadastre information on the Precinct Plan, yet the Precinct Plan illustrates that the road needs to be constructed to the south in 122 Hobsonville Road. If the asset has been constructed and vested in an approved alignment, then either the alignment of the indicative road should match this or the annotation should be deleted as it is redundant. In addition, with the complexity of the land use and subdivision performance standards, any activity proposed on the now misaligned indicative Settler Avenue would trigger consents for proposing buildings or activities on the indicative road. Relief 9. Delete the indicative road annotation for Settlers Avenue between Sinton Road East and Memorial Park Lane. Planning Maps Proposed Stormwater Management Area Control 10. The submitter opposes the illustration of the Proposed Stormwater Management Area Control on the planning maps. 11. The reason is that it is unnecessary to introduce additional rules, discretions and assessment criteria to address stormwater management where these are already contained in the Precinct discretions and assessment criteria, and an Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP) and a Network Discharge Consent (NDC) have already been approved for the catchment. The Proposed Stormwater Management Area Control also results in Chapter E10 applying to the site, which is unnecessary where regional consents in the form of the NDC have already been issued, and stormwater can be managed through the discretions and assessment criteria of the Precinct as all buildings and development trigger restricted discretionary activity land use consent. Relief 12. Delete the Proposed Stormwater Management Area Control on the planning maps. Policy 21(d) 13. The use of the term expanded in relation to the existing road network is opposed. 14. The meaning of this is entirely unclear in terms of the manner in which it would be interpreted or given effect to. If the policy is intended to relate to the widening of Hobsonville Road (i.e., expanding the existing road width), then this is inappropriate as that is already addressed through designation 1467 and an additional notice of requirement for road widening. The inference of the term expanded is that road widening for the designation purposes becomes a matter of discretion and assessment for resource consents could be an attempt to sidestep the designation and Public Works Act requirements associated with compensating landowners, and to date the submitter has not been approached by Auckland Transport regarding the acquisition of the widening land. Relief 15. Delete the use of the term expanded from Policy 21(d). Proposed Plan Change 12 June 2018 Auckland Council 2 Page 2 of 8

39 #11 Policy The submitter opposes Policy Policy 24 is unnecessary as the proposed amendment to Policy 26 already provides more direct and specific direction in terms of the manner in which stormwater will be managed to enhance water quality. Policy 26 outlines that this will be through being consistent with the NDC, SMP and utilising water sensitive design. Policy 24 is superfluous and general, and unnecessary given that specific approaches are already adopted in the Precinct. Relief 18. Delete Policy 24. Table I Activity table Sub-precinct B (A26) 19. The submitter opposes the discretionary activity default of A This is because each of the standards identified can be assessed as a restricted discretionary activity rather than requiring a default to a discretionary activity. Each referenced standard relates to a distinct matter, and discretions and assessment criteria can be identified from the policies to enable assessment of any infringement. The default to require all relevant matters to be considered, irrespective of whether they relate to the infringement is not efficient or effective, and does not achieve section 32 of the Act. Relief 21. Delete activity A26. (A27) and (A28) 22. The submitter opposes the activity status of A27 and A The matters outlined in these activity rules repeat rules contained in the default Local Centre Zone. Those rules already apply to the site and it is unnecessary to repeat the activity status, and in respect to A28 repeat in a manner which is inconsistent with the default Local Centre Zone. There is no logical reason why two resource consents are required for the same activity, or why there is inconsistency created between the Precinct and default Local Centre Zone. Relief 24. Delete activity A28 and A29. (A30) 25. The submitter opposes the discretionary activity default of A This is because each of the standards identified can be assessed as a restricted discretionary activity rather than requiring a default to a discretionary activity. Each referenced standard relates to a distinct matter, and discretions and assessment criteria can be identified from the policies to enable assessment of any infringement. The default to require all relevant matters to be considered, Proposed Plan Change 12 June 2018 Auckland Council 3 Page 3 of 8

