Hastings District Council
Civic Administration Building
Lyndon Road East, Hastings 4156
Phone: (06) 871 5000
Fax: (06) 871 5100
www.hastingsdc.govt.nz
OPEN
MINUTES
HASTINGS DISTRICT PLAN
HEARINGS COMMITTEE
SCHEDULED SITE REQUESTS INDUSTRIAL SCHEDULED SITE REQUESTS
Meeting Date:
Monday, 13 July 2015
CG-13-48-564
1
HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE HASTINGS DISTRICT PLAN HEARINGS
COMMITTEE
HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, GROUND FLOOR, CIVIC ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING, LYNDON ROAD EAST, HASTINGS ON
MONDAY, 13 JULY 2015 AT 9.30AM
PRESENT:
Chair: Councillor Lyons
Councillors Bowers and Watkins
Rural Community Board Member: Mr P Kay
ALSO PRESENT:
Environmental Policy Manager (Mr P McKay)
Project Leader District Plan Review (Mr R Wallis)
Democratic Support Manager (Mr R Palmer)
1.0
APOLOGIES
Leave of Absence had previously been granted to Councillor Lester.
2.0
SCHEDULED SITE REQUESTS - INDUSTRIAL SCHEDULED SITE
REQUESTS
(Document 15/758)
2.1
Hawke’s Bay Fruitgrowers Association Inc. – further submission 205,
ENV-9-17-4-2-14-205.
Dianne Vesty provided written evidence (ENV-9-17-5-15-1201) on behalf of
the Hawke’s Bay Fruitgrowers Association outlining its opposition to the
requests from existing industrial activities in the Plains Production Zone for
their sites to be scheduled.
She explained that the Association considered that if the requests were
granted it would set a precedent which could encourage other industrial
activities to seek to take up land in the zone and thereby put further pressure
on that limited resource.
She also recommended some changes to Policy PPPX, which she felt made it
clear that the sites were scheduled purely to preserve their individual right to
continue existing operations without being deemed to contravene the Plan.
2.2
John Roil – submission 229, ENV-9-17-4-1-15-543,
submission 432, ENV-9-17-4-2-15-917.
and
further
Mr Roil (Hawke’s Bay Project Management) provided written evidence (ENV9-17-5-15-1200) on behalf of B Cane, of Central Transport Limited. His
presentation, supported the inclusion of the site occupied by Ballance AgriNutrients Limited and the land earmarked for a possible future saleyards,
adjacent to the Irongate Industrial area east of Maraekakaho Road, as
scheduled sites within the Plan.
He outlined the history of the development of the Irongate area and the
resource consents which had been granted for the establishment of the
Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited’s business and for land for a saleyards.
CG-13-48-564
2
He explained that in his opinion the relocation of the saleyards from its
existing site would only be a matter of time. At the present there was no
pressure on it to move, but the resource consent in respect of the alternative
site would expire in November 2015, hence the wish to have it protected by
scheduling.
He expressed concern that the Irongate Industrial Zoning was not proposed to
be extended to cover the activities which had established adjacent to it
through resource consents.
He noted that the Irongate Stream had
apparently been adopted as the boundary, rather than using the boundary of
the established orchards.
He also raised the query as to the number of projects of benefit to the
economy of the District which had been “stymied” because of the effect of
HPUDS and an out-dated Regional Policy Statement.
2.3
Crasborn ERL Ltd – submission 38, ENV-9-17-4-1-14-38
Jason Tickner provided written evidence (ENV-9-17-5-15-1199) on behalf of
the Crasborn ERL Ltd, which outlined its operation and the reasons why the
Company considered that a scheduling of the site was desirable.
He explained that in his opinion the scheduling of the site would give the
operation some security and enable it to expand without the need for the time
consuming and often costly processes required in respect of a resource
consent.
He noted that the schedule could contain specific controls on any future
development to ensure that any adverse effects were mitigated. He believed
that this was the most effective and efficient means to achieve the purposes
of the Resource Management Act 1991.
He pointed out the similarities between the Company’s operations and those
of Te Mata Mushrooms and Johnny Appleseed Packhouse which were both
scheduled in the Plan. He contended that to be consistent and even handed,
the Crasborn activity deserved the same treatment.
2.4
Walker Douglas Trust – further submission 552, ENV-9-17-4-2-15-919
Murray Walker provided written evidence (ENV-9-17-5-15-1198) on behalf of
the Walker Douglas Trust. He outlined the Trust’s opposition to the
submission from Crasborn ERL Ltd seeking the scheduling of its site.
He explained that an activity which was permitted in the zone should not be
scheduled, rather simply managed through due resource management
processes within the District Plan.
He advised the Committee that the people in the immediate area had
concerns regarding the noise and loss of amenity, as well as safety concerns
regarding the large increase in heavy traffic using the site. They would not
like to see the Company able to ignore these from the security of a schedule
covering the existing operation.
It was accepted that the current operation exists, but he noted that it would be
contrary to the relevant objectives and policies of the Plains SMA to effectively
create the site as being separate from the prevailing zone rules. This could
allow the operation to expand without the appropriate assessment and without
giving the Community the right to participate and the chance to voice any
opposition.
CG-13-48-564
2.5
3
S Kinnear – submission 137, ENV-9-17-4-1-14-137
Jason Tickner provided written evidence (ENV-9-17-5-15-1197) on behalf of
S Kinnear, pointing out that the submitter’s property was located adjacent to
the Industrial 2 zone on Henderson Road and was utilised by the NZL Group
Ltd as a local base for its general transport and logistics operation.
He noted that consent had recently been granted for the erection of an
additional storage shed which had yet to be built and that the scale of the
activity was beyond that permitted under the Proposed Plan.
Mr Tickner expressed the opinion that scheduling the site would be the most
efficient way of providing for the activity and for ensuring the continued use of
the site without the cost and time implications within the resource consent
process should the site need to be further developed or changes made.
He pointed out that a schedule did not give the activity on the site “carte
blanche” as appropriate limits could be imposed which ensured that the
effects of the use on its neighbourhood were minimised.
2.6
Brownrigg Agriculture Group Limited – submission 19, ENV-9-17-4-1-15545
Jason Tickner provided written evidence (ENV-9-17-5-15-1196) in support of
Brownrigg Agriculture Group Limited’s submission. He explained that the
business was established out of zone in order to be in close proximity to the
area from which it sourced the squash and maize which it processed. It was
illogical to suppose that it could relocate to a site within an industrial zone.
He expressed the opinion that scheduling the site would secure the ability to
further develop the business in a manner which supports the continued
productive use of the plains and the rural soil resource. It would also enable
the Company to consolidate all required current and future operations onto
the existing site and avoid the further establishment of crop storage and
processing on other plains and rural zoned land under its ownership.
He advised that past experience had shown that, for the Company to remain
competitive, it needed to have the flexibility to make investment decisions in
short time-frames. The scheduling of the site would help provide the flexibility
and efficiency which this demanded.
He concluded by comparing the submitter’s business to that of the Jonny
Appleseed Packhouse and Te Mata Mushrooms which were both operating
on scheduled sites and requesting the Committee maintain a consistent and
even handed approach and treat the submitter in the same way.
2.7
Apatu Farms Limited – submission 4, ENV-9-17-4-1-14-4
Jason Tickner presented written evidence on behalf of Apatu Farms Limited
(ENV-9-17-5-15-1195) which operated its offices, depot and processing
facilities from a property zoned Industrial 6 under the Operative District Plan.
This submitter proposed to be scheduled within the Plains Production Zone
under the Proposed Plan as a site for “Agricultural Contractors associated
with Harvesting including Storage and Servicing of Vehicles”.
He explained that the submitter’s activities on the site were wider than that
noted above, including processing and packaging activities. He expressed
the opinion that it seemed logical that those activities should also be included
within the schedule.
4
CG-13-48-564
He expressed the opinion that proposed Policy PPPX clearly provided for
established activities with positive economic effects and the scheduling of the
site would met this requirement.
