A logo for a company

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Tuesday, 22 July 2025

Te Hui o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga

Hastings District Council: Council Meeting

Te Rārangi Take
Report to Council

Nā:

From:

Craig Cameron, Group Manager: Democracy and Emergency Management

Te Take:

Subject:

Uplift of Agenda Item relating to the 'Napier Hastings Future Development Strategy' resolved at the Council Meeting on 26 June 2025 to 'Lie On The Table'

1.0 Executive Summary – Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 Agenda Item 8, for the Council Meeting on 26 June 2025, related to ‘Adoption of the Napier/Hastings Future Development Strategy’.

1.2 Council resolved a ‘Procedural Motion’ in respect of this Agenda Item (paragraph 1.1), that the ‘Item of business being discussed should lie on the table and not be further discussed at the meeting’. This was in accord with Council Standing Orders 25.2 (d).

1.3 In the Council meeting, prior to the resolution of the Procedural Motion (paragraph 1.2), Councillors requested information/advice from the Chief Executive regards;

· The credibility of development on sites in Napier including Ahuriri Station and Riverbend Road.

· Will a land supply deficit in Hastings undermine the viability of the Napier Hastings Future Development Strategy (FDS) as a whole.

1.4 Council subsequently requested further information/advice from the Chief Executive regards legal risks to Council, if Council makes decision/s contrary to the recommendations of the Independent Panel established to hear submissions and make recommendations to the Napier Hastings Future Development Strategy Joint Committee on the draft FDS.

1.5 The Chief Executive has commissioned two Reports for Council to address Councils requests for information/advice on the Napier Hastings Future Development Strategy (FDS), regarding;

· Technical FDS matters. This Report has been prepared by Barker & Associates from existing information appended to the Agenda Item. No new information is considered.

· Legal risks for Council arising from any Council decisions that are contrary to the recommendations of the Independent Panel established to hear submissions and make recommendations to the Napier Hastings Future Development Strategy Joint Committee on the draft FDS. This Report has been prepared by Councils legal advisers Simpson Grierson.

These two Reports are attached as Attachment 1.

1.6 This Administrative Report confirms the situation for Council from its meeting on 26 June 2025 and prepares Council for continuation of questioning of officers & consultants & advisors (for clarification) then continuation of deliberations in this Council Meeting in respect of the FDS Agenda Item 8 (paragraph 1.1). The draft minutes from Councils meeting on 26 June 2025 are attached as Attachment 2.

1.7 Agenda Item 8, for the Council Meeting on 26 June 2025, related to ‘Adoption of the Napier/Hastings Future Development Strategy’ including attachments, has been cloned/copied onto today’s meeting Agenda, for the convenience of Council.

2.0 Recommendations - Ngā Tūtohunga

A) That Council receive the report titled Uplift of Agenda Item relating to the 'Napier Hastings Future Development Strategy' resolved at the Council Meeting on 26 June 2025 to 'Lie On The Table' dated 22 July 2025.

B) That Council note the Chief Executive has commissioned two Reports for Council to address Councils requests for information/advice on the Napier Hastings Future Development Strategy (FDS), regarding;

· Technical FDS matters. This Report has been prepared by Barker & Associates from existing information appended to the Agenda Item.

These two Reports are attached as Attachment 1.

C) That Council uplift Agenda Item 8 from its Council Meeting on 26 June 2025, which Council resolved to ‘Item of business being discussed should lie on the table and not be further discussed at the meeting’. This was in accord with Council Standing Orders 25.2 (d).

D) That Council receive the two Reports in Recommendation B as part of the resolution of Recommendation C.

E) That Council notes that subject to the resolution of Recommendation C, the substantive motion on the table is;

Councillor Buddo/Councillor Schollum

A) That Council receive the report titled Adoption of the Napier/Hastings Future Development Strategy 26 June 2025.

B) That Council notes the resolution of the Napier Hastings Future Development Strategy Joint Committee (FDSJC) from its Committee Meeting on 19 May 2025 as shown in the meeting minutes (Attachment 5). In particular resolution B which recommended the endorsement of the IHP report with the exclusion of Riverbend Road NC4b

C) That Council notes this Agenda Report fulfils the Requirement of Resolution D (Report for Partner Councils) of the FDSJC.

D) That Council notes the draft final FDS (Attachment 1) does not include the FDSJC Resolution (refer Recommendation B) to exclude NC4b Riverbend Road.

E) Notes that ~~the Partner Councils~~ [HDC/NCC], in accordance with Section 3.12 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 which relates to requirements local authorities to prepare and publish a Future Development Strategy (FDS), accepts in part the recommendations of the FDSJC, but with the inclusion of Riverbend Road NC4b.~~, and~~

F) ~~Adopts~~ Approves a final FDS that includes Riverbend Road NC4b with additional wording below relating to that specific site (to be added to page 59, following the wording describing Ahuriri Station).

Riverbend (NC4b)

Riverbend (NC4b) has long been identified as a potential location for future urban development, including through the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy 2010 and 2017 editions. Active planning work has been undertaken over recent years involving the landowner and Napier City Council.

HBRC has expressed concerns about the potential for development at Riverbend given the site’s susceptibility to flooding risk and other natural hazards. There is well documented evidence of flooding affecting the site (for example, recent events in November 2020 and February 2023). The low-lying topography means the site is vulnerable to runoff and flooding, including from the existing neighbouring residential area.

Significant site-specific engineering works would be required to manage stormwater and flooding effects arising from development at Riverbend, including to maintain important environmental values to an acceptable level. Additional land will be required to manage these effects outside of the existing identified NC4b area if mitigation works cannot be achieved onsite. This is acknowledged in a footnote to Table 3 of the FDS.

The inclusion of Riverbend NC4b in the FDS does not predetermine the outcome of subsequent planning process, including structure planning, plan changes, and resource consent applications.

As part of any application for consent or rezoning proposal to develop the Riverbend NC4b site, further detailed work will need to be undertaken to ensure the site’s suitability for development and necessary mitigation of stormwater and flooding impacts. This should include consideration of ‘residual risks’ (i.e. circumstances where events may exceed design and construction capacity of stormwater mitigation works) as has been recommended in the 2024 Hawke’s Bay Independent Flood Review Panel’s report.

G) That Council notes that if the adopted draft final FDS aligns with F, then consequential amendments will be required to be made to Attachment 1 to include the additional wording.

H) Notes the decision made by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council on 25 June 2025 to adopt a FDS which excludes the following sites identified by the Hearings Panel as New Residential Greenfield Development Areas: Riverbend Road NC4b and Middle Road Hn3a and Hn3b.

I) Directs staff to work with [HDC/NCC] and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council staff to prepare a joint FDS which takes into account the decisions made by all Partner Councils, and then report back with a final joint FDS that can be adopted by the Partner Councils and published in accordance with clause 3.12 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020.

J) Recommendations A) to I) as they stand with the removal of Middle Road HN3A and HN3B and Wall Road H5 from the FDS.

3.0 Background – Te Horopaki

3.1 The draft Meeting Minutes, relating to the FDS Agenda Item (paragraph 1.1) are attached to this Report (as Attachment 2). The Meeting Minutes are draft as they are yet to be considered/approved by Council.

3.2 Regards Agenda Item 8 / FDS Agenda Item (paragraph 1.1);

· A Motion was moved and seconded for paragraphs ‘A to I’ in Attachment 2 and became the substantive motion on the table.

· An Amendment was moved and seconded for paragraph ‘J’ in Attachment 2.

· The Amendment was debated, and the Chair put the Amendment.

· The Amendment was carried (7 – 6). This Amendment to the original motion was added to the substantive motion on the table.

· Mr Cameron advised the Chair that members may wish to record their reasons for making an Amendment that is contrary to the ‘Independent Panels’ advice. Mr Cameron gave this advice to the Chair to help ensure transparency in the decision-making process.

· The Chair adjourned this Agenda Item within the Meeting to progress with other Agenda Items whilst officers understood and drafted reasons for the amendment and prepared further information for clarity on development capacity issues.

· Council has not yet considered reasons for its resolved Amendment.

· The Chair reconvened the Agenda Item in the Meeting. The Substantive Motion was now paragraphs A-J in Attachment 2. The Meeting was ready to debate the new substantive motion and/or potentially receive additional amendments.

· Council debated and resolved a ‘Procedural Motion’ in respect of this Agenda Item, that the ‘Item of business being discussed should lie on the table and not be further discussed at the meeting’. This is in accord with Council Standing Orders 25.2 (d).

4.0 Discussion – Te Matapakitanga

4.1 In the Council meeting, prior to the resolution of the Procedural Motion (in 1.2), Councillors requested information/advice from the Chief Executive regards;

· The credibility of development on sites in Napier including Ahuriri Station and Riverbend Road.

· Will a land supply deficit in Hastings undermine the viability of the Napier Hastings Future Development Strategy (FDS) as a whole.