40 #11 irrespective of whether they relate to the infringement is not efficient or effective, and does not achieve section 32 of the Act. 27. The default is not consistent with the approach of the underlying Local Centre Zone rules which utilises a restricted discretionary default. There is no logic why the activity status for development would be more onerous in this Precinct compared with all other Local Centres in Auckland. Relief 28. Delete activity A30. I Standards 29. If the relief sought above in respect to the removal of the misaligned indicative Settlers Avenue annotation is not accepted, then the submitter opposes Rule I The reason is that Settlers Avenue has been constructed and vested in the alignment illustrated as the base cadastre information on the Precinct Plan, yet the Precinct Plan illustrates that the road needs to be constructed to the south in 122 Hobsonville Road. If the asset has been constructed and vested in an approved alignment, then either the alignment of the indicative road should match this or the annotation should be deleted as it is redundant. The complexity of the land use and subdivision performance standards mean that any activity proposed on the now misaligned indicative Settler Avenue would trigger consents for proposing buildings or activities on the indicative road as a discretionary activity. This is unnecessary and inappropriate. Relief 31. Delete the indicative road annotation for Settlers Avenue between Sinton Road East and Memorial Park Lane or consequently delete Rule I I Standards 32. The submitter opposes Rule I (1). 33. The is not a performance standard as it relates to subjective matters of designed and constructed to meet its operational and functional requirements. This is not a measurable standard, and rather relates to an interpretation and judgement more appropriate to a discretion or matter of assessment. No applicant can ever judge whether this performance standard is met as it is not measurable, and if subjectively considered to be infringed because of unknown requirements, then under PC12 the activity would be discretionary. Functional and operational requirements ultimately are a matter associated with an EPA. Relief 34. Delete Rule I (1). I Standards 35. The submitter opposes Rule I The is not a performance standard as it relates to subjective matters associated with design guideline manuals, which in themselves are not rules but design Proposed Plan Change 12 June 2018 Auckland Council 4 Page 4 of 8

41 #11 considerations associated with BPOs and a range of acceptable assets and management approaches. 37. This is not a measurable standard, and rather relates to an interpretation and judgement more appropriate to a discretion or matter of assessment. No applicant can ever judge whether this performance standard is met as it is not measurable, and if subjectively considered to be infringed because of unknown requirements, then under PC12 the activity would be discretionary. Functional and operational requirements ultimately are a matter associated with an EPA. 38. In addition, to comply with clause (1) requires the communal stormwater management device to be approved. To comply with this rule, then the applicant will have had to already had to lodge a resource consent application for the device and had this approved by resource consent. Only then can they apply in an integrated manner for the development itself. This is illogical, and illustrates that the rule is not a measurable or definitive standard but rather relies on a judgement. In addition, it also repeats matters of discretion, assessment and references to the NDC and ICMP already contained in the Precinct, so the rule is superfluous and overly complex, relying on documents to be read as standards where they were in fact drafted as guidelines (hence their names). 39. In addition, with the existing Precinct discretions, the proposal to have Proposed Stormwater Management Area Control (and hence E10 apply) and this rule means that now three methods are proposed, in addition to the existing NDC and ICMP to achieve the management of stormwater (and the requirement of assessment criteria I (c)). This is not efficient, effective or appropriate in respect to economic efficiency considerations. Relief 40. Delete Rule I I (4) Standards 41. The submitter opposes the additional text to Rule I (4). 42. This is because the requirement for additions and alterations to an existing building to comply with the minimum height requirements does not acknowledge the scale of the proposed additions and alterations. If the alteration is to change the façade of an existing building, then there is no reasonable ability to expect that the alteration would suddenly also deliver a two-storey building. This is particularly relevant where resource consents have already been granted to provide for buildings of various heights, setbacks and the use of pedestrian entries and walkways. This rule effectively makes a minor alteration to a façade fully discretionary, inconsistent with the default Local Centre Zone and the manner in which this issue is addressed in every other Local Centre in Auckland. Relief 43. Delete the proposed amendments to Rule I (4). I Standards 44. The submitter opposes the additional text to Rule I Proposed Plan Change 12 June 2018 Auckland Council 5 Page 5 of 8