2.8
Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited – submission 9, ENV-9-17-4-1-15-541
Mr Shanan Miles presented written evidence (ENV-9-17-5-15-1194) on behalf
of Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited. He outlined the background to the Service
Centre, pointing out that the purpose of the submission was to ensure that the
Company’s future development was not unduly fettered as under the Plains
Production Zoning any expansion of the existing building footprint would be a
non-complying activity.
He also added that the submitter wished to see certain provisions of Rule
6.2.6K, which required activities associated with scheduled sites to comply
with the General Performance Standards and Terms for the Plains Production
Zone, changed to reflect the standards applying to the scheduled sites S25,
and S26 which adjoin the Service Centre.
He pointed out that the Centre had been established pursuant to two resource
consents which accepted that 1.7ha would be utilised for the Service Centre.
At present 1.4ha of the site was vacant. Thus it would have been accepted at
the time of granting the resource consents that this land would be lost from
agricultural production.
He also expressed the opinion that the imposition of non-complying activity
status on the ongoing operation and upgrading of the Service Centre was not
consistent with the overall sustainable management purpose of the Resource
management Act 1991.
Whereas, there was an appropriate framework for the management of effects
should the site be scheduled. This would provide the Company with certainty
for the future and enable the ongoing operation and expansion of the Service
Centre which serves as an important piece of existing infrastructure
supporting the land based primary sector of the District.
Mr Miles also tabled a written statement (ENV-9-17-5-15-1193) from Craig
Fitzpatrick, the National Distribution Manager for Ballance Agri-Nutrients
Limited. In the statement from Mr Fitzpatrick, the Company’s interests in New
Zealand and in Hastings, were detailed.
Mr Fitzpatrick’s evidence also explained that the Company’s interest in the
Proposed Plan was to ensure that its existing operations and future upgrade,
maintenance and development activities associated with its Hastings Service
Centre are adequately provided for.
3.0
Other Submitters.
The following submitters neither appeared nor provided additional evidence to
support their submissions.
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
Navilluso Holdings – submission 187, ENV-9-17-4-1-14-187
Hawke’s Bay Growers – submission 101, ENV-9-17-4-1-14-101
Hill Road Coolstores Limited – submission106, ENV-9-17-4-114-106
Longview Group Holdings Ltd – submission 150, ENV-9-17-4-114-542
M.A. and S.T. Allen – further submission 8, ENV-9-17-4-2-15918
Susan and Julian Cummings – further submission 110, ENV-917-4-2-14-110
5
CG-13-48-564
vii)
viii)
ix)
x)
xi)
xii)
4.0
Horticulture New Zealand – further submission 227, ENV-9-174-2-15-916
Irongate Holdings Limited – Further submission 237, ENV-9-174-2-14-237
Kowhai Park Trust – further submission 275, ENV-9-17-4-2-14275
Omahuri Orchards Limited – further submission 371, ENV-9-174-2-14-371
Patricia Josephine Rasmussen – further submission 416, ENV9-17-4-2-14-416
Trevettes Orchard Limited – further submission 530, ENV-9-174-2-14-530.
Public Excluded Business
Councillor Bowers/Councillor Lyons
That the public now be excluded from the following parts of the meeting,
namely;
5.0
Consideration of Submissions and Decisions
The general subject of the matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason
for passing this Resolution in relation to the matter and the specific grounds under Section
48 (1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing
of this Resolution is as follows:
GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH
MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED
5.0 Consideration of submissions
and Decisions
REASON FOR PASSING THIS
RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO
EACH MATTER, AND
PARTICULAR INTERESTS
PROTECTED
GROUND(S)
UNDER
SECTION 48(1) FOR THE
PASSING
OF
EACH
RESOLUTION
Section 7 (2) (i)
Section 48(1)(a)(i)
The withholding of the information is
necessary to enable the Council to
deliberate in private on its decision
or recommendation in relation to the
submissions received in respect of
the Draft District Plan.
Where the Local Authority is
named or specified in the
First Schedule to this Act
under Section 6 or 7 (except
Section 7(2)(f)(i)) of this Act.
As a right of appeal lies to the
Environment Court against the final
decision of the Council in relation to
those submissions
CARRIED
________________________
The meeting closed at 2.00pm
CG-13-48-564
6
Confirmed:
Chairman:
Date: