Minutes of Hearings Committee Meeting - Thursday, 4 April 2024

Thursday, 4 April 2024

Te Hui o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga

Hastings District Council: Hearings Committee Meeting

Ngā Miniti
Minutes – Day 1 (Thursday, 4 April 2024) at 9.10am

Kua Tae ā-tinana:
Present:

Chair: George Lyons (Commissioner Chair – External appointee)

Commissioners: Councillors Tania Kerr (Deputy Chair), Alwyn Corban and Wendy Schollum and Bill Wasley (External appointee)

Kua Tatū:
In attendance:

Policy Manager - Rowan Wallis

Senior Environmental Planner (Policy) Anna Summerfield

HDC’s Legal Counsel, Asher Davidson

Tilly Erasmus - Senior Consultant, Market Economics Ltd (appearing via Zoom)

Transportation Policy & Planning Manager - Bruce Conaghan

Democracy & Governance Advisor - Christine Hilton

Democracy & Governance Advisor - Caitlyn Dine

Kei Konei:
Also present:

Submitters Speaking:

· Jerf van Beek, Bike Hawke’s Bay

· Alison Francis, Bay Planning

· Pam Unkovich, First Gas (appearing via Zoom)

· Janet Jackson

· Linda Watson

· Richard Gaddum, Save The Plains

· Appearing on behalf of Oderings:

o Project Manager, James Gardner-Hopkins

o Angela Thompson, Director, Oderings

· Stuart Angus

· Rhonda Sanders

A number of other submitters who did not wish to speak and members of the public were also present, as observers.

1. Apologies & LEAVE OF ABSENCE – NGĀ WHAKAPĀHATANGA ME TE WEHENGA Ā-HUI

Leave of Absence had previously been granted to Councillor Eileen Lawson and Councillor Marcus Buddo.

Apologies/advice received prior to the hearing or as the hearing progressed - from those submitters not able to attend / not intending to appear to address their submission:

· Andrew Taylor and Guy Panckhurst - Surveying the Bay

· Alice Hall, Chapman Tripp – on behalf of Retirement Villages Association (RVA) and Ryman

· Fleur Rohleder, Beca - on behalf of Fire and Emergency – she provided a written statement that was read out at hearing.

· Philip Stickney and Matt Holder, Development Nous – on behalf of Development Nous Limited; Landsdale Development Limited and Terra Nova Group Limited – Philip provided a written statement that was read out at hearing.

· Fiona McCarthy on behalf of Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga Ministry of Housing and Urban Development

· Josh Kenneally – on behalf of Waka Kotahi (NZTA)

· Stephanie Muller – on behalf of Summerset

· Sean Grace and Andrea Millar - on behalf of Ara Poutama Aotearoa, the Department of Corrections

· Andy Smith; Anthony Hodges; Pam and Ted Miller; Adam Davy; Anita Curtis; Andrea Elgie; Shane Davies; Julie Davies; John McNair; Georgina Campbell; Pamela Rawle; Bron Gardner; David Cornes; Kevin Seymour; Jenny Price; Elizabeth Carr; Mark Mahoney; Jessie Bradshaw; Lee Russell; Jessie Bradshaw; Vanessa van Kampen; Kelly List; Ross Culver, Michael and Emma Reid.

Several other parties were contacted by phone and they advised, verbally and/or in writing, that they no longer wished to be involved with this hearing:

· Jenny Cowman (CG-17-8-00236),

· Sheryl Eustace (CG-17-8-00237)

· J Mayberry (verbally advised by phone – not wanting to speak and no email address provided- CG-17-8-00006 letter; and CG-17-8-00238 and CG-17-8-00240).

Five other submitters, as set out below, had no email address (or did not want to provide this means of contact) and some of these did / did not want to speak. A sixth submitter, had provided phone and email details but could not be contacted). Hard copies of letters, evidence, information (including the Introductory report and the relevant “topic documents” relating to their respective submissions – CG-17-8-00239) and the resultant decision were hand delivered to these parties at the appropriate times during the hearing. Only one of these parties responded to officers’ efforts to make contact. None of these submitters took any part in the hearing proceedings.

· Johnny Armstrong – (in submission indicated wanted to speak but no email address given) (CG-17-8-00005 letter)

· Shirley Wilson - (in submission indicated wanted to speak but no email address given) (CG-17-8-00005 letter)

· Violet Cassin – (in submission indicated not wanting to speak and no email address given) (CG-17-8-00006 letter)

· Kevin Rutherford – (in submission indicated not wanting to speak and no email address given) (CG-17-8-00006 letter)

· Gary Schofield – (in submission indicated not wanting to speak and no email address given) (CG-17-8-00006 letter)

Plus:

· Shirley McKinnon – unable to be contacted at the email address or phone number provided (in submission indicated not wanting to speak).

A number of other submitters were allocated a speaking slot on one of the hearing days, but did not attend and did not give an apology.

2.	Plan Change 5 - "Right Homes, Right Place" - Medium Density Housing

Prior to the hearing:

Documents which had been circulated prior to the meeting and put onto the council’s website. (Note: Reference numbers in these minutes in italics and brackets show the Council’s record system number for a particular document/s).

The agenda contained thirteen documents (CG-17-8-00009 to CG-17-8-00016); and Appendix 1 documents (CG-17-8-00026 to CG-17-8-00028); and Appendix 3, Section 32AA report (CG-17-8-00029); and an Addendum CG-17-8-00031; - with these documents being further split into: -

· Covering report (24/72) and planning s42A report which had been split into three parts, being - Introduction (ENV-17-4-24-518); Topic 1 (ENV-17-4-24-519); and Topic 3 (ENV-17-4-24-520);

· Covering report (24/73) and planning s42A report which had been split into three parts, being – Topic 3 (ENV-17-4-24-521); Topic 4 (ENV-17-4-24-522); and Topic 5 (ENV-17-4-24-523);

· Covering report (24/85) and s42A planning report which had been split into two parts, being – Topic 6 (ENV-17-4-24-524); and Appendices (excluding Appendices 1 and 3) (ENV-17-4-24-525);

· Covering report (24/95) and Appendix 1 (containing fifteen tracked changes documents – (ENV-17-4-24-526 to ENV-17-4-24-540);

· Covering report (24/96) and Appendix 3 - being Section 32AA report (ENV-17-4-24-542);

· Covering report (24/97) and Addendum to s42A hearings report (CG-17-8-00030 and CG-17-8-00275);

The Appendix documents and the various website links to the above documents had been forwarded to all the parties via a number of letters or emails sent out at each stage of the hearing – (the various covering emails were CG-17-8-00017 to CG-17-8-00021; CG-17-8-00032; CG-17-8-00033; CG-17-8-00241 to CG-17-8-00245; CG-17-8-00247 and CG-17-8-00254).

A covering email from reporting planner with memorandum (dated 25/3/24) and Addendum to s42a report - regarding the proposed approach to hearing by officers (CG-17-8-00084; CG-17-8-00274; CG-17-8-00275 and CG-17-8-00030) – was sent to Chair prior to hearing and the Addendum was put onto the website.

As there were a large number of submissions for this hearing they were all put onto the council’s website. The submissions formed part of the agenda documents and were also circulated in printed hard copy sets to the panel members, as that format would assist them at the hearing and in their subsequent deliberations.

The following link to the submissions was sent to the parties and the panel members in an email.

https://www.hastingsdc.govt.nz/services/district-plan/changes/

Kāinga Ora evidence

Just prior to the start of the hearing, following discussions with Kāinga Ora, the Chair directed the witnesses for this submitter to pre-circulate their Primary Evidence, to the panel, in advance of their scheduled speaking time at the hearing on Thursday, 11 April 2024 (CG-17-8-00076 to CG-17-8-00078). This direction was given due to the amount of time Kāinga Ora had asked for, to present its evidence and the volume of evidence involved. The Chair asked that each of these parties also, present Summary Statements of evidence at the hearing - at the allocated speaking time:

The following pre-circulated Statements of Primary Evidence from Kāinga Ora’s Expert Witnesses were forwarded on Tuesday, 9 April 2024. The noted Summary Statements of Evidence from those witnesses were circulated and presented on the day they addressed the hearing, on Thursday, 11 April 2024:-

· Brendon Liggett, Manager of Development Planning (Pre-circulated Primary Evidence CG-17-8-00070 and Summary Statement CG-17-8-00141 and part CG-17-8-00140).

· Philip Jaggard, Director/Infrastructure Specialist Consultant at MPS Limited (CG-17-8-00134 and Summary Statement CG-17-8-00137 and CG-17-8-00144).

· Timothy Heath, Property Economics Limited (CG-17-8-00135 and Summary Statement CG-17-8-00136).

· Nicholas Rae, Urban Designer and Landscape Architect, Transurban Limited - (CG-17-8-00130 and Attachments “A” to “D” CG-17-8-00131; and Summary Statement CG-17-8-00142 and part CG-17-8-00140).

· Michael Campbell and Ila Daniels – Planning (CG-17-8-00132 and Appendix “A” [split into six documents] CG-17-8-00152 to CG-17-8-00157; and Appendix “B” CG-17-8-00133, and Joint Summary Statement CG-17-8-00143 and part CG-17-8-00140).

The following four colour maps, illustrating the extent of the Medium Density Residential Zone (MDRZ) and the General Residential Zone (GRZ), were displayed for reference by the panel and the parties present:

· A1 colour map of Hastings MDRZ as recommended (ENV-17-4-24-547)

· A1 colour map of Flaxmere MDRZ as recommended (ENV-17-4-24-549)

· A1 colour map of Havelock North MDRZ as recommended (ENV-17-4-24-550)

· A2 colour map of Hastings, Havelock North and Flaxmere showing MDRZ and GRZ zones as recommended-(ENV-17-4-24-551).

Written evidence was circulated and presented at the hearing, as detailed in these minutes and set out in “List of Evidence” (CG-17-8-00190). Other written or oral evidence was also presented by the parties as referred to in these minutes.

DAY 1 proceedings – Thursday, 4 April 2024:

The Chair made his Opening Comments at the start of the hearing. He introduced himself and the other members of the Hearings Committee. The Chair also outlined the process that would be followed at the hearing and addressed “housekeeping” matters. Council officers and the other parties present were asked to introduce themselves.

Presentation of Evidence by the following parties – (speaking list – CG-17-8-00023)

Officers/Consultants:

· Anna Summerfield, Reporting officer - opening statement (ENV-17-4-24-546 and CG-17-8-00188 - pdf version for website)

o Reporting officers’ power point presentation (ENV-17-4-24-545 and CG-17-8-00081 - pdf version for website)

· Tilly Erasmus, Senior Consultant, Market Economics Ltd (appearing via Zoom) - summary statement (ENV-17-4-24-552 and CG-17-8-00189 - pdf version for website)

o Market Economics power point presentation (ENV-17-4-24-548 and CG-17-8-00082 - pdf version for website)

Submitters:

· Jerf van Beek, Bike Hawke’s Bay – oral evidence (no written statement)

· Alison Francis, Bay Planning (CG-17-8-00110)

· Pam Unkovich, First Gas (appearing via Zoom) – power point presentation (CG-17-8-00039 and CG-17-8-00112 - pdf version for website) with oral evidence (no written statement)

· Janet Jackson - written statement (CG-17-8-00111) and power point presentation (CG-17-8-00034 and CG-17-8-00120- pdf version for website)

· Linda Watson (CG-17-8-00083)

· Richard Gaddum, Save The Plains (CG-17-8-00103)

· on behalf of Oderings – covering email; written statement. power point presentation and three attachments (CG-17-8-00089), comprising:

o Representations (statement) by Project Manager, James Gardner-Hopkins (CG-17-8-00114)

o Attachment 1 - Chapman Tripp Advice (CG-17-8-00115)

o Attachment 2 – SPP Recommendations Appendix 7: Jurisdictional Issue 1 (CG-17-8-00116)

o Attachment 3 – Decision NZ Environment Court, Beachlands Sth Ltd Partnership v Auckland Council (2024) (CG-17-8-00117)

o Power point presentation (CG-17-8-00036 and CG-17-8-00113 pdf version for website)

o Angela Thompson, Director, Oderings written evidence (CG-17-8-00090)

· Stuart Angus - oral evidence (no written statement)

· Rhonda Sanders - oral evidence (no written statement)

Evidence was then presented by Officers/Consultants in turn:

Anna Summerfield, Reporting officer, circulated and read her evidence in the form of an Opening Statement (ENV-17-4-24-546). She also showed and spoke to a power point presentation (ENV-17-4-24-545) and responded to questions from the hearing panel, including some points of clarification that were sought.

Tilly Erasmus, Senior Consultant, Market Economics Ltd (appeared via Zoom). She presented her Summary Statement (ENV-17-4-24-552). She also showed and spoke to a power point presentation (ENV-17-4-24-548) and responded to questions from the panel, including clarification of some points.

Evidence presented by the Submitters in turn:

Jerf van Beek, Bike Hawke’s Bay, made an oral presentation highlighting the points in the submission made by this party. He responded to questions from the panel, noting that he felt officers had missed the point in Bike Hawke’s Bay’s submission relating to actioning active transport (walking, cycling, scooters and e-scooters) which should have been included in the plan.

Alison Francis, Bay Planning circulated and read her evidence (CG-17-8-00110), interpolating in regard to some points. No questions were asked by the panel.

The hearing adjourned for morning tea at 10.25am

and resumed at 10.53am

Pam Unkovich, First Gas (appeared via Zoom). She made an oral presentation and showed and spoke to a power point presentation (CG-17-8-00039). Pam acknowledged that while some of their submission may be considered “out of scope”, she was seeking to highlight that the company regularly encountered issues in regard to their gas pipelines, including lack of triggers to ensure applicants consulted with them prior to development; no minimum set-backs from pipelines; and associated safety risks from “hidden” gas pipelines. She responded to questions from the panel.

The panel asked questions of clarification of officers, regarding what mechanisms were available for First Gas to use to address some of the issues that party had raised. Some discussion took place regarding the use of designations as an appropriate mechanism, with Pam Unkovich noting that difficulties arose with existing pipelines and multiple landowners.

Council’s Legal Counsel, Asher Davidson, advised that all pipelines were protected by easements so there was a property relationship with landowners.

At this point in the proceedings, the panel asked Anna Summerfield and Asher Davidson to compile an “action point list”, of any out of scope matters that arose during the hearing - to ensure those points could be drawn to the attention of appropriate officers in due course and be followed up.

Janet Jackson circulated and read her evidence (CG-17-8-00111); showed and spoke to a power point presentation (CG-17-8-00034); and responded to questions from the panel.

Linda Watson circulated and read her evidence (CG-17-8-00083) and responded to questions from the panel.

Richard Gaddum, Save The Plains spoke to his evidence, reading from notes. He responded to questions from the panel. A copy of his written evidence (CG-17-8-00103) was forwarded later, at the end of the day’s session, and then circulated to the panel.

The hearing adjourned for lunch at 12.10pm

and resumed at 1.10pm

Prior to the presentation by the next submitter, on behalf of Oderings, four members of the Plan Change 5 hearing panel declared, for the record, that they were also on the panel to consider a resource consent application by this submitter – which was to be addressed at a hearing starting on 18 July 2024. The panel members who made this declaration were Commissioners George Lyons, Bill Wasley, Alwyn Corban and Wendy Schollum.

James Gardner-Hopkins, Project Manager, representing Oderings then circulated and addressed the following evidence, being:

· His Representations (statement) on behalf of Oderings (CG-17-8-00114)

· Three supporting attachments:

o Attachment 1 - Chapman Tripp Advice (CG-17-8-00115)

o Attachment 2 – SPP Recommendations Appendix 7: Jurisdictional Issue 1 (CG-17-8-00116)

o Attachment 3 – Decision NZ Environment Court, Beachlands Sth Ltd Partnership v Auckland Council (2024) (CG-17-8-00117)

o Power point presentation (CG-17-8-00036 and CG-17-8-00113 pdf version for website)

Mr Gardner-Hopkins spoke to and read his Representations (CG-17-8-00114), interpolating as he considered appropriate. He advised that while his Representations were not Legal Submissions, they did touch on some legal matters, including referring to scope/jurisdiction in regard to the Oderings site. He then presented and addressed the power point (CG-17-8-00036).

Angela Thompson, Director, Oderings circulated and presented her written evidence (CG-17-8-00090).

Mr Gardner-Hopkins continued to address his Representations, from Paragraph 20 onward, then he responded to questions from the panel.

Stuart Angus made an oral presentation, highlighting some of the points in his submission, particularly in regard to the Design Guide 2022 (Medium Density Design Framework 2022) – especially regarding sun shading and height to boundary provisions. He responded to questions from the panel.

Rhonda Sanders presented oral evidence on behalf of herself and her husband, Bruce Sanders, highlighting some of the points in their submission, particularly in regard to proposed building heights. She responded to questions from the panel.

The Hearing adjourned at 3.15pm

and would reconvene the following day

on Friday, 5 April 2024 at 9.00am

Minutes (Continued) – Day 2 (Friday, 5 April 2024) at 9.05am

Kua Tae ā-tinana:
Present:

Chair: George Lyons (Commissioner Chair – External appointee)

Commissioners: Councillors Tania Kerr (Deputy Chair), Alwyn Corban and Wendy Schollum and Bill Wasley (External appointee)

Kua Tatū:
In attendance:

Policy Manager - Rowan Wallis

Senior Environmental Planner (Policy) Anna Summerfield

HDC’s Legal Counsel, Asher Davidson

Tilly Erasmus - Senior Consultant, Market Economics Ltd (appearing via Zoom)

Democracy & Governance Advisor - Christine Hilton

Democracy & Governance Advisor - Caitlyn Dine

Kei Konei:
Also present:

Submitters Speaking:

· Craig Davies

· Greg McFlynn and Angela McFlynn

A number of other submitters who did not wish to speak and members of the public were also present, as observers.

DAY 2 proceedings – Friday, 5 April 2024

· A1 colour map of Hastings MDRZ as recommended (ENV-17-4-24-547)

· A1 colour map of Flaxmere MDRZ as recommended (ENV-17-4-24-549)

· A1 colour map of Havelock North MDRZ as recommended (ENV-17-4-24-550)

· A2 colour map of Hastings, Havelock North and Flaxmere showing MDRZ and GRZ zones as recommended-(ENV-17-4-24-551).

Presentation of Evidence by the following parties – (speaking list – CG-17-8-00024)

· Craig Davies (CG-17-8-00108)

· Greg McFlynn (CG-17-8-00118) AND Angela McFlynn (CG-17-8-00119)

Evidence was then presented by the following Submitters in turn…(Continued)

Craig Davies circulated and read his evidence (CG-17-8-00108). He interpolated as he considered appropriate and responded to questions from the panel. This evidence was presented on behalf of himself, and also his wife, Julie Davies, and his son Shane Davies who had submitted but were unable to attend the hearing.

Greg McFlynn circulated and read his evidence (CG-17-8-00118) and responded to questions from the panel.

Angela McFlynn circulated and read her evidence (CG-17-8-00119). She interpolated as she considered appropriate and responded to questions from the panel.

The hearing adjourned for morning tea at 9.55am

and resumed at 10.43am

At this point the Chair advised that the hearing would now adjourn for the day and the panel would undertake a site visit.

Site Visit at the end of 5 April hearing session:

Following the presentation of the evidence at today’s hearing session, the panel visited a range of sites throughout the Hastings urban area to look at examples of situations that had been addressed both in the s42A report and raised as part of the submissions that had been presented during the hearing to date – further details of the sites/areas that the panel visited are noted under the third day of these minutes (11 April 2024).

The Hearing adjourned at 10.45am followed by a site visit

and the hearing session would reconvene

on Thursday, 11 April 2024 at 9.00am

Minutes (Continued) – Day 3 (Thursday, 11 April 2024) at 9.08am

Kua Tae ā-tinana:
Present:

Chair: Bill Wasley (Acting Commissioner Chair – External appointee)

Commissioners: Councillors Tania Kerr (Deputy Chair), Alwyn Corban and Wendy Schollum

Kua Tatū:
In attendance:

Policy Manager - Rowan Wallis

Senior Environmental Planner (Policy) Anna Summerfield

HDC’s Legal Counsel, Asher Davidson

Tilly Erasmus - Senior Consultant, Market Economics Ltd (appearing via Zoom)

Senior Environmental Planner, Policy - Craig Scott

Democracy & Governance Advisor - Christine Hilton

Democracy & Governance Advisor - Caitlyn Dine

Kei Konei:
Also present:

Submitters Speaking:

· Peter Kay

AND

Witnesses appearing for Kāinga Ora:

· Brendon Liggett - Manager of Development Planning in the Urban Planning and Design Group

· Philip Jaggard – Director/Infrastructure Specialist Consultant at MPS Limited

· Timothy Heath – Property Economics Limited

· Nicholas Rae – Urban Designer and Landscape Architect, Transurban Limited

· Michael Campbell – Director of Campbell Brown Planning Limited

· Ila Daniels – Principal Planner at Campbell Brown Planning Limited

· Mark Arbuthnot, Director and Matthew Round, Senior Planner, Bentley & Co Limited – appearing on behalf of Oceania Healthcare Limited

A number of other submitters who did not wish to speak and members of the public were also present, as observers.

DAY 3 proceedings – Thursday, 11 April 2024

An apology had been received from the Chair, George Lyons, who was unable to attend today.

Acting Chair, Bill Wasley, introduced himself as did the other hearings panel members. Mr Wasley advised that he was Acting Chair for this hearing session as the Chair, George Lyons, was unwell.

The meeting was advised that because of this unexpected situation, today’s hearing session would be recorded – if he chose to do so, the Chair would then be able to watch the recording at a later date when he had recovered and be fully informed of what had taken place, and could continue as Chair for the remainder of the hearing. (This is the course of action that the Chair subsequently chose to follow).

The recording of the day’s hearing session was subsequently put onto the council’s website and was available for reference by the panel, parties and public.

https://www.youtube.com/live/vzvNkXq9grs - 11 April 2024

Plan change 5 web page: https://www.hastingsdc.govt.nz/hastings/projects/plan-change-5-right-homes-right-place/

Mr Wasley advised that at the conclusion of the second day of the hearing, on Friday, 5 April, the hearing panel had undertaken visits to a range of sites throughout the Hastings urban area to look at examples of situations that had been addressed both in the s42A report and raised as part of the submissions that had been presented during the hearing to date.

The purpose of the site visit had been to consider the extent of the proposed 400m walkable catchment on the ground and how it relates to some of the points made by submitters. One of the other objectives was to look at some examples of the housing typologies provided for under PC5 and in particular to view some of the examples that were raised by submitters. The site visit began in Southland Road and the panel went to the Parkvale and Mayfair areas looking at examples of development in in St Aubyn St, and Jellicoe St and then out to Havelock Nth, where the Oderings site was viewed. The proposed medium density zone boundary was then viewed at Flaxmere and the last stop was at some housing examples in Mahora.

· A1 colour map of Hastings MDRZ as recommended (ENV-17-4-24-547)

· A1 colour map of Flaxmere MDRZ as recommended (ENV-17-4-24-549)

· A1 colour map of Havelock North MDRZ as recommended (ENV-17-4-24-550)

· A2 colour map of Hastings, Havelock North and Flaxmere showing MDRZ and GRZ zones as recommended-(ENV-17-4-24-551).

Presentation of Evidence by the following parties in turn – (speaking list – CG-17-8-00022)

Submitters:…(Continued)

· Peter Kay (CG-17-8-00121)

Kainga Ora

At the request of the Chair, Statements of Primary Evidence had been pre-circulated and forwarded to the panel, prior to their allocated speaking date on 11 April. At the 11 April hearing session, when they spoke to the meeting, the witnesses also circulated and presented Summary Statements.

Statements of Primary Evidence (pre-circulated prior to 11 April as requested by Chair)

· Brendon Liggett, Manager of Development Planning in the Urban Planning and Design Group (CG-17-8-00070) – including Appendix “A” Kāinga Ora Planning Maps.

· Philip Jaggard, Director/Infrastructure Specialist Consultant at MPS Limited (CG-17-8-00134)

· Timothy Heath, Property Economics Limited (CG-17-8-00135 with Appendix “1” Geospatial Extent of Zone Maps)

· Nicholas Rae, Urban Designer and Landscape Architect, Transurban Limited - including Attachment “E” (CG-17-8-00130) and other Attachments “A” to “D” (CG-17-8-00131)

o Attachment “A” – MRZ Application Methodology and Area Justification

o Attachment “B” – Recommended Zone Maps

o Attachment “C” - Site Information – Sun Access Analysis SK01-SK19

o Attachment “D” – Subdivision Site Size Analysis SK01

o Attachment “E” – NJ Rae experience (dealing with plan changes of this nature) included as part of written statement of evidence (CG-17-8-00130)

· Michael Campbell, Director of Campbell Brown Planning Limited

AND

· Ila Daniels, Principal Planner at Campbell Brown – Joint Statement of Primary Evidence (CG-17-8-00132 together with Appendix “A” (comprising six documents) Tracked Changes Proposed by Kāinga Ora (CG-17-8-00152 to CG-17-8-00157): being: -

o MRZ Medium Density Residential Zone (CG-17-8-00152)

o RESZ Residential Overview (CG-17-8-00153)

o 7.2 Hastings Residential Environment (CG-17-8-00154)

o 8.2 Havelock North Residential Environment (CG-17-8-00155)

o 9.2 Flaxmere Residential Zone (CG-17-8-00156)

o 30.1 Subdivision and Land Development (CG-17-8-00157)

AND Appendix “B” s32AA Assessment (CG-17-8-00133)

Summary Statements from the Kainga Ora team (presented and addressed at 11 April hearing session)

· Brendon Liggett (CG-17-8-00141) and (part CG-17-8-00140)

· Philip Jaggard (CG-17-8-00137) and (CG-17-8-00144)

· Timothy Heath (CG-17-8-00136)

· Nicholas Rae (CG-17-8-00142) and (part CG-17-8-00140)

· Michael Campbell AND Ila Daniels – Joint Summary Statement (CG-17-8-00143) and (part CG-17-8-00140)

· Mark Arbuthnot, Director and Matthew Round, Senior Planner, Bentley & Co Limited – appearing on behalf of Oceania Healthcare Limited (CG-17-8-00128)

Evidence was then presented by the following Submitters in turn…(Continued)

Peter Kay, spoke to his submission and read his evidence (CG-17-8-00121) (which was circulated to parties following the hearing session). He responded to a question from the panel, confirming that he was seeking to retain the current character of the area so that it did not become medium density and have buildings of more than one storey.

Kāinga Ora:

The parties appearing for Kāinga Ora paraphrased their respective Statements of Primary Evidence that had been previously circulated. They also addressed their respective Summary Statements of Evidence, with copies of these being provided for the panel. Extensive questions were asked of these witnesses at the end of the presentation of all the evidence from Kāinga Ora.

Brendon Liggett, Manager of Development Planning in the Urban Planning and Design Group at Kāinga Ora made his opening comments on behalf of that submitter. He addressed his Pre-circulated Statement of Primary Evidence (CG-17-8-00070) and his Summary Statement of Evidence (CG-17-8-00141 and part CG-17-8-00140)

Mr Liggett noted that there were three areas where there were matters of disagreement between Kāinga Ora (KO) and the Hastings District Council (HDC) - with the key one being in regard to the spatial extent of the medium density zone. He commented on the different views between KO and HDC as to what comprised a walkable catchment in Hastings. HDC took this as being 400m and for KO this was approximately 800m in Hastings, Flaxmere and Havelock North. Existing character zones were largely unaffected by the relief that KO was seeking.

The main points that Mr Liggett then highlighted/clarified included the following (which would be addressed in more detail in the Summary Statements of Evidence to be presented by the KO witnesses) and he summarised what KO was advocating for, compared to what HDC was proposing:

· Medium Density Residential Zone, with compliance with the standards.

· Maximum height; height relation to boundary; building set-backs; and outdoor living courts.

· Policies 1 and 5 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development - noting the relationship with Policy 6; and how this tied in with KO’s 800m walking catchment.

· In the s42a report – Topic 1, Issue 1.

· Use of non-statutory tools within the Plan – particularly the design guide. ( It was unclear whether or not it was a non-statutory guide, as it was “woven through” the Plan provisions).

No questions were asked of Mr Liggett at this stage of the presentation of KO’s evidence.

Philip Jaggard, Director/Infrastructure Specialist Consultant at MPS Limited then addressed his Pre-circulated Statement of Primary Evidence (CG-17-8-00134) and presented his Summary Statement of Evidence (CG-17-8-00137) and (CG-17-8-00144). He interpolated, as he considered appropriate, in regard to some points.

No questions were asked of Mr Jaggard at this stage of the presentation of KO’s evidence.

Timothy Heath, Property Economics Limited then addressed his Pre-circulated Statement of Primary Evidence (CG-17-8-00135) and presented his Summary Statement of Evidence (CG-17-8-00136). Among the points he highlighted, he referred to the term “walkable catchment” noting that walking was only one component of multiple ways of moving around, which technically extends those catchments.

No questions were asked of Mr Heath at this stage of the presentation of KO’s evidence.

Nicholas Rae, Urban Designer and Landscape Architect, Transurban Limited then addressed his Pre-circulated Statement of Primary Evidence (CG-17-8-00130 – which comprised written evidence and Attachment “E”; and CG-17-8-00131 – which comprised Attachments “A” to “D”) and presented his Summary Statement of Evidence (CG-17-8-00142) and (part CG-17-8-00140).

The main points that Mr Rae highlighted in his evidence included the following:

· A walkable catchment was a technique to define a land area extent from a particular zone.

· Defining the extent of the medium density zone – any transition should occur mid-block so that both sides of a street would come under the same zoning category and criteria.

· The Council’s proposed standards and zone provisions – he and his team had tested a number of these and had found them difficult to understand and identify. He suggested HDC needed to relook at the mechanics of these to ensure they would work well.

· He supported the s42A report regarding bringing in criteria, rather than relying on the design guide.

No questions were asked of Mr Rae at this stage of the presentation of KO’s evidence.

Michael Campbell and Ila Daniels, both from Campbell Brown then addressed their Pre-circulated Joint Statement of Primary Evidence (CG-17-8-00132; CG-17-8-00152 to CG-17-8-00157 and CG-17-8-00133) and presented their Joint Summary Statement of Evidence (CG-17-8-00143) and (part CG-17-8-00140). This evidence was read by Mr Campbell who interpolated in regard to some matters as he considered appropriate. He advised that both he and Ms Daniels would be available to respond to questions from the panel.

No questions were asked of Mr Campbell or Ms Daniels at this stage of the presentation of KO’s evidence.

Process for remainder of hearing session on 11/4/24:

The Acting Chair then outlined the process to be followed for the remainder of the day’s session. Following morning tea, questions would be asked of the witnesses appearing for KO and then evidence would be heard from the other submitter present (Oceania Healthcare Limited).

Following lunch, the reporting officers would give their review and commentary on matters that had been raised.

Asher Davidson requested a period of time in which to prepare the written Reply. She suggested that officers could go through a list of what they had noted at today’s session, to ensure that they had covered all matters that the panel wanted them to address in the Reply.

At that time, panel members could also ask questions so that all points that they wished to have addressed or further clarified by the reporting officers in the Reply.

The hearing adjourned for morning tea at 10.40am

and resumed at 11.05am

Questions of witnesses appearing for Kāinga Ora (KO)

The panel then asked extensive questions and points of clarification of the witnesses appearing for KO, in regard to the evidence that they had each pre-circulated or presented at the hearing. (As noted earlier in these minutes, due to the Chair note being able to attend on Day 3 of the hearing, the proceedings on that day had been recorded and a copy had been put onto the Council’s website – the full questions from the panel and responses from this submitter can be viewed there).

Evidence on behalf of Oceania

Mark Arbuthnot and Matthew Round circulated and jointly presented the Joint Statement of Evidence on behalf of Oceania Healthcare Limited (“Oceania”) (CG-17-8-00128). They highlighted the main points; backgrounding the activities undertaken by Oceania; paraphrasing and interpolating where appropriate, from Part 3 of the evidence onward.

Among the main points they noted in this evidence, they particularly highlighted and expanded on key matters in Paragraphs 4.8; 5.6; 6.3, 6.5, 6.7, 7.3, 7.5 c), 7.6 and 8.4. They noted that Rule HNGR29 did not apply, as Oceania was a DA not an RDA, so would not benefit from that rule. They believed an infringement under Rule HNGR33 was unnecessarily onerous for retirement villages.

In response to questions from the panel, Messrs Arbuthnot and Round clarified they had only referred to Havelock North, as the Duart Oceania Village was located there. Comments they made in regard to the Havelock North General Residential Zone could equally apply to the other general residential zones.

Other submitters

There were no further submitters to be heard. Mr Stickney had been present but had left, so his written statement (on behalf of Development Nous Ltd; Terra Nova Group Ltd; and Landsdale Development Ltd) would be considered during the panel’s deliberations.

The hearing adjourned for lunch at 12.45pm

and resumed at 1.35pm

The Acting Chair advised that when the afternoon session resumed, the panel would hear verbal commentary from council officers and could raise any questions they may wish to seek further information about or seek clarity about as part of the Reply. Officers could make any initial responses that they may wish to address orally at this stage.

Process and matters for officers to address in Reply

Asher Davidson advised that she and council officers had identified a number of issues from first two days of hearing but not gone too far in analysing those points, until they had heard the evidence from parties addressing today’s hearing session. She outlined the points that officers were intending to address in the Reply and sought a response/feedback from the panel members on these points.

The panel discussed the points outlined by officers and requested that a number of further matters were also addressed in the Reply, including the issue of the scope of the plan change. As a result of these discussions, an extensive list of matters were noted by officers in some detail.

The Acting Chair asked the panel members to provide any further points to the Governance Advisor, by Friday, 26 April, so these could be passed onto officers in time to also be included in the Reply.

Officers confirmed that, as requested by the panel, they had also been keeping a list of matters that were outside the scope of the plan change.

The Acting Chair advised that he Intended to adjourn the hearing and not set a date to reconvene until the matters discussed had been worked through and the Chair’s health was known. He also requested an understanding in terms of the time required for officers to come back as this was a significant amount of work for them to address.

Officers advised they would need approximately three weeks from Friday, 26 April and asked for leave to come back to panel if they needed to have more time. Written reply from officers to be received by Friday, 24 May.

It was agreed that Asher Davidson would provide a Memo tomorrow or Monday to summarise the timeframes that had been discussed, including allowing two weeks for receipt of any further matters the panel sought to have addressed in the Reply. The Chair/Acting Chair would then issue a Minute to incorporate those questions and what an indicative timeframe would look like going forward. By Friday, 24 May officers would start to reply in tranches, including the matter of the possible effect of the Future Development Strategy (FDS). Then the panel can set a date for its Public Excluded (confidential) deliberations.

The Acting Chair acknowledged those who had attended the hearing and the work that had gone into preparing and presenting the submissions and the work of Asher Davidson and the council officers involved.

The hearing adjourned at 2.53pm

Following the adjournment of the hearing:

Minute 1

· Minute, dated 18 April 2024, sent by Acting Panel Chair (Bill Wasley) setting out timeframes for Tranche 1 and Tranche 2 information from officers (CG-17-8-00196).

Tranche 1 of Officers’ reply document

· Memo from Council’s Legal Counsel, Asher Davidson, dated 15 April 2024, regarding approach to Officer’s Reply (CG-17-8-00170)

· Legal Submissions from Asher Davidson (Tranche 1) dated 24 May 2024 (CG-17-8-00159 and ENV-17-4-24-559)

· Covering email (CG-17-8-00160), for Officer’s Reply with four attachments – not including Section 32AA Evaluation which was sent separately at later date.

o Council Officer’s Reply Statement, from Anna Summerfield and others, with four attachments (CG-17-8-00164 and ENV-17-4-24-554)

o Architectural comparison of building envelope provisions (CG-17-8-00161 and ENV-17-4-24-555)

o Infrastructure Maps (CG-17-8-00162 and ENV-17-4-24-556)

o Evidence in Reply – Market Economics (from Tilly Erasmus) (CG-17-8-00163 and ENV-17-4-24-557)

o Section 32AA Evaluation (CG-17-8-00166 and ENV-17-4-24-558)

Tranche 2 of Officer’s Reply

Originally there was going to be a Tranche 2 as part of the officer’s Reply - but then the wording below was circulated to explain about the delay in the release of the work from the FDS and the date had been set for the panel’s Public Excluded (confidential) deliberations on Monday, 1 July, so there wasn’t a need for any further information to come from officers.

The following information has been provided by Rowan Wallis:

The Hearings Panel on Plan Change 5 were interested in the likely outcome of the infill versus greenfield targets that the FDS may set down, to see how they might compare with those established in the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (HPUDS). At the time of the hearing, the Panel was advised that the draft FDS was likely to be adopted in mid-June and publicly released for submission. Please be advised that consideration of the Draft Strategy by the Joint Committee has been pushed back to Monday, 22 July 2024, with adoption of the draft for submission being considered by the three Councils at various dates in early August.

A number of submitters, listed below, who advised they were unable to attend the hearing, forwarded brief emailed comments or statements to be considered by the panel. At the end of the session on Thursday, 11 April 2024 hard copies and electronic copies of these statements were circulated to be read by the panel members prior to / during the subsequent Public Excluded Deliberation session to be held on Monday, 1 July 2024.

These comments or statements from the following submitters were considered as part of the evidence presented at this hearing – of the following emails, only the two annotated with ** are in the form of statements, rather than comments.

· Andrew Taylor and Guy Panckhurst, Surveying the Bay (CG-17-8-00096)

· Anthony Hodges (CG-17-8-00094)

· Pam and Ted Miller (CG-17-8-00095)

· Alice Hall, at Chapman Tripp – on behalf of Retirement Villages Association (RVA) and Ryman (CG-17-8-00122)

· Adam Davy (CG-17-8-00097 and CG-17-8-00123)

· **Fleur Rohleder, on behalf of Fire and Emergency (CG-17-8-00102)

· **Philip Stickney, on behalf of Development Nous Ltd, Landsdale Development Ltd and Terra Nova Group Ltd (CG-17-8-00098)

· Jan Wolfenden (CG-17-8-00099)

· Ross Culver (email and Statement) (CG-17-8-00126; CG-17-8-00127 and CG-17-8-00184)

· The hearing was subsequently formally closed by the Chair on Thursday, 19 September 2024 at 12pm (as advised in an email issued on Friday, 20 September 2024) (CG-17-8-00408).

· Recommendations from the hearing were addressed by Council at a meeting on Thursday, 24 October 2024 – at this meeting they were ratified and adopted and became the Council decision which was subsequently publicly notified.

· The above noted Council Decision was issued to submitters via email (with links to the decision on the Council’s website) and to some submitters in hard copy (to those parties who did not have email contact) on Wednesday, 13 November 2024 (CG-17-8-00409).

The meeting was formally closed on Thursday, 19 September 2024 at 12pm

Additional Notes:

· On Tuesday, 4 February 2025 a file note and a covering email (issued under Clause 16 of Schedule 1 to the RMA) was sent to all submitters (CG-17-8-00411) regarding minor corrections needing to be made to the wording of the plan change and advice of the closure of the appeal period – (this information was sent via email and also hand delivered via hard copy to those submitters without email contact).

Confirmed:

Chairman:

Date: