SmartGrowth Strategy Update:
Discussion Document:
Review of Identified Residential Urban
Growth Areas
Prepared by: Andy Ralph, Andrew Mead, Frazer Smith, Lee Jordan, Phillip
Martelli, TUNS Project Group
October 2012
1
Executive summary:
The purpose of this discussion paper is to provide an overview of the currently
identified Residential Urban Growth Areas (UGA’s) within the western Bay subregion, flag any changes in circumstances or new issues that may influence strategic
implementation of the identified UGA’s and seek direction on those issues that need
to be addressed to progress the SmartGrowth Strategy Update:
This review briefly comments on matters relating to:
a) First, second and third generation urban growth areas (i.e. land already zoned),
and focuses in more detail on;
b) Fourth generation growth areas (i.e. potential urban land identified in the Regional
Policy Statement within the urban limits line).
It is to be noted that the Report does not cover the policy topic of infill and
intensification of established residential areas. That is the subject of a separate
research workstream scheduled for December 2012.
There is significant capacity available in the identified UGA’s (either zoned or within
the current settlement pattern) to accommodate forecast residential growth into the
medium to long term (See Table 1). However, the review of development feasibility,
transport and infrastructure matters relating to these identified UGA’s does raise
issues of implementation that need to be considered as part of this SmartGrowth
Update project. Identifying these now allows the SmartGrowth Update project to
respond to these in a proactive manner. These are outlined in this stream report and
in more detail in the background reports.
The development feasibility assessment of growth management areas is leadingedge in New Zealand. Using this sophisticated approach the development feasibility
Wairakei, Te Puke, Omokoroa, and Te Tumu have been specifically tested. This
more market-led analysis is important to achieve a sustainable settlement pattern in
the long term and to understand what can be profitably delivered by the development
community. There are challenges in getting viable development within Wairakei, Te
Puke and Omokoroa based on the current economic climate, which has changed
since these areas were first zoned. Te Tumu economic modelling results are more
positive. Te Tumu also has potential coastal hazard effects that will need close
management.
Extra time is suggested to enable Councils and property owners/ developers to work
through these challenges. Because most of the land earmarked for future urban
growth in the sub-region has already been factored into strategic decision making
based on the current SmartGrowth Strategy they should, logically, be contributing to
accommodating forecast growth rather than not.. SmartGrowth needs to react in a
more market orientated way to ensure the areas that have been invested in will be
developed.
In terms of transport the geography of Tauranga City means arterial routes are
confined to a series of transport corridors; northern, central, southern and eastern.
Residential growth, business and port –related freight activity cumulatively builds
pressure within these corridors and affect the function, efficiency and safety of these
arterial routes. For example, traffic modelling to 2031 (through the TUNS 1 work)
indicates declining levels of service affecting route efficiency along SH 2 at Wairoa
and Bethlehem, along the SH 29 ring road around the southern part of the City and
more central routes like Hewletts Road and Maunganui Road/ Girven Road/ Te
2
Maunga. Achieving affordable transport access to Te Tumu and Wairakei from the
Tauranga Eastern Link is also the subject of further work.
One of the aims of this Smartgrowth Update project should be to promote a
settlement/land use pattern that supports an optimised transport network through
measures including integrated land use and transport planning. To address these
types of pressures consideration as to whether some adjustment to the current, long
term settlement pattern would be beneficial is being undertaken.
Finally, the planned utility infrastructure capacity of the identified UGA’s has been
reviewed. There are localised issues for some areas that require certain decisions on
timing, sequencing and the like to maximise efficiencies. The wastewater system
capacity to support long-term allocated growth at Katikati will have to be addressed.
Overall, this review paper outlines information on the existing settlement pattern that
is challenging but the purpose of such a review is to identify the scale of any issues
and options for addressing the issues in a sustainable way. It is acknowledged that
previous strategic planning decisions were based on the market conditions and the
community aspirations of the day, and the world has since changed. Maintaining the
status quo is not longer an appropriate option, but maximising the current investment
decisions to the extent possible in a changed economic climate through sensible
planning policy is the key.
The report recommends that further assessment work be undertaken in several
identified UGA’s on the best methods to reduce the financial impact of infrastructure
costs on the development feasibility of these areas. There is time to do this while the
revised forecasts for sub-regional growth are formulated after the 2013 census. Other
recommendations relate to undertaking comparative analysis of some of the growth
areas in the southern parts if Tauranga City in relation to other possible opportunities.
3
1.
Purpose:
The purpose of this discussion paper is to provide an overview of the currently
identified Residential Urban Growth Areas (UGA’s) within the western Bay subregion, flag any changes in circumstances or new issues that may influence strategic
implementation of the identified UGA’s and seek direction on those issues that need
to be addressed to progress the SmartGrowth Strategy Update.
2.
Background:
The SmartGrowth Strategy was adopted in 2004 and reviewed in 2007. SGIC has
recently signed off a project plan to update the current SmartGrowth Strategy and
work has commenced on that programme.
A significant amount of research is being undertaken as part of the SmartGrowth
Update. SGIC agreed that rather than each research project being reported up
individually, that reports would instead be grouped together in a sensible manner into
a small number of workstreams. This is the third of the workstream reports.
This report is structured to deal with identified Residential UGA’s (See below) and
any issues that arise from them that need further discussion:
 Relevant background information is provided
 Key issues for the settlement pattern and therefore the SmartGrowth Update
are identified
 The direction required from SGIC is identified.
The research issues derived from the background research reports (See separate
Volume of Reports) are:
 Development Viability (for Te Puke, Omokoroa and Te Tumu)
 Tauranga Urban Network Study –Executive Summary (TUNS)
 Infrastructure Capacity
It is noted that Tsunami risk is subject to further technical assessment and will be
part of the discussion paper on Future UGA’s in the New Year.
The full research reports that this discussion document is based on have been
distributed to members of SGIC separately. They are also available on the
SmartGrowth website (www.smartgrowthbop.org.nz).
The Concept of ‘Generation’ Urban Growth Areas
This report draws on the earlier terminology used to describe the various identified
UGA’s when the draft Land Use Capability and Suitability Report was discussed by
SGIMG in November 2011; i.e. areas described as first, second, third and fourth
generation.
A stylised diagram of the identified generation UGA’s is shown as Diagram 1.
Generation 1= purple, Generation 2= yellow, Generation 3= brown, Generation 4=
teal, (note: Generation 5= Light Green to be identified)
4
Diagram 1: Identified Residential Urban Growth Areas of Western BOP Sub-region
Overview of First and Second Generation UGA’s
The First generation UGA’s are those urban areas well established before
amalgamation in 1989 covering the older, established/ zoned residential areas of
Tauranga –Mount Maunganui, Te Puke, Omokoroa, Katikati, Waihi Beach
The Second generation UGA’s are those newly
amalgamation in the early 1990’s:
 Papamoa
 Welcome Bay
 Ohauiti
 Pyes Pa East
 Bethlehem Central and North
 Katikati (Shrewsbury Park, Highfields)
 Te Puke (Village Heights)
 Waihi Beach (Koutunui Road, Browns farm)
established/zoned
after
These aimed to cater for the foreseeable growth estimates of each district council (as
at the early 1990’s) through a mix of new Greenfield areas and infill/ intensification.
Each Council assessed their needs independently to each other and without
reference to wider, sub-regional growth or infrastructure considerations.
These areas relied heavily upon the efficient use or expansion of existing or planned
(at that time) infrastructure. For example, infill by using existing networks, reticulating
Papamoa with sewage back to Te Maunga, extending Katikati reticulation, building
Takitimu Drive, or relying on the planned strategic road network of the New Zealand
Transport Agency such as Route J to 15th Avenue.
In Tauranga City the five new second generation Greenfield UGA’s used a structure
plan technique for detailed services planning linked to financial contributions applied
5
under the district plan. The approach has been similar for WBOP District. In the
1990’s the growth pressures to open up more residential land and service this were
intense and the sub-region witnessed high population and household development
rates. Infill also contributed a reasonable percentage to accommodating growth.
This work was before the SmartGrowth model was initiated in the early 2000’s.
Overview of Third generation UGA’s
The Third generation UGA’s are those more recently established/ zoned:
 Bethlehem West and North-West
 Pyes Pa West (The Lakes)
 Wairakei
 Katikati (Middlebrooke, Park Road)
 Omokoroa (Stage 1-East of Railway)
 Te Puke (Mcloughlin Drive)
 Waihi Beach (Athenree, Sea Breeze, Hanlen Ave, Citrus Ave).
These have emerged from a mix of public and private plan changes through the
2000’s responding to growth trends and generally aligned to SmartGrowth thinking.
They have structure plans guiding development and services.
As a general observation it is the third generation UGA’s that has created a need for
Council’s to now commit to significant, new growth-related capital projects to support
medium to long term growth.
Much of the new Council-led infrastructure has been programmed into their 10 Year
Plans and the related financial/development contributions funding models. Other
servicing issues are further outlined below.
Overview of Fourth generation UGA’s
The Fourth generation UGA’s are those identified in the SmartGrowth Settlement
Pattern and the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) for long term growth within the
current Urban Limits Line. These are:
 Te Tumu
 Welcome Bay South
 Upper Ohauiti
 Neewood/ Pukemapu
 Pyes Pa South (Keenan Road)
 Omokoroa (Stage 2-SH2 to the railway)
 Te Puke (Cannel Farm South, Dudley Vercoe North)
 Katikati (Busby Road)
 Waihi Beach (Wilson Farm, Three Mile Creek-Emmerton Road)
These UGA’s fall within the current urban limits line in the RPS. They are logical
geographic extensions to the existing urban areas but are sequenced to commence
when RPS sequence/ staging policy criteria are meet and plan change and structure
plan processes are completed. Obviously, their timing also depends on growth
uptake rates in downstream, zoned UGA’s. The majority of this land is within the
WBOP District apart from Te Tumu and Pyes Pa South (Keenan Road)
It is also noted that further transportation analysis is being undertaken in the TUNS 1
project on the transportation effects of the Upper Ohauiti/ Neewood/ Pukemapu
areas in comparison with the Tauriko catchment. This work aims to see whether
there are transport benefits in revisiting the extent/sequencing of UGA’s in the
southern part of Tauranga. This work will be reported as part of the larger Future
6
UGA paper in the New Year. Other infrastructure issues are summarized below with
further detail in the background Infrastructure Capacity Review paper distributed
separately.
Identified Urban Growth Area Capacity
To place the identified UGA’s in context Table 1 provides a summary of the
estimated yield and remaining capacity up to 2051. The actual developed yield may
vary depending on several factors but these are the current assumptions for strategic
planning purposes being the updated base forecast in 2011.
7
Table 1: Identified Dwelling Capacity at 2011
Identified Area
Estimated Dwelling
Yield/ capacity (up
to 2051)
Estimated
Dwelling Capacity
remaining (at
June 2011
Estimated %
Capacity
remaining
(at June 2011)
First Generation: established areas
Tauranga City
47,330
14,351
30%
Western BOP District
17,262
9,468
55%
Total
64,592
23,819
37%
Bethlehem
3561
1152
32%
Pyes Pa East
2129
191
9%
Ohauiti
1680
504
30%
Welcome Bay
2052
615
30%
Papamoa
11,153
2342
21%
Katikati
137
32
23%
Waihi Beach
304
247
81%
Total
21,016
5083
24%
Wairakei
3285
3285
100%
Bethlehem West
790
583
74%
Pyes Pa West
2926
2764
94%
Waihi Beach
979
929
95%
Katikati
856
760
89%
Te Puke
961
946
98%
Omokoroa (Stage 1)
2840
2586
91%
Total
12,367
11,853
95%
Second Generation UGA’s
Third Generation UGA’s
Fourth Generation UGA’s
Te Tumu
9473
Future urban
Welcome Bay South
500
Rural
Neewood
1374
Rural
Pukemapu
1860
Rural
Upper Ohauiti
1841
Rural
Pyes Pa (Keenan Road)
1423
Rural
Omokoroa Stage 2
2400
Future urban
Te Puke South
695
Rural
Katikati
750
Rural
Waihi Beach
4543
Rural
Total
24,859
Source: SmartGrowth Development Trends Technical Report 2011 and Tauranga City
Population and Household Forecast Review 2011
8
Table 1 shows that the zoned UGA’s (second and third generation) still have
considerable capacity (est.16,936 residential Greenfield lots) overall. Based on an
average uptake rate of Greenfield subdivision lots in the sub-region over the past 5
years of 472 (Est.) lots per year, this represents estimated. 36 years of available
capacity. When a 10 year average is applied, which recognises the mix of higher
and slower development rates, the average estimated uptake rate of Greenfield
subdivision lots is 677 and this represents an estimated 25 years of available
capacity.
In considering this information it is noted that uptake rates vary between corridors
and are dependant future growth rates and the yield developers achieve. It is also
to be noted that this calculation is for Greenfield UGA’s and does not include the
potential capacity within the first generation, older residential areas, which is also
shown as an estimate only within Table 1. The complexity of market influences
relating to infill or intensification development makes estimation very difficult.
There is a good range of housing location choice across the sub-region which will
serve different markets. There is significant impact on Council balance sheets in
servicing these areas and funding committed public infrastructure. It requires
Council’s working with the developers that actually deliver the housing and provide
the revenue stream to recoup capital funding. This is particularly challenging with
the downturn in the comparative rate of sub-regional growth and development. The
slower uptake rates that have been experienced over the past 5 years may mean
that the need to zone areas for urban development (and provide services and
infrastructure) to Generation 4 or even some parts of Generation 3 areas may not
be required as early as previously anticipated.
Fourth generation UGA’s are not yet zoned residential and have considerable
theoretical capacity and reasonable geographic spread. Their timing is contingent
upon a number of complex factors:




These include the density yield that the housing market will actually want to
supply in Greenfield and intensification areas
the varied housing demand and ability to afford new housing
the ability of public sector agencies to fund additional, or extensions to,
infrastructure in a financially prudent manner
future sub-regional growth rates and population changes.
3.
Development Feasibility, Strategic
Capacity Matters for Identified UGA’s
3.1
Background
Transport
and
Infrastructure
Development Feasibility
Feasibility analysis has been undertaken on several growth areas over the last year.
The reasons for this is to understand what the cost drivers are for opening up new
urban areas for development and whether development would be feasible given
these costs. A feasibility model was developed by TCC in 2010 to test the financial
viability of the Wairakei UGA. This model has a methodology that allows the testing
other UGA’s in the sub-region through changing the key inputs as appropriate to the
area to be assessed.
This analysis is leading-edge and enables a more market orientated assessment of
growth management. Auckland for example, has not used such an approach and
questions have been asked over whether the market can really deliver on their
9
intensification objectives. SmartGrowth is taking a proactive approach to considering
future urban growth.
The TCC model has been used to assess the development feasibility of other
identified UGA’s at Te Puke, Omokoroa and Te Tumu, and the Rangiuru Business
Park (as part of the Business Land research report). There are some key messages
to take from this work:



Past strategic actions were based on the market conditions and community
aspirations at the time and the private sector generally supported these and
development opportunities were clearly outlined
Times have changed and the more market –led feasibility assessment
indicates that market conditions do not fully support sustainable
implementation of the current settlement pattern. Different strategic actions
are now needed to make the areas we have invested in work
The financial viability of development varies considerably in different parts of
the sub-region because development costs and revenues are significantly
different in different areas. This needs to be carefully considered when
making decisions about the future settlement. While this may be challenging,
it is important to use the SmartGrowth Update project to identify the scale of
the issues and how they can be mitigated.
The table below summarises the key information presented more fully in the
individual area reports distributed separately. It is also important to note that
other Fourth Generation areas have not yet been considered in terms of
development feasibility, and it may be appropriate that more work be undertaken
to do this; possibly as a recommendation action in the updated SmartGrowth
Strategy.
10
Development Feasibility: Key Comments
First and second generation

No specific modeling except Infill/ Intensification report coming in December 2012

Areas like Bethlehem and Papamoa are financially viable areas for development due to relatively low
development contributions and relatively strong section prices.
Third generation
Omokoroa and Te Puke
The key assumptions were:

Yield considered were 12 and 15 dwellings per hectare (590m2 and 480m2 average section size
respectively.

Horticultural land fragmentation underlying both areas

‘Growth pays for growth’ policy for FC’s.
The model results are:

Development feasibility is marginal for Omokoroa. Development is not viable if the standard profit
assumption for developers is used and current financial contribution charges.

Te Puke’s new UGA’s have a more substantial challenge compared to Omokoroa.

Feasibility is sensitive to the rate of section sales; if growth is slower than anticipated (slower uptake
rates) then development feasibility is adversely affected. Relatively optimistic uptakes were modeled

Market costs are not matched with market demand so growth is likely to be significantly slower than
anticipated. This impacts on interest costs for infrastructure debt held by WBOPDC.

Feasibility is also significantly impacted by the cost of financial contributions. Methods to reduce
FC’s for new development or to manage their financial impact should be further explored.

Further review FC’s cost inputs/ projects to see how that can assist feasibility issues..
Wairakei:

An earlier Feasibility Report (2010) on Wairakei concluded that residential development in Wairakei
was financially viable, albeit only marginally.

It also indicated that the cost structure of both land and building development was not conducive to
promoting ‘affordable’ housing in Wairakei

Nothing has changed since 2010 to alter this conclusion

Residential development has now commenced in Wairakei which is consistent with the development
feasibility conclusions.
Fourth generation
Te Tumu
The key assumptions were:

Yield is 15 per hectare, although the landowners see a greater yield is possible

Development starts as Wairakei is substantially completed and is at least 10 plus years away

Utility infrastructure is logically extended eastward

Kaituna link road is included in costs

Growth of 200 sections per year and related costs “just in time”
The model results are:

4 development scenarios run and all indicate development is viable

Council led infrastructure costs incur a cumulative debt profile that is manageable.

There is no financial reason to alter the fourth generation settlement status related to Te Tumu

More work should be done on cost-effective ways to reduce the lead-in infrastructure costs for
Council and the developers.

Tsunami risk has yet to be factored in. Further work being undertaken which could affect the above
conclusions.
11
Strategic Transport
The Tauranga Urban Network Study (TUNS –Stage 1 out to 2031)) aims to integrate
strategic thinking between the agreed, long term land use pattern and future
transport needs, performance and form so that the transport system is ‘Optimised’
(this is the Regional Land Transport Strategy vision). An optimised transport system
considers:
 Land use and transport integration
 Demand management
 Freight management
 Road improvements (includes safety)
 Sustainable transport infrastructure
TUNS looks primarily at the arterial road network and identifies issues and outlines
options to address these. It takes a whole of network approach to capture the explicit
network relationship between state highway and local routes
Tauranga has a well defined urban road network that plays a variety of roles for interregional and local traffic. The form and function is heavily influenced by city
geography and land use patterns along northern, western, southern and eastern
corridors as well as the movement of freight by road and/or rail.
The Tauranga Traffic Model v5.8 (TTM) does include predictions related to in-fill and
intensification of development through the short, medium and long terms. TTM is
currently based on 2010 SmartGrowth predictions which are recognised as being
higher in all aspects than updated 2011 figures. Based on TTM, indications are that
in-fill and intensification have only a limited or marginal effect on the performance of
arterial and non-strategic networks. There are some potential anecdotal effects on
the ability for local road users to enter/exit collector or secondary arterials in
suburban areas at peak times. However, as there are unlikely to be significant
upgrades to these non-strategic roads, in reality these will be managed operationally
to ensure user safety.
A greater risk for transport network is that in-fill or intensification does not occur
which is likely to have the effect of expanding the need for greenfield development.
From a transport perspective this has greater consequences due to longer trip
distances and increased reliance on arterial networks, including State Highways.
Traffic analysis indicates that continuing economic and population growth will
increasingly affect levels of service on arterial routes throughout the city, which will
impact on the ability of those routes to fulfill their functions safely, efficiently and
effectively. These are covered in detail in the Tauranga Urban Network Study:
Executive Summary November 2012, one of the background reports circulated
separately.
A summary of key transport points related to the identified UGA’s (all generations) is
outlined below.
12
Strategic Transport Network: Key Comments
First and second generation
Maranui/Arataki
Detailed improvement investigations are underway for the Maunganui/Girven and Te Maunga
intersections. To ease congestion, the Sandhurst link will assist with local traffic diversion. Gloucester
Street and Grenada Street links will provide improved connectivity and alternative routes from Arataki
through to Papamoa, however, they are reliant on developer timing. This may need more proactive
Council involvement.
Port of Tauranga Access:

Long-term freight growth forecasts for POT raise issues of arterial road capacity for Route K,
SH2, Mirrielees Road/ Marsh Street and Matapihi Rail Bridge.
Third generation
Omokoroa Stage 1 and northern growth:

LOS pressures increase through Wairoa Bridge and Bethlehem to Takitimu Drive route.
Bethlehem significantly constrained by land use and road corridor width.

Appropriate connectivity of SH2 to Omokoroa and funding to be worked through.
Hewletts Road:

A key access to the port it serves state highway and local trip function. Capacity emerging as
problem within next 10 years.
Pyes Pa West/ Tauriko:

Emerging capacity issue at SH29/ Route K and SH36/ Taurikura Drive roundabouts develops in
longer term.
Fourth generation
Southern Corridor UGA’s:

SH 29 is currently a nationally strategic high volume freight route in Tauranga network. In the
traffic modeling cumulative pressures arise on the route with new development areas feeding in,
as insufficient local, parallel links between southern suburbs. Traffic effects arise at all
intersections along SH29 from Maungatapu –Tauriko.

Transport effects reassessment of Neewood/ Pukemapu underway.

Emerging capacity issue at SH29/ Route K intersection
Tauriko:

Bypass aims to improve road / freight connection to port and also Tauriko village safety. Also
potential to feed into southern extension of Tauriko business land and Belk Road area.
Te Tumu

Papamoa East interchange is a key piece of infrastructure for Te Tumu to develop. Other road
feeders are extensions to Papamoa Beach Road, The Boulevard, Te Okuroa Drive. Kaituna
Bridge link to Rangiuru is may be required if development yield well over 15 per hectare.
Population assumptions are a technical issue that needs further discussion.
Omokoroa Stage 2 and northern growth:

Level of Service pressures increase through Wairoa Bridge and Bethlehem to Takitimu Drive
route. Bethlehem significantly constrained by land use and road corridor width. Wairoa River
bridge and Bethlehem corridor will need greater capacity

All these corridor interventions are competing with other national road projects for funding.

Northern Corridor Strategy outlines an integrated package of staged interventions to respond to
the cumulative impacts of growth along the corridor. There are a range of transport interventions
outlined in the Strategy. Investigation of the priority of key measures will be ongoing.
13
Infrastructure Capacity
After 1991, new Greenfield Urban Growth Areas (second generation) were created.
The projected population for each area was calculated and the services required for
that population; water, wastewater, stormwater, roading and reserves and the
approximate location of these services, was shown on detailed structure plans.
These were linked operationally to a financial contributions system to recoup the
capital costs of the new infrastructure, both local and district-wide. Both Councils
developed a similar (but not the same) system.
The forecasted take up of third generation areas creates a demand for significant
new capital investment by the two councils and the NZTA. Much of this is now either
built or included within the respective 10 Year Plans and beyond: For example:
 Pyes Pa West, Bethlehem West, Omokoroa Stage 1 and more recently Wairakei
have all created a demand to extend and upgrade water and wastewater services
through downstream areas. For example, the Southern Pipeline project is linked
to the allocation of growth in this southern part of Tauranga and freeing up
capacity in the west; the Waiari water scheme to serve the coast, the new sewer
pipeline from Omokoroa into the Chapel Street plant.
 New urban roading such as Te Paeroa Road Tara Road upgrade are required
because of growth. The Papamoa East interchange will be created to serve both
Wairakei and Te Tumu in the long term.
 For NZTA this has included the construction of Tauranga Eastern Link, the Pyes
Pa bypass, Harbour Link and the Tauranga Northern Link and Tauriko upgrade
investigation projects. Maximising use of this government –funded infrastructure
is essential.
The fourth generation UGA’s have further servicing needs, some of which will enable
recent public projects to be used more efficiently, while others present further
challenges.
The table below outlines some key observations on infrastructure.
14
Infrastructure Capacity: Key Comments
First and second generation

Development is occurring in the first and second generation UGA’s steadily without major
constraints and proceeding to their planned capacity.
Third generation
Wairakei:

UGA has a 1000 household threshold related to existing trunk wastewater capacity and Papamoa
Beach Road capacity. Beyond this threshold Te Okuroa Drive has to be constructed into
Wairakei, new pump stations have to be constructed and new water trunks provided to service
additional development.
Bethlehem West :

There are no major servicing constraints for. Local projects are funded by local contributions.
Te Puke, Omokoroa Stage 1, Waihi Beach

No known servicing constraints
Katikati

Constraints of the wastewater pipeline capacity.
Fourth generation
Western Corridor

The requirement for State Highway 29 to efficiently and safely perform its identified function as a
nationally strategic high volume freight route means that consideration will need to be given to
these issues to enable additional urban zoning in this corridor; this is being considered as part of
the NZTA Tauriko Upgrade project.

A second water supply from Kennedy Road planned for 2015/16 along with a high level supply to
service the Gargan Road plateau.
Pyes Pa South -Keenan Road:
No detailed design work has been completed on this area yet. Known issues are:

Wastewater pipe sizes through The Lakes subdivision are not sized for the extra flow demand
from Keenan Road. Engineering options are possible via other routes but at a cost that may
prove prohibitive.

Upgrading of Keenan Road and its intersection with Pyes Pa Road (SH No.36).

A water reservoir is required on the higher land to the south but potential geotechnical constraints
in that locality may pose an issue.
Pukemapu, Neewood, Upper Ohauiti Welcome Bay South:
These areas have some common issues around roads and wastewater and area specific constraints:

Linking Pukemapu Road and Neewood Road by road would provide suburban interconnectivity
between suburbs such as Oropi and Ohauiti. An additional benefit is a greater catchment to pay
for the Waimapu Stream Bridge and Oropi Road upgrading works. These are an engineering
challenge because of topography.

Preliminary analysis of the proposed settlement pattern in these areas indicates a possible
adverse effect on the Oropi Road, Poike Road, Welcome Bay Road/ Ohauiti Road intersections
to State Highway No.29.and the residential amenity of Ohauiti Road if it was to be four-laned due
to traffic volumes. Further traffic modelling needs to be undertaken.

A new wastewater trunk main from Maleme Street would logically service Pukemapu Road area
first, then Neewood Road and Upper Ohauiti, then Welcome Bay South. Early decisions on
development sequence are required so that the correct pipe size for the trunk main can be
determined. Local reticulation is relatively straight forward.

A water supply to Pukemapu Road would come from the Oropi Water Treatment Plant; needs a
new reservoir located south of Pukemapu Road.

Neewood Road water supply will require an extension of the system serving Pukemapu Road up
to a new reservoir located in the vicinity of the Ohauiti Road/Rowe Road intersection.

Upper Ohauiti water supply would be from the reservoir recently constructed at Ohauiti Road.
15
Infrastructure Capacity: Key Comments

In Welcome Bay South the steep topography will place further constraints on the forecast yield
with only about 50% being easy to develop. Land ownership also poses challenges (Multipleowned Maori land). This indentified UGA should be reconsidered.
Te Tumu:.

There are several options for wastewater disposal back to Te Maunga treatment plant using a mix
of new and upgraded infrastructure.

Water supply is planned to come from the future Waiari via a pipe laid along Bell Road into Te
Tumu.

Stormwater is covered by the Comprehensive Stormwater Consent for Papamoa East.

The principle vehicle access point will be via the planned Papamoa East interchange onto the
TEL. Three other main access roads are Te Okuroa Drive, The Boulevard and Papamoa Beach
Road.

A possible Kaituna river bridge crossing is also being considered.
Omokoroa –Stage 2

There are no major utility infrastructure issues identified for Omokoroa. Transport and feasibility
matters are covered in sections above.
Katikati

Constraints of the wastewater pipeline capacity
3.2
Issues and options
First and Second Generation UGA’s
There are no significant issues flagged through the background reports on feasibility,
transport or infrastructure capacity. Development continues as planned within these
areas and public and private interests factor this into their thinking. Transport network
matters are addressed through programmed work by either the Council’s or NZTA.
No further action on these areas is recommended (other than policy consideration
outlined in the infill/ intensification research workstream to be reported in December
2012).
Third Generation UGA’s
Generation 3 areas are already zoned for residential and/or business development
and the market is slowly responding to the realities of developing this urban land in
the current economic environment. This includes Wairakei, where subdivision is now
occurring south of the Wairakei Stream.
Development feasibility of Omokoroa and Te Puke is challenging and needs time to
work through. The main option would be to leave the settlement pattern as is in the
meantime and allow time for further analysis by WBOP District Council. There is an
opportunity when the settlement pattern in the SmartGrowth Strategy is reviewed
after the 2013 census population forecasting work, to input the results of that thinking
into the Strategy by amendment, if necessary.
For transport, the cumulative development of Omokoroa Stage 1 and other
settlement growth in the northern corridor, and Bethlehem itself creates pressure on
the northern corridor route into Tauranga City particularly constrained at Bethlehem
town centre. Options to address this include the Tauranga Northern Link and
upgrades along State Highway 2 between Te Puna and Omokoroa. The need and
timing for these responses will depend on take-up of these areas.
16
The Tauranga Urban Network Study and Tauranga Transportation Strategy, and the
Northern Corridor Strategy and Eastern Corridor Strategy, outline possible
interventions that respond to the cumulative effects of urban and rural growth in the
sub-regional road network. It is not a realistic or necessary option to change the
zoning of these third generation UGAs and road capacity mitigation works at certain
points along the route will continue.
Capacity limits on the current wastewater treatment and disposal system at Katikati
and Te Puke are flagged. Both systems need renewal of existing consents soon and
further capital expenditure to increase capacity. There is an acknowledged tension
between the SmartGrowth population allocated to these settlements and the capacity
of these facilities. Again, this will take some time to work through and the settlement
pattern could be adjusted after the 2013 Census population forecasting work if
necessary.
Fourth Generation UGAs
The RPS policy approach is that Generation 4 UGAs occur through a logical
sequential/ staging process having regard to a number of planning policy
considerations, and detailed structure planning. The district plans give effect to this.
Omokoroa Stage 2, Te Puke and Te Tumu have had feasibility modeling but other
Generation 4 UGAs have not. Te Tumu feasibility looks positive but Omokoroa Stage
2 and Te Puke are not so positive and need further time to work through.
TUNS 1 analysis indicates that the cumulative effects of new UGAs south of the City
will see a decline in performance on SH29 overtime. There are no practical,
alternative, parallel arterial routes through this southern corridor to offset this effect,
as eventually the city roads have to feed down to the highway. Hence capacity and
safety improvements will continue to be the focus unless the settlement pattern can
be amended to reduce these cumulative effects on SH 29 by reducing the amount of
growth allocated in this area.
Further traffic modeling is to test whether altering the future southern land use
pattern would assist (Replacing or reducing Neewood/ Pukemapu with a new UGA,
in the Tauriko catchment). However, it is noted that in terms of the form and function
of SH 29, the Tauriko upgrade project would be required for NZTA to support urban
zoning in this locality. Without this the function of SH29 is likely to be compromised.
The cumulative effect of Omokoroa Stage 2 on the northern corridor into Tauranga
(over and above that indicated for Generation 3 UGAs) will be influenced by the
relative timing of the TNL or other mitigation measures. The Northern Corridor
Strategy identified a package of interventions of which the TNL was one. Further
thinking is being done to optimize the best mix of solutions.
The Tauranga Urban Network Study and Tauranga Transportation Strategy, and the
Northern Corridor Strategy and Eastern Corridor Strategy, outline possible
interventions that respond to the cumulative effects of urban and rural growth in the
sub-regional road network.
There are no fatal flaws indentified for Te Tumu. It is acknowledged that the
Papamoa East interchange with the TEL is a project of considerable cost and ways
of reducing that project cost are being considered. Feasible development of Te
Tumu, in a sequence after Wairakei is important to support the investment in the TEL
by central government.
17
With regard to infrastructure services (other than transport) some servicing
coordination issues between current identified UGAs in the southern Tauranga sector
(Upper Ohauiti, Neewood and Pukemapu) are identified. These are more about
relative sequencing and timing rather than fatal flaws.
As has been noted earlier there is some further testing of areas in the southern part
of Tauranga in regard to transport. Leaving transport to one side if the Tauriko and
Wairoa areas were favorably considered as possible new UGA’s in the settlement
pattern, then the engineering advice is that wastewater capacity issues can be
addressed by prudent management of the Southern Pipeline feeder network, but is
not a fatal flaw. Pyes Pa South (Kennan Road) also has wastewater supply issues
that might be assisted if Tauriko Business Estate (industrial land) was extended
south, then providing a logical trunk extension across to the Kennan Road land,
rather than other route options.
Finally, further consideration of the long term UGA at Welcome Bay South
(Kaitemako Road) suggests that the topography and fragmented land ownership may
significantly affect the potential development yield from this area. As such, it is
recommended that this identified UGA be deleted from the current settlement pattern
in SmartGrowth.
What is the Overall Effect on the Current Settlement Pattern?
The key growth management question arising from this review of the identified UGAs
and particularly the fourth generation areas is;
“Are there any issues so significant related to the current identified UGAs in the
SmartGrowth settlement pattern that will cause the settlement pattern to be
amended?
And if so, what can be done to minimise the impact of those issues so that best use
is made of existing and planned infrastructure investment?
Note: another influence on answering this question is the potential to align possible
fifth generation UGAs (to be considered in the New Year) with the needs of fourth
generation UGAs to get a good ‘strategic fit’.
The matrix table below presents an overall summary of the identified UGAs in terms
of potential effect on the current settlement pattern, and where further assessment is
recommended.
18
Comparative Summary of Settlement Pattern Impacts
Identified UGA
Keep In
Settlement
Pattern?
Settlement Pattern
Timing?
Comments
Eastern Corridor
Te Puke
Te Tumu
Yes
Yes

Ongoing


likely to be slower
uptake than
forecast
Financial viability issues have
been identified. WBOPDC to
report back.

Te Puke wastewater treatment
capacity consent needs to be
renewed.
Keep fourth
generation
sequence after
Wairakei

Financially viable

Subject to tsunami report

Further transport accessibility
work
Timing and/or
sequence
depends on
further
comparative
assessment

Transport effects on SH29
connections needs further
thinking

Ohauiti Rd 4 lanes is
significant impact

local road connections across
difficult topography

Development feasibility not
modeled –it should be

Southern Corridor
Upper Ohauiti , Neewood,
Pukemapu
Welcome Bay South
?

No

Delete from
fourth generation
(Est. 500
households)

Topography and land
ownership makes realistic
yield small and feasibility
questionable.
?

Keep current
sequence after
Pyes Pa West

Wastewater costs may be a
constraint

Possible link to Tauriko
business land trunk sewer
may assist urban development

Stage 1 ongoing
Likely to be
slower uptake
than forecast

Financial viability issues have
been identified. WBOPDC to
report back


Stage 2
sequence after
Stage 1
Development of Stage 2 links
to a package of interventions
and/or investment in the
northern corridor, particularly
towards Tauranga, to address
the effects of growth over
time.

Ongoing –subject
to long term
wastewater
capacity being
addressed

Wastewater outlet pipe
capacity issues to be further
considered by WBOPDC

Long term development links
to a package of interventions
and/or investment in the
northern corridor, particularly
towards Tauranga, to address
the effects of growth over
time.

Ongoing

No major issues identified

Likely to be
slower uptake
than forecast

There is considerable potential
growth allocated to Waihi
19
Beach. This could be
reassessed.
Western Corridor
Pyes Pa South (Kennan
Rd)
Northern Corridor
Omokoroa Stages 1 and 2
Katikati
Waihi Beach
Yes
Yes
Yes
Conclusions
Overview
1 The combination of existing zoned residential land and identified future UGA’s
means that the sub-region has an estimated 30 plus years of urban land supply
planned, and there is no urgency to zone/ earmark more land to accommodate any
shortfall. Infill/ intensification of older residential areas is additional to that.
2. The SmartGrowth Strategy has provided a clear direction on where and how urban
growth will be accommodated and serviced in the sub-region through a well
anchored settlement pattern. Significant public Infrastructure investment provides
good capacity for accommodating this forecast growth overall, but there are localised
servicing issues that need to be worked through.
3. This review paper outlines information on the existing settlement pattern that is
challenging but the purpose of such a review is to identify the scale of any issues and
options for addressing the issues in a sustainable way. It is acknowledged that
previous strategic planning decisions were based on the market conditions and the
community aspirations of the day, and the world has since changed. Maintaining the
status quo is not an appropriate option, but maximising the current investment
decisions to the extent possible in a changed economic climate through sensible
planning policy is the key.
Northern Corridor
4. Omokoroa Stage 2 should be retained in the current SmartGrowth settlement
pattern because the significant new, recent investment in the area needs to be
effectively used.
5 Development in Omokoroa is not viable if the standard profit return for developers
is used and with the current Financial Contributions. Notwithstanding this,
development is occurring but uptake is likely to be slower than originally forecast
(and this affects Financial Contributions revenue for the Council).
6 Methods to reduce FC’s or manage the financial impact of them should be explored
further by WBOPDC. There is an opportunity to do this before the new SmartGrowth
forecasts from the 2013 census are completed in 2014.
7. Under the current settlement pattern a reasonable amount of long-term growth is
allocated to Katikati and Waihi Beach. This growth allocation should be reviewed
particularly with regard to the Katikati wastewater system capacity.
8. Integrated investigation of the transport interventions required along the northern
corridor in response to the cumulative growth pressures along the corridor should be
ongoing. In the light of a downturn in growth rates, the growth rate assumptions
currently in the Northern Corridor Strategy should be reviewed
Eastern Corridor
9. Te Puke has a low-medium section price demand. Development in the new UGA’s
in Te Puke is not viable under current conditions, unless the FC’s can be reduced
significantly and the market moves to accept a higher section price –which is likely to
be resisted in the short to medium term.
20
10 Methods to reduce FC’s or manage the financial impact of them should be
explored further by WBOPDC. There is an opportunity to do this before the new
SmartGrowth forecasts from the 2013 census are completed in 2014.
11. Te Tumu should be retained in the current settlement pattern, subject to the
further work being undertaken on tsunami hazard management risk for the area and
acknowledging that this may affect the population assumptions for this UGA.
Southern Corridor
12. Development feasibility modeling should be undertaken on Neewood, Pukemapu,
Upper Ohauiti identified UGA’s, to provide information that can assist a comparative
assessment with other possible UGA’s in the western corridor (Tauriko) of the city.
13. Welcome Bay South (Kaitemako) has topographical and land ownership
constraints and servicing issues that are likely to substantially reduce the residential
yield from this UGA.
Options for Consideration
The broad options arising from consideration of the identified UGA’s in the current
settlement pattern are:
Pros
Cons
Option 1: Status Quo: No change to
Current Settlement Pattern
Option 2: Further assessment of the
current Settlement Pattern having
regard to development feasibility,
transport effects and infrastructure
capacity.


Recognises the investment in the
current settlement pattern should
be used as effectively as possible

Recognises there is significant yield
capacity in the zoned or planned
UGAs in the sub-region, and this
gives time to assess in more depth.

Enables SmartGrowth partners to
comprehensively address the
feasibility, transport or infrastructure
issues that have been identified
through this research that need
further research or consideration
and which might influence the long
term suitability of the particular
UGA within the sub-regional
context.

May influence or modify the current
settlement pattern upon which
public and private decision making
has been made –particularly longterm infrastructure investment by
public agencies.

Long term direction identified in
SmartGrowth and various plans and
gives a level of certainty to public
and private sector decision making
Ignores the feasibility, transport or
infrastructure issues that have been
identified that need further research
or consideration and which might
influence the long term suitability of
the particular UGA within the subregional context
21
3.3
Direction required
In looking at the indentified UGA’s in the current SmartGrowth settlement pattern it is
recommended that the strategic aim should be to maximise the contribution to
accommodating urban growth that the currently identified UGA’s can make, when the
settlement pattern is outlined in the draft updated SmartGrowth Strategy early in the
new year.
However, given some of the issues that have been flagged by this background
research, direction is required from SGIC on undertaking further work after which
some adjustment to the current settlement pattern may be able to be considered with
more confidence and better knowledge.
It is recommended:
a) That as a matter of principle the strategic aim of the current SmartGrowth Update
project should still be to retain and maximise the development opportunities in the
current settlement pattern.
And in terms of Draft Updated SmartGrowth Strategy Actions it is recommended:
b) That the draft settlement pattern in the updated Smartgrowth Strategy be
confirmed after the revised population projections are made available following the
2013 Census (likely to be 2014). This work will include identifying the potential fifth
generation UGA’s that would be required.
c)That mitigation options for addressing the main issues that have been raised by the
review of the current, identified UGA’s be developed as actions within the updated
SmartGrowth along the following lines:
i) Further consider development feasibility of Omokoroa Stage 2 and Te Puke
UGA’s and report back when the revised population projections are made
available after the 2013 census (2014). This work should also include
assessment of other opportunities to utilise existing infrastructure..
ii) Review the amount of long-term growth allocated to Katikati, having regard
to the wastewater system capacity constraints of the current system.
iii) Further consider the amount and timing of growth allocated to Upper
Ohauiti, Neewood and Pukemapu UGA’s in regard to transport effects,
development feasibility and infrastructure compared to other possible options
in the western corridor (Wairoa and Belk Road (Tauriko south))
iv) Further consider whether the amount of long-term growth currently
allocated to Waihi Beach is a realistic having regard to demographic change
and housing demand.
v) Undertake further strategic assessment of wastewater servicing options for
Pyes Pa South (Kennan Road) having regard to the need for a cost-effective
serving option that long-term urban growth area.
vi) Further develop the package of interventions signaled in the Northern
Corridor Strategy to ensure it is optimised and appropriately staged, for
example with regard to the likely slower growth rates for UGA’s feeding into
the northern corridor.
22
d) That Welcome Bay South (Kaitemako) is deleted from the settlement pattern due
to limitations on likely yield through topography and land ownership constraints.
e) That Te Tumu is retained in the settlement pattern subject to consideration of the
Tsunami risk report.
23