3.1
MĀpua
Masterplan Deliberations
Decision Required
|
Report
To:
|
Submissions
Hearing
|
|
Meeting
Date:
|
5
June 2025
|
|
Report
Author:
|
Anna
McKenzie, Principal Planner – Environmental Policy; Michael Goldingham,
Team Leader – Infrastructure Planning; Bill Rice, Senior Infrastructure
Planning Advisor - Transportation; Ian McComb, Senior Infrastructure Planning
Advisor - Stormwater, Rivers and Coasts; Dwayne Fletcher, Strategic Policy
Manager
|
|
Report
Authorisers:
|
John
Ridd, Group Manager - Service and Strategy
|
|
Report
Number:
|
RSH25-06-1
|
1. Purpose
of the Report / Te Take
mō te Pūrongo
1.1 The
purpose of this report is to:
1.1.1 provide a summary of the submissions
received on the Draft Māpua Masterplan (the Masterplan) and Catchment
Management Plan and supporting information and an analysis of key submission
themes; and
1.1.2 provide the Council with an opportunity to
discuss the matters raised in submissions and during the hearing and
officers’ advice on these; and
1.1.3 seek decisions on amendments to the
Masterplan to be included in the final Māpua Masterplan to be presented
for adoption by the Council.
1.2 This
report is structured to align with the submission questionnaire and key themes
raised through the submissions on the masterplan.
2.1 Following
a nearly two year process of engagement with the community, the Council
approved a draft Māpua Masterplan and Māpua Catchment Management Plan
for formal consultation. The Council received 128 submissions on the drafts and
at a public hearing on 26 March 2025, 24 submitters attended and presented
their submission.
2.2 The
submission process included a questionnaire. Submitters were asked for their
comments on certain locations and particular aspects of the masterplan. In
addition to questionnaire responses, several key themes have emerged from the
submissions.
2.3 Analysis
of the submissions and officers’ recommendations are grouped in this
report as follows:
2.3.1 Waterfront Area (Section 6 of this report);
2.3.2 Higgs Road Area (Section 7 of this report);
2.3.3 Seaton Valley Area (Section 8 of this
report);
2.3.4 Theme 1 – Housing and Business
(Section 9 of this report);
2.3.5 Theme 2 - Heritage, Open Space and Community
Facilities (Section 10 of this report);
2.3.6 Theme 3 – Movement (Section 11 of this
report);
2.3.7 Theme 4 – Infrastructure (Section 12
of this report);
2.3.8 Theme 5 - Natural Hazards and Climate Change
(Section 13 of this report);
2.3.9 Theme 6 –Other Matters (Section 14 of
this report); and
2.3.10 Catchment Management Plan (section 15 of this report).
2.4 Feedback
was often divided, although there was strong support for several elements of
the draft masterplan. Overall, officers recommend retaining much of the
masterplan as consulted on. Changes are proposed in response to submissions and
are summarised in Attachments 1 and 2 to the agenda report. Officers
have also provided advice or information on matters raised by councillors in
the hearings (Attachment 5 to the agenda report).
2.5 The
majority of points raised in the submissions have been addressed. However, only
changes to the masterplan itself are recommended. Changes suggested in
submissions to the Consultation Supporting Information have not been
recommended, as the document was intended only to support public submissions
during the consultation process. The exception is changes to the Catchment
Management Plan (Appendix 7), as the final Catchment Management Plan will be
appended to the final masterplan.
2.6 If supported by the Council, Officers will incorporate the changes
that the Committee request and prepare the final Māpua Masterplan
(including Catchment Management Plan) for consideration by the Council at the
next available Council meeting. A Tasman Resource Management Plan change
process will follow, and the Council will report annually on progress against
the masterplan
3. Recommendation/s
/ Ngā Tūtohunga
That the Submissions Hearing
1. receives
the Māpua Masterplan Deliberations report RSH25-06-1; and
2. agrees to the following changes to the draft
Māpua Masterplan (including the Catchment Management Plan):
Waterfront
Area
2.1 amend the maps of Kite Park (land parcels 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 Tahi Street) to state
‘Future Park’ as set out in Attachment 1 to the agenda report; and
2.2 add ‘Future Recreation Zone’
to Kite Park maps (land parcels 6, 8, 10, 12,
14, 16 Tahi Street) as set out in Attachment 1 of the agenda report; and
2.3 retain Action #1
with minor amendments as set out in Attachment 2 to the agenda report; and
2.4 retain Action #13 with minor amendments
as set out in Attachment 2 to the agenda report.
Higgs
Road Area
2.5 amend the maps of the Higgs Road
Greenfield Land to ‘Future Mixed Standard and Medium Density
Housing’ and include a notation stating ‘Outline Development Plan
to be developed for the Higgs Road Greenfield Land in consultation with
landowners’ as set out in Attachment 1 to the
agenda report; and
2.6 amend the maps to show 35 Higgs Road as
‘Future Medium Density Housing’ as set out in Attachment 1 to the
agenda report; and
2.7 remove from the maps ‘Future
Commercial’ on 86 Higgs Road and add ‘Future Mixed Standard and
Medium Density Housing’ as set out in Attachment 1 to the agenda report;
and
2.8 include in the maps the deferred area of
166 Māpua Drive as ‘Future Medium Density Housing’ as set out
in Attachment 1 to the agenda report.
Seaton Valley Road Area
2.9 amend the maps of Seaton Valley Road
Greenfield Land to ‘Future Mixed Standard and Medium Density
Housing’ and include a notation stating ‘Outline Development Plan
to be developed for the Seaton Valley Road Greenfield Land in consultation with
landowners’ as set out in Attachment 1 to the agenda report; and
2.10 amend the maps and reduce the residential area on
the lower portion of 49 Stafford Drive to more closely reflect inundation
mapping as set out in Attachment 1 to the agenda report; and
2.11 remove from the maps ‘Future
Commercial’ from 12 and 20 Seaton Valley Road as set out in Attachment 1
to the agenda report; and
2.12 remove from the maps ‘Future Reserve’
at 12 and 20 Seaton Valley Road and add to the maps ‘Significant
Vegetation’ around 12 Seaton Valley Road as set out in Attachment 1 to
the agenda report.
Theme 1 – Housing and
Business
2.13 add to the maps
‘Future Medium Density Housing’ to 109 and 119 Aranui Road as set
out in Attachment 1 to the agenda report; and
2.14 add to the maps
‘Future Rural Residential’ to 107a/b Aranui Road as set out in
Attachment 1 to the agenda report; and
2.15 add to the maps
‘Future Light Industrial’ to 18 Stafford Drive as set out in
Attachment 1 to the agenda report; and
2.16 add to the maps
‘Future Standard Density Housing’ to 29 and 53 Seaton Valley Road
as set out in Attachment 1 to the agenda report; and
2.17 add to the maps
‘Utility Reserve’ to 0 Seaton Valley Road as set out in Attachment
1 to the agenda report; and
2.18 add to maps
‘Future Rural Residential Housing’ to 57, 59 and 69 Stafford Drive
as set out in Attachment 1 to the agenda report; and
2.19 add to the maps
‘Future Commercial’ to 152 Māpua Drive with a note
‘pending further assessment and landowner consultation through a plan
change process’ as set out in Attachment 1 to the agenda report; and
2.20 add to the maps
‘Network Utility’ to 5 Seaton Valley Road as set out in Attachment
1 to the agenda report; and
2.21 add a new Action -
through a plan change process propose relevant changes to the zones of all
deferred land in Māpua as set out in Attachment 2 to the agenda report.
Theme 2 – Heritage,
Open Space and Community Facilities
2.22 amend the map location of ‘Future
Reserve’ to fall entirely within 53 Seaton Valley Road as set out in
Attachment 1 to the agenda report; and.
2.23 amend the map of ‘Future Walking/Cycling
Link’ to extend along the boundary of 59 Seaton Valley Road as set out in
Attachment 1 to the agenda report; and.
2.24 add a new Action – ‘Investigate
amending the policy framework of the Tasman Resource Management Plan to include
a new ‘emergency service facilities’ definition and enabling
provisions for new emergency service facilities. This would require a Tasman
Resource Management Plan plan change and would be a change that affects the
entire District as set out in Attachment 2 to the agenda report.
Theme 3 - Movement
2.25 remove Action #15 which references parking surveys
as set out in Attachment 2 to the agenda report; and
2.26 amend Action #12 to align with the Setting of Speed
Limits Rule 2024, as set out in Attachment 2 to the agenda report; and
2.27 add a new Action – ‘Work with NZTA Waka
Kotahi to identify and implement upgrade(s) to the SH60 / Māpua Drive
Intersection’ as set out in Attachment 2 to the agenda report; and
2.28 add a new Action – ‘Investigate through
consultation with landowners extending the walking track from Māpua School along the seawall
through to the Leisure Park’ as set out in Attachment 2 to the agenda
report; and
2.29 add a new Action – ‘To protect the
habitat of significant bird species, remove the doggy dispenser on the
Causeway’ as set out in Attachment 2 to the agenda report; and
2.30 add a new Action – ‘To protect the
habitat of significant bird species, undertake consultation with the landowner
of 33 Toru Street to investigate the feasibility of creating a walking track
around the boundary of the camping ground to the Controlled Dog Exercise
Area’ as set out in Attachment 2 to the agenda report; and
2.31 add a new Action and mapping labels of
‘Significant bird habitat’ at the Māpua Embankment and Shell
Bank as set out in Attachment 1 and 2 to the agenda report; and
2.32 add to the maps ‘Future Walking and Cycling
Link’ to extend along boundary of 71 and 75 Seaton Valley Road as per the
Tasman Resource Management Plan as set out in Attachment 2 to the agenda
report.
Catchment Management Plan
2.33 agree to clarify wording in the Catchment
Management Plan that extensive flood modelling has been undertaken and that
this will be available on the Council’s website as set out in Attachment
10 to the agenda report; and
2.34 agree to add text to the Catchment Management Plan
to acknowledge that the relationship between Tasman Resource Management Plan
and Land Development Manual needs to be strengthened to give effect to WSD
principles as set out in Attachment 10 to the agenda report; and
Either:
2.35 agree to remove the portion of Seaton Valley future
detention and wetland and walkway that sits within 179 Māpua
Drive;
OR
2.36 retain the portion of Seaton Valley future
detention and wetland and walkway that sits within 179 Māpua Drive, shift the walkway
alignment to connect with a drain through 175 Māpua Drive; and
2.37 recommends to Tasman District Council that it
approve capital expenditure budget of $1 million in 2025/2026 for acquiring the
Seaton Valley future detention and wetland that sits within 179 Māpua Drive;
Finalising the Masterplan
2.38 agrees to replace the maps and action plan of the Māpua Masterplan with the
revisions, noted in Attachments 1 and 2 to the agenda report, adjusted as
required to give effect to any changes agreed in clause 2; and
2.39 agrees that no other changes be made to the Māpua Masterplan in response to
submissions, other than minor and editorial amendments; and
2.40 authorises staff to include all changes agreed
above into a final Māpua Masterplan and
to submit the final Māpua Masterplan to the Tasman District Council for adoption; and
2.41 delegates authority to the Strategy and Policy
Committee Chair and the Chief Executive Officer to approve any minor changes
and minor editorial amendments to the Māpua Masterplan,
prior to the plan being submitted for consideration to the Tasman District
Council; and
2.42 notes that the Māpua Masterplan supporting
information – draft for public consultation, November 2024 will not be
revised and will remain as a draft document for the purposes of public
consultation on the draft Māpua Masterplan; and
2.43 confirms that the minutes of the 26 March 2025 draft Māpua Masterplan Submissions
Hearing meeting as a true and correct record.
Finalising
the Māpua Catchment Management Plan
2.44 agrees to the amendments to the Māpua Catchment Management Plan
with the revisions noted in Attachment 10 to the agenda report, adjusted as
required to give effect to any changes agreed in clause 2; and
2.45 agrees that no other changes be made to the Māpua Catchment Management Plan
in response to submissions, other than minor and editorial amendments; and
2.46 notes that the Catchment Management Plan will
become an appendix of the Māpua Masterplan; and
2.47 authorises staff to include all changes agreed
above into a final Māpua Catchment
Management Plan and to submit it to the Tasman District Council for adoption;
and
2.48 delegates authority to the Strategy and Policy
Committee Chair and the Chief Executive Officer to approve any minor changes or
minor editorial amendments to the Māpua Catchment Management Plan,
prior to the plan being submitted for consideration to the Tasman District
Council.
Recommendation to the Tasman District Council
That the Tasman District Council:
1. adopts
the Māpua Masterplan, including the Māpua Catchment Management Plan;
and
2. approves
budget in 2025/2026 for acquiring the portion of Seaton Valley future detention
and wetland that sits within 179 Māpua
Drive (subject to confirmation in preceding resolutions).
4.1 In
2023, various Council departments were planning on undertaking planning
processes in Māpua. This included a review of several key documents
such as the Māpua Waterfront Area Masterplan 2018-2028, Māpua
Structure Plan 2010 and Māpua Catchment Management Plan. Ngā iwi
expressed concern around their ability to resource the Council’s high
number of consultation processes and members of the Māpua community
expressed concerns around consultation fatigue. The development of a single
masterplan for Māpua was considered an opportunity to bring the
Council’s multiple planning processes into a single plan to inform:
4.1.1 implementation
of the Future Development Strategy 2022-2052 (FDS);
4.1.2 Stormwater
Catchment Management Plan and infrastructure Asset Management Plans;
4.1.3 reserve
management and development;
4.1.4 the
LTP; and
4.1.5 changes
to the Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP).
4.2 The masterplan project was approved by
the Council on 16 February 2023. The methodology and timeline for developing
the masterplan is outlined in the following diagram:
4.3 Community
consultation during development of the Masterplan has been extensive and has
utilised a range of methods to inform and engage with the public. This has
included developing a dedicated masterplan information webpage, media articles,
social media posts, letter drops and four drop-in sessions at the Māpua
Community Hall over September 2023 and February 2024. These public events were
attended by Council officers covering all the key specialist areas of
infrastructure, planning, reserves and transport. Elected members were also
present at the community events. During the second consultation session, Ngā
iwi representatives attended, and a video and material displayed. Feedback was
captured through feedback forms (available online and in hardcopy) and during
the first event, feedback was documented directly on maps.
4.4 This
extensive and varied consultation approach has helped ensure the project had a
wide reach and enabled as many people to provide feedback as possible. At the
first and second engagement events, Council officers spoke to over 300 people
from a variety of ages and demographics and received over 1000 pieces of
feedback during the September 2025 consultation.
4.5 Following
the testing of scenarios during community consultation in February 2024, a
preferred option was developed, it formed the basis of the draft masterplan
which was released for submissions along with supporting information from 1
November 2024 until 16 February 2025.
4.6 This report outlines the submissions received and
provides recommendations for the final Māpua Masterplan.
4.7 Having
considered all of the submissions, officers recommend that the masterplan is
adopted with amendments.
5. Analysis
and Advice / Tātaritanga
me ngā tohutohu
5.1 A masterplan approach is intended to
ensure that the Council has an integrated plan that provides an overarching
framework to support growth and development in Māpua. It is also intended
to be the next step in implementing the FDS in Māpua. The development of
the Masterplan has involved several stages of Ngā iwi and community
engagement including testing issues, opportunities, principles and options.
5.2 To guide the process, a set of
overarching principles were developed in consultation with Ngā iwi and the
community. These principles have guided the Masterplan development process and
have been used to test options. Options were also tested during the community
engagement to identify community preferences. Ngā iwi representatives were
consulted at each development step and contributed to the development of the
mana whenua principle and community consultation events. Engagement has been
facilitated through both physical events and online platforms. Council
workshops provided an elected member perspective.
5.3 The masterplan process has resulted in a
masterplan illustrating a series of housing, business, cultural, open space,
ecological, infrastructure, recreational and movement actions which set the
direction for Māpua. The masterplan includes:
5.3.0 proposed zoning changes;
5.3.1 future infrastructure upgrades;
5.3.2 planned recreational linkages and open spaces; and
5.3.3 catchment management planning.
5.4 The masterplan is supported by an action
plan that outlines all the proposed actions required to achieve the masterplan
principles, many of which cannot be illustrated spatially. A Masterplan
Supporting Information Document also accompanied the masterplan. This document
provided supporting information for community consultation purposes. It also
included the draft Catchment Management Plan.
5.5 Submitters were asked how much they
agreed with certain aspects of the masterplan. The submission questionnaire was
divided into the following sections:
5.5.0 Waterfront Area;
5.5.1 Higgs Road Area;
5.5.2 Seaton Valley Area; and
5.5.3 Catchment Management Plan.
5.6 One of the limitations to these
questions was that when a submitter mostly or somewhat disagreed, it could be
for a wide range of reasons. When free text comments were left officers were
able to identify circumstances where submitters either disagreed because they
felt the masterplan was too enabling of factors such as housing densities, or
because it had not gone far enough. Where the free-text section was unrelated
to a specific question it was analysed as part of the key themes.
5.7 There were circumstances where the
submission questionnaire was not completed, and people provided extensive
multi-page submissions instead. This made analysis challenging; however, these
detailed submissions have provided ample material to consider the varying views
of the community. Where relevant, free text and detailed submissions have been
summarised into key themes and included within the analysis.
5.8 The
following sections address submissions and officer’s advice in three
parts:
5.7.1 Specific Areas
relates to land use and development proposals included in the Masterplan:
· Waterfront Area (Section 6 of this report)
· Higgs Road Area (Section 7 of this report)
· Seaton Valley Area (Section 8 of this report).
5.7.3 Key Themes relates
to themes raised in submissions:
· Housing and Business (Section 9 of this report)
· Heritage, Open Space and Community Facilities (Section 10 of this
report)
· Movement (Section 11 of this report)
· Infrastructure (Section 12 of this report)
· Natural Hazards and Climate Change (Section 13 of this report)
· Other (Section 14 of this report)
5.7.2 Catchment Management Plan
relates to feedback related to the Stormwater Catchment Management Plan
(Section 15 of this report).
Question 1 – Kite Park
6.1 Submitters
were asked ‘Do you support the council owned land at 6, 8, 10, 12, 14,
16 Tahi Street (also known as ‘Kite Park’) which is currently zoned
for residential use being proposed for future use as Open Space?’
6.1.1 Yes – 83 submitters chose this option
6.1.2 No – 17 submitters chose this option
6.1.3 Not sure – 12 submitters chose this
option.
Officers’ comments
6.2 The majority of submitters
were in support of the Council owned land at 6, 8,
10, 12, 14, 16 Tahi Street (Kite Park) being formalised for use as open
space (Figure 1). Formalisation of this land would consist of rezoning the land
in the TRMP as either recreation or open space zone.
Figure 1 - Land parcels referred to as Kite Park
6.3 A
few submitters were opposed to the loss of residential zoned land, suggesting
that Kite Park could be used to provide affordable homes or small homes for the
elderly while others were concerned that the formalisation of the land as an
area of open space could facilitate a boat ramp and parking development which
they did not support.
6.4 Some
submitters expressed concerns about the inclusion of ‘Kite Park’
within the Māpua Waterfront Park. Several submitters opposed this, and
others requested clear planning and community consultation to ensure that
integration of Kite Park within the Waterfront Park did not lead to restricted
public access.
6.5 Concerns
were also raised about the impact of changes and the development of Kite Park
on the South Island Pied Oystercatcher (tōrea), with a request to ensure
any development is managed to protect these and other native bird species.
6.6 The
draft masterplan mapping currently identifies 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 Tahi Street
(Kite Park) as ‘Future Reserve’. The community has expressed
support for formalising Kite Park as a future park for open space and
recreation use (Action #13). They have also suggested a range of activities for
the use of this land. These activities include picnic areas, seating and
playground facilities, use for recreational activities and community events,
tree plantings and the preservation of its open character as a feeding ground
for bird species.
6.7 The
land is low-lying and coastal and is vulnerable to natural hazards and climate
change effects. A principle of the masterplan is to promote resilience against
natural hazards and climate change. The masterplan does this by promoting
residential growth on areas outside of natural hazard risk such as the elevated
or hilly areas of Māpua, rather than low lying coastal locations. The
proposal for Kite Park to be used as an area of public open space (rather than
residential development) aligns with this principle.
6.8 Waterfront
Park adjoins Kite Park to the east and is currently zoned Recreation. Tahi
Esplanade (to the west) is zoned Open Space. To ensure that a range of
activities are provided for, it is recommended that Kite Park is considered for
rezoning from Residential to Recreation Zone. This would involve undertaking a
TRMP plan change to change the zoning of the land from Residential to
Recreation Zone to align with the Waterfront Parks zoning. A TRMP plan change
would involve submissions, hearings and decisions under Schedule 1 of the
Resource Management Act. This recommendation would involve a map amendment with
a notation of ‘Future Recreation Zone’.
6.9 Changing
the zoning of Kite Park to recreation would enable activities (as permitted
activities) such as indoor and outdoor sporting and recreational activities,
playgrounds, picnic facilities, walkways, public toilets, car parking, fairs
and activities consistent with an approved Reserve Management Plan (RMP)
– which may include retaining areas open for the South Island Pied
Oystercatcher. This recommended zone change aligns with the communities’
feedback to retain the area as public open space and provide for a range of
recreational activities. Appropriate activities would be identified through the
development of a RMP for Kite Park which would be developed in consultation
with the community.
6.10 Masterplan
Action #13 refers to undertaking a partial review of the Moutere-Waimea Ward
RMP. A review of the Moutere-Waimea Ward RMP (including consultation) will
determine whether it is appropriate to include Kite Park within Waterfront Park
or not, and also the appropriate use for the land. It is
recommended that a minor amendment is made to the maps to amend the notation of
Kite Park to ‘Future Park’. This is a minor wording technicality as
under the Local Government Act the land would be defined as a park rather than
a reserve.
Officers’ recommendations
6.11 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reason
|
|
6,8,10,12,14,16 Tahi Street
– Kite Park
|
Masterplan Maps
Amend to ‘Future Park’.
|
Support future use of Kite Park as a park for public open
space and recreation. This change is recommended to provide clarity as the
area would be a park as defined under the Local Government Act.
|
|
6,8,10,12,14,16 Tahi Street
– Kite Park
|
Masterplan Maps
Add ‘Future Recreation Zone’.
|
Provides clarity on proposed zone change.
This zone change would be required as it would not be appropriate to retain
the areas zone as Residential when it is proposed to be used for open space
and recreation use.
|
|
6,8,10,12,14,16 Tahi Street
– Kite Park
|
Masterplan Action Plan
Action #1 – Minor amendments.
|
This action already refers to rezoning identified areas.
Minor edits proposed for clarity – refer Attachment 2.
|
|
6,8,10,12,14,16 Tahi Street
– Kite Park
|
Masterplan
Action Plan
Retain Action #13 with minor amendments.
|
Minor edits to provide more clarity around the RMP review
process. - refer to Attachment 2 for proposed wording.
|
Question
2 - Additional commercial land near waterfront
6.12 Submitters
were asked ‘Do you support the council owned land at 23 and 25 Aranui
Road, which is currently zoned residential being proposed for a future use as
Commercial?’
6.12.1 Yes – 49 submitters chose this option
6.12.2 No – 40 submitters chose this option
6.12.3 Not sure – 16 submitters chose this
option.
Officers’ comments
6.13 Submitters
commented on the importance of protecting the unique character and the vibrancy
of the wharf area with some expressing concerns about how additional commercial
development might affect traffic, and the character of the area. Concerns were
also expressed around infrastructure servicing.
6.14 The
land adjoining 23 and 25 Aranui Road to the south, west and north is currently
zoned Residential. The Council owned land to the east (17, 19 and 21) of 23
Aranui Road is zoned Commercial – refer to Figure 2.
6.15 The
Council’s latest Housing and Business Assessment 2024 shows that
commercial land capacity in Māpua is limited over the next 30 years and
this is based on a business land demand model (Sense Partners updated 2023)
that officers consider to be conservative. When the projected model’s
demand is compared with recent commercial/retail building consents 2016-2022,
projected retail/commercial land in Tasman’s urban environment would be
15 ha instead of 6ha 2024-2054. Existing commercial capacity is restricted to
existing zoned areas in Iwa Street, Aranui Road and the wharf. Given additional
residential land is being proposed in Māpua it is prudent to add
additional business opportunities for future residents. 43% of people who live
in Māpua and work, worked from home, or walked or cycled to work (2023
census data). These proportions may change with a changing demographic in
Māpua.
6.16 Officers
consider it appropriate to extend the commercial zoning (and rezone the
residential parcels) of the Council owned land to provide a cohesive area of
commercial land which reinforces the existing facilities within Māpua.
6.17 The
land is also low-lying in nature and vulnerable to future sea level rise. The
natural hazard policy framework will be strengthened by the Council’s
promulgation of Plan Change 85 (Natural Hazards) and it is likely that the
development of this land will be the subject of policy restrictions, including
around timeframes and building relocation. Therefore, the land is more suitable
for commercial development rather than residential.
6.18 In
addition, identifying the land as a future commercial will assist in providing
long term resilience for the Māpua wharf commercial area ensuring that
sufficient commercially zoned land is available in the long term within the waterfront/wharf
area as the majority of the commercial land at the wharf area is vulnerable to
natural hazards and the effects of climate change.
Figure
2:TRMP Zone Map
Officers’ recommendations
6.19 The
following changes are recommended to the Masterplan:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
23 and 25 Aranui Road
|
Masterplan Maps
No change.
|
Support future use of land as commercial.
|
|
23 and 25 Aranui Road
|
Masterplan Action Plan
Amend Action #1 – minor changes.
|
To provide more clarity in the documentation – refer
Attachment 2.
|
Question 3 - Intensification
of Elevated Land in Higgs Road Area
7.1 Submitters
were asked ‘Do you support enabling intensification (more than one
house) within existing residential areas to the west of Aranui road – on
the elevated or hilly land?’
7.1.1 No – 45 submitters chose
this option
7.1.2 Yes – 40 submitters chose
this option
7.1.3 Not sure – 19 submitters
chose this option
Officers’ comments
7.2 Some
submitters support intensification in specific areas to provide greater housing
choice whilst others strongly oppose it, citing concerns over land stability,
infrastructure capacity, existing covenants and the impact on the character of
Māpua.
7.3 Submitter
#34692 (Mr and Mrs Talley) suggests that the masterplan fails to signal where
housing infill should occur or examine this option. They consider that the
Council should encourage infill housing to provide a more balanced and
appropriate level of growth within Māpua that infrastructure can handle.
7.4 The
FDS identified residential infill potential in Māpua of an approximate
yield of 220 dwellings, around the Aranui Road and Higgs Road area[1].
The masterplan proposes intensification (infill) on the elevated and hilly
areas of Māpua and excludes the low-lying areas of Māpua (areas which
the FDS included).
7.5 A
high-level assessment of potential intensification uptake was completed as part
of the development of the masterplan and it was considered that intensification
uptake would be minimal due to the age and layout of the housing stock,
topography and financial viability.
7.6 Submission
#34679 (Nelson Tasman 2050) recommends providing further detail on the shape or
form that intensification should take. Since releasing the masterplan a policy
framework for Medium Density Residential developments within brownfield sites
(land that is already developed) has been released as a draft as part of the
Plan Change 81 (PC81) consultation. A review of the PC81 consultation feedback
has indicated that two Māpua residents provided feedback on the Medium
Density Zone.
7.7 It
is recommended that any brownfield areas identified for intensification within
Māpua align with the draft Medium Density Residential Zone which is
proposed through PC81 in other urban areas of the district including Richmond,
Motueka, Wakefield and Brightwater.
7.8 The
Māpua community has not been directly provided the detail of the draft
Medium Density Residential Zone (aside from an opportunity to provide feedback
on PC81) and have therefore not provided comment on it through the masterplan
process. They have however provided comment on the proposal to intensify the
existing residential zoned land outside of inundation areas.
7.9 Infrastructure
servicing (water, wastewater and stormwater) is considered sufficient for the
area of land identified for brownfield intensification.
7.10 A
TRMP plan change to change the zoning to enable intensification (infill) will
include detail around the Medium Density Residential Zone Policy Framework and
an opportunity for the community to submit through the Schedule 1 RMA process.
This process includes submissions, hearings and decisions by independent
commissioners. Issues such as existing residential covenants will be explored
during this more detailed assessment process.
7.11 In
addition, the Government proposes to make it easier to build small,
self-contained and detached houses on properties with an existing home on it
which would assist in providing an increase in housing supply, a mixture of
housing types and improve housing affordability.
7.12 Intensification
is an important means of achieving a mixture of dwelling types, providing
affordable homes and providing for growth, and enabling intensification through
the TRMP policy framework will support achieving these outcomes. It is
therefore recommended to retain the mapping notations and Action #1 in the
masterplan.
Officers’ recommendations
7.13 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Elevated or hilly areas west of Aranui Road
|
Masterplan Maps
No change.
|
Support intensification of brownfield land outside of
natural hazards to provide greater housing choice.
|
|
Elevated or hilly areas west of Aranui Road
|
Masterplan Action Plan
No change to Action #1
|
Support intensification of brownfield land outside of
natural hazards to provide greater housing choice.
|
Question 4 - Higgs Road
Housing and Business
7.14 Submitters were asked ‘To enable
greater housing choice do you support enabling a mixture of standard (minimum
450m2 lots) and medium density housing (averaging 200-300m2)
on currently deferred residential land on Higgs Road?’
7.14.1 Yes –
45 submitters chose this option
7.14.2 No – 43
submitters chose this option
7.14.3 Not sure
– 16 submitters chose this option.
Officers’ comments
7.15 Submitters
were mixed in their views around providing for a mixture of standard and medium
density residential development on the undeveloped greenfield land adjoining
Higgs Road (The Higgs Road Greenfield Land - Figure 3). The Higgs Road
Greenfield Land includes 120 Higgs Road, 86 Higgs Road and 29 Jessie Street and
is predominately zoned Rural 1 deferred Residential with small pockets of
Residential and Rural 1 zoned land.
Figure 3: Extract from the Draft Masterplan Map Higgs
Road
7.16 Several
submitters supported allowing a mix of residential sized lots, citing potential
benefits around enabling greater housing choice and increased housing supply.
Other submitters opposed allowing mixed-density housing in the area, citing
concerns about the impacts to the village character, privacy, decline in
property values and infrastructure capacity.
7.17 Submitter
#34679 (Nelson Tasman 2050) recommends that any new greenfield development
zoning should exclude standard density housing, suggesting that there is
already more than sufficient standard density housing available within the
current housing stock.
7.18 Nelson
Tasman 2050 recommends a more compact urban form for Māpua. They oppose
the mixed density approach of the masterplan and suggest an alternative
proposal advocating for lot sizes of 175 m² or smaller to accommodate the
next 30 years of growth within the Higgs Road Greenfield Land and 35 Higgs Road
(Figure 4).
7.19 Servicing
of the Higgs Road Greenfield Land (currently deferred) is planned after year 10
and 29 Jessie Street (land zoned Residential) has sufficient services for the
anticipated growth. A detailed assessment of servicing requirements will be
undertaken during any plan change process.
7.20 While
Nelson Tasman 2050 (#34679) makes valid points about compact urban form,
infrastructure costs and urban expansion onto rural land, it is considered that
enabling medium density of lot sizes less than 175 m2 or less across
the entire Higgs Road Greenfield Land (approximately 21 ha) would significantly
depart from the character of the surrounding area which is predominately single
storey homes on larger residential lots. Whilst such a solution may be suitable
in other urban environments such as Richmond, and although design guidance aims
to ensure the character of the village is maintained, officers do not support
the density levels proposed by the submitter which include 3 storey dwellings
and walk-up apartments. It is considered that medium density at the scale
suggested by the submission would not be appropriate across the 21 ha.
7.21 The
masterplan currently includes medium density housing along open space corridors
and adjoining existing wetlands and reserve areas and includes the development
(by Council) of an Outline Development Plan as part of a TRMP plan change.
Officers recommend amending the masterplan to indicate ‘Future Mixed
Standard and Medium Density Housing’ within the Higgs Road Greenfield
Land to provide more flexibility through the development of an Outline
Development Plan rather than defining density areas at the high level of the
Masterplan. It is recommended that the mix of densities is determined through
the development of an Outline Development Plan to clearly set-out the policy
requirements around densities, road connections, reserves and walkways.
Officers’ recommendations
7.22 The
following is recommended:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Higgs Road Greenfield Land -
29 Jessie Street
86, 120 Higgs Road
|
Masterplan Maps
Amend to ‘Future Mixed Standard and Medium Density
Housing’.
|
Recommend
removing the finer detail of the densities until an Outline Development Plan
is prepared for the greenfield area which includes more detail around policy
provisions, and the location of indicative reserves, roads and walkways.
|
|
Higgs Road Greenfield Land -
29 Jessie Street
86, 120 Higgs Road
|
Masterplan Maps
Include - A notation stating ‘Outline Development
Plan to be developed of the Higgs Road Greenfield Land in consultation with
landowners’.
|
As above – It is important that this plan is
developed in consultation with landowners.
|
|
Higgs Road Greenfield Land –
29 Jessie Street
86, 120 Higgs Road
|
Masterplan Action Plan
No change to Action #1
|
Recommend providing for a mixture of housing (standard and
medium density housing) to provide greater housing choice.
|
29 Jessie Street - Mixed Use
Officers’ comments
7.23 Ridgeview
Development Ltd (Submitter #34698) are the landowners of 29 Jessie Street and
have requested that their land fronting Aranui Road is identified as
‘future Mixed Use’ in the masterplan.
7.24 The
TRMP Commercial Zone is the closest equivalent to a Mixed-Use Zone as it allows
for ground floor businesses, and residential uses above the ground floor. A
Commercial Zone in this location is considered to be too removed from the
Aranui Road Commercial Area. The Medium Density Residential Zone would be more
suitable in this location as it would allow for a strong and attractive
residential frontage to Aranui Road.
7.25 It
is recommended that the entire Higgs Road Greenfield Land is identified more
broadly as ‘Future Mixed Standard and Medium Density Housing’ with
a notation that an Outline Development Plan for the area is to be developed in
consultation with landowners. As mentioned above, this plan will detail the
density requirements and details around appropriate activities, road
connections, reserves and walkways. This change is recommended as the finer
details around the appropriate residential zone mix can be developed with
supporting policy in an Outline Development Plan which would provide more
clarity to the community who are currently mixed in their views on the
masterplan residential mix within the Higgs Road Greenfield Land. Note that the
Outline Development Plan would be developed as part of a TRMP plan change
process involving submissions, hearings and decisions in accordance with a
Schedule 1 RMA process providing the community an opportunity to submit on the
detail of the Outline Development Plan.
Officers’ recommendations
7.26 Officers’
recommendations for 29 Jessie Street are included in Section 7.22 above.
35 Higgs Road – Medium Density Housing
Figure 4: 35 Higgs Road
Officers’ comments
7.27 Nelson
Tasman 2050 (#34679) also suggests that 35 Higgs Road (Figure 4), currently
zoned Rural 1 deferred Residential should be considered for intensive
development (Medium Density Residential).
7.28 The
landowner and adjoining landowners of 35 Higgs Road were contacted to seek
feedback on their views about rezoning 35 Higgs Road to Medium Density
Residential. The landowner has provided verbal support for the proposed change,
however feedback from several adjoining residents indicates opposition to
increasing the density of the land due to visual and privacy issues. Adjoining
landowner feedback is included in Attachment 8.
7.29 There
is currently no servicing planned for 35 Higgs Road in the medium to long term
which means this land is likely to be deferred for servicing. Infrastructure
requirements will be explored in more detailed through any plan change process.
7.30 Officers
are in support of including this land parcel as medium density in the
masterplan and providing for higher density development within the existing
Māpua village urban footprint provided that areas of mature vegetation are
largely retained. This parcel of land is approximately 3 ha and is partially
visible from the estuary. As part of a plan change process indicative reserves
would be identified to direct the future development of this area. It is
recommended that the indicative reserves encompass the mature vegetation on
this site to break up the visual density over the site. Officers are in
support of this recommendation and as such recommend that this parcel of land
is identified as medium density housing in the masterplan.
Officers’ recommendations
7.31 The
following is recommended:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
35 Higgs Road
|
Masterplan Maps
Amend to identify 35 Higgs Road as ‘Future Medium
Density Housing’.
|
Considered an appropriate location for higher density
development.
|
Question 6 – Business area off Higgs Road
7.32 Submitters
were asked ‘Do you support the inclusion of commercial land off Higgs
Road for future development as retail such as hairdressers, café
etc?’
7.32.1 No – 57
submitters chose this option
7.32.2 Yes –
32 submitters chose this option
7.32.3 Not sure
– 13 submitters chose this option.
Officers’ comments
7.33 The
majority of submitters oppose the proposed future commercial area off Higgs
Road (Figure 5). The key reasons for opposition include:
· there is enough commercial space within the existing village with
questions around the need with existing commercial areas currently
under-utlised; and
· traffic congestion and safety.
Figure 5: Draft Masterplan
Future Commercial Area (Pink) Higgs Road
7.34 Several
submitters suggested that if any commercial space was added, it should be used
for essential services like a medical centre, or a new fire station/
civil defence emergency centre. Submitter #34608 (Mr and Mrs Thawley) are
the landowners and are in support of the commercial area commenting about how
the future commercial area would support the redevelopment of an existing apple
packing shed into a museum with associated services such as a cafe.
7.35 The
TRMP Residential Zone rules include, as a permitted activity home occupation
provided it complies with certain conditions. Community activities such as
doctors’ surgeries, education facilities and fire stations are a
restricted discretionary activity within the Residential Zone. Commercial
activity such as cafes and retail shops would fall under a discretionary
consent pathway.
7.36 Fire
and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) submitted (#34681) that they had not decided
on the exact location of a new facility.
7.37 FENZ
is not a requiring authority, and land is therefore unable to be designated
under the RMA. The Council can only enable (support) the development of
facilities through the policy framework of the TRMP. Facilities such as medical
centres are privately developed and owned and government departments such as
FENZ are responsible for the purchase of land and development of their fire
stations.
7.38 The
Council’s latest Housing and Business Assessment 2024 shows that
commercial land capacity in Māpua is limited over the next 30 years - and
this is based on a business land demand model (Sense Partners updated 2023)
that officers consider to be conservative. Existing commercial capacity is
restricted to existing zoned areas in Iwa Street, Aranui Road and the
wharf. When the projected model’s demand is compared with recent
commercial/retail building consents 2016-2022, projected retail/commercial land
in Tasman’s urban environment would be 15 ha instead of 6 ha 2024-2054.
7.39 The
commercial land off Higgs Road was included in the masterplan to support the
proposed residential development and the development of an apple industry
museum. It was also included to provide a commercial option should other
commercial land parcels not be considered appropriate, however other commercial
options are now supported through this report and it is recommended that this
commercial area is removed from the masterplan.
Officers’ recommendations
7.40 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Higgs Road –
86 Higgs Road
|
Masterplan Maps
Remove ‘Future Commercial’ identified on 86
Higgs Road and replace with ‘Future Mixed Standard and Medium Density
Housing’.
|
· There is a TRMP consenting pathway for the types of commercial and
community activities likely to occur within the Higgs Road Residential Zone;
and
· Officers’ recommendations within this report include the
provision of sufficient land for commercial use elsewhere; and
· The proposal to identify the Higgs Road Greenfield Land as mixed
residential will include a series of indicative walkways providing direct
access to the Aranui Road Commercial Area.
|
Question 7 – Business area off Māpua Drive
7.41 Submitters
were asked ‘Do you support the inclusion of commercial land off
Māpua Drive for future development for an activity such as a supermarket?
7.41.1 Yes – 51 submitters
chose this option
7.41.2 No – 43 submitters
chose this option
7.41.3 Not sure – 12
submitters chose this option.
Officers’
comments
7.42 Submitters
comments were mixed with regards to the inclusion of future commercial land off
Māpua Drive as indicated in the draft masterplan mapping (Figure 6).
Figure 6: Draft Māpua Masterplan
– Future Commercial land off Māpua Drive (Pink)
7.43 Several
submitters opposed providing for commercial land on Māpua Drive,
particularly for a supermarket or large retail area, citing concerns around a
loss of the village character and a desire for Māpua to avoid large-scale
commercial development. Traffic and stormwater concerns were also
expressed. Some submitters suggested alternative locations for commercial
activities such as Warren Place, 175 Māpua Drive or 49 Stafford
Drive. Supporters of future commercial on Māpua Drive
mainly cited the convenience of the location and the need for more
commercial land to accommodate population growth.
7.44 Submitter
#34636 (Mr Ford) spoke at the hearing on behalf of the landowners of 120 Higgs
Road, who oppose the rezoning of part of 120 Higgs Road to commercial due to
concerns around its suitability due to soil stability and stormwater
constraints.
7.45 Appropriate
commercial greenfield land for large retail outside of inundation risk,
centrally located and close to major transport links is limited in Māpua.
It is considered that 120 Higgs Road (Figure 7) is appropriate because it meets
all of these requirements.
7.46 The
Council’s latest Housing and Business Assessment 2024 shows that
commercial land capacity in Māpua is limited over the next 30 years - and
this is based on a business land demand model (Sense Partners updated 2023)
that officers consider to be conservative. Existing commercial capacity is
restricted to existing zoned areas in Iwa Street, Aranui Road and the wharf.
When the projected model’s demand is compared with recent
commercial/retail building consents 2016-2022, projected retail/commercial land
in Tasman’s urban environment would be 15 ha instead of 6ha 2024-2054.
Given additional housing is being added in Māpua it is prudent to add
additional business opportunities for future residents. 43% of people who live
in Māpua and work, worked from home, or walked or cycled to work (2023
census data).
Figure 7: 120 Higgs Road
7.47 Advice
from Council’s Senior Infrastructure Planning Advisor – Stormwater,
Rivers and Coasts has indicated that the stormwater drain indicated as a
constraint by submitter #34636 (Mr Ford) can be mitigated through design. The
detail of which would be provided during a resource consent application.
7.48 New
services are planned by year 10 for this land parcel. More detailed assessments
around infrastructure servicing will be undertaken during the plan change
process.
7.49 Mr
Ford (#34636) indicated that he would provide further information around the
soil constraints of site. This information has been limited to an email from
the landowner[2]
stating that geotechnical advice was sought several years ago which indicated
that the land was unsuitable for the building of storage units. Officers have
commissioned a geotechnical assessment of the land to determine the soil
suitability for commercial development. This assessment indicates that the land
would be suitable for commercial development – refer Attachment 9.
7.50 The
area of land at 120 Higgs Road is currently zoned Rural 1 deferred Residential.
It is located close to transport links and relatively central to the Higgs Road
and the Seaton Valley Greenfield Land. It adjoins an existing commercial
development at 152 Māpua Drive and provides a logical place for a
reasonably large commercial development such as a supermarket. Importantly it
is also outside of the inundation area.
7.51 It
is recommended to retain the proposed future use of the land as commercial in
the masterplan.
Officers’
recommendations
7.52 The
following is recommended:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Higgs Road –
120 Higgs Road
|
Masterplan Maps
No change.
|
Considered an appropriate area for commercial development.
|
166
Māpua Drive – Medium Density Housing
Officers’
comments
7.53 Submitter
(#34682) has requested the inclusion of part of the deferred portion of their
land at 166 Māpua Drive within the masterplan and the inclusion of it in
the masterplan as ‘Future Medium Density Housing’.
7.54 As
mentioned previously in this report Plan Change 79 – Deferred Zoning
introduces a new deferred zone framework to replace the existing deferred zone
method in the TRMP.
7.55 New
servicing of water supply, wastewater and stormwater is planned for this area
after year 10 to enable growth.
7.56 The
submitters recommendation to include the undeveloped (and unconsented) area of
166 Māpua Drive as a Future Medium Density Housing is supported and would
align with the proposed adjoining commercial zoning and consented residential
zoned land to the north (RM210630). It would also meet an objective of the
masterplan to provide for a variety of housing options that are resilient to
natural hazard and climate change.
7.57 Even
with the identified capacity, Tasman remains short of dwellings in the next 10
years in its urban environment. Any further medium density capacity that can be
realised is therefore helpful in making up for some of the identified
shortfall.
Figure 15: 166 Māpua Drive TRMP Zoning
Officers’ recommendations
7.58 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
166 Māpua Drive
|
Masterplan Maps
Include deferred section of 166 Māpua Drive as
‘Future Medium Density Housing’.
|
The recommendation to include it as Medium Density Housing
is supported and would align well with the adjoining proposed future
commercial use and residential housing.
|
8. Seaton
Valley Road Area
Question 10 - Housing
8.1 Submitters
were asked ‘To enable greater housing choice do you support enabling a
mixture of standard (minimum 540m2 lots) and medium density housing (averaging
200-300m2) on current greenfield land off Seaton Valley Road?’
8.1.1 No – 59 submitters chose
this option
8.1.2 Yes – 36 submitters chose
this option
8.1.3 Not sure – 12 submitters
chose this option.
Officers’ comments
8.2 There
continues to be opposition to housing development in Seaton Valley with many
submitters voicing concerns that housing development threatens the rural and
village character of the area and will increase traffic congestion. Some
submitters have requested that Seaton Valley be retained as Rural 1 Zone and
that it is withdrawn from the masterplan. Concerns around inundation were also
included within the submissions.
8.3 These
opinions on the development of the Seaton Valley area are similar to the FDS
consultation responses in 2022, where 51% strongly disagreed or disagreed (55%
in the masterplan); 32% strongly agreed, agreed or were neutral (34% in the
masterplan) and 11% did not know (11% in the masterplan). Concerns of
submitters on the FDS were also similar on increase in greenhouse gas
emissions, and loss of productive land. In fact, 43% of Māpua residents
who work worked from home or walk or cycle to work (2023 travel to work and
school census data). These proportions may change with a changing demographic
in Māpua.
8.4 Despite
its distance from Richmond and Nelson, based on 2018 census data, it is
estimated that while Māpua has higher greenhouse gas emissions for journey
to work and school from transport than Richmond or Motueka, it has lower
emissions than Wakefield.
8.5 Submission
processes do not amount to a poll or vote on any proposal. They are a means of
allowing the committee to gather an indication of the views and preferences of
our community. They are one input into the committee’s recommendations
along with other information and advice the committee seeks or is provided by
officers. The content of the submissions is important to consider, not just the
quantity. Submissions are not the sole source of knowledge about community
views and preferences on growth. The committee will have a broad understanding
of these issues already through other engagement exercises and consultations on
other recent Council plans (including the FDS), as well as through experience
of speaking with the community.
8.6 There
are suggestions from submitters that growth statistics are inaccurate and
submitters question the need for residential development in the Seaton Valley
Area. Infrastructure servicing is also considered a concern. Some submitters
feel the masterplan process lacks transparency and consultation with
changes being made to benefit developers rather than the broader
community.
8.7 The
Seaton Valley greenfield land identified for rezoning to Residential –
Standard and Medium Density Residential is land that has been identified in the
FDS for residential development and is currently zoned rural, rural residential
or deferred rural residential. The FDS went through a robust Local Government
Act Special Consultative Procedure which involved community engagement and
consultation, hearings and deliberations.
8.8 The
Seaton Valley greenfield land is classified as a mixture of Land Use Capability
Class 3, 4 and 6. Land classified as LUC 1, 2 and 3 is recognised as highly
productive under the National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Land
(NPS-HPL). However, the Government is currently consulting on removing LUC 3
from the definition of highly productive land and it is likely to occur later
this year.
8.9 The
land identified for residential housing in Seaton Valley sits outside the
natural hazard risk area. Information around how the Masterplan responses to
Hazards and Climate Change is provided in the Māpua Masterplan Supporting
Information (November 2024) and in Theme 5 – Natural Hazard and Climate
Change of this report. Additional technical information is also included in
Attachment 7 – Coastal Inundation.
8.10 The
parcel of land identified for ‘Future Medium Density Housing’ and
‘Future Commercial’ on 49 Stafford Drive (and identified by the red
circle in Figure 8) aligns with a relatively elevated section of land. It is
noted that this area may need some further refinement to align more closely
with the inundation maps (Attachment 7). As such, it is recommended that the
width of the area associated with Figure 8 is amended.
8.11 The
Māpua Masterplan Supporting Information (November 2024) sets out in detail
the Council’s requirements under the National Policy Statement on Urban
Development (NPS-UD) and Council’s Housing and Business Assessment 2024
that underpin the need to provide for more residential zoned land in the Nelson
Tasman shared urban environment to meet forecast demand. Māpua (although
contested by some submitters) comprises part of Tasman’s urban
environment under the NPS-UD and is legally required to assist in meeting the
housing demand of the urban environment along with Brightwater, Wakefield,
Motueka and Richmond. Additional information is provided below in Theme 1
– Housing and Business of this report and a summary of the Housing and
Business Assessment for Tasman undertaken in 2024 is provided in Attachment
6 to the agenda report.
Figure 8: Extract from the draft Masterplan Seaton
Valley Area Map
8.12 The
Council’s infrastructure team has confirmed that new servicing (water,
wastewater and stormwater supply) of the Seaton Valley Road Greenfield Land is
planned by year 10 to enable growth.
8.13 The landowner of 75 Seaton Valley
Road (Submitter #34678, Mr and Mrs Lynch) are supportive of the masterplan but
have suggested that the medium density and standard residential mix identified
in the masterplan be amended to accommodate their concept plan which was tabled
at the hearing.
Figure 9: 75 Seaton Valley Road
8.14
Submitter #34683 (Mr Orrah) the landowner of 59 Seaton Valley Road is generally
supportive of the masterplan but has requested clarification that the mixed
density notation in the masterplan does not predetermine that some of the land
must be zoned as standard density, should it be determined through the future
plan change process that the entirety of the site be suitable for Medium
Density Residential.
Figure 10: 59 Seaton Valley Road
8.15
It is recommended that the future residential housing identified within the
Seaton Valley Greenfield Land including 59 and 75 Seaton Valley Road is amended
to show ‘Future Mixed Medium and Standard Density Housing’. These
changes are recommended to enable a more detailed analysis of appropriate
densities as part of the development of an Outline Development Plan as the
finer details around the appropriate residential zone mix can be developed with
supporting policy in an Outline Development Plan which would provide more
direction around expected densities, landscaping, and indicative roading and
reserve requirements. It would also provide clarity to the landowner and the
community who are currently mixed in their views of residential development in
Seaton Valley. The community would have a chance to submit and provide comment
on the detail of the Outline Development Plan as part of the Schedule 1 RMA
plan change process.
Officers’ recommendations
8.16 The
following is recommended:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Seaton Valley Greenfield Land – 59, 69, 71, 97, 107,
109, 113, 120, 122, 125, 129, 131, 132, 140, 154, 156, 164, Seaton
Valley,
49 Stafford Drive
|
Masterplan Maps
Amend to ‘Future Mixed Standard and Medium
Density Housing’.
|
Recommend retaining proposed residential zoning as
outlined in the Masterplan to provide for a mixture of housing, and support
Council’s statutory requirements to provide for growth under the
NPS-UD.
|
|
Seaton Valley – 59, 69, 71, 75, 97, 107, 109, 113,
120, 122, 125, 129, 131, 132, 140, 154, 156, 164, Seaton Valley,
49 Stafford Drive
|
Masterplan Maps
Add notation ‘Outline Development Plan to be
developed of the Seaton Valley Road Greenfield Land in consultation with
landowners’.
|
This change is recommended as the finer details around the
appropriate residential density mix can be determined with supporting policy
through the development of an Outline Development Plan which would provide
more clarity to the community who are currently mixed in their views on the
residential mix partially due to a lack of policy detail. Consultation on the
Outline Development Plan would occur through the Schedule 1 RMA plan change
process. It is important that this plan is developed in consultation with
landowners.
|
Question 12 – Business Seaton Valley Road
8.17 Submitters
were asked ‘Do you support the introduction of two parcels of
commercial land off Seaton Valley Road for future development as commercial for
activities such as a café, retail hub?’
8.17.1 No – 42 submitters chose this option
8.17.2 Yes – 39 submitters chose this option
8.17.3 Not sure – 9 submitters chose this
option.
Officers’ comments
8.18 Some
submitters support the introduction of commercial land off Seaton Valley Road,
particularly for a café, retail hub, or shared office facilities. The
commercial land was seen by some as a logical addition to residential
growth, allowing for a mix of housing and business uses. Others oppose
the inclusion of commercial areas because the area is primarily residential and
rural and because of increased traffic congestion. Concern for the protection
of native vegetation was also expressed.
8.19 As
mentioned previously in this report, the Council’s latest Housing and
Business Assessment 2024 shows that commercial land capacity in Māpua is
limited over the next 30 years - and this is based on a business land demand
model (Sense Partners updated 2023) that officers consider to be conservative.
Existing commercial capacity is restricted to existing zoned areas in Iwa
Street, Aranui Road and the wharf. When the projected model’s demand is
compared with recent commercial/retail building consents 2016-2022, projected
retail/commercial land in Tasman’s urban environment would be 15 ha
instead of 6 ha 2024-2054. Given additional housing is being added in
Māpua it is prudent to add additional business opportunities for future
residents. 43% of people who live in Māpua and work, worked from home, or walked
or cycled to work. (2023 census data). These proportions may change with
a changing demographic in Māpua.
8.20 The
proposed commercial land off Seaton Valley Road has generated mixed opinions.
While some see it as an opportunity to support local business and reduce travel
needs, others oppose it due to concerns about traffic, stormwater, impacts to
native vegetation and imposed zoning changes.
Question 12a – Business 12 and 20 Seaton Valley
Road
8.21 Submitters
were asked ‘Future commercial land directly off Seaton Valley Road (12
and 20 Seaton Valley Road)?’
8.21.1 No – 54 submitters chose this option
8.21.2 Yes – 28 submitters chose this option
8.21.3 Not sure – 20 submitters chose this
option.
Officers’ comments
8.22 The
landowner, Submitter #34753 of 12 Seaton Valley Road opposes the identification
of their land as future commercial (Figures 11 and 12) noting at the hearing
the significant mature trees and vegetation that borders their property and
their intentions to retain the use of the land for residential purposes. They
also oppose a walkway around the boundary of their property.
Figure 11: Draft Masterplan Future Commercial Area (Pink) at
12 and 20 Seaton Valley Road
Figure 12: 12 and 20 Seaton Valley
Road
8.23 The
land at 12 and 20 Seaton Valley Road (Figure 9) was identified for future
commercial in the masterplan because of its central location within Seaton
Valley and its elevation outside of the hazard risk area. This land was not
identified in the FDS for commercial use.
8.24 The
masterplan includes an area of reserve surrounding both land parcels to
accommodate the protection of the mature native vegetation that exists on the
boundary of the properties. No walkway was proposed in the masterplan. 12
Seaton Valley Road contains notable mature native vegetation and it is
recommended that this area is notated as significant vegetation, and
discussions are held with the landowners to determine how best to provide
protection for the vegetation. It is recommended that the mapping notation is
changed to ‘Significant Vegetation’ for clarity.
8.25 Both
properties currently contain existing residential dwellings. 20 Seaton Valley
Road is currently the subject of a subdivision application (RM220377) to create
two additional lots and the owners of 12 Seaton Valley Road are opposed to the
future commercial use of the land and have indicated that they are considering
subdividing to create additional residential lots. As such, it is unlikely that
these properties would be developed as commercial in the short to medium term.
8.26 This
report recommends the inclusion of future commercial land off Māpua Drive
(120 Higgs Road) and a small part of 49 Stafford Drive in the final masterplan.
The inclusion of these parcels would be considered sufficient to meet future
commercial needs in Māpua and these parcels are considered more feasible
to develop due to the greenfield nature of the land and the fact that they are
currently in single ownership.
8.27 It
is not considered necessary at this stage to rezone or indicate 12 and 20
Seaton Valley Road for ‘Future Commercial’ in the masterplan. It is
therefore recommended that the masterplan is amended, and the land remains in
Rural 1 zoning as per the adjoining land parcels.
Officers’ recommendations
8.28 The following changes are
recommended:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Seaton Valley – 12 and 20 Seaton Valley Road
|
Masterplan Maps
Remove future commercial shown at 12 and 20 Seaton Valley
Road.
|
More suitable commercial land has been identified.
|
|
Seaton Valley – 12 Seaton Valley Road
|
Masterplan Maps
Amend from ‘Future Reserve’ to
‘Significant Vegetation’
|
Change recommended to provide clarity
|
Question 12b – Business Land 49 Stafford Drive
8.29 Submitters
were asked ‘Future commercial land within 49 Stafford Drive adjoining
the proposed recreation area and wetland area?’
8.29.1 No – 48 submitters chose this option
8.29.2 Yes – 38 submitters chose this option
8.29.3 Not sure – 18 submitters chose this
option.
Officers’ comments
8.30 The
Masterplan includes a small future commercial area on the elevated land of part
of 49 Stafford Drive (Figure 13). 49 Stafford Drive is a greenfield site
and development of a commercial area is therefore considered feasible as part
of an integrated Outline Development Plan for the site. It is considered that
the location of this commercial area – on elevated land, adjoining the
proposed wetland and recreational facilities and residential housing would
create an excellent central small commercial node to cater for residents within
the Seaton Valley Area and Māpua. It is not expected that this commercial
area would detract from the larger commercial areas on Aranui Road or the
wharf.
Figure 13: Draft Masterplan future commercial area (Red
circle) within 49 Stafford Drive
8.31 A
preliminary geotechnical assessment has been undertaken (Attachment 9) which
indicates that the soils on the hillslopes are not anticipated to be an issue
in terms of either bearing capacity for lightweight timber-framed buildings
with shallow foundations, or slope stability. Further work will need to be
undertaken at the plan change stage to confirm the feasibility of commercial in
this location from a geotechnical perspective. At this stage, it is recommended
that this commercial node remain in the masterplan.
8.32 Discussions
have been held with the landowner, and they have indicated support for the
inclusion of this future commercial area on their land.
8.33 It
is recommended that the future commercial area be retained and refined further
through a Council developed Outline Development Plan which would form part of a
TRMP plan change to rezone the land.
Officers’ recommendations
8.34 The
following changes are recommended:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Seaton Valley – 49 Stafford Drive
|
Masterplan Maps
Retain Future Commercial area on 49 Stafford Drive.
|
A strategically located parcel of commercial land within
49 Stafford Drive would provide significant benefits to the future
development of the surrounding area.
|
6 Seaton Valley Road, 175-177 Māpua Drive and 179
Māpua Drive – Commercial
Officers’
comments
8.35 Submitters
#34626, #34569 and #34596 seek consideration of their land at 6 Seaton Valley
Road, 175-177 Māpua Drive and 179 Māpua Drive for future commercial
use (Figure 16). The submitters comment that there is a significant shortage of
commercially zoned land in Māpua and considers that these areas would make
an ideal new town centre. They consider that their land, with proper design can
be made resilient to flooding and consider that the flat terrain and strategic
location make the parcels ideal for commercial development.