4.2 Council have subsequently requested further information/advice from the Chief Executive regards legal risks to Council, if Council makes decision/s contrary to the recommendations of the Independent Panel established to hear submissions and make recommendations to the Napier Hastings Future Development Strategy Joint Committee on the draft FDS.

4.3 The Chief Executive has commissioned two Reports for Council to address Councils requests for information/advice on the Napier Hastings Future Development Strategy (FDS), regarding;

· Technical FDS matters. This Report has been prepared by Barker & Associates from existing information appended to the Agenda Item. No new information is considered.

These two Reports are attached as Attachment 1.

4.4 Regards procedures for Today’s Meeting, - subject to Council resolving the recommendations in this Report and uplifting the Agenda Item that was left to lie on the table, it is recommended Council;

· Seek any clarification needed regards the two Reports discussed in 4.3 and received by Council resolving Recommendation D.

· Resume consideration of the Substantive Motion on the Table (Clauses A-J) in the draft Meeting Minutes attached as Attachment 2.

4.5 Agenda Item 8, for the Council Meeting on 26 June 2025, related to ‘Adoption of the Napier/Hastings Future Development Strategy’ including attachments, has been cloned/copied onto today’s meeting Agenda, for the convenience of Council.

5.0 Options – Ngā Kōwhiringa

Option One - Recommended Option - Te Kōwhiringa Tuatahi – Te Kōwhiringa Tūtohunga

5.1 This Report is an administrative report, to assist the Council meeting by confirming the circumstances arising from the previous Council meeting on 26 June 2025, where Council resolved a ‘Procedural Motion’ in respect of the Agenda Item relating to the FDS, that the ‘Item of business being discussed should lie on the table and not be further discussed at the meeting’. This was in accord with Council Standing Orders 25.2 (d).

5.2 No advantages are noted for Council not resolving the Recommendations in this Report and continuing with deliberations on the Agenda Item regarding the Napier Hastings Future Development Strategy.

Attachments:

1 ⇩	Attachment 1 - Reports from Barkers and Associates and Simpson Grierson 2025-07-16	CG-17-1-01683
2 ⇩	Attachment 2 - DRAFT FDS Council Resolutions - 26 June 2025	CG-17-1-01677

A logo for a company

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Tuesday, 22 July 2025

Te Hui o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga

Hastings District Council: Council Meeting

Te Rārangi Take
Report to Council

Nā:

From:

Nigel Bickle, Chief Executive

Te Take:

Subject:

Adoption of the Napier/Hastings Future Development Strategy (as uplifted)

1.0 Executive Summary – Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform the adoption of a final joint Future Development Strategy (FDS) for the Napier-Hastings urban environment, which satisfies section 3.12 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPSUD).

1.2 The background context to the development of the FDS is set out in this report, and other reports presented to the Future Development Strategy Joint Committee (FDSJC) established by the Partner Councils. Of note, the FDSJC approved the draft FDS for notification on 23 October 2024 and then appointed an Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) to hold hearings and consider submissions on the draft FDS. Following those hearings, the FDSJC met on 19 May 2025 to consider the recommendations made by the IHP.

1.3 The FDSJC adopted the IHP’s recommendations for all but one site (Riverbend Road – NC4b), with the draft FDS recommended for approval by the IHP attached as Attachment 1. For clarity, note that an amended version of the draft FDS was not provided following the FDSJC recommendations.

1.4 Subject to the consideration of this recommendation report by the Partner Councils, Officers consider that the draft FDS will satisfy the statutory requirements for a Future Development Strategy under the NPSUD.

1.5 This Report fulfils the Requirement of Resolution D (Report for Partner Councils) of the FDSJC, which required that a recommendation report be prepared to inform decision-making by the Partner Councils. This Report sets out the background context, statutory requirements and considerations, and makes a recommendation on the final form of the FDS for the Napier-Hastings urban environment.

2.0 Recommendations - Ngā Tūtohunga

A) That Council receive the report titled Adoption of the Napier/Hastings Future Development Strategy (as uplifted) dated 22 July 2025.

C) That Council notes this Agenda Report fulfils the Requirement of Resolution D (Report for Partner Councils) of the FDSJC.

D) That Council notes the draft final FDS (Attachment 1) does not include the FDSJC Resolution (refer Recommendation B) to exclude NC4b Riverbend Road.

E) That the Partner Councils in accordance with Section 3.12 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 which relates to requirements local authorities to prepare and publish a Future Development Strategy (FDS), accept in part the recommendations of the FDSJC, but with the inclusion of Riverbend Road NC4b, and

F) That Council adopt a final FDS that includes Riverbend Road NC4b with additional wording below relating to that specific site. (to be added to page 59, following the wording describing Ahuriri Station).

Riverbend (NC4b)

The inclusion of Riverbend NC4b in the FDS does not predetermine the outcome of subsequent planning process, including structure planning, plan changes, and resource consent applications.

G) That Council notes that if the adopted draft final FDS aligns with F, then consequential amendments will be required to be made to Attachment 1 to include the additional wording.

3.0 Statutory Context for FDS

3.1 The NPSUD requires all tier 1 and tier 2 local authorities (Council is a tier 2 authority) to review every 3 years and to make publicly available an FDS for the urban environment every 6 years and in time to inform or at the same time as preparation of the next Long-Term Plan of each relevant local authority. Where an urban environment involves more than one local authority, the NPSUD requires that a FDS is prepared jointly.

3.2 The NPS-UD states that the purpose of an FDS is to promote long term strategic planning by setting out how the Partner Councils (Hastings District Council, Napier City Council, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council) intend to:

· Achieve well-functioning urban environments in existing and future urban areas,

· Provide at least sufficient development capacity over the next 30 years to meet expected demand, and

· Assist with the integration of planning decisions under the Resource Management Act with infrastructure planning and funding decisions.

3.3 A FDS is a strategic document that is intended to assist the Partner Councils with integrating planning decisions under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) with Council Long Term Plans, Infrastructure Strategies, and funding decisions under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

3.4 Development of the FDS has been ongoing for several years and has included lengthy engagement with mana whenua, elected officials, the community, interested landowners and developers, to inform detailed technical analysis and evaluation.

3.5 The FDS has been jointly developed in partnership with Hastings District Council, Napier City Council, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, and has directly involved Maungaharuru Tangitū Trust, Mana Ahuriri Trust and Tamatea Pōkai Whenua, all of which had members on the FDSJC.

3.6 In addition, significant input has been received from council officers, consultants and interested individuals, groups and stakeholders. This included:

· Barker & Associates, which is a specialist planning consultancy

· staff from Maungaharuru Tangitū Trust

· staff from Mana Ahuriri Trust and

· staff from Tamatea Pōkai Whenua.

3.7 The draft FDS was adopted by the FDSJC for consultation and is intended (once adopted) to satisfy the statutory requirements for Future Development Strategies under the NPSUD.

3.8 Once adopted, the final FDS will replace the current Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy 2017 (HPUDS).

4.0 Consultation and Engagement

4.1 Section 3.15 of the NPSUD requires local authorities when preparing or updating an FDS to use the special consultative procedure in Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

4.2 On October 23, the FDSJC recommended to the partner councils, (Hastings District Council, Napier City Council and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council,) that the Draft Napier Hastings Future Development Strategy (FDS) be adopted for public notification and submission. One variation to the draft was put forward by the FDSJC

Middle Rd

The recommendation of the committee included one amendment to the strategy proposed by the consultants and technical advisory group. This was the exclusion of Middle Road sites Hn3a and Hn3b from the strategy. For the following reasons:

• These areas are not required to provide sufficient development capacity to meet demand (including the 20 per cent competitiveness margin)

• Hn3a and Hn3b are Highly Productive land areas (including ‘Land Use Capability’ level 1 and 2)

• These areas are not included in the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (except as a reserve area in the case of Hn3a)

• It would be contrary to the objectives of the FDS to include these areas.

The draft recommendations were then considered by all Partner Councils in November. All Councils agreed to accept the Joint Committee’s amendment to remove the Middle Rd sites Hn3a and Hn3b from the draft strategy. Those two sites have subsequently been removed from the draft.

4.3 An additional amendment to the draft was recommended by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council being the removal of Riverbend Road NC4b. The Hastings District Council and Napier City Council voted to retain this area. To address this, the partner councils agreed that the strategy be notified for public input, with this divergence noted via this covering note, and that the divergence will be considered by the independent panel to be appointed to hear submissions.

Riverbend Rd

The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council additionally recommended that the Riverbend Road site Nc4b also be excluded from the strategy, for the following reason:

• Area Nc4b is subject to severe flooding risk.

4.4 The FDSJC also resolved at its meeting held on 23 October 2024 to;

‘Appoint an Independent Panel to assist the Joint Committee by hearing all persons / parties who wish to submit on the draft FDS. The Independent Panel will prepare a summation of all submissions and provide recommendations to the Joint Committee, for consideration by the Joint Committee. The Joint Committee can then recommend a final FDS to the Partner Councils’

4.5 The draft FDS was adopted by the Partner Councils for consultation on the 19^th November 2024.

4.6 The Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) consisted of the following members:

· Gina Sweetman (Chair),

Field of Expertise - Resource management, local and regional planning, policy and plan development. Resource consents. Te Ao Maori, Freshwater and Chair of Hearing Panels.

· Shadrach Rolleston,

Field of Expertise - Planning and Resource Management, Spatial and Growth Management Planning, Community and Māori Engagement, Te Ao Māori, Iwi Management Planning, Tikanga Māori, Treaty Settlements, Local Government Policy Planning.

· Juliane Chetham,

Field of Expertise - Planning, environmental science, geography, coastal and marine ecology and management, Cultural Impact Assessment, Tikanga Māori, Mātauranga Māori.

· Michael Parsonson,

Field of Expertise - District and regional consenting, plan changes, policy development. Resource use, construction, infrastructure, general land use activities, and associated effects. Council hearings, fast-track panels, boards of inquiry.

· Steven (Tipene) Wilson

Field of Expertise – Māori, Iwi

4.7 The notification period for the draft FDS ran from 23^rd November 2024 to the 23^rd December 2024. This period was chosen to avoid the summer break and much of January when many workplaces are closed and staff are away for significant periods of time and therefore may not have had sufficient opportunity to prepare a submission.

4.8 A total of 139 submissions were received on the draft FDS. These included a combination of online survey submissions and general submissions. The submissions were evaluated by officers from partner Councils and PSGEs. A Recommendations Report was prepared for the IHP in advance of the hearings commencing. The officers’ Recommendations Report is attached as Attachment 3 (FDS-Hearings-Report-2025-03-17-1.pdf).

4.9 At the invitation of the IHP, all submitters were also able to provide additional evidence to help accompany presentations at subsequent Public Hearings.

4.10 The process adopted by the IHP provided submitters with the opportunity to critique, assess, support or otherwise any aspects of the draft FDS.

4.11 Submissions were heard by the IHP during 24 – 26 March 2025. 86 of the lodged submissions were spoken to at the hearings. Following the hearings the IHP requested that officers provide a Reply Report to consider additional evidence presented to the IHP during the hearings. The officers’ Reply Report is attached as Attachment 4 (Napier-Hastings-FDS-Reply-2025-04-04.pdf).

4.12 The IHP was not required to accept the recommendations in the reply report.

4.13 In executing their role, the IHP was required to consider all information received from submitters (and their representatives), all supplementary information, officers’ reports and verbal hearing information. This information informed the IHP Recommendations Report.

5.0 IHP Findings and Recommendations

5.1 The IHP provided their Recommendation Report on 9^th May 2025. The IHP Recommendation Report attached as Attachment 2 was prepared by the IHP and is independent from either officer or submitter input, albeit that the IHP was informed by information provided by officers, submitters and the various experts and other persons involved in the process.

5.2 The Executive Summary from the IHP Recommendation Report is noted below:

1. Having considered the submissions received, the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP or Hearings Panel) has recommended several changes to the draft FDS. Most of those changes were recommended to us by the professional experts and advisors representing Napier City Council, Hastings District Council and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and Tamatea Pōkai Whenua (TPW), Mana Ahuriri Trust (MAT) and Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust (MTT) (FDS Advisors).

2. Our more substantive recommended changes to the draft FDS include:

a. A new section 4.3 on cross-boundary relationships

b. References to the Hawke’s Bay Independent Flood Review Report recommendations in respect to natural hazard data collection and Regional Policy Statement and district plan reviews

c. Amendments to Section 6 to address redress land and papakāinga

d. Amendment to the strategic objectives to amend objective 10 and include a new objective relating to nationally and regionally significant infrastructure

e. Reference to latent demand and that there may be a shortfall in wet industry in the long term in section 8

f. Amend the constraints identified in Figure 13 to include areas for the safe operation and functional needs of nationally and regionally significant infrastructure

g. Amend section 10 to address that growth area boundaries shown in the FDS are indicative only and why small sites have not been included

h. Amend table 2 in section 10 to include the additional capacity identified for the Hastings District

i. Inclusion of Middle Road (HN3a and HN3b), Wall Road (HN3b) and FM9 Portsmouth Road, Flaxmere as new Residential Greenfield Development Areas in Table 3, and include the additional land at the Mission Estate

j. Include Irongate North as a new industrial area in section 10

k. Include reference in section 10 about a potential shortfall in development capacity for wet industry and the approach to be taken if this eventuates

l. Amend 10.6 to reference a carry-over of the strategic direction for coastal and rural settlements from HPUDS in an appendix, including maps, until such time as a Rural Residential Strategy is promulgated

m. New paragraph in section 10.11 to reference the importance of the operational and functional needs of nationally and regionally significant infrastructure,

n. Amend section 10.11 to say that stormwater solutions may occur out of identified growth areas and reference specific Māori education demands

o. Include new sections in 10.11 on solid waste and nationally and regionally significant infrastructure

p. Amend table 6 to reference additional greenfield capacity and remove reference to an “overs/unders” approach.

3. Other than for the matters listed above, no substantial changes to any ‘spatial’ components of the FDS are recommended.

4. Our recommendations are to be considered and decided on by the Future Development Strategy Joint Committee.

5.3 In terms of spatial components, the key decisions and changes recommended to the draft FDS that was formally consulted on for submissions are as follows:

Residential

· Inclusion of HN3a and HN3b (Middle Road) area. (Long Term Priority 11 – 30+ years)

· Inclusion of H5b (Wall Rd) area. (Long Term Priority 11 – 30+ years)

· Inclusion of FM9 (Portsmouth Rd) area. (Long Term Priority 11 – 30+ years)

· Inclusion of additional land at NC6 (Mission Hills). (Medium to Long Term Priority (5 – 30 years)

Industrial

· Inclusion of IR4 (Irongate North) area (Long Term Priority 11 – 30+ years).

· Recognition that wet industry capacity will be needed over the long term. Recommending short-term action to investigate policy changes aimed at protecting the remaining capacity within the existing urban area for wet industry use at Whakatu.

Rural Residential

· Recommendation for councils to prioritise the development of a Rural Residential Strategy.

6.0 IHP Commentary regarding Riverbend Road

6.1 As part of their recommendation’s report, the IHP specifically addressed a number of the more contentious areas. Following the FDSJC recommendations with regard to Riverbend Road NC4b, it is relevant to include extracts of the IHP’s reasoning for their recommendations. The Riverbend Road discussion can be found from paragraphs 54 to 66 of the IHP Recommendations Report (Attachment 2).

6.2 The IHP recognised that there are significant constraints on the Riverbend site, acknowledging that it currently acts as a basin for stormwater detention area for surrounding land for the surrounding area

Riverbend is a residential growth area in the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (HPUDS) and meets the definition of being “identified for urban development.”10 The draft FDS identifies the area as a suitable specific growth area, acknowledging that the area is subject to complex and overlapping natural hazards constraints. While there are engineering solutions available to address these constraints, they may impact the feasibility and timing of development

6.3 The IHP also recognised that the existing condition of the land in question, and the relevant concerns of HBRC given the flooding of the site during significant rain events in 2020 and 2023, with the site providing significant storage adjacent to existing residential areas.

Stormwater engineering evidence was presented on behalf of the Joint Venture by Ms Landon of Development Nous Limited. Ms Landon acknowledged that the site currently functions as an “unofficial” stormwater detention area for the surrounding urban areas. She described the likely approach to flood mitigation for development of the site, which included flood storage and pumping, and conservatism in her assumptions. This is subject to ongoing analysis and design and will require detailed interrogation through a resource consent process.

6.4 The IHP ultimately acknowledged that the suitability of development should be assessed through a more detailed plan change or resource consent process where the specific constraints of the site and feasibility of development can be properly understood. The IHP ultimately recommend the inclusion of the site as a long term priority:

For the reasons outlined above, we accept and adopt the recommendation of the FDS Advisors’ Hearing Report to include Riverbend site NC4b in the FDS, at the timing recommended by the FDS Advisors. Ultimately, its suitability for development will be managed through the more granular plan change and resource consent processes. Its planning history and the consequential investment in development planning weighs in favour of its inclusion.

6.5 It is noted that to address these qualifications, a footnote was added to Table 3 of the recommended FDS (pg 65) noting ‘Additional land will be required to manage stormwater and flooding effects arising from development of Riverbend Road (NC4b), with the exact location to be determined through future planning processes.’

6.6 The IHP recommendations report also specifically addresses submitters concerns with regards to natural hazards, with specific mention of flooding. This is addressed from paragraphs 48 to 53 of the report. Ultimately the IHP concluded (noting the exceptions discussed relate to Riverbend Road and Ahuriri Station):

We accept there are site-specific opportunities to mitigate some risks but, consistent with the FDS Advisors’ Hearing Report, we limit inclusion of sites with identified significant (before mitigation) natural hazard risk to the sites discussed below that are subject to other relevant factors that support their inclusion. We agree with the FDS Advisors’ Hearing Report in its response to the Natural Hazards Commission and the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board submissions, that site specific risk assessments for those future growth areas are most appropriately undertaken “at the structure planning and plan change [and resource consent] stage, where a detailed stormwater and flood modelling can be undertaken in the context of a specific proposal”.

6.7 The submitter information and evidence can be viewed on the FDS website https://www.hastingsdc.govt.nz/hastingsnapierfuturedevelopment/ under the submissions documents tab, evidence and supplementary evidence tabs. The primary submissions related to Riverbend Road were (Sub 105 – Te Orokohanga Hou Joint Venture, Sub 74 – Natural Hazards Commission, Sub 90 – HBRC, Sub 16 – John Reid, Sub 26 – Myriam Parker, Sub 34 – Gary Curtis, Sub 47 – Andrew Lessels, Sub 52 – Simon Nash, Sub 8 – Samantha McPherson, Sub 9 – Susan Gardner & Sub 12 Forest and Bird, Sub 94 MTT), however noting that there are also a number of submissions that related to natural hazards and flooding in general.

7.0 FDSJC Resolutions

7.1 The ‘FDSJC Meeting Minutes’ from their Meeting on 19 May 2025 are attached as Attachment 5 (Minutes of Napier-Hastings Future Development Strategy Joint Committee - Monday, 19 May 2025).

7.2 Two motions were put forward for amendments by FDSJC members.

Exclude Middle Road (HN3a and HN3b) and Wall Road (H5b)

7.3 With the reasons for these exclusions being the sites in i) and ii) are on highly productive land and are not required to meet demand capacity under the Future Development Strategy.

7.4 This amendment was lost (3 votes for/5 votes against/3 abstained).

7.5 The Middle Road areas (HN3a and HN3b) added 640 dwellings and the Wall Road area (H5b) added 110 dwellings to overall development capacity.

Exclude Riverbend Road (NC4b)

7.6 With the reasons for this exclusion being the site presents as a significant flooding risk and is not conducive to a well-functioning urban environment and is not required to meet demand capacity under the Future Development Strategy.

7.7 This amendment was carried (8 votes for/3 votes against).

7.8 The Riverbend Road NC4b land provided an estimated 660 dwellings to the overall development capacity.

7.9 The FDSJC recommendations will be put to all Partner Councils to consider when determining the final FDS with the risks associated with each option discussed in section 8 below. Dates for the respective Partner Councils’ meetings are:

· Hawke’s Bay Regional Council – Wednesday 25^th June 2025

· Hastings District Council - Thursday 26^th June 2025

· Napier City Council – Thursday 26^th June 2025.

8.0 Options – Ngā Kōwhiringa

Option One - Recommended Option - Te Kōwhiringa Tuatahi – Te Kōwhiringa Tūtohunga

8.1 Adopt the Future Development Strategy as recommend by the FDSJC, except for in relation to the exclusion of Riverbend Road NC4b, by adopting a final FDS that includes Riverbend Road with associated additional wording included in the FDS relating to that land. The recommended additional wording is included in Attachment 6 to this report.

Advantages

· Allows Partner Councils to consider specific viewpoints of FDSJC when making decisions on the final FDS.

· Ensures that a FDS that is consistent with IHP recommendations is adopted, with appropriate qualifying statements where development concerns remain (as expressed by the FDSJC minutes and in IHP’s commentary within its own report).

· Qualifying statements can reflect many of the IHP’s observations without undermining or being a substantive departure from the IHP’s overall findings and recommendations.

· Satisfies NPS-UD requirements.

· Ensures that future plan change or resource consent processes are fully informed of the constraints that will need to be addressed around hazard mitigations.

Disadvantages

· May lead to future contention in relation to proposals for the development of the land for residential growth.

· Amendments to the recommendations that differ from the IHP’s reporting could give rise to judicial review proceedings.

· Amendments to the recommendations that differ from the FDSJC’s resolutions could give rise to judicial review proceedings, albeit for different grounds than a departure from the IHP’s reporting above.

· If heavily qualified statements are included and/or statements that are beyond factual ones, it may mean that Riverbend Road NC4b is out of step with other sites subject to constraints, noting that the recommended FDS includes qualifying language in regard to future growth areas requirements under future RMA processes.

Option Two

8.2 Adopt the Future Development Strategy as recommended by the IHP.

Advantages

· Would be consistent with the evidence-based assessment undertaken by independent qualified experts who directly heard from submitters during the hearing process.

· Meets the obligations of the Partner Councils under the National Policy Statement – Urban Development 2020 which requires that a Future Development Strategy is prepared for the Napier/Hastings urban environment.

· If adopted by the Partner Councils, the Future Development Strategy will provide increased certainty for the future planned growth of the Napier/Hastings urban environment and assist to identify other opportunities for future growth in the longer-term.

Disadvantages

· Does not align with FDSJC recommendations regarding Riverbend Road.

Option Three

8.3 Adopt the Future Development Strategy as recommended by the FDSJC.

Advantages

· Would be consistent with the evidence-based assessment undertaken by independent qualified experts who directly heard from submitters during the hearing process, with the exception of Riverbend Road.

Disadvantages

· May lead to risk of legal challenge, as decision would be based on recommendation from FDSJC which did not directly hear submissions.

· Potential that decision with regard to Riverbend Road is not as well informed as the recommendation of the Independent Hearings Panel.

· Removal of estimated 660 dwelling supply from FDS at Riverbend NC4b from overall capacity, meaning significant more pressure on the ability to meet demand requirements, including reliance on other development options in the Napier area.

9.0 Next steps – Te Anga Whakamua

9.1 Once the Partner Councils have made their decision, the final FDS will become the adopted final strategy and replace the HPUDS.

9.2 Following the adoption of the final FDS it is recommended that the FDSJC meet to consider the future implementation requirements of the FDS. Opportunities to do this will be time-limited given local body elections in October 2025.

9.3 The FDS is required to be reviewed at regular intervals so that it informs each long-term plan cycle (ie. every 3 years). If a review determines that changes are required, a public consultation process will be involved for the review of the FDS itself.

Attachments:

1 ⇨	Attachment 1 – Independent Hearings Panel Recommended Future Development Strategy	CG-17-27-00217	Vol 1
2 ⇨	Attachment 2 – Independent Hearings Panel Recommendations Report	CG-17-27-00218	Vol 1
3 ⇨	Attachment 3 – Officers Report to hearings panel on Submissions	CG-17-27-00216	Vol 2
4 ⇨	Attachment 4 – Officers reply – Report for hearings panel	CG-17-27-00219	Vol 2
5 ⇨	Attachment 5 - FDSJC Minutes 19 May 2025	CG-17-1-01625	Vol 2
6 ⇨	Attachment 6 - Riverbend additions to be considered for FDS - June 2025	CG-17-1-01637	Vol 2

Summary of Considerations - He Whakarāpopoto Whakaarohanga

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-Rohe

The Council is required to give effect to the purpose of local government as set out in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. That purpose is to enable democratic local decision-making and action by (and on behalf of) communities, and to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future.

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes – Ngā Hononga ki Ngā Putanga ā-Hapori

This FDS seeks to control future growth in the region one of the core objectives is to provide a range of housing which meets people’s needs in neighbourhoods that are safe and healthy. The FDS is considered to promote wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future.

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

Maori communities have been consulted with as part of the FDS process. Papakainga and treaty settlement land forms a key part of the strategy. Post Treaty Settlement Group (PSGE) input has been central to the development of the FDS. PSGE members have been part of the joint committee and officers have inputted into the recommended FDS.

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

Intensification of existing urban areas and protection of fertile land are key objectives of the FDS

Financial considerations - Ngā Whakaarohanga Ahumoni

Financial Considerations have been previously considered for the FDS, the development of the strategy is now at the end of its process. Failure to agree to a consistent strategy however would result in additional costs.

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

This decision/report has been assessed under the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy as being of high significance.

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto / ā-waho

Significant informal consultation has occurred through a ‘call for opportunities’ and formal consultation was undertaken through the Special Consultative procedure which included submissions and hearings opportunities.

Risks

Opportunity: To provide a finalised FDS that guides the next 30 years growth across the sub-region

REWARD – Te Utu

RISK – Te Tūraru

30 year growth strategy which informs development, long term spending and infrastructure strategies.

An inconsistent FDS, or one with significant departure from Independent Hearings Panel Recommendations may lead to higher risk of judicial proceedings.

Tuesday, 22 July 2025

Te Hui o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga

Hastings District Council: Council Meeting

Te Rārangi Take
Report to Council

Nā:

From:

Bruce Conaghan, Transportation Policy and Planning Manager

Te Take:

Subject:

Road Stopping of Part of Iona Road for the Iona Structure Plan

1.0 Executive Summary – Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 This Report recommends Council proceed with the road stopping process for part of Iona Road in accordance with the process defined in the Local Government Act 1974, Section 319, Schedule 10.

1.2 The Iona Structure Plan, adopted and effective in September 2018, identified the requirement for the southern end of Iona Road to be realigned. To achieve this, a portion of the southern end is required to be stopped and a new link to Middle Road provided.

1.3 Importantly, the road stopping of that portion of Iona Road (Area E) is necessary to effect the requirements of the Iona Structure Plan at its southern end. Given the extensive consultation and Hearings process undertaken for the Iona Structure Plan, the proposed road stopping may reasonably be regarded as an inevitable outcome of that process. However, to effect it, Council does need to go through the road stopping process as required under the Local Government Act 1974 hence this Report.

1.4 Discussions have been undertaken with CDL, the owners of the adjacent land, and they are supportive of the southern section of Iona Road being stopped. CDL are also agreeable that the portion of land to be stopped would be swapped for that portion of land required to provide the new link road to Middle Road.

2.0 Recommendations - Ngā Tūtohunga

A) That Council receive the report titled Road Stopping of Part of Iona Road for the Iona Structure Plan dated 22 July 2025.

B) That Council approve the initiation of the road stopping process as defined in the Local Government Act 1974 for that portion of Iona Road identified as Area E on the Iona Middle Land Requirement Plan (Development Nous Plan H2021010-Legalisation-600 Revision 2 dated 5 February 2025) as shown in Attachment 1.

3.0 Background – Te Horopaki

3.1 The Iona Structure Plan was adopted by Council and became effective in September 2018. In terms of transportation, it noted that upgrades would be required to both Middle and Iona Roads to ensure levels of service are maintained as the area develops from a rural and rural-residential area to an urban residential area. These upgrades would need to be aligned with the road stopping procedures and realignment of Iona Road. It is the intention that, following development of Middle and Iona Road areas, speed reductions to 50km/hour for these roads would be considered by the Council and that the speed reduction on Middle Road should extend out to its intersection with Gilpin Road.

3.2 The proposed road network contained in the Structure Plan included improvements to the Middle Road / Iona Road / Gilpin Road intersection. This intersection would be replaced with two “T” intersections with some distance between them. To effect this, the southern portion of Iona Road is to be realigned and a new link constructed over the development land with the new link to be vested to Council as road.

3.3 Figure 1 below (and included as Attachment 1) shows the Iona Middle Land Requirement Plan (Development Nous Plan H2021010-Legalisation-600 Revision 2 dated 5 February 2025) and identifies the quantum of land required for infrastructure necessary to serve the overall Iona and Middle development. The areas shown in green (Areas A, B, D, G) are the parcels of land required by Council while the area shown in red (Area E) is the land to be divested. With Area E being legal road, it can only be divested once the road has been stopped.

Figure 1 : Proposed Iona Structure Plan

3.4 Importantly, the road stopping of that portion of Iona Road (Area E) is necessary to effect the requirements of the Iona Structure Plan at its southern end. Given the extensive consultation and Hearings process undertaken for the Iona Structure Plan, the proposed road stopping may reasonably be regarded as an inevitable outcome of that process. However, to effect it, Council does need to go through the road stopping process as required under the Local Government Act 1974 hence this report.

3.5 Discussions have been undertaken with CDL, the owners of the adjacent land, and they are supportive of the southern section of Iona Road (Area E) being stopped. CDL are also agreeable that the portion of land to be stopped would be swapped for that portion of land required to provide the new link road to Middle Road (Area A).

4.0 Discussion – Te Matapakitanga

4.1 The stopping of roads and public accessways is detailed in the Local Government Act 1974, Section 319, Schedule 10. In summary:

· A plan of the proposed stoppage shall be lodged with the office of the Chief Surveyor.

· Council shall give public notice of the proposed stoppage, calling for objections, for a period of at least 40 days.

· If no objections are received Council may declare the road stopped.

· If any objections are received Council may either allow the objections or send the case to the Environment Court.

4.2 If the road stopping is successful, Council will then work with CDL to effect the necessary land transfers to accommodate the realignment of Iona Road as required by the Iona Structure Plan.

5.0 Options – Ngā Kōwhiringa

Option One - Recommended Option - Te Kōwhiringa Tuatahi – Te Kōwhiringa Tūtohunga

5.1 Council resolve to initiate the road stopping process to amalgamate the stopped road with the CDL land.

Advantages

· Meets the requirements of the Iona Structure Plan with the Iona Road realignment.

Disadvantages

· There are no identified disadvantages with the proposal for stopping that part of Iona Road as identified in the Iona Structure Plan.

Option Two – Status Quo - Te Kōwhiringa Tuarua – Te Āhuatanga o nāianei

5.2 Council resolve not to initiate to road stopping process to effect the land transfer:

Advantages

· There are no identified advantages with the proposal for not stopping that part of Iona Road as identified in the Iona Structure Plan.

Disadvantages

· It would not enable the Iona Road realignment and is contrary to the Iona Structure Plan requirements.

6.0 Next steps – Te Anga Whakamua

6.1 If Council agrees to initiate the road stoppage and notifying the public, the public will be given at least 40 days to raise objections.

6.2 Public notices will include:

· Notice on Council’s website.

· Two notices in the local newspaper.

6.3 Council will then need to consider any objections received and decide whether to proceed with the road stoppage or not:

· If no objections are received Council may declare the road stopped.

· If any objections are received Council may either allow the objections or send the case to the Environment Court.

6.4 If Council agrees to stop the road, Council will then effect the road stopping and associated land swap with CDL with both parties arranging for the legalisation.

Attachments:

1 ⇩

Iona Middle Land Requirement Plan

CG-17-1-01666

Summary of Considerations - He Whakarāpopoto Whakaarohanga

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-Rohe

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes – Ngā Hononga ki Ngā Putanga ā-Hapori

This proposal promotes the social wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future in that it retains the ability of safe public access on the roading network within the Iona Structure Plan development.

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

No specific impact on Māori.

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

N/A

Financial considerations - Ngā Whakaarohanga Ahumoni

All costs associated with the road stopping will be shared with CDL as part of the Iona and Middle Road upgrade and development.

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

This decision/report has been assessed under the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy as being of low significance.

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto / ā-waho

Consultation to be undertaken in accordance with the process for Stopping of Roads as defined in the Local Government Act 1974.

Risks

REWARD – Te Utu	RISK – Te Tūraru
The transfer of land would enable the Iona Structure Plan to be realised with safer intersections on Middle Road at Iona Road and Gilpin Road.	Requirement to take any objections to the Environment Court but noting that the Iona Structure Plan had been consulted on and was subsequently approved through the Environment Court and adopted by Council with that including the realignment of Iona Road.

Rural Community Board – Te Poari Tuawhenua-ā-Hapori

N/A

Tuesday, 22 July 2025

Te Hui o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga

Hastings District Council: Council Meeting

Te Rārangi Take
Report to Council

Nā:

From:

Bruce Conaghan, Transportation Policy and Planning Manager

Te Take:

Subject:

Authorisation for relocation of a crossing place on a Limited Access Road to serve Lots 2-5 DP 508218 at 1275 Maraekakaho Road

1.0 Executive Summary – Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 This Report recommends Council authorise the relocation of a crossing place on a Limited Access Road to serve Lots 2-5 DP 508218 at 1275 Maraekakaho Road.

1.2 To support a request for a new crossing place or the relocation of a crossing place, Council needs to be satisfied that these do not have an impact on the safety and operational efficiency of the Limited Access Road. Consequently, the owner at 1275 Maraekakaho Road engaged Urban Connection to provide a traffic and safety assessment to justify the proposed relocation of crossing place (CP 102) at 1275 Maraekakaho Road.

1.3 Based on the assessment by Urban Connection, it was found that relocating the crossing place (CP 102) would not impact on the operational and safety efficiency of Maraekakaho Road at this location and would work to improve it.

1.4 Council officers support the proposed relocation and therefore recommend that the crossing place (CP 102) to Lots 2-5 DP 508218 at 1275 Maraekakaho Road be moved north so that it is 114 to 126 metres south of the northern boundary of the property (as shown in Attachment 1) be authorised by Council.

1.5 With Maraekakaho Road from York Road to the State Highway 2 (SH2) Expressway being a Limited Access Road, the relocation of a crossing place providing access, in this case to Lots 2-5 DP 508218 at 1275 Maraekakaho Road, will need to be authorised by Council. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 346 of the Local Government Act 1974, it is recommended Council authorise the relocation of crossing place CP102 to Lots 2-5 DP 508218 at 1275 Maraekakaho Road as shown in Attachment 1.

2.0 Recommendations - Ngā Tūtohunga

A) That Council receive the report titled Authorisation for relocation of a crossing place on a Limited Access Road to serve Lots 2-5 DP 508218 at 1275 Maraekakaho Road dated 22 July 2025.

B) That pursuant to Section 346 of the Local Government Act 1974, Council authorise the relocation of a crossing place (CP 102) to Lots 2-5 DP 508218 at 1275 Maraekakaho Road to be 114 to 126 metres south of the northern boundary of the property as shown in Attachment 1.

3.0 Background – Te Horopaki

3.1 In June 2013, Council resolved to accept the control and management of relevant sections of SH50A revoked by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), with those sections being York Road from the Hawkes Bay Expressway to Maraekakaho Road and Maraekakaho Road from York Road to Longlands Road, with the completion of the southern extension of the Hawkes Bay Expressway. Both sections of road had been declared as Limited Access Roads by NZTA.

3.2 Under Section 96(1) of the Government Roading Powers Act 1989, any Limited Access Road which is a State Highway and ceases to be a State Highway, shall be deemed to be a Limited Access Road under the Local Government Act 1974 and the administration of that road shall pass to the territorial authority responsible for the control of roads in the district. Hence, York Road from the Hawkes Bay Expressway to Maraekakaho Road and Maraekakaho Road from York Road to Longlands Road maintain their status as Limited Access Roads.

3.3 Council can authorise crossing places and construct any roads to give access to land adjoining a Limited Access Roads in accordance with Section 346 of the Local Government Act 1974. Given that crossing places on Limited Access Roads are defined legally as part of the Limited Access Road Declaration, any request relating to installing, relocating or removing crossing places therefore requires the authorisation by Council.

3.4 The owner of 1275 Maraekakaho Road has approached Council to relocate one of the crossing places (CP 102) serving their property. The site at 1275 Maraekakaho Road has a designated crossing place (CP 102) located 211 to 215 metres south of the northern boundary of the site and the request is to relocate some 93 metres north. Figure 1 below (and included as Attachment 1) shows the location of the existing crossing places at 1275 Maraekakaho Road and the location of the relocated crossing place.

Figure 1 : Location of Crossing Places CP 102 and CP 103 at 1275 Maraekakaho Road

3.5 To support a request for a new crossing place or the relocation of a crossing place, Council needs to be satisfied that these do not have an impact on the safety and operational efficiency of the Limited Access Road. Consequently, the owner at 1275 Maraekakaho Road engaged Urban Connection to provide a traffic and safety assessment to provide justification for the proposed relocation of a crossing place (CP 102) at 1275 Maraekakaho Road.

4.0 Discussion – Te Matapakitanga

4.1 From the assessment undertaken by Urban Connection, the existing crossing place (CP 102) is located in close proximity to another crossing place (CP 103) which creates potential safety issues as noted below:

· Closely spaced access points (driveways or intersections) can create uncertainty about which location a vehicle wishes to turn into. A vehicle indicating to turn into the southern crossing point (CP 103) could be mistaken as turning into the northern crossing point (CP 102) meaning a vehicle turning right from the southern crossing point could misjudge a vehicle’s intent resulting in a side impact crash.

· A comparable safety risk applies to left turning vehicles where a vehicle indicating a left turn into the northern crossing point may be confused with making a turn into the southern crossing point. In such cases, a vehicle turning from CP 103 may misjudge the intent and proceed to turn right resulting in a side impact crash.

· Vehicles exiting one crossing place may have limited visibility due to a turning vehicle at another located in close proximity. The most significant visibility restriction in this case relates to a vehicle exiting the northern crossing point having its sight distance to the south masked by a vehicle waiting to turn right out of the southern crossing point. This situation has the potential to increase the risk for side impact crashes.

· From a safety perspective, increased separation between places of conflict is beneficial in maintaining safety on the network.

4.2 Given that the current location of northern crossing place( CP 102) being some 28 metres from the southern crossing place (CP 103) presents road safety issues as noted above, there is merit in increasing separation between crossing places. The proposed relocation of the northern crossing place (CP 102) some 93 metres to the north provides to increase that separation between the crossing places and would improve safety and efficiency especially with any future development of the site. This would then mean that the relocated crossing place would be located 114 to 126 metres south of the northern boundary of the property as shown in Attachment 1.

4.3 Based on the assessment by Urban Connection, it was found that relocating the crossing place (CP 102) would not impact on the operational and safety efficiency of Maraekakaho Road at this location and would work to improve it. Council officers support the proposed relocation and therefore recommend that the crossing place (CP 102) to Lots 2-5 DP 508218 at 1275 Maraekakaho Road be moved north so that it is 114 to 126 metres south of the northern boundary of the property (as shown in Attachment 1), be authorised.

4.4 With Maraekakaho Road from York Road to the State Highway 2 (SH2) Expressway being a Limited Access Road, the relocation of a crossing place providing access to adjacent properties, and in this case to Lots 2-5 DP 508218 at 1275 Maraekakaho Road, will need to be authorised by Council.

5.0 Options – Ngā Kōwhiringa

Option One - Recommended Option - Te Kōwhiringa Tuatahi – Te Kōwhiringa Tūtohunga

5.1 That Council authorise the relocation of a crossing place (CP 102) to Lots 2-5 DP 508218 at 1275 Maraekakaho Road.

Advantages

· It would provide for operational and safety efficiency on Maraekakaho Road in this vicinity and provide an access location which would better serve the site for future development.

Disadvantages

· There are no perceived disadvantages with this option.

Option Two – Status Quo - Te Kōwhiringa Tuarua – Te Āhuatanga o nāianei

5.2 That Council does not authorise the relocation of a crossing place (CP 102) to Lots 2-5 DP 508218 at 1275 Maraekakaho Road.

Advantages

· There are no perceived advantages.

Disadvantages

· It could create operational and safety issues on Maraekakaho Road in this vicinity given another crossing place in close proximity.

6.0 Next steps – Te Anga Whakamua

6.1 If the relocation of the crossing place (CP 102) to Lots 2-5 DP508218 at 1275 Maraekakaho Road is authorised by Council, the property owner would be responsible for all costs associated with effecting legalisation of the additional crossing place on the property title.

Attachments:

1 ⇩

1275 Maraekakaho Road Crossing Point

25/258

Summary of Considerations - He Whakarāpopoto Whakaarohanga

Fit with purpose of Local Government - E noho hāngai pū ai ki te Rangatōpū-ā-Rohe

Link to the Council’s Community Outcomes – Ngā Hononga ki Ngā Putanga ā-Hapori

This proposal promotes the wellbeing of communities in the present and for the future.

Māori Impact Statement - Te Tauākī Kaupapa Māori

No specific implications for Māori.

Sustainability - Te Toitūtanga

N/A

Financial considerations - Ngā Whakaarohanga Ahumoni

If the relocation of the crossing place (CP 102) is authorised, there is no cost to Council as all costs for the legalisation of the relocation would be borne by the property owner of Lots 2-5 DP 508218 at 1275 Maraekakaho Road.

Significance and Engagement - Te Hiranga me te Tūhonotanga

This decision/report has been assessed under the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy as being of low significance.

Consultation – internal and/or external - Whakawhiti Whakaaro-ā-roto / ā-waho

Given that this is an administrative matter between Council and the property owner, no consultation is required.

Risks

REWARD – Te Utu	RISK – Te Tūraru
The relocated crossing place (CP 102) for Lots 2-5 DP 508218 at 1275 Maraekakaho Road authorised pursuant to Section 346 of the Local Government Act 1974 would provide for safety and efficiency on Maraekakaho Road at this location.	There are no risks.

Rural Community Board – Te Poari Tuawhenua-ā-Hapori

There are no implications for the Rural Community Board.

Tuesday, 22 July 2025

Te Hui o Te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Heretaunga

Hastings District Council: Council Meeting

Te Rārangi Take
Report to Council

Nā:

From:

Rebecca Hill, Senior Environmental Planner - Policy

Te Take:

Subject:

Submissions on Proposed National Policy Statements and National Environmental Standards Changes and on the Freshwater Discussion Document

1.0 Executive Summary – Te Kaupapa Me Te Whakarāpopototanga

1.1 This Report relates to submissions prepared by Officers on proposed changes to National Policy Statements, National Environmental Standards under the Resource Management Act, and on a discussion document on Freshwater that will inform resource management reform.

1.2 The purpose of this Report is to inform the Council of the submissions and seek the endorsement of the submissions on the proposed National Direction changes. The changes proposed are wide ranging and the issues traversed are of importance to the Hastings District.

2.0 Recommendations - Ngā Tūtohunga

A) That Council receive the report titled Submissions on Proposed National Policy Statements and National Environmental Standards Changes and on the Freshwater Discussion Document dated 22 July 2025.

B) That Council notes and endorses the submissions on the following National Direction instruments and discussion document.

i. National Policy Statement – Infrastructure (NPS-I)

ii. National Policy Statement – Natural Hazards (NPS-NH)

iii. National Environmental Standards – Granny Flats (Minor Residential Units) (NES-MRU)

iv. National Environmental Standards – Papakāinga (NES-P)

v. National Policy Statement – Renewable Electricity Generation (NPS-REG)

vi. National Policy Statement – Electricity Networks (NPS-EN)

vii. National Environmental Standards – Electricity Network Activities (NES-ENA)

viii. National Environmental Standards – Telecommunication Facilities (NES-TF)

ix. National Policy Statement – Highly Productive Land (NPS-HPL)

x. Package 3 - Freshwater

3.0 Background – Te Horopaki

3.1 The Government is seeking feedback on four consultation packages of National Direction. The consultation for the first three packages will run until Sunday 27 July and until 17 August for Package 4. This is likely the only opportunity to submit on Packages 1 and 2. Packages 3 and 4 are discussion documents inviting feedback on how Freshwater and Going for Housing Growth are managed under the new resource management legislation and therefore there will be further opportunities to submit.

3.2 The changes proposed in Packages 1 and 2 will not require immediate changes to District Plans as the Government is looking for “quick wins” prior to Phase 3 reform being the repeal and replacement of the Resource Management Act (RMA). These National Direction changes will however impact District Plan Changes (including private plan changes) which must give effect to National Direction and consenting decisions which must have regard to National Direction.

3.3 Following the consultation period, Ministry staff will make recommendations to the Minister, the Minister will make decisions and then changes to national directions will likely take effect before the end of 2025 or early 2026.

3.4 Package 1: Infrastructure and development 

The Government aims to make four new national direction instruments and amend four existing national direction instruments that relate to infrastructure and development. 

· New National Policy Statement for Infrastructure

· New National Policy Statement for Natural Hazards

· New National Environmental Standards for Granny Flats (Minor Residential Units)

· New National Environmental Standards for Papakāinga

· Amendments to the National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation

· Amendments to the National Policy Statement for Electricity Networks

· Amendments to the National Environmental Standards for Electricity Network Activities

· Amendments to the National Environmental Standards for Telecommunication Facilities

3.5 Package 2: Primary sector 

The Government aims to make changes to national direction instruments and change the quarrying and mining provisions in national direction for freshwater, indigenous biodiversity and highly productive land.

· Amendments to the National Environmental Standards for Marine Aquaculture

· Amendments to the National Environmental Standards for Commercial Forestry

· Amendments to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

· Amendments to the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land

· Amendments to the Stock Exclusion Regulations

· Amendments to the mining and quarrying provisions in:

o National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity

o National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land

o National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

o National Environmental Standards for Freshwater.

3.6 Package 3: Freshwater  

The Government is seeking feedback on options to amend freshwater national direction and on whether changes should be implemented under the existing RMA or under new resource management legislation.    Further consultation will be undertaken, later this year, through a more detailed exposure draft of the proposed freshwater national direction. 

3.7 Package 4: Going for Housing Growth

The Government is also seeking feedback on how the proposals in the first pillar of the Going for Housing Growth programme could fit into the new resource management system.  Pillar 1 aims to free up land for development and remove unnecessary planning barriers.  This package will be the subject of a subsequent report to Council.

4.0 Discussion – Te Matapakitanga

4.1 Package 1: Infrastructure and Development

New National Policy Statement for Infrastructure

This proposal would see decision makers being required to recognise and provide for the benefits of infrastructure and to recognise the functional and operational need for infrastructure to be located in particular environments. NPS-I contains policies on managing the interface between infrastructure and other activities to protect infrastructure from reverse sensitivity effects. A broader definition of infrastructure has been used and includes social infrastructure e.g. schools, hospitals and parks. Infrastructure supporting activities like quarrying are also included. The proposed submission is in general support of the new NPS-I.

New National Policy Statement for Natural Hazards

The NPS-NH looks to imbed good practice around risk-based hazard assessment and proportionate management of seven natural hazards; flooding, landslips, coastal erosion, coastal inundation, active faults, liquefication, and tsunami. When assessing natural hazards local authorities must consider; likelihood, consequence, mitigation and residual risk. A matrix ranks likelihood and consequence with medium, high or very high risk being deemed a “significant hazard”. Development should be directed away from areas of high or very high risk and enabled in areas of low risk.

The proposed submission outlines our general support for National Direction for Natural Hazards but outlines significant concerns that the matrix settings are too low for hazards that have major and catastrophic consequences. The concern is that these settings will undermine current hazard planning and the future resilience of communities.

New National Environmental Standards for Granny Flats (Minor Residential Units)

The Government has committed to changing the Building Act 2004 to make it easier to build minor residential units requiring only an engineer’s report. This NES will allow these to be built without the need for a resource consent subject to permitted activity standards including maximum floor area of 70m².

The proposed submission is in general support as our District Plan already provides of Minor Residential Units. The submission points relate to concerns around setbacks, vehicle access and natural hazards.

New National Environmental Standards for Papakāinga

The proposed NES-P is intended to enable papakāinga. The proposal permits papakāinga development (up to 10 homes) on Māori land subject to a set of standards. Certain non-residential activities are proposed to be permitted, including: commercial activities (of up to 100 square metres) and conservation activities, visitor accommodation for up to eight guests, educational and health facilities, sports and recreation activities and marae, urupā and māra kai. The proposal is for a resource consent process for a restricted discretionary activity to apply to other, smaller scale papakāinga that do not meet all the permitted activity standards, have between 11 and 30 residential units or that are proposed to be located on Treaty settlement land. The proposal is that a resource consent process for a discretionary activity will apply to larger scale papakāinga developments of more than 30 residential units.

The proposed submission is in general support of the new NES-P, however a number of submission points have been made on the assessment criteria and standards e.g. setbacks.

Amendments to the National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation

The key proposed changes include; an objective that better recognises the critical role REG plays in society and the economy and the rapid increase in REG required to achieve climate emissions reductions, enabling and directive policies to better enable REG and protect existing REG assets, direction on recognising and providing for Māori interests, and policies to better enable REG while managing effects on the environment.

The proposed submission is in general support with submission points relating to the protection of Māori interests and Section 6 matters.

Amendments to the National Policy Statement for Electricity Networks

The proposal will include: an amended objective to recognise and provide for the national significance and benefits of the electricity network and electricity distribution network, amended and new policies to support route selection and manage environmental effects, a new policy to recognise and provide for tangata whenua interests, policy amendments to provide greater protection of electricity networks, updated references to the electric and magnetic fields international guidelines (from the currently referenced 1998 guidelines to the 2010 guidelines), alignment of the policy directions of the NPS-EN and the proposed National Environmental Standards for Electricity Network Activities (NES-ENA).

The proposed submission is in general support of the amended NPS-EN with submission points on protecting Māori rights and interest and hazard resilience.

Amendments to the National Environmental Standards for Electricity Network Activities

The proposed amendments are intended to: enable more routine work on the electricity transmission network in all environments, introduce new rules to protect the electricity transmission network based on the National Grid Corridor provisions, introduce new provisions for the electricity distribution network (ie, protection and routine works for the existing network, and construction of new distribution network assets), introduce new permitted activity standards for EV charging infrastructure.

The proposed submission is in general support with submission points on noise and height of structures.

Amendments to the National Environmental Standards for Telecommunication Facilities

The NES-TF enables installation of facilities without the need for resource consent whilst enabling local decision-making for environmentally significate areas e.g. outstanding landscape areas. The key factors requiring these changes are; changes in technology (e.g. bigger cabinets needed for more battery space for emergency resilience) and changes in the built environment (higher buildings means higher towers needed).

The proposed submission is in general support with submission points relating to the height of structures and temporary telecommunication facilities.

4.2 Package 2: Primary Sector

Amendments to the National Environmental Standards for Marine Aquaculture

This proposal makes it more enabling for replacement of structures, spat collection and reconsenting. No submission is recommended as these matters fall within the function of the regional council.

Amendments to the National Environmental Standards for Commercial Forestry

This proposal aims to create efficiencies in forestry operation and consent for example they are asking for feedback on requiring slash mobilisation risk assessments and/or requiring all slash above an identified size being removed from forest cutover. No submission is recommended as these matters primarily fall within the function of the regional council.

Amendments to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement

The proposed amendments are intended to: to better enable development of priority activities, recognise that priority activities may have a functional or operational need to be located in the coastal marine area, direct decision-makers to provide for aquaculture activities within aquaculture settlement areas, and give more recognition to the cultural and environmental benefits of aquaculture. No submission is recommended as these matters primarily fall within the function of the regional council.

Amendments to the Stock Exclusion Regulations

The proposal is to amend the requirement that all stock must be excluded from any natural wetlands that support a population of threatened species, so that it would not apply to non-intensively grazed beef cattle and deer. No submission is recommended as these matters fall within the function of the regional council.

Amendments to the mining and quarrying provisions in:

o National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity

o National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land

o National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

o National Environmental Standards for Freshwater.

These changes are designed to be more enabling for mining and quarrying and to achieve consistency across these instruments. No submission is recommended with comments included in the submission on NPS-HPL regarding quarrying and mining.

Amendments to the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land

The proposal is to amend the NPS-HPL to provide more opportunities for urban development while retaining the most agriculturally productive land for primary production.

The proposed amendments involve:

• removing LUC 3 land from NPS-HPL restrictions with immediate effect

• maintaining NPS-HPL restrictions on LUC 1 and 2 land

• testing alternative ways to continue to protect additional areas of agricultural land that are important for food and fibre production, and consulting on establishing special agriculture areas (SAAs) around key horticulture hubs like Pukekohe and Horowhenua

• extending timeframes for mapping of HPL to be completed within two to three years (2027 or 2028) or suspending requirements for mapping HPL until further direction is provided in the replacement resource management system.

Feedback from Councillors was sought to inform this submission which included maintaining restrictions on LUC1 and LUC2 land and maintaining restrictions over LUC3 land or introducing SAAs.

The proposed submission does not support the total removal of LUC3 land from NPS-HPL as it is ineffective in meeting the objective of enabling more opportunities for urban development whilst removing protections for a high proportion of HPL.

The proposed submission supports;

a. Retaining LUC3 in NPS-HPL.

b. Introducing Special Agricultural Areas with the Heretaunga Plains identified as a SAA.

c. Retaining LUC3 in NPS-HPL but removing from urban rezoning decisions (Council led plan changes only).

The proposed submission does not support the deferment or suspension of mapping of HPL and supports retaining the requirement for HPL to be mapped by Regional Councils.

4.3 Package 3: Freshwater

The Government is seeking feedback on options to amend freshwater national direction and on whether changes should be implemented under the existing RMA or under new resource management legislation.  

Options to amend freshwater instruments:

· Rebalancing the NPS for Freshwater Management

o Make it clear the freshwater management requires the balancing of multiple objectives, and that councils need to consider the cost impacts of meeting freshwater targets, and that long timeframes may be appropriate

o Rebalance Te Mana o te Wai to reflect the importance of freshwater to all New Zealanders, and

o Provide flexibility for how councils manage and monitor freshwater under the National Objectives Framework.

· Providing for domestic supply of commercial vegetable growing and water security.

· Amending activity-based controls in the NES for Freshwater:

o Make changes to the requirements (including information requirements) under the synthetic nitrogen fertiliser regulations, and

o Simplify the definition and restrictions in relation to wetlands and requirements for fish passage and culverts.

· Improving the protection of drinking water sources through mapping requirements.

Further consultation will be undertaken, later this year, through a more detailed exposure draft of the proposed freshwater national direction.  The proposed submission focuses on the mapping requirements of drinking water sources.

5.0 Options – Ngā Kōwhiringa

Option One - Recommended Option - Te Kōwhiringa Tuatahi – Te Kōwhiringa Tūtohunga

5.1 Council notes the following submissions and endorses them.

i) National Policy Statement – Infrastructure (NPS-I)

ii) National Policy Statement – Natural Hazards (NPS-NH)

iii) National Environmental Standards – Granny Flats (Minor Residential Units) (NES-MRU)

iv) National Environmental Standards – Papakāinga (NES-P)

v) National Policy Statement – Renewable Electricity Generation (NPS-REG)

vi) National Policy Statement – Electricity Networks (NPS-EN)

vii) National Environmental Standards – Electricity Network Activities (NES-ENA)

viii) National Environmental Standards – Telecommunication Facilities (NES-TF)

ix) National Policy Statement – Highly Productive Land (NPS-HPL)

x) Package 3 - Freshwater

5.1.1 Advantages

· By submitting on these National Direction changes, Council is actively participating on issues that impact the District and can promote the interests of the District.

· The submissions are based on the expert advice of Council Officers.

5.1.2 Disadvantages

· There are no disadvantages identified.

Option Two – Status Quo - Te Kōwhiringa Tuarua – Te Āhuatanga o nāianei

5.2 Make no submission to the National Direction changes.

5.2.1 Advantages

· There are no advantages identified.

5.2.2 Disadvantages

· This option would see a lost opportunity to influence national planning instruments.

6.0 Next steps – Te Anga Whakamua

6.1 The submission will be sent to the Ministry for the Environment prior to 27 July.

6.2 A further report by the Growth and Development Team will be bought to Council with a submission on Package 4 Going for Housing Growth.

6.3 Council Officers will continue to engage with the Ministries and will bring back further opportunities to submit on resource management reform.

Attachments:

1 ⇩

Legislation, Bylaws & Standards - Acts & Statutes - Resource Management Act - Amendments - National Direction Submission Packages 1 2 & 3- July 2025

CG-17-1-01678

Te Rā Hui: Meeting date:	Tuesday, 22 July 2025
Te Wā: Time:	1.00pm
Te Wāhi: Venue:	Council Chamber Ground Floor Civic Administration Building Lyndon Road East Hastings
Te Hoapā: Contact:	Democracy and Governance Services P: 06 871 5000 \| E: democracy@hdc.govt.nz
Te Āpiha Matua: Responsible Officer:	Chief Executive - Nigel Bickle

Mematanga: Membership:	Tiamana Chair: Mayor Sandra Hazlehurst Ngā KaiKaunihera Councillors: Ana Apatu, Marcus Buddo, Alwyn Corban, Malcolm Dixon, Michael Fowler, Damon Harvey, Henry Heke, Kellie Jessup, Tania Kerr (Deputy Mayor), Hana Montaperto-Hendry, Simon Nixon, Wendy Schollum, Heather Te Au-Skipworth and Kevin Watkins and one councillor vacancy
Tokamatua: Quorum:	8 members
Apiha Matua Officer Responsible:	Chief Executive – Nigel Bickle
Te Rōpū Manapori me te Kāwanatanga Democracy and Governance Services:	Louise Stettner (Extn 5543)

1.0	Opening Prayer – Karakia Whakatūwheratanga
2.0	Apologies & Leave of Absence – Ngā Whakapāhatanga me te Wehenga ā-Hui At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received. Leave of Absence had previously been granted to Councillor Kerr
3.0	Conflict of Interest – He Ngākau Kōnatunatu Members need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a Member of the Council and any private or other external interest they might have. This note is provided as a reminder to Members to scan the agenda and assess their own private interests and identify where they may have a pecuniary or other conflict of interest, or where there may be perceptions of conflict of interest. If a Member feels they do have a conflict of interest, they should publicly declare that at the start of the relevant item of business and withdraw from participating in the meeting. If a Member thinks they may have a conflict of interest, they can seek advice from the General Counsel or the Manager: Democracy and Governance (preferably before the meeting). It is noted that while Members can seek advice and discuss these matters, the final decision as to whether a conflict exists rests with the member.
4.0	Confirmation of Minutes – Te Whakamana i Ngā Miniti Minutes of the Council Meeting held Tuesday 17 June 2025. (Previously circulated)
5.0	Uplift of Agenda Item relating to the 'Napier Hastings Future Development Strategy' resolved at the Council Meeting on 26 June 2025 to 'Lie On The Table'	7
6.0	Adoption of the Napier/Hastings Future Development Strategy (as uplifted)	35
7.0	Road Stopping of Part of Iona Road for the Iona Structure Plan	47
8.0	Authorisation for relocation of a crossing place on a Limited Access Road to serve Lots 2-5 DP 508218 at 1275 Maraekakaho Road	55
9.0	Proposed Amendments To Schedule Of Meetings	63
10.0	Submissions on Proposed National Policy Statements and National Environmental Standards Changes and on the Freshwater Discussion Document	65
11.0	Minor Items – Ngā Take Iti
12.0	Urgent Items – Ngā Take Whakahihiri
13.0	Recommendation to Exclude the Public from Item 14	101
14.0	CON2020007 - 3 Waters Maintenance Contract

Item 5 Uplift of Agenda Item relating to the 'Napier Hastings Future Development Strategy' resolved at the Council Meeting on 26 June 2025 to 'Lie On The Table'
Attachment 1 - Reports from Barkers and Associates and Simpson Grierson 2025-07-16	Attachment 1

Item 5 Uplift of Agenda Item relating to the 'Napier Hastings Future Development Strategy' resolved at the Council Meeting on 26 June 2025 to 'Lie On The Table'
Attachment 2 - DRAFT FDS Council Resolutions - 26 June 2025	Attachment 2

Item 7 Road Stopping of Part of Iona Road for the Iona Structure Plan
Iona Middle Land Requirement Plan	Attachment 1

Item 8 Authorisation for relocation of a crossing place on a Limited Access Road to serve Lots 2-5 DP 508218 at 1275 Maraekakaho Road
1275 Maraekakaho Road Crossing Point	Attachment 1

Item 10 Submissions on Proposed National Policy Statements and National Environmental Standards Changes and on the Freshwater Discussion Document
Legislation, Bylaws & Standards - Acts & Statutes - Resource Management Act - Amendments - National Direction Submission Packages 1 2 & 3- July 2025	Attachment 1