In the matter of
the Resource
Management Act
1991
And
In the matter of
the Ruakura Variation
to the Hamilton
Proposed District Plan
STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF
Laura Galt
On behalf of Hamilton City Council
22 July 2016
INTRODUCTION
Qualifications and Relevant Experience
1.
My full name is Laura Jane Galt. I have the qualifications and experience set out in my s42A
report dated 3 August 2016.
Expert Witness Code of Conduct
2.
As stated in my s42A report, I confirm that I have read and agree to comply with the Code of
Conduct for Expert Witnesses in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014.
SCOPE OF EVIDENCE
3.
4.
The purpose of this rebuttal evidence is to provide further comments in relation to:
a.
Landscaping and Planting Requirements
b.
Indicative Open Space
c.
Rezoning of Chedworth land to Medium Density Residential.
This rebuttal evidence confirms my support for the relevant provisions of the variation in
relation to Landscaping and Planting Requirements and the Open Space Zoning as presented
in my s42A reports and the supporting statements of evidence from the relevant technical
experts who have advised Council on this variation.
1|P a g e
5.
This rebuttal evidence recommends that the Planning Maps are amended to rezone the
balance of the Chedworth land holding from General Residential to Medium Density
Residential.
LANDSCAPING AND PLANTING REQUIREMENTS
6.
Mr David Burton, in his evidence (paragraph 33) states that due to the scope and size of the
AgResearch and Waikato Innovation Park (WIP) campuses the requirement for a 2 meter
planting strip on the boundary adjoining the Open Space Zone is meaningless and
unnecessary.
7.
Mr Burton also states that it is unclear if the definition of ‘transport corridor’ includes the
railway corridor. If it does include the railway then it would require extensive planting on the
southern boundary of AgResearch and northern boundary of WIP which is impractical and
unnecessary.
8.
Furthermore, Mr Burton believes that the rules relating to landscaping will only apply until a
Concept Plan is adopted for the area. While that may be the case, it is still inappropriate to
remove the landscaping rules as it leaves no ability to assess the landscaping should
development occur before a concept plan is in place.
9.
Council’s position has not changed on these matters as Mr Burton has not provided any
further evidence other than that discussed above and I continue to support my
recommendation to retain the landscaping provisions as amended in Appendix C of the s42A
report.
10.
Mr Burton also requests that the definition of ‘transport corridor’ should also exclude private
roads in the Knowledge Zone. This submission point was accepted in the s42A report and the
definition of ‘transport corridor’ has been amended to this effect; however, it is noted that
the track changes relating to this were left out the s42A report in error (See attachment A).
INDICATIVE OPEN SPACE
11.
Mr Peter Hall, in his evidence (Paragraphs 76 to 78) requests the fixed Ruakura Open Space
Zone be removed and replaced with an indicative open space network within the Medium
Density Zoned land which is owned by Chedworth Properties Limited (CPL).
12.
Technical expert Mr Jamie Sirl’s rebuttal evidence considers this matter in detail and I concur
with the reasons set out in his rebuttal evidence. Therefore, I support my recommendations
made in the s42A report and do not recommend any changes to the fixed Ruakura Open Space
Zone.
REZONING OF CHEDWORTH LAND TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
13.
In his evidence Mr Hall requests that the submission made by CPL to rezone the balance of
their land to Medium Density Residential is accepted and provides further evidence to support
this rezoning.
14.
The area of land referred to is Lot 500 DP 496238 with a land area of 12703m2.
15.
In his rebuttal evidence, Mr Alasdair Gray states that he has reviewed Mr Apeldoorn’s
evidence in relation to traffic. Mr Gray believes that higher peak traffic movements will result
2|P a g e
from the rezoning, than that of Mr Apeldoorn’s assessment. Nevertheless he concludes that
even the higher peak traffic movements will not result in a significant effect and that the
rezoning can occur.
16.
I concur with the reason provided in Mr Hall’s evidence (paragraph 105) that it is more logical
to consider this area of land as part of the existing Medium Density Residential land.
17.
I therefore recommend that Lot 500 DP 496238 is rezoned to Medium Density Residential and
that Figures 2-14, 2-16 and Planning Maps 20A and 29A are amended to show the rezoned
land. Furthermore, a consequential amendment is made to Figure 2-16 to remove the subject
land from LDP area O and include it with LDP area Q.
CONCLUSIONS
18.
I have no reason to alter my overall conclusions in relation to Landscaping and Planting
Requirements and Indicative Open Space planning matters.
19.
It is recommended that that Lot 500 DP 496238 is rezoned to Medium Density Residential for
the reasons set out above and amendments are made to the relevant Structure Plan Figures
and Planning Maps in Attachment A.
Laura Galt
22 July 2016
Attachments
Attachment A: Track Change Version – Definition of Transport Corridor
Attachment B: Track Change Version – Figures 2-14, 2-16 and Planning Maps 20A and 29A
3|P a g e
Attachment A
Proposed District Plan – Appeals and Ruakura Variation – July 2016 Hamilton City Council Trade and industry training facilities: Means premises accommodating specialised education and training facilities where groups of people are given trade or industry tuition and training on a formal basis. Traffic services: Means the transport corridor furniture, pavement markings and lighting assets that make up part of the transport infrastructure, and includes: a) Belisha beacons and lighting at pedestrian crossings.
b) Carriageway and footpath lighting.
c) Guard rails, pedestrian railings and fences.
d) Pavement markings, including cycleway markings.
e) Transport corridor delineation, including edge marker posts and raised and
reflective pavement markers.
f) Sight rails.
g) Signs, including the posts.
h) Traffic signals.
i)
Variable message signs (VMS).