Figure 16: 6 Seaton Valley Road,
175 -177 Māpua Drive and 197 Māpua Drive
8.36 These
properties were all considered for inclusion within the FDS (T-125/ T-009
Māpua Drive/Seaton Valley Road Intersection). The sites were discounted
for the following reasons ‘Low lying site subject to coastal
inundation and stormwater discharge challenges. Mitigation could potentially
exist but iwi raised strong concerns over cultural heritage significance in
this location due to a long history of occupation and inaccurate location of
archaeological sites on the NZAA database[3]’.
8.37 While
it is recognised by officers that these sites are well located for commercial
development, it is still considered that they are constrained due to the
low-lying nature of the land and natural hazard risk (refer to Attachment 7
– Coastal Inundation). While the sites may be able to be designed to
mitigate stormwater and flood effects it is likely that mitigation required for
the sites will be significant.
8.38 Ngā
iwi strongly objected to the inclusion of this land in the FDS due to cultural
heritage significance concerns. The landowners were provided iwi contact
details to consult with iwi directly regarding their concerns. No information
has been provided on the outcomes of these discussions.
8.39 In
addition, the Natural Hazard Plan Change (Plan Change 82) is currently being
prepared and will strengthen the natural hazards policy framework, which would
update a number of settlement-specific policies, rules and the ‘Coastal
Risk Area’ overlay. It is unknown at this stage how this plan change may
affect the development of low-lying sites such as these.
8.40 The
landowners could pursue a private plan change should they wish to rezone their
land.
Officers’ recommendations
8.41 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Commercial rezoning - 6 Seaton Valley Road, 175-177
Māpua Drive and 179 Māpua Drive
|
No change
|
Natural hazard risk and cultural concerns.
|
154 and 156 Seaton Valley Road - Housing
Officers’ comments
8.42 There
are objections to the recommendation of ‘Future Standard Residential
Housing’ for 154 and 156 Seaton Valley Road with submitters commenting
that these properties are not large enough to maintain their existing sewerage
fields and that intensive housing should be avoided close to Seaton Valley
Stream.
8.43 The
masterplan proposes that 154 and 156 Seaton Valley Road is recommended as
‘future standard residential development’, this is not considered
intensive development which is more aligned with medium density housing. The
land is currently zoned Rural. Both 154 and 156 Seaton Valley Road were
identified for residential development as part of the FDS.
8.44 All
new development on land proposed to be rezoned for residential will be
connected to infrastructure services including wastewater, water and
stormwater. As reticulated servicing is anticipated for residential development
in a residential zone, onsite wastewater systems are not required. New water
supply, wastewater and stormwater services will be available by year 10 of
2024/34 Long Term Plan (LTP).
8.45 The
existing lots sizes are 0.4759 and 1.18 hectares. The Council’s
inundation modelling identifies a small portion of these parcels are impacted
by AEP 1% flooding.
8.46 The
Seaton Valley Stream Esplanade Reserve (Figure 17) extends partly along the
waterway and will create a setback for all new housing development.
8.47 The
masterplan indicates an extension to the Seaton Valley Stream Esplanade Reserve
to create an ecological and public access corridor along the watercourse to
link with Seaton Valley Road.
Figure 17: Existing
Seaton Valley Stream Esplanade Reserve
Officers’ recommendations
8.48 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
154 and 156 Seaton Valley Road
|
No change
|
Land is proposed to be indicated for future standard
residential housing. A setback will be incorporated from the waterway as part
of any resource consent requirement.
|
Action #36 – Cat Ownership
Officers’ comments
8.1 Action
#36 includes restrictions to cat ownership for properties adjoining the
proposed wetland area at 49 Stafford Drive. Views on this action were mixed
with some people in support and recommending restrictions to dogs as well and
others expressing concerns around increased rodent and rabbit populations with
the removal of cats from an area.
8.2 Further
investigation around the enforceability of this action and the extent of
restrictions would need to be undertaken to determine its worth. It is expected
that the recommended future wetland area will become an important ecological
habitat and it is therefore important to retain and investigate how restricting
cat ownership would work in a policy framework.
Officers’ recommendations
8.3 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
49 Stafford Drive
|
Masterplan Action Plan
No change to Action #36.
|
It is expected that the future wetland
area will become an important ecological habitat and it is therefore
important to retain and investigate how restricting cat ownership would work
in a policy framework.
|
9. Theme
1 – Housing and Business
Question 8 – Design
9.1 Submitters
were asked ‘Do you support the development of a Māpua Design
Guide to direct the design of all new development?
9.1.1 Yes – 55
submitters chose this option
9.1.2 No – 21
submitters chose this option
9.1.3 Not sure
– 27 submitters chose this option.
Officers’
comments
9.2 The
majority of submitters supported the development of a design guide to direct
new development in Māpua. Submitters commented that the design guide
should reflect the historical and architectural character of Māpua,
particularly near the wharf area. There was strong support for mandatory and
enforceable design standards providing clear expectations for developers.
9.3 Submitter
#34679, Nelson Tasman 2050 suggests that the masterplan lacks detailed
strategies to ensure timeless, cohesive and high-quality urban design outcomes
and that it would be appropriate to elaborate on how the design guide would
function and how it would be expected to achieve best practice outcomes.
9.4 The
Masterplan is a high-level strategic document and it is not expected that it
would provide detailed design information. The development of a design guide
would require specific public consultation on the character and identity of
Māpua, and a revision of the TRMP policy framework to look at how to
integrate appropriate design guidance within it.
9.5 To
provide the design guide with legislative ‘teeth’ it would need to
form part of the TRMP which would require a plan change. A detailed
design guide would be developed as part of a plan change and consulted on
through the Schedule 1 RMA process.
Officers’ recommendations
9.6 The
following is recommended:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Māpua Urban Area
|
Masterplan Action Plan
No change to inclusion of development of a Māpua
Design Guide under Action #1.
|
Recommend to retain the development of a Design Guide to
direct new development in Māpua.
|
Growth Predictions
9.7 A number of submitters questioned the
methodology for determining the growth numbers and the population projections.
Similar questions were raised during the FDS and LTP hearings.
Officers’ comments
9.8 Councils have a legal obligation under
sections 30 and 31 of the Resource Management Act 1991 to provide sufficient
development capacity in relation to housing and business land to meet the
expected demands of the region/district. Under
the NPS–UD councils also have a legal requirement to provide for
sufficient housing and business land capacity to meet demand at all times
(Policy 2 of the NPS-UD).
9.9 Expected growth in housing and business land is determined by the
population projections (see Growth
model | Tasman District Council) that the Council adopts for its
LTP. The Housing and Business Assessment (HBA) 2024 provides the
analysis to assess whether sufficient urban development land, of the right type
and in the right place, can be provided by the Council. The Council’s
latest iteration of the Growth Model and HBA was adopted by the Council as part
as the LTP in 2024. The draft Māpua Masterplan Supporting Information
(Section 7.4) provides information on the projected growth numbers and refers
to associated documents such as the HBA and FDS.
9.10 The
FDS and the LTP were adopted by the Council after a robust Local Government Act
process of submissions, hearings and deliberations. The 2024 Growth Model and
the HBA were adopted as part of the 2024 LTP. These documents provide strategic
direction for the Council and underpin the direction of the masterplan in terms
of growth, and housing and business requirements. The next HBA will be prepared
to accompany the 2027-2037 LTP, using updated population projections. The
process of reviewing growth demands is therefore iterative and land will only
be zoned and serviced where it is known it is required.
9.11 Additional
information is included in Attachment 6 which provides a Summary of the Housing
and Business Assessment for Tasman 2024 as required by the NPS-UD.
Officers’ recommendations
9.12 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
NA
|
No change to the masterplan documentation
|
The 2024 Growth Model and HBA have been adopted by Council
and the masterplan is not considered the appropriate forum for debating the
accuracy of this data.
|
The Nelson Tasman Future Development Strategy
2022-2052 (FDS)
Officers’ comments
9.13 Submitter
#34601 (Mr Heijs) has requested that the FDS is not used as a non-negotiable
starting point and has requested that the need for new greenfield development
is properly justified. The submitter has also requested that Māpua is no
longer regarded as an urban growth area in the next FDS.
9.14 The
FDS is a 30-year high-level strategic plan that identifies areas where there is
potential for future housing and business growth. It was developed following
months of community engagement, detailed feedback and information and
deliberations and was adopted by the Council.
9.15 The
land identified in the FDS in Seaton Valley for residential development is
considered appropriate for residential development and is needed to address the
growth needs of the community. Given the natural hazard constraints some other
areas of Māpua face, there were few options for growth areas in
Māpua. When the FDS was prepared in 2021/2022 no less than seven different
spatial scenarios were evaluated to accommodate growth in Tasman and
additionally a further five broad growth scenarios were also considered. Full
details are in the FDS technical report.
9.16 As
detailed above in this report, similar proportions of submitters to the
masterplan were not in favour of the greenfield development of Seaton Valley as
submitters on the FDS in 2022. The land is already zoned for rural residential
development or deferred rural residential development in the TRMP. The
masterplan (and FDS) seeks to make more efficient use of this land by
developing at increased densities. Even with the identified capacity,
(including Seaton Valley), Tasman remains short of dwellings in the next 10
years in its urban environment.
9.17 The
FDS is a statutory plan under the RMA because the NPS-UD requires tier 2
authorities like Tasman to adopt an FDS. Under the NPS-UD, the effect of an FDS
is that a tier 2 local authority must have regard to it, when preparing or
changing RMA planning documents and is strongly encouraged to use the relevant
FDS to inform any other relevant strategies and plans. The Māpua
Masterplan will progress to a plan change under the RMA.
9.18 The
current Government is to replace the RMA with two new Acts by the third quarter
of 2026. The new Planning Act will apparently detail Regional Spatial Plans
which will replace FDSs in the future. There are therefore currently no plans
to review the FDS 2022.
9.19 The
NPS-UD defines an urban environment as meaning ‘any area of land
(regardless of size, and irrespective of local authority or statistical
boundaries) that:
(a) is, or is
intended to be, predominantly urban in character; and
(b) is, or is
intended to be, part of a housing and labour market of at least 10,000
people’[4]
9.20 The
towns in Tasman forming part of the shared Nelson Tasman tier 2 urban
environment were decided on by the Joint Committee of the Nelson City and
Tasman District Councils on 10 November 2020. There was no requirement to
consult on this. The Tasman urban environment towns (Richmond, Brightwater,
Wakefield, Māpua, Motueka) were included in the urban environment, in
recognition that these communities are part of the same labour and housing
market, and these areas are or are intended to be predominantly urban in
character. Stats census data (travel to work and school) was used in this
analysis.
Officers’ recommendations
9.21 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Entire Area
|
No change
|
It is
reasonable to use the FDS to inform the Māpua Masterplan and subsequent
RMA plan change to identify areas for residential and business growth in
Māpua.
|
109 and 119 Aranui Road – Medium Density Housing
Officers’
comments
9.22 Submitter
#34684 (Mr Toll) has requested the inclusion of his land at 109 and 119 Aranui
Road (Figure 14) in the masterplan proposing it should be rezoned from Rural
Residential deferred residential to Medium Density Residential due to its
central location, topography and overall suitability for intensive development.
9.23 Notified
Plan Change 79 – Deferred Zoning introduces a new deferred zone framework
to replace the existing deferred zone method in the TRMP. The new framework
relies on a trigger rule mechanism rather than deferred zoning. This plan
change also proposes to formally rezone some existing deferred land on the
basis that the matters leading to the initial deferral have been satisfied or
are no longer relevant. The Māpua deferred land locations are excluded
from Plan Change 76 due to the development of the masterplan. The masterplan
and consequent plan change will address the rezoning of all deferred zone
locations in Māpua.
Figure 14: 109 and 119 Aranui Road
9.24 The
properties at 109 and 119 Aranui Road combined are approximately 4600 m2 and
are largely vacant with a single residential dwelling located to the rear of
119 and an existing shed on 109. They are directly adjoined by Rural
Residential Deferred Residential land.
9.25 A
letter was sent to all adjoining landowners seeking feedback on the submitters
request to rezone the land to medium density residential. One response was
received objecting to the proposal on the basis of traffic impacts, privacy and
concerns around liquefaction and Tsunami risk (refer to Attachment 8).
9.26 A
desk-top assessment was undertaken by the Council’s Natural Hazard and
Geomorphology Team Leader, Alastair Clement, and is included in Attachment 7.
This assessment concludes that the future coastal inundation hazard is not an
impediment to rezoning these properties to Medium Density Residential, provided
that the ground levels on the properties were raised to recommended levels.
Other natural hazard issues, such as liquefaction susceptibility, are also not
an impediment to rezoning or future development of these properties, as this
can be managed effectively through geotechnical investigation and site-specific
foundation design.
9.27 An
assessment of infrastructure requirements was undertaken and indicates that the
current services (water, wastewater, and stormwater supply) are sufficient for
growth.
9.28 It
is recommended that 109 and 119 Aranui Road are included and recommended for
inclusion in the masterplan as ‘Medium Density Housing’ with
further assessments undertaken during the plan change process to ensure that
this is the appropriate residential zoning for the sites. Even with the
identified capacity, Tasman remains 365 dwellings short in the next 10 years in
its urban environment. Nelson also has an identified shortage of an additional
240 dwellings in the shared urban environment in the next 10 years, totalling
608 dwellings. The identified shortage of attached dwellings in the shared
urban environment amounts to 845 dwellings in the next 10 years. Any further
medium density capacity that can be realised is therefore helpful in making up
for some of the identified shortfall.
9.29 It
is noted that adjoining properties 107A and 107B Aranui Road (refer Figure 14)
is also zoned Rural Residential deferred Residential in the TRMP. Parts of 107A
and 107B are low lying and contain existing wetlands. It is recommended that
these land parcels are identified as future Rural Residential in the masterplan
pending further assessment as part of a plan change process (noting that the
existing wetlands are protected from any development in the TRMP).
Officers’ recommendations
9.30 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
109 and 119 Aranui Road
|
Masterplan Maps
Add 109 and 119 Aranui Road as Future Medium Density
Housing.
|
Suitable change with further investigation required at the
plan change phase.
|
|
107A/B Aranui Road
|
Masterplan Maps
Add 107A/B Aranui Road as Future Rural Residential.
|
The land is currently zoned as Rural Residential with a
deferred Residential status.
|
Second dwellings
Officers’ comments
9.31 Submitter
#34658 requested that an emphasis should be made on making it easier for
existing home/property owners to add tiny homes etc. The
Government is focussed on increasing the supply of affordable homes for New
Zealanders. As part of this, the Government is proposing to make it easier to
build small, self-contained and detached houses of up to 70 m2,
commonly known as ‘granny flats’ on properties in rural and
residential zones with an existing home on it. The Government expects that
this legislation will be passed before the end of 2025.
9.32 No
changes are recommended to the masterplan as a result of this submission.
Officers’ recommendations
9.33 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
General
|
No change
|
The Governments ‘granny flat’ legislation will
make it easier for smaller homes to be added to existing properties in rural
and residential zones.
|
Deferred Land
Officers’ comments
9.34 Submission
#34692 (Mr and Mrs Talley) states that the masterplan does not show either
existing or future residential development such as 53 Seaton Valley Road
meaning that the masterplan leaves out large elements of the anticipated
spatial framework for Māpua resulting in uncertainty about the intentions
of those areas.
9.35 It
is agreed that all deferred land within the focus area of the masterplan should
be recognised in the masterplan to provide more clarity on the future zone
framework of Māpua. It should be acknowledged that further
assessment of these sites will be required including a detailed infrastructure
assessment at the plan change stage to ensure that any zoning identified in the
masterplan is appropriate.
9.36 18
Stafford Drive (Figure 25 refers) is currently being used for light industry
purposes and is zoned Rural 1 deferred Light Industrial in the TRMP. It
is recommended to include an action in the masterplan to undertake assessments
as part of a plan change to consider rezoning 18 Stafford Drive as Light
Industrial. It is recommended to amend the mapping to include this change.
Figure 25: 18 Stafford Drive
9.37 At
the time of preparing the masterplan, 29 and 53 Seaton Valley Road (Figure 26
refers) were the subject of an active resource consent application (RM240148).
Consent was granted on 6 March for a 33 Lot subdivision at 29 and 53 Seaton
Valley Road. 0 Seaton Valley Road sits between these two properties and is also
zoned Rural 1 deferred Residential and is a Council owned stormwater detention
basin.
9.38 It
is recommended to include an action in the masterplan to investigate rezoning
these parcels to Residential as part of a plan change and to include parcels 29
and 53 as ‘future standard density housing’ on the masterplan maps
and 0 Seaton Valley Road as ‘Utility Reserve’.
Figure 26: 29 and 53 Seaton Valley Road
9.39 57,
59 and 69 Stafford Drive (Figure 27 refers) are currently zoned Rural 1
deferred Rural Residential Serviced. These land parcels along with a small
section of 49 Stafford Drive have been excluded from the masterplan as they are
not considered suitable for further residential development due to their size,
inundation and the presence of a wetland. It is recommended that an action is
included in the masterplan to provide clarity to the landowners and align with
the requirements of Plan Change 79 to investigate rezoning these parcels to
Rural Residential (serviced) as part of a plan change. It is recommended to
include this change on the masterplan maps.
Figure 27: 57, 59 and 69 Stafford
Drive
9.40 The
property at 152 Māpua Drive (Figure 28) is currently zoned Rural 1
deferred Residential and is used for commercial purposes. 5 Seaton Valley Road
(Figure 28) is also zoned Rural 1 deferred Residential and is owned by Network
Tasman and used as a network utility.
9.41 Further
discussions are required with the landowners to determine an appropriate future
zone for these sites. It is however recommended that 152 Māpua Drive is
considered for rezoning as Commercial which is in line with its existing use.
It is recommended that it is included in the masterplan as ‘future
Commercial’ pending further consultation with the landowners.
9.42 5
Seaton Valley Road is not designated and is used as a network utility. It is
recommended that it is identified in the masterplan maps as a “Network
Utility’ and appropriate zoning is explored through a plan change
process.
Figure 28: 152 Māpua Drive and 5
Seaton Valley Road
9.43 55
Higgs Road (Figure 29) is currently partially zoned Rural 1 deferred
Residential. The land is the subject of a Queen Elizabeth II National Trust
Open Space Covenant for the protection of native flora and fauna.
9.44 Further
assessments and discussions are required with the landowner to determine an
appropriate zone for this land. It is recommended that a new action is included
in the Masterplan Action Plan to address this. The masterplan currently shows
this land as ‘QEII Covenants’ it is recommended this is retained.
Figure 29: TRMP Zone Map 55 Higgs Road (hatched Rural 1
deferred Residential)
Officers’ recommendations
9.45 Officers recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reason
|
|
18 Stafford Drive
|
Masterplan Maps
Add as ‘Future Light Industrial’.
|
To provide
more clarity of future land uses through the masterplan
|
|
29 and 53 Seaton Valley Road
|
Masterplan Maps
Add as ‘Future Standard Density Housing’.
|
To provide
more clarity of future land uses through the masterplan
|
|
0 Seaton Valley Road
|
Masterplan Maps
Add as ‘Utility Reserve.
|
To align
with current use.
|
|
57, 59 and 69 Stafford Drive
|
Masterplan Maps
Add as ’Future Rural Residential Housing’.
|
To provide
more clarity of future land uses through the masterplan
|
|
152 Māpua Drive
|
Masterplan Maps
Add as ‘Future Commercial’ Note pending further
assessment through a plan change process.
|
To provide
more clarity of future land uses through the masterplan
|
|
5 Seaton Valley Road
|
Masterplan Maps
Add as ‘Network Utility’.
|
To provide
more clarity through the masterplan.
|
|
All deferred land
|
Masterplan Action Plan
New Action - Through a plan change process propose relevant
changes to the zones of all deferred land in Māpua.
|
To provide
more clarity of future land uses through the masterplan
|
Māpua Spatial Area
Officers’ comments
9.46 Submitter
#34691 (Tasman Bay Estates) has requested an extension to the spatial extent of
the masterplan to include Rural 3 land north of Māpua, and land proposed
by Tasman Bay Estates for residential development. A submitter (#34692: (Mr and Mrs Talley) also suggests that the spatial extent of
the masterplan is unclear and other submitters (#34690) question the impact
subdivisions immediately and closely adjacent to the masterplan area will have
on infrastructure.
9.47 Submitter
#34691 (Tasman Bay Estates) owns Rural 3 zoned land to the north of the
Masterplan Spatial Area that is approximately 1 km from the Masterplan Spatial
Area. Tasman Bay Estates currently holds an existing resource consent for the
development of approximately 100 lots to the north of Māpua and has a
current subdivision application being processed for 58 rural lifestyle
allotments off Mamaku Road. They are also in the process of investigating
options for a ‘village concept’ which would involve the development
of a significant number of dwellings. Tasman Bay Estates has an existing
agreement with Council for an allocated water supply, sufficient to supply up
to 400 dwellings with 1 m3 per day for domestic use. This agreement
is subject to network extension works.
9.48 They
submit that their land is well placed to contribute to accommodating growth in
the Māpua and Ruby Bay area even under its Rural 3 zoning and have
requested that the spatial extent is extended to include all Rural 3 land north
of Māpua. They also submit that the masterplan extent should be extended
to any surrounding land that shares in servicing infrastructure with the
Māpua urban area. Specifically, this should include the submitters
land and any other Rural 3 land served by or intended to be served by water
infrastructure.
9.49 Figure
22 shows the TRMP zoning of land surrounding Māpua and Ruby Bay. The
spatial extent of the masterplan currently extends to the Rural Residential
Zoning (identified as pink in Figure 22). The submitter has requested that the
masterplan spatial area be extended to include the Rural 3 zoned land to the
north of Māpua - Rural 3 zoned land is identified as yellow in Figure 22.
Figure 22: TRMP Zone Map
9.50 The
spatial extent of the masterplan aligns with the TRMP Rural Residential zoning
and the Stormwater Catchment Area. The masterplan is focused on the urban
environment of Māpua including land identified in the FDS for residential
development.
9.51 An
objective of the masterplan is to provide for a variety of housing options.
Officers agree with the submitter in their view that Rural 3 land supports
housing choice. This is the case whether Rural 3 land is included in the
spatial extent of the masterplan or not.
9.52 It
is acknowledged that recognising infrastructure agreements to align
infrastructure planning is important however it is not considered essential to
extend the spatial extent of the masterplan to align with infrastructure
agreements. A resource consent has not been granted for the ‘village
concept’ and the submitters land (nor the other parcels include in the
water supply agreement) were not included in the FDS.
9.53 Extending
the spatial extent of the masterplan to include Rural 3 land would
significantly increase the area of land included by the masterplan and increase
the complexity of the masterplan. As well as Rural 3 land to the north, there
is also a significant area of Rural 3 land to south-west of Māpua which
would need to be considered for inclusion. Extending the spatial extent of the
masterplan is likely to increase the timeframes and costs associated with
developing the masterplan due to factors such as additional public consultation
and further assessments.
Officers’ recommendations
9.54 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Rural 3 zoned land
|
No change to the masterplan maps or Action Plan.
|
The spatial
extent of the masterplan is aligned with TRMP Rural Residential zoning and
the Stormwater Catchment Area. The spatial extent is also aligned with the
urban areas identified for residential development in the FDS. The submitters
land is not included in the FDS and is not within the urban extent of
Māpua.
|
10. Theme
2 – Heritage, Open Space and Community Facilities
HERITAGE
Action #3
– Heritage Precinct
Officers’
comments
10.1 Action
#3 references investigating extending the TRMP Cultural Heritage Precinct
through a plan change. This action would involve significant involvement from Ngā
iwi.
10.2 Te
Runanga o Ngāti Rārua (#34693) submitted that it supported the
protection of wāhi tapu (sacred sites) and wāhi taonga (treasured
places) and iwi involvement in any works where cultural material may be
discovered.
10.3 The
Council’s Environmental Policy Team are currently progressing TRMP work
on Sites and Areas of Significance to Māori which will look at recognising
and protecting cultural values including, wāhi tapu and wāhi taonga
areas. Action #3 would be integrated into this work program and would
form part of a TRMP plan change.
Officers’ recommendations
10.4 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Entire area
|
Action Plan
No change to Actions #3
|
Mapping and assessments are currently
being undertaken to prepare for a plan change to support this action.
|
Action #18 – Cultural Heritage Management Plan
Officers’
comments
10.5 Action
#18 includes reference to the development of a Cultural Heritage Management
Plan for Grossi Point. Those that submitted on this point indicated support for
this action to be undertaken. This is an action that is required as part of the
management of the reserve and is recommended to be retained.
Officers’ recommendations
10.6 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Grossi Point
|
Masterplan Action Plan
No change to Action #18.
|
The development of a Cultural Heritage
Management Plan for Grossi Point is important for the management of the
reserve.
|
Actions #19 and #20 – Information Panels
and Pou
Officers’ comments
10.7 Action
#19 includes reference to the installation of pou in partnership with Nga iwi
and Action #20 refers to installation of information panels at the waterfront
and Grossi Point incorporating both European and Māori history. Submitters
indicated support for these actions and the importance of recognising the
European and Māori history of the area. It is recommended to retain these
actions which are supported by Ngā iwi and submitters.
Officers’ recommendations
10.8 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Waterfront and Grossi Point
|
Masterplan Action Plan
No change to Action #19 and #20.
|
Important for recognition of cultural
significance of these areas.
|
Action #21 – Historical Pa Site
Officers’ comments
10.9 Action
#21 includes reference to the development of a neighbourhood park on the
elevated area of 49 Stafford Drive in recognition of the historical pa site.
Submitters were generally in support of the creation of open space and
recreational areas to support the communities health and wellbeing.
Officers’ recommendations
10.10 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
49 Stafford Drive
|
Masterplan Action Plan
No change to Action #21.
|
Open space is highly valued for health
and wellbeing benefits.
|
OPEN SPACE
Future
Reserve – 53 and 59 Seaton Valley Road
Officers’
comments
10.11 The
masterplan includes a future reserve within 53 Seaton Valley Road extending
through 59 Seaton Valley Road (Lot 1 DP 496479 – refer Figure 18)
alongside a future walking/ cycling track. Submitter #34683, the
landowner of 59 Seaton Valley Road has requested the removal of the future
reserve from their land. The submitter supports the TRMP indicative walkway
which is shown in the masterplan extending along the rear boundary of 59 Seaton
Valley Road, however they seek an amendment to its location to provide greater
separation from their home for privacy purposes.
Figure 18: Extract
from Development Plans for 53 Seaton Valley Road - Resource Consent Application
RM240349
10.12 A
subdivision consent has recently been granted (RM240148) for a 33 lot subdivision
which is stage 1 of a two-stage proposal for 29 and 53 Seaton Valley Road. The
area identified in Figure 18 is Stage 2 of an active subdivision application
(RM240349). This application is currently being processed and includes a
reserve within the boundary of 53 Seaton Valley Road as depicted in Figure 18.
It should be noted that this reserve boundary may change prior to a final
decision on the resource consent application.
10.13 It
is recommended that the following changes are made to the masterplan:
· the reserve location is amended to be located entirely within the
boundary of 53 Seaton Valley Road; and
· the walkway is aligned along the boundary of 59 Seaton Valley Road
rather than cutting through a portion of it.
10.14 More
refined mapping will be provided of indicative walkways and reserves when
Outline Development Plans are developed for greenfield land as part of a
Māpua Plan Change. Figure 19 includes an extract of the masterplan and
highlights the reserve area recommended to be amended.
Figure 19 –
Extract draft Māpua Masterplan – reserve (red circle) associated
with recommendation
Officers’ recommendations
10.15 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Future Reserve and walkway– 53 and 59 Seaton Valley
Road
|
Masterplan Maps
Amend mapping so that the reserve location is amended to fall
within the boundary of 53 Seaton Valley Road.
|
Logical to make changes to align with
property boundaries and the active resource consent application (RM240349).
|
|
Future Reserve and walkway– 53 and 59 Seaton Valley
Road
|
Masterplan Maps
Amend mapping and align the future walkway along the
boundary of 59 Seaton Valley Road rather than cutting through a portion of it
|
Logical change.
|
Action #10 – Seaton Valley Recreation Area
Officers’ comments
10.16 Action
#10 refers to the creation of a new recreation area off Seaton Valley Road.
There was general support for the new recreational area. Some argued that
developers should contribute to the cost of these recreational areas, rather
than shifting the financial burden to ratepayers. Other submitters commented
that the existing Māpua domain appears to be under used.
10.17 As
part of any development, developers pay development financial contributions to
assist in the funding of infrastructure such as roads, reserves and community
facilities. The development of the recreation area is anticipated to be partly
funded by reserve financial contributions.
10.18 With
an increase in residents, it is considered appropriate to retain this area
which has been ear-marked for sporting fields and associated facilities in the
TRMP for many years.
Officers’ recommendations
10.19 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
49 Stafford Drive
|
Masterplan Action Plan
No change to Action #10
|
Additional recreational facilities are
required to support an increase in population.
|
Action
#11 - Wetland
Officers’ comments
10.20 Action
#11 includes reference to the wetland development and facilitating the
Council’s purchase of portions of 49 Stafford Drive. This is generally
supported by submitters. Submitter #34599 (Ms Castle) expressed concern that building
boardwalks, clearing and upgrading waterways and plantings would fall on the
community. She recommends that a schedule of wetland and reserve work is
put in place early in the development process.
10.21 Development
of the site would be financed through Development Contributions and Reserve
Financial Contributions, once established maintenance would be undertaken
through the Council’s operational budgets. The community would be invited
to participate with planting and other enjoyable/environmental aspects of the
development.
10.22 The
creation of the wetland will provide multiple benefits including recreational,
ecological and stormwater and it is considered that it will be a valuable
addition to the Māpua open space network. It is recommended to be retained
in the masterplan.
Officers’ recommendations
10.23 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
49 Stafford Drive
|
Masterplan Action Plan
No change to Action #11
|
Multiple benefits including recreational,
ecological and stormwater
|
Action #37 – Native Vegetation Protection
Officers’ comments
10.24 Action
#37 includes investigating policy provision to incentivise the protection of
existing native vegetation and the planting of new specimen trees and vegetation.
The importance of the natural environment and improvement is highlighted
through submitter comments and community feedback. It is recommended that this
action is retained. Submitter #34601 (Mr Heijs) has requested stronger wording
for this action rather than ‘investigate’. This action is in
relation to changes to the TRMP so it is appropriate to use the terminology of
investigate as the extent of the policy change is not known at the time of the
development of the masterplan.
Officers’ recommendations
10.25 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Entire area
|
Masterplan Action Plan
No change to Action #37
|
Support the protection of native
vegetation.
|
Action #29 – Catherine
Road Recreation Reserve
Officers’ comments
10.26
Action #29 includes reference to improvements to the Catherine Road Recreation
Area. Several submitters supported expanding the reserve and creating a
playground with associated picnic facilities. There was also support for the
recreational walking/cycling linkages to other reserve areas. There are some
trees planted in Catherine Reserve along the boundary. Further development of
the reserve is expected including tree planting as the land is subdivided to
the north and a new walkway linkage is constructed.
10.27
Creating recreational and open space areas within residential areas is vital
for providing for people’s wellbeing. This action is supported and
recommended to be retained.
Officers’ recommendations
10.28 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Catherine
Road
Recreation
Area
|
Masterplan Action Plan
No change to Action #29.
|
Open space is highly valued
for health and
wellbeing benefits.
|
Actions #32, #33 and #35
– Māpua Recreation Reserve
Officers’ comments
10.29 Actions
#32 and #33 reference improvements to drainage and the toilet facilities
associated with the Māpua Recreation Reserve. These improvements have been
recognised as required by the community during consultation and Council staff.
They are recommended to be retained.
10.30 Action
#35 relates to the Māpua Recreation Reserve and working with the
Māpua community to prepare a development plan for the northern end of
Māpua Recreation Reserve, incorporating multiple uses. It is recommended
that this action is retained to support effective use of this area of the
reserve.
Officers’ recommendations
10.31 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Māpua
Recreation Reserve
|
Masterplan Action Plan
Retain Actions
#32, #33 and #35
|
Important improvements to community
facilities.
|
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Fire
Station
Officers’
comments
10.32 Several
submissions referred to the fire station and the need for it to move and/or the
Council to provide land for a new fire station. Submitter #34601 (Mr Heijs)
requests the inclusion of an action which commits the Council to continue to
pressure FENZ to move the location of the fire station to a better accessible
spot.
10.33 Over
the past few years, Council officers have held several meetings with FENZ to
discuss their future plans. FENZ have advised that they are in the process of
investigating the relocation of the Māpua Fire Station however land has
not been purchased.
10.34 FENZ
in their submission (#34681) have requested the inclusion of a
‘new’ action with words to the following effect; ‘Working
with Fire and Emergency to locate a suitable site for a new fire station’.
Finding a location for a new fire station is not an action within the control
of the council and will be a process led by FENZ, however identifying the need
for a new site would align with the Masterplan principles to ‘ensure
asset provision including community facilities meet Council and community
needs’.
10.35 FENZ
in their submission also seek a change to the TRMP Chapter 2 - Meaning of Words
and the definition of fire stations. The TRMP currently defines fire stations
as a ‘community activity’. The provision for ‘community
activity’ across the various zones of the TRMP is variable and are
provided for as restricted discretionary or discretionary activities.
FENZ seek that ‘emergency service facilities’ are provided a
specific definition in the TRMP.
10.36 FENZ
have also requested an amendment to the TRMP policy framework to support the
provision for new emergency service facilities and the inclusion of permitted
activity rules and enabling performance standards for emergency service
facilities across all zones of the District.
10.37 The
wording proposed in the submission (#34681) is not considered appropriate
because the Council has no control over the location of a suitable site as the
land negotiations and purchase is the responsibility of FENZ. The Council does
however have the ability to provide an enabling TRMP policy framework and
officers recommend including an additional action in the masterplan which
investigates amending the TRMP to include a new definition with supporting
policies. It is likely that this investigation would be undertaken as part of a
full review of the TRMP as it is a change that impacts the entire District not
just Māpua or a specific zone.
Officers’ recommendations
10.38 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Entire area
|
Masterplan Action Plan
Add an addition action which includes the following
wording; “Investigate amending the policy framework of the TRMP to
include a new ‘emergency service facilities’ definition and enabling
provisions for new emergency service facilities. This would require a TRMP
plan change and would be a change that effects the entire District’.
|
Aligns with FENZ request. It is
reasonable to investigate policy amendments as part of a full plan review of
the TRMP.
|
Health and Social Services
Officers’
comments
10.39 Some
submitters have indicated that there is a need for more health services in
Māpua, noting that this need will only increase with an increased
population and the aging demographics and suggest that the masterplan needs to
plan for social services infrastructure or include the implications for other
infrastructure such as health, social services, education, access to council
services.
10.40 As
part of the consultation on the FDS, government departments such as the
Ministry of Education and Te Whatu Ora were consulted so they are aware of the
population growth anticipated for Māpua. In addition, officers hold
regular meetings with government agencies to discuss policy work programmes
including areas identified for residential development.
10.41 As
with the Fire Station, the Council is not responsible for developing facilities
such as health centres. The Council however does have the ability to ensure
that the TRMP policy framework enables the development of community activities
such as doctors’ surgeries.
10.42 A
community activity is described in the TRMP as meaning ‘the use of
land and buildings for the primary purpose of health, welfare, care, safety,
education, culture or spiritual well-being, but excludes recreational and
temporary military training activities. A community activity includes schools,
preschools, day-care facilities, hospitals, doctors’ surgeries and other
health professionals, churches, halls, libraries, community centres, stations
(including police and fire stations), courthouses, and probation and detention
centres’[5].
10.43 The
provision for ‘community activity’ across the various zones
of the TRMP is variable and they are provided for generally as restricted
discretionary or discretionary activities and there is therefore provision in
the policy framework of the TRMP to support their development.
Officers’ recommendations
10.44 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Entire area
|
No change
|
TRMP policy provision supports the
development of community activities.
|
Actions
#5, 6, 14, 28, 30 and 31 – Recreation Connections
Officers’
comments
11.1 Actions
#5, 6, 14, 28, 30 and 31 relate to improved recreational connections throughout
Māpua. There was a strong level of submission support for improved
walking and cycling routes, including connections from the Causeway to Moreland
Park, to the village, estuary, school and existing parks and reserves.
11.2 Creating
and maintaining safe and well-connected open spaces and links for walking,
cycling and recreation in the natural environment is a principle of the
masterplan. It is recommended to retain these actions.
Officers’ recommendations
11.3 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Various areas
|
Masterplan Action Plan
No change to Action #5, 6, 14, 28, 30, 31.
|
Creating and maintaining safe and
well-connected open spaces and links for walking, cycling and recreation in
the natural environment is a principle of the masterplan.
|
Action #7 – Recreation Link
Officers’ comments
11.4 Action
#7 refers to establishing a recreational pathway loop through 101 Dawson Road
to connect with the indicative reserve at 71 Seaton Valley Road.
11.5 Submitter
#34589 (Ms Clark) does not believe
that a walkway is needed along the end of Dawson Road as there is a walkway
further up the road which does not inflict any inconvenience to existing
property owners.
11.6 The
inclusion of the path would enable a connection to Seaton Valley linking Dawson
Road and the path to the Dominion Flats Reserve and Dominion Road through the
underpass. The connection would become part of a wider network of paths
enabling the community to walk and cycle off road.
Officers’ recommendations
11.7 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reason
|
|
Seaton Valley
|
Masterplan Action Plan
No change to Action #7
|
Support the providing recreational
linkages and networks.
|
Action #8 – Parking Strategy
Officers’ comments
11.8 Action
#8 refers to ‘investigate through the parking strategy review installing
paid parking near the waterfront area’. Several submitters commented on
this action suggesting that it was not needed and may create a negative
experience for the public visiting Māpua.
11.9 It
is recommended that this action is retained as presented in the masterplan.
This action refers to an assessment into the feasibility of paid parking rather
than any immediate change. The adoption of any recommendations from the parking
strategy review will be decided by the Council.
Officers’ recommendations
11.10 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Waterfront
|
Masterplan Action Plan
No change to Action #8
|
Investigative action only.
|
Action #12 – Speed Limits
Officers’ comments
11.11 The 2024
Setting of Speed Limits Rule changed the process for setting speed limits and
the available speed limits for different road classifications. At the
time of writing speed limit changes outside schools have been approved by the
Council and are awaiting certification by NZTA Waka Kotahi. It is
proposed to consult on wider speed limit changes in Māpua (and the
remainder of the District in quarter 2 of 2025.
Officers’ recommendations
11.12 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Entire Area
|
Masterplan Action Plan
Amend action #12 to ‘Changes to speed limits to be
consulted on and implemented in accordance with the Setting of Speed Limits
Rule 2024’.
|
The 2024 setting of speed limits rule has
changed the process for setting speed limits.
|
Action #15 – Summer Parking Survey
Officers’ comments
11.13 Action
#15 refers to undertaking a summer parking survey to understand parking at the
wharf/waterfront area during peak season. The Tasman Carpark Survey 2024-2025
(Attachment 3) was undertaken during December 2024. The survey was undertaken
of two pre-defined routes (North of Toru Street and South of Toru Street). The
survey concluded that Māpua met the Councils LTP goal in both occupancy
and compliance, the total average occupancy for Māpua was 46%.
Officers’ recommendations
11.14 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reason
|
|
Wharf/ Waterfront
|
Masterplan Action Plan
Remove Action #15 from the Action Plan.
|
This action has been completed.
|
Action #16 – Parking Aranui Park
Officers’ comments
11.15 Action
#16 refers to formalising parking on Aranui Road in front of Aranui Park.
It is considered appropriate to retain this improvement to Aranui Road which
was not included as part of the Aranui Road Streets for People Project.
Officers’ recommendations
11.16 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Aranui Road
|
Masterplan Action Plan
No change to Action #16
|
An appropriate improvement to Aranui Road
and the parking entrance to Aranui Park.
|
Transport Strategy and Employment
Officers’ comments
11.17 The
submission from Nelson Tasman 2050 (#34679) suggests that the masterplan lacks
a comprehensive transport strategy including improved bus connections. The
submission suggests that the strategy (and masterplan) needs to consider the
car-dependent travel for employment in Māpua and the ways to address this
which include creating more employment opportunities, expanding alternative
transport options and providing for growth in main centres instead of
Māpua.
11.18 The
Regional Public Transport Plan 2024-2025[6] details the investment programme
required to increase the role public transport plays in delivery of a
multimodal sustainable transport future for Tasman and Nelson. It has been
prepared to deliver ongoing improvements to the public transport network over
the next 10 years building on the recently introduced eBus services. In
addition, the Tasman Walking and Cycling Strategy 2022-2052[7] sets out how
the Council will encourage a shift by improving safety and convenience of
walking and cycling in the district. These documents consider the entire
District including Māpua and have been considered as part of the
development of the masterplan. It would not be cost effective or appropriate to
prepare an individual transport strategy for Māpua.
11.19 The
current eBus service will be reviewed periodically and services increased as
growth occurs, and demand increases.
11.20 The
submission (#34679) suggests that the Council needs to consider mixed use
zoning opportunities rather than standard residential or commercial zoning.
11.21 The
TRMP currently contains provisions for a Mixed Business Zone which provides for
a specific range of large format retail activities which are car-oriented
destinations, often involving bulky goods. The TRMP Mixed Business Zone is not
suitable for the retail activities that would be anticipated in Māpua. The
TRMP Residential Zone rules enable as restricted and discretionary activities
community activities such as doctors’ surgeries, and commercial activity
such as cafes and retail shops and the Commercial Zone currently enables
dwellings above the ground floor as a permitted activity. It is considered that
the existing TRMP Zone provision support a consenting pathway for mixed use
development as recommended by the submitter.
11.22 It
is acknowledged that people in Māpua who travel to work or education in
places such as Richmond or Nelson are likely to travel further than those who
live in Richmond or Nelson. However, according to 2023 census travel to
work and school data, 43% of people who live in Māpua and work, worked
from home, or walked or cycled to work, noting that Māpua’s new
commercial building on Māpua Drive includes a space for people to work and
connect. This compares with 25% of workers in Richmond who worked from home, or
bused, walked or cycled.
11.23 Māpua’s
new commercial building on Māpua Drive includes a space for people to work
and connect, and the proposed increase in commercial zoned land will also
provide further employment opportunities within Māpua.
11.24 These
numbers reflect the current demographic of Māpua, which possibly includes
a higher than typical proportion of people employed in work which can
reasonably readily be done from home. There is a risk that if the
demographic of Māpua changes, including with a higher proportion of
“affordable” housing, then the proportion of people able to work
from home may become more typical, resulting in more people having to drive to
work.
Officers’ recommendations
11.25 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Entire Area
|
No change recommended
|
Adequate transportation documentation and
TRMP provision exist to accommodate the submitters feedback.
|
Traffic Congestion and Safety
Officers’
comments
11.26 Several
submitters comment on the increased congestion and safety impacts, particularly
at the SH60, Māpua Drive intersection, that will be caused through an
increased population in Māpua.
11.27 There
have been several crashes at the intersection of Māpua Drive and SH60,
including serious injury crashes, and a fatal crash. The Council are working in
collaboration with NZTA Waka Kotahi to identify options to address the crash
rate at this intersection. Upgrades to Seaton Valley and Stagecoach Roads will
be proposed for inclusion in the Council’s 2024-34 LTP.
11.28 To
ease congestion submitters have suggested a new round about on Aranui Road at
the Higgs Road and Toru Street intersection. There have been no reported
crashes at this intersection in the 10 year period to the end of 2024.
Higgs Road is classified as a Local Road in the One Network Framework.
Māpua Drive is classified as an Urban Connector. Aranui Road is
classified as an Activity Street north of Higgs Road, and as an Urban Connector
to the south. The main function of a Local Road, such as Higgs Road is to
provide access to properties, rather than to act as a through road.
Making the right turn out of Higgs Road easier is likely to make Higgs Road a
more attractive route to the wharf and increase traffic on that route. A
roundabout in this location is therefore not considered appropriate.
11.29 Submitters
also commented on the safety of the Ministry of Education bus service and the
safety of the stop on Dominion Road. Officers continue to have ongoing
discussions with the Ministry of Education regarding this issue. It is not an
issue that can be resolved by officers as the operation of school buses is not
managed by the Council. However, officers continue to pressure the Ministry for
a more suitable solution.
Officers’ recommendations
11.30 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Māpua area
|
Masterplan Action Plan
New action for plan as
follows;
Work with NZTA Waka Kotahi to
identify and implement upgrade(s) to the SH60 / Māpua Drive
Intersection.
|
Discussions
are currently being undertaken with NZTA Waka Kotahi around the SH60 and
Māpua Drive intersection. No further roundabouts are considered
appropriate at this time.
Upgrades to other intersections, such as
the Seaton Valley Road, Māpua Drive intersection are in scope of the
proposed upgrades to those roads.
|
Stafford Drive ‘The Bluffs’
Officers’
comments
11.31 Several
submitters comment on the road connection at ‘The Bluffs” and the
length of time it took to reopen the road. They also spoke of the importance of
restoring the area to two way traffic.
11.32 Advice
from Geotechnical Engineers is that the cost of effectively stabilising the
cliff above Stafford Drive to a point where it can reliably withstand future
severe weather events is likely to be very high. In addition, the lower section
of Stafford Drive immediately adjacent to the foreshore is vulnerable to damage
from storm surges and sea level rise. Stafford Drive may not be reinstated in
the future should it be extensively damaged by either of these scenarios.
11.33 Should
that happen, SH60 is a viable alternative route for traffic between Māpua
and north of Tasman Village. Local roads are likely to require upgrading
to accommodate increased local traffic.
Officers’ recommendations
11.34 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
The Bluff – Stafford Drive
|
No change
|
Costs, safety and hazard risk.
|
Walkway
Extension
Officers’
comments
11.35 Several
submitters have requested an extension to the walking track from Māpua
School along the waterfront/Seawall to the Leisure Park at 33 Toru Street.
Figure 20 illustrates the current walking tracks managed by Council. The
walking track adjoining the school currently extends to the waterfront/seawall
and partially along the waterfront. This access is currently limited by
restrictions from private property owners meaning that recreational users need
to wait till low tide to access the entire track.
11.36 Additional
sections would be over private property where support from landowners would be
required. Officers have consulted on extending the walking track in the past
and have not been successful but would support including this action in the
masterplan as overtime landowner’s change.
Figure 20: Existing Council managed walking tracks (Bright
Green) and reserves (Light Green) within Māpua
Officers’ recommendations
11.37 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
School to seawall -walking track
|
Masterplan Action Plan
New action for plan as follows;
Investigate through
consultation with landowners extending the walking track from Māpua
School along the seawall through to the Leisure Park.
|
Creating and maintaining safe and
well-connected open spaces and links for walking, cycling and recreation in
the natural environment is a principle of the masterplan.
|
Protection
of habitat of significant bird species
Officers’
comments
11.38 Submitter
#34629 (Waimea Inlet Forum) provided information on the importance of the
Waimea inlet for internationally important migratory bird species and
nationally significant endangered and threatened species.
11.39 The
submission from Waimea Inlet Forum focused on the saltmarsh at the mouth of the
Seaton Valley Stream (the Māpua Embankment, Significant Natural Habitat
MO79) and the sand spit on the east side of the causeway to the Māpua
Leisure Park as important nesting and feeding grounds for a range of bird
species including the Tōrea Pango/Variable
Oystercatcher which is currently listed as ‘At Risk –
Recovering’ by the Department of Conservation.
11.40 It
is noted that the submission refers to the importance of the entire shoreline
(above and below the Mean High-Water Spring) as a bird roosting and feeding
ground.
11.41 The
Waimea Inlet Forum is concerned about the impact domestic animals (dogs and
cats) are having on the bird life around Māpua and how an increase in
population will escalate the problem. They are particularly concerned about the
existing walking route from Māpua Village, across the causeway to the
Leisure Park and the impact unleased dogs are having on the nesting and
hatching of Variable Oystercatchers.
11.42 The
submission notes that the recent Dog Control Bylaw Review 2024 overlooked
restricting dogs at the sandpit, beach, shellbank and adjoining mudflats (below
MHWS). Refer to Figure 21 for an illustration of the areas of concern.
Figure 21: Appendix E of Submission #34629: Map illustrating Tōrea Pango (Variable Oystercatcher)
nesting spots, bird feeding area and shellbank.
11.43 There
is currently a doggy bag dispenser located on the causeway, it is recommended
that this is removed to discourage dog walkers. It is also recommended
that the Council undertake consultation with the landowners of the Māpua
Leisure Park (33 Toru Street) to investigate the possibility of creating a new
walking track around the edge of the park to the controlled dog exercise area
(refer Figure 22). It is recommended that this action is included in the
masterplan.
11.44 It
is important that the masterplan maps acknowledge the significant bird habitat
and nesting sites identified in Figure 21 above. It is recommended that the
masterplan maps are amended to include reference to the Māpua Embankment,
(Significant Natural Habitat MO79) and the sand spit (including the shellbank)
on the east side of the causeway and that these are identified as significant
bird habitat sites.
Figure 22: In consultation with landowner, investigate
new walkway (red) through to Controlled Dog Exercise Area (green hatched)
Officers’ recommendations
11.45 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reason
|
|
Causeway area/ 33 Toru Street
|
Masterplan Action Plan
Include new actions as follows;
Action # -To protect the
habitat of significant bird species, remove the doggy dispenser on the
Causeway.
Action # - to protect the
habitat of significant bird species, undertake consultation with the
landowner of 33 Toru Street to investigate the feasibility of creating a
walking track around the boundary of the camping ground to the Controlled Dog
Exercise Area.
|
Support protecting significant bird
species habitat.
|
|
Causeway area
|
Masterplan Maps
Add labels of significant bird habitat at
the Māpua Embankment and Shell bank.
|
Support protecting threatened species.
|
Richmond Cycle Connection
Officers’
comments
11.46 Several
submitters suggested that a connection should be created to enable commuters to
commute via bicycle to Richmond. Submitters suggested options such as a coastal
cycleway, a bridge or a series of boardwalks across the estuary.
11.47 A
bridge (for services, walking and cycling) across the inlet to Moturoa/ Rabbit
Island was explored during the options phase of consultation on the masterplan.
The bridge option was discounted on the basis of cost and feasibility (refer
page 42 of the Māpua Masterplan Supporting Information – Draft for
public consultation, November 2024).
11.48 There
are several factors to take account of when considering a bridge to Rabbit
Island:
11.48.1 the vulnerability of Rabbit Island,
and the causeway to Richmond to sea level rise
and severe weather events in the long term;
11.48.2 the long term viability of the Best
Island wastewater treatment plant;
11.48.3 the visual and amenity impacts of a
bridge;
11.48.4 the travel distance of the rabbit
island route vs alternatives;
11.48.5 the cost of developing a bridge; and
11.48.6 cultural values.
11.49 The
coastline around the estuary is convoluted, the distance for cycling would far
exceed the existing path adding kilometres to the route. The Council would need
to purchase land from multiple willing landowners and the costs of land
purchase and construction would be extensive. When land is subdivided the
Council does consider land suitable for creating links around the estuary and
this will continue.
11.50 Submitters
also recommended subsided ferry tickets and more frequent ferry service to
allow for commuters. Several years ago, the Council’s Community
Partnerships Team paid for extra commuter ferries as part of bike week
promotions. The demand during this promotion was low and as a result it
was not considered feasible to continue this incentive.
Officers’ recommendations
11.51 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reason
|
|
Māpua - Richmond
|
No change
|
The options (bridge, estuary edge, subsided
ferry) for creating a cycle connection to Richmond are not feasible.
|
Action #9 - Langford Drive/ Aranui Road Walkway
Officers’ comments
11.52 Action
#9 includes the continuation of the Langford Drive/Aranui Road walkway. Several
submitters support extending the Langford Drive Walkway to Higgs Road, seeing
it as a positive addition for pedestrian connectivity. There were also
submissions objecting to the walkway due to concerns about privacy, security,
and its potential impact on property values.
11.53 Figure
23 includes a map of the existing reserve showing the existing local purpose
walkway reserve that extends along the waterfront to the boundary with 35 Higgs
Road.
Figure 23: Existing Local Purpose Reserves
11.54 Any
future subdivision of 35 Higgs Road will enable council to expand the local
purpose reserve adjoining the estuary and create a walkway connection to Higgs
Road. This would provide an important linkage from Higgs Road to the estuary.
11.55 This
connection would have a secondary purpose of directing the public along a
defined path rather than the public accessing the estuary edge (and disturbing
habitat) through private land which is the subject of a Queen Elizabeth II
National Trust Open Space Covenant established in part for the protection of
native flora and fauna and specifically the coastal margin of indigenous
forest. Unauthorised public access to this land has been identified as a
problem by the landowners.
Officers’ recommendations
11.56 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reason
|
|
Langford Drive/Aranui Road Walkway
|
No change retain Action #9
|
It is
recommended that this
connection
be retained to enable a future connection to the estuary from the Higgs Road
area.
|
TRMP Indicative Walkway
Officers’ comments
11.57 Submitter
#34678 (Mr and Mrs Lynch) have requested further clarification on a TRMP
indicative walkway extending along the boundary of 71 and 75 Seaton Valley Road
to connect with Dawson Road. Figure 24 shows the TRMP indicative walkway (red)
extending along the boundary of the Seaton Valley Road properties through to
Dawson Road. The indicative walkway is not shown clearly on the Masterplan and
should be illustrated on the masterplan maps as per the TRMP indicative walkway
mapping identified in Figure 24. 
Figure 24: TRMP indicative walkway (red line)
Officers’ recommendations
11.58 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
71 and 75 Seaton Valley Road
|
Masterplan Mapping
Amend the
Masterplan Mapping to clearly show the indicative walkway as identified in
the TRMP.
|
Existing
indicative walkway in the TRMP.
|
TRMP Indicative Road connection to Aranui Road
Officers’
comments
11.59 Submitter
#34608 (Mr Thawley) supports the cycle/walkway areas shown on the masterplan
but recommends the inclusion of a road connection linking Higgs Road, Lionel
Place and Jessie Street to Aranui Road to support accessibility from the mixed
housing area to the health centre/shops on Aranui Road.
11.60 The
inclusion of a road connection to Aranui Road is not supported (Action #1
refers) by Officers as additional vehicle access to Aranui Road is considered
problematic due to the existing high traffic volumes of Aranui Road.
11.61 Action#1
of the masterplan recommends the removal of the TRMP indicative road to Aranui
Road (29 Jessie Road) and a replacement with an indicative walking/cycling
connection. Further details around indicative road, reserve and walkway layouts
will be developed in more detail as part of an Outline Development Plan which
will form part of a plan change.
Officers’ recommendations
11.62 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Aranui Road
|
No change
|
Creating
additional vehicle access to Aranui Road is not supported by the Councils
Transport Department.
|
12. Theme
4 – Infrastructure
Action #4 – Capital
Infrastructure Projects
Officers’ comments
12.1 Several
submitters were concerned about the impact growth may have on the
infrastructure servicing Māpua. Submitters’ comments suggested
shortfalls in the masterplans information on infrastructure planning and its
ability to support new development.
12.2 Submitter
#34691 (Tasman Bay Estates) has also requested an amendment to Action #4 as
follows: Ensure that infrastructure planning is carried out and
funding allocated to support residential and business development in identified
areas whilst maintaining or enhancing existing water supply services to
areas outside of the Māpua urban area.
12.3 Action
#4 refers to ensuring that infrastructure planning supports residential and
business development. It is vital that infrastructure planning supports
development and is adequately sequenced. Much of the infrastructure is in place
or has been identified in the Masterplan and provided for in the LTP and
officers have no concerns about Council’s ability to meet expected growth
over the long term. A brief summary of current and planned infrastructure is
below.
12.4 In
relation to submitter #34691 (Tasman Bay Estates) request, the Council made
water supply commitments to this development prior to the 2022 FDS. We will
ensure our water upgrades account for this, but not more. Officers are focusing
on ensuring prioritise servicing for the urban areas included in the 2022
FDS.
Water Supply
12.5 In
general, the water supply infrastructure along with the planned projects
supports the aspirations of the masterplan. Capacity for growth is either built
into the existing infrastructure or planned for in the LTP and/or the
Infrastructure Strategy. Any substantial changes from the FDS may require
additional investigation and may change the timing of some of the projects and
have some impact on the scope of planned projects.
12.6 Approximately
$7 million is staged to support growth in the Māpua area in the next 10 years and
approximately $1 million between 2034 and 2044 (A new pipeline under Māpua
estuary).
Wastewater
12.7 The
Māpua wastewater network and LTP projects are designed to plan and provide
capacity for servicing growth demand for wastewater in the area. Approximately
$6.4 million of projects are planned for completion over the next 10 years, in
addition to those already completed to service the planned growth in the area.
There is approximately $2 million planned between 2034 and 2044 (a new rising
main under Māpua estuary).
12.8 Recently
installed network upgrades along with investigations and consequential fixes
have aided in the reduction of overflows.
12.9 Changes
arising from the masterplan process may mean further investigation is required
into the timing and scope of planned projects or if additional projects are
required. An example of this is the possible intensification of the Higgs Road
area.
Stormwater
12.10 The
planned infrastructure requirements/works will ensure any flooding occurring
now will not be made worse. Additional investigations may be required if option
B is chosen in relation to 179 Māpua Drive. This is discussed in the
catchment management plan section (section 15) of this report below.
Transport
12.11 The
current roading network has substantial capacity for growth. As traffic volumes
increase, there will be the naturally occurring requirement for projects to
maintain safety levels. Officers have planned upgrades to Seaton Valley Road
and its intersection with Māpua
Drive in the masterplan and in the LTP 2024. The Council is working with
NZTA Waka Kotahi on the future requirements to maintain safety levels at the
SH60/Māpua Road intersection.
Officers’
recommendations
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Entire area
|
Masterplan Action Plan
No change to Action #4
|
Ensuring adequate capacity in current and
suture networks is a key action needed to support growth. Officers are
confident that the Council’s current and planned infrastructure can
support growth plans.
Water allocation commitments
made prior to the 2022 FDS are already taken into account
in planning. Beyond this, planning is focused on areas zoned for development
in the FDS 2022.
|
Action #17 – Pipe
Renewal
Officers’ comments
12.12 Submitter
#34691 (Tasman Bay Estate) has requested an amendment to Action #17 to state
‘Continue to fund and carry out annual pipe renewal programmes and
look for opportunities to increase capacity in key areas, including rural
water supply services.’
12.13 Action
#17 refers to the annual pipe renewal programme. This is an essential programme
of work and may need to include pipe upgrades to support the expected increase
in capacity required to meet growth requirements.
As noted above, water allocation commitments made prior to the 2022 FDS are
already taken into account in planning. Beyond this, planning is focused on
areas zoned for development in the FDS 2022.
Officers’
recommendations
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Entire Area
|
Masterplan Action Plan
No change to Action #17
|
The action point
adequately represents and supports the area of the Māpua Masterplan and
prior commitments have already been factored into planning.
|
|
Action #23 –
Wastewater Pump Station
Officers’ comments
12.14 Submitter
#34601 (Mr Heijs) questions the long-term nature of this action as the network
still experiences overflows and the allowance of new connections would cause
more wastewater overflows.
12.15 Action
#23 is part of the capital infrastructure programme and is identified in the
LTP. Providing this infrastructure is necessary to support development in
the Seaton Valley area. It is recommended that this action is retained (refer
to overflow comment at #24 below).
Officers’ recommendations
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Seaton
Valley/
Stafford
and
Māpua
Drive
|
No change
|
Support
infrastructure improvements where required.
|
Action #24 –
Wastewater Overflows
12.16 Submitter
#34601 (Mr Heijs) suggests that new development cannot proceed until the
Council can demonstrate that there will be no wastewater overflows in
Māpua.
Officers’ comments
12.17 Action
#24 refers to improvements to mitigate wastewater overflows. This action is
part of the capital works and operational program and is recommended to be
retained.
12.18 Actions #23/24 reflect the current upgrades and development
for the wastewater network programmed for the Seaton Valley area to accommodate
future growth anticipated in this locality. Alongside this, operational
programmes to manage inflow and infiltration are ongoing. Network upgrades
anticipate reducing the frequency of wastewater overflows for events within the
scope of Council control.
12.19 Prohibiting all developments until the Council can
guarantee no wastewater overflows is neither practical nor a standard we can
adhere to. There will always be storms which exceed our design specifications
and blockages caused by abuse of the wastewater network that we cannot
safeguard against.
Officers’ recommendations
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Entire area
|
No change
|
Support
infrastructure improvements where required.
|
Actions #25, #26 and #27 -
Stormwater
Officers’ comments
12.20 Actions #25, #26 and #27 refers to
investigating stormwater improvement projects and retrofit sites in Māpua
for improved stormwater outcomes and investigating measures to incorporate
tidal constraints.
12.21 Submitter #34601 (Mr Heijs)
expresses disappointment that the catchment management plan does not identify
solutions and that they are still ‘investigate actions’.
12.22 Any improvements to stormwater
management are supported. However, as funds are
limited, these will be pursued on a priority basis as determined by a project
prioritizing tool developed for Community Infrastructure.
12.23 Coastal processes related to sea walls
and inundation are specifically outside the scope of the urban stormwater
catchment management plan and will be further investigated under the Natural
Hazards Plan Change (PC85) which is likely to lead to consequential changes to
the Coastal Structures AMP and bids for funding under the 2027 and later LTP
processes.
Officers’ recommendations
12.24 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Entire
area/ Seawall
|
No change to
Actions #25, #26 and #27
|
Improvements
to services are supported and will be actioned on a priority basis as funds
allow.
|
Action #34 - Lighting
Officers’ comments and recommendations
12.25 Action
#34 refers to investigating lighting improvements around the wharf, Toru, Tahi Street
and Māpua Drive. This action is supported by submitters. This action is
recommended for retention.
Officers’ recommendations
12.26 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Wharf, Toru, Tahi Street and Māpua Drive
|
Masterplan Action Plan
No change to Action #34
|
Investigating opportunities to improve
services are supported
|
Rainwater Retention
Officers’ comments
12.27 Submitters
#34611, #34701, #34699 and #34623 request that all new housing developments
collect rainwater for gardens and outside use.
12.28 Requiring
rainwater retention for reuse is not supported by officers due to the extra
costs added to new builds and the minimal benefits to all.
Officers’ recommendations
12.29 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Entire area
|
No change
|
Rainwater collection is not supported as
a mandatory requirement due to the extra costs imposed on landowners and the
minimal benefits to all.
|
13. Theme
5 – Natural Hazards and Climate Change
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Officers’ comments
13.1 Several
submitters question the increased carbon footprint and emissions due to an
increased Māpua population travelling in private vehicle between
Māpua and Richmond for work, shopping and recreation.
13.2 The
Climate Change Response Act 2002 sets a legal framework to enable New Zealand
to meet domestic and international climate change obligations and adapt to the
effects of climate change. In 2019 the Climate Change Response (Zero
Carbon) Amendment Act committed New Zealand to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions by 2050 in line with global commitments under the Paris Agreement. To
meet this target, central government must set a series of five yearly emissions
budgets and an emissions reduction plan showing how these will be met.
Tasman’s Climate Response and Resilience Strategy and Action Plan
2024-2035[8]
includes emissions reduction goals and targets. The Council also reports on
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions annually.
13.3 As
part of the development of the FDS, an analysis of GHG emissions was undertaken
of proposed FDS sites for the Future Development Strategy Hearing Committee and
included as supporting information to the FDS Deliberations Report. The
analysis (GHG Modelling Memorandum[9])
helped to identify the FDS development areas that contributed the greatest to
transport GHG emissions. As expected, this analysis showed that rural
residential and non-Nelson Richmond Urban Area greenfield development - a long
way from Nelson Richmond Urban Area produces the most Vehicle Kilometres
Travelled (VKT) due to a high proportion of residents travelling to work or
school.
13.4 Transport
GHG emissions of an area are influenced largely by the area’s proximity
to key destinations such as employment, education, and recreation.
However, there are also other factors, such as the proportion of the population
working from home, which affect GHG emissions. According to the 2023 census
travel to work data, 30% of workers who live in Māpua worked from home,
with a further 18% working elsewhere in Māpua. A total of 43% of
workers worked from home or walked or cycled to work. By comparison, 16% of
workers worked from home in Richmond. These proportions may change with a
changing demographic in Māpua.
13.5 Despite
its longer distance from Nelson and Richmond, it is estimated that Māpua
has lower transport GHG emissions for the journey to work than Wakefield. These
estimated emissions are, however, significantly greater than those in Nelson,
Richmond and Motueka3. Māpua journey to work emissions
are largely affected by the numbers who work from home.
13.6 An
increased residential population within Māpua has the potential to better
support local services and employment opportunities, reducing the need to
travel outside of the town for day-to-day living. The proposed increase
in commercially zoned land in the masterplan, and initiatives such as the new
Mahitahi Colab commercial development in Māpua will provide some increased
local employment, reducing the need to travel out of the area for
employment.
13.7 The
Council adopted the FDS sites within Māpua (as well as Wakefield and
Brightwater), taking the GHG estimates, the requirement to provide more
housing, and the practicalities or intensification, into account. The
Māpua FDS sites form the basis of the Masterplan and future residential
housing areas.
13.8 The Council will continue to report on any GHG emissions
annually and seek to meet the objectives of the Tasman’s Climate Response
and Resilience Strategy and Action Plan 2024-2035.
13.9 It
should also be noted that a bus service operates from Māpua to Richmond,
Nelson and Motueka. This current e-bus service will be reviewed periodically,
and services increased as growth occurs, and demand increases, subject to
funding.
Officers’ recommendations
13.10 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Māpua urban area
|
No change
|
As part of the development of
the FDS, a significant analysis of GHG emissions was undertaken. The Mayor
and Councillors decided to adopt the FDS sites within Māpua which form
the basis of the masterplan and future residential housing areas.
|
Energy
Officers’ comments
13.11 Submitter
#34690 (Mr Vause) expressed concerned about the current deficits in the power
system in Māpua and the limitation in the Network Tasman Network to
accommodate additional energy requirements. Included in Attachment 4 is a
response from Network Tasman to the submitters concerns. The response from
Network Tasman’s Network Manager confirms that electricity supplies for
the future load development in Māpua are well catered for.
13.12 This
submitter also commented on the digital infrastructure and the lack of planning
for the expansion of the connectivity to meet the population increase. During
the FDS, discussions were held with fibre providers on fibre availability and
the Council’s residential and business growth plans. It is the
responsibility of developers to connect properties to the fibre network.
Officers’ recommendations
13.13 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Māpua urban area
|
No change
|
Network Tasman have confirmed
(Attachment 4) that electricity supplies for new development in Māpua is
catered for in the network.
Fibre providers were contacted
during the development of the FDS and are aware of the expected population
growth in Māpua.
|
Low-lying areas of Māpua and sea-level rise
Officers’ comments
13.14 The
masterplan provides strategic direction on how Māpua will grow and develop
over the next 30 years by promoting residential growth on the surrounding
elevated or hilly areas of Māpua. Officers’ response to natural
hazards and climate change through the masterplan has considered a longer-term
planning horizon of 100+ years (as required under the New Zealand Coastal
Policy Statement 2010). This ensures that new development and growth
opportunities signalled through the Masterplan over the next 30 years will be
natural hazards and climate resilient over the longer-term.
13.15 Longer-term
climate change adaptation for areas of existing development are outside the
scope of the masterplan process and will be addressed as part of a future
Council work programme. Central government is currently developing an
‘adaptation framework’ which aims to establish an enduring,
long-term approach to adaptation in New Zealand. This will set out the
Government’s approach to sharing the costs of adapting to climate change.
13.16 The
effects of climate change and the consequent impacts on sea-level rise
considered for the masterplan is consistent with legislative requirements and
national guidance for coastal hazards management.
13.17 Some
submitters have questioned the ‘best practice’ guidelines and do
not support Council aiming for best practice requesting rather that council aim
for the barest minimum that is legally permitted. The New Zealand Coastal
Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS) and MfE’s 2024 Coastal Hazards and Climate
Change Guidance require Council to take a precautionary planning approach
(Policy 3), particularly for coastal subdivision, greenfield developments and
major new infrastructure (Policy 25). The Council is also required to have
regard to the National Adaptation Plan 2022. The amount of future sea-level
rise considered for the masterplan is consistent with these legislative
requirements and national guidance for coastal hazards management.
13.18 The
susceptibility of land to the effects of natural hazards has been assessed in
developing the masterplan. Areas where there is a significant exposure to
natural hazards have not been proposed for rezoning (or development) in the
masterplan, consistent with national direction and guidance. Instead, as
mentioned above the masterplan promotes residential growth on the surrounding
elevated or hilly areas of Māpua.
13.19 For
the low-lying coastal plain of Māpua that is susceptible to coastal
hazards and rising sea levels, the suitability of any future land uses and
activities will be considered through the Council’s TRMP Natural Hazards
Plan Change (Plan Change 85). Plan Change 85 will provide a framework for
assessing the natural hazard risk (where applicable) on a specific site and
will relate to the type of activity that is being proposed. Depending on the
type of hazard and type of activity, this may range from engineering solutions
for hazards such as slope instability, to floor level heights for inundation.
13.20 Some
submitters suggested that there was a lack of up-to-date natural hazard mapping
and analysis and stormwater modelling in the masterplan. Rather than a blanket
whole-of-area natural hazards assessment, the masterplan screened individual
sites where it was proposed to intensify or change the land-use for natural
hazards, including the future effects of sea-level rise. The mapping used to
inform the masterplan takes into account the effects of climate change
including cumulative effects of sea level rise, storm surge etc taking account
of the best available information.
13.21 Detailed
information on the legislative requirements and national guidance for coastal
hazard management and the Council’s ‘bathtub’ modelling and
the process to assess areas susceptible to coastal inundation including details
on the assessment of Māpua Masterplan sites for impacts to coastal
inundation is included Attachment 7.
Officers’ recommendations
13.22 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Low-lying areas of Māpua
|
No change
|
The masterplan aligns with legislative requirements and
national guidance for coastal hazards management.
|
14. Theme
6 – Other Matters
Highly Productive Land
Officers’ comments
14.1 Several
submitters (#34688, #34679, #34699, #34708) seek the preservation of Seaton
Valley as rural productive land. The land in Seaton Valley is identified as a
mixture of LUC3, LUC4 and LUC6.
14.2 The
National Policy Statement – Highly Productive Land (NPS-HPL) provides
government direction on how highly productive land is managed under the RMA. It
sets an objective to protect highly productive land for use in land-based
primary production which is primary production that is reliant on the lands
soil resource such as agricultural, forestry, pastoral or horticultural
activities.
14.3 The
NPS-HPL currently identifies land that is LUC1, LUC2 and LUC3 as highly
productive. The NPS-HPL[10]
excludes any land that has been identified for future urban development. Seaton
Valley (including the LUC3 land) was identified for future urban development in
the FDS. Additionally, the Government has signalled its intention to remove
LUC3 from the definition of highly productive land. It intends to consult
on changes in June with the actual changes taking effect by the end of 2025.
Officers’ recommendations
14.4 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Seaton Valley
|
No change
|
Only a
small portion of the land within Seaton Valley is defined as highly
productive under the NPS-HPL. As outlined above the land in Seaton Valley
identified for residential zoning has been identified in the FDS for future
urban development.
|
Hail Sites
Officers’ comments
14.5 Several
submitters requested that Hail sites (contaminated land) be mapped and included
in the masterplan.
14.6 The
Council’s Hail information is currently not directly available to the
public via a mapping system (i.e. Top of the South Maps). Each site is dealt
with on an individual case-by-case basis by the Council’s Resource
Scientist – Contaminations. Officers deal with HAIL information on this
basis to ensure that accurate site-specific information is provided to
customers. Inclusion on the HAIL register indicates, based on past land use,
that a site may potentially be contaminated. Actual contamination will be
determined through a site investigation at the time of development.
14.7 Contaminated
material is able to be managed and remediated through the resource consent
stage for all sites identified for a change of use (rezoning) in the
masterplan. Details around the management of contaminated materials is required
at the time of a Resource Consent Application, once the development plans for a
land parcel are known.
14.8 The
masterplan is a high-level strategic document which does not provide site
specific details. Site specific details such as contamination and soil
assessments are best suited to the resource consent stage when development
details for a site are known.
Officers’ recommendations
14.9 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Entire area
|
No change
|
Information
on contaminated land is provided on a site-by-site basis and is verified by
Council contaminated land specialists.
|
New
Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS)
Officers’
comments
14.10 Submitter
#34692 (Mr and Mrs Talley) noted the omission of reference to the NZCPS in the
masterplan documentation. The submitter is correct in that the TRMP, including
any proposed changes to it, must ‘give effect’ to the NZCPS.
14.11 NZCPS
policies were taken into account in considering Māpua’s
susceptibility to coastal hazards and the location of growth areas signalled in
the masterplan. For example, the masterplan takes into consideration NZCPS
Policy 25(b) ‘avoid redevelopment or a change in land use that would
increase risk of adverse effects of coastal hazards’ by proposing to
rezone land that is on higher ground and outside inundation areas etc.
14.12 The
masterplan is a high-level strategic document and is a non-statutory document.
Direct reference to the NZCPS is not considered necessary in the context of the
document. A detailed assessment against the NZCPS would be undertaken as part
of a Schedule 1 RMA Plan Change.
Officers’ recommendations
14.13 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Entire area
|
No change
|
The inclusion of reference to the NZCPS is not considered
to materially change the proposed masterplan and it is not considered
necessary to be incorporated into the final masterplan. Any subsequent TRMP
plan change will provide a detailed assessment of the
NZCPS.
|
The Masterplan Principles
Officers’ comments
14.14 Submitter
#34601 (Mr Heijs) has requested a detailed assessment of how the masterplan
Principles have been met.
14.15 The
Masterplan Action Plan includes Masterplan Principle Symbols which show the
Masterplan Action as it relates to each principle. The submitter has not
identified specific cases where a principle has not been met and has not
provided a sufficient reason to undertake a more detailed assessment. No
further assessment is considered warranted.
Officers’ recommendations
14.16 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Entire Area
|
No change
|
The
relationship of each principle to the actions is included in the Action Plan.
|
Sedimentation into Estuary
Officers’ comments
14.17 Several
submitters raised concerns about the impact of development on sedimentation
into the Estuary. Sedimentation is a key management issue for the Waimea
Estuary and is closely managed by development controls through the consenting
process. Ongoing monitoring of the impacts of sedimentation occur through
both the cyclic State of the Environment monitoring and other
sediment/contamination modelling undertaken by Community
Infrastructure.
14.18 Any
earthworks or discharges are managed by land disturbance rules in the TRMP
(Chapter 18.5). The Nelson Tasman Erosion and Sediment Control guidelines (Land disturbance, erosion and sediment control | Tasman District
Council) outlines best practice for a range of earthworks
activities. An erosion and sediment control plan is a requisite condition for
many land resource consent applications.
Officers’ recommendations
14.19 Officers
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Entire Area
|
No change
|
The TRMP
manages earthworks or discharges from developments. Environmental monitoring
and other sediment/ contamination modelling is undertaken by the
Council’s Community Infrastructure Department.
|
15. Catchment
Management Plan (CMP)
Question 11 – Future
wetland and detention
15.1 Submitters
were asked ‘To support residential development in the Seaton Valley
Basin, do you support the Council purchasing land to develop a large wetland
for recreational, ecological and stormwater purposes?’
15.1.1 Yes – 75 submitters chose this option
15.1.2 No – 23 submitters chose this option
15.1.3 Not sure – 10 submitters chose this
option
Officers’ comments
15.2 Submitters
are generally in support of the proposed future wetland development. Those
objecting to the wetland include the landowners at 179 Māpua Drive
(#34569: Mr Vermeer and #34596; Ms Drewery) who oppose the recognition of part
of their land as ‘future wetland’. In particular, having the land
classified in this way with no intention for the Council to act on acquiring
the land for several years.
15.3 Concerns
were also raised by submitters that stormwater treatment and wetland
restoration cannot be effectively combined because natural wetlands serve
different ecological functions than engineered stormwater detention basins.
Concerns were also raised that the proposed recreational area – playing
fields will create an environmental hazard to the wetland from pesticides,
herbicides and fertilizers.
15.4 It
is recommended that the wetland, detention and recreation area proposed in the
Masterplan within 49 Stafford Drive is retained as a minimum to provide a
valuable recreational, ecological and stormwater retention area for the Seaton
Valley and the wider Māpua area.
15.5 The
Council’s Community Infrastructure Department will work with the
Council’s Environmental Science Ecologists to develop the recreation area
and the wetland. Both teams have a common interest in providing and
protecting ecological values including health of wetlands and waterways.
15.6 The
development of this wetland cannot be achieved without the residential
development of the surrounding land. This development will ultimately pay for
most of the acquisition of land, and much of its development for detention.
Officers consider that it would be a lost opportunity if this unproductive
low-lying area cannot be utilised as an area of significant public open space,
providing valuable ecological and recreational opportunities.
Future detention and wetland at 179 Māpua Drive
15.7 Regarding
the portion of the future detention and wetland that is within 179 Māpua
Drive (see Figure 31).
Figure
31: Draft masterplan future detention and wetland extent within 179 Māpua Drive
15.8 This
land’s inclusion maximises the advantages of the wider Seaton Valley
basin (which is largely within 49 Stafford Drive). Including it (Option A)
ensures a corridor to connect:
· stormwater
runoff from the Māpua Drive/Higgs Road and Aranui Park catchments to the
future detention and wetland in Seaton Valley (via a drain within 175 Mapua
Drive); and
· the future
Seaton Valley sports grounds and wetland with the rest of Māpua via a
walkway.
15.9 Excluding
it (Option B) will compromise these functions, but there are alternatives. The
Council would need to work with developers to increase detention in the Māpua
Drive/Higgs Road and Aranui Park catchments. Active travel to and through the
Seaton Valley detention and wetland will need to be from Stafford Drive and
Seaton Valley Road.
15.10 Officers
can also confirm that there would be sufficient detention capacity for Seaton
Valley growth within the basin land at 49 Stafford Drive for the next 30 years,
once work is completed. However, as rainfall intensity increases over the next
100 years, the Council may need to evaluate options to increase the storage
capacity of the detention. Officers are confident there are feasible options
for doing this, including upgrading within 49 Stafford Drive or expanding the
land used for detention in the future.
15.11 The
advantages of these options are finely balanced, when accounting for the
additional cost of the land at 170 Māpua Drive. There is a total of $9
million programmed in the LTP 2024 for the Seaton Valley detention land
purchase and construction for stormwater. Option A will likely require
additional budget, resulting in higher debt. Around 75% of the stormwater
project costs are funded from development contributions.
15.12 Officers
are also conscious of the imposition on the owners of 179 Māpua Drive.
Consequently, if the Council wishes to progress with Option A, officers
recommend it be on the basis that additional budget is provided for in
2025/2026. The total project costs will be reviewed as part of the LTP 2027.
15.13 The
submitters #34569: Mr Vermeer and #34596; Ms Drewery have also sought a change
to where the proposed walkway connects onto Māpua Drive. Officers support
this should Council elect Option A. A change will not be needed should Council
elect Option B as the walkway will no longer connect to Māpua Drive.
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reasons
|
|
Seaton Valley
future
detention and
wetland
– 49
Stafford Drive
|
Masterplan Maps
No change to
reference to future
stormwater
detention and wetland.
|
Retain future wetland development
and stormwater detention area in the plan as a valuable recreational,
ecological and open space area for the community.
|
|
Seaton Valley
future
detention and
wetland
– 179 Māpua
Drive
|
Either
Option
A.
Retain the portion of Seaton
Valley future detention and wetland and walkway that sits within 179 Māpua
Drive, shift the walkway alignment to connect with a drain through 175 Māpua
Drive; and
Recommends to Council that it
approve capital expenditure budget
of $1 million in 2025/2026 for
acquiring the Seaton Valley future
detention and wetland that sits
within 179 Māpua Drive
OR
Option B
Agree to remove the portion of
Seaton Valley future detention and
wetland and
walkway that sits
within 179 Māpua
Drive.
|
Officers prefer Option A but are
conscious of the extra cost and impact on the owners of 179 Māpua Drive.
The cost is likely to be circa $1 million 80% development contributions
funded. We recommend progressing this option quickly if is preferred by the
Council.
If that is not considered
affordable in the short term, officers recommend Option B.
|
Question 16 –
Catchment Management Plan (CMP)
15.14 Submitters
were asked ‘Do you agree with the Key Issues, Aspirations and Targets
identified in the draft Catchment Management Plan (Appendix 7 of Supporting
Document)?:
15.14.1 Yes – 24 submitters chose this
option
15.14.2 No – 5 submitters chose this
option
15.14.3 Not sure – 0 submitters chose
this option.
Officers’ comments
15.15 The relatively low numbers
of respondents to this question reflect its more specific area of
interest. A few submitters provided detailed comments. The key themes for
these comments are summarised below, along with the officers’ response:
Purchase of land and
reestablishment of the natural wetland at Seaton Valley is supported but not
necessarily the stormwater treatment from development
15.16 This reflects a belief
that the two functions cannot be combined. However, the large area of the
main site (within 49 Stafford Drive) allows for both functions with good
design. It is also important to note that the need for the site and development
is fundamentally linked. Development will largely fund the acquisition of the
site, and the restoration of wetlands is an advantage that can be leveraged
from this. While restoring the wetland is seen as a
positive outcome, it's important to clarify that natural wetland restoration
would be funded through rates and/or community efforts, while the stormwater
treatment areas would be funded mainly by development contributions. Some
submitters may expect more natural wetland restoration than Council funding can
realistically deliver.
Protection and
enhancement of riparian areas is widely supported
15.17 Staff note support and propose no change.
The inappropriateness of
development in Seaton Valley
15.18 A number of submitters felt that development in
Seaton Valley is inappropriate. Their concerns were based on issues such as low projected population growth, the
area’s rural character, and a general resistance to urban sprawl.
However, these are broader planning concerns and are not specific to the
Catchment Management Plan itself. They are addressed elsewhere in the report.
Managing existing
stormwater problems within the low-lying areas of Māpua
15.19 Another concern raised was the lack of detail about how existing stormwater
issues in low-lying parts of Māpua will be managed, particularly in the
context of growth and infrastructure.
15.20 Māpua has a history of both nuisance flooding
and coastal flooding. So far, investigations have not identified any large
scale cost-effective solutions for existing problems. The Council does have funding available for
minor stormwater improvements, along with a prioritisation process that helps
determine where and how this funding is used. Some of these improvements may
eventually be implemented in Māpua.
15.21 Staff are confident that
the masterplan and CMP has identified the key projects needed to manage the impacts of growth, although these may need some
adjustment depending on which option the Council elects to pursue in relation
to 179 Mapu Drive (discussed above).
15.22 Coastal flooding, which
typically occurs when storm surges coincide with high tides, falls outside the scope of the Catchment Management Plan. It will be addressed
through the Natural Hazards Plan Change (PC85) and possibly through future
updates to the Long-Term Plan and Coastal Asset Management Plan.
Weak commitment to
stormwater quality treatment and other aspirations in the CMP
15.23 Some submitters also felt
that the plan does not go far enough in committing to stormwater quality improvements and environmental goals. The aspirations of
this submitter are laudable, and the proposed wetland and detention at Seaton
Valley is a major initiative that supports these aspirations. However, the
Council must balance further action against affordability.
15.24 In addition, there is
currently no requirement to fully embed Water Sensitive Design (WSD) principles into all planning. This gap is expected to be addressed through
a new clause in the upcoming Māpua and other related Plan Changes, ahead
of a more comprehensive rewrite of the TRMP.
Officers’ recommendations
|
Issue
|
Recommendation
|
Reason
|
|
CMP WSD and Hazards
coverage
|
No change.
|
The CMP complies with
current legislation, consents and regulations. Further enhancements
will be driven by new legislation/rules and will be pursued as funding
allows.
|
|
Water sensitive Design
(WSD) mandate within CMP/TRMP
|
Change CMP to acknowledge
that the relationship between TRMP and Land Development Manual needs to be
strengthened to give effect to WSD principles.
|
The lack of an absolute
requirement to implement the WSD design requirements has hampered
implementation in the past. The intention is to introduce provisions in PC86
to require implementation of WSD as documented in the NTLDM or further
specified by government.
|
Question 17 – Catchment Management Plan
15.25
Submitters were asked ‘Do you have any other
comments on the draft Catchment Management Plan?;
15.25.1 Yes – 21 submitters chose this
option
15.25.2 No – 6 submitters chose this
option
15.25.3 Not sure – 0 submitters chose
this option
Officers’ comments
15.26
A small number of, sometimes detailed, comments were made on the CMP with
the following themes:
Nomination of zoning, wetland, over private land where residents were upset
with communications from Council, respecting their rights etc
15.27 Further conversations have
been held with some residents and adjustments to the area of the Seaton Valley
Wetland are now recommended and other proposed changes are addressed elsewhere
in this report.
In-completeness of the
CMP including current state and predicted future impacts, and modelling is a
theme pursued by a few of the submissions
15.28 The submitters have
expectations of the content of the CMP that go beyond what the Council is
required to do by consent or legislation, and that are also, to some degree,
currently beyond its funding capacity. The CMP works within a framework
of the TRMP, LTP and consenting processes and is not the sole means by which
the Aspirations will be met. Apart from the reduced online accessibility
(addressed below) the initial Māpua CMP is compatible with previous CMPs
issued by Council and via the Masterplan process has had wider interaction with
Ngā iwi and the community than previous plans. The CMP will be
reviewed on a cyclic basis, as is happening for the Richmond CMP this year, and
additional content will be provided with each update.
The change in
presentation format from Story Maps and associated reduced accessibility
compared to information presented in the Richmond and Motueka CMPs
15.29 The Council shifted away from the previous StoryMaps format following criticism
from the public and Councillors with the Motueka CMP StoryMaps format. However,
officers accept the need to improve the online accessibility of the CMP and in
particular the flood mapping and officers are exploring options. The final CMP
will be accessible online.
Insufficient
Modelling of flooding/sea level rise/vertical land movement hazards
15.30 This concern is partly related to the
presentation of the modelling information with the consultation
documentation. Through the recently released Natural Hazards viewer and
proposed future improvements in the online presentation of the model results,
this concern will be addressed. Further modelling is also expected in the
future in response to changing government requirements to;
1. Manage overland
flowpaths,
2. Meet stormwater environmental standards and
3. Adapt to climate change.
Insufficient
consideration of water sensitive design as a driving force for the planning of
Māpua
15.31 This concern is addressed
in the previous section.
Officers’ recommendations
|
Issue
|
Recommendation
|
Reason
|
|
Online accessibility
|
No change to CMP
|
No change to CMP needed,
but it will be converted into an online accessible format following adoption.
|
|
Modelling accessibility
|
Clarify wording in the CMP
that extensive flood modelling has been undertaken and that this will be
available on the Council's website.
|
The existing documentation
within the Master Plan and CMP was not sufficiently clear in this regard.
|
|
Modelling updates,
potentially including contaminant load modelling
|
No change to CMP
|
Government legislation is
foreshadowed to create new requirements to:
1.Manage overland
flowpaths,
2. Meet stormwater
environmental standards and
3. Adapt to climate change.
If and when this is
finalised, Council will need to run a programme of modelling updates and
incorporate into future reviews of the CMP.
|
Action #2 – Tasman Resource Management Plan
Stormwater Rules
Officers’ comments
15.32 Submitters supported this action, but concern was expressed
that the masterplan does not clearly define how water sensitive design will be
implemented in practice and submitter #34601 requests that wording should be
changed to ‘it is required to implement water sensitive
design’.
15.33 Action
#2 includes strengthening rules around adopting water sensitive design
principles for all new development. This would require an amendment to the TRMP
and possibility the Nelson Tasman Land Development Manual.
15.34 The
masterplan is a high-level document and the action to investigate is considered
appropriate to indicate that further work will be undertaken to determine
appropriate measures to incorporate water sensitive design principles. It is
recommended that this action be retained.
Officers’ recommendations
15.35 Officers’
recommend the following:
|
Location
|
Recommendation
|
Reason
|
|
Entire area
|
Action Plan
No change to Actions #2
|
The masterplan is a high-level document. Instead, Water Sensitive Design is to be incorporated into
subsequent Plan Change
|
16. Financial
or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea
16.1 Work on the masterplan is included as part of the
Environmental Policy and Strategic Policy work programmes. No new budget is
required. Most actions proposed in the masterplan are either funded by
department funding, development contributions or through funds factored into
the Council’s LTP. Officers have identified a potential need to increase
the budget for the Seaton Valley Detention Wetland and include part of this
budget in 2025/2026, depending on which option the Council chooses in relation to
179 Māpua Drive. Some
refinements to projects in the LTP 2024 may be needed as part of the normal
review cycle associated with LTPs.
17.1 The options are outlined in the following table:
|
Option
|
Advantage
|
Disadvantage
|
|
1.
|
Accept officers’ recommendations to
matters raised in the submissions.
|
Officers’, including subject matter
experts, have considered the submissions and have made recommendations on
changes to make to the masterplan.
|
Some submitters may still feel that their
concerns have not been addressed.
|
|
2.
|
Makes changes to the officers’
recommendations on the matters raised in submissions.
|
Elected members demonstrate they have
exercised their governance responsibilities by critically assessing
officers’ recommendations.
Other advantages will depend on the
changes the Council makes.
|
Some submitters may still feel that their
concerns have not been addressed.
The disadvantages will depend on the
changes the Council makes.
|
|
3
|
Do not make any changes to the Draft
Māpua Masterplan.
|
Administrative ease.
|
The views of submitters following
consultation will not have been adequately addressed.
|
17.2 Option 1 is recommended. Where the committee
seek potential changes to the recommendations, officers will seek to provide
advice on these at the meeting.
18.1 At the Council meeting on 24 October
2024 the Council adopted the Draft Māpua Masterplan for consultation.
18.2 Public consultation on the Draft
Māpua Masterplan was carried out using a similar process to the Local
Government Act 2002 Special Consultative Procedure involving submissions,
hearings and deliberations.
18.3 If the masterplan is not adopted there
is a high risk that the project timeframes may be extended into 2026 due to the
Local Government Elections which commence in late 2025. This would
significantly delay the project and the Council’s policy work programme.
18.4 There is a risk that the
Council’s consultation processes might be challenged. The process so far
to develop the masterplan has been thorough and has included:
· extensive early consultation processes involving community open days
and individual meetings as requested;
· providing an extended consultation period of three and half months
on the draft masterplan;
· ensuring people that may have an interest have, and are kept
informed through a variety of communication channels;
· providing several different ways for people to make submissions;
· providing communications technology that enables people to present
their submissions to hearings remotely;
· the development and release of a Māpua Masterplan Supporting
Information Document to assist the community with making submissions on the
masterplan; and
· the Strategy and Policy Committee members considering submissions on
the masterplan with an open mind before making decisions.
19. Iwi
Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti
ā-Hapori Māori
19.1 Ngā iwi were provided a copy of
the masterplan documentation (20 September 2024) including the supporting
document to provide comment on prior to community consultation. At this time, Nga
iwi were also advised of the dates and timeframe for public submissions.
19.2 No comments were received on the draft
documentation.
19.3 Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rārua (#34693) submitted on
the masterplan.
20. Significance
and Engagement / Hiranga
me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui
20.1 At the Council meeting on 24 October 2024, it was
determined that the Masterplan would be of high interest to the general public,
especially people living or owning property within Māpua.
20.2 The decision for the
Committee to consider in this report is whether to make any changes to the
Draft Māpua Masterplan as a result of public feedback.
20.3 These decisions may be of higher significance to
some members of the community and moderately significant to the general public.
However, the decisions have been consulted on through an appropriate process
and the deliberations at this meeting are in response to that consultation. The
changes recommended by officers are not a substantial departure from what was
consulted on. Where there is a departure from what was consulted on as a result
of a recommendation made in a submission, the landowner or adjoining landowners
have been consulted via letter to seek their feedback. Any feedback has been
documented in this report.
20.4 Staff consider that the Committee can make the
amendments without further consultation.
|
|
Issue
|
Level of
Significance
|
Explanation of
Assessment
|
|
1.
|
Is there a high level
of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?
|
High
|
The early engagement
and consultation attracted a significant number of responses from the
community. There are some highly contested areas where community division on
the best way to proceed has been identified.
|
|
2.
|
Are there impacts on
the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the
community in the present or future?
|
Moderate
|
The masterplan
provides strategic direction on how Māpua will grow and develop over the
next 30 years. The direction is considered to positively impact social,
economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing for the present and future
communities of Māpua. There are however elements of the plan which may
be considered by some to negatively impact community well-being as land is
rezoned to accommodate residential growth.
|
|
3.
|
Is there a
significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?
|
Yes
|
The final plan will
shape the future development of Māpua and the Council’s investment
in this area.
|
|
4.
|
Does the decision
relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for
list of strategic assets)
|
No
|
|
|
5.
|
Does the decision
create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?
|
No
|
|
|
6.
|
Does the proposal,
activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in
any one year or more of the LTP?
|
Yes
|
The masterplan
proposes a change in zoning of Council owned land.
|
|
7.
|
Does the decision
involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO
or CCTO?
|
No
|
|
|
8.
|
Does the
proposal or decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or
contract to carry out the deliver on any Council group of activities?
|
No
|
|
|
9.
|
Does the proposal or
decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of
activities?
|
No
|
|
|
10.
|
Does the proposal
require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai
(TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current
legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater
infrastructure and services?
|
No
|
|
21. Communication
/ Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero
21.1 Public communication and consultation on the
masterplan was undertaken using a similar process to the LGA special
consultative procedure. The community consultation process utilised a range of
methods to inform and engage with the public, including various media channels,
pamphlet distribution and public information sessions.
21.2 Communications for the Māpua Masterplan
Project has included the Council’s range of media channels including
Newsline, social media and the dedicated Māpua Masterplan Shape Tasman
website. The Shape Tasman website has been used as the platform for providing
information on the project and for directing the community to the
Council’s submissions tool for submissions.
21.3 The Māpua, Richmond and Motueka Libraries, and
Richmond Service Centre displayed information about the masterplan including
hard copies of the masterplan.
21.4 Information pamphlets were distributed to
households in the Māpua urban area advising people of the consultation,
the opportunity to submit on the masterplan and the process for submitting.
Targeted landowner letters were sent to all landowners with land affected by a
proposal in the masterplan.
21.5 The masterplan submission form included specific
questions relating to the masterplan and included a requirement for names and
addresses to be provided. A demographic question was also included to help
understand who in the community is participating in consultation.
21.6 Individual landowner letters were sent to all
adjoining residents seeking feedback where submissions recommended changes that
were not signalled through the masterplan, for example from Standard
Residential to Medium Density Residential.
22.1 Failing to progress with the masterplan review will
delay the process and create a risk to the policy work programme and the
ability of Council to meet its requirements under the NPS-UD where sufficiently
zoned land must be provided.
22.2 Not adopting a masterplan
will mean the status quo will continue. This is likely to include development
that does not meet the needs or desires of the Māpua community.
23. Climate
Change Considerations / Whakaaro
Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi
23.1 The masterplan aligns with the Council’s and
Government’s plans, policies and legal obligations relating to climate
change, specifically the Tasman Climate Response Strategy and Action Plan
(TCRSAP). It relates to TCRSAP goal/s to mitigate and adapt to climate change,
particularly in supporting intensification of housing so that more people can
live close to urban centres, and through identifying residential growth outside
of areas subject to future inundation. The masterplan supports active transport
and reductions in vehicle use through improving walking and cycling connections
and providing additional business land in Māpua.
24. Alignment
with Policy and Strategic Plans / Te Hangai ki ngā aupapa Here me ngā Mahere
Rautaki Tūraru
24.1 The masterplan assists in implementing the FDS and
assists the Council in meeting its obligations under the NPS-UD. The
development of the Stormwater Catchment Management Plan also assists the
Council in meeting its requirement under the Council’s Urban
Stormwater Discharge Resource Consent, which was granted in May 2021.
25. Conclusion
/ Kupu Whakatepe
25.1 The masterplan aims to provide a 30 year strategic
vision for Māpua.
25.2 The development of the masterplan has involved two
years of engagement with the community, including formal consultation on a
draft masterplan. Officers recommend retaining most of the draft masterplan,
although several changes are proposed in response to submissions.
25.3 Officers will incorporate the changes that the
Committee request and, if the Committee recommends, prepare the final
Māpua Masterplan for adoption by the Council.
26. Next
Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake
|
Process
|
|
5 June 2025 - The Masterplan Deliberation Report is
presented to the Council with recommendations.
|
|
Final Māpua Masterplan presented to the Council and
approved for adoption.
|
|
Public notice in Newsline and on the Council’s
website advising that the Māpua Masterplan has been adopted.
|
|
Preparation of Māpua Plan Change 86 for notification
in 2025
|
|
1.⇩
|
Table 1
Mapping Changes recommended by staff
|
92
|
|
2.⇩
|
Table 2
Action Plan Changes and Staff recommendations - Deliberations Report
|
97
|
|
3.⇩
|
2024-2025
Tasman Carpark Survey
|
113
|
|
4.⇩
|
Network
Tasman email 28 March 2025
|
165
|
|
5.⇩
|
Information
requests from Committee during submission hearing
|
167
|
|
6.⇩
|
Summary of
HBA Final 2024-06-12
|
178
|
|
7.⇩
|
Coastal
Inundation
|
183
|
|
8.⇩
|
Adjoining
Landowner Feedback Combined
|
200
|
|
9.⇩
|
Geotech
Commercial viability
|
209
|
|
10.⇩
|
Table 3
Catchment Management Plan recommendations
|
214
|