42 # This is because the requirement for additions and alterations to an existing building to comply with the veranda requirements does not acknowledge the scale of the proposed additions and alterations. If the alteration is to change the façade of an existing building, then there is no reasonable ability to expect that the alteration would suddenly also deliver verandas. This is particularly relevant where resource consents have already been granted to provide for buildings of various heights, setbacks and the use of pedestrian entries and walkways. This rule effectively makes a minor alteration to a façade fully discretionary, inconsistent with the default Local Centre Zone and the manner in which this issue is addressed in every other Local Centre in Auckland. Relief 46. Delete the proposed amendments to Rule I relating to external additions and alterations to buildings (1)(f) Matter of discretion 47. The submitter opposes Rule (1)(f). 48. This discretion is already provided in E11 and E12. There is no logical reason why this matter of discretion must be repeated when it already exists in the appropriate chapter of the AUP. Relief 49. Delete Rule (1)(f). Special Information Requirement I603.9 (1) Stormwater Management 50. The submitter opposes Special Information Requirement I603.9 (1) Stormwater Management. 51. The existing special information requirement (f) and (g) already requires information on stormwater management with any application. 52. There is no logical reason why this Precinct requires more detailed stormwater information requirements when these provisions are not identified anywhere else in Auckland, and the Precinct already requires in the preceding information requirement information on the stormwater treatment and detention measures, consistent with the NDC. The approach adopted in this Precinct is not consistent with the AUP generally, and seeks assessments already addressed by preceding provisions including the discretions. The level of repetition and redundancy is unnecessary where an NDC and ICMP already exist. Relief 53. Delete Special Information Requirement I603.9 (1) Stormwater Management. Other Changes Proposed by Plan Change The submitter is neutral on the other text and maps changes proposed by PC12, and consequently seeks that these are retained as notified. Relief 55. The submitter seeks the following decision from the Council: Proposed Plan Change 12 June 2018 Auckland Council 6 Page 6 of 8

43 #11 (a) (b) that the proposed provisions be amended to address the concerns set out in this submission so as to provide for the sustainable management of the City's natural and physical resources and thereby achieve the purpose of the RMA. any other additional or consequential relief to PC12, including but not limited to, the maps, issues, objectives, policies, rules, discretions, assessment criteria and explanations that will fully give effect to the matters raised in this submission. 56. Suggested relief to deal with the concerns in this submission is set out above. However, there may be other methods or relief that are able to address the submitters concerns, and the suggested revisions do not limit the generality of the reasons for this submission. 57. For those provisions the submitters oppose, those provisions require amendment, as sought above. This is because, without the amendments proposed by the submitters, the provisions: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) will not promote sustainable management of resources, will not achieve the purpose of the RMA and are contrary to Part 2 and other provisions of the RMA; will not enable the social and economic wellbeing of the community; will not sustain the potential of the physical resource represented by the submitters assets for the future; are not adequate to protect and enable the submitters development and operations of the village centre; do not have sufficient regard to the efficient use and development of the submitters assets and of those resources which are dependent on, or benefit from, the submitters assets and operations; and do not represent the most appropriate means of exercising the Council's functions, having regard to the efficiency and effectiveness of the provisions relative to other means, and do not discharge the Council's duty under section 32 of the RMA. 58. The submitter wishes to be heard in support of their submission. 59. If others make a similar submission, the submitter will consider presenting a joint case with them at any hearing. Proposed Plan Change 12 June 2018 Auckland Council 7 Page 7 of 8

44 #11 Signature: AUTHORISED AGENT FOR VISCOUNT INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD Mark Tollemache Address for Service: Town Planner PO Box Tollemache Consultants Ltd Kingsland, Auckland Date: 22 June 2018 Phone Proposed Plan Change 12 June 2018 Auckland Council 8 Page 8 of 8

45 #12 The following customer has submitted a Unitary Plan online submission. Contact details Full name of submitter: Jess Rose Organisation name: Ministry of Education Agent's full name: Jess Rose address: jess.rose@beca.com Contact phone number: Postal address: Beca House 21 Pitt Street Auckland Auckland 1010 Submission details This is a submission to: Plan modification number: Plan change 12 Plan modification name: Hobsonville Corridor Precinct My submission relates to Rule or rules: See attached submission Property address: Hobsonville School, 104 Hobsonville Road Map or maps: Other provisions: Do you support or oppose the provisions you have specified? I or we support the specific provisions identified Do you wish to have the provisions you have identified above amended? No The reason for my or our views are: See attached submission I or we seek the following decision by council: Accept the plan modification Submission date: 22 June 2018 Supporting documents MoE Submission Hobsonville Corridor Precinct Plan Change.pdf Attend a hearing 1 of 7

46 #12 Do you wish to be heard in support of your submission? Yes Would you consider presenting a joint case at a hearing if others have made a similar submission? No Declaration Could you gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission? No Are you directly affected by an effect of the subject matter of this submission that: Adversely affects the environment; and Does not relate to trade competition or the effects of trade competition. No I accept by taking part in this public submission process that my submission (including personal details, names and addresses) will be made public. 2 of 7

