Community Feedback.
|
This section features feedback received from community members as well as communication with Kapiti Coast District Council.
|
Comments received to Horse Paddock Action mailouts
Comment: Thanks for your letter drop and giving us information as to what is the proposed plan for the horse paddock.
We sent an email to the council a few weeks ago to ask what was happening and their response was nothing.
We always knew it would be a possibility one day for the land to be used for housing of some sort. We are opposed to it being that many houses and the traffic down into Halsey Grove will be very busy.
We are happy to join you and others with whatever we can do to voice our concerns to the council to reduce the proposed plan to 25 - 30 properties and the entrance to be off Kapiti Road.
Comment: Thanks for your letter which we read with interest, we are not effected by the proposed development but our next door neighbor (down same driveway at 11 Langdale) is very much effected as are the next two dwellings down the boundary to the church land. As with others they will be badly effected by a two storey dwelling being built which will block there natural abundant sunlight presently enjoyed. ( let alone their beautiful unblocked views of nature)
For your information I know the people who sold the land and they were advised by developer that traffic into the development is as you stated but all out going traffic will be onto Kapiti Road which as you know is already backed with cars past the church several times a day. So it will get worse. Although sold present owners have until Christmas to move out. Not really important but from two independent sources I have been told that the land sold for $8.3 million hence number of proposed units.
Although as stated we are not effected other than traffic congestion, have you thought of calling a meeting of all the effected parties, it could be interesting to see where you stand as a united voice.
In the interim I will ensure my immediate two neighbors who are effected have a copy of your letter.
Comment: Thanks for making contact through the letter in my mailbox today. I am at 2D Cedar Drive and like my neighbours here we have been wondering and worrying about just what is happening over the back paddock. I myself have only lived here a short time, less than a year, and have had a problem with rats which I suspect are coming from the paddock and also with blackberry and toi toi right up against my fence and the blackberry coming up in my garden. It seems to have been let go wild. I would not be sorry to get rid of these problems but certainly do not want a 2 storey housing development right up against my back fence. I do not know what we can do or if we will be listened to, but certainly count me in if there is any group action we can take.
Comment: Many thanks for the leaflet left in my letterbox regarding the above property.
I was aware that it had been sold and a major development was planned. Not the extent or scale of it though.
Naturally, like you, I am concerned. If a group of concerned neighbours is formed, please count me in. I do not know the process for lodging an objection is, but will certainly object. Like you, am not against new homes in the neighbourhood. Just the proposed scale of this development.
I have googled Gresham Trustees and note that the name of Kurt Roland Kerrison shows as a director. He is also a director/shareholder of Florian - this is the name of development of townhouses that are being built in Trieste Way (off Ihakara Street).
Comment: Would be interested to see the full resource consent application.
That block of land has so much potential. Small self-contained homes surrounded by some well-planned green space would be a much better build approach.
Comment: Yes very concerning, could you please forward consent in it’s entirety.
Comment: Thank you for putting your flyer in our letterbox.
We have been watching every day for any movement over the fence, to either down the pines or clear the blackberry which is now invading all properties along our side.
The state of the paddock is absolutely shocking.
Contacted the KCDC this morning and they emailed out a copy of the Resource Consent Application within the hour.
It will take days to read it but at least we now know what is about to happen if the council gives the go ahead. Can't imagine what its going to be like with all those buildings over our back fence. Our streets are going to be busy.
Thanks again for your flyer.
Comment: Thanks very much for your note in my mailbox. I've just downloaded the full consent application, and read about as much of it as I can stomach!
New housing is needed, of course, but if they call that proposed development "medium density", I hate to think what high density would look like. I don't think I've seen anything uglier.
And the many impacts they detail then dismiss as "less than minor" will impact us all in this area, most especially your property. Access only via Halsey Grove is appalling. As is the prospect of their estimated additional 100 vehicles per hour on Cedar/Regent in peak times.
Thanks again for the heads up - watching with concern.
Comment: Thank you for your letter which was in our letterbox the other day regarding the new sub division.
We totally agree with your thinking and we are opposed to it. We bought 5 Cedar Drive just before Christmas and moved in on 3 January. We love the house and the area and would hate to see it changed too much. We walked past your street only the other day and I commented about the subdivision and your street and it’s access to it and I thought that that was likely to happen. Where we are, it’s on the bend which is blind. If we back out to go onto Kāpiti Road we’ve noticed there is a high chance someone comes around the corner and hits us. It’ll only get worse with more cars as they come around quite fast as it is.
If you could send us a copy of the application we would be grateful. It is a huge concern and we think it would be good if those that are worried and care about our area, joined together and took the Council to task on it. It could be that as a group we can persuade the Developers and Council to change the application. Like you, we're not opposed to new housing but it needs to be thoughtful and considered housing and thought given to the surrounding area and it’s residents.
Comment: How well you have portrayed our deep concerns about the proposed subdivision in ‘A Modern Coronation Street’ .
I‘ll support any protests we could make to prevent it going ahead under this poor, destructive design.
It was great being able to chat with you about it yesterday.
I haven’t been able to download the PDF Resort Consent Application yet, but will have it sorted asap.
Thank you so much for your excellent, enthusiastic and hard work on behalf of we neighbouring and local residents.
Comment: I got your flyer in my mailbox.
I'm not happy with the proposed development of the land behind our houses and just wanted to let you know.
Not sure what we/I can do (I'm incapacitated at the moment with a pharmaceutical drug injury) but at least wanted to register my concern and potential support.
Comment: We have just read your leaflet and wondered if you would be able to email us a copy of the application please.
Comment: We received the information regarding the proposed development at 240 Kapiti Road, unfortunately I couldn't open the link however you have our support, thanks for bringing it to our attention
Comment: Firstly, thank you for your succinct letter informing the neighbourhood of the proposed changes to 240 Kapiti Road.
As you have stated the proposal is out of sync and character with all existing housing in the area. The impact of more traffic during the building stage and when the area is completed is a big concern for us. Both Kapiti Road and Guildford Drive are heavy with traffic most days, they do not need anymore!
We too are all for new housing and development and would be very supportive of about 26 residential lots added to the community. It would be lovely to have families drawn into our neighbourhood and 120 two-bedroom units isn’t going to encourage that.
As per your letter, if there is a group to be formed we would like our voices heard.
Comment: We received your message about the proposed development at 240 Kapiti Road.
I am unable to get a copy of the consent from Council as they have informed me that it is on hold pending further information and no decision has been made on notification.
If you are able to share the resource consent with us as we would like to have a look at it.
Comment: We have received your leaflet regarding the proposed multi-unit development at 240 Kapiti Road. We have had discussions with your neighbours, and have a copy of the proposal.
We share your concerns. We believe this will be a notified consent application and we will have an opportunity to make submissions.
We are happy to participate in a joint submission with other affected parties, like yourselves.
Comment: Thank you for getting touch about the Resource Consent for 240 Kapiti Road.
I wasn’t aware that this was in the pipe-line
I have visited the council this morning and have just received the Consent Application by email.
I agree that the proposal will have a negative effect on the roads around our area. It’s difficult enough at times to get onto Kapiti Road from Cedar Drive.
I would be happy to support your initiative to get together to see what can be done.
Comment: Thanks for the circular. We have had a look at the consent application.
We currently find that heading towards Kapiti Road from our home, the intersection of Cedar Drive and Regent Drive can be difficult to traverse safely.
There does not appear to be any allowance for managing the increased traffic flow that would result from the development, such as improving the roading/footpaths/or anything.
We would also want to know from KCDC of any possible adverse impacts on our current services due to the density/location of this proposed development.
It has the makings of a train wreck.
We are opposed and will join any group seeking alternatives/watering down.
Comment: Thank you for the circular, received this week in our letterbox, regarding the resource consent application to develop and subdivide the property at 240 Kapiti Road.
We can empathise with you in that the proposed plan would result in a massive impact on you, including during the construction phase.
We have not developed a definitive view on this issue as yet, but at first sight it appears that, based on the information you have provided, the proposed housing density on that parcel of land is unreasonably high, and the proposal that all vehicular access will be via Halsey Grove is inappropriate.
At this stage we are not offering active support in initiating a challenge to the consent application, but would appreciate being kept aware of developments and deadlines.
We would suggest that you might consider interesting friendly reporters from the two local newspapers in this situation.
Comment: Thank you for your letter drop on the potential development of 240 Kapiti road. Like you we are not opposed to the subdividing of the vacant land, but the likelihood of the intensified style of housing does raise some concerns as you outlined.
Could you please forward a copy of the resource consent application for our review.
Comment: Many thanks for bringing this to our attention, and the to chat today Pam.
We are so totally against what is being proposed and will assist anyway we can to get the streets involved to oppose this.
Please forward the application to us.
We sent an email to the council a few weeks ago to ask what was happening and their response was nothing.
We always knew it would be a possibility one day for the land to be used for housing of some sort. We are opposed to it being that many houses and the traffic down into Halsey Grove will be very busy.
We are happy to join you and others with whatever we can do to voice our concerns to the council to reduce the proposed plan to 25 - 30 properties and the entrance to be off Kapiti Road.
Comment: Thanks for your letter which we read with interest, we are not effected by the proposed development but our next door neighbor (down same driveway at 11 Langdale) is very much effected as are the next two dwellings down the boundary to the church land. As with others they will be badly effected by a two storey dwelling being built which will block there natural abundant sunlight presently enjoyed. ( let alone their beautiful unblocked views of nature)
For your information I know the people who sold the land and they were advised by developer that traffic into the development is as you stated but all out going traffic will be onto Kapiti Road which as you know is already backed with cars past the church several times a day. So it will get worse. Although sold present owners have until Christmas to move out. Not really important but from two independent sources I have been told that the land sold for $8.3 million hence number of proposed units.
Although as stated we are not effected other than traffic congestion, have you thought of calling a meeting of all the effected parties, it could be interesting to see where you stand as a united voice.
In the interim I will ensure my immediate two neighbors who are effected have a copy of your letter.
Comment: Thanks for making contact through the letter in my mailbox today. I am at 2D Cedar Drive and like my neighbours here we have been wondering and worrying about just what is happening over the back paddock. I myself have only lived here a short time, less than a year, and have had a problem with rats which I suspect are coming from the paddock and also with blackberry and toi toi right up against my fence and the blackberry coming up in my garden. It seems to have been let go wild. I would not be sorry to get rid of these problems but certainly do not want a 2 storey housing development right up against my back fence. I do not know what we can do or if we will be listened to, but certainly count me in if there is any group action we can take.
Comment: Many thanks for the leaflet left in my letterbox regarding the above property.
I was aware that it had been sold and a major development was planned. Not the extent or scale of it though.
Naturally, like you, I am concerned. If a group of concerned neighbours is formed, please count me in. I do not know the process for lodging an objection is, but will certainly object. Like you, am not against new homes in the neighbourhood. Just the proposed scale of this development.
I have googled Gresham Trustees and note that the name of Kurt Roland Kerrison shows as a director. He is also a director/shareholder of Florian - this is the name of development of townhouses that are being built in Trieste Way (off Ihakara Street).
Comment: Would be interested to see the full resource consent application.
That block of land has so much potential. Small self-contained homes surrounded by some well-planned green space would be a much better build approach.
Comment: Yes very concerning, could you please forward consent in it’s entirety.
Comment: Thank you for putting your flyer in our letterbox.
We have been watching every day for any movement over the fence, to either down the pines or clear the blackberry which is now invading all properties along our side.
The state of the paddock is absolutely shocking.
Contacted the KCDC this morning and they emailed out a copy of the Resource Consent Application within the hour.
It will take days to read it but at least we now know what is about to happen if the council gives the go ahead. Can't imagine what its going to be like with all those buildings over our back fence. Our streets are going to be busy.
Thanks again for your flyer.
Comment: Thanks very much for your note in my mailbox. I've just downloaded the full consent application, and read about as much of it as I can stomach!
New housing is needed, of course, but if they call that proposed development "medium density", I hate to think what high density would look like. I don't think I've seen anything uglier.
And the many impacts they detail then dismiss as "less than minor" will impact us all in this area, most especially your property. Access only via Halsey Grove is appalling. As is the prospect of their estimated additional 100 vehicles per hour on Cedar/Regent in peak times.
Thanks again for the heads up - watching with concern.
Comment: Thank you for your letter which was in our letterbox the other day regarding the new sub division.
We totally agree with your thinking and we are opposed to it. We bought 5 Cedar Drive just before Christmas and moved in on 3 January. We love the house and the area and would hate to see it changed too much. We walked past your street only the other day and I commented about the subdivision and your street and it’s access to it and I thought that that was likely to happen. Where we are, it’s on the bend which is blind. If we back out to go onto Kāpiti Road we’ve noticed there is a high chance someone comes around the corner and hits us. It’ll only get worse with more cars as they come around quite fast as it is.
If you could send us a copy of the application we would be grateful. It is a huge concern and we think it would be good if those that are worried and care about our area, joined together and took the Council to task on it. It could be that as a group we can persuade the Developers and Council to change the application. Like you, we're not opposed to new housing but it needs to be thoughtful and considered housing and thought given to the surrounding area and it’s residents.
Comment: How well you have portrayed our deep concerns about the proposed subdivision in ‘A Modern Coronation Street’ .
I‘ll support any protests we could make to prevent it going ahead under this poor, destructive design.
It was great being able to chat with you about it yesterday.
I haven’t been able to download the PDF Resort Consent Application yet, but will have it sorted asap.
Thank you so much for your excellent, enthusiastic and hard work on behalf of we neighbouring and local residents.
Comment: I got your flyer in my mailbox.
I'm not happy with the proposed development of the land behind our houses and just wanted to let you know.
Not sure what we/I can do (I'm incapacitated at the moment with a pharmaceutical drug injury) but at least wanted to register my concern and potential support.
Comment: We have just read your leaflet and wondered if you would be able to email us a copy of the application please.
Comment: We received the information regarding the proposed development at 240 Kapiti Road, unfortunately I couldn't open the link however you have our support, thanks for bringing it to our attention
Comment: Firstly, thank you for your succinct letter informing the neighbourhood of the proposed changes to 240 Kapiti Road.
As you have stated the proposal is out of sync and character with all existing housing in the area. The impact of more traffic during the building stage and when the area is completed is a big concern for us. Both Kapiti Road and Guildford Drive are heavy with traffic most days, they do not need anymore!
We too are all for new housing and development and would be very supportive of about 26 residential lots added to the community. It would be lovely to have families drawn into our neighbourhood and 120 two-bedroom units isn’t going to encourage that.
As per your letter, if there is a group to be formed we would like our voices heard.
Comment: We received your message about the proposed development at 240 Kapiti Road.
I am unable to get a copy of the consent from Council as they have informed me that it is on hold pending further information and no decision has been made on notification.
If you are able to share the resource consent with us as we would like to have a look at it.
Comment: We have received your leaflet regarding the proposed multi-unit development at 240 Kapiti Road. We have had discussions with your neighbours, and have a copy of the proposal.
We share your concerns. We believe this will be a notified consent application and we will have an opportunity to make submissions.
We are happy to participate in a joint submission with other affected parties, like yourselves.
Comment: Thank you for getting touch about the Resource Consent for 240 Kapiti Road.
I wasn’t aware that this was in the pipe-line
I have visited the council this morning and have just received the Consent Application by email.
I agree that the proposal will have a negative effect on the roads around our area. It’s difficult enough at times to get onto Kapiti Road from Cedar Drive.
I would be happy to support your initiative to get together to see what can be done.
Comment: Thanks for the circular. We have had a look at the consent application.
We currently find that heading towards Kapiti Road from our home, the intersection of Cedar Drive and Regent Drive can be difficult to traverse safely.
There does not appear to be any allowance for managing the increased traffic flow that would result from the development, such as improving the roading/footpaths/or anything.
We would also want to know from KCDC of any possible adverse impacts on our current services due to the density/location of this proposed development.
It has the makings of a train wreck.
We are opposed and will join any group seeking alternatives/watering down.
Comment: Thank you for the circular, received this week in our letterbox, regarding the resource consent application to develop and subdivide the property at 240 Kapiti Road.
We can empathise with you in that the proposed plan would result in a massive impact on you, including during the construction phase.
We have not developed a definitive view on this issue as yet, but at first sight it appears that, based on the information you have provided, the proposed housing density on that parcel of land is unreasonably high, and the proposal that all vehicular access will be via Halsey Grove is inappropriate.
At this stage we are not offering active support in initiating a challenge to the consent application, but would appreciate being kept aware of developments and deadlines.
We would suggest that you might consider interesting friendly reporters from the two local newspapers in this situation.
Comment: Thank you for your letter drop on the potential development of 240 Kapiti road. Like you we are not opposed to the subdividing of the vacant land, but the likelihood of the intensified style of housing does raise some concerns as you outlined.
Could you please forward a copy of the resource consent application for our review.
Comment: Many thanks for bringing this to our attention, and the to chat today Pam.
We are so totally against what is being proposed and will assist anyway we can to get the streets involved to oppose this.
Please forward the application to us.
Draft Plan Change 2: Intensification - Submission
The personal cost of a proposed medium density housing development in Kapiti has made our household, and many others in our neighbourhood read and try to understand the extensive and complex changes being proposed to the Kapiti District Plan.
DO YOU THE COUNCIL ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND THE EFFECTS MANY OF THE PROPOSALS WILL HAVE ON ALREADY WELL-ESTABLISHED AREAS, WHERE EVERYDAY KAPITI RATEPAYERS (WHOSE REASONS FOR SETTLING IN KAPITI) WILL BE DRASTICALLY AFFECTED?
To this extent, our submissions below are based on the proposed development of medium density housing at 240 Kapiti Rd, Paraparaumu.
We don’t know prices for units within this proposed development but going by other similar ones currently being built (including another Gresham Trust development in Ihakara St) – will the homeless/low income/first home buyers be able to afford them, or will they be purchased by property speculators who will just rent them out. Surely this would go against all the objectives the Government/Kapiti Council are trying to achieve?
Main Objections:
Submission from Malcolm Ward, 2 Halsey Grove, Paraparaumu Beach
DO YOU THE COUNCIL ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND THE EFFECTS MANY OF THE PROPOSALS WILL HAVE ON ALREADY WELL-ESTABLISHED AREAS, WHERE EVERYDAY KAPITI RATEPAYERS (WHOSE REASONS FOR SETTLING IN KAPITI) WILL BE DRASTICALLY AFFECTED?
To this extent, our submissions below are based on the proposed development of medium density housing at 240 Kapiti Rd, Paraparaumu.
We don’t know prices for units within this proposed development but going by other similar ones currently being built (including another Gresham Trust development in Ihakara St) – will the homeless/low income/first home buyers be able to afford them, or will they be purchased by property speculators who will just rent them out. Surely this would go against all the objectives the Government/Kapiti Council are trying to achieve?
Main Objections:
- Traffic:
- All entering or exiting through the adjoining subdivision.
- 100+ more vehicles trying to enter or exit the already congested Kapiti Rd/Cedar Dr intersection.
- If the proposed subdivision was to go ahead, primary access should be directly onto Kapiti Rd – with secondary access through Halsey Grove.
- Non-conformity with the surrounding subdivisions. There’s no objection to the concept – but not in a well-established area, where a suitably subdivided ‘controlled activity’ of some 26 residential lots could be undertaken on the subject site – fitting in with the already existing subdivisions.
- There is nothing in the application which indicates any consideration or regard has been afforded the present and established residents of the area. The application continuously refers to the impacts of the development as being ‘minor’ – this is almost a total understatement!
- Present residents (particularly those whose boundaries abut the proposed development) will, or may lose privacy, views, sun, green spaces, and the quality, peace, and tranquillity they presently enjoy, and could still enjoy with a less invasive development.
- For those properties on the boundary, this enjoyment will be replaced by an almost continuous 6.2m (over 20 foot) ‘wall’.
- The loss of present property values does not appear to have been addressed at all. This could be considerable, is of great concern to the present residents, and should be carefully considered by the Council’s resource consent planners.
- Far more appropriate new sites exist or will exist where medium density housing can be practiced – rather than within an already existing low density housing neighbourhood. This type of proposal should be restricted to new areas, where it can be incorporated into the theme and planning of that area.
- Not even nearby retirement/lifestyle villages (i.e., Seven Oaks, Kapiti Village, Summerset Paraparaumu, Midlands Gardens) incorporate a ‘medium density’ concept of this nature!
- Developers have already displayed a complete disregard for due process – by filling in the pond that existed on the property at 240 Kapiti Rd without resource consent.
- The following distances and times are not conducive to nor likely to inspire people to walk – but rather to use a motor vehicle, especially when purchasing goods to be carried home.
- 2.5km (33min walk) to the nearest rapid transport stop (Paraparaumu Railway Station.
- 750m (10min walk) to the nearest supermarket (New World).
- 800m (10min walk) to the nearest hardware (Mitre 10 Mega), etc.
- 1.2km (15min walk) to the nearest shops (Paraparaumu Beach).
- 2.2km (28min walk) to the nearest shopping mall (Coastlands).
- There are no existing sports facilities, nor green areas nearby or within easy walking:
- 1.5km (18min walk) to Mazengarb Reserve.
- 1.2km (15min walk) to Paraparaumu Beach Golf Club.
- 1.7km (22min walk) to Coastlands Aquatic Centre.
- 1.1km (14min walk) to the Paraparaumu Beach Dog Park.
- 2.7km (34min walk) to the Paraparaumu Domain.
- 2.9km (36min walk) to the Te Atiawa Park.
- Emergency and utility services access. The circular one-way roading system allows no room for a breakdown or blockage.
- Fire?
- Medical emergency?
- Rubbish collection?
- Service vehicles?
Submission from Malcolm Ward, 2 Halsey Grove, Paraparaumu Beach
Kapiti Coast District Council Draft District Plan Change 2: Intensification
Introduction
While I understand the drivers behind KCDC’s revision of its District Plan to align with the Government’s National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UP), and am a supporter of appropriate, well considered residential intensification projects, I am less clear on the mechanisms KCDC plans to use to protect community interests and provide active measures that allow community members to have their say and to be heard regarding individual projects.
Currently a system exists where developers are able to “game” Councils in order to obtain non-notifiable consents, removing the ability for communities of interest and of place to have a say.
While a rationale can be constructed for ways to speed up the process of gaining approvals for residential housing projects, such as outlined by the NPS-UP, doing that at the expense of local democracy is not a clever idea if the Council’s reputation and credibility are to have any value with its communities.
While it is often argued that effective community engagement takes too much time and adds cost, there is no evidence that supports such claims when appropriate, well considered, timely and mature engagement processes are used.
Case Study: 240 Kapiti Road Development
This development proposes the construction of:
In short, over 500 people and 300 motor vehicles with no supporting facilities can be crammed into a 1.9ha area that is currently surrounded by a community of well-maintained, owner-occupier detached residences. The documentation supporting this application to KCDC describes any impacts of this development on the surrounding community as “minor”, clear evidence of “gaming”.
A way of assessing the impacts of this proposed development is by using KCDC’s own “Design Principles” for medium density housing:
V: PROVIDE FOR VARIETY AND CHOICE
» Ground floor uses contribute positively to the street and public realm: Fail
» Provide opportunities for residential activities which are successfully integrated with commercial use: Fail
» Provide for a range of dwelling sizes and types: Fail
» Provide clear definition between public and private spaces, and clear building entrances: Possibly
I: INTEGRATE WITH PUBLIC REALM AND SURROUNDINGS
» Improve connectivity to town centres and local public spaces by creating through-site walking and cycling links where possible: Possibly
» Respond to the surrounding environment and open-up developments to front public spaces and amenities: Fail
» Consider the existing environment (built and natural) when designing to the anticipated level of residential intensification: Fail
» Consider the potential for development on neighbouring sites: Fail
» Provide for passive surveillance of the public domain through windows and building orientation: Possibly
A: PROVIDE APPROPRIATE BUILT FORM AND DESIGN
» Achieve bulk, massing and scale appropriate to the anticipated design patterns of the surrounding neighbourhood: Fail
» Use design features such as modulation, articulation, building materials and colour to integrate the built form into the surrounding area and provide visual interest: Fail
» Ensure built form and design enables accessibility that provides for the day-to-day living and needs of future residents: Fail
S: CREATE A COMFORTABLE AND SAFE ENVIRONMENT
» Provide accessible external and internal design that caters for people of all ages and abilities: Fail
» Provide amenity through a balance of green, private and communal spaces: Fail
» Orientate outdoor living spaces and buildings to maximise solar benefits: Fail
» Provide for housing that serves the needs of different communities, ages, budgets and lifestyles. Fail
There are numerous other criteria that could be used to assess the value and impacts of this proposed development, such as social services, schools, traffic flows and supporting infrastructure. These should be part of an objective social impact study commissioned by Council. Social impact studies should be a requirement for all significant housing developments on the Kapiti Coast.
Summary
The interests of property developers must not be given precedence over the interests of affected communities, particularly in the absence of social impact reports and active community engagement. New constructions, regardless of the intensity of dwellings, need to align closely and sustainably with a community’s values and future vision.
Kapiti’s communities expect their Council to act democratically and competently.
Submission from Brett Sangster, 8 Regent Drive, Paraparaumu Beach
While I understand the drivers behind KCDC’s revision of its District Plan to align with the Government’s National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UP), and am a supporter of appropriate, well considered residential intensification projects, I am less clear on the mechanisms KCDC plans to use to protect community interests and provide active measures that allow community members to have their say and to be heard regarding individual projects.
Currently a system exists where developers are able to “game” Councils in order to obtain non-notifiable consents, removing the ability for communities of interest and of place to have a say.
While a rationale can be constructed for ways to speed up the process of gaining approvals for residential housing projects, such as outlined by the NPS-UP, doing that at the expense of local democracy is not a clever idea if the Council’s reputation and credibility are to have any value with its communities.
While it is often argued that effective community engagement takes too much time and adds cost, there is no evidence that supports such claims when appropriate, well considered, timely and mature engagement processes are used.
Case Study: 240 Kapiti Road Development
This development proposes the construction of:
- 120 two-bedroom units, ranging from 72m2 to 75m2 in area
- 19 three-bedroom units, ranging from 106m2 to 109m2 in area
- 170 car parks
- An internal private two-way road network
- Communal open space.
In short, over 500 people and 300 motor vehicles with no supporting facilities can be crammed into a 1.9ha area that is currently surrounded by a community of well-maintained, owner-occupier detached residences. The documentation supporting this application to KCDC describes any impacts of this development on the surrounding community as “minor”, clear evidence of “gaming”.
A way of assessing the impacts of this proposed development is by using KCDC’s own “Design Principles” for medium density housing:
V: PROVIDE FOR VARIETY AND CHOICE
» Ground floor uses contribute positively to the street and public realm: Fail
» Provide opportunities for residential activities which are successfully integrated with commercial use: Fail
» Provide for a range of dwelling sizes and types: Fail
» Provide clear definition between public and private spaces, and clear building entrances: Possibly
I: INTEGRATE WITH PUBLIC REALM AND SURROUNDINGS
» Improve connectivity to town centres and local public spaces by creating through-site walking and cycling links where possible: Possibly
» Respond to the surrounding environment and open-up developments to front public spaces and amenities: Fail
» Consider the existing environment (built and natural) when designing to the anticipated level of residential intensification: Fail
» Consider the potential for development on neighbouring sites: Fail
» Provide for passive surveillance of the public domain through windows and building orientation: Possibly
A: PROVIDE APPROPRIATE BUILT FORM AND DESIGN
» Achieve bulk, massing and scale appropriate to the anticipated design patterns of the surrounding neighbourhood: Fail
» Use design features such as modulation, articulation, building materials and colour to integrate the built form into the surrounding area and provide visual interest: Fail
» Ensure built form and design enables accessibility that provides for the day-to-day living and needs of future residents: Fail
S: CREATE A COMFORTABLE AND SAFE ENVIRONMENT
» Provide accessible external and internal design that caters for people of all ages and abilities: Fail
» Provide amenity through a balance of green, private and communal spaces: Fail
» Orientate outdoor living spaces and buildings to maximise solar benefits: Fail
» Provide for housing that serves the needs of different communities, ages, budgets and lifestyles. Fail
There are numerous other criteria that could be used to assess the value and impacts of this proposed development, such as social services, schools, traffic flows and supporting infrastructure. These should be part of an objective social impact study commissioned by Council. Social impact studies should be a requirement for all significant housing developments on the Kapiti Coast.
Summary
The interests of property developers must not be given precedence over the interests of affected communities, particularly in the absence of social impact reports and active community engagement. New constructions, regardless of the intensity of dwellings, need to align closely and sustainably with a community’s values and future vision.
Kapiti’s communities expect their Council to act democratically and competently.
Submission from Brett Sangster, 8 Regent Drive, Paraparaumu Beach
Over-arching Concerns Regarding Plan Change 2 (PC2)
As you know WBRSI represents residents at Waikanae Beach in community matters. We currently have an active membership numbering approximately 150.
WBRSI has concerns regarding the way in which PC2 was promulgated, its treatment of local centres and the sweeping inclusion of all residential areas for MDRS.
We are setting out our concerns in the hope that we might better understand some of the decisions that have been made.
In order to understand our concerns, it is necessary to consider a short chronology of the Growth Strategy and the drafting of PC2.
Chronology
19 October 2021 Council consultation opened on draft Growth Strategy.
19 October 2021 Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill introduced.
26 October 2021 First Reading of the Amendment Act.
19 November 2021 Council consultation closed on draft Growth Strategy.
1 December 2021 MfE provide the Environment Committee of the House Further advice on the ability to exclude smaller settlements. A copy of this advice is attached.
7 December 2021 Second Reading of the Amendment Act.
8 December 2021 SOP No 106 introduced. This SOP changed the definition of “relevant residential zone” and followed MfE’s advice. NOTE: there was no consultation with KCDC communities on the effect of SOP No 106.
14 December 2021 Third Reading of the Amendment Act.
20 December 2021 Royal Assent of the Amendment Act.
24 February 2022 Council Meeting adopting the Growth Strategy. The Council Officers report which forms part of the Agenda for this meeting states:
Background
12. During the consultation period, the government introduced new legislation which requires greater density housing to be enabled within most existing urban areas in Kāpiti. These new requirements are reflected in the final growth strategy now proposed for adoption.
Specific Issues
54 The growth strategy emphasises enabling growth through intensification of Kāpiti’s urban areas. The NPS-UD initially directed certain levels of intensification around metropolitan centres and rapid transit stops, leaving Council some discretion as to the level of intensification around its town and local centres. In the growth approach taken out to consultation we settled on a density hierarchy across our urban areas ranging from 12 storeys in central Paraparaumu to two to three storeys in suburban areas. Amendments to the NPS-UD in late 2021 strengthened the requirement for Council to focus intensification within and around town and local centres. Also in late 2021, Parliament passed legislation requiring councils to make changes to the district plan to enable the construction of up to three homes of up to three storeys on most residential sites without the need for a resource consent. These new rules amending the RMA are referred to as medium density residential standards (MDRS). The MDRS are required to be enabled in all residential zones within the district, except on sites where there are “qualifying matters”, such as natural hazards, ecological sites, and sites of significance to mana whenua.
The Amendment Act introduced a number of changes including:
Section 77G
(1) Every relevant residential zone of a specified territorial authority must have the MDRS incorporated into that zone.
(2) Every residential zone in an urban environment of a specified territorial authority must give effect to policy 3 or policy 5, as the case requires, in that zone.
(3) When changing its district plan for the first time to incorporate the MDRS and to give effect to policy 3 or policy 5, as the case requires, and to meet its obligations in section 80F, a specified territorial authority must use an IPI and the ISPP.
Policy 3 of the NPS-UD amended to read:
Policy 3: In relation to tier 1 urban environments, regional policy statements and district plans enable:
(a)in city centre zones, building heights and density of urban form to realise as much development capacity as possible, to maximise benefits of intensification; and
(b)in metropolitan centre zones, building heights and density of urban form to reflect demand for housing and business use in those locations, and in all cases building heights of at least 6 storeys; and
(c)building heights of at least 6 storeys within at least a walkable catchment of the following:
(i) existing and planned rapid transit stops
(ii) the edge of city centre zones
(iii) the edge of metropolitan centre zones; and
(d)in all other locations in the tier 1 urban environment, building heights and density of urban form commensurate with the greater of:
(i) the level of accessibility by existing or planned active or public transport to a range of commercial activities and community services; or
(ii) relative demand for housing and business use in that location.
within and adjacent to neighbourhood centre zones, local centre zones, and town centre zones (or equivalent), building heights and density of urban form commensurate with the level of commercial activity and community services.
There are two issues that arise from Council’s Draft Plan Change 2.
Issue 1 – MDRS.
The Council has been advised that the MDRS is required to be implemented through all residential zones.
This advice ignores the amendments made by SOP 106 and now part of the RMA:
Relevant Residential Zone is defined in the Act as
(a) means all residential zones; but
(b) does not include--
(i) a large lot residential zone:
(ii) an area predominantly urban in character that the 2018 census recorded as having a resident population of less than 5,000, unless a local authority intends the area to become part of an urban environment:
(iii) an offshore island:
(iv) to avoid doubt, a settlement zone
There are communities within KCDC that in the 2018 census recorded a resident population of less than 5,000. This includes Waikanae Beach. The census number in 2018 was 3,249 people. The MfE advice specifically referred to Peka Peka.
We note that Waikanae Beach can be clearly physically delineated as a separate residential zone within the Kapiti district being bounded by the new expressway to the east, the ocean to the west, the Waikanae River to the south and the oxidation ponds, Pharazyn park to the north.
Yet Council has not even been presented with a paper to explain this, and to allow it to make a decision on which of its communities might be excluded from the MDRS provisions.
We note that Christchurch City Council and Auckland City Council appear to take a far more liberal approach to character areas being a qualifying matter and excluded from the MDRS provisions.
Issue 2 – Policy 3 of the NPS-UD
Section 77G(2) applies to every residential zone. Note the omission of the word relevant.
Therefore there is a direction that Policy 3 apply. In the case of local centres this means having building heights and density of urban form commensurate with the level of commercial activity and community services.
This raises two points:
It seems however, there has been no analysis of whether remaining local centres have been correctly zoned or not, or whether areas that are not zoned local centre should be. Rather, the status quo has simply been alighted upon.
WBRSI is concerned that Councillors have not been fully advised of the ability for communities to avoid the MDRS provisions, and for the intensity of the development concerning Policy 3 of the NPS-UD to be watered down or avoided altogether if local centres were reconsidered based on merit.
WBRSI understands the need for further housing, and one option that could easily be explored would be to reduce minimum lot sizes but retain height standards. It was well emphasized at the hearing into the Waikanae Beach Zone that height is a key factor for character at the beach.
WBRSI remains concerned that intensification is planned for an area that has long been identified in the District Plan as being part of the Coastal Environment and is subject to inundation in various parts. PC2 seems to have cherry-picked one item from c24 NZCPS 2010 – erosion – and does not deal with the other items covered within c24. This may be opening the council to possible challenge on not complying with legislative requirements.
We raise these matters directly with you because we are concerned that Council Officers are “steam rolling” the process and are exposing the Council to claims that it has not fully explored the options and processes available to it.
Submission from Gerald Rys, Chair, WBRSI
WBRSI has concerns regarding the way in which PC2 was promulgated, its treatment of local centres and the sweeping inclusion of all residential areas for MDRS.
We are setting out our concerns in the hope that we might better understand some of the decisions that have been made.
In order to understand our concerns, it is necessary to consider a short chronology of the Growth Strategy and the drafting of PC2.
Chronology
19 October 2021 Council consultation opened on draft Growth Strategy.
19 October 2021 Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill introduced.
26 October 2021 First Reading of the Amendment Act.
19 November 2021 Council consultation closed on draft Growth Strategy.
1 December 2021 MfE provide the Environment Committee of the House Further advice on the ability to exclude smaller settlements. A copy of this advice is attached.
7 December 2021 Second Reading of the Amendment Act.
8 December 2021 SOP No 106 introduced. This SOP changed the definition of “relevant residential zone” and followed MfE’s advice. NOTE: there was no consultation with KCDC communities on the effect of SOP No 106.
14 December 2021 Third Reading of the Amendment Act.
20 December 2021 Royal Assent of the Amendment Act.
24 February 2022 Council Meeting adopting the Growth Strategy. The Council Officers report which forms part of the Agenda for this meeting states:
Background
12. During the consultation period, the government introduced new legislation which requires greater density housing to be enabled within most existing urban areas in Kāpiti. These new requirements are reflected in the final growth strategy now proposed for adoption.
Specific Issues
54 The growth strategy emphasises enabling growth through intensification of Kāpiti’s urban areas. The NPS-UD initially directed certain levels of intensification around metropolitan centres and rapid transit stops, leaving Council some discretion as to the level of intensification around its town and local centres. In the growth approach taken out to consultation we settled on a density hierarchy across our urban areas ranging from 12 storeys in central Paraparaumu to two to three storeys in suburban areas. Amendments to the NPS-UD in late 2021 strengthened the requirement for Council to focus intensification within and around town and local centres. Also in late 2021, Parliament passed legislation requiring councils to make changes to the district plan to enable the construction of up to three homes of up to three storeys on most residential sites without the need for a resource consent. These new rules amending the RMA are referred to as medium density residential standards (MDRS). The MDRS are required to be enabled in all residential zones within the district, except on sites where there are “qualifying matters”, such as natural hazards, ecological sites, and sites of significance to mana whenua.
The Amendment Act introduced a number of changes including:
Section 77G
(1) Every relevant residential zone of a specified territorial authority must have the MDRS incorporated into that zone.
(2) Every residential zone in an urban environment of a specified territorial authority must give effect to policy 3 or policy 5, as the case requires, in that zone.
(3) When changing its district plan for the first time to incorporate the MDRS and to give effect to policy 3 or policy 5, as the case requires, and to meet its obligations in section 80F, a specified territorial authority must use an IPI and the ISPP.
Policy 3 of the NPS-UD amended to read:
Policy 3: In relation to tier 1 urban environments, regional policy statements and district plans enable:
(a)in city centre zones, building heights and density of urban form to realise as much development capacity as possible, to maximise benefits of intensification; and
(b)in metropolitan centre zones, building heights and density of urban form to reflect demand for housing and business use in those locations, and in all cases building heights of at least 6 storeys; and
(c)building heights of at least 6 storeys within at least a walkable catchment of the following:
(i) existing and planned rapid transit stops
(ii) the edge of city centre zones
(iii) the edge of metropolitan centre zones; and
(d)in all other locations in the tier 1 urban environment, building heights and density of urban form commensurate with the greater of:
(i) the level of accessibility by existing or planned active or public transport to a range of commercial activities and community services; or
(ii) relative demand for housing and business use in that location.
within and adjacent to neighbourhood centre zones, local centre zones, and town centre zones (or equivalent), building heights and density of urban form commensurate with the level of commercial activity and community services.
There are two issues that arise from Council’s Draft Plan Change 2.
Issue 1 – MDRS.
The Council has been advised that the MDRS is required to be implemented through all residential zones.
This advice ignores the amendments made by SOP 106 and now part of the RMA:
Relevant Residential Zone is defined in the Act as
(a) means all residential zones; but
(b) does not include--
(i) a large lot residential zone:
(ii) an area predominantly urban in character that the 2018 census recorded as having a resident population of less than 5,000, unless a local authority intends the area to become part of an urban environment:
(iii) an offshore island:
(iv) to avoid doubt, a settlement zone
There are communities within KCDC that in the 2018 census recorded a resident population of less than 5,000. This includes Waikanae Beach. The census number in 2018 was 3,249 people. The MfE advice specifically referred to Peka Peka.
We note that Waikanae Beach can be clearly physically delineated as a separate residential zone within the Kapiti district being bounded by the new expressway to the east, the ocean to the west, the Waikanae River to the south and the oxidation ponds, Pharazyn park to the north.
Yet Council has not even been presented with a paper to explain this, and to allow it to make a decision on which of its communities might be excluded from the MDRS provisions.
We note that Christchurch City Council and Auckland City Council appear to take a far more liberal approach to character areas being a qualifying matter and excluded from the MDRS provisions.
Issue 2 – Policy 3 of the NPS-UD
Section 77G(2) applies to every residential zone. Note the omission of the word relevant.
Therefore there is a direction that Policy 3 apply. In the case of local centres this means having building heights and density of urban form commensurate with the level of commercial activity and community services.
This raises two points:
- Local Centres have been zoned as such over the years simply because they are not residential, not industrial and are simply “light retail” such as dairies, pubs and small shops. There are many such facilities that are not zoned local centre. For example, the Waikanae Beach 4 Square, Long Beach Pub and adjacent Front Room restaurant are all zoned general residential. Yet, by way of comparison a stand-alone pub, “The Jolly” on Mazengarb Road is zoned local centre.
It seems however, there has been no analysis of whether remaining local centres have been correctly zoned or not, or whether areas that are not zoned local centre should be. Rather, the status quo has simply been alighted upon.
- Even if the existing zoning of Te Moana Rd remained as local centre how is 4 stories within 200m commensurate with the level of commercial activity and community services which consist of a bakery, a chip shop and a dairy.
WBRSI is concerned that Councillors have not been fully advised of the ability for communities to avoid the MDRS provisions, and for the intensity of the development concerning Policy 3 of the NPS-UD to be watered down or avoided altogether if local centres were reconsidered based on merit.
WBRSI understands the need for further housing, and one option that could easily be explored would be to reduce minimum lot sizes but retain height standards. It was well emphasized at the hearing into the Waikanae Beach Zone that height is a key factor for character at the beach.
WBRSI remains concerned that intensification is planned for an area that has long been identified in the District Plan as being part of the Coastal Environment and is subject to inundation in various parts. PC2 seems to have cherry-picked one item from c24 NZCPS 2010 – erosion – and does not deal with the other items covered within c24. This may be opening the council to possible challenge on not complying with legislative requirements.
We raise these matters directly with you because we are concerned that Council Officers are “steam rolling” the process and are exposing the Council to claims that it has not fully explored the options and processes available to it.
Submission from Gerald Rys, Chair, WBRSI