Transplanting (of a significant tree or indigenous vegetation in a Significant Natural Area): Means the relocation of a significant tree or indigenous vegetation to a new site in accordance with standard arboricultural practice. Transport corridor: Means the whole corridor that provides for carriageway, berms and any adjoining pedestrian or cycle paths, landscaping and lighting, and includes roads, but excludes private roads in the Ruakura Logistics Zone and the Knowlegde Zone. Transport depot: Means land, buildings and infrastructure used principally for the receiving, dispatching or holding of goods or passengers in transit by road or rail and any associated provision for vehicles. Transport infrastructure: Means any structure that is necessary for the functioning of the transport network and that caters for the needs of transport users. This includes but Volume 2 1.1.2 Definitions Used in the District Plan Page 1‐51 Comment [HCC14]: 38.03, 47.03 Comment [HCC15]: Tainui Group Holdings, ENV‐147; Chedworth Properties, ENV‐146 Attachment B
Proposed District Plan – Appeals and Ruakura Variation – V1 22 July 2016
Hamilton City Council
Figure 2-14: Ruakura Structure Plan – Land Use
Volume 2
2 Structure Plans
Page 2-15
Proposed District Plan – Appeals and Ruakura Variation – V1 22 July 2016
Hamilton City Council
Figure 2-167: Ruakura Land Development Plan Areas
Volume 2
2 Structure Plans
Page 2-15
Appeals Version
September 2014
11A
±
Waikato
District
K
PU
HA
ETA
A
RO
D
ON DR
I
21A
19A
Waikato District
VE
ON
TO
OR
TH
AD
E LL S
W
OOK PLACE
BR
O
N R
Disclaimer: Hamilton City Council can not guarantee that the data shown on this map is 100% correct.
Cadastral information derived from LINZ Digital Cadastral Database: SEPTEMBER 2014
CROWN COPYRIGHT RESERVED
PL
RD
A IR D
GO
KINN
PL
STO
NE
LE IG
NHIL
GREE
AD
L RO
R IV
H D
E
0
28A
50
100
Meters
200
300
6
400
Version 2: Updated 11 February 2016 - ENV-2014-AKL-000152
Volume 2
29A
Zoning Map
1:7,500@ A4
Variation 1: Ruakura
Boundary
Map No:20A
30A
September 2014
19A
20A
RU
W
AIR
B
YC
ER
ED
T
±
RIV
E
6
UE
BY R
OAD
AV EN
L IE
R
E AV
See Ruakura Structure Plan
in Appendix 2 - Figures 2-14 to 2-19
LACE
AP
CAR
PORRITT
STADIUM
D
OA
RS R
Carrs
Park
28A
N
TKI
WA
L
AIN P
CO
WE
N
PL
ER S
E
AV
IEW
D
AN
T
ND S
MO
V
FAIR
ET
STRE
R IV
OA D
AY R
MW
RA
ET
TRE
EN T
T RA
ER
LACE
EE P
SC
CRE
RA
T
E
TRE
RAY
IVE
L
RD P
LB
G
EE
STR
AS
AT
DI
RUTL
R
RE D
LY DIA
HA
M AG
LE
H
IG
IND
SAR
N
TO
S
CE
A CE
RES
A L DE R S
IV E
F IE L D
L
T
M ASE
A CE
A PL
IG P
N
ESCE
ERIK
ET
ST R E
CR A
ET
TRE
CR
LEY
DR
KE S
T
CEN
RES
TS C
A
E
K
RPE
T HO
AD
A
N
RO
O LL
E
O
BET
IN S
U
VEN
BLA
LE
SA D
TR
R S
EET
SHAKESPEARE AVENUE
300
400
Version
2: Updated 11 February 2016 - ENV-2014-AKL-000152
RD
ON
D
MAR
Volume 2
6
E R ID
GE
38A
Zoning Map
6
D
ROA
ELLS
HEN
Variation 1: Ruakura
Boundary
DO N
D
ROA
T
37A
100
COL
POW
PL
ILDA
ST K
50
Meters
200
D
ROA
IV E
0
6
ON
S
NCE
TERE
D
MAR
REET
T ST
ELIO
DR
Disclaimer: Hamilton City Council can not guarantee that the data shown on this map is 100% correct.
Cadastral information derived from LINZ Digital Cadastral Database: SEPTEMBER 2014
CROWN COPYRIGHT RESERVED
C
IELD
NGF
O
N
P LA
BE
Raymond
Park
ER
L
RT P
SM A
T
SH S
NTO
M CI
T
WAT
L
LE P
RO
G
RE
WAI
SN
EL
L
D
CE
RI
V
E
B ER L
PL A
CH AM
T
SS
30A
STEL
L
ITA
G
EN
HER
UE
CRO
S
LE
S
EL
21A
6
OU R
SP R I
Appeals Version
1:7,500@ A4NOR
Map No:29A
39A
L
T HO