47 #12 Submission on the Proposed Hobsonville Corridor Precinct Plan Change To: Name of submitter: Address for service: Attention: Auckland Council Ministry of Education ( the Ministry ) C/- Beca Ltd 21 Pitt Street Auckland 1010 Jess Rose Phone: (09) jess.rose@beca.com This is a submission on the Proposed Hobsonville Corridor Precinct Proposed Plan Change ( the Proposed Plan Change ) to the Auckland Unitary Plan. The specific parts of the Proposed Plan Change that the Ministry of Education s submission relates to are: The Proposed Plan Change provisions that relate to the management of development surrounding the Hobsonville School site. Background: The Ministry is the Government s lead advisor on the New Zealand education system, shaping direction for education agencies and providers and contributing to the Government s goals for education. The Ministry has responsibility for all education property owned by the Crown. This involves managing the existing property portfolio, upgrading and improving the portfolio, purchasing and constructing new property to meet increased demand, identifying and disposing of surplus State school sector property and managing teacher and caretaker housing. The Ministry is therefore a key stakeholder in terms of activities that may impact on educational facilities and assets in the Auckland region. Hobsonville School is located at 104 Hobsonville Road, directly adjacent to the Hobsonville Corridor Precinct, and the proposed Sub-precinct C area. It is surrounded by the Sub-precinct on three boundaries, as shown below (site outlined in yellow). The zoning of the land within the Hobsonville Corridor Precinct is currently Business Mixed Use Zone and Business Local Centre Zone. It is also proposed within the Proposed Plan Change to zone some of this Precinct as Business Light Industry Zone. The location of the Hobsonville School in relation to the existing Hobsonville Corridor precinct has resulted in concerns arising from the School with regards to the effects of activities taking place in close proximity to the School. 1 3 of 7

48 #12 Figure 1: Location of Hobsonville School (in yellow) in relation to the drafted Sub-precinct C within the Hobsonville Corridor Precinct The Ministry of Education s submission is: The Proposed Plan Change is proposing to add a new sub-precinct (sub-precinct C) to the existing Hobsonville Corridor Precinct in the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP OP) the Light Industry Land located between Hobsonville Road and State Highway 19 between Brigham Creek Road and Rawiri Stream. This Proposed Plan Change aims to deliver better transport and urban design outcomes for the area. The Proposed Plan Change includes new standards for buildings that share boundaries with Hobsonville School, given the proximity of the School site to the Precinct. As detailed in Attachment 1 to this submission, the Ministry supports the provisions of the Proposed Plan Change that seek to minimise adverse effects on Hobsonville School. The provisions proposed in the Proposed Plan Change documents will assist with alleviating the adverse effects that are being experienced by the School as a result of new development. The Ministry supports the additional restricted discretionary standards proposed in relation to development along the School s boundary and believes this will provide better amenity outcomes for development around the School. The Ministry of Education seeks the following action for the Proposed Plan Change: That the provisions as set out in Attachment 1 be retained as notified without modification. The Ministry would appreciate further discussion with the Council on the matters raised within this submission as the Council works to finalise the Proposed Plan Change provisions. 2 4 of 7

49 #12 For further communication on any matter raised within this submission, please feel free to contact me initially as Consultant to the Ministry (contact details provided above). Jess Rose Planner Beca Ltd (Consultant to the Ministry of Education) Date: 22 June of 7

50 #12 Attachment 1: Submission points made by the Ministry on the Draft Plan Change Proposed Provision Support/Oppose/ Neutral Reason for submission Decision requested Objectives Sub-precinct C (13) Development along Hobsonville Road and adjacent to Hobsonville Primary School provides a good amenity interface with the residential properties on the opposite side of Hobsonville Road as well as with the school. Retain the proposed Objective. I603.3 Policies - Built form in Sub-precinct C (15) Manage development along Hobsonville Road and adjacent to Hobsonville Primary School to provide visual amenity for the school and properties on the south eastern side of Hobsonville Road. Retain the proposed Policy. Table I Activity Table Sub-precinct C (A36) and (A37) (A36) New buildings that have a frontage to Hobsonville Road or are on sites adjoining Hobsonville Primary School RD (A37) External alterations and additions to buildings that have a frontage to Hobsonville Road or are on sites adjoining Hobsonville Primary School RD Retain the activities within the Activity Table and the Restricted Discretionary status. I Standards - Development and subdivision on sites adjoining Hobsonville Primary School Purpose: ensure development adjoining the Hobsonville Primary School mitigates adverse effects on the school. (1) A landscape buffer of 3m in depth should be provided prior to the construction of the buildings on all sites identified with Landscape Frontage Areas on Precinct Plan 5, to the satisfaction of Council. (2) The landscape buffer required in I (1) above must be planted in a manner that will mitigate the potential adverse effects of proposed development and activities on the school. (3) Continuous acoustic fencing must be provided for the entire length of property boundaries with the school, to the satisfaction of Council. (4) Buildings on sites identified with Landscape Frontage Area A1 on Precinct Plan 5 must be setback by 9 metres from the boundary with Hobsonville Primary School. (5) A 3 metre wide landscaped area must be provided within the 9 metre building setback required in I (4), to the satisfaction of Council. This is in addition to the landscape buffer described in I (1) above. (6) Buildings on all sites with Landscape Frontage Area A2 or Landscape Frontage Area B on Precinct Plan 5 must be setback by at least 6 metres from the boundary with Hobsonville Primary School. (7) New buildings and external alternations and additions on sites identified with Landscape Frontage Area A1 or Landscape Frontage Area A2 on Precinct Plan 5 : Landscape Frontage Areas must be contained within a recession plane of no more than 35 degrees as measured from any relevant point 2.5m vertically above ground level on that boundary. (8) New buildings and external alterations and additions on sites identified with Support The Ministry supports these provisons as proposed. It is considered that they provide adequate opportunity for any new development, additions and/or alteration to be appropriately assessed in order to minimise any adverse effects on the Hobsonville School. Retain the proposed Standards. 4 6 of 7

51 #12 Landscape Frontage Area B on Figure Precinct Plan 5: Landscape Frontage Areas must be contained within a recession plane of no more than 45 degrees as measured from any relevant point 2.5m vertically above ground level on that boundary. I Assessment restricted discretionary activities I Matters of discretion The Council will reserve its discretion to all of the following matters when assessing a restricted discretionary activity resource consent application, in addition to the matters specified for the relevant restricted discretionary activities in the overlays, Aucklandwide, or zones provisions: (2) Buildings or development: (b) in Sub-precinct C, building interface with residential properties and Hobsonville Primary School Assessment Criteria Sub-precinct C (q) The frontage of any proposed development or buildings on sites that front Hobsonville Road or adjoin Hobsonville Primary School should achieve a good standard of visual amenity for the residential properties along Hobsonville Road and for the school, through such methods as: i. design articulation ii. glazing iii. selection of trees that will achieve mature heights that will mitigate the bulk and height of buildings and soften the built form of development I Special information requirements (4) Sites adjoining Hobsonville Primary School An application for subdivision or development on sites adjoining Hobsonville Primary School must be accompanied by a landscape interface plan, outlining the details for the proposed plantings and boundary treatment as outlined in Standard I Retain the proposed Matters of Discretion. Retain the proposed Assessment Criteria. Retain the proposed Special information requirements. 5 7 of 7

52 #13 The following customer has submitted a Unitary Plan online submission. Contact details Full name of submitter: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Organisation name: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Agent's full name: address: sandrews@heritage.org.nz Contact phone number: Postal address: PO Box Auckland City Auckland City 1143 Submission details This is a submission to: Plan modification number: Plan change 12 Plan modification name: Hobsonville Corridor Precinct My submission relates to Rule or rules: Please refer to attached submission Property address: Please refer to attached submission Map or maps: Please refer to attached submission Other provisions: Please refer to attached submission. Do you support or oppose the provisions you have specified? I or we oppose the specific provisions identified Do you wish to have the provisions you have identified above amended? Yes The reason for my or our views are: Please refer to attached submission. I or we seek the following decision by council: Amend the plan modification if it is not declined Details of amendments: Please refer to attached submission. Submission date: 22 June 2018 Supporting documents HNZPT submission PC12.pdf 1 of 8

53 #13 Attend a hearing Do you wish to be heard in support of your submission? Yes Would you consider presenting a joint case at a hearing if others have made a similar submission? Yes Declaration Could you gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission? No Are you directly affected by an effect of the subject matter of this submission that: Adversely affects the environment; and Does not relate to trade competition or the effects of trade competition. No I accept by taking part in this public submission process that my submission (including personal details, names and addresses) will be made public. 2 of 8

54 #13 3 of 8

55 #13 4 of 8

56 #13 5 of 8

57 #13 6 of 8

58 #13 7 of 8

59 #13 8 of 8